Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Long-Form Surface Stations Paper: A Forgery?

Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. Christy, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2011: Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., in press.

The recent release of the long-form version on the US surface weather stations is a blatant, if subtle, attempt by the “team” to discredit the efforts of the 650 volunteers who visited obscure corners of the USA to photograph asphalt and air-conditioner outlets. As with
l’affaire O’Donnell, the scientific establishment has taken breakthrough research that, as reported on blogs, totally undermines the whole silly notion of global warming and, after subjecting the work to pitiless peer-review, dilutes the results to such an extent that the team can then patronizingly declare: “Well done chaps, that was pretty much what we were saying all along”.


So what do you believe, a bunch of statistical mumbo-jumbo or your own lying eyes? Source

As an example of how much the establishment has watered down the results, the “paper” says:

Conversely, the differing trends in maximum and minimum temperature among classes cause the average temperature trends to be almost identical, especially for the fully adjusted data. In this case, no matter what CRN class is used, the estimated mean temperature trend for the period 1979-2008 is about 0.32ºC/decade. [lines 343-345; CRN=Climate Reference Network].

This implies that mean US temperatures have somehow been increasing during the period in which, as every sceptic knows,
global warming stopped. The rate of 3.2 °C per century is suspiciously close to IPCC values and I’m sure that the intelligent readers of FOGT can decide for themselves whether this is “fortuitous” or not. Also embedded in this statement is the allegation that the corrections applied to the different CRN classes were somehow not biased to produce a warming effect and that therefore the efforts of the 650 citizen-scientists were all for naught. Anyway, it seems that the original purpose of the exercise was not to so naïve as to try to establish that the poor siting of the stations exaggerated warming trends, but rather to demonstrate that the diurnal temperature range has no century-scale trend at the best-sited stations.

Finally, we should be suspicious of the authorship priority. The
oracle of Chico explains:

Some may ask why I am not lead author. That was my choice, because the strength is in the statistical analysis, and I wanted it clear that the paper is about that joint work and not about any one person’s efforts. – Anthony

Again, the citizen-scientists are forced to play second-fiddle to the soulless number-crunchers who probably have never in their lives photographed a piece of asphalt out in the real world. And, enquiring minds want to know: who is the Fall guy anyway?
Schweinsgruber would like to point to an earlier FOGT article on asphalted air conditioner outlets.