Search Results for “skeptic papers”

2016 Highlights: Tsunami Of Skeptic Papers & Desperate Attempts To Silence Climate Dissenters

December 27, 2016

By P Gosselin on 24. December 2016 2016 is coming to a close, and I’d like to wish all readers here a very Merry Christmas and all the best for the coming new year. What follows are some of the main highlights at NTZ in 2016. Overall visitor traffic increased a good 30% since the start of the year. Much of this is due to the hard work of Kenneth Richard who joined as a guest author some months ago. Kenneth writes every Monday and Thursday. His reviews of the latest scientific literature have gotten great attention. Thanks Kenneth! 2016 Highlights January: stable Antarctic, GISS’s shady role Back in January I reported how Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt wrote about how NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt had “squandered much credibility” and played “a shady role with the temperature data.” The two German experts went on to say that Schmidt’s “dubious data alterations with the GISS datasets will likely become interesting material for science historians.” Also we reported how Lüning wrote of 5 very recent papers showing that Antarctic ice is much more stable than originally believed. February: 250 papers disputing climate alarmism In February Kenneth Richard made his debut at NTZ, providing a list of over 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers from 2015 casting doubt on climate science! The entire list is here. Also it was underscored what a folly Germany offshore wind energy truly is. A study we reported on shows that the maintenance costs are 100 times more than the cost of the turbine itself. Little wonder Germans are now forced to pay among the highest electricity rates in the world. Technical problems have plagued the German offshore wind industry, read more here. March: Glacier retreat, sea level rise slow down In March we presented new papers showing that glacier retreat and sea level rise are slowing down rapidly. Also read here and here. Claims of rapid sea level rise lost credibility as recent studies indicate only 0.8 – 1.6 mm/year sea level rise. Moreover, Kenneth Richard published a story here on 500 peer-reviewed papers disputing alarmist claims surrounding climate from the year 2014 and 2015. Looks like the IPCC has got a lot of updating to do. April: Embryonic, untrustworthy models We’ve known a long time that climate models are woefully inadequate for making reliable long-term projections, and this was confirmed in a story we wrote on a paper appearing in Nature, where a world-class modeler admitted that models are only at the embryonic stage and are hardly trustworthy. In April a hurricane and winter 2016/17 forecast was issued by David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations. So far it looks to be impressively right on the money! Dilley also projects a harsh cold period from 2025 to 2060. May: MWP global; CERN confirms Svensmark We saw that the Medieval Warm Period was also prominent in the southern hemisphere and not just a local north Atlantic phenomenon that alarmist scientists insist it was. Also results from CERN confirm the Svensmark theory. More here as well. The sheer hypocrisy of Hollywood stars was exposed once again as Leonardo DiCaprio jet-set across the Atlantic, burning some 30,000 liters of kerosene – all to pick up an environmental award! Also read here and here. We reported here how retired German climate scientist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke announced there is no detectable human fingerprint to be found in today’s climate change — and he called the science “a dangerous ideology“. Dutch geologist Gerrit van der Lingen even called it “a mass hysteria” and that historians will one day “shake their heads in disbelief“. June: PIK warns of mini ice age! Faulty models The ultra-alarmist PIK Potsdam Institute released a shocker, warning of a mini ice age — due to solar activity! Kenneth Richard then published a list of 50 papers showing that CO2 climate sensitivity is seriously overstated. He also published a list of 21 papers showing that the models aren’t working very well. July: NASA “data fraud”; ruthless wind industry In July Tony Heller presented NASA’s climate data fraud and how the trends are “manipulated and fake”. So far the video has been viewed at YouTube close to 24,000 times. In July we presented just how ruthless the wind industry can be, where it is suspected they destroyed a stork’s nest to clear the way for wind turbines. This shocked environmentalists. Central Europe’s summer was hardly balmy this year, as a rare snow fell down to 1500 meters elevation in the middle of the summer. The flood of skeptic papers grew in volume, Kenneth Richard wrote. Already just in the first half of 2016 some 240 papers casting doubt over climate alarmism were published. August: No sea level rise signal; oceans drive climate Again many new papers surfaced, obliterating the notion that the climate system is rushing to disaster. With this in mind it is truly unbelievable that a number of attorneys general attempted to silence skeptics using the brute force of the racketeering influenced corrupt organizations (RICO) act. – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/24/2016-highlights-tsunami-of-skeptic-papers-and-desperate-attempts-to-silence-dissenters/#sthash.4Gn99rRF.dpuf

Hundreds More Papers Published In 2021 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

February 23, 2022

https://notrickszone.com/2022/02/14/hundreds-more-papers-published-in-2021-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hundreds-more-papers-published-in-2021-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm By Kenneth Richard In 2021, several hundred more scientific papers were 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 scientific 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 the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines. 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/precipitation extremes…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; the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible; and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation. 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, lower mortality with warming). 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 1 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 scientific papers compiled in 2021 support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. These papers do not do more than that. In other words, it is too ambitious to claim these papers prove that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) positions are invalid, or that AGW claims have now been “debunked”. Below are the two links to the list of scientific papers for 2021 as well as an outline to their categorization. Skeptic Papers 2021 (1) Skeptic Papers 2021 (2) 1. Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions No Net Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher When CO2 <280 ppm Glaciers, Ice Sheets, Sea Ice Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change Solar Influence On Climate ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence Climate/Precipitation Natural Variability Cloud Climate Influence The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies Corals Thrive In Warm, High CO2 Environments Elevated CO2, Warmth, Does Not Harm The Biosphere Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields Global Warming Reduces Mortality. Cold Kills. Urbanization Artificially Adds To Warming Trend Fires No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes No Increasing Trend In Drought Frequency, Severity Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink Elevated CO2 Does Not Harm Human Cognition Miscellaneous Below are a few samples of the papers contained in the database. Koutsoyiannis, 2021 [T]he modern definitions of climate are seriously affected by the wrong perception of the previous two centuries that climate should regularly be constant, unless an external agent acts upon it. … [H]eat exchange by evaporation (and hence the latent heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere) is the Earth’s natural locomotive, with the total energy involved in the hydrological cycle being 1290 ZJ/year, corresponding to an energy flux density of 80 W/m2. Compared to human energy production (0.612 ZJ/year for 2014), the total energy of the natural locomotive is 2100 times higher than that of the human locomotive … Even though in the common perception it is carbon dioxide (CO2) that determines the greenhouse effect of the Earth, recent studies (Schmidt et al. [69]) attribute only 19% of the longwave radiation absorption to CO2 against 75% of water vapour and clouds, or a ratio of 1:4. … Another misconception, common in nonexperts, is that atmospheric CO2; is the product of human emissions, while in fact the latter contribute only 3.8% to the global carbon cycle. … [U]sing reliable instrumental measurements of global T and CO2 concentration covering the time interval 1980–2019, a recent study found that in the relationship of CO2 and temperature, the dominant causality direction is T → CO2, rather than the other way round, despite the latter being the common perception. Smirnov and Zhilyaev 2021 Because carbon dioxide molecules do not absorb in the additional spectrum range between 1200 cm−1 and 2600 cm−1, the radiative parameters due to CO2 molecules are close in these evaluations and in the previous one. In particular, the variation in radiative fluxes as a result of the change in the carbon dioxide amount in the atmosphere for these calculations are close. In this evaluation as well as previous evaluations, we have a contradiction with the results of climatological models in the analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, according to which the increase in the global temperature differs by five times. [T]he large difference results from ignoring, in climatological models, the Kirchhoff law [50], according to which radiators are simultaneously the absorbers. In this case, we take the change in the radiative flux created by CO2 molecules as the change of the total radiative flux. Note the restrictions by the frequency range up to 1200 cm−1 in the previous calculations [1]; we thus assume that the atmosphere is transparent for larger frequencies, and the emission at larger frequencies is determined by clouds. However, according to the HITRAN data bank, water molecules absorb effectively in the enlarged frequency range. [A]tmospheric CO2 molecules are not the main radiator of the atmosphere. From these evaluations, it follows that water molecules in the atmosphere may be responsible for the observed heating of the Earth. Coe et al., 2021 The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact. Stefani, 2021 The paper aims to quantify solar and anthropogenic influences on climate change, and to make some tentative predictions for the next hundred years. By means of double regression, we evaluate linear combinations of the logarithm of the carbon dioxide concentration and the geomagnetic aa index as a proxy for solar activity. Thereby, we reproduce the sea surface temperature (HadSST) since the middle of the 19th century with an adjusted R2 value of around 87 percent for a climate sensitivity (of TCR type) in the range of 0.6 K until 1.6 K per doubling of CO2. The solution of the double regression is quite sensitive: when including data from the last decade, the simultaneous occurrence of a strong El Niño and of low aa values leads to a preponderance of solutions with relatively high climate sensitivities around 1.6 K. If these later data are excluded, the regression delivers a significantly higher weight of the aa index and, correspondingly, a lower climate sensitivity going down to 0.6 K. The plausibility of such low values is discussed in view of recent experimental and satellite-borne measurements. We argue that a further decade of data collection will be needed to allow for a reliable distinction between low and high sensitivity values. In the second part, which builds on recent ideas about a quasi-deterministic planetary synchronization of the solar dynamo, we make a first attempt to predict the aa index and the resulting temperature anomaly for various typical CO2 scenarios. Even for the highest climate sensitivities, and an unabated linear CO2 increase, we predict only a mild additional temperature rise of around 1 K until the end of the century, while for the lower values an imminent temperature drop in the near future, followed by a rather flat temperature curve, is prognosticated.

Over 440 Scientific Papers Published In 2019 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

January 30, 2020

https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/30/over-440-scientific-papers-published-in-2019-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/ By Kenneth Richard In 2019, more than 440 scientific papers were 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. Image Source: Collins et al., 2019 Image Source: Lüning et al.,2019 Image Source: Yan et al., 2019 Image Source: Pereira et al., 2019 Image Source: Duvat, 2019 Image Source: Gao et al., 2019 Over 440 scientific papers published in 2019 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 the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines. 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, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation. 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, lower mortality with warming). 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 1 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 440+ papers compiled in 2019 support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus”A(1)-A(4) positions. These 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 scientific papers for 2019 as well as an outline to their categorization. Skeptic Papers 2019 (1) Skeptic Papers 2019 (2) Skeptic Papers 2019 (3) 1. Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction (189) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (63) No Net Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century (25) Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (19) Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (24) Nothing Unusual Occurring With Glaciers, Polar Ice (46) Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall (5) Ice Sheet Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (4) Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (3) 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change (131) Solar Influence On Climate (73) ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (11) Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (25) Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (3) Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (2) The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (17) 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling (121) Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors (26) Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (8) Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (13) Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (3) Corals Thrive In Warm, High CO2 Environments (6) Elevated CO2, Warmth, Does Not Harm The Biosphere (7) No Effect Of Elevated CO2 (5000-15,000 ppm) On Human Cognition, Health (2) Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (27) Fire Frequency Declining As CO2 Rises (3) Global Warming Reduces Mortality. Cold Kills. (7) No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes/Storms (3) No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (4) Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink (3) Miscellaneous (9)

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

June 17, 2019

‘Consensus’? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism By Kenneth Richard on 17. June 2019 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 mainstream 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 1 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… Posted in Alarmism, Antarctic, Arctic, Climate Sensitivity, CO2 and GHG, Cooling/Temperature, Drought and Deserts, Emissions, Glaciers, Models, Natural Oceanic Oscillations, Natural Variability, Paleo-climatology, Sea Ice, Sea Levels, Solar Sciences, Tectonics/Volcanoes, Warming/CO2 Benefiting Earth, Wind Power | 1 Response One response to “‘Consensus’? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism” tom0mason 17. June 2019 at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Reply 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 1 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.

White House might make federal scientists debate skeptics — ‘Could produce a series of white papers… essentially establishing a formal record of climate contrarianism’

June 6, 2019

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060492967 Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter Climatewire: Thursday, June 6, 2019 The Trump administration is weighing its “red team, blue team” climate debate options. Pictured is President Trump as he attended a D-Day commemoration yesterday in Portsmouth, England. Avalon.red/Newscom A White House plan to debate the accuracy of climate science has hit a snag: Mainstream scientists are unlikely to participate.Without a credible team of researchers who accept established climate science, the idea would fall flat, according to two people involved in the discussions. To get around that challenge, top officials planning the “red team” debate have floated the idea of requiring scientists at NASA or NOAA to participate, the sources said. Another idea would be to require the National Academy of Sciences to review and respond to the work of the team in charge of highlighting uncertainties in the research that underlies the National Climate Assessment. While the sources said the exercise could debut in the coming weeks, they also cautioned that the current state of discussions is fluid. The effort’s newest iteration is more modest than earlier proposals. Will Happer, a director on the National Security Council, had envisioned creating a rapid response team to upend the conclusions of government reports on climate change. Initial discussions considered using an executive order to create a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” It appears that those have been sidelined after facing pressure from within the administration, according to sources. Among the plan’s critics are deputy chief of staff Chris Liddell; Kevin Hassett, the outgoing chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council; and Kelvin Droegemeier, the president’s science adviser. Happer has been consulting with researchers and think tank analysts about his plan. He has conducted at least two briefings with Trump about his views of climate science, the sources said. Happer has also briefed Jared Kushner, who is supportive of the plan, according to sources. Another White House official who has gotten behind the idea is Brooke Rollins, who served as an assistant to Trump in the Office of American Innovation and was the former head of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which has a history of questioning climate science. The scaled-back goal of the current plan is to provide a back-and-forth examination of climate science in which researchers who question mainstream conclusions about warming would perform equivalently with scientists representing the vast majority of experts who accept that human activity is raising temperatures. The exercise could produce a series of white papers from both sides, essentially establishing a formal record of climate contrarianism. The papers could act as a “correction” or addendum to the National Climate Assessment released last year, according to one source. The National Climate Assessment has been peer-reviewed and is based on the work of hundreds of studies. Those in talks to participate as contrarians in the initiative include John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Judith Curry, former head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. A possible leader of the exercise is Paul Robinson, a former Department of Energy official who oversaw talks about nuclear weapons tests with the Soviet Union during the Cold War but who is not trained in climate science. The effort would be a revival of the “red team, blue team” idea embraced by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt but that was ultimately scuttled by former White House chief of staff John Kelly. Twitter: @scottpwaldman Email: [email protected]

Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

January 4, 2019

NoTricksZone: Not here to worship what is known, but to question it … Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm by Kenneth Richard / Yesterday, 04:55 In 2018, over 500 scientific papers were 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. More than 500 scientific papers published in 2018 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 the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines. 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. Solar Influence On Climate (103) ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (22) Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (8) Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (4) Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (3) 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. No Net Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century (36) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (76) Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (16) Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (18) Nothing Unusual Occurring With Glaciers, Polar Ice (33) Polar Bear (and other) Populations Not Decreasing (10) Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (10) Coral Bleaching A Natural, Non-Anthropogenic Phenomenon (2) No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes/Storms (8) No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (7) Global Fire Frequency Declining As CO2 Rises (2) CO2 Changes Lag Temperature Changes By 1000+ Years (3) N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation. Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors (27) No AGW Changes To Hydrological Cycle Detectable (6) The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (12) 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, lower mortality with warming). Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (17) Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (19) Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (20) Global Warming Saves Lives. Cold Kills. (9) Global Losses/Deaths From Weather Disasters Declining (2) 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 1 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 500+ papers compiled in 2018 support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus”A(1)-A(4) positions. These papers do not do more than that. In other words, it is not accurate to claim these papers provethat anthropogenic global warming (AGW) positions are invalid, or that AGW claims have now been “debunked”. There were just over 500 papers published in 2016. Skeptic Papers 2016 There were just under 500 papers published in 2017. Skeptic Papers 2017 Between 2016 and 2018 there were about 1,500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published that support a skeptical position on climate alarm. Below are the three links to the list of scientific papers for 2018 as well as an outline to their categorization. Skeptic Papers 2018 (1) Skeptic Papers 2018 (2) Skeptic Papers 2018 (3) 1. Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction (189) No Net Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century (36) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (76) Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (16) Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (18) Nothing Unusual Occurring With Glaciers, Polar Ice (33) Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall (3) Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (2) Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (5) 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change (152) Solar Influence On Climate (103) ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (22) Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (8) Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (4) Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (3) The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (12) 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling (161) Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors (27) Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5) Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (17) Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (19) Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (20) Polar Bear (and other) Populations Not Decreasing (10) Global Warming Saves Lives. Cold Kills. (9) Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (10) Coral Bleaching Is A Natural, Non-Anthropogenic Phenomenon (2) No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes/Storms (8) No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (7) Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink (5) Global Fire Frequency Declining As CO2 Rises (2) CO2 Changes Lag Temperature Changes By 1000+ Years (3) Global Losses/Deaths From Weather Disasters Declining (2) No AGW Changes To Hydrological Cycle Detectable (6) Peak Oil As Myth (3) Miscellaneous (16)

