The Science Unsettles
Image Source: Robertson and Chilingar, 2017
In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 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 serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
To reiterate, the 97 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.
Below are the two links to the list of 97 papers amassed as of 26 February, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization. Also included are 24 sample papers included on the list, about 1/4th of the total.
Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)
(Parts 2 and 3 are on the same page).
Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction
Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (17)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (9)
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (3)
Sea Levels 1-3 Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (4)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (7)
Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change
Solar Influence On Climate (21)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (11)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (3)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (2)
Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (6)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2)
Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (2)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (2)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (2)
No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (1)
Kim et al., 2018 Recent surface cooling in the Yellow and East China Seas and the associated North Pacific climate regime shift … The Yellow and East China Seas (YECS) are widely believed to have experienced robust, basin-scale warming over the last few decades. However, the warming reached a peak in the late 1990s, followed by a significant cooling trend. … The most striking evolution pattern is that a robust warming trend at a rate of +0.40°C per decade reached a peak in the late 1990s, and then it turned downward at a rate of −0.36°C per decade. The positive and then negative trends are estimated throughout the YECS for the periods 1982−1997.
Clem et al., 2018 Over the past 60 years [since 1957], the climate of East Antarctica cooled while portions of West Antarctica were among the most rapidly warming regions on the planet. The East Antarctic cooling is attributed to a positive trend in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and a strengthening of the westerlies, while West Antarctic warming is tied to zonally asymmetric circulation changes forced by the tropics. [CO2 is not mentioned in the paper as a factor in warming/cooling trends.] This study finds recent (post-1979) surface cooling of East Antarctica during austral autumn to also be tied to tropical forcing, namely, an increase in La Niña events. … The South Atlantic anticyclone is associated with cold air advection, weakened northerlies, and increased sea ice concentrations across the western East Antarctic coast, which has increased the rate of cooling at Novolazarevskaya and Syowa stations after 1979. This enhanced cooling over western East Antarctica is tied more broadly to a zonally asymmetric temperature trend pattern across East Antarctica during autumn that is consistent with a tropically forced Rossby wave rather than a SAM pattern; the positive SAM pattern is associated with ubiquitous cooling across East Antarctica.
Shu et al., 2018 The link between boreal winter cooling over the midlatitudes of Asia and the Barents Oscillation (BO) since the late 1980s is discussed in this study, based on five datasets. Results indicate that there is a large-scale boreal winter cooling during 1990–2015 over the Asian midlatitudes, and that it is a part of the decadal oscillations of long-term surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies.
Smeed et al., 2018
Westergaard-Nielsen et al., 2018 Here we quantify trends in satellite-derived land surface temperatures and modelled air temperatures, validated against observations, across the entire ice-free Greenland. … Warming trends observed from 1986–2016 across the ice-free Greenland is mainly related to warming in the 1990’s. The most recent and detailed trends based on MODIS (2001–2015) shows contrasting trends across Greenland, and if any general trend it is mostly a cooling. The MODIS dataset provides a unique detailed picture of spatiotemporally distributed changes during the last 15 years. … Figure 3 shows that on an annual basis, less than 36% of the ice-free Greenland has experienced a significant trend and, if any, a cooling is observed during the last 15 years (<0.15 °C change per year).
Oppedal et al., 2018 This advance was documented by historical evidence (Hayward, 1983), showing that many glaciers advanced in the twentieth century. Cirque and valley glaciers were at its most advanced position in the 1930s, while larger valley and tidewater glaciers reached their maximum glacier extent in the 1970s. Such a glacier advance is also documented for the Hamberg glacier by Van Der Bilt et al. (2017). Furthermore, during the recession phase after the twentieth century advance, many cirque glaciers deposited annual moraines (Gordon and Timmis, 1992), such as the ones observed in the innermost moraine cluster. Thus, Diamond glacier followed a similar pattern to that observed for small glaciers (0.1–4.0 km2) on South Georgia during the late Holocene, with a Little Ice Age advance, a period of recession, a twentieth century advance and a recent recession (Gordon and Timmis, 1992).
