Claim: simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans

This is just nuts, sorry, I just don’t have any other words for it.

Computer modeling and simulations are not hard data nor empirical proof, especially when trying to hindcast the upper atmosphere temperature back to 1860, well before radiosonde data exists. They can’t even calibrate the output against real-world upper air data for the majority of the time series. But, illogically, these authors claim that their method is sound. And, the timing is suspect. Look at the laundry list of names on the publication too. The fingerprint graphic seen on the second graph is downright corny, as if maybe the public just wouldn’t “get it” unless they put an actual human fingerprint on their graph. It’s like they threw this together as an insurance policy in case the IPCC AR5 report wasn’t convincing enough.  -Anthony

(Phys.org) —A team of climatologists with members from the U.S., Australia, Canada and Norway is claiming in a paper they’ve had published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that they have found proof that global warming is being caused by human influences. They are basing their claims on computer simulations they’ve run and data obtained from three decades’ worth of satellite observations.

satsim_fig1

Time series of simulated monthly mean near-global anomalies in the temperature of the lower stratosphere (TLS), the mid- to upper troposphere (TMT), and the lower troposphere (TLT) (A–C). Model results are from spliced historical/RCP8.5 simulations with combined anthropogenic and natural external forcing (ALL+8.5) and from simulations with natural external forcing only (NAT). The bold lines denote the ALL+8.5 and NAT multimodel averages, calculated with 20 and 16 CMIP-5 models (respectively). Temperatures are averaged over 82.5°N–82.5°S for TLS and TMT, and over 82.5°N–70°S for TLT. Anomalies are defined with respect to climatological monthly means over 1861–1870. The shaded envelopes are the multimodel averages ±2 x s(t), where s(t) is the “between model” SD of the 20 (ALL+8.5) and 16 (NAT) ensemble-mean anomaly time series. To aid visual discrimination of the overlapping ALL+8.5 and NAT envelopes, the boundaries of the ALL+8.5 envelope are indicated by dotted orange lines. Credit: (c) PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305332110

Most of the world’s scientists agree that our planet is experiencing global warming. Most also generally support the theory that the cause of global warming is due to an increase in , primarily carbon dioxide. And while many also support the notion that the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is likely due to human emissions, few are willing to go on record claiming that global warming is due directly to human activities. The researchers in this new effort are one such group and they claim they have proof. 

Satellites, as most everyone knows, have been hovering over or circling our planet for over half a century. Over that time period they have grown progressively more sophisticated, measuring virtually every conceivable aspect of the planet below—from gas levels in the atmosphere to temperature readings on an averaged global scale, to the impact of natural events such as volcanic eruptions. It’s this data the researchers used in their attempt to root out the true source of global warming.

The research team conducted a two stage study. The first involved creating computer models that simulated over the past several decades under three different scenarios: a world without human influence, a world with only human influence and a world without human emissions or naturally occurring incidents such as volcanic eruptions. The second stage involved gathering data from satellites and comparing it with what the team had found in creating their simulations. They say patterns emerged that prove that is the cause behind global warming. One example they cite is data that shows that the troposphere (the part of the atmosphere closest to us) has seen a steady rise in temperature over the past several decades, even as the layer just above it, the stratosphere, has cooled slightly.

Study finds human activity affects vertical structure of atmospheric temperature

But what has the team really convinced that humans are the true source behind global warming, is that they were unable to produce the type of warming we’ve seen with just natural events—it’s only when human emissions are added to models that such a trend can be realistically simulated. That, they say, proves that human practices over the past several decades are responsible for global warming.

Press release 1
Press release 2

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-satellite-global-humans.html#jCp

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

The paper:

Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere, PNAS, Published online before print September 16, 2013, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1305332110

Benjamin D. Santer, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Carl A. Mears, Susan Solomon, Tom M. L. Wigley, Peter J. Gleckler, Gavin A. Schmidt, Charles Doutriaux, Nathan P. Gillett, Karl E. Taylor, Peter W. Thorne, and Frank J. Wentz

Significance

Observational satellite data and the model-predicted response to human influence have a common latitude/altitude pattern of atmospheric temperature change. The key features of this pattern are global-scale tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling over the 34-y satellite temperature record. We show that current climate models are highly unlikely to produce this distinctive signal pattern by internal variability alone, or in response to naturally forced changes in solar output and volcanic aerosol loadings. We detect a “human influence” signal in all cases, even if we test against natural variability estimates with much larger fluctuations in solar and volcanic influences than those observed since 1979. These results highlight the very unusual nature of observed changes in atmospheric temperature.

Abstract
Since the late 1970s, satellite-based instruments have monitored global changes in atmospheric temperature. These measurements reveal multidecadal tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, punctuated by short-term volcanic signals of reverse sign. Similar long- and short-term temperature signals occur in model simulations driven by human-caused changes in atmospheric composition and natural variations in volcanic aerosols. Most previous comparisons of modeled and observed atmospheric temperature changes have used results from individual models and individual observational records. In contrast, we rely on a large multimodel archive and multiple observational datasets. We show that a human-caused latitude/altitude pattern of atmospheric temperature change can be identified with high statistical confidence in satellite data. Results are robust to current uncertainties in models and observations. Virtually all previous research in this area has attempted to discriminate an anthropogenic signal from internal variability. Here, we present evidence that a human-caused signal can also be identified relative to the larger “total” natural variability arising from sources internal to the climate system, solar irradiance changes, and volcanic forcing. Consistent signal identification occurs because both internal and total natural variability (as simulated by state-of-the-art models) cannot produce sustained global-scale tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Our results provide clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-satellite-global-humans.html#jCp

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Bad science and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

259 Responses to Claim: simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans

  1. Martin A says:

    Benjamin D. Santer, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Carl A. Mears, Susan Solomon, Tom M. L. Wigley, Peter J. Gleckler, Gavin A. Schmidt, Charles Doutriaux, Nathan P. Gillett, Karl E. Taylor, Peter W. Thorne, and Frank J. Wentz

    The usual suspects.

  2. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    They. Can. Not.be. Serious.

  3. wobble says:

    What’s wrong with what they are doing?

    I once pretended what it would be like to fly the space shuttle above Civil War battles. How is this any different?

  4. Man Bearpig says:

    I wonder if that drawing will find it’s way into AR5 ?

  5. Jknapp says:

    So let me be sure I understand this. If we recreate the satellite data from 1860-1960, ie. assume it is constant because humans weren’t emitting CO2 yet. Then tune a model using natural forcings and a presumed CO2 effect to replicate the 1960-2010 data (omitting any of the new internal oscillation studies). Then we take out the CO2 and natural forcing data and the tuned model no longer fits the 1960-2010 data but does fit the 1860-1960 part where everything was assumed constant this proves CO2 forced warming. Really? I mean Really?

  6. Man Bearpig says:

    You can ‘vote’ for the paper here: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-satellite-global-humans.html

    Be honest though!

  7. Michel says:

    I take an invalid model, use it to predict the past, take away one parameter (carbon dioxyde emmissions), recalculate it, re-predict the past, and guess what I get: the invalid answer that the parameter on which my original invalid model was based is the one causing the variation!
    Quite circular!

  8. Athelstan. says:

    Obama’s re-election proves without doubt that, there are millions of gullible people who will believe anything from anyone, over here in Blighty that egregious liar, public peculator and peerless charlatan Tony Bliar was re-elected 3 times. Then, God help us [because we need divine intervention] we selected his spiritual brother David Cameron.

    Yep, there are lots and lots of very stupid people in the west and men like Schmidt, Santer, Wigley et al play on it for all it’s worth, this latest offering is fantastical; “computers prove it’s all mankind’s fault!”

    Even then and all things being equal, that’s a bit of a stretch lads.

  9. 2kevin says:

    “Claim: simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans”

    Let me fix that headline for you.

    “Consensus: simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans”

  10. Barry Brill says:

    Interesting that one of the authors is Nathan Gillet who recently co-authored Fyfe et al (2013), in Nature Climate Change. That paper said CMIP3 and CMIP5 simulations were out by 400% over the last 15 years and 100% over the 20 years since the IPCC’s FAR.

    Just like climate forecasts for 100 years in the future are more reliable than weather forecasts for 10 days in the future. So too, these ensembles are hopeless at just 20 years but great for 160 years in the past.

    It’s nature at work. Just like tree ring proxies are misleading for the past 50 years they shape up just fine for anything more than a century ago.

  11. SadButMadLad says:

    @Man Bearpig at 12:21 am: But you can’t vote a zero!

  12. John Bochan says:

    Well the IPCC AR5 Second Order Draft does mention the problem as the “limitations of satellite sensors” when used in climate modelling. “An alternative approach is to use is to calculate observation-equivalents from models using radiative transfer calculations to ‘simulate’ what the satellite would provide if the satellite system were ‘observing’ the model”.

    La-la-land! A virtual earth with a virtual climate observed by virtual satellites sending back virtual data, because real satellite data doesn’t agree with virtual thermometers.

  13. Nylo says:

    Why do they keep saying that the stratosphere has cooled as predicted by the alarmists’ theory? The stratosphere stopped cooling in the early 90′s. Its temperature has been pretty stable for the last 20+ years despite CO2 rising 40 ppm in that time.

  14. A.D. Everard says:

    They are desperate to find “proof” that humans are the cause of all woes. They just can’t find it in the here and now, so they have to go back. I’m sure they are also trying to doge the real scientists who keep pointing out the flaws in their attempts with anything recent.

    Don’t worry, I’m sure this latest will be in tatters by the morning.

  15. londo says:

    The degeneration of climate science simply knows no bounds. It publish any kind of stupidity of perish in this business. I hope this is a low point for a while at least.

  16. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I am sure somebody will try and defend this – like the made up Tornado data story – but the reality is, that there isn’t any !!

  17. ConfusedPhoton says:

    It is called desparation!

  18. Another Ian says:

    “Kev-in-Uk says:
    September 18, 2013 at 12:57 am
    I am sure somebody will try and defend this – like the made up Tornado data story – but the reality is, that there isn’t any !!”

    Probably Luke over at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog will have a go IMO

  19. Peter Miller says:

    Just another instance demonstrating real science and climate science are poles apart in their practices and methodology.

    Just another instance of when you construct a computer climate model, using pre-determined results in order to get funding, you end up with a classic case of GIGO.

    Just another instance in climate science where the word ‘proof’ means “unsubstantiated guess using dodgy criteria to satisfy my/our financial backers”.

    And finally: “But what has the team really convinced that humans are the true source behind global warming, is that they were unable to produce the type of warming we’ve seen with just natural events—it’s only when human emissions are added to models that such a trend can be realistically simulated.”

    1. Dick Lindzen showed us recently on WUWT that the global temperature anomalies (52 year periods) of 1895-1946 and 1957-2008 were almost identical. 2. No one claims to fully understand the magnitude and timing of natural climate cycles, so what gives these guys the right or rationale to say they do?

  20. Pete Brown says:

    I was in William Hill’s yesterday with my hindcast of last year’s Derby winner but they wouldn’t pay up!

  21. Nylo says:

    As can be seen in the graphic of the lower stratosphere temperature anomaly, the stratosphere cooling has nothing to do with CO2. The cooling has happened in just two steps: one after Chichón eruption and one after Pinatubo eruption, as rebounds from the temperature increases that those eruptions temporarily caused. The rest of the time, including the last 20 years of massive CO2 emissions, temperature there has been pretty flat,
    Here the data, here the graphic.

  22. Txomin says:

    Yay! Humans control the climate.

    Quick, Mr Obama, tweet it.

  23. TinyCO2 says:

    So using a computer to realistically simulate something makes it true? OMG, they’ve just proved that ghosts, aliens, dragons and green ogres (who make candles from their ear wax), are real. ROTFLMAO.

    To be fair, since they’ll continue their lucrative careers on the back of this rubbish, they have proved it’s possible to make gold out of base metal.

  24. johanna says:

    Good point, Tiny, it’s the closest thing to alchemy that we’re likely to see.

  25. Chad says:

    Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt, Susan Solomon, Tom Wigley, etc. They do have form when it comes to papers confusing simulation with fact.

  26. Man Bearpig says:

    SadButMadLad says:
    September 18, 2013 at 12:34 am

    @Man Bearpig at 12:21 am: But you can’t vote a zero!

    —-
    Yes, it uses well known field of mathematics aka AGW_BS which means results of 97% of respondents score >0 then it is consensus approved

  27. ConfusedPhoton says:

    I am about to publish a paper on simulating the growth of slugs since 1860 and can prove that Global Warming is caunsed by aliens.
    To be published in the next issue of the Journal of Lysenko Science

  28. Jimbo says:

    The vast majority of models used by the IPCC have failed to simulate the observed surface temperature standstill for over the last 16 years. Here is one of the paper’s authors, Santer, bemoaning the failure of models. It came out last year. You have to wonder why Santer now believes his former concerns have now been addressed and fixed. If you fail post 1979 then why do you think you can be more successful since 1860?

    D. Santer et. al. – June 22, 2012
    Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature

    Abstract
    We perform a multimodel detection and attribution study with climate model simulation output and satellite-based measurements of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature change. We use simulation output from 20 climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This multimodel archive provides estimates of the signal pattern in response to combined anthropogenic and natural external forcing (the fingerprint) and the noise of internally generated variability. Using these estimates, we calculate signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios to quantify the strength of the fingerprint in the observations relative to fingerprint strength in natural climate noise. For changes in lower stratospheric temperature between 1979 and 2011, S/N ratios vary from 26 to 36, depending on the choice of observational dataset. In the lower troposphere, the fingerprint strength in observations is smaller, but S/N ratios are still significant at the 1% level or better, and range from three to eight. We find no evidence that these ratios are spuriously inflated by model variability errors. After removing all global mean signals, model fingerprints remain identifiable in 70% of the tests involving tropospheric temperature changes. Despite such agreement in the large-scale features of model and observed geographical patterns of atmospheric temperature change, most models do not replicate the size of the observed changes. On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear, model biases in lower stratospheric temperature trends are likely to be reduced by more realistic treatment of stratospheric ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol forcing.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

  29. markx says:

    Seems quite basic to me. If a model is built with the mechanism that increasing one parameter will result in an increased temperature, and you then increase that parameter, the result is a foregone conclusion.

  30. It would be great to have satellite data back to 1860, since it would shed much light on the human influence on the climate. And here the climate research community seems to suffer from a compulsive thinking disorder. The thought that if data are missing, it simply must be possible to model them. And the inability to handle the thought that some data are beyond recovery.

  31. The head posting says: “But what has the team really convinced that humans are the true source behind global warming, is that they were unable to produce the type of warming we’ve seen with just natural events—it’s only when human emissions are added to models that such a trend can be realistically simulated. That, they say, proves that human practices over the past several decades are responsible for global warming.”

    This is an egregious instance of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of argument from ignorance. “We can’t think of any other reason why the world is warming, so it must be Man.” That is really all this pathetic paper says.

    Send all the authors back to elementary school to learn the elements of Classical logic. A Classicist, taking one look at their feeble argument, would know a priori that it was an invalid argument. The conclusion, therefore, may or may not be true, and the paper adds no light to enable us to decide one way or the other. This is intellectual feeble-nindedness of the worst kind.

  32. Radical Rodent says:

    It is only within the last 50 years that thermometers have become accurate to within ±50°C, so what was the allowable accuracy for thermometers 100 years ago? And, how can we verify the accuracy of those thermometers, now?

    It is known and accepted that many of the monitoring sites have been re-located, and the readings of many have been discarded. As the re-locations seemed to have been to lower altitudes and latitudes, with the discarded sites from higher altitudes and latitudes, and many of the presently accepted sites having become “urbanised”, when did this process stop? My suspicions are that this might have effectively been around 1997.

    Would it be possible to base a study on such hypotheses? If so, who wants to join me, and where could we get the funding?

  33. Jimbo says:

    I see Gavin A. Schmidt as one of the authors. He told us to expect warmer northern hemisphere winters! Now they tell us to expect colder NH winters. Next they’ll tell us that co2 caused average NH winters and it’s our fault. Grrrrrrrrr.

    Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model
    June 4, 1999
    “Based on this research, it’s quite likely that the warmer winters over the continents are indeed a result of the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” Dr. Shindell said. “This research offers both a plausible physical mechanism for how this takes place, and reproduces the observed trends both qualitatively and even quantitatively.” …………………….

    “Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,” Dr. Shindell said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm

  34. AndyG55 says:

    Simulated Satellite data…

    seriously !!!

    ROFLMAO !!!

    they really have lost their marbles, haven’t they ! :-)

  35. Steve B says:

    According to my computer simulation. I won WWII in a spitfire. does it need the /sarc

  36. Goldie says:

    So this is just – we can’t explain the change so it must be human induced.

  37. Espen says:

    Nylo says:
    September 18, 2013 at 1:14 am
    As can be seen in the graphic of the lower stratosphere temperature anomaly, the stratosphere cooling has nothing to do with CO2. The cooling has happened in just two steps: one after Chichón eruption and one after Pinatubo eruption

    Exactly! I’ve pointed this out on several occasions here. Though I wonder when the lower stratosphere will finally start rebounding to the the level before Pinatubo?

    Also: If the longer term effect (after the initial stratospheric warming) of a large volcanic eruption is a cooler stratosphere, what if that also means a warmer troposphere?

  38. Jay Currie says:

    I ratherlike the results of an imagined steampunk satellite. Perhaps they built a difference engine to run the analysis.

  39. H.R. says:

    John Bochan says:
    September 18, 2013 at 12:46 am

    “Well the IPCC AR5 Second Order Draft does mention the problem as the “limitations of satellite sensors” when used in climate modelling. “An alternative approach is to use is to calculate observation-equivalents from models using radiative transfer calculations to ‘simulate’ what the satellite would provide if the satellite system were ‘observing’ the model”.

    La-la-land! A virtual earth with a virtual climate observed by virtual satellites sending back virtual data, because real satellite data doesn’t agree with virtual thermometers.”
    ==================================================
    Yesterday upon the stair
    I met a man who wasn’t there.
    He wasn’t there again today.
    Oh how I wish he’d go away.

    Hughes Mearns

    ——- Now I get it. The team has managed to replicate Mearns’ results.

  40. Billy Liar says:

    They are making it plain for all to see that their models are an international joke. Wigley prides himself on being the first to use ‘multi-model averages’. No-one has ever explained why the average of 10 wrong models is better than any individual wrong model.

