Already 285 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

A Growing Volume Of Evidence

Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Science


During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

These 285 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes.  Climate science is not settled.

Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented.  Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (84 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (31 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present.  Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment.  On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

It should be noted that the rate of inclusion on this year’s “Skeptic Papers” list at the halfway point is slightly ahead of last year’s pace.  That’s because in 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science.

Below are the two links to the list of 285 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)


(Parts 1 and 2 are on the same page).  

Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change  

Solar Influence On Climate (84)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (31)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (10)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (5)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (2)
The Theoretical Greenhouse Effect As Climate Driver (4)

Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (19)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (8)
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (4)
Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (4)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (3)
Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (3)
Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (3)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (3)
No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (2)
Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Human Source (4)
Miscellaneous (8)

Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (22)
No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (11)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (33)
Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (4)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (18)
Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic (1)

67 responses to “Already 285 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”

  1. A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Science | Un hobby...

    […] Kenneth Richard, July 3, 2017 in […]

  2. P Gosselin

    Nice compilation, Kenneth. Is certainly most inconvenient to the alarmists and bureaucrats who are in a hurry to impose centralized rule.

  3. tom0mason

    Yes the AGW argument is wounded, in some places badly.
    However the unthinking advocates of the UN-IPCC and their profiteers will bleat on endlessly about their non-validated, non-verified models proving the unprovable.

    At lease one, I predict, will turn-up here soon to rant on as if scientific investigations of this planet’s climate thus far are utterly settled. These people ‘know’ that their ‘facts’ are immutable and can not be reinterpreted in any other way, no matter how illogical, than that by which they have been tutored. It’s truly sad to witness such closed minds, but that’s people for you.

  4. Brian

    Jun 15, 2017 HAHA!!! GLOBAL WARMING STUDY CANCELED, THE REASON WILL HAVE YOU ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING!!!

    American Lookout reports, In a perfect example of irony, a scientific research study that intended to study global warming was cancelled after encountering large amounts of ice.

    https://youtu.be/MNn7lkO_dkM

    1. tom0mason

      Indeed even if seb says

      “…2017 is currently the 2nd warmest year on record: http://www.noaa.gov/news/earth-has-2nd-warmest-year-to-date-and-3rd-warmest-may-on-record

      Now were is that definite linkage between perceived short term global temperatures (homogenized averages) and local climate effects on the ground. Ummm, they don’t look to apparent currently.

  5. AndyG55

    OT.. PLENTY of new atmospheric CO2 for the world’s plant life

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/

    As we all now know, there is absolutely no PROVEN downside to enhanced atmospheric CO2.

    Just MASSIVE BENEFITS for all life on Earth. 🙂

  6. AndyG55

    Global warming in action…

    The mercury in the NSW town of Deniliquin , close to the Murray River, sank to -5.6C early on Sunday morning.

    … that’s the coldest it’s been for 110 years.

    1. AndyG55

      I thought it was cold on the NSW coast, but apparent the whole state and most of Victoria copped record breaking cold.

      http://www.9news.com.au/wild-weather/2017/07/02/10/30/weekend-cold-weather-records-australia

    2. AndyG55
      1. AndyG55

        look further down too. other pics, that dripping tap is pretty cool. !

        Used to live in the Canberra region (Yass)

        … very glad I moved to the coast 🙂

        1. tom0mason

          Nice to see that like the winters in the US, Russia, Siberia, China and Europe, now Australia and New Zealand are not noticing what as seb says —

          “…2017 is currently the 2nd warmest year on record: http://www.noaa.gov/news/earth-has-2nd-warmest-year-to-date-and-3rd-warmest-may-on-record

          unfortunately the supposed warm planet does not often equate to the weather or climate playing along.
          The main problem being –

          a) If land based (or land and sea) temperature monitoring system, then the stations are too sparse, too homogenized and have too big a separation between them to properly reflect regional (local) climate effects.

          b) If satellite based then the overall average is diluted by the massive amount of water. Water that skews the readings away from land based climate effects. However it is consistently more reflective of true temperatures as measured by weather balloons, etc.

          Therefore no matter which way you cut it, global (massively averaged) temperatures do not reflect the climate that matters — the climate affecting people.

          A climate effect are regional (and so local), it is never global.

          If all this monitoring is not reflecting what the regions’ climate is doing, what affects the people paying for it, why keep funding it? The satellites tells us more than enough about global temperature, terrestrial monitoring is a joke system, with all its unwarranted adjustments and faked data, also it employs too many climate change advocates — just sack them all.

        2. AndyG55
    3. tom0mason

      I also see that —
      “2 July 2017 – Hikers taking the 6km round-trip trek up to Bluff Knoll, in Western Australia’s Great Southern region, found the peak of the Stirling Range snow-capped on Sunday morning.

      Bluff Knoll, the third highest peak in WA, stands 1095m (3592 ft) above sea level. It is one of the few places in the state where it can actually snow on the rare occasion.

      Visitors built a snowman and even partook in the tradition of being photographed “in the buff on the bluff”.”
      https://www.iceagenow.info/rare-snowfall-south/

  7. Robert F Lyman

    What a great service it is to compile this list and offer it. The number one challenge that global warming skeptics face when debating in public is dealing with the closed -mind argument that “the science is settled”. Of course it is not.

    Someone would do an almost as useful service by beginning to compile a list of the academic papers that call into question the merits of the emission reduction policies now being promoted – the endless list of regulations, subsidies, taxes, product mandates, and government-imposed “information programs” that all seek to alter energy supply and demand decisions. There certainly are a large number of those as well.

    1. SebastianH

      After reading skeptic blogs for over 6 months now, the number one challenge skeptics face is understanding the science they are trying to refute. Arguing with someone who is against something without understanding how it is supposed to work is … well … technically you don’t have to argue with such a person, because he/she declared defeat already 😉

      1. tom0mason

        seb,

        From what I see it is your poor understanding of the role scientific models play in science that is the problem. You have a belief (for that is all you have) that models provide certainty where none really exist. Climate models are only poor approximations of reality. They only provide possibilities and probabilities; observations and the correct interpretation of it provides reality and sources of new scientific inquiry.
        Levels of confidence in modeled outcomes amount to zero when they do not reflect reality, and the reality is CO2 appears not to heat the atmosphere at the tropospheric level.
        Your failure to see this is not our failure it is yours.

        1. SebastianH

          and the reality is CO2 appears not to heat the atmosphere at the tropospheric level.

          No, that’s not reality … well, maybe yours.

          You have a belief (for that is all you have) that models provide certainty where none really exist.

          There is a difference between a model that tries to predict future average temperatures and a model that describes how sea surface temperature changes cause CO2 concentration changes and depend on the current CO2 concentration.

          1. AndyG55

            “No, that’s not reality … well, maybe yours”

            Its is a UNPROVEN load of claptrap.

            Its all you have.

            CO2 DOES NOT have any affect whatsoever on ocean temperatures.

            You have proven time and time again that CO2 warming of oceans is a MYTH, backed by anti-science and your monumental ignorance of the effect of a SW on water surfaces.

            Your childish yapping has shown that you have chosen to remain, as always..

            ….. MONUMENTALLY IGNORANT.

          2. tom0mason

            “No, that’s not reality … well, maybe yours.”

            No, that is everyone’s’ reality — you admitting not being able to understand it, is your problem.

            Oh and your tangled sophistry about the use of models.
            Normally in science models are only tools to help make sense of observed reality. In real science (and most engineering technology), models are checked against reality.
            However climate models fail to reflect reality, even at the most basic level. Therefore they MUST be wrong as reality never lies.

            About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold.
            About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was the Little Ice Age.
            When Oceans are warm, Polar Oceans thaw, snowfall increases and rebuilds ice on Greenland, Antarctic and Mountain Glaciers. Ice builds, spreads and makes earth cold again. Snowfall decreases and the Sun removes ice every year until it gets warm again.
            It is warm again now because it is supposed to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it. CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.

            So seb get over it, there is no catastrophic warming coming just because CO2, a rare atmospheric gas has NATURALLY risen by an inconsequential amount. Unless of course, YOU know at what level CO2 should be now and can show that the CO2 rise is unnatural. Good luck with that.

          3. SebastianH

            However climate models fail to reflect reality, even at the most basic level. Therefore they MUST be wrong as reality never lies.

            How far away from CMIP5 models do you think the current temperature is?

