The long[-]awaited surfacestations paper

The long awaited surfacestations paper (May 11, 2011). Hosannah! The great day has arrive-ened! Anthony Watts’ paper, Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. The global warming house of cards has fallen-ed!

Just look at some of these definitely-no-global-warming quotes in what Anthony has pasted in from co-author lead-author Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog (emphasis mine):

Q: So is the United States getting warmer?
A: Yes

Q: Has the warming rate been overestimated?
A: The minimum temperature rise appears to have been overestimated, but the maximum temperature rise appears to have been underestimated.

Q: What about mean temperature trends?
A: In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class.

Yowza! Game over? Oops.

What a lame exercise in irrelevant nit-picking. After years of just you wait squawking, even Anthony and company’s best spin boils down to whining about bluntly negligible data quality issues. This isn’t even backyard fireworks level excitement. Shame on you, Anthony.

Still, you have to feel a bit sorry for him. He’s not lead author on ‘his’ paper because he doesn’t have the statistical chops for even this damp squib. Dr. Pielke tries to give him a libertarian head-pat though:

The Surface Stations project is truly an outstanding citizen scientist project under the leadership of Anthony Watts!  The project did not involve federal funding. Indeed, these citizen scientists paid for the page charges for our article.

Of course we have to remember what the big picture is here. After all this scientific-paper-of-the-century is just about US temperature data and global warming is, um, global. Dr. Pielke has to come clean (emphasis mine):

Does this uncertainty extend to the worldwide surface temperature record? In our paper… …we found that the global average surface temperature may be higher than what has been reported by NCDC and others as a result in the bias in the landscape area where the observing sites are situated. However, we were not able to look at the local siting issue that we have been able to study for the USA in our new paper.

Anthony seems quite pleased with himself, but frankly this own-goal would be embarrassing even as a high school science fair poster. Why Dr. Pielke’s name is attached to this says something about the power of conviction over that of intellect. Sad, because sometimes he has something relevant to offer.

I guess those page charges were just too juicy for the JGR to let slip away.

Update: Anthony’s wounded howls of mistreatment pepper the comment editing. Wait until the scientists respond!

9 thoughts on “The long[-]awaited surfacestations paper

    • Agreed! Just wait until Twatt and co. stumble across Baba Brinkman and his educational (i.e. anti-creationist) raps…

  1. “the maximum temperature rise appears to have been underestimated.”

    So the conclusion of the paper is that it’s worse than we thought? Typical alarmist nonsense. Also while I was reading it someone stole my wallet, they’re coming for yours next!

  2. I left a comment that hasn’t made it past Tony’s Truth Troika: Quell surprise. All I wanted to say was that referencing Jones, Hanson, Menne and Peterson as acknowledged experts makes Tony a member of the hockey team.

    Now as well as becoming more Canadian, Tony wants to be an acrobat: peddling that little bike backwards as fast as he can. He seems to be saying ” what we found is not what we will find although what we found is true”. He probably should take a break and watch a video.

  3. Pingback: Klimaatcriticus debunkt zichzelf :D |

  4. “Is the only interest outside interest?”

    As you can see, I’ve just added one more. (Yes, it’s Dutch.)

    [I saw the ping-back and had to use Google Translate to read it. Thanks! – Ben]

  5. So exactly why do we need Anthony Watts now the whole reason for his complaints have been demolished by clear scientific analysis …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s