  41. Radical Rodent says:

    Damn! Just seen my truly dreadful typo!

    While thermometers are accurate to within 50°C, the accepted error margin is within 0.5°C. Oh, with a foolish mistake like that, I wonder if I am on the wrong side or the argument…

  42. George Turner says:

    That is quite possibly the stupidest paper I’ve ever seen published in what claims to be a science journal, and I’m a big fan of ig-Nobel prize research. ig-Nobel prize winning research might be silly, but at least it obeys scientific methods and procedures. But this? At least ESP researchers actually tried to measure the effects of psychic powers in real experiments, instead of a running ensemble computer simulations to prove that people would be guessing correctly more often than predicted by chance – in the experiments that they didn’t conduct.

    I thought measuring temperature to a fractional degree with a treemometer was insane, but these people don’t even bother using a tree, or an ice core, or a lichen, or a clam, or a coral. It is data produced solely from their fevered imaginations, and somehow it got published it in a science journal.

  43. Oatley says:

    I hear the same complaints from my buddies at the golf course. I usually win and they keep wanting to see my computer scoring model. Imagine…

  44. John B says:

    Santer, Solomon, Wigley and Schmidt. All that’s missing is Mann then you have a complete set. Stupid is as stupid does.

  45. DEEBEE says:

    Seeing Santer and Gav in the authors list reminded me — History / Historic personages come back first time as tragedy and second time as farce.

  46. Mike Borgelt says:

    So can we recreate the satellite record during the Eemian now?

  47. jbenton2013 says:

    The surprising thing is not that they produced this rubbish, that’s kind of to be expected from this list but that someone actually agreed to publish it.

  48. Phil's Dad says:

    The Viscount has the right of it (at 2:02am).

    Think of a number. Take away the number you first thought of. What you have is zero.

  49. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:02 am

    Sir, I would respectfully suggest elementary school would likely be too far above their level of understanding!!

  50. johnmarshall says:

    This paper is total bull—t. but your comments are as bad. Claiming that the recent warming, from the LIA, is due to GHG’s is as bad. The THEORY of GHE is just that a theory which does not stand up to serious criticism. Climate is solar driven not by some trace gas in the atmosphere which if it could warm the planet by 33C would be radiating in the far ultra violet, no trace of this can be found at the surface.
    Get real.

  51. Stacey says:

    The sad thing about all of this is that people are paying to be misled by this anti-scientific garbage.

    Would you buy a second hand car from this lot, well sorry we have no choice?

  52. Mike Haseler says:

    Just been reading about two cases where people were clearly convicted for crimes they did not do.

    In one a nurse was convicted because the police couldn’t think of any reason why there would be high levels of insulin … therefore they reasoned the nurse must have given it to the patient.

    It turns out that patients regularly suffer from the condition and even within the same hospital at the same time several other patients (who had never met the nurse) suffered from the condition which was considered so unlikely it had to be human. This evidence was ignored by the police.

  53. The Count says:

    As long as one is writing fiction, why not construct satellite models back to 1492?

  54. Mike Haseler says:

    Just to make sure my meaning is clear … just because the academics are not able to think of any natural cause that would have caused the climate variation – like the police couldn’t imagine a natural reason for high insulin – is in no way proof that it was not natural climate variation just as there was an entirely natural explanation for the death for which someone was convicted.

  55. Rob says:

    That’s insane. Total garbage. Let me get my Civil War Musket-Smile!

  56. Tez says:

    Why did they start at 1860?

    Surely it would have made more sense to model satellite data back to the beginning of the MWP to see if it actually did exist and whether it was warmer then than now.

    I think they might be trying to hide something.

  57. Eliza says:

    This is good news (for skeptics). This now shows that they are truly in LALALA land. I think even the ordinary lay person will even laugh at this one they are truly desperate. The Journal that published this s### should lose a lot of subscribers LOL.

  58. Brian H says:

    Radical Rodent says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:05 am

    It is only within the last 50 years that thermometers have become accurate to within ±50°C,

    within +/= 1°C, surely? I know the thermometers were imperfect in my childhood, but a range of almost 100°F either way just isn’t reasonable. Scalding and quick-freezing are easily distinguished.

  59. Brian H says:

    edit: +/- 50° C

  60. Brian H says:

    edit edit:+/- 1°C

  61. RoHa says:

    Let us not discount the data from those nineteenth century satellites. They were masterpieces of Victorian engineering, handcrafted from solid cast iron, varnished walnut and polished brass. Brunel himself designed some of them.

  62. David Chappell says:

    Such stupidity, the mind boggles. That collection of authors should never work again anywhere at anything and whenever they appear in public, people should point at them and snigger.

  63. Bob Greene says:

    A computer simulation gives the desired outcome, so the simulation must be correct? It’s warmed since the end of the LIA, so the warming must be caused by humans. All CO2 increases are caused by humans? It must mean that the solubility of CO2 in water is independent of temperature.

    Was any of this work on government time using government resources?

  64. George Turner says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:02 am

    This is an egregious instance of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of argument from ignorance. “We can’t think of any other reason why the world is warming, so it must be Man.” That is really all this pathetic paper says.

    Well, since their model can’t even account for the recent and sustained pause in warming, why not extend the inaccuracy and uselessness over longer time spans? I will note that their model fails to include the effect of the decreasing number of pirates, a variable long hypothesized to account for global warming. Using global rum shipments from 1860 to 1880 as a proxy for the number of active pirates in the Caribbean, and using a corrected equation for the drift of the 57.95 Ghz microwave receiver on the MSU on the Army of the Potomac’s remote monitoring satellites, I find that 0.243 degree C of their “observed” lower tropospheric temperature anomaly is an artifact of their non-measurement process. Also, though they didn’t publish this particular result, while they were subjecting the CMIP-5 model to a variety of tortures, it confessed to being part of the plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

  65. David Riser says:

    I guess the authors were just frustrated because they couldn’t fiddle with the satellite temperature record. So they found a way to fiddle it.

  66. CodeTech says:

    Sherlock Holmes:

    When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

    So, it’s Arthur Conan Doyle that is responsible. The entire climate “science” brigade seems to think they have eliminated all which is impossible, and that only CO2 remains.

  67. Carlo Napolitano says:

    In medicine we call this approach “diagnosis by exclusion”. This mean that when your doctor doesn’t understand what’s is going on, he will ask for a lot of useless (and expensive) tests and, when they all turn out negative he says: ah ah….. it must be only disease left off the list and that can not be detected by any test.
    Would you trust such a statement when the matter is your future health status ?

  68. tadchem says:

    The statement “they were unable to produce the type of warming we’ve seen with just natural events” reveals this entire exercise to be yet another argumentum ad ignorantiam, whiich they seem to have in abundance.

  69. craigm350 says:

    And while many also support the notion that the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is likely due to human emissions, few are willing to go on record claiming that global warming is due directly to human activities. 
    What about the 97% concensus? /sarc

  70. When will the public notice Santer punching science in the nose?

  71. MattN says:

    There is no other scientific field where simply making s#!t up like this is acceptable. None. If you did things like this at a drug company you would kill a whole bunch of people.

  72. CK says:

    I don’t think we have a complete satellite record of total outgoing radiation. Just a patchy (not every point over the earth is observed 24/7) averaged estimate based on orbiting microwave sensors as proxies for temperatures at different depths throughout the atmosphere.

    There seem to be no long term projects for satellites at suitably far distances from earth monitoring the total outgoing radiation across the spectrum (both dark and light sides of our planet simultaneously, 24/7/365). Lagrangian points Earth-Moon L1 and L3 spring to mind as suitable orbital locations. A third satellite at L2 could use the Moon as a radiation emission control body for some wavelengths, if the satellite at L1 had both moonward and earthward sensors. We would at least have the data to create an accurate energy budget then.

    Is this too costly to do? The satellites could perform other observations and functions like communications from these locations to make them a little cheaper in operation.

  73. Bruce Cobb says:

    They got the results they wanted. Just one more case of GIGO – garbage in, gospel out.
    Dollars to doughnuts they can’t model the current 17-year warming stoppage, though, using their same model.

  74. George Turner says:

    Shorter version: “Absent any data, and by assuming that the coefficients of all the other variables in our equation are nearly zero, we found that the coefficient of the remaining variable must be quite large. Using that equation, we can project what the data would have been had we collected it, and it would indeed confirm the correctness of our assumption.”

  75. philjourdan says:

    The really sad part of this charade? This is what passes for climate “science”. Voodoo and witchcraft.

  76. Kon Dealer says:

    Another Climate Model rant by the usual suspects.
    Empty vessels make the most noise….

  77. Gary Pearse says:

    They’d have been on to something if they had unwittingly detected all the temperature record fiddling they have done over the last two decades to the hundred year record as well. Did the 1930s record reclaim itself to their surprise. The cooking of the record would have presented a nice tracer to validate their work..

  78. mem says:

    The assumption in this paper is that there is a large contigent of media that will publish the graph and the headlines around the world without even questioning the validity of the data and that the authors will achieve headines that will play an important role in promoting the global warming myth to the public.It is not about science anymore.

  79. Jim Clarke says:

    “This is an egregious instance of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of argument from ignorance. “We can’t think of any other reason why the world is warming, so it must be Man.” That is really all this pathetic paper says.”

    I was going to write this same response but decided to do a search for the word ‘fallacy’ to see if anyone else had already covered it. It did my ego good to see that it was Lord Monckton!

    The only thing that I would add is that this is the same logical fallacy that the IPCC reports have been using as their only argument for a long time now. It is not just this silly paper, but the whole AGW theory that rests on this fallacious argument. What is so amazing is that there has always been a ‘natural variation’ explanation that is patently obvious in the historical record, but almost completely ignored by the IPCC, simply because they can not explain it (they are ignorant of the mechanism).

    This leaves them in a very irrational place: “We must be right, because we are ignorant, and skeptics must be wrong, because we are ignorant!” Who would ever want to leave such a blissful state to pursue the hard work of science?

  80. William McClenney says:

    “(Phys.org) —A team of climatologists with members from the U.S., Australia, Canada and Norway is claiming in a paper they’ve had published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that they have found proof that global warming is being caused by human influences. They are basing their claims on computer simulations they’ve run and data obtained from three decades’ worth of satellite observations.”

    OK. I’ll see your three decades worth of satellite observations and computer simulations, of any length,…….raise you http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    and call

  81. Ken Hall says:

    They have proved that they can model their hypthesis, and code it such that it creates the output that the hypothesis predicts. The value of that information is precicely nil because they are mistaken for appearing to believe that modelling a hypothesis === testing the hypothesis against reality. It is still a model of an unproven hypothesis. Running a computer simulation != testing reality. Running a computer simulation != experimentation.

    They have provided a hypothesis, but zero evidence, that humanity has caused CO2 driven global warming.

  82. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Was it a steam-powered satellite?

  83. Gail Combs says:

    Nylo says: @ September 18, 2013 at 1:14 am

    As can be seen in the graphic of the lower stratosphere temperature anomaly….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    SWEET!
    Too bad you did not get to “peer-review’ this paper.

  84. John Law says:

    Since the satellites in 1860 were steam powered, the earlier temperatures would have been distorted upwards by the steam exhausted from the cylinder valves, so its probably worse than they state.
    We are all doomed!

  85. They like simulations so much; I trust that their salaries will be simulated.

  86. Keith says:

    CK says:
    September 18, 2013 at 4:14 am
    I don’t think we have a complete satellite record of total outgoing radiation. Just a patchy (not every point over the earth is observed 24/7) averaged estimate based on orbiting microwave sensors as proxies for temperatures at different depths throughout the atmosphere.

    There seem to be no long term projects for satellites at suitably far distances from earth monitoring the total outgoing radiation across the spectrum (both dark and light sides of our planet simultaneously, 24/7/365). Lagrangian points Earth-Moon L1 and L3 spring to mind as suitable orbital locations. A third satellite at L2 could use the Moon as a radiation emission control body for some wavelengths, if the satellite at L1 had both moonward and earthward sensors. We would at least have the data to create an accurate energy budget then.

    Is this too costly to do? The satellites could perform other observations and functions like communications from these locations to make them a little cheaper in operation.

    It’s what would be needed in order to get a true idea of the planet’s radiation budget, rather than an averaged model with massive assumptions of the sort produced by Trenberth. I don’t think comms satellites at those distances would be much use though ;-)

  87. Gail Combs says:

    Nylo says: @ September 18, 2013 at 1:14 am
    Did Nylo just make a new record? He solidly disproved the paper in ~ one hour and ten minutes.