Badino et al., 2018 Between ca. 8.4-4 ka cal BP [8,400 to 4,000 years before present], our site [Italian Alps] experienced a mean TJuly of ca. 12.4 °C, i.e. 3.1 °C warmer than today [9.3 °C]. … Between 7400 and 3600 yrs cal BP, an higher-than-today forest line position persisted under favorable growing conditions (i.e. TJuly at ca. 12 °C).
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes
Truchelut and Staeling, 2018 The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season concluded an extended period of quiescent continental United States tropical cyclone landfall activity that began in 2006, commonly referred to as the landfall drought. We introduce an extended climatology of U.S. tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity. The [hurricane landfall] drought years between 2006 and 2016 recorded an average value of total annual ACE [accumulated cyclone energy] over the U.S. that was less than 60% of the 1900–2017 average. Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950, with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period.
Klotzbach et al., 2018 Continental United States (CONUS) hurricane-related inflation-adjusted damage has increased significantly since 1900. However, since 1900 neither observed CONUS [Continental United States] landfalling hurricane frequency nor intensity show significant trends, including the devastating 2017 season.
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity
Guo et al., 2018 In drought-prone regions like Central Asia, drought monitoring studies are paramount to provide valuable information for drought risk mitigation. In this paper, the spatiotemporal drought characteristics in Central Asia are analyzed from 1966 to 2015 using the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) dataset. Central Asia showed an overall wetting trend with a switch to drying trend since 2003.
Temperature Change Leads CO2 Change, Processes Governing CO2 Changes ‘Poorly Understood’
Koutavas et al., 2018 The EEP [eastern equatorial Pacific] stack shows persistent covariation with Antarctic temperature on orbital and millennial timescales indicating tight coupling between the two regions. This coupling however cannot be explained solely by CO2 forcing because in at least one important case, the Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e–5d glacial inception, both regions cooled ∼5–6.5 thousand years before CO2 decreased. More likely, their covariation was due to advection of Antarctic climate signals to the EEP by the ocean. … . The discovery that atmospheric CO2 covaries with Antarctic temperature and global ice volume (Lorius et al., 1990; Lüthi et al., 2008; Petit et al., 1999) has propelled CO2 to the forefront as climatic “globalizer”. However, the processes governing CO2 variability are themselves poorly understood, and likely require an oceanic/climatic trigger in the first place (Adkins, 2013; Ferrari et al., 2014; Sigman et al., 2010). Antarctic ice core records are furthermore ambiguous with regard to the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Phase relationships show CO2 lagging behind temperature in the obliquity band (Jouzel et al., 2007) and across some major transitions (Caillon et al., 2003; Fischer et al., 1999; Kawamura et al., 2007; WAIS Divide Project Members, 2013), most prominently during the Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e–5d boundary, i.e. the last glacial inception. Antarctic cooling at this time was associated with a major Milankovitch signal, and appears to have transpired almost entirely before the change in CO2 concentration. It remains unclear whether the temperature lead was restricted to Antarctica or was broader.
Ozone ‘Hole’ Still Widening Since 1998 (Despite CFC Ban)
Ball et al, 2018 Here we report evidence from multiple satellite measurements that ozone in the lower stratosphere between 60° S and 60° N has indeed continued to decline since 1998. We find that, even though upper stratospheric ozone is recovering, the continuing downward trend in the lower stratosphere prevails, resulting in a downward trend in stratospheric column ozone between 60° S and 60° N. We find that total column ozone between 60° S and 60° N appears not to have decreased only because of increases in tropospheric column ozone that compensate for the stratospheric decreases. The reasons for the continued reduction of lower stratospheric ozone are not clear; models do not reproduce these trends, and thus the causes now urgently need to be established.
