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

A Growing Volume Of Evidence

Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Science

Update: For a detailed response to the YouTube video criticizing our list, see:

Deconstruction Of The Critical YouTube Response To Our 400+ ‘Skeptical’ Papers Compilation

 


During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 418 scientific papers have 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 400 418 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 (111 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 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).

In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science.   This amounts to more than 900 papers in less than 2 years.

Below are the two links to the list of 400 418 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 (111)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (37)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (13)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (8)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (4)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (12)

Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (24)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (12)
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (7)
Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (5)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (4)
Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (15)
Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (3)
Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (3)
No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (3)
Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Human Source (4)
Miscellaneous (7)

Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (33)
No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (10)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (54)
Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (7)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (30)
Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic (7)

90 responses to “400 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”

  1. ViennaMike
  2. What Over 900 Scientists Have Concluded About Major Liberal ‘Issue’ Has Democrats Panicking - Conservative Bless

    […] Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. … […]

  3. An Impertinent Pup from Snopes Tried to Fact-Check Me on Global Warming. Here's My Reply… | Principia Scientific International

    […] And I also applied it when I came upon an article by Kenneth Richard at a website I’ve come to know and trust called No Tricks Zone. […]

  4. 400 Scientific Papers Undermine Global Warming, and That’s Just for This Year

    […] for his blog, NoTricksZone, researcher Kenneth Richard explained that the papers both question the climate change […]

  5. Bob Johnson

    This is what the authors of the studies YOU cited had to say about your blog:

    “It’s sad that the blogger did not understand what this study is about, but rather took a sentence without context.” -Normunds Stivrins

    “The overwhelming scientific evidence is that the climate is currently changing and that human influences, primarily releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, have a significant impact.” -Bradley Markle

    “My paper deals with climate and environmental change on a larger timescale and does not allow any conclusions about current global warming.”-Matthias Thienemann

    “The Breitbart article uses a classic and flawed argument with respect to my paper” -Henning Akesson

    “The article on Breibart.com is so bad that the author did not even realize that the figure extracted from my paper is not my new data record” -Fatima Abrantes

    These are just a couple of quotes from your authors. Don’t you think they would have approved of the conclusions you drew from their papers, rather than criticize your blog?

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-misrepresents-research-58-scientific-papers-falsely-claim-disprove-human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/#authors-reply

    1. yonason

      @Bob Johnson 1. November 2017 at 4:15 AM

      You quote from a number of the authors cited.. Here’s just one.

      “It’s sad that the blogger did not understand what this study is about, but rather took a sentence without context.” -Normunds Stivrins

      Here’s the money quote and the context, as given by Kenneth Richard.

      Stivrins et al., 2017 (Latvia) Using a multi-proxy approach, we studied the dynamics of thermokarst characteristics in western Latvia, where thermokarst occurred exceptionally late at the Holocene Thermal Maximum. … [A] thermokarst active phase … began 8500 cal. yr BP and lasted at least until 7400 cal. yr BP. Given that thermokarst arise when the mean summer air temperature gradually increased ca. 2°C beyond the modern day temperature, we can argue that before that point, the local geomorphological conditions at the study site must have been exceptional to secure ice-block from the surficial landscape transformation and environmental processes.

      And note that paper was shown in the context of another paper which also asserted warmer than present conditions due to natural forcings.
      http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/#sthash.CWFEDVMK.dpbs

      What that tells us is that today’s temperatures are NOT unprecedented.

      Looks to me like the author of that paper didn’t understand what Kenneth Richard was talking about, or the context it was clearly meant to be taken in.

      Sorry Bob, you have to do MUCH better than that. If that’s all you’ve got, why do you even bother?

      1. SebastianH

        So you didn’t understand it either? Why even bother to reply then?

        What has the mean summer temperature in Latvia 10000+ years ago to do with a skeptical view on human caused global warming?

  6. Chris

    Have 400 papers just DEBUNKED global warming?
    Not if you read them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY&feature=em-uploademail

    1. SebastianH

      Pretty much what you can do with every list Kenneth compiles. I did that when I first commented on this blog back in December/January, but have given up on showing that this is just cherry picking sentences from papers that don’t say what Kenneth thinks they say …

      1. Craig Hapanovich

        I don’t see how the author of the video can be blamed for cherry picking articles when he is not the one who linked to them, it was the person running the website. If the articles do not challenge the global warming consensus then why were they included? How does this challenge the consensus:

        “Clearly, the global mean surface warming in response to the solar cycle is modest compared to effects of other external forcings. It is certainly much smaller than the radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic increases in green house gases”.

        From article “”Solar influences on climate over the Atlantic / European sector”.

        And what’s with the bats and vultures?

        “Fatalities at wind turbines may threaten population viability of a migratory bat?”
        “A balanced solution to the cumulative threat of industrialized wind farm development on cinereous vultures (Aegypius monachus) in south-eastern Europe”

  7. Craig Hapanovich

    Picked one article at random.

