Saturday, July 13, 2019

That Kauppinen and Malmi Paper is Junk

I am seeing lots of citations to the Kauppinen and Malmi preprint that came out two weeks ago:
(Yes, their title is in all caps.) Anthony Watts posted it but couldn't be bothered to read it ("I didn't vet this"). Infowars has an article with no skepticism whatsoever. Someone just sent me an email saying "this journal article by some Finnish scientists would change our entire understanding of global warming."

If you even glance through the article, you see that they assumed a CO2 climate sensitivity value of just 0.24°C (top of page 4). That's an absurdly low value, given that we've already had 1°C of warming and atmospheric CO2 hasn't even increased by 50% yet. Climate models put CO2's climate sensitivity at 2-4°C.

The authors themselves justify this claim by citing three articles of their own work(!) -- one which appeared in Energy and Environment (enough said), The International Review of Physics (clearly amateurish), and another unpublished preprint. They also made the Ed Berry Bullshit Error:
If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic....
In fact, all the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is anthropogenic (and the part that's due to the 1°C temperature rise is also anthropogenic because that warming is anthropogenic.)

They also assume that almost all temperature change is the result of low cloud cover changes:
In Figure 2 we see the observed global temperature anomaly (red) and global low cloud cover changes (blue). These experimental observations indicate that 1 % increase of the low cloud cover fraction decreases the temperature by 0.11°C.
and assume all that cloud cover change is "natural." And so on and so on.

Deniers: Don't believe everything you read. Especially when it supports your preconceived notions. Especially when it supports denialism. Especially when you haven't even read the paper.

(Triple this when it comes from WUWT or Infowars.)

Added 7/14: The scientists at Climate Feedback came to the same conclusion, with more detail. It's worth reading.


Victor Venema said...

The climate scientists of ClimateFeedback also had a look and confirm your assessment.

David Appell said...

Good to know. Thanks.

Thomas said...

Even Eschenbach over at WUWT agree the paper is junk in the comments. These papers are only useful to see which skeptics are able to be critical of the worst junk and who gladly accept absolutely anything that support their cause, or pretend it doesn't exist.

David Appell said...

Maybe the crappy paper was submitted as a test, to flush out the unthinking skeptics.

Marco said...

I doubt that, David. The authors are known for this nonsense and have been publishing similar poor science for many years already (see e.g. - as a side note, "Praise Worthy prize" is a well known predatory publisher.

Kauppinen was also cited in 2011 (I'm definitely not going to link to that, you can find it yourself when googling the quote) stating "I think it is such a blatant falsification." referring to AGW.

Chris_Winter said...

This paper was also discussed on RealClimate -- in the July "Unforced variations" thread. See comments 21 & 29. There may be more; I didn't take the time to look.