What follows are the 3 newly published papers and their abstracts which flat out conclude IPCC alarmist science may be fatally flawed. Hat-tip Kenneth Richard.
The main points are emphasized in bold print.
1. Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice
It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?
The compilation of temperature records are a source of problematic methodology of a kind not seen elsewhere in science. Under the umbrella term of “homogenisation”, there now seem to be a growing myriad of post-hoc adjustments to the original raw data that all seem to go in one direction, namely to increase the overall rate of global warming. This happens even on official websites. The total change is often somewhat greater than the 0.8-1ºC rise over the 20th century that is agreed by most people, critics or not. This is exemplified by data in Figure 4. This makes the problem of dispassionate engineering assessment almost impossible to achieve. Hansen (1981) wrote : “A remarkable conclusion from Figure 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940.” It is not clear now why this should be remarkable, although at the time, the rise in temperature from about 1975 had cancelled out some of the cooling since 1940 in the then available data. At the time, he [Hansen] showed 1980 temperatures were about 0.15ºC cooler than 1940. Now, NASA shows 1980 temperatures about 0.2ºC warmer than 1940. They have made a relative shift of +0.35ºC, and the adjustment represents ~40% of the century variation. The lesson from this is that the data integrity for claiming extreme events needs to shown to be of the highest order, and that the results claimed do not depend on the data manipulation itself.”
2. Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere
Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere
Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geomagnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.
3. Reassessing the Climate Role of Carbon Dioxide
The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “consensus” that the increase of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. They conclude that the data do not support that supposition. Most of the currently accepted scientific interpretations are examined and the given impression that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase the earth’s surface and/or air temperature is questioned. New insight is offered drawing a conclusion that no additional warming is possible due to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Acceptance of that IPCC paradigm is incurring costly and draconian efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, tax such emissions and replace fossil fuel combustion by alternative energy systems whether such alternatives will achieve the desired results or not. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated here, from Vostok ice core measurements, to residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, to more recent studies of temperature changes that inevitably precede CO2 changes, to global temperature trends, to the current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, to satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2, to the effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential ingredient of the Earth’s ecosystem on which almost all life depends via photosynthesis. This paper rejects the new paradigm of “climate science” and asserts that the traditional, century old meteorological concepts for the factors that control weather and climate remain sound but need to be reassessed.
40 responses to “Three Brand New Peer-Reviewed Papers Refute IPCC Global Warming Science, Climate Models!”
This series of posts is an amazing piece of work and a lot of effort. Thanks very much to Kenneth Richard for doing it and to Pierre for the presentation.
In Parts A & B (below), my issues are with the papers and not the post of Kenneth/Pierre.
I have a quibble with this:
“The compilation of temperature records are a source of problematic methodology of a kind not seen elsewhere in science.”
This is likely an unsupported assumption and ought to end with a period after the word methodology.
Anything one introduces into a discussion or written thesis is apt to be questioned by the listeners (readers). The #1 Rule of smart advisers is, if you do not want to defend the statement, then do not introduce it. If you cannot defend or explain it well, then the rest of your expertize becomes questionable. In this case, “ of a kind not seen elsewhere in science” is unnecessary and questionable.
A somewhat related issue is found in the Richard Feynman material (I don’t recall exactly where). He mentions the search for a physical constant. The first person was off (high) by a lot – but was a respected/authoritative researcher. The attempts to replicate the wrong result showed a smaller number but the new published research only lowered the value a small amount. Next person’s attempt – same thing, lower still. After several such lowerings the correct answer stabilized. Feynman used this history to warn against bias (appeal to authority), and to urge one to trust (good) data.
Paper #2 has, in the title: “Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere” while the text mentions “heterogeneous over the surface”. [heterogeneous: various and dissimilar properties]
There appears to be a bit of internal disagreement about “warming” and, also, Paper #1 questions the data about global warming.
Summary: Science is hard.
Your Feynman story was about the Millikan oil drop experiment. Millikan had the viscosity of air wrong so obtained a slightly incorrect charge for the electron. Other experimenters, checking his results, had the correct viscosity of air but still got results close to Millikan because the famous man himself got those results and they wanted to be like him (I guess).
“The #1 Rule of smart advisers is, if you do not want to defend the statement, then do not introduce it.” – John F. Hultquist
LOL – I try, sometimes harder than others, to do that. But sometimes I don’t care. Depends who my audience is, how tired I am, etc.