            It is warm again now because it is supposed to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it. CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.

            I guess we will see if that is true, reality never lies, right? Do you have any evidence of this being a purely natural cycle? CO2 is an LW radiation absorbing gas. Increasing the concentration in the atmosphere causes a forcing. Are you saying there is a negative feedback that cancels any additional CO2 forcing? Or are you saying that you think CO2 doesn’t do anything?

            So seb get over it, there is no catastrophic warming coming …

            Why do you call it catastrophic? I certainly didn’t. And why do you use future tense? Warming is already happening.

            just because CO2, a rare atmospheric gas has NATURALLY risen by an inconsequential amount.

            It hasn’t naturally risen by that amount and the amount isn’t small compared to reconstructed concentration data from the Holocene.

            Unless of course, YOU know at what level CO2 should be now and can show that the CO2 rise is unnatural. Good luck with that.

            Where should it be now? You mean without human emissions? That is difficult to tell, but with the modest increase in temperature, it would still be somewhere in the vicinity of 300 ppm and not 400 ppm.

            CO2 increase is 100% caused by humans. There is just no way that almost all of our emissions get absorbed by nature (it’s just about half of what we emit) and natural variability being able to supply as much CO2 as we emitted in return. Even if nature would do something like that, would that mechanism continue to match our output when we stop emitting CO2? How doesn’t “know” that we stopped? No, this makes no sense at all.

            P.S.: There are no immediate CO2 scrubbers located next to emitters and we have satellite measurements about the paths CO2 takes in the atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syU1rRCp7E8

          4. AndyG55

            “CO2 increase is 100% caused by humans.”

            Still the same old UNPROVABLE RUBBISH statement, that goes against all know science.

            “CO2 is an LW radiation absorbing gas. Increasing the concentration in the atmosphere causes a forcing.”

            Prove it. YOu have been WOEFULLY ABSENT with any sort of proof.

            CO2 DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere, or of oceans.

            Why do you keep up your mindless, anti-science yapping on something you know you have ZERO PROOF for.?

            You are just being a moronic AGW troll, yet again, aren’t you. !!

            That is you ONLY reason for being here.

          5. AndyG55

            As for the NASA “flat Earth” MODEL.

            It looks totally different to ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS

            https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/mainco2mappia18934.jpg

            Seems Brazil and Southern Africa are industrial powerhouses 😉

            Also if you run it right to the end, all that NH CO2 magically disappears.. industry must have shut down for the winter, I guess. ;-).

          6. AndyG55

            And YET AGAIN, I will ask the unanswered question..

            Name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….

            You are still EMPTY , seb. !

            Not that I expect anything else.. 😉

          7. tom0mason

            seb,

            “How far away from CMIP5 models do you think the current temperature is?”

            I don’t guess like you do.

            Here, find out for yourself http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074016/full

            And get some perspective.

          8. SebastianH

            It’s paywalled and the abstract isn’t particularly enlightening.

            I am not guessing either …

            Download the CMIP5 data and compare it to the GISS or RSS temperature record. You’ll find not much difference.

        2. tom0mason

          seb,

          And there is your hubris again —

          “Where should it be now? You mean without human emissions? That is difficult to tell, but with the modest increase in temperature, it would still be somewhere in the vicinity of 300 ppm and not 400 ppm.”

          No! You are wrong or at least arguing from ignorance. We have NO method of knowing, it is outside our control. Nature can (and does) put such things at any level required, with or without us.
          Just because we as sentient beings can understand abstract things does not means we are in control of them.

          1. SebastianH

            The ignorance is strong on your side. You mentioned Henry’s law in another comment. Do you think there is some mechanism at play that completely overrides this law despite CO2 concentration actually following it quite perfectly?

            Why do people still think that our rather large emissions contribute little to nothing to the CO2 concentration increase? There is zero evidence for that claim. All evidence points to us.

            Of course, it could be possible that there is some yet undiscovered mechanism that only absorbs human CO2 (otherwise it would absorb natural CO2 in the absence of our emissions) and some other mechanism that caused a great imbalance in natural sources/sinks causing the increase without a corresponding temperature change.

          2. AndyG55

            poor seb.

