What Consensus? 250 Peer-Reviewed Papers Doubt AGW in 2015; More Coming in 2016

Kenneth Richard presents a list of 250 peer-reviewed papers published in 2015 supporting the skeptical position that natural factors are in fact a dominant climate driver, and the publishing pace seems to be accelerating with nearly 50 papers already published in 2016 showing that CO2 climate science is exaggerated and that natural factors are indeed dominant climate forces that will not be tamed by man emitting a trace gas.

Here’s a small sampling of some of the conclusions:

“Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes.” geology.gsapubs.org

“Solar minimum conditions reinforce the high pressure above Greenland together with a weakening of the other two North Atlantic pressure centres.” ann-geophys.net

“There have been many studies noting correlations between solar cycles and changes in the Earth temperature.” rxiv.org

“Ocean heat content anomaly (OHCa) time series in some areas of the Pacific are significantly correlated with the total solar irradiance (TSI). ” sciencedirect.com

While there is scientific consensus that global and local mean sea level (GMSL and LMSL) has risen since the late nineteenth century, the relative contribution of natural and anthropogenic forcing remains unclear.” nature.com

“Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus.” nature.com

“Positive (negative) phases of the AMO coincide with warmer (colder) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The AMO is linked with decadal climate fluctuations, such as Indian and Sahel rainfall, European summer precipitation, Atlantic hurricanes and variations in global temperatures. It is widely believed that ocean circulation drives the phase changes of the AMO by controlling ocean heat content. “ nature.com

Advertisements

Ten dire polar bear predictions that have failed as global population hits 20-31k

Polar bears are doing just fine thank you despite all of the alarmist nonsense from 10-15 years ago about their imminent demise due to melting sea ice around the north pole.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Dr. Susan Crockford

Grim predictions of the imminent demise of polar bears – their “harsh prophetic reality” as it’s been called – have been touted since at least 2001. But such depressing prophesies have so widely missed the mark they can now be said to have failed.

Rode and Regehr 2010_Chukchi_report2010_triplets redone PNG

While polar bears may be negatively affected by declines in sea ice sometime in the future, so far there is no convincing evidence that any unnatural harm has come to them. Indeed, global population size (described by officials as a “tentative guess“) appears to have grown slightly over this time, as the maximum estimated number was 28,370 in 1993 (Wiig and colleagues 1995; range 21,470-28,370) but rose to 31,000 in 2015 (Wiig and colleagues 2015, [pdf here] aka 2015 IUCN Red List assessment; range 20,000-31,000).

These ominous prophesies have been promoted primarily by Ian…

View original post 1,385 more words

Very strong graphical evidence for the Pause. (Part 2)

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Sheldon Walker

A quick recap for anybody who missed my first article.

My first article can be found here.

I have developed a new technique for analysing global warming (and other things). It is called Multi Trend Analysis, or MTA. It analyses the data in a time interval, by calculating the trend between every possible pair of points in the interval. The trend includes all of the data points between each pair of points as well. This can involve a lot of trends. To analyse the interval [January 1975 to December 1999] involves 16,920 trends. A trend is basically a linear regression.

I have developed methods that allow large numbers of trends to be analysed quickly, and the results displayed either graphically or in a table. A trend has 4 main attributes, a start date, an end date, a length, and a slope (with global warming, the…

View original post 1,125 more words

Another Study Confirms Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

Fyfe et al, just published at nature.com, provides further confirmation of the ‘slowdown’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming that has been noted by such wide ranging sources as the IPCC AR5, NASA, UAH, RSS, the Met Office, and virtually every other data source on global temperature. Indeed, the much vaunted Karl et al (2015), which claims a few highly questionable ‘adjustments’ to the data (mostly modifications of the sea surface temperatures) effectively erase the ‘hiatus’ is very much an outlier on this matter in the peer reviewed literature. READ MORE…

DMI disappears an inconvenient sea ice graph

Watts Up With That?

One of the graphs we have had on the WUWT sea ice page has been the DMI graph showing 30% concentration of sea ice extent, there has been a widening divergence between the two Arctic sea ice extent graphs produced by DMI.  WUWT reader David Burton writes:

Until a few days ago, Denmark’s Meteorologiske Institut (DMI) graphed Arctic sea ice extent two ways. They had a graph comparing the current year to the preceding ten years’ “30%+ concentration” Arctic sea ice extent, with coastal zones masked out, by graphing each year in a different color on the same horizontal timescale.

DMI-30percent-sea-ice

They also had (and still have) a graph comparing the current year to the preceding four years’ “15%+ concentration” Arctic sea ice extent (and I don’t know how they handle coastal zones in that version). In both graphs, the current (partial) year is plotted with a heavier black line.

View original post 1,287 more words

Are Environmentalism and Global Warming Effectively Religious Socialism?

Dr. Tim Ball (drtimball.com), historical climatologist, retired professor, and author of the Amazon top-100 climatology and environmental science book  The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science (see an excellent review here) gives a succinct and insightful explanation of the genesis of and moving forces behind the massive disinformation campaign that is Climate Change alarmism.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

A scene from the NYC "peoples climate march" in September 2014 A scene from the NYC “peoples climate march” in September 2014

An interesting pattern developed early in the official involvement in global warming. If a person challenged the claim that humans were causing global warming (AGW), it was assumed they were on the political right. If you supported AGW, then you were on the left. This categorization is not related to the science, but to the political nature of the science involved. This occurred in two major parts. The original objective of those using global warming for their political agenda and the marginalizing of those who questioned the science by linking them to industries and their wealthy owners. The author believes the evidence shows that human CO2 is not causing AGW, that the hypothesis is not proved. This article is not written to pick political sides. Rather, it is an attempt to help understand the…

View original post 1,515 more words

Karl et al ‘Pause-buster’ Paper Debunked Again

In June 2015, NOAA NCEI Director Thomas R. Karl published a paper “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” that concludes

Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

In addition to the several problems with the questionable data adjustments made by Karl et al that have been thoroughly documented and analyzed by Bob Tisdale, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Richard S. Lindzen, Arno Arrak, Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, S. Fred Singer, and others in the following articles to name a few: READ MORE…