From Friends of Science Newsletter by Albert Jacobs
Kenneth Richard has compiled a list of 770 papers published since January 1, 2014 that contradict the IPCC consensus statement, see here.
This includes 240 papers published during the first half of 2016, as shown here.
The list of papers includes 43 on solar influences, 27 on natural ocean oscillation, 2 on Rossby waves, 3 on ozone, 6 on the small effect of CO2, 11 on natural variability, 11 on clouds and aerosols, 3 on CO2 stratospheric cooling, 15 on past climates, 4 on settled science, 19 on Climate Model Unreliability, 2 on urban warming, 6 on volcanic forcing, 2 on warming oceans, 7 on miscellaneous topics, 2 on forest fires, 2 on cold vs heat deaths, 6 on climate policy, 7 on extreme weather, 20 on polar ice, 9 on sea level rise, 12 on ocean acidification, 2 on hurricanes, 4 on droughts, 3 on natural climate catastrophe, 7 on greening and crop yields and 1 on low climate sensitivity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
here is a hilarious one
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215300349#FCANote
They Use Hoyt and Schatten TSI
Guess what?
Hoyt and Schatten say there old work is WRONG.
Let me repeat this.
IF your solar paper didnt use Leif’d data on sun spots… THEN
throw your paper in the garbage and start over.
Every last paper connecting solar with any aspect of the climate needs to be done over.
That is WHY…. people need to post their code and data.. makes recompiling the science so much easier
when a denizen of WUWT ( Leif) publishes a major finding.
recompile time solar nuts… your rug got pulled out from underneath you.
This one is SPECIAL
First. It is one the list
http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/#sthash.jsostn1x.zzQvdru2.dpbs
NEXT who ever did this list of papers JUST READ ABSTRACTS
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022022/full
It has been suggested that the Sun may evolve into a period of lower activity over the 21st century. This study examines the potential climate impacts of the onset of an extreme ‘Maunder Minimum like’ grand solar minimum using a comprehensive global climate model. Over the second half of the 21st century, the scenario assumes a decrease in total solar irradiance of 0.12% compared to a reference RCP8.5 experiment. The decrease in solar irradiance cools the stratopause (c. 1 hPa) in the annual and global mean by 1.4 K. The impact on global mean near-surface temperature is small (c. -0.1 K), but larger changes in regional climate occur during the stratospheric dynamically active seasons. In Northern hemisphere (NH) winter-time, there is a weakening of the stratospheric westerly jet by up to c. 3-4 m s1, with the largest changes occurring in January-February. This is accompanied by a deepening of the Aleutian low at the surface and an increase in blocking over northern Europe and the north Pacific. There is also an equatorward shift in the Southern hemisphere (SH) midlatitude eddy-driven jet in austral spring. The occurrence of an amplified regional response during winter and spring suggests a contribution froma top-down pathway for solar-climate coupling; this is tested using an experiment in which ultraviolet (200-320 nm) radiation is decreased in isolation of other changes. The results show that a large decline in solar activity over the 21st century could have important impacts on the stratosphere and regional surface climate.
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/#sthash.jsostn1x.zzQvdru2.dpuf
##########################
FROM THE PAPER
THE SUN HAS ALMOST NO EFFECT
“The key conclusions of the study for projections of global mean climate are as follows:
The change in global mean near-surface temperature over the second half of the 21st century is O(0.1 K), confirming the findings of earlier studies which have shown that a large decrease in solar activity would do little to offset the projected anthropogenic global warming trend [cf. Feulner and Rahmstorf, 2010, Jones et al., 2011, Meehl et al., 2013, Anet et al., 2013].”
in fact the paper SUPPORTS the work of RC author Ramesdorf
COME ON SKEPTICS.. read the paper.
Steve, what do you think a 2 w/m^2 decrease in TSI does to temperatures. It puts a lot of the models predicting warming into negative territory, and almost all the models negative from the beginning. There is no correlation between temperature and co2. The instrument error in TSI from the 2000’s is too large to ignore. Without that error, CAGW couldn’t have claimed anything at all. The difference is 8 to 10 w/m^2. That’s a 1 to 1.25 C drop.
They are talking about a 0.12% drop in TSI. They should pray that’s all there is.
My point?
1. the person who made this list just did a search on abstracts and didnt read the paper.
