New climate publications climate, publications, New

pipewmx

There's been extensive discussion about the second paper on Realclimate if anyone wants to get into the details.  The consensus seems to be that this is sloppy science that should not have passed peer review.  No doubt Andre can explain why the consensus is wrong.






http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenological-sequel/#more-502

gasgulfg

Seen recently:






http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo156.html












And












http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml