Today's warming is not global, unprecendented, or remarkable

[task0778]

The GW alarmists would have you believe the entire planet is at risk and it's all our fault. However, there are quite a few published scientific papers that differ with that proposal. And we can forget that 97% bullshit about all scientists believing in AGW, that was never true. These studies show that there are many areas in the world today that have NOT experienced global warming at all, nor a significant rise in sea levels. AND, studies also show that in the past the earth has experienced periods of warming long before the industrial revolution came along. Which is not to say that mankind isn't spewing quite a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, obviously we are but the question is how much of a problem is it and what can or should we do about it.


Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.

Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
.

Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
.

Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

 

[skookerasbil]

global gheyness

We're freezing out balls off here in New York this week.........its the standard joke now around here. Almost mid-June and weve been freezing here since mid-October 2016.People are freaking out with the fuckedupedness of it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The wealth redistribution scam is being exposed for what it is....a wealth redistribution scam

 

[BlindBoo]

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.

DELINGPOLE: 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017 - Breitbart


Looks like they do agree with AGW, just not the dire consequence of that warming.

 

[task0778]

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.

DELINGPOLE: 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017 - Breitbart


Looks like they do agree with AGW, just not the dire consequence of that warming.

I would venture a guess that most scientists that are knowledgeable in this field are probably willing to say that the planet is warming, albeit in fits and starts AND that mankind has contributed to that warming to some extent. However, I do not believe there is any consensus over how much warming is occurring or how much of that is due to anthropogenic causes. Clearly, science has not been too good at projecting how much warming is occurring cuz almost every computer model over the past 30 years or so has been wrong and not by an insignificant margin either. Nor is there any data that shows human-caused CO2 emissions are the main factor in however much warming is occurring; corelation does not prove causation. There have been warming periods in the earth's past history that could not have been caused by homo sapiens, that has been proven by scientific research. One can say that over the past century or more mankind has dumped a lot of CO2 into the air, and his deforestation and other actions has ascerbated the problem, and IMHO that is undisputable. BUT - the exact nature and severity of the problem is quite uncertain, and it seems to me the solutions we arrive at ought to be more cost effective than the Paris Agreement is. Or was.

 

[BlindBoo]

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.

DELINGPOLE: 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017 - Breitbart


Looks like they do agree with AGW, just not the dire consequence of that warming.

I would venture a guess that most scientists that are knowledgeable in this field are probably willing to say that the planet is warming, albeit in fits and starts AND that mankind has contributed to that warming to some extent. However, I do not believe there is any consensus over how much warming is occurring or how much of that is due to anthropogenic causes. Clearly, science has not been too good at projecting how much warming is occurring cuz almost every computer model over the past 30 years or so has been wrong and not by an insignificant margin either. Nor is there any data that shows human-caused CO2 emissions are the main factor in however much warming is occurring; corelation does not prove causation. There have been warming periods in the earth's past history that could not have been caused by homo sapiens, that has been proven by scientific research. One can say that over the past century or more mankind has dumped a lot of CO2 into the air, and his deforestation and other actions has ascerbated the problem, and IMHO that is undisputable. BUT - the exact nature and severity of the problem is quite uncertain, and it seems to me the solutions we arrive at ought to be more cost effective than the Paris Agreement is. Or was.

I have no problem with that.

 

[mamooth]

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

Only WUWT cult nutters use the bizarre term "CAGW". That's why you deniers should never use it. The instant you do, your credibility plunges to zero, and everyone immediately points and laughs at the brainwashed cultist.

So, on the whole, a fine cult nutter thread. Cherrypicking fallacies, the usual denier urban legends, and the usual denier whackaloon conspiracy theories. That is, the usual denier stuff.

I hate to break it to you, but there's no VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. I do understand why you claim there is. After all, all the data says you're wrong, and you can't argue with the data, so you have to make up these conspiracy theories about how all the data is faked.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Things are cooler how it it global warming?

Those seas rise yet? No?

Thought so.

 

[mamooth]

Things are cooler how it it global warming?

Things are much warmer. Why are you telling such a whopper? Is your dishonesty deliberate, or are you just brainlessly parroting nonsense that your cult fed you?

Those seas rise yet? No?

Yes.

So what do you hope to accomplish by lying? After all, we already know that your cult lies about everything, so you don't need to prove that.

Now, back to the OP, which was another denier whopper. It claimed 58 papers supported their big lie about global cooling. The authors of all those papers were contacted. So far, 29 have responded, and all 29 said that deniers are lying about their work.

Breitbart misrepresents research from 58 scientific papers to falsely claim that they disprove human-caused global warming

 

[flacaltenn]

The GW alarmists would have you believe the entire planet is at risk and it's all our fault. However, there are quite a few published scientific papers that differ with that proposal. And we can forget that 97% bullshit about all scientists believing in AGW, that was never true. These studies show that there are many areas in the world today that have NOT experienced global warming at all, nor a significant rise in sea levels. AND, studies also show that in the past the earth has experienced periods of warming long before the industrial revolution came along. Which is not to say that mankind isn't spewing quite a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, obviously we are but the question is how much of a problem is it and what can or should we do about it.


Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.

Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
.

Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
.

Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

Hey -- who unmuzzled all those Proxy Studies? Must have had a back-up of proxy studies that are suddenly "allowed" to go to publishers. It's all a confused bag of stale popcorn. Not much to be devined. OTHER THAN -- anyone claiming that our little 100 yr old temp spike is "unprecedented in magnitude or rate" is just lying to you...

Certainly an awful large of number of those studies showing the LittleIceAge, MedWarmPeriod and other Michael Mann taboos in places where Mann and the hockey players said it never was..

 

[mamooth]

Hey -- who unmuzzled all those Proxy Studies? Must have had a back-up of proxy studies that are suddenly "allowed" to go to publishers. It's all a confused bag of stale popcorn. Not much to be devined. OTHER THAN -- anyone claiming that our little 100 yr old temp spike is "unprecedented in magnitude or rate" is just lying to you...

Those proxy authors that you just said say you're lying about what their studies show.

Certainly an awful large of number of those studies showing the LittleIceAge, MedWarmPeriod and other Michael Mann taboos in places where Mann and the hockey players said it never was..

Your theory fails badly in more than one way.

You look at a spike in a local proxy, and declare it means a global spike. Statistics failure on your part.

And you use a kooky "Well, you can't prove a global spike that was less than the resolution didn't happen, therefore it did!" logic. That's not how science works. You're making the reality-defying claim, so it's up to you to prove it. There is no "You can't absolutely disprove my magic theory, so my magic theory is correct!" standard in science.

 

[IanC]

The GW alarmists would have you believe the entire planet is at risk and it's all our fault. However, there are quite a few published scientific papers that differ with that proposal. And we can forget that 97% bullshit about all scientists believing in AGW, that was never true. These studies show that there are many areas in the world today that have NOT experienced global warming at all, nor a significant rise in sea levels. AND, studies also show that in the past the earth has experienced periods of warming long before the industrial revolution came along. Which is not to say that mankind isn't spewing quite a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, obviously we are but the question is how much of a problem is it and what can or should we do about it.


Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.

Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
.

Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
.

Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

Hey -- who unmuzzled all those Proxy Studies? Must have had a back-up of proxy studies that are suddenly "allowed" to go to publishers. It's all a confused bag of stale popcorn. Not much to be devined. OTHER THAN -- anyone claiming that our little 100 yr old temp spike is "unprecedented in magnitude or rate" is just lying to you...

Certainly an awful large of number of those studies showing the LittleIceAge, MedWarmPeriod and other Michael Mann taboos in places where Mann and the hockey players said it never was..

Yup, I agree.

Andy May reexamined the Marcotte proxies but only used the ones that covered at least the Holocene climate optimum to the Little Ice Age, and a resolution of 130 years or better. He also broke them down into areas such north and southern mid-latitudes, and polar regions.

One of the interesting findings was that the MWP was basically missing in the northern mid-latitudes, where climate science told us was the only place it existed. Smeared out by offset start and stop dates for different locations, I suppose. The northern hemisphere had the most proxies, with the greatest chance of losing detail by averaging.

Odd that the MWP showed up in all the other regions but not where it was supposed to be found.

 

[IanC]

an interesting graph from Marcott, at RealClimate.

I believe this more accurately describes the error bars of the proxy reconstruction, roughly +/- 0.5C. Statistically you cannot even say that there has been ANY warming or cooling in the last 11,000 years because you can draw a horizontal line straight across the graph at ~(-0.25C).

Any single proxy will give you a better idea of the variance. once you start averaging proxies the variance must go down because there is not a perfect match in amplitude of change or the time of change.