What Global Warming? 148 New (2020) Scientific Papers Affirm Recent Non-Warming, A Degrees-Warmer Past

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 14. January 2021

Scientists continued defying the “unprecedented” global warming narrative by publishing nearly 150 papers  in 2020 that show large regions of the Earth (a) haven’t warmed in recent decades, (b) were as-warm or warmer within the last several centuries, and/or (c) were 1-7°C warmer than today just a few millennia ago.

Here is the link to the 2020 (and 2019) Non-Global Warming scientific paper database:

Non-Global Warming Studies From 2020 & 2019

Below are 8 examples of the 148 non-global warming papers published in 2020.

Martin et al., 2020  France max Holocene temps (14°C) were 7°C warmer than the modern value (7°C)

“Modern climatic parameters were obtained from the instrumental database of Meteo-France at the nearby station of Mazet-Volamont (1130 m) located 11 km distant, for the period 2009-2017 … Temperature values were corrected using a lapse rate of 0.6°C/ 100 m. Mean annual temperatures vary between 6 and 9°C with a mean value of 7°C. … The mean annual temperature for the entire Holocene was 11.3°C, i.e. 4.1°C above the modern value. The maximum of 14°C and a minimum of 7.6°C were reached, respectively, at 7.8 and 1.7 kyr cal BP. … The last 200 years display an opposite trend … MAAT decreased by 3.1 and 3.3°C for the lake calibrations, Sun et al. (2011) and Russell et al. (2018), respectively, and 2.1°C for the soil calibration.”

Hou et al., 2020  W. Tropical Atlantic 1-5°C warmer throughout last ice age (190 ppm CO2)

“Our results indicate a lack of pronounced glacial-interglacial variability in the SST record, prompting us to exclude atmospheric pCO2 as a direct driver of SST variations in the southern WTA [western tropical Atlantic].”

Xia et al., 2020  Subantarctic Georgia “summer temperature between 10°C and 5°C higher than present”

“Although the biomarker-based paleotemperature proxy has been calibrated for modern temperature data of regional lakes, summer temperatures as high as 14°C reconstructed from Fan Lake are outside the range of their modern calibration dataset in which the warmest site has a summer temperature of only 10°C (Foster et al., 2016) … The CARs increased to as high as 140 g C m² yr¹ at 4000-3500 cal yr BP and 70 g C m² yr¹ at 3200-2700 cal yr BP when summer temperature was around 10°C and 5°C higher than present, respectively “

Gebbie, 2020  Modern global ocean heat 1/3rd of what’s required to reach Medieval levels

Wangner et al., 2020  SE Greenland warmer 1920s-1940s

The cold decades after 1950 coincide with the Great Salinity Anomaly in the late 60s to early 70s, caused by the long-term decrease of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index favoring the export of freshwater and ice through Fram Strait into the EGC (Dickson et al., 1996). Within two or three years, the associated salinity anomaly reached the Labrador Sea causing a reduction of the convection and subsequent weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). This mechanism explains the low temperature on the SE-Greenland shelf and the positive AMV during this time period (Ionita et al., 2016, Figure 6d). … Displayed in the alkSST record from Skjoldungen as well as in the CTD measurements off Skjoldungen (Figure 5d) is a return to lower temperatures post 2006, pointing out the exceptional high temperatures around 2000. … Our study shows that even though the meltwater production may have been influenced by climate, the glacier margin position and iceberg calving remained relatively constant in the 20th century. This may be due to the setting of the glacier with a limited ice-ocean interface and a 90° inflow angle acting as a pinning point in its current position. Our study illustrates that ocean heat may have a limited effect on some marine glaciers.”

Sun et al., 2020  NW China no warming since 1600s, cooling since 1950

Weckstrom et al., 2020  Northern North Atlantic cooling and sea ice growing since 1930

Singh et al., 2020  “The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades”

“Low Antarctic continental climate sensitivity due to high ice sheet orography … The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.”
4.8 21 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin McNeill
January 16, 2021 2:33 pm

How inconvenient but true

January 16, 2021 2:37 pm

Despite the claims to the contrary, the truth ALWAYS comes out. Anyone who isn’t brain-dead, who happens to have lived more than 20 years, KNOWS the climate has not changed! As a boy in West Texas in the early 1950’s I can ASSURE you it was a LOT hotter then than now!