  88. KNR says:

    BS from top to bottom and yet another climate ‘science’ paper whose standard is so poor it would never have seen the light of day in any other area of science and would have lead to any student handing it in as a essay failing .

  89. Ken Harvey says:

    So much virtuality. So little virtue.

  90. Gail Combs says:

    Jimbo says: @ September 18, 2013 at 2:09 am

    I see Gavin A. Schmidt as one of the authors. He told us to expect warmer northern hemisphere winters! ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yeah. Sure. In mid North Carolina, we just lowered the record low temperature on September 15th by 9F to 35F and lowered today’s record (before adjustments) by 1F to 45F. The leaves are already turning colors in the Raleigh/Durham area! This is September? In the South? BRRrrrrr

  91. catweazle666 says:

    Not models again…

    Oh dear.

    Clearly desperation is setting in.

  92. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Why is everyone so skeptical? My computer model goat entrail simulator produces the exact same results.

  93. Rick K says:

    Why start at 1860?
    They should really validate their model by going back to the Big Bang. Clearly, at that point there would be no anthropogenic signal. It would be the mother of all models and would likely show how human-induced CO2 is much worse than natural CO2. It’s a no-brainer.
    You know, for people with no brains…

  94. Magoo says:

    Wait a minute. If they admit that the cooling stratosphere/warming upper troposphere is the fingerprint of AGW they’ve just shot themselves in the foot haven’t they? There is no hot spot in the troposphere and hasn’t been in over 40yrs of searching by both satellites and radiosondes. If they admit that that is the fingerprint needed, then they also have to admit the empirical evidence from multiple sources shows it doesn’t exist, & as a result their research proves AGW incorrect regardless of how far back they try to hindcast.

    AR5 will be the beginning of the end for the IPCC as they’ll either have to admit they got it wrong or be seen for the advocacy group that they are, and those with their snouts in the trough will do anything to keep the gravy train going even if it means suicide for their remaining careers. I thought some of them would try to back out of AGW gracefully while the option still exists, but it appears not.

  95. Tom Stone says:

    This simulaiton is about as reliable as deep ocean temperature readings from Captain Nemo (both fiction set in the 19th century, except Jules Verne was at least around then).

  96. Gail Combs says:

    William McClenney says:
    September 18, 2013 at 4:39 am
    ….OK. I’ll see your three decades worth of satellite observations and computer simulations, of any length,…….raise you http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    and call…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    LOL, You don’t play fair (That is by THEIR rules)

  97. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    RoHa said on September 18, 2013 at 3:42 am:

    Let us not discount the data from those nineteenth century satellites. They were masterpieces of Victorian engineering, handcrafted from solid cast iron, varnished walnut and polished brass. Brunel himself designed some of them.

    But they never worked out. The Europeans were making great strides, but they aimed their launching cannons southwest to avoid accidentally hitting Russia or going over the pole and hitting Canada or the United States. So they not only lost the rotational assist of launching eastward but also paid the penalty instead. Thankfully no one ever noticed those “lost” Central and South American tribes from the short shots.

    Plus information retrieval was limited and haphazard, as each satellite could only hold so many hollow cannonballs that were filled with ticker tape. With orbital drift the clockwork-timed releases could have hit from Australia to the Arctic.

    But at least it worked better than what they had before, which was before they realized space really was airless up that high which explains why they never got any of the data presumably sent out with the carrier pigeons.

  98. Pippen Kool says:

    “Claim: simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans”

    I don’t think they simulate satellite data, they simulate weather from 1860 and then ask if it will matches the modern satellite data. They find that they can’t match the modern data unless they add in the extra co2 added from people.

  99. William McClenney says:

    All of which brings this memorable paper back to mind:

    http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Milleretal2010TempandPrecip.pdf

  100. lurker, passing through laughing says:

    We live in the age of science fiction.
    I always thought that living in the age of science fiction would mean flying cars, humanoid robots and cheap space flight.
    Instead, we live in an age when too many scientists work hard and are rewarded for passing off fiction as science. And most of them get away with it, apparently.

  101. Tom in Florida says:

    “Benjamin D. Santer, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Carl A. Mears, Susan Solomon, Tom M. L. Wigley, Peter J. Gleckler, Gavin A. Schmidt, Charles Doutriaux, Nathan P. Gillett, Karl E. Taylor, Peter W. Thorne, and Frank J. Wentz”

    Like someone who is about to be swept out to sea by an unrelenting current, a frantic last call to be saved.

  102. Doug in Jax says:

    Simulated data proves simulated manmade global warming. So let’s simulate complying with their idiotic plans and call it a day.

  103. Chuck Nolan says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:02 am……………….”This is intellectual feeble-nindedness of the worst kind.”
    ————————————
    I hate it when you make a typo.
    It hardly matters what it is, I have to go to the dictionary to check because it could be a word.
    cn

  104. beng says:

    ***
    Txomin says:
    September 18, 2013 at 1:17 am

    Yay! Humans control the climate.
    ***

    Alright! I’d like to order a fall and winter with mild temps & no wind. And a side-order of snow only on the appropriate holidays for effect.

  105. William McClenney says:

    beng says:
    September 18, 2013 at 5:38 am

    “Alright! I’d like to order a fall and winter with mild temps & no wind. And a side-order of snow only on the appropriate holidays for effect.”

    Here Here! I second that climotion :-)

  106. dbstealey says:

    Pippen Kool says:

    “They find that they can’t match the modern data unless they add in the extra co2 added from people.”

    Flat wrong. Read up on the climate Null Hypothesis. And please, quit quoting “they”.

    There is nothing either unprecedented or unusual about the current climate, and no magic human ju-ju is required to explain anything. Natural variability is a full and complete explanation — no matter what the pseudo-science blogs tell you.

    The testable, verifiable scientific fact is that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T — not vice-versa. When you start with a wrong premise [that CO2 causes any measurable ∆T], your conclusion will necessarily be wrong.

    Your belief that CO2 is a measurable cause of global temperature change has no scientific basis in fact. There are no such measurements. They do not exist. You can Believe it. But it is not true. You can also believe in the Tooth Fairy, which is equally untrue.