Anyway, yes, it’s a great piece of advice.
One at a time would make them more digestible, and my mobile platform makes PDF’s less desirable.
These papers are all consistent with the data, methods and resulting cooling forecasts of my recent post on WUWT
I’m not at all surprised.
See severalassociated posts at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Interesting Mr. Page, since you predicted imminent cooling on WUWT back in 2012 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/). In this article you claimed that “the global warming trend ended in about 2003. THERE HAS NOW BEEN NO NET WARMING SINCE 1997 -15 YEARS WITH CO2 RISING 8.5% WITH NO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE. SINCE 2003 THE TREND IS NEGATIVE.” (your caps, I should point out). Yet temperatures continued to climb with the last few years each having been the warmest on record at the time. At what point should we stop taking your predictions seriously?
Chris For the current cooling trend as predicted see Fig 5 at the link. The El Nino warming is a temporary aberration and will soon dissipate as discussed in the text.
Really? Because when you plot all the El Nino events over the last century a clear warming trend is seen. Same thing when you plot the La Nina or non- el nino/la nina years.
I agree that there was warming of about 0.8 +/- during the last century.
As shown in Fig 5 the millennial cycle peaked at about 2003.The blue line illustrates the beginning of the cooling trend which will likely last for the next 650 years – obviously with some ups and downs along the way. The cooling trend is temporarily obscured by the current El Nino which is now dissipating rapidly.
No empirical evidence EVER showing that co2 (even over geologic periods when co2 level was 2,000+ppmv) had an impact on the global temperature. An experiment performed in a closed container has little relevance to co2 increases in the open atmosphere since there is no convection across firm “greenhouse” boundaries whereas satellites detect radiation escaping to space.
There have been warmer durations during this interglacial than now, when co2 level was low, and this is established not only by numerous peer-reviewed studies, but the MWP trend is also shown by 6,000 boreholes, and the recent exposure by receding glaciers- Mendenhall in Alaska, and another in the Alps showing shattered upright tree trunks still in their original position, dated 1,000 and 4,000 years old. Trees no longer grow that far north. Antique vineyards have also been discovered at latitudes where grapes can no longer be grown.
The correlation between co2 and temperature across geologic periods (which tracks both up and down trends) shows temperature variation FIRST, and 800 to 2800 years later, similar variation in co2 level. This removes even the possibility of a similar correlation satisfying alarmist beliefs which renders their entire hypothesis implausible.
“The correlation between co2 and temperature across geologic periods (which tracks both up and down trends) shows temperature variation FIRST, and 800 to 2800 years later, similar variation in co2 level. ”
in 99% of situations, people will first be thirsty and then take a drink.
Now hand out a glas with salt water and watch things happen the other way round.
That’s especially inane, even coming from you.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2016/03/28/three-brand-new-peer-reviewed-papers-refute-ipcc-global-warming-s… […]
Trying to determine how much the average global temperature is changing using global climate models is a bit like trying to determine how fast a car is going by analyzing losses and what is going on in the combustion chambers. It’s theoretically possible but not very accurate, especially if your model is faulty.
Objective analysis (not funded by government grants or energy companies) reveals that change to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and thus burning fossil fuels) has no significant effect on climate.
A simple conservation of energy equation, employing the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies and an approximation of the net effect of all ocean cycles achieves a 97% match with measured average global temperatures since before 1900. Including the effects of CO2 improves the match by 0.1%. http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
Dan Pangburn wrote:
“Trying to determine how much the average global temperature is changing using global climate models is a bit like trying to determine how fast a car is going by analyzing losses and what is going on in the combustion chambers.”
That didn’t prevent you from coming up with some cockamamied model equation, did it?
LOL. Very astute David.
David – Apparently conservation of energy is too complex a concept for you to grasp.
I see some of sod’s romper room playmates are here. Baby sitter must have fallen asleep.
Paper two does not appear to be written by anyone with degrees in physics or other areas of expertise. You probably don’t even want to waste your time reading it, since garbage in still equals garbage out.
Papers one and two are both published in journals described on Wikipedia as being “predatory” and having extremely questionable ethical practices. They have impact factors of 0.26 and 1.34, respectively. Paper three appears not to be published anywhere but instead has just been uploaded to an extremely unpleasant-looking website that looks like it was made by a 13-year-old circa 1998.
From a brief glance all three appear to be garbage. I highly recommend you do not try to use these as sources in any scientific discourse anywhere.
