Blogger Cohenite has previously written posts on the Worst AGW Papers and the Worst Climate Research papers for Jennifer Marohasy's great blog. (jennifermarohasy.com/blog):
- Ten of the Worst Climate Research Papers: A Note from Cohenite, posted September 18, 2008 http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/ten-of-the-worst-climate-research-papers-a-note-from-cohenite/
- More worst AGW papers, by Cohenite posted on April 25, 2009 http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/
He has a new list, published by Jennifer HERE.
He has asked us to share his latest list.
I consider anthropogenic global warming, AGW, a failed theory, but it still shuffles on like an animated corpse sustained by money, politics and the faithful. The faithful keep publishing junk science. I put a list together of the 10 worst climate science research papers in September 2008 . I added to this list in April 2009 . There was more by me published at Jo’s AGW ‘science’ has fallen over a cliff. Now I’m adding another ten papers to the worst list, so I guess it’s the ten recent worst.
Regards - Cohenite
AGW: 10 Best, 10 Worst Part 1.
Jennifer has suggested another 10 article. It’s been a while. Since the last one at Jo’s AGW ‘science’ has fallen over a cliff. I consider it a failed theory. But it still shuffles on like an animated corpse sustained by money, politics and the faithful.
My First Worst is by a leading light of the AGW ‘science’, Kevin Trenberth. His paper is here.
Trenberth and his researchers have never been able to find the ‘missing heat’. He still insists it is at the bottom of the ocean. This is despite sea surface temperatures declining, demonstrable reasons why backradiation, the Deus ex machina of AGW, cannot heat the oceans and the top 700 meters of the ocean not warming, at least since the accurate measurement of Ocean Heat Content [OHC] began in 2003, as David Evans shows.
Trenberth ignores all this and the basic point of how the bottom can heat while the middle and top don’t and explains why the deep ocean heat content is increasing:
“Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”
So has there been increasing wind variability in the surface winds:
The consensus is the mainstay of AGW ‘science’. It’s always the case that AGW is true because the majority of scientists say it is. This is bad science. It only takes one contradiction to disprove a scientific theory as Karl Popper’s swan analogy shows. This hasn’t stopped John Cook once again reverting to the consensus ‘proof’. Cook’s consensus paper is here. This paper has been critiqued by Jo, Watts, some German guys and by Lucia. Lucia and Brandon Schollenberger analyse Cook’s methodology and Guidelines for classifying climate papers into ‘support’ and ‘reject’ AGW categories and find, in fact, that Cook’s paper disproves the consensus. By Cook’s own criteria more climate papers reject AGW. Cook has disproved the consensus! Cook has had a chequered publishing career with his mate professor Lewandowsky. Maybe it’s time Cook also left the country.
3. Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS, Classifications. By Charlotte Wickham, Judith Curry, Don Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Robert Rohde, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele.Unpublished. http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
Professor Richard Muller was once regarded highly by AGW advocates for being a sceptic and then seeing the ‘truth’ about AGW. But Muller was never a sceptic. At Berkeley Muller and his team have self-published a number of papers on temperature and other aspects of AGW. Peer review on these papers is incomplete, so in effect they are draft papers but they have had great influence even head-lighting the options at Wood-for-trees. Major defects ranging from statistical methodology to ignoring or not allowing for UHIE have been levied against Muller. So what does his latest paper do? It purports to show there is NO UHIE. This is ridiculous. In a contemporaneous draft paper Watts employs the updated Leroy method to account for UHIE. Leroy 2010 used a new criteria for heat sinks based on their total surface area rather than distance from them. This gives a truer representation of UHIE since as urban centres grow the surface area of the heat islands increase. Muller however, simply attempts to distinguish between rural and urban areas. The problem is, as the incomparable Willis Eshenbach describes, Muller’s distinction between rural and urban is meaningless since his criteria classifies airports as rural; that is, some if not most of his rural sites are urban sites with UHIE.
4. Global Temperature Evolution 1979-2010. By Grant Foster and Stefan Sahmstorf. Published in Environmental Research Letters, 2011. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Continuing the theme of meaninglessness Foster and Ramstorf’s 2011 paper was meant to be the last word on climate sensitivity to CO2 increase. They removed all the natural factors which may have contributed to temperature increase and were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1 as the ‘pure’ AGW forcing. This rate was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing. But it seems that their methodology was flawed as well as Bob Tisdale notes. Bob was mainly concerned with showing ENSO was not exogenous and could not be excluded as Foster and Rahmstorf [F&R] did but his 2 regression equations derived from F&R’s paper produced some astounding comments, particularly from ferd berple. Ferd uses some algebra and substitution and shows in his own words:
“F&R have proven that Climate Change is fully explained by the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), the Total Solar Irradiance (PMOD), and the Volcanic Aerosol Optical Depth data (AOD).In other words, F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in climate change.”