This thread is for discussion and listing of climate science papers.

Views: 770

6 Thoughts on “Papers

  1. Bob D on 27/10/2010 at 5:56 pm said:

    On the performance of models:

    G. G. Anagnostopoulos et al. (2010) “A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data”

    We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe.We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale.
    Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

  2. Andy on 20/09/2011 at 10:34 am said:

    Bishop Hill reports that the Salzer et al.paper will play a prominent role in AR5, apparently suggesting that Bristlecone Pines are a reliable temperature proxy.

    The subject of the Bristlecone Pines is discussed at length in BH’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion.

  3. Mike Jowsey on 28/01/2013 at 2:13 pm said:

    New paper:

    Five climate-forcing mechanisms govern 20,000 years of climate change
    By Joachim Seifert and Frank Lemke
    Published on: October 8, 2012 (18 pages)

    Summary available here:

    data! on! cycle!mechanics.! The! identification! of! 5! macro3climatic! drivers,!missing! in!

    Sorry about the formatting of the above excerpt. Copy & paste from pdf glitch.

  4. Another paper finds that climate sensitivity is low

    Nic Lewis has had a paper published in Journal of Climate. It’s a reworking of the Forest et al 2006 paper on climate sensitivity, but removing the warm bias of Forest’s uniform prior, as well as dealing with some data issues.

  5. “A pair of scientific journals accepted a nonsense paper from a made-up university with author names borrowed from The Simpsons TV show.”

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 28/07/2016 at 2:31 pm said:

    Two papers that together falsify the Man-Made Climate Change Theory.

    1) ‘An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950’
    D. M. Murphy, S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, T. Wong (2009)

    There is obviously a massive discrepancy between theoretical forcing and actual earth heating. Murphy et al describe the discrepancy as “striking”:

    [38] A striking result of the Earth energy budget analysis presented here [Figure 6 below] is the small fraction of greenhouse gas forcing that has gone into heating the Earth. Since 1950, only about 10 ± 7% of the forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation has gone into heating the Earth, primarily the oceans.

    Murphy et al (2009) Figure 6

    Total cumulative theoretical forcing is 1700 x 10^21 Joules 1950 – 2004 of which 10% is 170 x 10^21 Joules.

    In Figure 6, solar forcing is already 100 x 10^21 Joules leaving a residual of 70 x 10^21 Joules. Nordell and Gervet (2009) below estimate only 27.3 x 10^21 Joules (say 30 at 2004) actual energy accumulation total over the entire extended period 1880–2000 (say 2004):

    2) ‘Global energy accumulation and net heat emission’ [1880–2000 ]
    Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet (2009)!/nordell-gervet%20ijgw.pdf

    “The global heat accumulation in the air, ground and water during 1880–2000 is thus 75.8.1014 kWh (27.3.10^21 J). This heat is distributed in the air (6.6%), ground (31.5%), water (28.5%) and melting of land and sea ice (33.3%) according to Figure 3.

    It is noticeable that the heat content in air only corresponds to 6.6% of global warming.

    So Murphy et al’s 1950 – 2004 earth heating is still 140 x 10^21 Joules MORE than Nordell and Gervet’s estimate for earth heating over the entire period 1880-2004 (170 vs 30 x 10^21 Joules) even after Murphy et al throw out almost all GhG forcing and a bit of solar forcing (90% total discard).

    In other words, Murphy et al would have to discard ALL GhG forcing (and a bit more solar forcing) to reconcile with Nordell and Gervet.

    It gets worse for the Man-Made Theory after the GhG discard:

    [39] “…………Small changes in heat transfer into the ocean, cloudiness, or other terms can create significant changes in surface temperature………..”

    Not specified but obviously Surface Solar Radiation (SSR) i.e. solar radiation reaching the surface through clouds, aerosols, etc, would drive “small changes in heat transfer into the ocean” along with windiness or changes in wind patterns.

    Murphy et al (2009) together with Nordell and Gervet (2009) effectively falsify the Man-Made Climate Change Theory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *