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 2017, 485 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 485 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 (121 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (44 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 400 485 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).
Let’s look at what the actual AUTHORS of those paper have to say: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-misrepresents-research-58-scientific-papers-falsely-claim-disprove-human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/#authors-reply
The claim in the Breitbart headline is easily dismissed by those who literally assume these papers are able to “disprove” global warming – which they don’t, of course. The list isn’t meant to do anything close to that. Much of the globe has (fortunately) warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age. Most of the authors who object wrongly assume that the Breitbart headline is an accurate portrayal of what this list is designed to do…or to be. (AUTHOR: “I do not argue that ‘global warming… is a fake artefact [sic]’.”)
The list is meant to be a compilation of papers that support positions that skeptics of the “consensus” often maintain, which can be mostly whittled down to:
(1) a significant portion of climate changes are natural;
(2) the consequences of burning fossil fuels are likely not dangerous or even climatically/geologically consequential;
(3) the models are not reliable, as uncertainty is enormous in a multi-faceted, non-linear climate system; and
(4) the warming/sea levels/glacier retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable.
These positions are not supported by the “consensus”. Quite the opposite. According to the “consensus”:
(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of climate change is anthropogenic, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.
(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid levels, and the effects are globally synchronous…and thus dangerous consequences to the biosphere and human civilizations loom.
(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of CO2 concentration changes on climate changes is “settled enough“, which means that “the debate is over“.
(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in (2) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
The papers support the first (1)-(4) positions, and they undermine the second set of (1)-(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that they should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are not valid.
———————————————————————
If we were to look at the papers that Cook et al. (2013) used to concoct the 97% “consensus” paper, for example, we’d find that Cook and his co-horts actually classified papers (and magazine articles) about cooking stoves in Brazil, phone surveys, asthma-related ER visits in Montreal, TV coverage…as “endorsing” the position that most of the global warming occurring since ~1950 has been human-caused. Really.
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.
[…] Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. … […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, researcher Kenneth Richard explained that the papers both question the climate change […]
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
The authors of the studies are largely responding to the claim (made by Breitbart) that their papers suggested “Global Warming Is A Myth” — which they did not. Nor did most of the authors address the causes for temperature changes during the paleoclimate or modern times — which, again, was not the claim made here. Again, “Global Warming Is A Myth” was the Breitbart headline used to introduce the May (2017) compilation of papers (which was 58 papers and 85 graphs at that time, and now we’re over 100 papers with non-hockey stick graphs). Global warming is not a “myth” in the sense that much of the globe has been warmer in the 20th century than during the 14th to 19th centuries.
Note: In one of the graphs (North Atlantic SSTs) used for the compilation and commented on by Reynolds, it was noted that the graph with SST anomalies (in red) also contained detrended temperatures (in black). The graph was included because the trended anomalies (red) showed no obvious warming. But since the detrended lines were mixed in with the trended lines, it could be misleading. So that graph has now been removed from the compilation. With over a 100 graphs showing no modern warming that falls outside the range of natural variability — a list that grows by the week — deleting one graph will not make a difference.
350 Non-Hockey Stick Graphs
@Bob Johnson 1. November 2017 at 4:15 AM
You quote from a number of the authors cited.. Here’s just one.
Here’s the money quote and the context, as given by Kenneth Richard.
And note that paper was shown in the context of another paper which also asserted warmer than present conditions due to natural forcings.
https://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?
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?
Have 400 papers just DEBUNKED global warming?
Not if you read them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY&feature=em-uploademail
It is not here claimed that 400 papers (now 415) have “DEBUNKED” global warming.
The authors of the headlines at Breitbart and WattsUpWithThat claiming as much are not accurately characterizing what these papers represent.
The papers instead support a skeptical stance on many of the claimed positions of “consensus” science, such as the RealClimate/IPCC claim that 100% of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans, and 0% by natural factors, or that modern temperatures fall well outside the range of natural variability — which they do not according to 100s of papers…
350 Graphs Show Modern Temperatures Are Neither Unprecedented or Unusual
The author of the video has cherry-picked a handful of the hundreds of papers that, in addition to the climate forcing attributed to natural factors, also acknowledge a role — even a significant role — for CO2. Again, it is considered “consensus” science that 100% of warming since 1950 is human caused, and that CO2 is effectively the climate’s “control knob”. Therefore, any paper that concludes that natural factors have contributed to climate changes past and present (and climate includes precipitation changes, of course) above a “tiny fraction” can be considered support for the position that CO2 variations may not be the climate’s “control knob” after all. Natural factors contribute too…ranging from a small to significant degree.
The author of the video tries to give the impression that none of the papers are referring to natural factors contributing to the modern climate changes…which is wholly untrue. The author also alleges that none of the papers cast doubt on the perspective that CO2 is the climate’s dominant temperature driver. This is also wholly untrue.
In sum, the author of the video has obviously not waded through each of the papers and included commentary on the papers that do indeed support a skeptical position on the so-called “consensus” science of climate change. But, of course, those already predisposed to believe the “consensus” position will likely just take his word for it and not bother to actually even read the summaries — which are provided here:
Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction (~140 papers)
Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change and Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling (~275 papers)
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 …
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”
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?
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.
While there is no claim here that any paper “demolishes” the so-called “consensus” position, let’s remember what that “consensus” position is: that 100% of the warming since 1950 (as well as the glacier melt and sea level rise) has been caused by humans driving cars and heating their homes (i.e., CO2 emissions). In other words, the decadal cycles connecting the Sun and ENSO, cloud cover variations (the main modulators of albedo) – all of which have significantly identified periodicities associated with the Earth’s climate and sea levels (per the paper you “randomly” selected above) – have effectively played no role in climate change in the last 65 years. The ENSO event in 2015-’16 that raised SSTs by +0.6 C? The denouement of that ENSO warming event leading to the -0.6 C temperature decline since March, 2016? If we believe warming is 100% human caused, that means that we need to believe that the warm phase of the ENSO event was predominantly human-caused. Papers like the above do not support this conclusion, as it connects ENSO events to decadal-scale cycles connected to solar activity.
Further, ENSO events are related to wind strength anomalies. If we are to accept the “consensus” position that the warming event in 2015-’16 was human-caused, that means that we have to believe that humans cause wind currents to change. We have to believe humans cause the heat redistributions in the deep ocean.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-Rosenthal-13.jpg
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?
[…] 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 […]
“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.
[…] Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented.&n… […]