  107. SasjaL says:

    Evening of the Lunatics …

    … all year around …

  108. William McClenney says:

    SasjaL says:
    September 18, 2013 at 5:44 am

    “Evening of the Lunatics …

    … all year around …”

    Or like locusts, every 7 years or so…….

  109. Eric Worrall says:

    Say someone claimed they had a model which could predict stock market prices, and asked us to pay for their model.

    Would we:-

    a) Accept the model if it could hindcast stock prices back to the South Sea bubble?

    b) Expect to see at least a decade or so of demonstrable predictive skill? Year after year of accurate forecasts?

    All hindcasting demonstrates is that you twiddled the knobs on your model to settings which produce a reasonable hindcast fit. Hindcasting is not proof that your model has anything useful to say about the true state of the system, or any predictive skill.

  110. Kick Stand says:

    Tez says:
    September 18, 2013 at 3:21 am

    Why did they start at 1860?
    ……
    I think they might be trying to hide something.

    Obviously on advice from Jules Verne….

  111. kim says:

    I thought you’d never call, so was blind-sided.
    ====================

  112. Pippen Kool says:

    dbstealey says: ” that CO2 is a measurable cause of global temperature change has no scientific basis in fact. There are no such measurements. They do not exist. ”

    Okay. You must be right.

    Say, does anyone here have a simple explanation for why you would expect the stratosphere to cool? Is it because it isn’t getting the normal amt of back radiation?

  113. pat says:

    & if u don’t believe the claim, u know what that means -

    18 Sept: UK Telegraph: Rosa Silverman: Climate change inaction is like Aids denial, says scientist
    Politicians who fail to take urgent measures to tackle climate change are like the South African leaders who denied HIV causes Aids, a scientist has claimed
    Professor Nilay Shah, of Imperial College London, predicted that those who argue against a rapid cut in emissions would be judged similarly to those who had disputed the medical evidence on Aids in the past.
    Prof Shah was speaking as he launched a report advocating global spending of $2 trillion a year by 2050, or 1 per cent of GDP, to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10317823/Climate-change-inaction-is-like-Aids-denial-says-scientist.html

    ——————————————————————————–

  114. george h. says:

    By logical extension, this is a simulation of science published by simulated scientists. Welcome to the Climate Matrix.

  115. Bill H says:

    This paper reeks of desperation.. No evidence, Only conjecture touted as evidence. In the private sector I would fire idiots like this. This is akin to fabricating evidence to convict a criminal of a crime he did not commit.

    Real Ethical…

  116. Eric Worrall says:

    Pippen Kool

    …does anyone here have a simple explanation for why you would expect the stratosphere to cool? …

    https://spark.ucar.edu/shortcontent/thermosphere-overview

    “… The thermosphere is typically about 200° C (360° F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500° C (900° F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. …”

    ( http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/ is also interesting )

    The thermosphere is just above the stratosphere. The NASA article does not discuss a thermal connection between the stratosphere and the thermosphere, but if the thermosphere is substantially hotter during periods of high solar activity, then it is conceivable that it would affect the stratosphere.

  117. Peter Miller says:

    Bruce Cobb

    Your description of GIGO in regards to the Global Warming cult is truly insightful:

    GIGO – Garbage in, Gospel Out

  118. Jquip says:

    “This is just nuts, sorry, I just don’t have any other words for it.”

    In fairness, this is precisely the methodology that’s been in use for ages. There is precisely no difference between a simulated satellite measurement and the simulated thermometers in the adjusted temperature records.

  119. Pippen Kool:

    At September 18, 2013 at 5:23 am you say

    Claim: simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans

    I don’t think they simulate satellite data, they simulate weather from 1860 and then ask if it will matches the modern satellite data. They find that they can’t match the modern data unless they add in the extra co2 added from people.

    No, Pippen Kool, I will try to help you here because it is a bit difficult for a warmunist to understand.

    Look at the above article. Can you see the box containing three graphs labelled (a), (b) and (c)?

    At the top the three graphs are titled “Atmospheric Temperature Changes in CMIP-5 Simulations”.
    The bottom left it is labelled 1860: that is the year 1860 and the bottom right is the present. And at at the side the graphs are labelled labelled “TLT Anomaly/°C.

    Now we are into the hard part for a warmunist because nobody is going to tell you what to think.

    The earliest satellite data is from 1979. There were no satellites before that. So, what do you think the data from 1860 to 1979 is? Is it perhaps the output of a computer model?
    Hint, the title says they used a computer model called CMIP-5.

    Now, they have modelled the atmospheric region indicated by satellites. What do you think that is a model of; “weather” (as you suggest) or what the satellite data would have been if it had existed?
    Take your time, I think even a warmunist can work this out without being told.

    Their model goes up to the present (remember, we observed that earlier). And they observe that their model does not match with the results of real measurements made by real satellites since 1979.

    Now, Pippen Kool, does that disagreement of the model with the measurements indicate
    (a) the model does not agree with the measurements
    or, as you suggest,
    (b) “They find that they can’t match the modern data unless they add in the extra co2 added from people.”?

    See, Pippen Kool, the people commenting here are saying (a) because they are scientists applying the scientific method. If, as you say you do, you want to believe (b) then that is your right. But only somebody sufficiently gullible and foolish as to be a warmunist would believe (b).

    Oh, and do you want to buy a bridge?

    Richard

  120. Roy Spencer says:

    wow, I didn’t know you could create satellite observations out of a climate model. The model must be as good as observations after all.

  121. Mark Bofill says:

    But what has the team really convinced that humans are the true source behind global warming, is that they were unable to produce the type of warming we’ve seen with just natural events—it’s only when human emissions are added to models that such a trend can be realistically simulated.

    This statement would be much more impressive, much more compelling, if models realistically simulated temperatures in the first place. We know that they do not.

  122. Russ R. says:

    While their method is hardly a proof of anything (as it provides no evidence), it does is show a “what if” scenario… If human CO2 emissions had been zero, the climate would have been different.

    And directionally speaking I agree with them… if there was less CO2 in the atmosphere the troposphere should be cooler and the stratosphere should be warmer.

    How much warmer or cooler remains open to debate as the magnitude is a function of their inputs and modeling assumptions.

  123. michael hart says:

    Brief summary for policymakers:

    “Our computer models did what we programmed them to do.”

