As of mid-September, there have already been 77 peer-reviewed scientific papers authored by several hundred scientists linking solar activity to climate change. There were 43 as of the end of June, as seen here. In other words, there have been 34 more papers linking solar forcing to climate change made available online just since July.
This publication rate for 2016 is slightly ahead of the pace of published papers linking solar forcing to climate change for 2015 (95 Solar-Climate papers ) and 2014 (93 Solar-Climate papers). At this rate, it is likely that a list of 300+ scientific papers linking solar forcing to climate change will have been made available between 2014 and 2016.
In addition, there have already been 41 papers published in science journals this year linking natural oceanic oscillations (i.e., ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO) to climate changes. There were 27 such papers as of the end of June.
The latest papers linking solar activity as well as ocean oscillations to climate changes are listed below. Not only do these papers describe solar activity and ocean oscillations as the dominant mechanisms of climate change, they provide evidence that the modern, post-1950 period does not contain the highest temperatures of the last few hundred years. In fact, these papers each document that temperatures during some periods of the 1700s and/or 1800s were just as warm or warmer than present temperatures.
That periods with much lower CO2 concentrations (of about 280 parts per million, or 0.028% of atmospheric gases) could have warmer-than-now temperatures (with present CO2 concentrations reaching 400 parts per million) defies claims that variations in CO2 primarily (or even exclusively) determine the temperature of the planet’s water and air, and that natural variations in solar activity, ocean heat distribution/cycling, clouds, volcanic activity…play little to no role in long-term climate change.
Perhaps this CO2-drives-climate paradigm needs to be updated to reflect the growing body of scientific evidence that the Sun and natural ocean cycling are primarily what drive temperature variations — not CO2.
Necessary steps will include phasing out fossil-fuel use within a decade; directing a large share of our energy, materials, and labor toward building a renewable energy sector and a high speed rail network; restoring our forests, grasslands, and croplands so that we are putting more carbon into the soil and less into the atmosphere; deeply cutting meat and dairy consumption; and converting a large portion of the U.S. military into a kind of climate mobilization force.
All of that will require a national reallocation of resources among sectors of production, one that diverts a significant share of a necessarily declining resource budget into building green infrastructure and leaves the consumer economy a lot less to work with.…
Dr. Peter L. Ward is a full-time climate scientist, and his surprising new research shows how little greenhouse gases impact our planet. Ward retired from the United States Geological Survey in 1998 after 27 years studying volcanoes, earthquakes, plate tectonics, and regional geology and as a leader in developing the U.S. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Ward has authored numerous climate and climate releated studies.
Clouds form as solar rays hit the stratosphere. Photo – Pixabay
Climate scientist Dr. Peter L. Ward will be showcasing new research that details how the uptick in man-made greenhouse gases is too small to influence#Climate Change. Furthermore, he says not a single scientist has conclusively proven—at least to him—thatgreenhouse gases cause global warming. He even issued a challenge to pay $10,000 to anyone who can show man-made emissions such as carbon dioxide cause global warming. So far no one has won.
Many may recall Bill Nye, the ‘#Science’guy, illustrating how greenhouse gases work through a tabletop experiment. In it, Nye fills one container with regular air and another with carbon dioxide (CO2) and exposes each to radiation from a sun-like heat lamp. According to greenhouse gas theory, the CO2-filled container should show a rise in temperatures, which it did. Nye ended up proving that convection, not infrared, raised the temperatures of the container. Convection has no role in climate change.
‘Right result, wrong physics’
That’s according to a paper that reproduced Nye’s experiment. The paper, published in the American Journal of Physics, used the non-greenhouse gas Argon as an experimental control gas because it has no greenhouse-gas properties, e.g., no infrared absorption. By reproducing what Nye did, even the Argon gas heated up. What Nye had proven, the authors wrote, was CO2’s convective heat transport abilities and not its infraredproperties.
The authors say this is an example of how “bias” crept into the experiment and why it’s important to separate out the radiative and convective properties in these types of experiments. Other scientists have shown how the original Nye experiment, which Al Gore includes in his Climate 101
Advancing to the introduction of the “Alice In Wonderland” paper of Lewandowsky/Cook/Lloyd and already in the second sentence I bump into this (my emphasis):
… the consensus position that global warming is happening, is human caused, and presents a global problem is shared by more than 95 % of domain experts and more than 95 % of relevant articles in the peer-reviewed literature (Anderegg et al. 2010; Cook et al. 2013, 2016; Doran and Zimmerman 2009; Oreskes 2004; Shwed and Bearman 2010).