    DECADAL CYCLES OF EARTH ROTATION, MEAN SEA LEVEL AND CLIMATE,
    EXCITED BY SOLAR ACTIVITY

    Here is the conclusion:

    7. CONCLUSIONS
    The shapes of decadal and centennial solar
    cycles are rather different from sinusoidal form, and
    this is the reason to generate a lot of subdecadal and
    decadal harmonics. These harmonics are visible as
    common cycles with periods 1-9, 12-19 and 23-
    33 years in various time series of Earth phenomena
    like Earth rotation, mean sea level, climate, etc. The
    Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), Wolf’s Numbers (Wn)
    and North-South (N-S) solar asymmetry expose
    different spectral peaks, amplitude modulation and
    phases from these bands. These solar time series
    represent thermal heating over the Earth, solar wind
    (space weather) and solar magnetic field variations.
    The decadal cycles of N-S solar asymmetry strongly
    affect corresponding cycles of El Nino/Southern
    Oscillation (ENSO). The decadal oscillations of LOD
    and precipitation over the continents are affected by
    the TSI variations, while the MSL oscillations –
    mainly by the Wolf’s numbers. The LOD, MSL and
    precipitation cycles with periods below 20 years are
    affected by the harmonics of Wolf’s numbers. The
    common cycles with periods 26-33 years of time
    series MSL-Wn; P- LOD-TSI; and ENSO- N-S solar
    asymmetry have excellent agreement of amplitude and
    phase modulation. The common cycles with periods
    17-18 years of pairs LOD-TSI; MSL-P; and periods
    16-18 years of pair ENSO- N-S solar asymmetry have
    good agreement with small amplitude deviations and
    phase reverse. The common cycles with periods 14-
    16 years of pairs MSL-LOD; P-Wn; and ENSO- N-S
    solar asymmetry have good agreement with phase
    reverse of ENSO event and some parts out of phase in
    case of precipitation. The common cycles with periods
    12-13 years of pairs MSL-Wn; P-LOD; and ENSO- NS
    solar asymmetry have good agreement with phase
    reverse of ENSO event and a short part out of phase in
    case of MSL.
    The decadal harmonics of TSI, LOD, MSL,
    precipitation and temperature over the Eastern Europe
    are calculated by models of Jose, de Vries and Suess
    cycles with periods of 178.7, 208 and 231 years and
    their phase differences are compared. This comparison
    yields several perspective decadal cycles with periods
    33.0; 29.7yr; 28.9yr; 25.7yr; 23.1yr; 22.3yr; 17.9yr;
    17.3yr; 16.2yr; 15.4yr; 14.4yr; 12.8yr; and 11.6yr to
    study the significant solar-terrestrial influences and to
    create new adequate linear models.

    That sure demolishes the global warming consensus. Or does it?

    1. yonason

      It doesn’t add any support either, does it, Craig.

      Remember, the title of the NTZ article claims these articles
      “…Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”

      And what IS the skeptical position we are embracing? – that climate change is primarily natural, and that it is not going to be catastrophic, or at least if it is, we humans didn’t cause that, or even contribute significantly to it.

      In light of that, the paper you selected “at random” is about natural cycles, with no mention of human involvement. It isn’t about any “consensus.” It doesn’t even mention one. It is about the issues we skeptics are concerned with, not the “we’re all gonna die” nonsense of the fictitious consensus. And that is the point, Craig.

  8. Can Science Survive Long in a Post-Modern World?  - Liberty Monitor

    […] global warming affects Bill Nye’s ”quality of life as a public citizen,” the authors of hundreds of recent papers could face sanctions tougher than mere disapproval in the academy. We learned recently […]

  9. Craig Hapanovich

    “Craig, in looking at the above graph it can be seen that during the 600 years after the Medieval Warm Period, ocean temperatures plummeted. Considering there was no reduction in CO2 concentrations during this period (they actually rose slightly), to what do you attribute the dramatic drop in ocean heat? What was the mechanism causing this loss of heat?”

    I haven’t the foggiest idea. I could not make heads or tails out of the article I quoted, and I doubt if anyone else reading the site could either. But if I did want an answer I probably would want to go the the American Meteorological Society or the National Academy of Science rather than make up stuff.

    What gets me is looking at some of the comments on this site, which I never heard of until a few days ago, is the long involved technical discussions about climate from people pretending they are scientists and know what they are talking about. Its as if I found the theory of General Relativity weird and so set up a website so that all and sundry could send in their ideas on how messed up it is, rather than to go a site run by physicists.

  10. You Won’t Believe What 900 Scientists Just Concluded About Major Liberal ‘Issue’, Dems In Panic Mode | National News Today

    […] Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented.&n… […]