            EMPTY of any proof,

            EMPTY of any science,

            EMPTY of any problems caused by CO2,

            Just a poor EMPTY-MINDED little troll.

          3. AndyG55

            “You mentioned Henry’s law in another comment. Do you think there is some mechanism at play that completely overrides this law despite CO2 concentration actually following it quite perfectly?”

            AHHHH.. so all the CO2 is coming from the oceans..

            Thanks seb.

            Your feet must be very tasty for you to keep them permanently in your gob. !

          4. tom0mason

            seb,
            Seawater chemistry? Go find out. As you are rude enough not to even reference what I wrote but instead make up a straw man argument, I can not be bother to answer you.
            You obviously do not understand the basics of asking a questions and reading and understanding any answers given. Your behavior is that of a spoiled child realizing his foolish efforts of trying to deceive has been found out.

            “Why do people still think that our rather large emissions contribute little to nothing to the CO2 concentration increase? ”

            Because you have no sense of perspective. Your belief in “our rather large emissions contribute” is nonsense compared to nature. Kenneth has shown you time and again. YOU have decided not to take this reality on board — that is your problem, your ignorance. Read the Butman paper I refereed you to.

          5. SebastianH

            Because you have no sense of perspective. Your belief in “our rather large emissions contribute” is nonsense compared to nature. Kenneth has shown you time and again. YOU have decided not to take this reality on board — that is your problem, your ignorance.

            I am well aware of the reality that natural source and sinks are magnitudes larger than human emissions. That doesn’t change that human emissions are large compared to the increase of the CO2 concentration and the natural variability (temperature dependence) displayed in the fluctuations of that increase.

            I am also pretty confident that there is no magic mechanism that is able to detect human CO2 and just absorb those molecules. That’s the only possibility how human emissions are not responsible for the concentration increase, isn’t it?

            Because if the atmospheric CO2 content increases by ~5 GtC in a year caused by natural variability and we subtract 10 GtC of human CO2, we end up with a decrease. Unless the mechanism that previously absorbed those 10 GtC stops working with the disappearance of all human emissions.

            You and Kenneth seem to be ignoring this (the actual reality) …

          6. AndyG55

            “His beliefs are enough.”

            His beliefs are ALL HE HAS.

            So far he is EMPTY on just about every other front.

            A HUSK full of anti-CO2 angst.

            Yet that CO2 supports his whole life, from his food, to his inner-city basement and it heating, to his Mercedes.

            His HATRED of CO2 is scientifically and emotionally IRRATIONAL. !!

            And he can’t even give a reason why.

            Quite BIZARRE !!

          7. SebastianH

            Despite these tiny rates of year-to-year increase (and flat emissions rates for 4 straight years), CO2 concentrations have risen by about 25 ppm since 2006. This strongly suggests that most of the increase has come from a positive imbalance between natural sources (which out-ratio human emissions by a factor of 24 at least) and natural sinks.

            Kenneth, you are still making the same mistake and compare amounts with different units. It’s not the increase of human emissions that causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 content! How often does this need to be repeated until you let a friend you trust explain to you why this is wrong? You won’t find this kind of comparison in any scientific paper and I really don’t know why you insist on doing it.

            What you are effectively saying is: because the car doesn’t increase its acceleration anymore (=constant acceleration from now on) and the speed still increases, it can’t be the acceleration that causes those increases of the speed.

            About the other topic:

            SebastianH believes that it is unnecessary to know how much natural emissions change vs. natural sinks change from year to year.

            That’s not a belief, that is still math. I don’t know why you want to call it a belief in order to make it less true. 6th-graders learn this kind of math, you know? When you have an equation like A - B = C -D and you know both values A and B, then you know what “C – D” is. Simple as that. You don’t need to know C or D. (A = CO2 content increase, B = human CO2 emissions, C = natural emissions, D = natural absorption … all per year)

            And finally for the 250th time:

            There is also no magic mechanism that is able to detect natural CO2 emissions and just absorb those molecules, while simultaneously not absorbing the tiny amount of year-to-year increases in human emissions (+0.2 GtC per year).