… presents a global problem …
… shared by more than 95 % of domain experts and more than 95 % of relevant articles in the peer-reviewed literature …
?!?!?!?
…
The issue that I have with the claim is this: it makes the unsupported claim that it is a problem and that it is global and that it is surveyed and found to be 95+% of the papers/experts standing behind this claim. While in reality none of the referenced papers investigated that aspect and at least one of the authors was an author in two of the referenced papers and should know that this claim was unsupported by the evidence. Yet, the claim is made in the second sentence of the introduction of a scientific paper, determining the playing field for what comes next in the paper.
I am trying to put is as politely as possible here, but I have a hard time imagining that this slipped in inadvertently and that the other authors, as well as the reviewers, just glossed over it.
…
I have read the Anderegg 2010, Cook 2013, Doran & Zimmerman 2009 and Oreskes 2004 papers and at that time I found nothing of that kind. In none of those papers participants were asked whether they considered this warming to be a global problem.
Let’s look at what these papers actually investigated.
Short version: Oreskes wanted to know how many papers disagreed with the position of the US National Academy of Science and the IPCC:
Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
I have no problem with the first part. Human activities are putting CO2 in …
It turns out liberal billionaire Tom Steyer’s environmental super PAC was totally involved in promoting investigations into ExxonMobil and global warming skeptics by state attorneys general.
“It’s not something that Tom personally is pushing, though some of our teams on the ground have participated in rallies or events to support our coalition partners,” a spokeswoman for NextGen Climate Action told Politico.
NextGen, Steyer’s super PAC, admitted to backing investigations by New York AG Eric Schneiderman into Exxon over its stance on global warming. The admission came just one day after Steyer told Politico “[w]e’re definitely not pushing this thing.”
Well, that turned out not to be exactly true. The Washington Free Beacon did some digging and found NextGen “has repeatedly promoted the effort and attempted to enlist federal and state officials in efforts to bring charges against Exxon.”
Schneiderman began investigating Exxon in November to see if the company was misrepresenting to shareholders the impacts global warming and climate regulations could have on its operations.
As discussed in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, two of the reasonable inferences from the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the tropics. In fact, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) argues that both should exist and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) uses the hot spot as one of its three “lines of evidence” for justifying its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding (EF).
Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human-caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels). A very interesting new study shows that their skepticism has been more than justified. By using sophisticated econometric/statistical methods on 13 different climate databases for the years 1959 to 2015 where available, the study concludes that the changes in CO2 have no measurable net effects on global temperatures but that global temperatures affect CO2levels. The real advance in the new study is that it assumes that global temperatures may affect atmospheric CO2 levels in addition to assuming that CO2 may affect global temperatures (as assumed by UNIPCC and USEPA). This introduces complexity to the analysis but is a crucial improvement over most earlier studies.
New Research Findings Support Earlier Research by Skeptics
One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers.
Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called “tropical hotspot” relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant “simply does not exist in the real world.”
They found that once El Ninos are taken into account, “there is no ‘record setting’ warming to be concerned about.”
“Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed,” they wrote.
When EPA released its CO2 endangerment finding in 2009, it used three lines of evidence to bolster its argument that greenhouse gases threatened human health through global warming.
The crux of EPA’s argument rested on the existence of a “tropical hotspot” where global warming would be most apparent. That is, there should be enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere — the “fingerprint” of global warming.
EPA’s endangerment finding is the legal basis for agency global warming regulations, including the Clean Power Plan (CPP) now being fought over in federal court. CPP aims to cut power plant carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030 and could cost $41 billion a year, according to independent estimates.
D’Aleo and his colleagues looked at the data and controlled for El Ninos and La Ninas. What they found was that once natural oceanic warming and cooling events are accounted for, there’s no warming trend.
“El Nino is not by any means new,” D’Aleo told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The El Ninos and La Ninas do not occur at a regular frequency but tend to cluster as we showed in our paper.”