Analysis: 368 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

October 16, 2018

Missed A Few, IPCC? 368 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism By Kenneth Richard on 15. October 2018 In the first 9½ months of 2018, 368 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 368 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 1 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 368 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 three links to the list of 2018 papers amassed as of the 15th of October, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization. Finally, a sampling of some of the new papers is also included below. Skeptic Papers 2018 (1) Skeptic Papers 2018 (2) Skeptic Papers 2018 (3) Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (30) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (58) Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (12) Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (12) A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (25) Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall (3) Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (2) Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (5) Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change Solar Influence On Climate (78) ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (19) Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (8) Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (4) Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (2) The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (9) Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (19) Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (3) Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (11) Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (10) Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (7) Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (7) Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (7) Coral Bleaching A Natural, Non-Anthropogenic Phenomenon (2) No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (6) No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (6) Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink (5) Global Fire Frequency Declining As CO2 Rises (2) CO2 Change Lags Temperature Change By 1000+ Years (3) Miscellaneous (12) Scientists: We Don’t Understand (1) Non-Hockey Sticks: A Few Thousand Years Ago It Was 1-3°C Warmer Than Today Papadomanolaki et al., 2018 (Baltic Sea) A large fraction of the Baltic Proper became hypoxic again between 1.4 and 0.7 ka BP, during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), when mean air temperatures were 0.9–1.4 °C higher than temperatures recorded in the period 1961–1990 (e.g. Mann et al., 2009; Jilbert and Slomp, 2013). Leonard et al., 2018 (Great Barrier Reef, Australia) Coral derived sea surface temperature (SST-Sr/Ca) reconstructions demonstrate conditions ∼1 ◦C warmer than present at ∼6200 (recalibrated 14C) and 4700 yr BP, with a suggested increase in salinity range (δ18O) associated with amplified seasonal flood events, suggestive of La Niña (Gagan et al., 1998; Roche et al., 2014). Suvorov and Kitov, 2018 (Eastern Sayan, Siberia) The authors examined the variability of activity of modern glaciation and variation of natural conditions of the periglacial zone on climate and on dendrochronological data. Results of larch and Siberian stone pine growth data were revealed at the higher border of forest communities. … It is believed that the temperature could be 3.5 °C warmer at the Holocene optimum than at the present time (Vaganov and Shiyatov 2005). … Since 2000, there has been growth of trees instability associated with a decrease in average monthly summer temperatures. … Since the beginning of 2000, decrease in summer temperatures was marked. Lozhkin et al., 2018 (East Siberia) The postglacial occurrence of relatively warm/dry and warm/wet intervals is consistent with results of a regional climate‐model simulation that indicates warmer than present temperatures and decreased effective moisture at 11 000 cal. a BP and persistence of warm conditions but with greater moisture and longer growing season at 6000 cal. a BP. Smith, 2018 (Greenland Ice Sheet) To project how much sea level will rise in response to ongoing climate warming, one of the things we need to know is how sensitive the rate of Greenland Ice Sheet melting is to rising temperatures. McFarlin et al. present results from a set of sediment cores from a small nonglacial lake in the highlands of northwest Greenland, which contain deposits from the Holocene and the Last Interglacial (LIG). They found midge assemblages indicating peak July temperatures that were 4.0° to 7.0°C warmer than modern temperatures during the early Holocene and at least 5.5° to 8.5°C warmer during the LIG. This perspective of extreme warming suggests that even larger changes than predicted for this region over the —–coming century may be in store. Kullman, 2018 (Scandes, Northern Sweden) The present paper reports results from an extensive project aiming at improved understanding of postglacial subalpine/alpine vegetation, treeline, glacier and climate history in the Scandes of northern Sweden. The main methodology is analyses of mega fossil tree remnants, i.e. trunks, roots and cones, recently exposed at the fringe of receding glaciers and snow/ice patches. This approach has a spatial resolution and accuracy, which exceeds any other option for tree cover reconstruction in high-altitude mountain landscapes. … All recovered tree specimens originate from exceptionally high elevations, about 600-700 m atop of modern treeline positions. … Conservatively drawing on the latter figure and a summer temperature lapse rate of 0.6 °C per 100 m elevation (Laaksonen 1976), could a priori mean that, summer temperatures were at least 4.2 °C warmer than present around 9500 year before present. However, glacio-isostatic land uplift by at least 100 m since that time (Möller 1987; Påsse & Anderson 2005) implies that this figure has to be reduced to 3.6 °C higher than present-day levels, i.e. first decades of the 21st century. Evidently, this was the warmth peak of the Holocene, hitherto. This inference concurs with paleoclimatic reconstructions from Europe and Greenland (Korhola et al. 2002; Bigler et al. 2003; Paus 2013; Luoto et al. 2014; Väliranta et al. 2015). Borisova, 2018 (central East European Plain) Paleobotanical assemblages from peat, lake, and archaeological deposits reveal that during the Middle Holocene (MH; ca. 9.0 to 4.7 kyr BP), the central East European Plain was occupied by highly productive and diverse mixed-oak forests, along with mire, meadow, and riverine communities. Climatic reconstructions based on modern analogues of fossil pollen and plant macrofossil assemblages indicate that throughout the MH [Middle Holocene] mean annual precipitation was at near present levels (~600 mm) and July temperatures were similar to those of today (~17°C). However, differences in the Fossil Floras (FFs) suggest changes in winter conditions though the MH [Middle Holocene, 9.0 to 4.7 kyr BP], with January temperatures higher than the present-day value of -10°C by 2°C in the Early Atlantic, 6°C in the Middle Atlantic, and 3°C in the Late Atlantic-Early Subboreal. The annual frost-free period was 15 days longer than today in the Early Atlantic, about one month longer in the Late Atlantic, and became close to present by the beginning of the Subboreal. The combination of warm winters with diverse and productive vegetation communities provided an environment that was more hospitable than that of today for Late Mesolithic and Neolithic societies. McFarlin et al., 2018 (Greenland) Early Holocene peak warmth has been quantified at only a few sites, and terrestrial sedimentary records of prior interglacials are exceptionally rare due to glacial erosion during the last glacial period. Here, we discuss findings from a lacustrine archive that records both the Holocene and the Last Interglacial (LIG) from Greenland, allowing for direct comparison between two interglacials. Sedimentary chironomid assemblages indicate peak July temperatures [Greenland] 4.0 to 7.0 °C warmer than modern during the Early Holocene maximum [10,000 to 8,000 years ago] in summer insolation. Chaoborus and chironomids in LIG sediments indicate July temperatures at least 5.5 to 8.5 °C warmer than modern. Bartels et al., 2018 (North Atlantic Region) During summer, AW [Atlantic Water] rises up to waterdepths as shallow as ~55 m. … Summer surface temperatures [1955-2012] range between up to 3°C at the northern mouth and <-1.5 °C at the southern mouth of the Hinlopen Strait, while winter surface temperatures vary between 0.5 and <~1.5°C(averaged, 1955–2012; Locarnini et al. 2013). … Increased summer insolation probably amplified the surface melting of the glaciers resulting in enhanced meltwater production and in a very high accumulation of finegrained sediments within the fjord […]. In addition, during the mild early Holocene conditions, summer sea-surface temperatures probably reaching 8–10°C [~5 – 9.5°C warmer than 1955-2012] (indicated by M. edulis findings as discussed in Hansen et al. 2011) may have contributed to reducing the number of glaciers that entered the fjord directly as tidewater glaciers and thus causing a diminished IRD input. These comparably warm surface temperatures most likely resulted in a reduced sea ice cover during summer, which is also reflected in the sea-ice biomarker data exhibiting lowest IP25 values during the early Holocene. … [G]lacier advances are most likely caused by atmospheric cooling as indicated, e.g. by d18O values from the Greenland NGRIP ice-core (Rasmussen et al. 2014a), by data from peats and permafrost soils on Spitsbergen (e.g. Humlum et al. 2003; Humlum 2005; Jaworski 2016), and by evidence that solar activity reduced around 2.7 ka, contributing to a cooling in both hemispheres (van Geel et al. 1999, 2000). … In lake sediments from northwestern Spitsbergen a temperature drop of ~6°C is recorded between c. 7.8 and c. 7 ka [-0.8°C per century], which has been connected to a stronger influence of Arctic Water and expanding sea ice (van der Bilt et al. 2018). Street-Perrot et al., 2018 (Estonia) Estimates of summer temperatures in Estonia based on rapidly responding proxies such as aquatic macrofossils (Valiranta et al., 2015) and chironomids (Heiri et al., 2014) suggest conditions 2 °C warmer than today during the early Holocene. Pozachenuk, 2018 (Western Russia) Mass peat accumulation in the territory of Vyatka region began only in the first half of the Atlantic Holocene period. The maximum warming corresponds to the second half of at (climatic optimum Holocene), when the average temperatures of January and July exceeded modern 2-3˚C. at this time in the region formed coniferous-broad-leaved forests of complex composition, with a slight presence of broad-leaved species (Qercus, Tilia, Ulmus) and Corulus. Siberian element of flora-fir on the territory of Vyatka region appeared only in the Subatlantic period of Holocene, most likely due to climatic conditions. Kolaczek et al., 2018 (Southeastern Poland) The reconstruction of the mean July temperature based on Chironomidae revealed the exceptionally high rate of warming during the period of ca. 11,490–11,460 cal. BP (at least 1 °C per decade) up to values > 2 °C than modern ones. … Between ca. 11,490 and 11,460 cal. BP, the strongest warming trend in the Early Holocene MJT was registered, that is from 15 to 20.7°C (0.19°C yr1, 1.9°C/decade). Then, ca. 11,450 cal. BP, the temperature decreased to 18.3°C and up to ca. 10,560 cal. BP MJT fluctuated between 17  and 19°C. The climate of the area [today] is classified as cold temperate with mean annual air temperature of 8.2°C and mean annual precipitation 620 mm. A mean temperature of the warmest month, i.e. July, is +18.2°C[today], whereas a mean temperature of the coldest month, i.e. January, is -3.6°C. Ruskeeniemi et al., 2018 (Greenland Ice Sheet) Towards the Holocene Climatic Optimum, temperatures steadily increased and were 2.5°C higher than at present during 8000-5000 cal years BP. It is suggested that the GrIS started to re-advance after 4400 cal years BP due to cooling, with 0.5°C lower temperatures than at present around 2000 years BP. Within the LIA, Dahl-Jensen et al. (1998) identified two cold periods at 1550 AD and 1850 AD, with temperatures respectively 0.5°C and 0.7°C below the present values. At around 1930 AD, the temperatures reached a maximum and have slightly decreased thereafter. The CO2 Greenhouse Effect: Climate Driver? Davis et al., 2018 [T]he contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal. Smirnov, 2018 From this, it follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, where the error accounts for the accuracy of used values, whereas the result depends on processes included in the above scheme. Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved. Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect. Fleming, 2018 This manuscript will review the essence of the role of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coeﬃcients. A review of the new theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic ﬁeld interacting with cosmic rays, is provided. The application of this new theory is applied to climate-change events within the latter part of the Earth’s interglacial period. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any signiﬁcant change of the Earth’s climate. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030. Holmes, 2018 In short, there is unlikely to be any significant net warming from the greenhouse effect on any planetary body in the parts of atmospheres which are >10kPa. Instead, it is proposed that the residual temperature difference between the effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature, is a thermal enhancement caused by gravitationally-induced adiabatic auto compression, powered by convection. A new null hypothesis of global warming or climate change is therefore proposed and argued for; one which does not include any anomalous or net warming from greenhouse gases in the tropospheric atmospheres of any planetary body. … A decline of 6% in lower tropospheric tropical cloud cover (15°N–15°S) occurred 1984 – 2000 according to the international satellite cloud climatology project’s data [29]. These years are contained well with the 1975-2000 period of warming, and an observed 0.4°C rise in global temperatures occurred over the same period. Scatter diagrams [55] of low cloud cover vs global surface air temperatures indicate that a 1% fall in low clouds equates to a 0.07°C rise in surface air temperatures – hence this change in cloudiness accounts for the entire observed rise in global temperatures during the 1975-2000 period, leaving no room for any effect from growing greenhouse gases. Ollila, 2018 The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years). … The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist. … The CO2 emissions from 2000 onward represent about one-third of the total emissions since 1750, but the temperature has not increased, and it has paused at the present level. This is worthy proof that the IPCC’s climate model has overestimated human-induced causes and has probably underestimated natural causes like the sun’s activity changes, considering the historical temperatures during the past 2000 years. … The RF [radiative forcing] value for the CO2 concentration of 560 ppm is 2.16 Wm−2 according to equation (3), which is 42 per cent smaller than 3.7 Wm−2 used by the IPCC. The same study of Ollila (2014) shows that the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter λ is 0.27 K/(Wm−2), which means that there is no water feedback. Using this λ value, equation (3) gives a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] value of 0.6°C only. This same result is also reported by Harde (2014) using the spectral analysis method. …There are both theoretical- and measurement-based studies showing results that can be explained only by the fact that there is no positive water feedback. This result reduces the CS [climate sensitivity] by 50 per cent. Some research studies show that the RF [radiative forcing] value of carbon dioxide is considerably smaller than the commonly used RF value, according to the equation of Myhre et al. (1998). Because of these two causes, the critical studies show a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] of about 0.6°C instead of 1.9°C by the IPCC, a 200 per cent difference. Liu and Chen, 2018 CO2 and temperature records at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and other observation stations show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not significant. These stations are located away from big cities, and in various latitudes and hemispheres. But the correlation is significant in global mean data. Over the last five decades, CO2 has grown at an accelerating rate with no corresponding rise in temperature in the stations. This discrepancy indicates that CO2 probably is not the driving force of temperature change globally but only locally(mainly in big cities). We suggest that the Earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too low to drive global temperature change. Our empirical perception of the global warming record is due to the urban heat island effect: temperature rises in areas with rising population density and rising industrial activity. This effect mainly occurs in the areas with high population and intense human activities, and is not representative of global warming. Regions far from cities, such as the Mauna Loa highland, show no evident warming trend. The global monthly mean temperature calculated by record data, widely used by academic researchers, shows R~2=0.765, a high degree of correlation with CO2. However, the R~2 shows much less significance (mean R~2=0.024) if calculated by each record for 188 selected stations over the world. This test suggests that the inflated high correlation between CO2 and temperature(mean R~2=0.765-0.024=0.741) used in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) was very likely produced during data correction and processing. This untrue global monthly mean temperature has created a picture: human emission drives global warming. Laubereau and Iglev, 2018 Using a simple 1-dimensional model the global warming of the surface is computed that is generated by the increase of GHG and the albedo change. A modest effect by the GHG of 0.08 K is calculated for the period 1880 to 1955 with a further increase by 0.18 K for 1955 to 2015. A larger contribution of 0.55 ± 0.05 K is estimated for the melting of polar sea ice (MSI) in the latter period, i.e. it notably exceeds that of the GHG and may be compared with the observed global temperature rise of 1.0 ± 0.1 K during the past 60 years. … In conclusion we wish to say that we have performed a study of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide, methane, dinitrogen-oxide and water to estimate their contribution to the global warming in 1880 – 2015. Our results suggest that the IR properties of the CO2 are responsible for ~ 20% of the mean temperature increase of the surface and notably less for CH4 and N2O.