Arctic Methane Emissions Natural, Not Anthropogenic
Wallmann et al., 2018 Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming … Methane seepage from the upper continental slopes of Western Svalbard has previously been attributed to gas hydrate dissociation induced by anthropogenic warming of ambient bottom waters. Here we show that sediment cores drilled off Prins Karls Foreland contain freshwater from dissociating hydrates. However, our modeling indicates that the observed pore water freshening began around 8 ka BP when the rate of isostatic uplift outpaced eustatic sea-level rise. The resultant local shallowing and lowering of hydrostatic pressure forced gas hydrate dissociation and dissolved chloride depletions consistent with our geochemical analysis. Hence, we propose that hydrate dissociation was triggered by postglacial isostatic rebound rather than anthropogenic warming.
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors
Collins et al., 2018 Here there is a dynamical gap in our understanding. While we have conceptual models of how weather systems form and can predict their evolution over days to weeks, we do not have theories that can adequately explain the reasons for an extreme cold or warm, or wet or dry, winter at continental scales. More importantly, we do not have the ability to credibly predict such states. Likewise, we can build and run complex models of the Earth system, but we do not have adequate enough understanding of the processes and mechanisms to be able to quantitatively evaluate the predictions and projections they produce, or to understand why different models give different answers. … The global warming ‘hiatus’ provides an example of a climate event potentially related to inter-basin teleconnections. While decadal climate variations are expected, the magnitude of the recent event was unforeseen. A decadal period of intensified trade winds in the Pacific and cooler sea surface temperatures (SSTs) has been identified as a leading candidate mechanism for the global slowdown in warming.
Hunziker et al., 2018 About 40 % of the observations are inappropriate for the calculation of monthly temperature means and precipitation sums due to data quality issues. These quality problems undetected with the standard quality control approach strongly affect climatological analyses, since they reduce the correlation coefficients of station pairs, deteriorate the performance of data homogenization methods, increase the spread of individual station trends, and significantly bias regional temperature trends. Our findings indicate that undetected data quality issues are included in important and frequently used observational datasets and hence may affect a high number of climatological studies. It is of utmost importance to apply comprehensive and adequate data quality control approaches on manned weather station records in order to avoid biased results and large uncertainties.
Scanlon et al., 2018 The models underestimate the large decadal (2002–2014) trends in water storage relative to GRACE satellites, both decreasing trends related to human intervention and climate and increasing trends related primarily to climate variations. The poor agreement between models and GRACE underscores the challenges remaining for global models to capture human or climate impacts on global water storage trends. … Increasing TWSA [total water storage anomalies] trends are found primarily in nonirrigated basins, mostly in humid regions, and may be related to climate variations. Models also underestimate median GRACE increasing trends (1.6–2.1 km3/y) by up to a factor of ∼8 in GHWRMs [global hydrological and water resource models] (0.3–0.6 km3/y). Underestimation of GRACE-derived TWSA increasing trends is much greater for LSMs [global land surface models], with four of the five LSMs [global land surface models] yielding opposite trends (i.e., median negative rather than positive trends) … Increasing GRACE trends are also found in surrounding basins, with most models yielding negative trends. Models greatly underestimate the increasing trends in Africa, particularly in southern Africa. .. TWSA trends from GRACE in northeast Asia are generally increasing, but many models show decreasing trends, particularly in the Yenisei.
Subtracting the modeled human intervention contribution from the total land water storage contribution from GRACE results in an estimated climate-driven contribution of −0.44 to −0.38 mm/y. Therefore, the magnitude of the estimated climate contribution to GMSL [global mean sea level] is twice that of the human contribution and opposite in sign. While many previous studies emphasize the large contribution of human intervention to GMSL [global mean sea level], it has been more than counteracted by climate-driven storage increase on land over the past decade. … GRACE-positive TWSA trends (71 km3/y) contribute negatively (−0.2 mm/y) to GMSL, slowing the rate of rise of GMSL, whereas models contribute positively to GMSL, increasing the rate of rise of GMSL.
45 responses to “A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”
Thank you to Kenneth Richard for compiling this data and to Pierre Gosselin for creating and hosting this blog! You guys are doing a great job!
I used to come here primarily to learn about the train wreck that is called Energiewende because it is not properly reported in the English-lanquage press, but I find there is much more here, as well.
