‘The 97% climate consensus’ starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it

From Breitbart and No Tricks Zone:

A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.

Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.

According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.

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, as clearly shown in the first 150 graphs (from 2017) on this list.

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).

Below are the two links to the list of 485 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)

Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change  

  • Solar Influence On Climate (121)
  • ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (44)
  • Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (13)
  • Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (9)
  • Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (6)
  • The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (14)

Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

  • Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (28)
  • Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (12)
  • Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (8)
  • Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (13)
  • Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (5)
  • Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (17)
  • Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (3)
  • Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5)
  • No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (4)
  • No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (3)
  • Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Human Source (4)
  • Increasing Snow Cover Since The 1950s (2)
  • Miscellaneous (7)

Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

  • Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (38)
  • No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (12)
  • A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (60)
  • Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (7)
  • A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (32)
  • Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (4)
  • Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic, Southern Ocean (10)
Advertisements

217 thoughts on “‘The 97% climate consensus’ starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it

  1. 485 out of how many?
    There are thousands of climate “science” papers published every year. Many of them are not an analysis of the climate per say, they are an analysis that accepts the alarmist “science” as a given, and then examines the effects on (for example) the three toed leopard frog.

    Is 485 papers a substantial % of the total publsished?

    • Sounds like a research project. If the number 485 is less than or equal to 3% of the number of papers that find new reasons to affirm the CO2-forced-catastrophic-anthropomorphic-global-warming meme, than the oft-claimed 97% consensus is affirmed. A little arithmetic says we’re looking at a minimum universe of 16,100 (or so) papers of which some 15,615 must claim new (or restated) proofs of their theory to reach the oft-mooted 97%.

      • Don’t forget to include titles like “The Effect of Climate Change on Donations to Polio Hospices” and “Climate Change a Causal Cause of Casual Gender Dynamics”.

      • And “Climate Impacts on Sea Snails Located in My Aquarium”.

        And “Climate Change and Revolution: Spartacus to Bolivar”.

        And “An Evaluation of Systemic Measures in Binary Transactions and …uh… Climate Change”.

      • Recently here in NZ an Auckland university professor suggested that the “obesity epidemic” could be linked to climate change.
        And his wallet.

    • Unless there were 16,167 climate science papers published in 2017, 15,682 of which actually provide confirmation of CAGW (rather than just, as you so accurately merely accept it), the 97% is certainly incorrect. John Cook, et al, fabricated the 97.1% number in this 2013 paper. They looked at 11,944 abstracts of climate papers from 1991 to 2011. They found that 66.4% of those took no position on CAGW. Assuming all of the rest did provide confirmation, that leaves a maximum of 4,252 papers for that period, or 425 per year.

      I’d say this is probably much more significant than it might appear at first blush.

    • Counting papers for or against the CAGW theory is no more logical than counting opinions. The point of this list of papers is to show the enormous amount of credible scientific research that shows current climate trends are not unprecedented, or unusual, and that there is ample evidence of natural drivers to explain them. Secondly climate models are amount to unvalidated speculation and are unreliable in predicting future climate trends. There could be 200 times as many papers that either assume or claim otherwise, but if they are not based on valid scientific observation, and rely entirely or partly on the fantasy world of computer modeling then they are not a refutation of the above points.

      • How true. I actually does not matter what anyone says, thinks, writes or graphs. We are going into a very cold time and nothing is going to stop it. When I came to this conclusion in July 2015 I started to think about preparing for such an event, particularly regarding food. One obvious thing to do would to build vast acres of greenhouses. About half an hour ago I read that in China where their winter crops are being destroyed at this very moment, that the roof of green houses have been and are collapsing under the weight of snow.

      • Einstein said that if only one paper disproved him, that’s all it would take. It wouldn’t take a hundred to do it.

      • The previous premise was 97% of “Climate Scientists” agree with the AGW hypothesis as evidenced by the position of published papers, so it must be valid. Now the published paper’s position have shifted so that it’s obvious that the 97% consensus now longer exists.

        My hunch is that the supply of research grants for research supporting AGW has dwindled because the topic is blah now; where research opposing AGW is the “exciting new kid on the block”.

      • Yup! Amazing how they love to throw around those buzzwords to promote climate fear. “Unprecedented” being their favorite, and the MOST ridiculous. Especially when in their parlance, “ever” really means “on record,” and the “records” are a geologic eyeblink that is essentially meaningless.

    • Is 485 papers a substantial % of the total publsished?

      Perhaps it isn’t but have you noticed the lack of papers from all the famous stalwarts in the “Climate Industrial Complex”? i.e. . . the likes of Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth etc. etc.

      Most of the “the three toed leopard frog” variety are invariably some student’s thesis paper.
      I reckon the big names really have little need to publish much these days.
      They’ve evolved to become enablers.

    • Well, if 485 represents the usual 3% deniers’ efforts, there must be at least 16,167 pro-AGW efforts!

  2. Ah, yes … but don’t the Koch Brothers and Exxon and the Canadian oilsands companies all contribute to Breitbart and No Tricks Zone? /sarc

    • “Are those 485 papers a mere 3% of those published? That is the question.”

      Another question might be: if 3% of papers are against in 2017 and only 0.3% were for prior to 2013, doesn’t that point to the fact that their could be a 10:1 consensus against the global warming scam?

    • One item to consider when addressing your questions is that studies which, for example, attempt to predict how ‘whatever’ (frogs, SLR, forest fires, drought, motor oil in tractors, etc) will survive, get worse, perform, etc., in a warming world, are not a finding on whether or not AGHG’s are causing additional GW, AGW. My gut feeling is that most studies fall into this sort of a category; at least, those are the ones that our media writes about most every week.

      • You don’t need studies for that, everything gets worse under climate change.

        And then worse than expected …

    • Actually, it’s not – whether they contain actual scientifically supportable information (i.e., unlike the “papers” that support AGW catastrophist nonsense) is important. And there never really was a “97%” consensus about anything – they only got that by ignoring all the scientists who didn’t take a position (which was reportedly 2/3s of them!). Only in the Eco-Fascist mind do you get “97% agree” when 66% didn’t take a position one way or the other!

    • There was a book A Hundred Authors Against Einstein.

      … Einstein said, in response to the book, that if he were wrong, then one author would have been enough.

      Notwithstanding the above, I find it heartening that a bunch of researchers found the intestinal fortitude to go against the CAGW consensus.

      • i don’t think they have commiebob. the anthropogenic strap line will be there somewhere in most or all of the papers. even papers where the conclusions would appear to go against the consensus manage to squeeze the “man made” climate chage element in. no more rent seeking. . . sorry research grants if they don’t.

      • Fortitude indeed, especially when you consider the calls (Al Gore, Attorneys General) for them (as dissenters) to be investigated and punished for it.

  3. “the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.”…

    The models undermine themselves….they have made no correct predictions
    …but then the science behind the models has made no correct predictions either

    Why does this keep going on?

    • In their 2013 paper, Cook’s team reviewed 11,944 abstracts from years 1991 to ~May 2012 representing 29,286 authors. The list of abstracts was based on a keyword search using the abstracts database of Web of Science. For these abstracts, 7930 had no position on AGW so were excluded from any further consideration, regardless of the potential for the works to contribute to the scientific understanding or even discussion of GW, anthropogenic or not. Of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 endorsed humans as the main cause of the observed GW. Seventy-eight of the abstracts rejected humans as the main cause of the observed GW, and 40 were uncertain. The “97% consensus” that man had caused at least half of a quoted 0.7 C global warming since 1950 comes from dividing 3896 into 4014 (=3896/(11944-7930)).

      There are many problems with this methodology, biggest I see is that is science is not linear. A work that does not present an opinion or conclusion on a given topic does not mean it is irrelevant to that topic. To understand the relevance of a given paper the reviewers on Cook’s team would need to read the paper (not just the abstract), to have an understanding of the scientific field(s) covered, and to capture the findings for each paper in an unbiased manner. “Scientometrics” and “bilbiometrics” are terms I’ve seen. Their abstracts search on WoS was {‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’}, hardly a net big enough to capture the relevant scientific base, in my opinion. Also, there is no description of the quality of the WoS database for this time period, although from what I’ve seen from it in late 2016 it seemed very extensive of its representation of worldwide publication forums, which includes peer reviewed scientific journals and various other publications, scientific or not.

      Importantly, Cook et al. (2013) was published by Environmental Research Letters, an online, publish-for-fee, and itself a NOT peer reviewed publication. It was quickly shown to be false in its math and called out as refuted on this and other blog forums. A followup piece by Cook’s group in 2016, which is a “consensus on consensus” piece, is interesting for its list of ‘97%’ers’ (with a strange graph showing Consensus vs. [Level of] Expertise), and not for its clarification of the quality of science of either the abstracts that were reviewed or Cook’s own scientometric methodology. Cook et al. (2016) is a rebuttal to Tol (2016), who was critical of Cook’s abstract rating team and the methodology overall, and quite rightly so. ERL is open access at http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1748-9326. Search for ‘consensus’ to find the papers. There may be available a list of the abstracts reviewed in the 2013 paper.

      This will be a repeat for many of you. My apologies.

      • Can’t be stated enough IMO. We are continually bombarded by the “97% consensus” message, esp here in Australia. Australian MSM and politicians forget we have full access to many sources of reliable information across the internet. We’re not blocked from that access, yet, although there was talk, by politicians, of that some years ago.

  4. Oh come on…

    These don’t attack let alone disprove AGW or the effects of CO2.

    Most just list historical influences on climate… the fact being that the main current climate driver, in addition to all known/previous climate drivers, is human CO2

      • Often I think Griff is someone invented by Anthony to pep up the discussion… ;-))

        But anyway he has a certain approach and sticks to it.

      • He never responds to challenges.

        i think that’s the only way to troll. Some come and shoot spitballs never to be seen again. That kind only works if there are enough other people doing the same thing. (there aren’t enough others, so this kind is largely ineffective) Other trolls stick around a while and they respond to challenges. The responses end up being ineffective, eventually rendering the troll moot. The only effective way to troll is a combination of the two. Shoot spitballs, don’t respond, stick around, repeat. Everytime i bring up economics, i get trolled by this one guy. And he’ll never respond to me no matter how baseless his claims. (and i’ll be darned if the troll doesn’t take a toll)…

      • “You didn’t read them. “
        So who has read them? Anyone? I have read a lot. Griff is right. They are mostly not disputing AGW.

        And it’s the authors who say so, in many cases. There was an earlier version of this list at Breitbart in June, with then 58 papers. Climate feedback actually asked some of them whether their papers were disputing the consensus. You can see thier statements quoted there. Half said no. Often theoir papers had nothing to do with AGW at all. The author just quoted a sentence or two out of context. He also has an alarming tendency to modify their graphs.

        Those 29 papers still seem to be in the list.

      • Some of the papers may not be about AGW but if their conclusions suggest that significant natural climate change occurred in the past and is in direct contrast to the Hockey Stick Meme, then even a chimp can see how that paper is not in agreement with the IPCC consensus.

      • “Those 29 papers still seem to be in the list.”

        Nick I just searched the list for their names and got no matches…..did you actually look and see if the papers were still there?….or just shoot from the hip?

      • “Nick I just searched the list for their names and got no matches”
        Stivrins et al is about 2/3 way down the second list. Tejedor is near the top of p 1. Etc.

      • “that’s two…keep looking”
        Let’s just review what they said back in June, but still remain on the list

        Tejedor
        The article Tejedor et al., 2017 is not a climate-change-denying paper. It is a paleoclimate paper showing, first, a new maximum temperature reconstruction for the last 400 years (including the current warming) and second, a new standardization method in dendrochronology to remove the non-climatic trend.
        The image in the post does not by any means reflect the message of the paper. That figure is the raw temperature of the CRU dataset in the region, i.e., [I would like the author of the No Tricks Zone post to] remove my name from the blog since it is not reflecting our research conclusion.

        Normunds Stivrins, Associate Professor, University of Helsinki
        Our article (Stivrins et al., 2017, The Holocene) focuses on other subjects than human-induced impacts (climate change). It’s sad that the blogger did not understand what this study is about, but rather took a sentence without context. Our point was that geological aspects can protect glacial ice in the ground but it starts to melt when air temperature increases—in this case when temperature started to increase above today’s temperatures. Note that this is a specific case study where exceptional environmental conditions prevail 8,400-7,400 years ago in western Latvia.

        However, I must acknowledge that Steiger did seem to get the message through, and does not now appear:

        Nathan Steiger, Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University
        The blog post maliciously tampered with figures from my paper, removing lines from the figures. My paper is just not relevant to the arguments about global warming.

      • You said the 29 papers seemed to still be on the list??..are they or aren’t they?

        Nick Stokes
        January 10, 2018 at 12:45 pm
        Those 29 papers still seem to be in the list.

      • “are they or aren’t they?”
        As you have demonstrated, searching isn’t so easy. But let’s look at a few more:

        Tyler Jones, Research Associate, University of Colorado
        The West Antarctica temperature plot that was pulled from my 2017 paper is very low resolution, and does not resolve the most recent few 100 yrs. We know from other studies that West Antarctica is currently warming faster than almost any other place on Earth. Furthermore, my paper has nothing to do with global warming or human activities. In fact, I only focus on time periods well before the Industrial Revolution. It is clear that global warming is caused predominantly by human activity.

        Still there? Yes, p 2 about halfway down. Just the plot is shown, which as Jones says, doesn’t have anything about AGW at all.
        Or

        R. Scott Anderson, Professor, Northern Arizona University
        Although the curve shown in the Breitbart article supports our research, the specific curve cited is not our work, but comes instead from nearby tree-ring research done by Greg Wiles and his co-workers (2014). This is clearly stated in the figure caption in our article, which could have been seen if the article had been actually read. My conclusion from this is that Breitbart was not careful in its compilation, and for me this calls into question their methods for collecting data on other articles. Our conclusions are much more complex, and suggest that post-Little Ice Age warming has occurred, and has affected forests at higher elevations to a greater extent than at lower elevations.

        Yes, still there, again mid p 2. Again just represented by a single graph, which as they say, isn’t even theirs.

        That’s 5 that I’ve tried. Four out of five. Your turn.

      • I didn’t try to slam them by saying the 29 papers seemed to still be on the list…..you did

        …there’s no turns….back up what you said

      • …so I was right all along

        You came on here to defend Griff and sling at No Tricks Zone….you’re just as guilty as Griff is
        You admitted you hadn’t even looked at…much less read…the list when you said this

        “Those 29 papers still seem to be in the list.”

      • “Often I think Griff is someone invented by Anthony…”

        You must think Anthony has nothing else to do. Look at the hit count and tell us he needs to pep things up.

      • 50% of the CO2 is absorbed/taken up by the climate system. One theory is that the natural CO2 is absorbed and the yucky man-made CO2 is spit back out to heat the planet.

      • Does the atmosphere know the difference between human CO2 and natural CO2?

        Pixies, magical flying pixies sort out the CO2 and put the natural CO2 into buckets and they carry it down to feed the plants!

      • Not only doesn’t the atmosphere know the difference, there isn’t actually any solid scientific case to blame the rising CO2 level on human activities, since (1) the supposed amount of “increase” is based on an apples-to-oranges comparison of ice core proxy derived CO2 levels with modern atmospheric measurements, putting the alleged amount of increase in serious question, and (2) all of the other (i.e., the vast majority) of CO2 emissions from CO2 sources are not being measured, nor are the CO2 amounts being absorbed by CO2 Sinks, which means the basic fact is that there are more questions than answers regarding where CO2 is coming from and going to.

    • “the fact being that the main current climate driver, in addition to all known/previous climate drivers, is human CO2”.

      Griff says with no supporting evidence to back up this claim. There’s no evidence that CO2 is driving anything. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

      • Not only that, but there’s plenty of evidence that CO2 doesn’t “drive” jack sh!t. No correlation on geologic time scales, REVERSE correlation (temperature drives CO2) on shorter time scales where there IS any correlation.

    • the fact being that the main current climate driver, in addition to all known/previous climate drivers, is human CO2

      What are you saying? Are you saying that “all known/previous climate drivers” are the main driver or CO2? Your sentence there says that it is all of the above. By golly, it’s almost as if you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Now, just find me which of the 485 papers actually concluded that the current main driver was human CO2.

    • Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for maliciously attempting to damage her professional credibility yet [snip]?

      [Snip]

      [Please refrain from editorializing on another commenter and instead keep the discussions focused on the actual topic. -mod]

    • “Griff January 10, 2018 at 10:28 am

      …the fact being that the main current climate driver, in addition to all known/previous climate drivers, is human CO2”

      Extraordinary claims must be backed up with extraordinary evidence. Where is the evidence to back your claim Griff? And no, output from a computer simulation or a 19th century lab experiment or a Bill Nye video do not count as evidence.

      • Seems Ed prefers a spin applied to his facts before he can swallow and regurgitate them. He appears to be too macro-focused to get the big picture of climate and its ever-changing, unsteerable paradigm.

    • Griff, I wonder if you can help me please. I have been unable to find any scientific data (not models of course) that shows a rise or fall in atmospheric CO2 precedes a corresponding rise or fall in temperature, on any time scale in fact. Where I have been able to fine a correlation it seems to show that temperature moves first and CO2 follows.

      Do you have some data you could provide? Many thanks.

    • @Nick Stokes

      Need I remind you that the 97% consensus paper by Cook created their consensus by making assumptions of agreement with the consensus.

      In this case Mr. Richards is collecting those that in his view disagree with the consensus. If you disagree with Richards, you disagree with Cook as well and we have no consensus.

