Consensus? 97 New Papers In 2018 Skeptical of Climate Alarm
In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
Image Source: Robertson and Chilingar, 2017
More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
A(1) Close to or over 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (110{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, with a 5-95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} range of 80–130{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
To reiterate, the 97 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions.
The papers do not do more than that.
Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.
Below are the two links to the list of 97 papers amassed as of 26 February 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization. Also included are 24 sample papers included on the list, about 1/4th of the total.
Read rest at No Tricks Zone
Trackback from your site.
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
While attending the CSASTRO meeting held at the Colorado Springs Space Foundation Discovery Center last night a couple of exhibits caught my eye.
There is a mockup of an MMU, Manned Maneuvering Unit, used on three missions for free floating space walks. The late Bruce McCandless using the MMU was pictured in several news articles. I understand the MMU was abandoned as too risky, a failure and the astronaut is screwed. Too bad they weren’t as cautious about SRM O-rings and loose foam insulation blocks.
A nearby descriptive panel highlights some of the major MMU systems including a cooling system. If outer space is cold, why is a cooling system needed? Why not a heating system?
Close by stands a glass case with a mannequin clothed in long underwear with interwoven coolant tubing. This underwear is the first layer of a lunar excursion outfit. A placard nearby explains this cooling is needed because the airless surface of the moon is 253 F (122.7 C, 395.7 K).
Typical diurnal range of the Moon’s equatorial surface temperature according to Diviner radiometric data is 390 K to 93 K (297 C range) with an average of 213 K. (https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723)
The ISS has not one, but a redundant pair of ammonia refrigerant cooling, chilling, air conditioning systems. Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting ISS sun lit side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C, 394 K). (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/)
According to Radiative Green House Effect theory the surface of the earth at 288 K is 33 C warmer than the earth without atmosphere at 255 K.
The physical evidence presented above suggests that, because of the reflective albedo, the earth is 160 C cooler with an atmosphere, 394 K (w/o) – 288 K (w).
What this discussion presents is actual, real, physical, measured evidence that clearly refutes, falsifies RGHE theory and the man caused climate change, CAGW, Anthropocene house of cards, Jenga blocks, dominoes pseudo-science nonsense stacked upon it.
Reply