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  PC_Bob
January 16, 2021 3:26 pm

I was in high school in the early 50s, recall playing summer baseball, game called at noon, no matter what, too hot. Cattle were dying in the mid-50s. Was west of the Pecos a year ago, seemed like they are having more clouds, also mentioned by one native. They got excited by the first drought approaching it a decade ago, not good but far short of the 50s.

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
January 18, 2021 7:14 am

Summer drought & heat was worse in the late 1950s to late 1960s here in the US mid-Atlantic states than the 1930s, which was more centered in the American midwest. Summers here for the last 25 yrs have been relatively mild & only rarely dry.

Last edited 2 years ago by beng135
Reply to  PC_Bob
January 16, 2021 3:51 pm

comment image

January 16, 2021 3:07 pm

To paraphrase Einstein, why 148 papers, if CAGW is wrong, one would have been sufficient to disprove it.

M Courtney
Reply to  Alberta
January 16, 2021 3:49 pm

And it is.
But the extra 147 are very funny.

Reply to  Alberta
January 16, 2021 3:49 pm

Yep, and it has..

148 times in 148 different ways.

Reply to  Alberta
January 16, 2021 4:58 pm

To be fair, yesterday one of ours used this same argument to try and refute Paul Ehrlich.
That is Ehrlich claimed to have 150 papers supporting his position.

A bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of who’s making it.

Having more papers by more people supporting your position, strengthens your position, it doesn’t weaken it.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  MarkW
January 17, 2021 6:50 am


A variation on that is, having made miscalculations from a bad data set, and having arrived at erroneous conclusions, it is useless for someone to replicate the effort and come to the same erroneous conclusion.

Mann 2008 rehashed his hockey stock data removing some of the flatness of the hockey stick’s shaft. Defective calculations and conceptual errors were pointed out, in print, within 10 days. Mann’s effort was replicated by some friends who, he announced, had “validated” his results. Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?

About the most useless effort is that spent coming to the same defective yet alarming conclusion using <i>computer models</i>.

Reply to  MarkW
January 17, 2021 6:09 pm

Except, Ehrlich has been proven fallacious by reality for decades.
Republishing Ehrlich’s exaggerated Malthusian nonsense does not improve his predictions or cause them to physically occur.

Wrong is still wrong. Whether, it is one paper or hundreds of Ehrlich’s condescending pompous claims.

Ehrlich is a classic case of an alarmist unable to admit error or learn from his mistakes.
Also on display is the inability of alarmists to hold their own legally accountable to reality.

Reply to  Alberta
January 16, 2021 5:38 pm

That’s true for Einstein’s work. A single inconvenient experimental result could have wiped his name from the history books.

In the case of CAGW, I suspect the single necessary paper has been written about a thousand times. CAGW should be deader than a door nail.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2021 6:17 pm

CB said “CAGW should be deader than a door nail.”

Except for the modern media, which if it had existed in his era could have have assassinated Einstein’s character similar to the press’s treatment of N. Tesla after he fell from grace with the ruling power brokers of his time.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Alberta
January 16, 2021 5:47 pm

No one is claiming “consensus”, which is what the Einstein comparison was intended to illustrate.However, the reference is inappropriate.

Einstein said: “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, one of them would be enough!”

The 100 collectively criticized his theory … when it would have required only 1 to falsify it if they could. In other words they were relying on argumentum ad populum, not science.

Each of these 148 papers falsifies CAGW, using science. That is overwhelming evidence, A very different thing than you implied.

Jon-Anders Grannes
Reply to  Alberta
January 16, 2021 5:58 pm

148 different places?

Reply to  Jon-Anders Grannes
January 17, 2021 12:52 pm

Back around 2010 this site ran a series of articles each claiming an area of the planet was hotter than any other. By the end of the series, there were only two places that had not been mentioned. I don’t clearly recall where they were, but on was in South America.

How can all these places be hotter than any other?

Bryan A
Reply to  Alberta
January 16, 2021 11:26 pm

And much like the 97% consensus…
Why 77 papers to prove CaCa.
Wouldn’t one have been enough?
For that matter, if CC/GW/AGW/CAGW/… is a fact why are any more papers necessary?

Reply to  Alberta
January 17, 2021 4:06 am

Not in Climate “Sciene” 😀

Gunga Din
Reply to  Alberta
January 17, 2021 4:25 pm

Einstein followed the scientific method and was referring to being disproved via the scientific method.
The scientific method has never been applied to “CAGW”, from start to finish.
How many predictions/projections have failed?
It snowed here today. I thought our kids and grandkids wouldn’t know was snow was?
Mann’s “One Tree to Rule Us All”?
Many have tried to buttress his Hockey Stick (since he got the first headlines) but he and his supporters have been debunked all the way back to Yamal-06.
The goal is that Man needs to be controlled.
That’s why AOC (et.al.) have latched onto it.
CAGW is not science. It’s political science.

January 16, 2021 3:19 pm

Look at the USCRN wbsite – the site presents a visualization tool that allows plots of temp anomolies from 2005 till Dec 2020 – previous 12 months based upon the December month ! This for the 48 contiguous states AND Alaska and Hawaii ! Where’s the SIGNIFICANT warming ?? !!

Reply to  steve in seattle
January 16, 2021 3:44 pm


Slight bulge over the 2015/2016 El Nino/Big Blob event.

Nearly back down to the zero trend it had before that.

comment image

Reply to  fred250
January 16, 2021 7:16 pm

In fact, if you look carefully at the USCRN graph, the trend since 2005 is 3.19&deg;C/century. Not small at all.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 16, 2021 8:26 pm

LOL … a “trend” covering 15 years, how uninspiring. I swear if someone could explain the difference between climate and weather to you people you might begin to realize why you’re all such a laughing stock.

I believe NOAA provide the USCRN as particularly decorative birdcage flooring. I mean, how could 114 continuous stations be wrong?

What a bloody joke.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 16, 2021 9:38 pm

“LOL … a “trend” covering 15 years”
It was the period cited by the posts to which I replied, with a claim that it proved there was no significant warming. But in fact it shows warming. Whether the trend is significant is a matter you can take up with them.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 16, 2021 10:35 pm

Of course that’s the way you would interpret it, how predictable. In fact it only shows warming on a graph without any margin for error … using ridiculous parameters (only 14 stations). The “trend” is statistically zero. You can hardly assume a straight line upward trend with such variable and incomplete data. You people live in a fantasy world.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 16, 2021 11:12 pm

Yawn !

You are showing your DUMBNESS yet again, Nick

Either you can’t see the effect of the 2015, 2016 El Nino causing the slight trend.

. and the fact that the trend is easing back towards zero…

….. or you are DELIBERATELY being a clueless moron.

Which is it ??

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 16, 2021 8:38 pm

Yeah Nick. And we remember being told from extrapolations based on graphs from TAR showing shorter ranges also escalating into ALARM! Because SCIENCE, don’t you believe science? What happened, Nick?

This graph shows us the slowing reverse effect when a NATURAL event like an El Niño occurs to temporarily raise temps, because the earth is busy redistributing energy, not reflecting your preferred narrative.

Jeeze—does nobody learn from history any more? (Just because that’s the mod thing?)

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 16, 2021 9:58 pm

You are showing your DUMBNESS yet again, Nick

Either you can’t see the effect of the 2015, 2016 El Nino causing the slight trend.. and the fact that the trend is easing back towards zero…

….. or you are DELIBERATELY being a clueless moron.

Which is it ??

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 16, 2021 10:04 pm

And since 2017, its been COOLING at 7.5ºC/ century

Your point is, as always, UTTERLY POINTLESS

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 18, 2021 7:18 am

One of the criteria for a hypothesis to have any validity is that it explains past observations. The AGW CO2 hypothesis fails spectacularly in this regard.

Reply to  DrEd
January 18, 2021 12:43 pm

Which is another reason they have to keep “tampering” with past observations.

January 16, 2021 3:28 pm

lot of hot air

Pop Piasa
January 16, 2021 4:49 pm

I figure the global propaganda network (MSM) will bury these inconvenient insights, along with all the scandalous behavior of the leftist leaders who represent the progressive socialist movement (which would sell our liberty for imaginary security from the unseen, but effusively predicated demon of anthropogenic global climate change).

January 16, 2021 4:52 pm

“Recent decades” is not a sufficient time scale for the study of global warming as seen in the volatlity of decadal warming. Pls see


January 16, 2021 4:55 pm

But last night on the news they said the oceans are the hottest they have been in recorded human history, and what’s more, Michael Mann even showed up – with his eyes really wide open – to give respectability to the claim. So these papers must be wrong!!
(I must admit, he did look a bit sweaty)

Last edited 2 years ago by Mike
Pop Piasa
Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2021 5:11 pm

Well, ya see it’s this way…
They had to adjust the data from the Roman galleon bucket samples because the thermometers were both outdated and differently scaled. 😁
Mike did his usual bang-up job of assimilating them into a flat line, as any advanced mathematician would, given he’s trying to save face. 😉

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2021 5:54 pm

Considering they have only been recording ocean temperatures world wide for only a few years, with only limited accuracy and a bare minimum of data points, they can say anything they like. They have nothing to compare it with.

Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2021 6:53 pm

Mann was very busy yesterday. He was on NPR science Friday with Ira Flatow.
Here is a link to listen
When Science Friday site opens, click on Listen on Souncloud and interview will start
You can listen to all or move to around 15 minutes.
Ira will ask him if CO2 decrease with the pandemic.
Have fun

January 16, 2021 5:11 pm

Under the current paradigm linking to any of the cited reports is to be disqualified by USA social media & anyone who tries to post such will be banned. Moreover, the USA House of Representatives majority is readying legislation that will ensure the re-education of anyone turned into the authorities who a loyal citizen has provided information about reading any of the cited reports. Those in possession of print outs of any of the cited reports will be put on the national no-fly list & soon to be promulgated no-train list. Anyone caught passing a copy of any of the cited reports to another individual of their immediate family who turns them in will forfeit their insurance coverage. For those caught passing a copy of any of the cited reports to a non-family member they will be dismissed from private sector employment & disallowed from hiring for similar work they had performed. Disclaimer: the above is an excerpt of a fictional short story I am trying to compose & in no way should be construed as implying any of it is true.

January 16, 2021 10:54 pm
Steve Case
January 17, 2021 1:06 am

Even NOAA’s Climate at a Glance has data that shows us that summers are cooler:
comment image

Most of the states surrounding Kentucky and Tennessee show summer time cooling since the 19th century.

January 17, 2021 1:30 am

I am really confused. Lots of tree ring studies in the papers but none of them look like Mr Mann’s. How could that be……/sarc

Coeur de Lion
January 17, 2021 2:09 am

At the peak of the 2016 El Niño the famed John Humphries of the BBC had a little girly scientist up and asked if she was ‘scared’. ‘No, I’m Concerned’ she said. What she should have said was “actually John there’s no need to worry. This is a marked El Niño spike and is only point one of a degree warmer than the 1998 El Niño- that’s about half a degree a century. It’ll drop half a degree in a few months. So keep cool”
So she’s either a gross liar or a little girly scientist. You choose.

January 17, 2021 2:12 am

Earth’s temperature is thermostatically controlled. And global temperature data that purports to show a trend within the current millennia is WRONG.

Ocean circulations can move it around over decades but the energy balance is finely controlled by two temperature dependent processes (a) sea ice formation at -2C and (b) cloudburst causing zero net surface heat flux at 30C.

How could some finely tuned, CO2 dependent energy balance achieve the same warm pool maximum temperature of 30C in three disparate and well separated oceans. It is simply ridiculous to think the feeble forcing od a US standard atmosphere could have any bearing on the global energy balance.