What these papers demonstrate very clearly is that the science is not “settled” and there does now need to be a meaningful debate, free from the ad hominems and prejudice shown, to date, by the IPCC and its supporters.
There are some for whom “the red pill” has minimal effect, it seems.
They see, but they don’t (yet?) understand.
Life really is stranger than fantasy, on so many levels.
Wonderful job, as usual, Kenneth!
I can’t help but comment on this, especially.
“…a multidecadal increase in flower activity is most strongly associated with rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations …”
My comment is that I have a very longstanding complaint about the use of tree rings as a proxy for temperature, because at a fixed temperature trees grow much more rapidly at higher [CO2].
Climate alarmists are exactly the same people who believe that Acupuncture,Homeopathy and Reiki are valid medical treatments and that vaccines cause Autism.
That is one hell of bending reality. I bet – on average – there are more of those folks in the skeptic camp than in the normal population. After all these things are based on the same illusion … that somehow established science doesn’t work and/or isn’t real and if you only believe in it hard enough their alternative thing is real (no GHE, no warming, etc).
“After all these things are based on the same illusion”
Obviously you mean the illusion that CO2 causes warming.
You must know it is NOT TRUE by now, after ALL THAT TIME you have spent searching for empirical scientific evidence. (ie .. ESTABLISHED SCIENCE)
and FAILED TOTALLY. !!
Oh that’s right, you have NO IDEA what REAL SCIENCE actually is, have you, seb.
You have yet to show that there is any CO2 based warming in the satellite era.
You have yet to show any proof that atmospheric CO2 warms oceans.
You have yet to show that CO2 warms ANYTHING.
It really is just mindless anti-science fantasy belief to you, isn’t it seb.
REAL SCIENCE (in all caps) is apparently the thing in your bubble world that makes people believe vaccines cause autism, homeopathy having an effect besides the placebo effect and chairs needing to perform work to hold you up (have you replied to my question if you can tell us how much more work will be performed to hold you up 2 hours vs. just one hour?).
Sorry, your REAL SCIENCE is not compatible with how the world works.
P.S.: Ever witnessed how a CO2 laser works? 😉
So, absolutely NOTHING of any substance, yet again, hey seb.
Total EVASION of the FACT that you cannot prove the very basis of your brain-numbed belief.
You have ZERO science, and ZERO idea how the world works.
And you STILL can’t grasp basic structural concepts that are used to build every major structure in the world.
So DUMB, so sad, so seb. !!
“have you replied to my question if you can tell us how much more work will be performed to hold you up 2 hours vs. just one hour?.”
That very fact that you ask that question PROVES that you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO UNDERSTANDING of physics, maths, science or anything !!!
Hint: (which you will not comprehend, because you are a mathematical illiterate)
….The units of strain energy are already the units of work.
You know, Andy, you really should learn how a CO2 laser works. Here, let me splain it to ya, as a warmists might.
Fill a long hollow tube with cold CO2.
Point it at a warm target.
The IR from the warm surface will be trapped between the laser and the surface by the heavy blanket of cold CO2 in the laser.
The result will be a high energy beam of IR that will vaporize the target.
But be VERY VERY careful, because if you aren’t, it will run away and destroy the whole planet.
PS – Anyone lacking the technical Fizicks expertise to operate a devise as sofistikated as my patented GlowBull Warming Laser can achieve the same effect if he is capable of using a thermometer, and performing simple addition and subtraction. Simply measure the temperature of the target and adjust the temperature until it vaporizes. Pay no attention to anyone who does not see the target explode. They are not believers, and don’t deserve to see it.
Interesting that guys who work with CO2 lasers think that AGW by CO2 is a total load of bollocks. 😉
You know it’s not all Climate alarmists that believe so, however it is well over 97%
Another one for you
“The Ross Ice Shelf is Freezing, Not Melting. Scientists Surprised”
Unfortunately, I have not found a scientific paper linked to that study. National Geographic isn’t a scholarly journal. But, actually, freezing rather than melting is a common feature near the Ross Sea (and throughout much of Antarctica). This 2012 paper indicates dramatic cooling since 1979:
Ross Sea Temperature Changes Since 1882
Sinclair et al., 2012
“A 125-yr ice core record of climate from the Whitehall Glacier ice divide provides exceptionally highresolution stable isotope data from the northwest margin of the Ross Sea, Antarctica. … Reconstructed mean annual temperatures show no significant change between 1882 and 2006. However, a decrease in cold season [April–September (AMJJAS)] temperatures of -1.59°C ±0.84°C decade -¹(at 90% confidence) is observed since 1979.”
And here too:
Miles et al., 2013
I posted a different link to the same material above, so thanks for the heads up.
[…] A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]
“They won’t know what snow is anymore.”
…Oh, wait – they were Serious???!!!
It snowed in Rome 6 years ago. That happens yonason.
Also, this blog is somehow missing out on the dramatic warming of the Arctic these days. http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
+6°C at the northern end of Greenland yesterday.
Greenland COOLING from 2001-2015, seb
And only slightly down from its LARGEST ARE in 8000 years.
Greenland SMB above “normal” yet again
Not cooling … https://imgur.com/a/6NJMS
WRONG. That is from a blog site run by an AGW nutter… who know how it was fabricated !
Let’s take from a scientific paper, shall we. !
It’s perfectly normal record snow
“Nothing to see here.” – activist chatbot
Wow! Look at that mass gain in Eastern Greenland !!
It is winter and relatively warm and moist air is moving north towards Greenland / the Arctic. It would really be a suprise if that doesn’t lead to snow where it is still cold enough …
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png (15-20 °C above the average right now)
Look at the SMB, above average again seb.
You are sounding desperate, still. !
That is “surface mass balance” (snowfall minus snow melt). It’s always a positive number. It doesn’t include calving. Over the course of a year, there is a net loss (calving minus SMB) which has been averaging around 200 gigatonnes for at least the last 20 years.
“which has been averaging around 200 gigatonnes for at least the last 20 years.”
Only data for that is from GRACE, which is basically non-functional over active volcanic regions.
It is a GENERIC statement that has been there for ages, back by not much real data.
Even if its correct, it is a trivial meaningless amount down from the most extreme ice levels in 10,000 years.
The following chart of Greenland Total Ice Mass should put it more into some sort of rational perspective for you..
And the following chart of Greenland Ice Area over the last 10,000 years may make your mind actually start to think… perhaps.. if it can be done.
Included in that “average” is -367 Gt/yr during 2008-2012, which drives up the overall value. It’s slowed considerably since then, including “A negligible ice mass loss of 6 Gt between June 2013 and June 2014″. Last year’s SMB was the 5th highest in the last 37 years:
“For the 2016-17 SMB year, which ended yesterday, the ice sheet had gained 544bn tonnes of ice, compared to an average for 1981-2010 of 368bn tonnes.”
“The SMB for 2016-17 is the fifth highest in the 37-year record.”
Why do you think it is that Greenland gained mass (+40 Gt/yr) on average between 1961-1990 (Fettweis et al., 2017)? What was the cause of that…since anthropogenic CO2 emissions were rising rapidly during those 30 years?
I love their consistency. You point out something that wasn’t supposed to happen, but did; and they counter with the equivalent of “it happens occasionally, and so is to be expected,” even though they told us we should no longer expect it.
I’d trust a cobra not to bite me sooner than I’d trust them to tell me the truth.
Oh no Greenland got all the way up to +6°C for a few minutes yesterday.
Oh no panic over, as parts of Italy recorded temperatures of at least -40°C, might have been much lower, they can’t tell as that is as low as the sensors go.
The Bing translation says
Oh, so it’s just a regional thing, just like all climate anywhere! 🙂
Normal NATURAL weather effects for this start to a cooling period. No doubt we’ll see some temperatures rise, even see some summer heatwaves but overall it NATURE’S way that we are entering a cooling period. And it’s a cool period not for anything we puny humans are doing, or anything we can ‘fix’.
The cAGW alarmists have only a spent meme, only empty blather, people are noticing the change, and it’s not getting warmer.
Well, I’ll remind you of this comment in 5 years …
As usual you miss the point of the increasing cold and snow events in the wintertime.
The IPCC said in several different reports that is was projected to DECREASE over time.
Try following the reality……..
“Normal NATURAL weather effects for this start to a cooling period. […] overall it NATURE’S way that we are entering a cooling period”
He says nothing about increasing cold in winter time (where would that be?) and more snow events (again, snow seasons are shortening).
Try keeping up with current climate science.
YOU try keeping up with the IPCC modeling failures on cold and snow.
Which is one of the points made about unsettled science since the AGW conjectural mantra fails again.
You can’t play your deflection game with me little boy!
“Try keeping up with current climate science.”
You obviously have NOT kept up with anything except your brain-hosed mantra, seb.
Why would ANYONE want to keep up with non-science that is akin to “days of our lives”
Total unproven fantasy, but right down your alley, hey seb.
Climate science can’t even provide empirical proof that atmospheric CO2 warms oceans, atmosphere or anything.
Fine. I will enjoy it as a chance to rub (metaphoric) salt into your (metaphoric) wounds.
And if you do not quote all of it but do your usual dimwit childish cowardly action of selecting out one line, or half a phrase, then I will quote this post in it entirety.
So give me a date!
So they are monitoring temps in an area that experiences extremes, using a thermometer that …doesn’t measure extremes?
Now that’s funny right there.
[…] A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]
[…] Read rest at No Tricks Zone […]
From the Gray paper: “Given this increase in CO2
, we have not observed the global climate change we would
have expected to take place. Assuming that there has been at least an average of 1 Wm-2
blockage of IR energy to space over the last 50 years and that this energy imbalance
has been allowed to independently accumulate and cause climate change over this period
with no compensating response, it would have had the potential to bring about changes in
any one of the following global conditions.
● Warm the atmosphere by 180°C if all CO2
energy gain was utilized for this purpose
– actual warming over this period has been about 0.5°C, or many hundreds of times
● Warm the top 100 meters of the globe’s oceans over 5°C – actual warming over
this period has been about 0.5°C, or 10 or more times less.
● Melt an average amount of land-based snow and ice so as to raise the global
sea-level by about 6.4 meters. The actual rise has been about 8-9 cm, or 60-70 times
less. The gradual rise of sea-level height has been only slightly greater over the last ~50
years (1965-2015) than it has been over the previous two ~50-year periods of 1915-1965
and 865-1915 when atmospheric CO2
gain was much less (Church et al. 2008)
● Increase global rainfall over the past ~50-year period by 60 cm.”
180 degrees C from 1 W/m^2 back-radiation? It’s a little early for April Fools’ Day, isn’t it? At any rate, it would be interesting (read amusing) to see how this, or any of the other figures above, was arrived at.
But go ahead, entertain crackpot papers like this.
[…] So far 97 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Change […]
Ill-informed climatologists like Roy Spencer (not qualified in the physics of heat transfer mechanisms as I am) score “own goals” claiming that GH gas warms the lower troposphere and cools the upper troposphere thus increasing the lapse rate – the exact opposite of what water vapor does. See https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 for the correct physics.
I wrote on his thread …
Roy writes: “But that doesn’t mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere.”
Well, that means adding GH gas (including water vapor) supposedly makes the lapse rate greater in the troposphere, warmer at the base as Roy says, and cooler at the top.
The trouble is, Roy, that adding more of the greenhouse gas water vapor REDUCES the lapse rate.
Since you’re qualified to answer, what do the physical measurements from a real-world experiment say about the heating of water bodies by airborne CO2 concentrations? In other words, how much heating or cooling is caused in a body of water when the CO2 concentration in the air above that body of water is changed by +/-10 ppm (+/-0.00001)?
“greenhouse gas water vapor REDUCES the lapse rate.”
But INCREASES the upward energy transfer rate.