Purported review of climate change studies questionable

I found Mr. Tanner’s letter quite interesting.  

Having been involved in the publication and review of scientific papers, the large number of papers that Dr. Powell claims to have reviewed was very interesting. 

I went on the Internet and looked up Dr. J. L. Powell and found his publication titled “Science and Global Warming” (this would be the source for Mr. Tanner’s letter).  

In his study, Dr. Powell states that between 1991 and 2012, there were 54,785 papers relating to “Global Warming + Global Climate Change + Climate Change.”  

That equates to an average of 2,208 papers per year (54,785 divided by 21 = 2,208).  He then identifies updates he performed for the period from November 2012 to December 2013.  He found 1,911 papers using ‘Global Warming+Global Climate Change’ as his search parameters and 8,974 papers using ‘Climate Change’ as his search parameters, thereby arriving at his 10,885 number. 

The numbers that Dr. Powell puts forth raises a set of question in my mind that he does not address in his publication. 

1) If the average number of papers per year, over 21 years, was 2,208, what occurred in the year 2013 that resulted in 10,885 papers being published?

2) If all these papers have been reviewed by the authors peers (necessary for publication in a scientific journal), where do you find that number of scientific journals? Usually, a scientific journal is published quarterly or semi-annually, and each scientific profession has no more that three to five scientific journals.  

3)  How many of these papers were written by people who are working within the atmospheric/climate/weather profession?

4) If Dr. Powell’s review of these papers required 30 minutes for each paper, 10,000 papers would require 5,000 hours, and as the average work year is considered to be 2,000 hours (50 weeks times 40 hours per week), what short-cut did he use to review these papers? (Scientific papers can vary from 10 to 1,000-plus pages).  

They all require an executive summary/abstract that highlights the rationale for the paper, the scientific approach, the assumptions that limit the scope of the paper, the findings of the paper, and the recommendation for action based upon the findings. Then the body of the paper outlines and defines the research actually accomplished and the conclusion. 

My experience has been that the findings will indicate the study has identified additional areas that need to be further examined before any definite conclusion can be stated, and any good research program will always recommend the need for more research money to continue the research effort.

Heldstab is from Columbia Falls.