The attached chart gives that fairytale CO2 forcing some perspective. You need to look hard for the red line right down the bottom that compares the forecast monthly forcing for doubling CO2 from 275ppm over all ocean and land to the monthly heat rejected by clouds and long wave emissions from the surface or atmosphere over the oceans – look hard it is the red curve (looks like a line on the scale relevant to the other processes).

If all of the oceans could be reduced to something like a US standard atmosphere then doubling of CO2 would result in less than 1% of the heat rejected from the oceans. An immeasurable change in cloud would achieve that. However we do not need to bother with such trivia because the clouds are controlled by the surface temperature of the tropical oceans to take heat uptake negative once the surface reaches 30C; a near perfect thermostat, far more accurate than any measurement system purporting to measure “global surface temperature’.

Screen Shot 2021-01-17 at 9.05.53 pm.png
January 17, 2021 6:27 am

These scientists will probably be “cancelled” by the new Biden administration. You have to follow the party line to be pertinent in today’s draconian America.

Ewin Barnett
January 17, 2021 7:39 am

Just like with the recent election, the data are at odds with the narrative.

January 17, 2021 8:07 am

Just as climate alarmism is victorious and seizes power politically, the science behind it falls apart. This is a dangerous scenario with an acute threat to free speech and democracy. Not a good time to be a climate scientist unless you are one like Trofim Lysenko or Michael Mann.

To bed B
January 17, 2021 11:32 am

We have had a very cold summer. One day of 40C and that was just before summer started. Only a few days over 35. The recent two days of 7 and 8 C above average lead to extensive media coverage of the dangers of the approaching heatwave.

The 8 below the average was described as milder than the average for this time of year.

I don’t think that these studies will make a ripple in the MSM.

January 17, 2021 12:17 pm

David Attenborough in his latest TV series on wildlife has just said on BBC 1: ”The earth’s climate has not changed temperature by more than one degree C in 10,000 years.”

That is utterly false. It has changed by 2-4 degrees as attested by multiple publications. Some regions in high latitudes by up to 10 degrees.

January 17, 2021 3:20 pm

Here’s a few more, looking at the ocean.

The literature is full of studies that show substantial variation in ocean temperatures over the Holocene including several periods with much warmer oceans than now, especially 6000 years ago.




In this paper by Bianchi et al, take a look at figure 2. Not only deep Atlantic temperatures both in the north and the equatorial region, but also the deep flow rates at a sea floor location to measure “ISOW” – Iceland-Scotland overflow water, showing the deep flow rate of the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional overturning circulation.) This data shows continual oscillation of Atlantic temperatures at all depths over the whole Holocene. It nicely shows both in the North Atlantic and also the Sargasso sea (tropical) the LIA, the MWP, the dark ages cold and the Roman-Minoan warm periods.


So the Atlantic was much warmer in the early Holocene than now, both at the surface and at depth; both near the Arctic and in the tropics.

Oceans are warming and cooling all the time, with or without humans.

Tom Abbott
January 18, 2021 4:38 am

Well, maybe the tide is turning a little bit. The science of Human-caused Climate Change seems to be running out of gas.

There is no new science supporting Human-caused Climate Change, and there hasn’t been for years, whereas, more and more science is challenging the Human-caused Climate Change narrative, which this article demonstrates.

It should be obvious to any open-minded person that it was just as warm in the past as it is today, and that means we are *not* experiencing unprecedented warming today, and that means CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere, and that means we don’t have to spend Trillions of dollars fixing a CO2 problem that doesn’t exist.

The only reason the Human-caused Climate Change narrative is continuing to be pushed is for political and personal gain. The science does not support it.

January 18, 2021 6:56 am

I so appreciate those folks here who understand much of this better than I do hanging tough and fighting back against the tyranny. I struggle with the fact that many in the scientific community have sold out and corrupted our scientific process while doing so. Politics is prevalent in almost all issues we face today. I hope it changes, but not looking likely, at least in the near term.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights