1. Climate Curious, by environmentalist David Siegel: What he learned about climate change.
2. PragerU: What Science Reveals About Climate Change (a series of five-minute videos by top experts).
3. 2018 Annual GWPF Lecture: Global Warming For The Two Cultures, by Prof. Richard Lindzen.
4. BestSchools: Karoly/Tamblyn—Happer Dialogue on Global Warming, 2016-2017. An in-depth, balanced, written debate, between leading experts on both sides of the issue.
5. SOHO Forum debate: Is Carbon Dioxide Endangering the Planet? Craig Idso vs. Jeffrey Bennett. (video). April 15, 2019 debate between a top climate expert on each side of the issue, at The SOHO Forum in Manhattan. ↑
6. IQ2US Debate: Is Global Warming A Crisis? (video). 2007 televised debate between three top climate experts on each side, which is still surprisingly timely. ↑
(see also: #11, below, the 2014 APS Workshop)
Amicus brief: ↑
7. Three top scientists briefed the judge on climate science, in the 2018 Calif v. BP lawsuit. It was educational for him, and it probably will be for you, too.
Physics & geophysics: ↑
8. 2014 UNC Physics Colloquium by Princeton atmospheric physicist Prof. Will Happer.
9. Wilson, 2012, Simple model to estimate the contribution of atmospheric CO2 to the Earth's greenhouse effect.
10. Pierrehumbert, 2011, Infrared radiation and planetary temperature (and discussion).
11. In 2014, the American Physical Society held a seven hour long “Climate Change Statement Review Workshop,” in which a panel of leading climate experts discussed the science of climate change, including a lot of discussion of climate sensitivity. The transcript is a daunting 573 pages long, but that's double-spaced and only about 135 words per page, and it is very educational.
Sea-level rise is not accelerating: ↑
(or, at the very least, it's not accelerating significantly — studies vary)
12. www.sealevel.info (shameless promotion of my own web site -DAB).
13. Clickable thumbnails for NOAA's entire 2016 list of 375 long term trend tide stations.
14. “Acceleration” primer. (Do you know how to recognize “acceleration” in a graph?)
Hurricanes & tropical cyclones are not worsening: ↑
15. Lin & Chan (2015), Recent decrease in typhoon destructive potential and global warming implications. Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/ncomms8182.
Klotzbach & Landsea (2015), Extremely Intense Hurricanes: Revisiting Webster et al. (2005) after 10 Years. Journal of the American Meteorological Society, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0188.1.
16. Global Hurricane Frequency graph (twelve month running sums), from ClimateAtlas.com/tropical/.
17. Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy graph (ACE), from ClimateAtlas.com/tropical/ (or similar but older graph from wunderground.com).
Tornadoes are not worsening: ↑
18. 2018 US tornadoes lowest in 65 years of record-keeping, by meteorologist Anthony Watts.
19. NOAA: U.S. Annual Count of Strong to Violent Tornadoes (F3+), 1954 through 2014 (graph).
20. WoodTV: Strong to Violent Tornadoes in the U.S. Trending Downward, by meteorologist Bill Steffen (graph).
Droughts are not worsening: ↑
21. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (and graph).
22. NOAA NCDC: U.S. percentage very wet or very dry (and graph).
Current temperatures are not unprecedented: ↑
23. Scientists call warm periods, like the current warm period, “climate optimums.”
Current globally averaged temperatures are warmer than they've been in hundreds of years, but probably similar to temperatures during earlier climate optimums, like the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Bronze Age Warm Period. Most studies find that current temperatures are substantially lower than they were during the Mid-Holocene Climate Optimum    , and several degrees below what they were during warmest part of the Eemian Interglacial.
Recent warming has not been unusually rapid: ↑
24. Depending on which temperature index you choose (graph source), global temperatures are believed to have been rising at an average rate of between 0.06°C and 0.16°C per decade since 1958 (the start of the Mauna Loa CO2 measurement record), as atmospheric CO2 level rose from 315 ppmv to 411 ppmv. Based on the trends in temperature and CO2 level, we could expect at most a little over 1°C of additional warming by 2100.
That's a small change, and a very slow rate of change, in comparison with past natural changes in the Earth's temperatures. We know from ice core isotope analyses that over the last 100,000 years the Earth has experienced dozens of natural “Dansgaard-Oeschger events” in which temperatures changed at rates as rapid as several degrees per decade. (Caveat: Greenland's temperature changes tend, in general, to be at least twice as rapid as globally averaged temperature changes, due to “Arctic amplification.”)
Those much larger and more rapid (but 100% natural!) temperature changes are known to have been globally synchronous, though less abrupt in the southern hemisphere, and they persisted for hundreds or (more typically) thousands of years — and nobody knows with certainty why they occurred.
Fortunately, those very large, abrupt temperature changes apparently did not cause mass extinctions. Mankind, polar bears, pikas, coral, and nearly every other existing species of animal and plant all survived those sharp climate changes. That suggests we needn't fear that the current (comparatively slight) warming trend could be catastrophic for them.
What about feedbacks? ↑
25. Dozens of “feedback mechanisms” affect the Earth's climate. Some are “positive” (amplifying), others are “negative” (attenuating).
My web page on the topic includes an overview of how feedback systems work, how feedbacks are analyzed, and a comprehensive list of climate feedbacks, both positive and negative.
What about the claimed “97% consensus”? ↑
26. Q: Is there a 97% consensus for climate alarmism,
or did over 30,000 scientists say global warming is a hoax?
A: Neither. The best evidence is that manmade climate change is real, but modest and benign. The only consensus is that emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) do help warm the Earth. There's no consensus that it's harmful.
Benefits of rising CO2 levels ↑
The peer-reviewed scientific evidence is compelling that the so-called “social cost of carbon” is negative, meaning that CO2 emissions are net-
…for deserts & natural ecosystems:
27. “Greening” the Earth.
…and for agriculture:
28. Carbonic Acid Gas to Fertilize the Air, Scientific American, Nov. 27, 1920.
29. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (“CO2 Science”) is a
30. The CO2 Coalition is another
31. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a UK educational charity and think tank, with a prestigious Academic Advisory Council, focused on analysis of climate-related public policies and their economic and environmental implications. They've produced a superb series of in-depth reports (like this one on The Good News About Carbon Dioxide), shorter briefing papers, notes, essays and lectures.
32. Increased agricultural productivity and improved drought resilience due to rising CO2 level are helping to make famines increasingly rare, for the first time in human history (see bar chart).
That's a very, very Big Deal. Famine used to be a scourge comparable to war and epidemic. For comparison: WWII killed 2.7% of the world's population, and the catastrophic 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2% of the world's population. But the global drought and famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of the worlds population! ↑
One of the fathers of modern climatology
was the great Swedish scientist and Nobel laureate, Svante Arrhenius. He was the first person to quantify the warming effect of mankind's
CO2 emissions, and correctly predict that it would benefit agriculture. He even predicted what is now called
“polar amplification.” In a
"By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid
in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with… better climates,… when the earth will bring forth much more
abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." ↑
Ten top climate blogs:† ↑
…For news, analysis & discussion:
34. Watts Up With That (“WUWT”), by Anthony Watts.
…For in-depth analysis: (realist/skeptical/lukewarmist)
35. Climate Etc. by Judith Curry.
36. Climate Audit, by Steve McIntyre.
37. Roy Spencer.
38. Andy May.
39. Jo Nova.
…and, for balance, the four best alarmist blogs:
40. Moyhu, by Nick Stokes.
41. Science of Doom, by Steve Carson.
42. All Models Are Wrong (but some are useful), by Tamsin Edwards.
43. Protons for Breakfast, by Michael de Podesta.
†Note: blogs which are censored to suppress dissent are not listed. (I don't take issue with enforcement of civility.) That unfortunately includes several prominent alarmist blogs. That's why I could only find four alarmist blogs to recommend. If you know of any other reasonably good quality alarmist climate blogs, which are not censored to suppress dissent, please tell me about them.
44. Want more? I also maintain a long list of climate blogs and other useful sites, and I've written many Quora Answers on climate change (including one which is very similar to this web page). I can also enthusiastically recommend Heartland Institute's Climate At A Glance web site. ↑
You're also welcome to contact me (Dave Burton), directly. My contact info is here:
Twitter card: https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_SL_vs_CO2_1905_to_2021-06_annot3_1216x608.png