            Why would there be such a “magic mechanism”? That would only be required if you insist on natural sources currently being larger than natural sinks. So let’s say C is 500 GtC and D is 490 GtC. This would result in an increase by 10 GtC before human emissions are even added to the total, but the real increase is just 5 GtC. So what mechanism – that is not part of the 490 GtC sink – absorbs those 5 GtC of natural CO2 and 10 GtC from human emissions then?

            Do you see why C can be larger than D?

            Also it’s not about absorbing the “tiny amount of year-to-year increases”, it’s about absorbing ALL of human emissions. The rest doesn’t just disappear …

          8. SebastianH

            @AndyG55

            His HATRED of CO2 is scientifically and emotionally IRRATIONAL. !!

            What are you talking about? I don’t hate CO2. I just hate when people build their chain of arguments on wrong assumptions and don’t even realize it.

            Just declare something as “too complex” and you are free to dismiss anything. That is the behavior of religions. Call something “too complex” and explain it with a deity doing its thing. (or in case of skepticism that it’s all natural)

          9. SebastianH

            You’ve written that you want to reach zero emissions (humans). Why? What would that accomplish? What would be the good that comes of that?

            That’s your reply to my comment? I see. What can’t be true gets ignored and instead you make up something else you can write about. Another red herring.

            I don’t want to reach zero emissions. It’s irrelevant what I want. When I comment I am trying to show you where you are making mistakes and possibly base your whole chain of arguments on these errors.

          10. SebastianH

            It will result in a reduction of CO2 emissions to a level that can be sustainable. Increasing emissions by 1-2% each year to cover increasing energy consumption isn’t sustainable. Using up fossil fuels isn’t sustainable.

          11. AndyG55

            I just hate when people build their chain of arguments on wrong assumptions and don’t even realize it.

            You must REALLY hate yourself. then.

            But that has been obvious from the start.

            Your whole CO2 hating mantra based on unprovable assumption.

            Still no proof that CO2 causes warming of a convective atmosphere

            Still no proof CO2 causes ocean warming

            Still no provable downside to enhanced atmospheric CO2

            Yet still you have that baseless irrational hatred of CO2.

            And that hatred drives your whole life and causes you to waste your time typing baseless anti-CO2, anti-science AGW dribble on realist forums.

            If it wasn’t so much fun to keep you yapping mindlessly about that CO2-hatred, it would be tragic.

      2. AndyG55

        “the number one challenge”

        says seb, the fabricator of fallacious physics.

        You have constantly PROVEN that your knowledge of physics and science is pretty much at the bottom of the sewer.

        You can’t even produce any science to prove the most basic FALLACY of your baseless AGW religion..

        being that CO2 causes warming of oceans or of a convective atmosphere.

        Your AGW “belief” is SCIENCE FREE.. just like you are, seb.

        You never did give an answer to that question about drawback of enhance atmospheric CO2.

        You are just an EMPTY sack of yap. !!

      3. AndyG55

        “because he/she declared defeat already”

        You should have declared your IGNORANCE ages ago, seb.

        There is still time to get back to reality, and realise that you actually don’t know much about anything at all.

        And that what you think you know is basically just…. WRONG

      4. AndyG55

        poor seb.. you do realise that the supposed mechanism of the greenhouse effect, doesn’t even hold true in real greenhouse… don’t you. 😉

        So sad.. so seb… so GULLIBLE !!

      5. AndyG55

        “understanding the science they are trying to refute”

        What science.??

        You have produce ZERO provable science.

  8. Brian

    Jul 4, 2017 M1 Solar Flare, The Future of Climate Science

    https://youtu.be/JaR3XRnYMU8

  9. Salvatore Del Prete

    MY climatic play – It is very low solar and as a result an increase in albedo /lower sea surface temperatures which will bring about global cooling from here.

    In addition look for a equator ward shift of all the climatic zones as the polar vortex should weaken and expand due to very low solar activity.

  10. Already 285 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm | Mi Torre y Atalaya

    […] Origen: Already 285 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]

  11. The history of Climate Change - Page 107 - Historum - History Forums

    […] Already 285 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media. This doesn't mean the papers all say that there is no climate change. It's that they don't concur with the theory that any or the majority of such change is the result of human interference with the ecology of the planet. so nope, science isn't "settled". […]

  12. President Trump Refused to Join the Paris Climate Accord. Here’s Why. | American Elephants

    […] Climate science is not settled. […]