      • @ Nick, the difference (based on the examples discussed above) would appear to be that Richard cited what he viewed to be information which in some way undermines the CAGW mantra, whereas Cook (based on prior discussion of his “survey”) just cynically utilized a “standard” so broad as to be meaningless, since as put forward even plenty of “skeptics” would agree, even though they would disagree had the question been asked in a manner that made it meaningful, just so he (Cook) could CLAIM “consensus” regarding something ELSE.

    • The IPCC takes it as a given that it has been proven that the main driver of climate is CO2. As you acknowledge.
      Many of these papers show that other factors are major drivers of climate.
      That alone disproves the IPCC position.
      Why do you have to engage in such easily disproven lies?

    • Ah! Is the tide running out for them, or is it coming in for us? Will it be a slow retreat or a tidal bore that dashes the unwary CAGWer or stray Warmian against a floating box of chocolate puddings?

    • “There is great satisfaction in knowing that we are all here at the turning of the tide.”
      Really? In 2009 WUWT was proclaiming 450 skeptical papers (many actually were). In 2017 we have a dodgy list of 485.

      • Nick,

        Do you think that the Cook survey is a better representation of the consensus?

        Simple question. Yes or No?

      • Everything in the whole field of climate science is dodgy so perhaps we needs 50 shades of dodgy. You wouldn’t have the need for a “consensus” in a real science. We don’t have the flat Earth as the centre of a static universe in a Luminiferous aether which classical physics describes. All had huge consensus in there day and all were wrong and thankfully science doesn’t care much for consensus

      • Gee Nick, it’s been around for several years and you’ve never read it even though it’s been referred to here and on several other blog posts? It appears then you are accepting the results of the Cook survey without reading it or you are being dishonest. You appears you read at least some this one and able to find flaws. There have been many several refutations of the Cook survey, have you not read them either?

        That tells us a lot Nick. I thought better of you before but now I know you have a huge bias and very little objectivity and I can write off pretty much everything you say. So go ahead Nick, close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and sign la la la. You’re no scientist.

      • “even though it’s been referred to here and on several other blog posts”
        I’m just not interested in trying to quantify the consensus in this way.

      • @Nick/your last post

        I’m not interested in trying to “quantify” the non-existent “consensu” either – you know why? Because “consensus” doesn’t dictate “science,” so EVEN IF THERE WAS a “consensus,” it doesn’t mean anything. Empirical evidence, or pound sand.

      • 450 papers written in the year 2009.
        Another 458 papers written in the year 2017.
        That sounds like a lot of disagreement to me.

  5. The consensus at the Table of Knowledge (an informal gathering at the local cafe) is we are having another entirely normal ‘weak La Nina’ winter here in the Great NorthWet of the USA.

    We are suffering the catastrophic effects from man made socialism however, with high confidence.

  6. Regarding Cook’s cooked consensus…

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

    Cook and his merry band of SkepSciBots found 78 papers over the 20 year study period which explicitly or implicitly rejected and/or minimized AGW. They only found 64 papers that explicitly stated that more than half of the warming since 1950 was due to humans.

    https://i2.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/dhm1353056/Kerry_01_zpsgdfkz0oa.png

    485 papers in 2017 that explicitly or implicitly rejected and/or minimized AGW s fracking YUGE compared to 78 papers from 1991-2011.

    Based on Cook’s cooked definitions of implicitly endorsed and explicitly endorsed without quantifying almost every WUWT post I’ve written about climate change endorsed the so-called consensus.

    • Hey Griff, wudda wudda you say, hello, hello Griff you there? Must be conferring with the sources of his paycheck.

    • Somehow the climate cultists can’t understand, that a paper showing natural and significant climate changes in the past that are in direct conflict with the Hockey Stick Meme, is also in conflict with the 97% meme.

      Yet they are mum on how the 97% meme was constructed in the first place.

  7. All it takes is one paper to destroy a theory. At least that’s the way science is supposed to work. Science makes a prediction based on methodical repeatable formula’s or other means that anyone can learn and apply. If the prediction fits we all go about our daily jobs and ignore it. If the prediction doesn’t fit reality then a major problem ensues where the theory has to either explain the failure, that caveats or limitations are put on the theory to say it doesn’t apply in such situations.

    Climate science is closer to Astrology. In astrology a predictor makes 20 predictions. 19 of them are shown false and one turns out correct. The audience goes “Isn’t that amazing?” They completely ignore the 19 failures.

    In the 1940s astonomers discovered that the stars around galaxies were traveling far faster than they could explain with Newton or even Einstein’s general or special theory of gravity. They tabled this but it was a serious problem. Today we call this Dark Matter. This failure of the gravity model means that we had missed about 70% of the universe’s mass.

    So, 485 papers that question if CO2 really can explain the warming or that the effects are different than anticipated or that the sensitivity of the models are wrong is non-trivial nullification of the theory.

    Science doesn’t run on consensus. It is not a matter of how many papers say this is what is consistent and this is what is inconsistent with the theory. Inconsistent with the theory means the theory is flawed unless someone can explain how the result is not perfect. Formula’s do not produce numbers that work 10% of the time in any real science.

    Climate science seems to be the only science other than astrology where they state that it is decided by consensus what is known or what is unknown.

    We got a prediction from NOAA that this winter would be warm in the east coast and dry in the southwest. We are seeing exactly the opposite of course. The MET office in Britain used to make predictions based on computer models but after years of predicting warm winters, dry summers or dry winters or whatever and the public immediately seeing the coldest winter on record, the wettest winter on record began to ridicule the MET office. Their predictions became laughing stocks. They decided to stop predicting.

    After 70 years of producing an enormous amount of CO2 that has bumped the concentration in the atmosphere up nearly 50% we have a significant amount of CO2. The amount which is 110ppm increase is more than the increase during the ice ages which sees co2 go from 180-280 and back. This 100ppm in the ice ages produced 8 C temperature change. We have seen in the 70 years since 1945 when we started producing significant more co2 about a 0.35-0.6C difference depending on if you believe all the adjustments and the hype of the climate astrologers. We should see close to 8C from a 50% increase in CO2 if the ice ages are driven by co2. The computer models were inspired by this ice age calculation. It was called the paleo method of computing co2 sensitivity. However, we haven’t gotten 8C or 4C or 2C or even 1C. We have gotten maybe 0.5C. That means co2 is not the reason for the ice ages. It can’t be. Co2 doesn’t cause enough impact on temperature to account for 1/3 of the ice ages.

    Just like today and co2 it is not the most important factor. During the period 1945-1975 where co2 was rising at a huge exponential rate temperatures around the Earth fell. Co2 didn’t overwhelm forcing from other factors. During 1998-2014 the temperature of the Earth seemed to flatline even though we were pumping 2ppm and more CO2 into the atmosphere every year. CO2 again doesn’t seem to be that overwhelming.

    Over the last 200+ years we have seen an ocean phenomenon called AMO/PDO move temperatures up and down over a 60 year cycle about 0.23C higher and lower. During these cycles they have overwhelmed the effect of CO2 many times. CO2 doesn’t dominate even the oceans effect on the climate.

    While there is a trend overall upward if we believe the adjustments the overall trend over 70 years for a 50% increase in co2 says that by 2100 (another 82 years) we will probably see more likely closer to the 0.5C we’ve gotten in the last 70 years. That is the scientific answer for what warming to expect. The models predict 3-4C or more. To get 3-4C requires that temperatures around the Earth start spiking fast. The rate of temperature acceleration has to climb and climb fast unlike we have ever seen before even during the period we have poured CO2 into the atmosphere. To get to 3-4C requires that we are rising 6 times faster than we have for the last 70 years.

    This is unscientific. It is astrology. We have no precedent for such rapid rise. The predictions they did make for the last 70 years are off by 50% or more. They have predicted way too much warming than what we’ve gotten. The idea that we accept their prediction that temperatures will suddenly spike up and surge massively is simply not a scientific defensible position. We have never seen this. In fact just when they thought temperatures would be spiking the most temperatures went flat for 20 years. Clearly this theory is flawed. Flawed in science normally means failed. Unbelievable. Proven wrong. Normally. Not in climate science.

    The level of deceit being promoted as science is disgraceful and damaging to science. We all are more concerned that science is being infected with politics. When it does this the support of science will fail. We must clean out all of this moralizing and astrology. We must restore an understanding of the basics of science. This means the ideas of testability, prediction and verification based on data. It means figuring out if there is bias in studies or if they are repeatable. We must build credibility to restore faith that all these studies are worth spending money on because now it appears much of this science is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bits cost to be transmitted over the internet.

      • Why would anyone question dark matter? Just cause we can’t see it, taste it, smell it, feel it or find any? The concept has been questionable from the start. Just way too convenient an explanation for observations which are unexplainable. How about a big bang 13.7 bya that created the universe whose echoes indicate an infinite and eternal universe, eternal being longer than 13.7 billion years, with fully formed galaxies much to soon after this supposed beginning of time and space? Just because someone can come up with a model/mathematical equations which support such concepts does not make them real, only theoretical. Reality can be vastly different than math. I’ve had plenty of both for comparison purposes. I don’t know too many folks who can solve high order differential equations let alone undertand the meaning of the problem upon which they are working even if they can.