2. Cook and company did a bad job, and this gut did a worse job.
3. Folks do NOT make WUWT look good by reposting crap that took me 2 minutes to debunk.
Your point?
1. try to change the subject.
2. refuse to admit the poster made a mistake…
3. just “move on” to the next point…. Hey I thought Michael Mann patented that move. copy cat
@ur momisugly Steven Mosher
July 13, 2016 at 2:27 pm
It sounds like someone has discovered a perpetual motion/energy machine. So if I put a layer of CO2 over my stove, I won’t have to turn the burner on to boil water since the CO2 layer will just make it hotter and hotter? The “Anthropogenic Global Warming Effect” will boil the oceans maybe? Who was it again who said that?
Somehow, I think the science is more complex than a simple CO2 control knob. There is a huge water based capacitor in the loop somewhere plus a big heat source.
Well maybe the sun/earth analogy is more like a heat lamp shining on someone in bed with no heat on in the house. The heat lamp will warm the body (plus the body has its own small internal heat engine). But the layer next to the body can cool by convection, conduction and radiation. Now put a blanket (clouds) over the body and it slows the heat losses and the body warms. The heat source(s) are the same. However, the blanket didn’t cause the warming, it only slowed the cooling. Now shut the lamp off for 12 hours and turn it on for 12 hours and watch the temperature lag with and without the blanket. Isn’t that why someone invented the thermos? Isn’t the earth just a giant variable capacitor/thermos?
Who has shown definitively that the last 50 years demonstrates Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming when there apparently were so many other warm periods? How do we know it isn’t natural variation when we have only had satellite data for 40 years+- out of 4 billion? Rate of change? Do we know prior rates of change? How good are the computer models – GIGO.
I think Crichton’s writings have as much value as many studies. State of Fear was entertaining and sort of foretold where we are though I don’t buy the conspiracy theory. More like a state of ignorance in spite of all the detailed analysis.
Bjorn Lomborg has it right. There really isn’t anything to worry about. Looks to me like everything is going to be alright in the end; and if it isn’t alright, it isn’t the end. 😉
Any reason for usingRCP8.5?
It assumes, that’s what RCP8.5 is . They don’t know. A 4 w/m^2 drop in TSI puts us in a very cold cooling trend. They assume 0.12% for the sake of AGW. Cooling would start at a 0.146% decrease in TSI, or about 2 w/m^2. The insulation from the earth’s orbit changes the TSI between 1360 to 1362. A decrease to 1358 to 1360 isn’t possible? Let’s assume a 0.29% change in TSI….. let’s compare that to the metrics using the TSI that was in error which was 1368 to 1370. A very convenient error.
” the scenario assumes ” …
Yes.
RCP 8.5 gives you an upper bound.
The difference between guessing 0.12% and 0.15% is substantial when it comes to our closet star. RCP8.5 doesn’t establish anything. They have no basis even at 0.12%. And the decline based on instrument error is 0.73%. That’s 6 times that amount. Like I said, a very convenient error. And whoops they have a case of instant amnesia when it comes to remembering how they arrived at those numbers in the first place. Then go about as if nothing is wrong.
But then this has nothing to do with the topic about published papers. Which I’m sure I’ll be reminded of. How dare I refute a bogus claim about TSI in the middle of a paper discussion! Why I might be redirecting the conversation.
What else do I think about TSI? That in the not so distant past, I think the TSI declined 4.5%. It certainly wasn’t the co2. There wasn’t that much of to start with. And if you plug those co2 levels in the equation they don’t work. . What, the sun can’t do that?
This article is pure denial
It has always been a fantasy and will always be such until scientists register as scientists and vote on the matter. But science is not done that way. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not deemed true through some sort of voting process.
No scientist believes AGW is true because of the consensus. Its true because of physics.
However, when people who cannot understand the physics want to know “Is it true”
They can quite rationally ask the question “What do scientists think”
And the answer is simple.
Scientists who publish in the field.. know it’s true.
So where is their proof of theory?
No it is false because of physics. The AGW conjecture is seriously flawed. There is evidence that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science
“EVEN IF THE CHANGE IN TOTAL ENERGY WAS NEGLIGIBLY SMALL.”
The point of the paper is that, although the TSI variation is negligibly small, variation in spectral composition has important effects. It is not that the sun has no effect on climate.
