That url does accept ftp connections; I just tried it and it connected fine.

BTW, that is not a station; it is a collection site for data of many stations.

You cannot do this by simply looking at proxies such as census figures and electricity bills, or you will still be left with the question of how good the proxy is. Parker’s methodology is aimed squarely at UHI and UHI trends, not at “urbanization” as such.

But this is the nature of proxies as not only the AGW authors have done but as Parker has done. He did not use actual wind data but used proxie data. I agree it is suspect, but to take Earle Williams to task is to take Parker to task. That Parker explained his assumption. proxies has nothing to do with whether or not he used a proxy or made a bad assumption. He simply looked at, used, assumed a proxy, why can’t Williams? By any sane reasoning someone who asked why can’t Parker discern a UHI when it has been documented as well or better than GW? After all continued UHI should be assumed more correct than Parker’s proxy. paper, or assumptions. Translation is either his proxy or assumptions are incorrect, or perhaps all these proxies have a fundamental problem when extrapolated beyond verifiable constraints..such as Briffa, Parker, MBH98, IPCC TAR, etc.

Temperature is not a concern because of wood’s high ignition point, the lack of flame impingement and the accumulation of ash in the bottom.

(Yes, when I was a young kid we had a trash-burning barrel and I was a fire bug.)

“Where there is no calm-windy trend, Parker is not claiming a lack of urbanization, but a lack of UHI.”

=>

“Where there is no calm-windy trend, Parker is not claiming a lack of urbanization, but a lack of UHI trend.”

Where there is no calm-windy trend, Parker is not claiming a lack of urbanization, but a lack of UHI.

It is conceivable that there could be increasing urbanization w/o increasing UHI. This brings us back into the regime of urban cool spots & parks.

So if you want to falsify Parker’s hypothesis, it seems to me that you have to:

a) Measure directly the UHI, by comparing neighboring (but differently urbanized) points;

b) Establish a trend in the UHI over time; and

c) Demonstrate that this trend DOES NOT show up in the calm-windy temperature measurement signal.

This would be very welcome. However, I point out that it will take:
- Space: to do a direct UHI measurement; and
- Time: to see how the trends develop.

You cannot do this by simply looking at proxies such as census figures and electricity bills, or you will still be left with the question of how good the proxy is. Parker’s methodology is aimed squarely at UHI and UHI trends, not at “urbanization” as such.