Scientific Papers for 2011
| Presentation on Climate v. Climate Alarm
||Richard S. Lindzen, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology|
|Abstract: The public perception of the climate problem is somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, the problem is perceived to be so complex that it cannot be approached without massive computer programs. On the other hand, the physics is claimed to be so basic that the dire conclusions commonly presented are considered to be self-evident.
Consistent with this situation, climate has become a field where there is a distinct separation of theory and modeling. Commonly, in fluid mechanics, theory provides useful constraints and tests when applied to modeling results. This has been notably absent in current work on climate.
|Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)|
| NIPCC vs. IPCC Addressing the Disparity between Climate Models and Observations: Testing the Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
||S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia and chairman of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).|
|Abstract: This booklet updates NIPCC report Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (2008) and contains new results:
1. It defends NIPCC against false claims that IPCC climate models are "consistent" with observed temperature trends. The central issue is the cause of global warming: Is it natural or is it manmade? [This issue is of crucial importance for both climate science and for climate policy.]
2. It demonstrates that because of their chaotic character none of IPCC's climate models can be validated against observations and used to predict future temperatures.
3. It presents new thinking on Climategate, Hockeystick graph -- and multiple evidence against the claimed surface warming underlying the IPCC conclusion of AGW. [Is the reported 1979-1997 warming real?]
| Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of Climate Models
||S. Fred Singer and Christopher Walter Monckton of Brenchley|
|Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC: Meehl et al., 2001) acknowledges that, mathematically speaking, the climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic object and that, therefore, the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The parameters describing the model's initial state must be known to a precision that is unattainable in practice. Accordingly, any comparison of modeled with observed temperature trends cannot be done satisfactorily without an understanding of the chaoticity of a climate model. A synthetic experiment, using two distinct procedures, demonstrates that no fewer than about 20 simulations run on a typical IPCC general-circulation model are a prerequisite for determining useful constraints upon chaos-induced climatic uncertainties.
|Modeled v. Observed|
| Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends
||S Fred Singer (USA)|
|Abstract: The US Climate Change Science Program [CCSP, 2006] reported, and Douglass et
al.  and NIPCC  confirmed, a potentially serious inconsistency
between modeled and observed trends in tropical surface and tropospheric
temperatures. However, Santer et al. [2008: hereafter Santer], though sharing
several co-authors with CCSP , offered new observational estimates of
[tropical] surface and tropospheric temperature trends, concluding that there is
no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends. Santers
key graph [shown here as Fig. 5] misleadingly suggests an overlap between
observations and modeled trends. His new observational estimates conflict with
satellite data. His modeled trends are an artifact, merely reflecting chaotic and
structural model uncertainties that had been overlooked. Thus the conclusion of
consistency is not supportable and accordingly does not validate model-derived
projections of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
All Scientific Papers for
Climate Alarm 
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) 
Chaotic Behavior 
Tropospheric Temperatures 
Behaviour and Climate Change 
Sea Level Rise 
2 degree C 
Modeled v. Observed