They are assuming a lot about TSI. It is interesting that a number like 0.12% was chosen. A further reduction of 0.0026% and you have definite cooling trend. I think the real rise in TSI has been about 0.15% since 1850. 3 hundreths of 100 %, who’s going to know ?
Just using CAGW numbers, the alleged warmth can be attributed to 2 things. First, the 0.12% rise in TSI since 1850, and second the instrument error that many of the papers base their conclusions on at 1368 to 1370 w/m^2. Just the slight rise from 1358 to 1360 takes us out of a cooling trend. It is interesting how they got all of their numbers to match in 2001 when there were errors. It’s also interesting how there models based on these errors showed warming from co2, when in fact with correct numbers there should have been cooling.
“The point of the paper is that, although the TSI variation is negligibly small, variation in spectral composition has important effects. It is not that the sun has no effect on climate.”
Yes it does.
However what it does NOT do is drive GW – which is the subject of this article/thread.
That is the point of me pointing that fact out up-thread under an article that supposes to list same under ones that refute “the 97% consensus”.
The consensus is that atmospheric increases of anthro derived CO2 is driving GW, and the papers herein listed pertain to investigating the natural variation of climate overlying that signal.
To boot anything that involves such a tiny variation in TSI that is present in a solar UV decrease ONLY causes regional climate change.
So, Toneb, we agree. There is not Global Climate Change, only local/regional climate change. Summing up all the :”Climate” change (temperatures) is, in a lot of ways, a meaningless statistical exercise. But, hey, without it, I would lose a few hours of entertainment every week. A gradual change in temperature isn’t a big deal, but don’t tell the lobster. ;-0
No we most certainly don’t agree.
Try reading what I wrote.
To boot see this recent article here….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/12/clouds-are-moving-higher-subtropical-dry-zones-expanding-according-to-satellite-analysis/
To see yet another real world observation of a warming world.
I repeat – increased atmospheric CO2 is the agent of that. Other *stuff* happens as well within the climate. Surprisingly climate scientists know both of these things can and do happen simultaneously, and yes, can cause a “pause”. In the same way that an EN cause GMT’s to rise then so do a -ve PDO/LN’s cause GMT’s to lag.
No big deal in your/my lifetime perhaps … But then I’m not a selfish person.
Oh, and not keen on lobster.
Makes me fart.
What?! No papers on the Clean Air Act?
I am not sure what a 0.12% change in TSI will do but I can tell you that a 100% drop in TSI will turn the earth into an ice ball no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere mutes the effects of any changes in TSI as described well in the blanket analogy earlier.
I am sorry, but if the cause of ups and downs in temperature was CO2, the temperature would be rising in lockstep with CO2 levels, or even have a positive feedback that would cause accelerated rise. The pause contradicts this, as does the 1940-70 drop. So there are other factors at play, and the climate scientists do not know the answers, but they’ll say increasingly convoluted reasons to continue to get grant money all the while their models are constantly disproved by reality by increasingly humorous amounts.
I worked on the business side of academics for 10 years at a highly regarded research institution. Anyone who uses “peer review” as their basis for things being correct is a fool. It is a buddy system, I have witnessed it first hand among “top researchers” discussing this in the hallway outside my office. Basically it is “if you peer review and approve my paper, I’ll do the same for you, then we both win.” The top scientists will have the biggest buddy group with as many other top scientists in their field, and they always peer review each other’s work. That’s how they keep their jobs, become tenured professionals, and get lots of free trips to conferences that are always at nice resorts where they can go to the beach or play golf (there were never any conferences in North Dakota in February!). Very often there is no more science that goes into the peer review process than liking someone else’s Facebook post.
“I am not sure what a 0.12% change in TSI will do but I can tell you that a 100% drop in TSI will turn the earth into an ice ball no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.”
And every climate model agrees with you.
0.12% is an assumption not a fact. Too often in arguments that word assumption is conveniently left out and becomes is. From a different point of view, I can say that TSI variability is much higher and has a direct impact on climate. Sunspots numbers may be related or an indicator, but not necessarily. TSI variability may be dependent on several different factors. Some we may not be aware of. There is more proof that TSI varies that affects the climate than co2.
Yes- I read the list. It’s ridiculous. Virtually none of the papers challenge the AGW meme.