Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

crumbling-consensus

Climate science is supposed to be settled, right?

We are told that there is an overwhelming agreement, or consensus, among scientists that most weather and climate changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century have been caused by human activity — our fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions in particular.  We are told that natural mechanisms that used to dominate are no longer exerting much of any influence on weather or climate anymore.  Humans predominantly cause weather and climate changes now.

For example, we are told that extreme weather (hurricanes, droughts, floods, storms) frequencies and intensities have increased since about 1950 primarily due to the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since then.  Humans are now melting glaciers and ice sheets and (Arctic) sea ice at an alarmingly accelerated rate — reminiscent of an impending “death spiral“.  Humans now  heat up and acidify the oceans down to depths of thousands of meters by burning fossil fuels.   Humans are now in the process of raising sea levels so that they will catastrophically rise by 10 feet in the next 50 years.   Because of our CO2 emissions, humans are now endangering the long-term survival of 100s of thousands of animal species (especially polar bears), and climate models say we will cause a million species extinctions over the next 33 years with our CO2 emissions.   The Earth is even spinning slower, or faster, no, slower, well, faster — due to human activities.  Again, this is all settled science.  Only those who possess the temerity to deny this science (“climate deniers”) would disagree, or refuse to believe.

But what if much of what we have been told to believe is not actually true?   What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that humans have dominated (with ~110% attribution) weather and climate changes since about 1950, which is what we have been told by the UN IPCC?   What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that natural factors exert effectively no influence on weather and climate changes anymore — now that humans have taken over?

These are compelling questions.  Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.

Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing.  Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations [NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect in the context of such large natural variability.  Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2, etc., are included in this collection.

Because of the enormous volume of new papers available that support a skeptical position on anthropogenic climate change alarm, the list of 500 scientific papers with links has been divided into 3 sections, each with its own page (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).   There are 68 graphs included in the volume, most of which are used to demonstrate that “hockey-stick” reconstructions of past temperatures and sea levels relative to today are not supported by available evidence.

Despite its size, this list will hopefully be user-friendly and easy to navigate as a bookmarkable reference volume due to its outline (below) and organized categorization.  Each paper has an embedded link under the authors’ name(s).

Finally, there are 132 papers linking solar activity to weather and climate change (in addition to another ~90 that link natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations [ENSO, NAO, etc.], clouds, volcanic activity . . . to climate change).  This is of special note because the IPCC has, since its inception, insisted that solar factors play almost no role in modern climate change.  Apparently scientists agree less and less with that “consensus” position.


Click any of the 3 links below

Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change (236 papers)

Part 2. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction (153 papers)

Part 3. Unsettled Science, Ineffective Climate Modeling (112 papers)


Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change

I. Solar Influence On Climate (132)
II. Natural Oceanic/Atmospheric Oscillation (ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO, AMOC) Influence On Climate (45)
III. Natural Ozone Variability and Climate (3)
IV. A Questionable To Weak Influence Of Humans, CO2 On Climate (11)
V. Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity (4)
VI. Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (17)
VII. Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (14)
VII. Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Forcing (9)


Part 2. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

I. Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise/Mid-Holocene Sea Levels Meters Higher (34)
II. Warmer Holocene Climate, Non-Hockey Sticks (41)
III. No Net Regional Warming Since Early- Mid-20th Century (15)
IV. Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (D-O Events) (8)
V. The Uncooperative Cryosphere: Polar Ice Sheets, Sea Ice (34)
VI. Ocean Acidification? (14)
VII. Natural Climate Catastrophes – Without CO2 Changes (4)
VIII. Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic (3)


Part 3. Unsettled Science, Ineffective Climate Modeling

I. Failing/Failed Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (10)
II. Climate Model Unreliability/Biases and the Pause (34)
III. Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Raises Crop Yields (10)
IV. Wind Turbines, Solar Utilities Endangering Wildlife (7)
V. Less Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (15)
VI. Heat Not Hazardous To Polar Bears, Humans (3)
VII. No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (3)
VIII. No Increasing Trends In Drought Frequency, Severity (7)
IX. Urban Surfaces Cause (Artificial) Warming (4)
X. ‘Settled’ Science Dismantled (3)
XI. Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Humans (3)
XII. Fires, Anthropogenic Climate Change Disconnect (5)
XIII. Miscellaneous (4)
XIV. Scientists: We Don’t Know (4)

50 responses to “Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”

  1. Graeme No.3

    Anybody who has ever visited a sewerage farm knows that “climate science” doesn’t always settle.

