Archibald (2006): “The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere”

Regular readers will know that our feathered friend has long defended “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” by D. Archibald. While browsing Nexus 6, I came across a damning takedown of this very paper! Nexus 6 dubs it “The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere”, reading through the post it’s not hard to see why.

There are far too many flaws to reproduce here, so I’ll limit myself to a couple of key paragraphs.

To determine a temperature baseline for predicting response to solar cycles 24 and 25 (we’re currently in 23), Archibald takes a startling approach. Instead of using world-wide temperature data, only data from the US mainland is used. Additionally, Archibald decided that only data from rural meteorological stations should be used to avoid the urban heat island effect. Fair enough, you may say. But the catch is, he chose just 5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA!

The possibility of these stations being representative of anything other than the small local region they covered is non-existent.

There must be something special about the chosen five. And there sure is – they show lower temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century compared to the first half. This actually forms one of the major conclusions of the paper!

Funnily enough this is exactly the ciriticism made by others including statistics expert Mark Hill. It gets worse:

Archibald then decides to predict what the temperature response to solar cycles 24 and 25 will be. To do this he first hypothesizes that temperature is responding to solar cycle amplitude (in this case, the number of sunspots per year). Instead of 5 meteorological stations, this time he decides to use only 1, De Bilt in the Netherlands!

It gets worse from there, with Nexus demonstrating Archy’s failure to apply even basic statistical techniques correctly. This is devastating stuff for those flew Archy’s flag on their mast. At this point they have one option: To eat the humble pie and recant their support for this pseudoscientific nonsense.


22 Responses to “Archibald (2006): “The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere””

  1. Graeme Bird Says:

    Nexus 6 is a well-known idiot, has no affinity for science, is a CO2-bedwetter, and makes no phony point that you and he didn’t get off the deltoid dwarf in the first place. So I don’t really see what your point was hiding behind him, when if you had a point you would have been able to make it in your own words.

  2. JohnZ Says:

    Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA!

    Are you going to contest that, turkey?

  3. Graeme Bird Says:

    Whats wrong with that? The most important thing, in my view, would have been to keep them away from the effect of decadal oceanic oscillations. Hence you would want them somewhat inland and definitely in the mid-lattitudes.

  4. JohnZ Says:

    So to clarify, you believe a sample of 5 stations cherry picked from a single region allows us to draw conclusions about solar output.


  5. Graeme Bird Says:

    Not cherry-picked. For all I know he might have driven around to a whole bunch of these places and picked 5 where the placing of the thing was right.

    You see you want to find the best answers for your sponsors and for the public. Its not about sucking up to dumb leftists. Its about selecting GOOD DATA for the lowest cost in time and money. Its not about pleasing or overriding the objections of some science maffia.

    Hence while there is such a thing as a science of sampling error, statistical significance and all that, experience should tell us that always the underlying data OR THING!!! or reasoning is the most important factor.

    You are using SUB-PRIME epistemology here. You are acting like two floors of young PHD mathematicians running risk analysis models can make up for a systemic process of making loans to people who cannot pay them back.

    Statistical significance can be expensive. Always the quality of the underlying data is most important. A country town can have its data compromised as well.

    Always its fundamental reasoning and the soundness of underlying data that would be most important in the private sector where cost-effectiveness is key.

    As stated many times, were it important to do so you could always go back to vet new stations.

  6. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey, do you agree the mean temperature change of the selected stations is lower than the mean for the rest of the US?

  7. Graeme Bird Says:

    No not at all. It appears to have been a successful proxy choice in the midst of people erroneously using the whole of the ground data, which was hopelessly tainted.

    It was a rational choice. Since the east coast of continents tends to be a better proxy for global trends. But that had to be balanced against the need to escape too much the oscillation of the gulf-stream. As a third consideration the equator appears to stay about the same even in the midst of devastating glaciation. So his choice was rationally based to make an inference of the globe entire given the overwhelming requirement of not spending too much time and money on it. You’ve detained me longer than it might have taken to knock up the final part of that study that you ludicrously seem to object to.

    The idea is to do the job. Not please, appease or override dumb leftists.

  8. JohnZ Says:

    So if I cherry pick 5 stations in the same region as Archy and demonstrate a warming trend, would that be good science?

  9. Graeme Bird Says:

    No it would be cherry-picking. Rigging the data. Extremely bad science.

    But a non-leftist wouldn’t do that. Since a real scientist wants to actually find out whats going on. This is why non-fundamentalist Christians can often make pretty good scientists. Since its Gods universe, in their view, and they will be happy whatever way he’s chosen to make it.

  10. JohnZ Says:

    Hilarious turkey, so there’s one scientific method for leftists and another for non-leftists? You’ve just admitted hat the methodology used by Archy would be unacceptable if used by a lefty.

    Astonishing how partisan you are.

  11. Lyam Says:


    If by leftist you mean left handed I take it very personally and am outraged you may suggest only right handed people can do science 🙂

    P.S: actually I am covered even in Birdy’s mind since I am ambidextrous.

  12. Mark Hill Says:

    “Funnily enough this is exactly the ciriticism made by others including statistics expert Mark Hill”

    I think you’re “pulling an Archy” with this one, lyrebirdy!

  13. Mark Hill Says:

    “JohnZ Says:

    March 8, 2009 at 1:07 pm
    So if I cherry pick 5 stations in the same region as Archy and demonstrate a warming trend, would that be good science?”


    Only if you are a God fearing Thomist who is open minded enough to explore bizzare physics but closed minded enough to accept it as God’s will.

  14. graemebird Says:

    Look you didn’t come up with anything new Z. You just pointed to a leftist idiot and linked to him. And you called him DEVASTATING and that was it.

    But it was only the idiot Nexus 6.

    “You’ve just admitted hat the methodology used by Archy would be unacceptable if used by a lefty.”

    No no. Thats just you lying again. And notice you put forward this feeble lie and truth morons like lyam and Mark just all fall for it like the dummies they are.

    An incredibly feeble lie on your part and they just totally fell for it. But its exactly a microcosm of what we are talking about. If you lie with the data….. or in this case you lie about the other fellows argument…. well cleary it does you no good if you want to find out whats actually going on.

    Is there nothing you won’t lie about?

  15. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    So, if I understand… Lyam’s and JohnZ’s point is that you should throw out all the data that doesn’t support your position?

    wow real honest academics you guys are. Not!

  16. graemebird Says:

    Thats their position alright. Or alternatively they reckon you might include all the data even if knowing that it is hopeless tainted.

  17. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey, I want to replicate Archy’s results and see if they are robust.

    How do I select the stations?

  18. Mark Hill Says:

    “graemebird Says:
    March 9, 2009 at 9:03 am

    Thats their position alright. Or alternatively they reckon you might include all the data even if knowing that it is hopeless tainted.”

    No you are lying. The dataset could have been very large and of a very good quality.

    This is simply dishonest crap worthy only of a low rent sideshow alley grifter.

  19. graemebird Says:

    Great work from Archibald. Admittedly at low cost, which is a virtue.

  20. JohnZ Says:

    The shorter turkey: “Junk science is a virtue”.

  21. DH Says:

    Well admitedly, JohnZ, Turkey has devised his own personal system of physics which, although it bears no relationship to the real world, does kind of put him in a class of his own.

  22. graemebird Says:

    No you are lying. Cost-effective science is a virtue. Archibalds science is excellent. Whereas you are a fucking moron. Who bought into the most idiotic junk science imaginable.

    You bought into this fraud completely. You were a complete fucking stooge on this subject like on every other.

    And yet here we are getting cooler just as I said we would.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: