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

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

H/t reader kevin a.

* * *

PayPal: Donate in USD
PayPal: Donate in EUR
PayPal: Donate in GBP

1 thought on “80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming”

  1. Many of them contradict each other (if you compare in more detail, when it warmed or cooled, how much)…
    At first glance it seems, that third of them are Chinese, with “Li et al” most prominent contributing 10% of all your charts here ?

    So the scientist (cited by faker Snopes) says, that “I say NOTHING about Climate change being of human origin”. Well. Neither do others there.

    As an independent climate scientist, I am happy to see most charts there:
    There IS a Climate Change ongoing now.

    There ALWAYS is a Climate change ongoing, since there is nothing stable about the climate, and never was…
    The current climate change is in no way unexceptional, is still very far from harmful, and is absolutely not caused by CO2, since:

    CO2 levels depend on temperature (oceans releasing CO2 with it’s solubility depending on temperature),

    but 1000x stronger green-house effect has WATER, the changing structure of clouds. Change of proportion of Cirrus clouds has very profound effect on temperature, that is far above and beyond of any possible effect of CO2.

    It is a pitty, that ISCCP cloud structure datasets are poisoned with unreal “fixes“, that completely preclude studying long-term changes (like a step and completely unreal almost 2°C increase in middle-cloud temperature just at september 2001). It is a pitty, that SST dataset is poisoned with similar unreal “fix” of step increase at 1998, but they at least explain, that ratio of buoys and ships changes over time, with satelite measurements scarce, and buoy measures real surface temperature but ship stirrs waters, so their measurements differ and need to be “adjusted” for computing… (Or was it so strong el-Nino that it’s effects are permanent?)

    Since I believe the climate change is mostly attributed to higher amount of cirrus-type clouds (letting Solar radiation down but not letting reflected IR radiation out – surely you know which days and nights are most warm… And nights on Sahara are very cold, because there is no water in the air…) It partially depends on antropogenic factors, on air travel *trails and possibly on industry dust polution (not CO2)… But politicians would be much more reluctant to reduce air travelling, wont’t they ?

    Higher levels of CO2 are very profitable for plants and twice or three times current levels of CO2 would be extremely profitable for feeding the hungry regions of the planet. CO2 is the Green-allowing gas, in the best possible sense of that “Green”, it’s like a manna for all plants…

    Otherwise if there is such a huge change in peer-reviewed papers, it does not show the climate changed, or that the scientists changed opinion, but it shows, that peer-review process has changed it’s position, allowing some former dissidents’ voices be heard…

    The Paris climate deal was hugest ever financial tunnel : the industry of developed countries shall pay $100 billion a year, so that africans and inds can buy from _jews_ building of “clean energy” power plants… Guess, who will profit most ? And why such a huge crying, that Trump said: “No!” ?
    (The exploit patterns are changing. (((They))) now devised, that exploiting developing countries in Africa is much less profitable, than _helping_ developing countries in Africa and elsewhere based on Euro-American expense, the infrastructure will be built for the needy, while money will pour to the right coffers… Do you dare to oppose? All those bought by the profiteers, and the unfledged youth deformed by bought academia, will aim to destroy you! )


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.