With respect to the discussion paper
Watts et al, 2012: An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends [to be submitted to JGR]
and the JGR in press paper
McNider, R. T., G.J. Steeneveld, B. Holtslag, R. Pielke Sr, S. Mackaro, A. Pour Biazar, J. T. Walters, U. S. Nair, and J. R. Christy (2012). Response and sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer over land to added longwave radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res.,doi:10.1029/2012JD017578, in press. [for the complete paper, click here]
I have been alerted that there is a lot of discussion on Twitter concerning my involvement with these studies, and that I did not disclose my connection. In Watts et al 2012, I assumed this was quite clear as Anthony wrote in the acknowledgement in the paper
Special thanks are given to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for inspiration, advice, and technical proofreading of this study.
It seems the twitters did not actually read the Watts et al paper.
To be very specific, I did not play a role in their data analysis. He sent me the near final version of the discussion paper and I recommended added text and references. I am not a co-author on their paper.
I am now working with them to provide suggestions as to how to examine the TOB question regarding its effect on the difference in the trends found in Watts et al 2012. The TOB effect could result in a confirmation of the Watts et al conclusion, or a confirmation (from a skeptical source) that siting quality does not matter. In either case, this is still a game changing study.
I am a co-author on the McNider et al 2012 paper. In reading the full list of authors, this is clear.
I recommend those who are communicating about my involvement in this research also read the entire papers before they comment.
I hope this sets the twittering to rest. :-)