What Scientific ‘Consensus’?! 254 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate

June 28, 2018

http://notrickszone.com/2018/06/28/what-scientific-consensus-254-new-2018-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarmism/ By Kenneth Richard on 28. June 2018 In just the first 6 months of 2018, 254 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 254 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 1 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 254 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 three links to the list of 2018 papers amassed as of the 28th of June, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization. Skeptic Papers 2018 (1) Skeptic Papers 2018 (2) Skeptic Papers 2018 (3) Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (29) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (35) Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (8) Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (8) A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (15) Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall (3) Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (1) Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (1) Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change Solar Influence On Climate (51) ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (16) Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (5) Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (4) Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (1) The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (7) Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (12) Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (2) Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (8) Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (10) Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (2) Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (6) Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (5) No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (4) No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (5) Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (1) Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink (5) CO2 Change Lags Temperature Change By 1000+ Years (2) Miscellaneous (7) Scientists: We Don’t Understand (1)

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

October 24, 2017

By Kenneth Richard on 23. October 2017 A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Science During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 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 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 (106 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 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 (106) 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 Theoretical Greenhouse Effect As Climate Driver (11) 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 (27) No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (11) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (49) Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (7) A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (30) Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic (6)

Already 285 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

July 5, 2017

By Kenneth Richard on 3. July 2017 A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Science During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already 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 285 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 (84 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (31 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. By Kenneth Richard on 3. July 2017 A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Science During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already 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 285 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 (84 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (31 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.

Search Results for: skeptic papers