Worst Science Paper
I've an important announcement to make. I have just spent the past few days looking of what may well be the worst climate paper yet produced. You heard that right – the absolute worst. This paper is so poor it makes Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) look like Einstein’s special theory of relativity in comparison.
So anyway, I decided to go all Climate Audit on this paper partly to get a handle on the solar influence on climate that denialists are always on about (there is actually some decent literature on solar forcing, though obviously this paper isn't part of that), and partly because it is so shockingly bad it’s humorous in the way troma movies are.
Firstly, some background. In a rather silly post from NZ denialist Vincent Grey over at Jen Marohasy, a fellow by the name of David Archibald popped up, spouted the usual shill crap, and the directed readers to his relatively recently published paper in Energy & Environment.
You asked for solar - climate papers. Look no further than my own effort: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf
Now, Lavoisier is a crazed denialist group based in Australia so the fact that the article was reprinted there didn’t bode well.
Archibald goes on to claim his paper is peer-reviewed. Ian Castles informs me that E&E really does have a peer-review process and he has, in fact, reviewed papers for them himself.
But in this case, I’m not so sure. Actually, that’s a bit of an understatement.
So, what is so wrong with Archibald, D.C. (2006) Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response?
To begin with, there are some, ahh, editorial and grammatical errors.
Pick what is wrong with these two paragraphs at the top of page 31.
Badalyan, Obridko and Sykora’s projection of solar cycle 24 maximum of approximately 50 is shown in figure 1 with solar cycle activity back to the end of the Maunder Minimum. Solar cycle 25 is also expected to be weak. The rise in amplitudes prior to the
So anyway, I decided to go all Climate Audit on this paper partly to get a handle on the solar influence on climate that denialists are always on about (there is actually some decent literature on solar forcing, though obviously this paper isn't part of that), and partly because it is so shockingly bad it’s humorous in the way troma movies are.
Firstly, some background. In a rather silly post from NZ denialist Vincent Grey over at Jen Marohasy, a fellow by the name of David Archibald popped up, spouted the usual shill crap, and the directed readers to his relatively recently published paper in Energy & Environment.
You asked for solar - climate papers. Look no further than my own effort: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf
Now, Lavoisier is a crazed denialist group based in Australia so the fact that the article was reprinted there didn’t bode well.
Archibald goes on to claim his paper is peer-reviewed. Ian Castles informs me that E&E really does have a peer-review process and he has, in fact, reviewed papers for them himself.
But in this case, I’m not so sure. Actually, that’s a bit of an understatement.
So, what is so wrong with Archibald, D.C. (2006) Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response?
To begin with, there are some, ahh, editorial and grammatical errors.
Pick what is wrong with these two paragraphs at the top of page 31.
Badalyan, Obridko and Sykora’s projection of solar cycle 24 maximum of approximately 50 is shown in figure 1 with solar cycle activity back to the end of the Maunder Minimum. Solar cycle 25 is also expected to be weak. The rise in amplitudes prior to the