Consensus? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 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 ²²²²mainstream media sources.

These 200+ 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 neither 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, these 200+ papers compiled in 2019 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. In other words, it is not accurate to claim these papers prove that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) positions are invalid, or that AGW claims have now been debunked”.

Below are the three links to the list of  2019 papers amassed as of the 17th of June, 2019, as well as the guideline for the list categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2019 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2019 (2)

Skeptic Papers 2019 (3)


Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions 
Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century?
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise 
Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice

Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change  

Solar Influence On Climate
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence
Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas
Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall 
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver?

Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause 
Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere
Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields
Fire Frequency Declining Since 20th Century Began
Global Warming Reduces Mortality. Cold Kills.
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity
Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink
CO2 Change Lags Temperature Change
Miscellaneous

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

26 responses to “Consensus? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism”

  1. tom0mason

    Excellent round-up Kenneth Richard.

    That quote from 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%.

    is a real hoot. It just show how far from reality the cAGW imaginings will go when fully charged with hubris.

  2. Consenso? Oltre 200 nuovi studi nel 2019 supportano una posizione scettica sull'allarmismo climatico

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

  3. Andreas

    Most of these papers don’t refer to present climate change at, but show that there were periods in the earth history that were warmer than today. This no one is disputing!
    The warmest period was probably the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which peaked about 55 million years ago. Global temperatures during this event may have warmed by 5°C to 8°C within a few thousand years, with the Arctic Ocean reaching a subtropical 23°C. Mass extinctions resulted from this event!

    Looking for papers with the keywords “warmer than today” does not at all cause doupt on climate change, execpt for those who don’t want to read them and are not really interested in the facts…

    1. tom0mason

      Andreas, you seemed to have missed the point …
      And the point of this listing was —

      In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 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 ²²²²mainstream media sources.

      Which is what they do!
      They cast doubt on the idea that human originated atmospheric CO2 controls (or in some cases even significantly modifies) the climate.

    2. SebastianH

      Be prepared for questions from Kenneth that he likes to answer you over and over instead of him admitting to anything you said 😉

    3. Yonason

      References please, Andreas.

      Also, it doesn’t look like CO2 could have caused that brief temperature spike. The [CO2] had been falling rather steeply for about 100 million years, and continued thereafter until recently.
      http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/2010/10/EarthHistory1.jpg

      So, since CO2 was most likely not the culprit, and assuming it was elevated temperature that caused the extinction, what caused the temperature to increase?

    4. I_am_not_a_robot

      The PETM is not an analogue for conditions today, the planet was much warmer before the ‘event’ occurred and the cause is unknown however recent research suggests:
      “… that the sudden rise in atmospheric temperature during the Paleocene–Eocene transition was not accompanied by highly elevated carbon dioxide concentrations >∼2,500 ppm. Instead, the low 13C/12C isotope ratios during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum were most likely caused by a significant contribution of methane to the atmosphere …”.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4948332/

  4. Wiliam Haas

    The idea of consensus is nothing but speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had, the effort would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process.

    The Earth’s climate has been changing for eons and it will continue to change whether mankind is here or not. Current climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. Do not mix up weather cycles with true climate change. Currently we are still warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than 1500 years ago. The climate change we have been experiencing is typical of the Holocene that has been taking place for the past 10,000 years.

    The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even is all of mankind stopped the burning of fossil fuels altogether, the effort would have no effect on the Earth’s climate.

    Even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are both part of the current climate. We do not even know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. Mankind has not been able to stop one extreme weather event let alone change the earth’s climate. We would be much better of trying to improve the global economy then wasting time and money trying to affect the Earth’s climate.

    The AGW conjecture seems quite plausible at first but upon closer inspection one finds that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. It is all a matter of science.

    7

    1. Yonason

      ”We would be much better of trying to improve the global economy then wasting time and money trying to affect the Earth’s climate.“

      Yes, Kenneth. Then everyone would benefit. But, as you know, the con artists don’t want to have to share a level economic playing field with everyone else. I just don’t understand why otherwise clever people, who could be successful without resorting to deceit, think they have to keep others from the success that’s ample enough for them all.

    2. Rolf Wester

      “Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process.” Theories are not validated by themselves. They are not validated but accepted as the best tools at hand to interpret observations and to make sensible forecasts. They are accepted by the scientific community. Very new ways of thinking may take some time to be accepted but if they are better in the above mentioned terms they are accepted.
      Science is indeed not like going to the polls and vote according to one’s opinion.
      But that doesn’t mean that science is made by science itself or is a solipsistic endeavour, science is made by a scientific community.

      But climate science does not even rest on revolutionary new thinking. The basic physics behind climate science is well known and well accepted. Conservation of mass, momentum and energy, radiation transport and chaos theory are used in many areas with great success.

      CO2 has strong absorption bands in the IR which reduce the LWR from the earth’s surface to TOA. A basic model is not very difficult to compute (as physicist with some programming skills at least). The article mentioned above “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative
      greenhouse effect in Antarctica” does not contradict this finding.

  5. Sam Pyeatte

    The key fact is the statement “nothing happening today is outside the range of natural variability”.

    1. tom0mason

      👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
      Exactly. Natural variability!

      1. SebastianH

        So when it finally exceeds natural variability in the next decades you guys will jump aboard the “we always said it was human made climate change” train?

        Or do you believe it actually is natural variability and will swing back soon and if it doesn’t then that’s natural as well and it’s only a coincidence that we have identified a physical mechanism responsible for this and have tons of measurements? 😉

  6. Consensus? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism | Un hobby...

    […] K. Richard, June17, 2019 in […]

  7. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: July 8, 2019 - Master Resource

    […] 200+ New 2019 Papers Support a Skeptical Position on Climate Change […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close