    • Well said! As you said: “All it takes is one paper to destroy a theory. At least that’s the way science is supposed to work.”

      The CAGW project is, of course, not based on objective scientific methods at all. It just uses ‘science’ as a cover. It is modern Lysenkoism with a political agenda, period.

      The problem is that it will not be overturned by real science either, although that will help. It is going to require political action to combat this political action. To the degree democracy still works in our increasingly and deliberately dumbed down society, that should eventually happen. Should, but quite possibly won’t until some other mega-crisis comes along to displace it.

      In the meantime, even the most ardent followers of The Warming cult must be having a more difficult time squaring their beliefs with reality.

    • I agree with your post but I would like to add that Dark matter itself is a fabrication.Look at a competing theory that is based on some evidence.

      https://briankoberlein.com/2016/09/29/galactic-motion-challenges-dark-matter/

      There are also other studies showing that Hubble was possibly wrong in that the galaxies arent speeding up away from each other.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596

      Dont forget that when astronomers thought that the galaxies were speeding away from each other at an accelerating rate they came up with the theory of Dark Energy and Dark matter to explain it They are complete fabrications. No one has any proof that they exist. So why should they exist ? If i invent the concept of a pink elephant to explain some inexplainable action of the universe,does that make it true? And dont forget the 2nd link above suggests that the orginal acceleration of the universe is wrong anyway.

      What does all this have to with AGW?
      The exact same WRONG process was followed in inventing AGW. Climate scientists thought they saw a trend that was provided by wrong computer simulations and they invented AGW to explain it. So not only the AGW hypothesis is wrong but so is the trend. This is exactly what happened with the fiasco of Dark Energy and Dark matter. Science should be ashamed.

      • I read the fascinating train of posts on dark matter, and think you should, too. The conclusion is that nothing but dark matter explains all of the observations, and the alternative theories explain some but not all. Dark matter wins.

      • In science it is not unusual to hypothesize objects. The neutrino was postulated by Pauli and found later on. Now it is hypothesized that the neutrino has mass but it is still not detected although there is an upper bound of 0.12 eV.

    • “After 70 years of producing an enormous amount of CO2 that has bumped the concentration in the atmosphere up nearly 50% we have a significant amount of CO2. The amount which is 110ppm increase is more than the increase during the ice ages which sees co2 go from 180-280 and back.”

      This is wrong on three levels; first, the “enormous” production is a gross exaggeration; human CO2 emissions amount to a mere 4%, natural CO2 emissions 96% – let’s not lose perspective; second, the amount of increase is based on an “apples vs. oranges” comparison of ice core proxy determined “pre-industrial” levels to modern atmospheric measurements. Finally, the CO2 level change during past ice ages is EFFECT, not CAUSE, since CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, up AND down.

      “This 100ppm in the ice ages produced 8 C temperature change.”

      NOPE! CO2 FOLLOWS temperature in the ice core record, with a lag of ~800 years, up AND down. It “produced” NOTHING.

      “We have seen in the 70 years since 1945 when we started producing significant more co2 about a 0.35-0.6C difference depending on if you believe all the adjustments and the hype of the climate astrologers.”

      Agreed about the data being garbage, especially with all the ideologically tainted “adjustments.” But still no empirical evidence that indicates CO2 level to be the CAUSE of any such temperature change.

      “We should see close to 8C from a 50% increase in CO2 if the ice ages are driven by co2.”

      No, we shouldn’t (BIG “if”); the ice core records plainly show they had the cart before the horse – temperature drives CO2 level, NOT the other way around.

      “The computer models were inspired by this ice age calculation. It was called the paleo method of computing co2 sensitivity. However, we haven’t gotten 8C or 4C or 2C or even 1C. We have gotten maybe 0.5C. That means co2 is not the reason for the ice ages. It can’t be. Co2 doesn’t cause enough impact on temperature to account for 1/3 of the ice ages.”

      According to the sources referenced by Peter Taylor (an environmentalist!) in his book “Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory,” MORE THAN HALF of the *supposed* amount of warming (as of 2009) could be accounted for by solar activity ALONE, leaving precious little to POSSIBLY “blame” on increased atmospheric CO2 levels. And since all OTHER climate factors have not been IDENTIFIED, much less adequately observed, measured, and had their various interactions quantified over a period of time long enough to be meaningful, in the face of the non-effect of CO2 in the paleoclimate record, I don’t think we can attribute ANYTHING to CO2 at all. It’s just hypothetical BS.

    • Climate scientists fully agree with you that conclusions in science should be based on whether the theory fits the data. They have looked at all the alternative hypotheses proposed by the skeptics which is causing warming (solar irradiance, volcanism, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc.) and found that every one of them fails to fit the data. In contrast, the data best fits the theory of greenhouse gases causing warming. They settled this debate in the 1980s and there has been no new data that fundamentally challenges that conclusion. None of the alternative hypotheses can explain the climatic phenomena except greenhouse gases (and their derivate effects like increasing water vapor in the atmosphere).

    • I have one of those to (a believing brother ) . At a quick glance there is a lot of good research in these papers .My brother was a geothermal scientist and when we meet the discussion always ends up about climate change and when I present him with some simple facts that he cannot counter he retreats to the 97% of scientists believe in global warming and its caused by man .

      • Recently, I had a long email discussion with a non-scientifically trained friend about AGW. Systematically, I knocked down every assertion he made, using evidence and logic (much of which was gleaned on WUWT). His final line of defence was the famous 97% consensus. I don’t have the heart to destroy even that…

    • Try to get him to understand that when something like science is corrupted into an ideology or belief system, it is no longer valid. It is religion.

      Then tell him to read up on Trofim Lysenko. Because if this doesn’t stop, that’s the direction things will take. And no, there is NO difference.

  8. From the article: “A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.”

    It would be even more accurate to put it like this: not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people “were led to believe”.

  9. The list of papers here does a lot to confirm the idea that the vast majority of scientists agree that CO2
    is the main current driver of climate change. Most of the papers in the list are about historical climate change which was caused by something other than CO2 and are irrelevant. The few that reject the idea that CO2
    increases drive increasing temperature are published in nonsense journals. In contrast there are probably at least 10000 papers published that accept the idea that CO2 causes climate change.

    • “10000 papers published that accept the idea that CO2 causes climate change”. Yep you maybe right but all that is missing is the proof.

      • Well the Journal of Climate reached page 10291 in 2017, Geophysical Research Letters reached page 12036, the International Journal of Climatology reached page 5216. There would easily be another 20 or so climate related journals that would have published a similar number of pages in 2017. So suggesting that there are 10000 journal articles published about the climate each year is
        I think a lower bound that is almost certain to be exceeded.

      • And the same is true of the 485 papers supposedly disagreeing with the consensus. Consider for
        example the paper by Sokeland, “Supernova and Nova Explosion’s Space Weather: Correlated Megafauna Extinctions, Antarctica Ice Melts and Biosphere Mega-disturbances—Global Warming”
        which claims that global warming, mega-fauna extinctions and almost everything else are due to debris from super-nova reaching the earth. For example it includes the sentence “the Saiga antelope deaths in 2014 was extensive bleeding from their organs that was caused by supernova debris particles piercing their bodies at high velocities”.

        If this is a typical example of the papers “disproving” human caused global warming then it is no
        surprise that over 97% of scientists agree with the consensus.

    • And Germ manages to once again display his mastery of logical fallacies.
      He declares that whatever caused climate to change in the past is no longer operative. How do we know that? Because the models have proven that only CO2 is operating now.

  10. 485 papers is certainly an impressive number. I’d like to know also how many total papers were published that address the notions of man’s impact on climate change (not the number of papers that deal with trying to predict the effects of warming on ecosystems and species – that number is likely in the thousands or tens of thousands each year, at least).

    I don’t suggest that there is a voting process going on, and the majority “wins” .. but I’d like to know if 485 papers is a significant proportion of the total number published last year that addressed the causes and relative contributions of climate change. Is 485 papers 10% of the total? or 1%? Or 0.001%?

  11. Scientist have never registered and voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. There is not now nor has there ever been a consensus regarding the validity of the AGW conjecture. Even if there were, it would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some form of legislation. Scientific theories and not validated through a voting process.

    The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the torposphere but such has not happened.

  12. logiclogiclogic…Nice summary. I would only add that during the current Quaternary Ice age, Temperature increases preceded Co2 increases by several hundred years in most ice core readings I believe, and we have had many periods (at least two that I am aware of) including the Dryas Period [Younger Dryas – Wikipedia] in the latest glacial/interglacial period where temps have increased or decreased as much as 10 degrees C in a ten year period….and of course there is no ‘settled science’ as to why those dramatic changes took place

  13. The 97% consensus has been fabricated by Lewandowski and Crook, as Lord Monckton et al have successfully exposed a while ago. Yet the “true believers” cling to it like to a piece of wreckage in vain hope that their little raft gives them some more time to survive the storm of truth. The more this matter of utterly criminal pseudo-science is discussed in public, supported by household names, the better. I hope these evil spirits that still adhere to bad science will soon be exorcised.

  14. “Published” generally means “survived the CAGW gatekeepers’ gamut”, which is presumably still biased beyond reason.

  15. These lists just go on and on. Here‘s one from 2009, some of which were actually skeptical. The list featured here got a run here less than three months ago (“400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm”). I pointed out then that most of the the papers actually didn’t question the consensus at all. He seems to just pick any paper that says anything about cooling of any kind of anything, maybe thousands of years ago. I offerred a challenge to jointly pick just one paper at random, and actually read it and see what it says. No takers. In fact, I can’t see that anyone anywhere has tried to check the list to see what the papers actually say.

    It isn’t just me saying this. Back in June an earlier version of this 2017 list said 58 papers were “debunking climate change alarm”. Climate feedback contacted some of the authors invoked. Half (29) said that their papers were misrepresented. In many cases it wasn’t just a matter of misinterpretation. Their papers just had absolutely nothing to do with AGW or “climate alarm”. For example
    “Normunds Stivrins, Associate Professor, University of Helsinki
    Our article (Stivrins et al., 2017, The Holocene) focuses on other subjects than human-induced impacts (climate change). It’s sad that the blogger did not understand what this study is about, but rather took a sentence without context. “

    His paper is still in the list. So is the paper of Tejedor, who specifically asked for it to be removed, as it in no way said what Richards claimed. I drew this to his attention in the last discussion. The paper is still in the list.

    • I just picked the very first paper:

      The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) until about 1270 CE displays generally moist and warm climate conditions with minor fluctuations, likely in response to variations in summer monsoon intensity. The three-partite period of the Little Ice Age (LIA), shows hydrologically unstable conditions between 1350 and 1530 CE with remarkably colder periods, assigned to a prolonged seasonal ice cover.

      The 97% consensus meme relies on the MWP and LIA not being globally encompassing and insignificant in scope. This paper, like thousands of others throughout the years, did not come to that conclusion. They show that past natural climate changes were on par or much more significant than what has been observed since the industrial revolution. Maybe even you could connect the dots from there, however, I doubt it.

      • “This paper, like thousands of others throughout the years, did not come to that conclusion.”

        In N China it does.
        Not Globally.
        And it says nothing about stratospheric aerosol from equatorial volcanic ejection.
        Which is what the consensus science attributes to the along with Arctic ice feed-back.

      • “I just picked the very first paper:”
        They probably expected that you would do that.

        The quote given in the list gives no indication that the author is talking about the Qinghai Lakes location in China, not globally. The consensus does not “rely” on any proposition about the MWP or LIA. There is a huge amount written about both topics. You could find plenty in the IPCC reports about places that warmed in the MWP time, or cooled in the LIA.

        The paper is actually a technical paper on the evolution of wetlands.

    • Nick, I understand what you are saying and you’ll know that I have taken your part in the past, but aren’t you stretching things a bit here?

      The very large number of papers that demonstrate that the warming/ sea level rise/ sea ice reduction that we currently see is neither exceptional, nor unprecented makes the ‘attribution problem’ on which so much depends close to insurmountable.

      You may be right to point out that many, and indeed the majority, of the cited papers do not explicitly challenge the CAGW consensus, and some authors are likely very upset that their papers are cited in this way, but whether the authors themselves like it or not, they DO challenge key elements of the consensus

      • “The very large number of papers that demonstrate”
        That tends to be the response – OK, maybe some inclusions are flaky, but there are so many of them.

        But what do they actually say? And what do they dispute? Maybe something is not yet unprecedented. Is that in dispute? The warming/ sea level rise/ sea ice reduction records are much discussed. There are generally no revelations about them in these papers. They are, in fact, part of the consensus.

      • I’m not prey to the fallacy of volume, either, Nick. And I can agree that these are not ‘revelations’. A lot of this data has been around for quite a long time. You think that means it can be counted as a part of the consensus, but that’s where I lose your logic train. The lack of unprecedentedness (is that a word?) is a huge challenge, and I think you know that.

      • “The lack of unprecedentedness (is that a word?) is a huge challenge, and I think you know that.”
        No. The issue is that we are mining huge masses of carbon and putting it in the air, and are likely to inject a great deal more. That is unprecedented. The question is, what effect will it have. There has been natural variation in the past (a consensus view), and there is a lot of past. The issue isn’t what has happened before, but what are the likely consequences of what we are doing now. So if eg temperatures are indeed shooting up, it isn’t a refutation to say that they have been higher at some time before.

      • “The question is, what effect will it have.”

        Up to now, the effects would appear to have been of effectively unmitigated benefit.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20716

        http://archive.news.iupui.edu/releases/2016/02/drylands-global-greening.shtml

        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

        https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

        It is becoming increasingly clear that a degree or two of warming would be an unalloyed benefit to humanity, whereas a similar degree of cooling would be an unmitigated disaster and lead to the death of billions.

        Further, it is also becoming – has in fact become – clear that mankind’s efforts can no more significantly affect the temperature of the Earth than significantly affect the time the Sun rises and sets.

      • “No. The issue is that we are mining huge masses of carbon and putting it in the air, and are likely to inject a great deal more. ……….. The issue isn’t what has happened before, but what are the likely consequences of what we are doing now”

        good boy!…the fallback position…when the past doesn’t cooperate…..give that puppy a marshmallow

      • Nick Stokes wrote:
        No. The issue is that we are mining huge masses of carbon and putting it in the air, and are likely to inject a great deal more. That is unprecedented.

        I’ve seen a number of graphs that show CO2 levels were many times higher in the past. If these graphs are true, the earth didn’t self ignite and burn to a crisp.

        Question for you Nick, how are we supposed to live to save the world from total CO2-induced devastation? Sustainably?

    • Nick
      You know or you should know that it was Ben Santer a young lead author for the UNIPCC fourth assessment report AR4 in 2000 went deliberately against the findings and the evidence that the IPCC had assembled and wrote that the human fingerprint was identified and that it would lead to dangerous warming .
      This was a deliberate lie . The findings were that they could not tell whether the warming that had occurred from 1979 was natural or not .
      Since 2000 we have emitted well over one third of all man made emissions and although your lot keep trumpeting ” warmist year evaar’ the world temperature has stalled .
      This is typical of what we have seen with Mike Manns fraudulent hockey stick and the shenanigans that was shown up with the climategate email leak ‘
      We then have temperature adjustments and readjusting the adjustments and you would have to know that from the data on your site that this happens .
      We then have the very inconvenient fact that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present which you and your mates strenuously deny even though there is plenty of evidence that it was world wide .
      Your lot goes so far as to call it bunk and it never ever happened but there were two other climate optimums before that and they were even warmer .
      When the history of the world has to be changed or denied so that an unproven theory will work serious questions have to be asked .
      Of course you and your lot can’t admit it because then the whole global warming story would starts to crumble.

      • “This was a deliberate lie .”
        Very hard to deal with such a mish-mash of misstated facts. The AR4 ws in 2008, not 2000, and by then Ben Santer was 53. You are probably talking about a claim by Seitz in a WSJ op-ed regarding the Second IPCC report (SAR) in 1995. This was an unsupported claim by Seitz; some 40 scientists involved in the process wrote to say that Seitz allegations were untrue. The WSJ wouldn’t publish the signatures.

      • Looks like I got that one wrong by 5 years and 2 assessments
        But Nick you never answered about why you lot have consistently denied history and the former warm periods .
        The theory of global warming rely s on positive feed backs to amplify the heating potential of CO2 .You know this and no one denies that a large amount of Co2 has been emitted but the argument is that the tropical hot spot has not been observed and without the the hot spot the positive feed back theory collapses.
        It is plain to see that the climate models run hot and from a casual observation the model developers are using positive feed backs instead of negative or neutral feed backs on the effect of rising CO2 levels ,

        ,

    • Nick Stokes

      What do you think the climate consensus is, exactly, in your own words?

      Thanks

      • Basically, that the greenhouse effect is real, that digging up and burning a whole lot of carbon will make the world warmer, and that that is happening.

      • Well then we should pat ourselves on the back, since a warmer world is a better world for life on Earth.

      • Nick Stokes

        I interpret the consensus as hold that the warming from AG CO2 will be dramatic, that large storms of all kinds are evidence that mankind is already influencing the climate ‘significantly’ (detectably outside the bounds of normal range) and that we must all work very hard together to avoid increasing the temperature any more than it is going to.