  2. C3 Editor

    Just simply excellent!

    Thank you, Kenneth & Pierre.

  3. yonason

    If C3 is impressed, you KNOW it’s a job well done! 🙂

  4. P Gosselin

    Wonderful job putting this list together, Kenneth! A huge, unselfish task for a single, unfunded person to undertake!

  5. R2Dtoo

    What a great resource for everyone interested in climate science – and all recent. A job well done and much appreciated.

  6. Sunsettommy

    Great work, Kenneth!

    Will post this at my Forum.

  7. The Crumbling Consensus | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

    […] Read the full report here. […]

  8. Adrian Vance

    This is far easier to disprove than most would believe. I have a demo-experiment that you can do with household materials, save two stick thermometers you can get on Ebay for $2.39 each, less than $10 with postage. Request a five page paper outlining this demo at: adrianvance@dslextreme.com Meanwhile:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It would have to be increased by a factor of 2500 to be considered “significant” or “notable.” To give it the great power claimed is a crime against physical science.

    CO2 absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. Pushing panic about any effect CO2 could have is clearly a fraud.

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer. We have an inexpensive demo-experiment that proves CO2 increases have no effect on IR heat absorption until 10,000 ppm and then it cools the atmosphere by driving water vapor out!

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

  9. JAMES MATKIN

    Congratulations Kenneth on an excellent piece of important research. The whole debacle of CAGW horrors had its genesis in a blatantly false consensus. Time to show the truth. I have posted a related document -https://www.academia.edu/30183146/Leading_scientists_discredit_CO2_theory_of_global_warming_and_repudiate_CO2_is_a_toxin._The_Lessons_Of_Lysenko_shows_distorting_climate_science_will_end_in_tragedy

  10. The Crumbling Consensus – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Read the full report here. […]

  11. Dave Etchell

    I think that the frequency of this type of article will increase markedly now that Trump is on the verge of taking office. After all global warming due to man made emissions of CO2 is a busted flush. If you want to keep the grant money pouring in perhaps its time for a rethink and a more sceptical look at the data. And a knighthood for Homewood for his magnificent virtually single handed effort in the cause of sanity.

  12. tom0mason

    Once again Kenneth Richard shows his talent in not only referencing real scientific papers but also collates a vast number of them into a publicly available reference for all to use.

    A very big thank-you Kenneth.

  13. Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm – Climate Collections

    […] Source: Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On C… […]

  14. Dan Pangburn

    As though it was not bad enough that political bias drives research funding, a fundamental assertion by EPA results from a mistake in logic.

    EPA Mistake

    The EPA erroneously asserts Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of “effects on the Earth’s warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their “radiative efficiency”), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their “lifetime”).” https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gwps.html

    The EPA calculation of the GWP of a ghg erroneously overlooks the fact that any effect the ghg might have on temperature is also integrated over the “lifetime” of the gas in the atmosphere so the duration in the atmosphere ‘cancels out’. Therefore GWP, as calculated by the EPA, egregiously miscalculates the influence on average global temperature of greenhouse gases. The influence (forcing) of a ghg cannot be more than determined by its concentration.

    The influence on average global temperature of a ghg molecule depends on how many different wavelengths of EMR the molecule can absorb/emit. Water vapor molecules can each absorb/emit at least 170 different wavelengths in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation (p 499 of http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1938ApJ….87..497E/0000499.000.html ) compared to only one for CO2. There are about 30 times more WV molecules in the sea level atmosphere so it is at least 170 x 30 = 5100 times more likely that EMR absorbed by CO2 and thermalized will be reverse-thermalized to water vapor.

    Thermalization of all absorbed radiation and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor with the result that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/20/study-solar-activity-oceans-cycles-water-vapor-explain-98-of-climate-change-since-1900-not-co2/

    Identification of the three factors, in an equation which matches average global temperature (98% 1895-2015), is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

  15. sod

    “V. Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity (4)”

    what do people think these papers show?

    The majority does not contradict AGW. apart from these 4 ones, most only explain side effects.

    1. AndyG55

      The word “NATURAL” might give you a basic hint…

      .. iff you can lower your brain-washed walls long enough to actually think.

      You could of course come up with something that proves CO2 can cause warming in a convective atmosphere..

      Or NOT !!

      1. AndyG55

        I notice the complete non-response from sop….

        Let’s try again..

        “You could of course come up with something that proves CO2 can cause warming in a convective atmosphere.”

        waiting, waiting..

        tick-tock, tick-tock !!

    2. Sunsettommy

      Sod, your so called counterpoint is so feeble,that I wonder if you read any of it.

      No links
      No data
      No criticisms
      No quotes
      No opinions

      That is the sum of your dead on arrival comment.

      Then you post a blatant lie, by claiming you read the other 228 papers in the list.

      you wrote,

      “The majority does not contradict AGW. apart from these 4 ones, most only explain side effects.”

      There is no way you could have read 228 papers within the day.

      Why lie,Sod?

    3. David Walker

      Poor silly sod, you haven’t even bothered reading any of them, have you?

      Not as it would have made any difference if you had, you don’t have the necessary scientific literacy to understand a single one of them anyway.

      The games is up, sod.

      Live with it.

  16. toorightmate

    Kenneth Richard,
    Thank you.
    Well done.
    Happy New Year.

  17. jc mirre

    Well done Kenneth!
    CO2 THE GAS OF LIFE

  18. KevinR

    Kenneth,
    This, and your other essays at NoTricksZone, are fabulous and valuable contributions. Many thanks to you and Pierre Gosselin.

  19. gallopingcamel

    I was wondering what happened to “sod” and then he popped up. Thank you “sod” for injecting a little humor into this otherwise serious site.

    1. yonason

      …sort of like a “sod in the box”, and a defective one at that.

  20. Bablofil

    Thanks, great article.

  21. sod

    I did links in the past, it does not help. This is a structural problem. “sceptics” do not know how science works. And these kind of lists clearly demonstrate that.

    “I. Solar Influence On Climate (132)
    II. Natural Oceanic/Atmospheric Oscillation (ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO, AMOC) Influence On Climate (45)
    III. Natural Ozone Variability and Climate (3)
    IV. A Questionable To Weak Influence Of Humans, CO2 On Climate (11)
    V. Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity (4)
    VI. Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (17)
    VII. Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (14)
    VII. Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Forcing (9)”

    I. does not contradict AGW, no one denies a solar influence on climate.

    II. see I.

    III. see I.

    IV. papers in this category mostly turn out to be written in Energy and Environment and/or by known sceptics.

    V. see IV. The only category out of this batch that has any meaning (that is, why i mentioned it above. Number of papers: 4 (FOUR!!!!)

    VI. to VIII. see I.

    Let us look at VI. anyway. It shows extreme lack of understanding. For a start, the comparison basically always is between modern temperature records and some proxy from the past (proxies are often tainted over the last couple f decades, because humans have a lot of different influences). It also ignores the comparison between the start of an effect (AGW) and the wildest swings and high points that proxies show in the past (often due to real causes, by the way, for example volcanic cooling and recovery).
    But the worst part of it is lumping together effects that are spread over regions and times. (a high point in one proxy in south america in the 9th century and one in Japan in the 13th do not combine to a global warm period!)

    1. AndyG55

      ““sceptics”… do not know how science works”

      ROFLMAO..

      sop, really… your comedy routine goes to far..

      From you, who has never posted one comment that shows you have the slightest inkling of what science is, that is HILARIOUSLY FUNNY !!

      Awful lot of influences, hey sop

      Now list them in order of relevance and warming effect.

      If you can’t do that, then any misplaced BELIEF in anthropogenic causes over NATURAL causes is just a BASELESS RELIGION.

      There has been NO WARMING except from El Nino and ocean effects in the whole satellite data era.. NONE !

      There is NO PROOF that CO2 causes any warming in a convective atmosphere… END OF STORY !!!

    2. Dan Pangburn

      sod – Apparently you missed this: “Thermalization of all absorbed radiation and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

      1. AndyG55

        Dan, REAL PHYSICS like this, is counter to his brain-washing.

        It could never be allowed to even enter that scrambled, putrefying, slush inside his skull.

    3. Nik

      BOOM!

      In one fell swoop “sod” showed that the whole article is basically a *blatant lie*.

      Sod, thanks so much for taking the time to check all of these links. I did couple of random ones and they confirm what you’ve found:
      http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315 under “A Questionable To Weak Influence Of Humans, CO2 On Climate” -yet it contained the following sentence: “Our planet has become increasingly warm since the Industrial Revolution because of the increased GHG emissions, which greatly enhance the greenhouse effect.”
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1764-4 under “Failing/Failed Renewable Energy, Climate Policies” – This paper challenges whether increased reliance on biofuel is an effective strategy in achieving the goal of greenhouse gas emission mitigation. It does not challenge the goal itself.

      The normal folk like me appreciate your efforts and easily see what’s going on here. Don’t pay attention to the other commenters (including the OP!) who are clearly paid by the Oil industry to spread disinformation.

  22. Fred Vreeman

    Great job! We appreciate the organization and summaries. With your permission I will reference and re-post comments in sections on the Quora Environmental Science Blog https://environmentalblog.quora.com/.

    1. Nik

      You shouldn’t – it’s all a lie. Almost none of the 500 linked studies state what “Kenneth Richards” say they do – in fact, exactly the opposite – they support the 97% + consensus on climate warming.

      1. yonason
      2. AndyG55

        Toke it, dude. !

        Breathe it deep !!

  23. Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm | Cranky Old Crow

    […] Source: Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On C… […]

  24. 1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Kenneth Richard published his list of 500 climate catastrophe skeptic papers appearing in scientific journals in 2016 alone. It is the latest addition to the 282 papers […]

  25. DirkH

    While talking about “Crumbling” , there’s another thing that crumbled, and it’s 100 meter high, or rather it was until this morning.
    https://dirkhblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/dont-stand-near-the-wind-turbines/

  26. clipart

    Thank you for sharing!

  27. Dan Pangburn

    Solar activity (quantified by SSN) is a proxy for average global temperature change on earth. Assessment of solar activity should include the influence of duration as well as magnitude of solar cycles. Also a ‘threshold’ must exist for sunspot numbers; above the threshold warming occurs and below it cooling occurs. This is accomplished using the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies (measured minus threshold). When combined with an approximation of the effect of ocean cycles and the contribution to warming of increasing water vapor, the result is a 98% match to 5-yr smoothed measurements 1895-2015. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

  28. Trump Cabinet Picks Indicate New Climate Sheriff in Town

    […] SOURCE: No Tricks Zone […]

  29. Hundreds of Peer Reviewed Climate Realist Articles in 2016 - Western Free Press

    […] the past few years the No Tricks Zone climate website has done the world a favor by summarizing and provide links to climate realist peer […]

  30. Jason

    Saved as a favorite, I like your website!

  31. Shiver me timbers | budbromley
  32. John M Anthony

    I was following ‘sod’ with interest, until he came out with this dim comment… “papers in this category mostly turn out to be written in Energy and Environment and/or by known sceptics.”

    It is so infantile and self-serving, my guess is, the only paper that will convince him would be a peer reviewed study blatantly stating ‘AGW is therefore a fraud’ Which of course, even most scientists who disbelieve AGW would probably never say. They have too much regard for their fellow professionals, even when they disagree. Even that would probably not convince folks like sod, as they would simply label them ‘skeptics’ implying you can’t believe them. Nothing like circular protectionism.