Agreed — not one of these papers appears to be legitimate.
And the credibility of Pierre Gosselin’s blog goes down another three notches….
Yes, I agree. We need to look to the IPCC for leadership and guidance. //S//
David Appell remarking on anyone’s credibility.
That is so, so funny 🙂 🙂
Go back to your low end sci-fi writing!!
And the credibility of the IPCC…
while you may be right about the second publisher there isn’t a Wikipedia entry for it that I can find. The third paper doesn’t seem to be claiming to be a scholarly research paper merely an informal review of previously available info. One certainly wouldn’t want to cite any of these in one’s own work.
“Papers one and two are both published in journals described on Wikipedia as being “predatory” and having extremely questionable ethical practices.” – Chris
I trust Wikipee about as much as I trust you, i.e., not at all.
You characters just don’t care what kind of nonsense you make up.
We can check your assertion by entering the URLs here for evaluation.
described on Wikipedia..
Did you REALLY say that ??????
“They have impact factors of 0.26 and 1.34, respectively.”
So here’s another guy who thinks science is a democracy, and truthiness can be classified with numbers.
That’s not how it works, my irrational friend. There’s a thing called logic. Logic doesn’t care for your IPCC impact factor jury members.
I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but all of the papers have serious problems.
A. If you read the article by Kelly, the author provides one citation for their supposed temperature data. If you follow the citation it goes to an *internet blog post* that cites one article from 1981 with very little supporting evidence. The whole thesis rests on this completely irrelevant citation.
As an aside, the publisher hasn’t registered the DOI correctly – this right off the bat sets off some red flags. It means that the publisher doesn’t care enough about what it’s publishing to spend the money to make the paper easily citable. This is often typical of pay-to-publish journals that care very little about peer review or the scientific veracity of the content of their journal.
B. The second articles confuses me. The authors are professors in Human Studies, Behavioural Neuroscience, and Biomolecular Sciences.
More troubling is that It’s published in a shit journal called “Scientific Research Publishing”. This is the same company that uses email spam to solicit papers for submission. Read up on them, they are basically scam artists pretending to be a scientific publisher. I wouldn’t trust *anything* they publish to undergo any sort of real peer review.
C. The third article hasn’t been published in a journal and hasn’t been peer reviewed. While preprints are useful for those actively working in the field, citing a preprint article like this is irresponsible.
“the author provides one citation for their supposed temperature data.” – Patrick Hayes
Naturally it’s just too much trouble for you to indicate which one it is.
As sloppy as you are, you have no business criticizing others.
The links to ALL these papers go to private links — not ONE goes to a real scientific journal.
Why is that, Pierre?
Please be so kind as to link me to any comments you have made criticizing the IPCC for their use of gray literature.
As bad as the problem is…
…you must certainly have expressed your outrage at their use of it, as well?
[…] Read more at notrickszone.com […]
These are not legitimate peer reviewed journals. The first was published in a journal from OMICS Publishing Group in India. Their standards for peer review are widely regarded as not credible.
The second was published in a Chinese journal from Scientific Research Publishing Inc. Again, is not considered credible.
And before you say, “that’s wikipedia …”, read the links and the sources given.
The third “article” does not even seem to have been published. It is just posted on a website called Tech Knowledge Group.
As to the content…
The first article compares extreme weather events in the first and second half of the 20th century. This ignores the cooling spell in the first part of the second half of the 20th century, and that models do not predict major changes in extreme weather events until the 21 century.
The paper claiming changes in Earth magnetic field may be the cause global warming is not worth commenting on. Next it will crop circles. The third just recycles bogus claims rejected and debunked many many times.
Of the three new papers how many authoritative peers reviewed the data and of those did all the peers agree or were there qualifying provisos? The argument always seems to be thrust in a deniers face that 97 or 99% or whatever percentile you ascribe to that thousands of “scientists” have agreed with and endorse the IPCC report(s) in the various climatological treaty efforts. My eldest son believes only in science and if thousands upon thousands of scientists agree with the IPCC how do I reasonably refute his assertion that 3 new reports, Lord Monckton and Dr. Tim Ball are of sufficient evidentiary weight to discount the IPCC conclusions which are apparently supported by the stated thousands of scientists. How many peers is the number I’m looking to gird for battle!
Not only the 97% consensus, but even “the majority of scientists” meme has been thoroughly debunked.
Thousands upon thousands of scientists do not agree with the IPCC.