According to NASA, 2016 was the warmest year on record.
Their graph in the link below illustrates a clear warming trend. If 2017 is marginally less warm that 2016, I don't think that's cause to doubt climate experts.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

Nobody here is denying the global climate is warming; it has been warming since the last ice age.
The question is "is mankind influencing the warming and by how much".
The theory is that mankind has increased the rate of warming by increased generation of greenhouse gases.
Now we have the situation where climate-heating greenhouse gases are at record levels but global temperatures are not at record levels so we can maybe conclude there are other factors involved?

I think the question as to whether mankind is influencing global warming has been thoroughly answered.
There is probably room for debate about how much. I think most rational people would think we are substantially influencing it.
I think I read somewhere in the past that the oceans can act as huge heat sinks and that can explain temporary reduction in warming effects. And as far as I recall, other gases can contribute proportionally more to warming effects.

"the oceans can act as huge heat sinks and that can explain temporary reduction in warming effects. " So you are saying the Earth has automatic mechanisms to limit the effects of global warming; the so called Gaia hypothesis?

Well, I do fart a lot.

Tom

I have read numerous articles about this subject, from respected professors from the best universities in the world, including Nobel prize winners, and they categorically say man-made global warming is bullshit. One of these professors pointed out many suspicious inconsistencies on the UN-IPCC reports. Having studied a ton of physics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, combustion, etc., myself, when comparing the two thesis, I have no doubt that IPCC is on a pure political agenda with very weak science fundamentals.

Do you have any sources to cite?

Perhaps you should make a closer study of the graphs. 2016 was an exceptionally hot year - massively hotter than the long term trend. The reason is simple and known - in 2016 there was a very strong el niño which always has a very strong impact on surface temperatures. 2017 still suffered from the impact of 2016. 2018 represents a return to the long-term, still strongly warming, trend.

YOu can see a similar spike with the very strong 1997-98 el niño. Did the cooler years afterwards represent a reverse of the trend? Very much no.

If you have a good look you might note that 2018 is hotter than any year on record except 2015-2017.

2016 sacred the sh1t out of most climate scientists as it was so off the scale warm.

BTW there's another el niño brewing right now. A year or so faster than the fastest usual cycle, possibly another effect of warming.

https://grist.org/article/another-el...oes-that-mean/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...-fcsts-web.pdf

Edit - this NYT article puts it into perspective
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/c...l-warming.html

I haven't heard of the Gaia hypothesis so I'm not suggesting anything in relation it.
I had a quick look online and came across the following;
The so-called global warming "hiatus" phenomenon -- the possible temporary slowdown of the global mean surface temperature (GMST) trend said to have occurred from 1998 to 2013 -- simply represents a redistribution of energy within Earth system, which includes the land, atmosphere and the ocean. New research points to the prominent role global ocean played in absorbing extra heat from the atmosphere by acting as a "heat sink" as an explanation for the observed decrease in a key indicator of climate change
Source; https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1122182458.htm

This NASA/MIT study seems to cover similar ground; https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2598/n...-gases-sponge/

Hi Brian, could you share these numerous articles?

It would be great if you're right, but it sounds like pure bullsh1t.

No doubt about it - it is pure bull$hit.

If he does get round to sharing anything at all it will be the usual round of multi-discredited oil company and alt-right driven nonsense.

There are many:

Nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever
Nobel prize winner Carlo Rubbia
Professor Ricardo Felicio
Professor Richard Lindzen
Professor Luiz Carlos Molion

See some sources above. Try to google them in your preferred language.

BTW, my name is not Brian.

You say "... it sounds like pure bullshit..." because you are (and I'm not criticizing you) one of the many millions who have seen/read/heard ONLY the mainstream side of this story. Regardless which side is right, here in Europe the contradictory side is violently suppressed by the media and the politicians.

You have great arguments!

That's 5 scientists, out of how many reputable climate scientists worldwide?

Here's one who seems to know what he's on about...

When you say there are many as a basis for your logic, I'd question how that stands up to the consensus among the scientific community. The guys above, if they are knowledgeable about the topic, are in a small minority. I'm not saying a minority in general, I mean a minority among scientists that understand and research climate change. But its worth bearing in mind, the likes of the UN climate change panel and NASA acknowledge this minority when they say they're 95% sure, i.e. 5% disagree.
I had a quick look about Lindzen and his views are disputed- the section below is taken from wikipedia and you can chase down the references if you like
"This claim was criticized by climatologist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who notes the more generally-accepted understanding of the effects of the Iris effect and cites empirical cases where large and relatively rapid changes in the climate such as El Niño events, the Ultra Plinian eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and recent trends in global temperature and water vapor levels to show that, as predicted in the generally-accepted view, water vapor increases as the temperature increases, and decreases as temperatures decrease"

Are you saying that the media and politicians in Europe violently suppress people that contribute to global warming? I'm sure I'm misinterpreting what you wrote because that would be nonsense.

Regarding seen/read/heard only the mainstream; that's not true. I have heard some of the arguments against man-made global warming and they just don't stand up.

So 5 is many? ROFL

And how many of those are actually climate scientists? Maximum 1. 2 physicists , 1 meteorologist (not the same thing btw) 1 geographer and just 1 atmospheric physicists.

Oh and the last one does believe in warming, just doubts the scope.

Now shall I produce a list of the 100s or 1000s that strongly support the theory?

that's a bit a weak argument. all the ones you have mentioned have a very close relationship to climate sciences.

A particle physicist and another into superconductors?

And meteorology and climate are very very different,.

Only 1 of the 5 has anything at all to do with climate.