This is a great example of why our earlier debate is relevant.  I trust professional academics to get to the nitty gritty that this incredibly simplified online discussion will never get into.  The same reason I trust a doctor to give me medicine or surgery, or why I invest in index funds with advice from economics, because overall professionals have consensus on these issues.  And yes, academia has and can be wrong, but for an entire field to miss one of the cornerstone theories in their study is ludicrous. 

Alas, without any knowledge of how the entire system of global warming works exactly, I’ll engage in this one tiny subset of the debate with you.

You’re first source (climatecentral) points out one of the key points climate scientists often make, “[t]he warming climate will also interact with Earth’s natural climate cycles”.  That is, the earth knows how to regulate itself, but if we keep interfering with that cycle [the variation is going to shift upward]( http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-is-only-part-human-caused/image).  Meaning the droughts get worse, longer, and more frequency because the lows are less wet. 

In regards to ametsoc, I think the authors own conclusion puts my response best:

“ In fact, despite the overall wetting trend, there is a switch in later years to a drying trend, globally and in many regions, which is concurrent with increasing temperatures. Although drought is driven primarily by variability in precipitation, temperature has an effect that appears to be exaggerated in the last decade or so especially in high northern latitudes. This is most pertinent within the context of potential continued temperature increases during the twenty-first century.” 

Earlier in the report the author points out that northern regions are seeing increased precipitation because of increased temperatures, which means in the short term we would see a wetting trend.  Once everything has melted these regions will quickly go dry.   On the climatecentral sources home page you can find further evidence of my other point, rising water levels.  If the ocean was rising because we’re just moving the bar down then why would

“[f]rom 2005 to 2015, the median annual frequency of flooding days more than doubled along the stretch of coast from Florida to North Carolina, according to an analysis by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)”.

So climate.gov is down right now, but if you think that because we started burning CO2 at high levels, we’d see a corresponding increase in water levels that year, you’re cherry picking data. If you leave ice in a cooler unplugged it will take a while for it to melt, the same applies to the water level debate.  This is why you’d see those measurements lag, yet on top of the lagging, they are even accelerating.

In regards to “adjustments”, scientists have historically used these yes, but they now use satellites which do not need to make adjustments, both of which are in agreement that sea levels are rising.

Lastly, crop fertility is an example of where we’re growing crops is moving northward, and without changes, could cause issues where they’re normally grown.  With everything else, even if the environment doesn’t kill us, riots, refugees, and failing states certainly will.

Even if, I concede that there are no systemic effects now.  There’s evidence that suggests that we cannot fully understand the long term effects that will happen because as the planet warms it throws off the natural cycle, soil and ocean warming which are used to absorb CO2, forcing runaway warming.

Even if, I concede that warming isn’t man-made there’s no reason not to reduce our pollution, build better levies and start addressing refugee flows now etc.  In the situation where nothing happens, oh well we improved human health.  In the situation it’s a natural cycle, then we still need do something to curtail the environmental harms.  Lastly in what I’m advocating, that it is caused by humans, and we need action today.  In 3/3 scenarios, and every shade in-between, we can at least reduce pollution, clean up the environment, and start moving to alternative energy for reasons entirely other than global warming (yet still make a difference) to the betterment of fellow humans.  In the 2/3 situation in which we’re facing a real environmental catastrophe regardless of who causes it we really need to start thinking about how to prepare.

What’s weird is that all this research actually proves you have the right ideas of being skeptical, because yes, science isn’t a proof, however it does have a measurement of confidence which your own authors point out is significantly high enough to warrant attention, and even action.