        I do not agree with that view. I have not found any clear evidence that AG CO2 affects the climate by driving temperatures out of normal range. Further, the ‘consensus’ POV is predicated on a relatively simple explanation about the amount of warming that can be shown between the average temperature of the surface of the moon and the average temperature 1.5m above the surface of the earth. The former is said to be -18 C and the latter 15 C for a difference of 33 degrees C.

        The difference, often quoted and repeated, is that this difference is 33 degrees C is ‘due to the heat trapping ability (or effect) of greenhouse gases’. If I have misrepresented this in any way someone can correct me, but it is written in hundreds of places as the standard introduction to GHG’s and their effects.

        It is an extraordinarily and badly constructed mental experiment. In order to test the effect of protein in a human diet, one compares a diet with no protein, and then a diet with progressively larger amounts of protein until one has covered the range of human diets. That would be how to discover the effect on the human of a diet that had or did not have protein in it.

        With the atmosphere, the appropriate mental parallel is an atmosphere with no GHG’s, then the same atmosphere with some GHG’s, then a little more, and so on until the concentration reaches about what we have now.

        We do not discover the effect of protein on the human diet be comparing our current diet and eating nothing at all. Yet that is the analogy used by proponents of the GHG effect. They are comparing an atmosphere with GHG’s and no atmosphere at all, instead of the experiment described above.

        If you subscribe to the consensus holding that human emissions of CO2 are having a warming effect on the globe, then surely you have to frame the effect within an experimental range of having an atmosphere with no GHG’s at all, and having one with lots, and place the current situation on that continuum, not so?

        The reason that comparing no atmosphere and “having one with GHG’s’ is such a bad comparison is that the surface is heated directly by the sun, and by GHG’s. If planet Earth had no GHG’s at all, the surface would be warmed quite a bit more than it is at present because all incident insolation would hit the surface. The surface would warm the air by convective heating (no radiative heating) and the atmosphere would get quite warm. It would remain warm because it has no way to radiatively cool in the total absence of GHG’s.

        The temperature 1.5 m above the surface of Planet Earth with no GHG’s would be warmer than 15 C. The consensus holds that adding CO2 increases the temperature near the surface by back-radiation of IR. The consensus is fundamentally flawed, based as it is on a ridiculous thought experiment in which CO2 heating is claimed, yet in which the atmosphere is not examined to see the effect of GHG’s starting from none to lots. It is compared with having no atmosphere at all, like eating no food can somehow tell us about protein as a % of the diet.

        The only reason the atmosphere is not more than 15 C at the moment is because the radiative, cooling capacity of the GHG’s is what it is. At some point the total heat loss will be balanced near the surface by back-radiating IR and it will stabilise. Perhaps that is 15 C – I do not know, because we have never been treated to a global circulation model output with surface heating and no GHG’s.

        I encourage you to consider that the consensus position on AG CO2 is untenable, illogical, and anti-physical. If mankind were able someone to drive all GHG’s out of the atmosphere (which I agree it impossible) the temperature at 1.5m above the surface would increase. It would never drop to -18 C because of the surface heating the non-GHG air. As I said above, it would remain warm because the only way it could cool would be to convect heat to the ground at night so it could be radiated away. The equilibrium temperature at which that would happen would be far above 15 C.

      • Crispin,
        “It is an extraordinarily and badly constructed mental experiment. “
        If you don’t like it, you can do without. You can study the Earth as it behaves. And understand the radiative processes and how they respond to changes in GHG.

        The 255K is a firm number. It is the temperature of a black body (BB) radiating the amount of heat that the Earth absorbs from the Sun. Warmer, and it will radiate more than it receives. This is unsustainable. So if there is a surface at 288K, something must be modifying the escape of the radiation.

        Here is a spectrum I sometimes show, from a textbook by Grant Petty. It is taken during the thaw over an icefield near Barrow Alaska, so the surface is at about 273K. I have marked with CO2 the frequencies absorbed by CO2, and by AW the Atmospheric Window, where there is little absorption.

        https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/01/PettyFig8-2.jpg.png

        The dotted lines mark BB levels at the temperature indicated. So (top plot) the AW appears to radiate at surface temperature. But the CO2 bite radiates at about 225K. That is the temperature of the high zone where it is emitting. The energy in that bite is larger than it looks. It is energy not being radiated to space, and this reduces (along with the H2O etc regions), the outgoing to a level that matches the solar input.

        In the bottom plot you can see the converse, high energy being radiated back in the CO2 region. This is what balances heat flux at the surface. It can radiate as a 273K surface though that is more than it gets from the sun. The back radiation in the CO2 band makes up the difference.

        More CO2 enlarges the bite, in predictable ways. The sides expand through greater opacity in side bands, and the bottom drops because the emission layer moves higher.

      • I should complete the logic of that last para. Emission from Earth has to match solar absorbed. It can’t be over or under. So if the CO2 bite expands, blocking more IR, something has to compensate to keep the level. That means more has to exit through the AW, and that requires warmer surface.

  16. PLEASE REMEMBER that we are in a super-overeducated world now, and that in this world, there is a ‘strong hunt for meaningful thesis topics’ to wax eloquent on. I’ve recalled this before elsewhere, but one of my nieces was in the PhD program of Environmental Studies up on Anchorage. (I know, not exactly the leading leading-edge Science university in the nation, but still… husband there, taking PhD, instead of having kids.)

    Her topic was on the effects of AGW on the seasonal harvest of Sitka spruce in boreal Alaska. Basically her conclusion was, since AGW is real, and since it has tangible effects, then I expect to prove that it increases logging muddiness, which increases soil loss, decreases harvest-window and increases jobsite accident rates. Well, the increased muddiness didn’t turn up statistically, and “The Industry” had worked out better muddy-hillside logging techniques anyway. The soil loss was being mitigated by better forest husbandry practices and partial-hill logging. The on-site accident rates were higher, but only in toto, as more logging was being done. Naturally, somehow it all got twisted into a big scary AGW narrative. And the Swan’s Song of needing additional grant-funding to continue the vital research.

    Sadly but predictably, she’s now a fast rising junior muck-a-muck (how could one pass that pun by?) in the State of Alaska Forestry Department. Given a brand new Ford four wheel drive and everything. She spends most of her time in-office pouring over findings, writing papers, getting grants, and sitting on policy-making meetings.

    Is this a bad thing?
    No, but we really ought to demand more EFFICIENCY for tax-money spent.
    Her job position, should it go away, would be forgotten in 88 seconds.

    Just saying.
    “So what! There are 453 papers. There are another 8,500 papers in the opposite direction, milled out of used cloth. Citing each other in a giant daisy-chain of self-referencing. To get grants. To get top jobs. To do essentially inscrutable bûllsnot.”

    GoatGuy

    • Anecdote appreciated, Goat Guy (by me, if not by your niece!). My experience of academia – a very, very long time ago – is that even in the seventies your story could find parallels. Nothing new, just a order of magnitude more damaging because of the larger numbers involved. Unfortunately, outsiders, and even the few insiders that don’t play the game, have little influence. It’s a closed shop.

  17. Just a few of the authors who have reponded to the way their paper was characterised:

    Tyler Jones, Research Associate, University of Colorado
    The West Antarctica temperature plot that was pulled from my 2017 paper is very low resolution, and does not resolve the most recent few 100 yrs. We know from other studies that West Antarctica is currently warming faster than almost any other place on Earth. Furthermore, my paper has nothing to do with global warming or human activities. In fact, I only focus on time periods well before the Industrial Revolution. It is clear that global warming is caused predominantly by human activity.

    Belinda Dechnik, The University of Sydney
    My data does discuss sea surface temperature in the Great Barrier Reef being slightly warmer than present during the mid-Holocene in response to natural climate variability. However, I in no way deny that the current climate is warming, and that anthropogenic effects are proving very detrimental, particularly to reef systems. This article has misunderstood my findings and in no way supports my view on climate change. I am very disturbed indeed that these people have used my article in such a way to try and discredit the serious effects of man-made climate change.

    Nathan Steiger, Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University
    The blog post maliciously tampered with figures from my paper, removing lines from the figures. My paper is just not relevant to the arguments about global warming.

    R. Scott Anderson, Professor, Northern Arizona University
    Although the curve shown in the Breitbart article supports our research, the specific curve cited is not our work, but comes instead from nearby tree-ring research done by Greg Wiles and his co-workers (2014). This is clearly stated in the figure caption in our article, which could have been seen if the article had been actually read. My conclusion from this is that Breitbart was not careful in its compilation, and for me this calls into question their methods for collecting data on other articles. Our conclusions are much more complex, and suggest that post-Little Ice Age warming has occurred, and has affected forests at higher elevations to a greater extent than at lower elevations.

    Yair Rosenthal, Professor, Rutgers University
    The data were taken out of context. In fact a previous article (Rosenthal et al., 20013) made the argument that the current warming, as measured by the increase in Ocean Heat Content (OHC), is a reversal of the long-term cooling trend in the preceding centuries and the rate of heat gain is substantially higher than recorded in the past. If anything, these data support global warming as manifested by the recent increase in OHC.

