Stainforth

Interestingly, modeling results that project global cooling are often rejected as “outliers” or “obviously wrong” e.g., Stainforth et al., 2005

IPCC AR4: No skill in scientific forecasting « Climate Audit 2007

The Stainforth paper refers to the climateprediction.net experiment where a large number of models were run at low resolution on PCs which were identical apart from tweaks to control parameters.

IPCC AR4: No skill in scientific forecasting « Climate Audit 2007

Was Stainforth et al a reference to that ridiculous modelling exercise where they emphasized the top end 11C rise without mentioning all of the ones that fell into deep cooling?

IPCC AR4: No skill in scientific forecasting « Climate Audit 2007

It certainly saves time modelling a linear increase in carbon dioxide over decades, and gets to the scary headlines that Stainforth clearly craved, and got.

BBC hypes climate modelling scare again « Climate Audit 2006

Now Stainforth and climateprediction.net have "previous" as they say at Scotland Yard in that they ran a previous climate modelling whose results were so ludicrous that even RealClimate criticisized it.

BBC hypes climate modelling scare again « Climate Audit 2006

But no comments have been published by Nature on the Stainforth paper by climate scientists despite its obvious flaws.

Earth's climate crashes in 2013 « Climate Audit 2006

Stainforth effectively dropped a huge carbon dioxide bomb into the simulated atmosphere, and then stood back and watched the fun.

BBC hypes climate modelling scare again « Climate Audit 2006

I made a comment here (somewhere) to the effect that the conclusions of the paper trumpeted in Nature et al by Stainforth et al of a 11C output for 2XCO2 sensitivity as a possible reality instead of a possible failing of the model illustrates the lack of critical assessment of climate (and environmental) science today.

Earth's climate crashes in 2013 « Climate Audit 2006

A transcript of The Concealed Fansyes, made from the M.S. in the Bodleian about 1860 and bearing the Stainforth bookplate, is in my possession.

Three Hundred Years Hence 1836

Save for minor differences of spelling, and the fact that the later copy omits both the prologues and the epilogue of the original, the Bodleian and Stainforth texts agree.

Three Hundred Years Hence 1836