    Normunds Stivrins, Associate Professor, University of Helsinki
    Our article (Stivrins et al., 2017, The Holocene) focuses on other subjects than human-induced impacts (climate change). It’s sad that the blogger did not understand what this study is about, but rather took a sentence without context. Our point was that geological aspects can protect glacial ice in the ground but it starts to melt when air temperature increases—in this case when temperature started to increase above today’s temperatures. Note that this is a specific case study where exceptional environmental conditions prevail 8,400-7,400 years ago in western Latvia.

    Many more rebuttals to be found here (credit Nick Stokes)….

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-misrepresents-research-58-scientific-papers-falsely-claim-disprove-human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/#authors-reply

    • tonyb,

      I’ll ask you the same question as I asked Nick.

      Do you think that the Cook survey is a better representation of the consensus?

      Simple question. Yes or No?

    • tonyb,

      That’s only 26 out of 485 or 5% which may. When you come up with another 470 more then you might match Cook’s 97%. Good luck.

      Most alarmists I’ve debated in the past think all you need to do is refute just a few skeptic papers and hand wave the rest. Then say, “You can’t refute all the thousands of AGW papers”.

      Is that you tonyb?

      • “That’s only 26 out of 485 or 5% which may”
        No, it’s now 29, and out of the 58 that were listed back in June. 50%. And it’s not as if the other 50% took a contrary view. They didn’t make a statement at all. Maybe they were busy.

        The question remains, who actually is disputing the consensus? What did they say, and what does the consensus say that is contradicted?

      • @Nick
        “The question remains, who actually is disputing the consensus? What did they say, and what does the consensus say that is contradicted?”

        Who: Edward Lorenz
        What did he say: “we cannot say at present, on the basis of observation alone, that a greenhouse gas induced global warming as set in”
        What does the consensus say that is contradicted: You, Nick, tell us. The consensus is just, to me, weasel word to not tell what the belief is, so it cannot be contradicted, as a proper belief it is. A theory could be contradicted by some fact, this cannot. It is “not even wrong”.
        What the consensus guys replied: “blah blah blah I don’t hear you [with hands on the ears and closed eyes]”. Says it all on the value of the “consensus”, for whatever this means.

        The questions should be
        1) “what the consensus is about?”
        If it is that there is some warming since the cold days of the 70s, well, this includes pretty much all “Dniers”
        If it is that man contributed to climate change (through building cities —UHI effect– and dams, draining swamp, turning forest into agricultural land or vice versa, burning fuel, etc.), ditto
        If it is that, without man, global temperature would had stayed stable or cooling, nobody ever dared to pretend that, IFAIK, so it surely NOT supported by 97% of warmunists
        2) “what fact would it take for the consensus guys to acknowledge they are wrong? ”
        Proper scientists would make prediction, set firm goalposts between what would happen/not happen depending on whether their theory is correct or not, and check.
        On the other hand, CAGW Believers don’t even bother to respect their own prediction, like “there will be a tropical hot spot”, “the theory still hold if non warming occurs on a 15-years long period”, “snow will be a thing of the past”, “North pole will be ice free”, etc.
        And of course you won’t reply, again

      • “On the other hand, CAGW Believers don’t even bother to respect their own prediction, like “there will be a tropical hot spot”, “the theory still hold if non warming occurs on a 15-years long period”, “snow will be a thing of the past”, “North pole will be ice free”, etc.
        And of course you won’t reply, again”

        But I will.

        Ah, the old tried ‘n’ tested again.

        The “tropical hotspot” would be there whatever the reason for GW. It is the enhanced LH release from tropical convection which must increase with surface warming.
        And it has been found …..

        https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

        – obviously with difficulty as radiosonde data is not of research quality (far from it to the levels of tenths of a degree needed ) and satellite temp measurements are contaminated by stratospheric cooling (which is a known and observed result for GHG warming of the troposphere)
        Your two other quotes where uttered by idiots and in the case of David Viner “spun”. The “snow” being of snow in England, which is rare in most winters. Contrary to what you may believe it’s not been snowing all over the country. I have had a half inch only here for part of one week. And what time-scale did Viner alude to? 17 years? I don’t think so, and anyway it is not the IPCC talking.

        The “ice” comment is again just an idiot mouthing off (Wadhams?) but actually the decline in Arctic ice extent is well ahead of IPCC projections.

        Oh and CAGW is a “Contrarian” invented term.
        The IPCC says 1.5 to 4.5C per x2 CO2.
        1.5 is not “C”.
        4.5 is
        not both.
        So you agree it’ll be closer to 4.5C?

      • @Toneb
        Your link is interesting…
        Just wonder what you would think of your banker if he told you that he “deduced from the data what natural bank account variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these variations and removed them,” so he concludes that you actually owes him money, despite your account being positive… Because this is just exactly what those guys did!
        They didn’t actually found the hot spot as it was predicted, that is, an actually higher temperature than before. They just lowered the expected temperature by subtracting some “natural variation” they don’t know nothing about, they cannot explain and don’t even care to, and was not predicted by the theory…
        The best you could say is “they found the hot spot by inventing some overlapping unexplainium the theory didn’t predicted”, that is, they just disproved the theory just the same.
        Well, thank you, but we already knew. Apparently you didn’t, so you learned something.

        Happy you admit so called “climate scientists” include a noticeable enough bunch of idiots. I just find it too bad that believers with the appropriate stature to be heard don’t care to say to media relaying these crap “oh men, come on, these are just idiots, unworthy of “scientist” label, you shouldn’t listen to them, they hurt the science with their overstretched prediction that have no ground in the consensus theory, and you do, too, by relaying it”.

        Bottom line: you indeed tried to reply, which is worthwhile. But you failed. No wonder, the task was just impossible, as this is broken from the start.

      • “Who: Edward Lorenz
        What did he say: “we cannot say at present, on the basis of observation alone, that a greenhouse gas induced global warming as set in”’

        And when is “at present”? 1990. There have been a lot of observations since.

      • @Nick
        cite a paper stating something like “Lorenz was right in 1990, but he is no longer is thanks to new observations”, or admit you are wrong, or shut up until you do either if you have any respect for yourself and others.
        And, for god sake, just read the paper, and figure out why you would change a single word of it in 2018 (do that for yourself, no need to share it with us, please)

      • “Lorenz was right in 1990, but he is no longer is”
        Not an issue. Lorenz said “We cannot say at present”. That doesn’t become untrue with later observation. You just need to find a more up-to-date source.

    • “I would be pretty quick to dεny that I was a hεretic as well.”

      This is the line that Delingpole took in response to the June survey of authors – he has been the main publicist of these lists. After telling us

      “That’s how I became one of the world’s most notorious and widely-read climate skeptics: not because I have a science degree – which I don’t – but because I am able to explain this dogs breakfast of a shambles of a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer in language that normal people can understand.”
      the stable genius explained:

      There are lots of reasons why someone involved in climate science might not want to feature in a Breitbart story with the glaring, clickbait headline “Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 say ‘Global Warming’ is a Myth”.

      One is naked fear. As we know from the Climategate emails, the global warming Establishment is a cabal of bullies. Not only is dissent not tolerated but it is ruthlessly crushed. Skeptics are rarely published, except in obscure journals not controlled by the Alarmist Mob; almost never granted tenure. As a result, no scientist in this field would wish to be seen visibly going against “the Consensus”.

      One is dishonesty. (Or, if you prefer to be more generous, cognitive dissonance). I discuss this in some detail here. Basically, some alarmists are so determined never to admit that they’re wrong that they’ll actually go so far as to deny the evidence of their own papers. This is what happened with the Nature Geoscience paper I wrote about here. It admitted that the computer models were wrong and that – therefore – their doomsday predictions were overdone. But when people like me pointed this out, the authors furiously denied it.

      One is dimness. Yes, I dare say it’s true that literally none of those 400 scientific papers uses the phrase “‘global warming’ is a myth.” Anyone who read the piece beyond the deliberately provocative, attention-grabbing headline, however, would find it hard to dispute the premise because it’s bang on the money.

      The problem is that a headline reading
      “Now 400 fearful dishonest dim scientists in 2017 say ‘Global Warming’ is a Myth'”
      doesn’t sound so convincing.

      • Nick, I am a 72 year old engineer that has been a student of science for most of my life. Watching nuclear physics make up imaginary particles to make their imaginary models work. Then the cosmologists making up imaginary dark matter and dark energy to make their models work. Then along comes the warmanistas spruiking the evils of CO2 to make their models work using untrue science. I have a laugh a minute watching people like you, it is like phlogiston all over again.

      • Wayne:

        That is exactly what I would expect an engineer to say.
        I trained in both disciplines.
        Science uncovers things
        Engineering uses things.
        That you cannot conceive the former is QED

      • Pity you are neither scientist or engineer, hey Toneb.

        You don’t comprehend, and can’t do anything with it.

        The fact that you think Cook’s mindless propaganda survey is in any way representative of reality, shows just how far down the drainhole your mind has been flushed .

      • tonyb says, “I trained in both disciplines.”

        That usually means you started but either lost interest or flunked out.

      • “Now 400 fearful dishonest dim scientists in 2017 say ‘Global Warming’ is a Myth’”
        doesn’t sound so convincing.

        Fair point Nick.

        And how many claims and predictions has your side made that turned out to be false?

    • “Do you think that the Cook survey is a better representation of the consensus?

      Simple question. Yes or No?”

      Yes.

      And BTW: I am Toneb.
      tonyb is a different poster (climatereason).

      Sorry, but if the likes of Notrickszone (an oxymoron) in falsely representing papers in order to manufacture doubt, doesn’t seem to you to be dishonest then … well.
      And could you please point out where Cook went to such ends.
      They are not equivalent.

    • “Toneb, in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

      Forrest:
      So you justify put NTZ’s lies and deceit on the basis of the other side doing it?
      (a question)
      If you do, I would suggest that that one is wilful and the other just the “shit” that happens in life.

    • The authors rebuttals are interesting, let’s read them, will you?

      Tyler Jones, Research Associate, University of Colorado
      “my paper is proof that global warming can natural occur, but i forbid anyone to conclude the logical thing and stick to the dogma”

      Belinda Dechnik, The University of Sydney
      “my paper is proof that current global warming is still lower that previous natural occured one, but i forbid anyone to conclude the logical thing and I stick to the dogma”

      Nathan Steiger, Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University
      “my article about Time-Averaged Pseudoproxies for Climate Reconstruction and GCM have nothing to do with the global warming debate, trust me”

      etc.
      Boring. I stopped there. Seriously, you call THAT rebuttals ?

    • Reply to Toneb
      You provided a link to a half baked so called study which is not worth the paper its written on ..
      This so called study is a mishmash trying and failing to become the great hotspotters of 2015.
      ‘This topic was covered by Anthony Watts on WUWT on the 22nd of September 2016 .Readers of this blog should check it out for themselves .
      The hot spot has not been found

  18. Just like a Ponzi scheme, I knew this fake AGW story perpetrated by Al Gore and his blind zealots would fall like a houise of cards. Truth always wins.

  19. Given the difficulty in getting skeptical papers published, and money to do the work needed, this number is enormous.

    • This is the part of this silly debate that never gets mentioned. If the POTUS and his team were to direct 50% of all climate research funding to studies on ocean currents, clouds, synoptic climatology, solar aspects of climate etc., I’ll guarantee you that 50% of the papers published in the next few years will emphasize the role of natural variability in climate change. You get what you pay for- simple!

  20. The “97% of scientists” claim orginally came from President Obama who, either was fed the line or made it up.

    100% of scientists were never asked, therefore anyone swallowing that lie is either easily swayed or is lying themselves when they repeat it.

    Cook et al could (if accuracy meant anything to them) have taken measures to correct Obama’s “error” and assured the eagerly listening world that it was only 97% of climate “scientists”, and, somehow only after sifting through 12,000 abstracts of papers, of which 60% made no mention of AGW.

    But then again, accuracy and honesty don’t seem to have been high priorities in the AGW Consensus Project.

  21. You get what you pay for. During the Obama years Government agencies budgets were increased dramatically and the dogma of the threat of Global Warming was codified and any dissent was met with hostility, ridicule demotion or termination. Today science is encouraged and the political corruption has simply had funding decreased dramatically or ended completely. With the spigot of funds for ‘Global Warming’ being shut off the scientific community realizes that zealotry in support of the politically created warming theory is no longer profitable and hopefully this will lead to an emphasis on real science rather than political science.

    • A single geographic location, CAN, however, cast valid doubt on the blanket claim of global sea level rise. After all, if one geographic location shows none, then there might be other locations showing none, and the locations that are dominating the determination might have OTHER causes NOT being properly considered.

    • what the heck ???
      Of course a single location CAN refute global seal level rise, just like a single black swan CAN refute “all swan are white” proposition.
      The condition for that are just the same (that the swan is really black, not painted, or in a room with no light; that the location is not a place where the land rise as much as the sea, etc.)

      • “Of course a single location CAN refute global seal level rise, just like a single black swan CAN refute “all swan are white” proposition.”

        No it can’t.
        It has to be representative.
        Like (as an example) maybe the much touted on here, UHI effect.
        So obs from the centre of an expanding city would be enough to get you to accept AGW?
        Exactly.

      • oh. So a black swan don’t refute “all swan are white” proposition, the black swan has to be representative to do so?
        I say LOL

        And, for your information, I accept AGW. Cities are ~1% of land, 0.3% of whole Earth surface, and ~3K warmer, so they account for ~0.009 K (let’s round to +0.01 K) totally,anthropological GW.
        And they also account for ~50% population, so as far as humans are concerned (ponderated by the population), the AGW is ~1.5K. Still far from enough. I still need more than minimal cloth, heating in my house, etc.

    • If you were able to read , you would see it is NOT one single location.

      Go back and try your LIES again.

      Why do you stoop so LOW. !!

    • “A SINGLE geographic location cannot refute global seal level rise.”

      Admit it – you’d love to have that much evidence that the MWP wasn’t global.

  22. I would bet the overall publication numbers for climate science are also dropping in the gloomy atmosphere of the “fall” of this meme.The icons of the “cause” have retreated from the scientific literature considerably and have fallen back on toothless op-ed retorts and smears of sceptics.

    Fickle Hollywood has moved on to casting couch issues and Al Gore seems a broken man with his empty theaters and no clicks on his Anticlimactic Dreareality Project. What does he do in his unhappy state? He’s joins forces halfheartedly with another has been, one trick pony carnival barker to explain how global warming froze Houston Tx , littered Massachusetts beaches with frozen sharks and Louisiana shoreline with Gulf turtles suffering from hypothermia.

    Sceptics are even less an enemy now than the unrelenting practical joker Mother Nature who must enjoy the convolutions and convulsions she puts these global warming clingons through to pound their square pegs into frozen round holes. She seems almost unkind in her seeking out and destroying hubris wherever she finds it. I feel I should be feeling sorry for these grim vanquished sad sacks but no tears yet.

  23. I too would question the proposition, START to crumble

    I have seen articles elsewhere claiming over 700 papers that are NOT in agreement with the so called, now totally discredited, “97% consensus”. The fact that this sort of blog post is recurring says a lot.

    I am embarrassed for anybody quoting this lame statistic anymore — NASA, take a hint.

  24. After publication of “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein”, he answered “why 100 ? if Iwere wrong, then one author would have been enough”.
    The one author than refutes the 97% consensus exist, and the one paper needed is from 1991
    http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Chaos_spontaneous_greenhouse_1991.pdf
    (see also: https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/words-of-wisdom-from-ed-lorenz/ )
    There is no scientific point in counting up the number of so called “scientists” that (still) endorse the still-born idea of CAGW (actually NOT scientists, for this very reason), nor in counting those who don’t.

  25. you mean out of 10,200 something surveys returned, 95 of those surveys saying ‘Yes’ isn’t a 97% consensus?
    Shocking
    to no one who knows anything resembling actual math. or new math. or whatever it was they were trying to foist in the last few years.

  26. I started looking through the list of the papers and their summaries. The vast majority of the papers don’t fundamentally challenge the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The compiler of this list interpreted their conclusions to say that they challenge the consensus, but the authors don’t say that in their abstracts. I bet if you emailed the authors as Cook et al (2013) did and asked them if they believe their papers challenge the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, the vast majority would say “no”. For example, I didn’t see a single paper in the list about the influence of solar irradiance on the climate that fundamentally challenges the IPCC AR5 (2013) estimate that solar irradiance has only caused 0.05 W/m2 of radiative forcing between 1750 and 2011. Whether the estimate is 0.05 or 0.3 W/m2, that doesn’t really challenge the scientific consensus, when the total forcing is 2.83 W/m2 and 2.3 W/m2 of that is anthropogenic. It is easy to fool people who don’t know anything about the science that this list of papers is significant, but it isn’t once you start looking into the details of the papers.

  27. Not a Climatologist, but interested in the discussion and learning. From what I’ve read, water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases. The remaining greenhouse gas is comprised of CO2 (3.7%) and other greenhouse gases (1.3%). The human contribution to the CO2 level amounts to 0.28%. What percentage of the water vapor is attributable to humans. Is it possible that the water vapor being generated by combustion is the real culprit and not our CO2 production? The ice core samples used by NOAA to estimate past CO2 levels are reliant on accumulation of ice. During the 800K years that are covered by the samples, was ice actually accumulating during the inter-glacial warm periods, such that realistic CO2 samples/estimates could be obtained? Or was the ice melting or not forming and therefore no ice record exists for the peak temperature time periods?

Comments are closed.