  124. Russ R.:

    re your post at September 18, 2013 at 6:20 am.

    No. Please see the immediately subsequent post from michael hart at September 18, 2013 at 6:20 am.

    Richard

  125. Hank Zentgraf says:

    Do I hear a death rattle?

  126. michael hart says:

    Reference #4 in the paper is:

    A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere
    B. D. SANTER*, K. E. TAYLOR*†, T. M. L. WIGLEY‡, T. C. JOHNS§, P. D. JONES∥, D. J. KAROLY¶, J. F. B. MITCHELL§, A. H. OORT£, J. E. PENNER†, V. RAMASWAMY£, M. D. SCHWARZKOPF£, R. J. STOUFFER£ & S. TETT§
    Nature 382, 39 – 46 (04 July 1996); doi:10.1038/382039a0

    Santer et al were saying the same thing in 1996, and are still saying it now, despite all the contradictory evidence since then. Saying it louder and more often won’t make it any more true.

  127. Bill Illis says:

    I love the part where they have NO long-term impact on the stratosphere from volcanoes (and ascribe all of the stratosphere cooling to CO2 rather than the Ozone depletion caused by large volcanic eruptions).

    UAH daily stratosphere temps and volcanoes which has very clear impacts. And the stratosphere was been stable or warming for 18.5 years now since the effects of the Pinatubo eruption wore off.
    Even Santer’s 2012 paper noted they needed a “more realistic treatment of stratospheric ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol forcing.”

    http://s10.postimg.org/irls28nsp/UAH_Strat_Lines_Aug_2012.png

    Volcanoes clearly impact the lower troposphere and the stratosphere.

    http://s16.postimg.org/wf3idd0bp/UAH_Strat_LTrop_Lines_Aug_2012.png

    And we can back to 1958 using real data for the troposphere and we can see that there is clearly not +0.8C of warming here as the above climate model simulations show – Maybe 0.2C.

    http://s23.postimg.org/4kw745twr/UAH_RSS_Had_AT_Volc_Aug_2012.png

  128. Chris B says:

    Why not the entire inter glacial, now that the instruments are calibrated?

    /sarc

  129. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    Friends,

    Not to worry. Theses are only “Projections” …….. not “Predictions”.

    Would you like me to explain the difference?

    How long have you got?

    /sarc

  130. Tom Trevor says:

    Why stop at 1860? why not go back to 1492 and prove Columbus caused global warming?

  131. SasjaL says:

    William McClenney on September 18, 2013 at 5:50 am

    … Or like locusts, every 7 years or so…….

    Yeah, but those don’t appear on daily basis …

  132. DRE says:

    I have simulated data that shows that some simulated data is pulled directly out of my . . . hat.

  133. fhhaynie says:

    They left out changing the variable they assume to be causing the change. There simulations should have included with and without CO2. I suspect that the evaporation/condensation and freezing/thawing of water is causing their observed changes, not CO2. Also, those processes are likely controlling the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

  134. E.M.Smith says:

    What they have proven is that they can create a simulation of a fantasy that results in something consistent with the retrofit to satelite data, nothing more. Causality can never be proven by a retrofit model. Never ever.

    I’m quite certain I can back model a world without human induced global warming and match any date set you like. Just let me have a half dozen or two free parameters… Look at what folks can do with computer generated fantasies. From Star Trek to Star Wars to Avatar; we can create entire fictional worlds that match anything we like. This is no different from saying that they got the fat wobble in Shrek to behave like the real stuff, therefore Shrek is real… (The Dreamworks guys were very proud of their fat wobble modeling. It is one of the harder things to get right, along with fur and feathers that act right…)

    Sigh. So much stupidy, so little time…

  135. A commenter on their site compares this to simulations done by engineers, physical chemists, astrophysicists, etc.

    Anyone who’s done any modeling studies knows that complexity increases with degrees of freedom. For engineering of a car, for example, the degrees of freedom are fairly predictable. For physical chemists, the molecules on those levels are strictly controlled, and even when the molecule gets to a mass of about 500 grams/mole, the calculations become unwieldy. Low-molecular-weight gas simulations are done with a handful of molecules as the simulation is easier to control.

    However, when the earth’s climate is involved, there are countless impacts on the climate. Do these researchers include ENSO? Is the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation included? Cloud cover changes from changes in the solar wind? Changes in wind patterns? Fluctuating albedo? Do they assume a sprawl effect of humanity? Or a migratory effect of populations from climate or political displacement? What about forest fires? Other aerosols? Etc.

    No. And that’s the difference between climate modelers and the others. One’s playing Sim Earth, and the others are actually using models in the proper scope.

  136. JJ says:

    “But what has the team really convinced that humans are the true source behind global warming, is that they were unable to produce the type of warming we’ve seen with just natural events—it’s only when human emissions are added to models that such a trend can be realistically simulated. That, they say, proves that human practices over the past several decades are responsible for global warming.

    You know, the whole argument from ignorance thing is getting really, really old.

    Inability to successfully model one thing is never proof of anything, but especially not when you have demonstrated that you have no ability to successfully model anything.

    “We are unable to produce the type of warming we have seen with just natural events.” No kidding. You are also unable to produce the type of warming we have seen – which is to say none for the last 20 years – using your CO2-based fantasies. This is because your models suck. You do not have the understanding of the climate system that you claim you do. And at this point you are well aware of that, so further claims just prove that you are willful liars.

    Every one of the authors of that paper should be out of their job.

  137. mobihci says:

    They wait 17 years to do EXACTLY the same thing again -

    http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

    is this some sort of joke? its not april yet!

  138. Hey, I recognize these people! These are the same people that all are members of The Climate Flat Earth Model Society! What a coincident!
    Have these people no shame?

  139. ferd berple says:

    Nylo says:
    September 18, 2013 at 1:14 am
    As can be seen in the graphic of the lower stratosphere temperature anomaly, the stratosphere cooling has nothing to do with CO2.
    http://www.elsideron.com/LST_anomaly.PNG
    =========
    interesting graphic. very high correlation between stratosphere temps and surface temps. since 1996 flat-line, even though CO2 has been going up like crazy.

    most definitely shows that CO2 and surface/stratosphere temps cannot be related. argues strongly that something other than CO2 is the cause. surprising that this hasn’t received more notice. it certainly looks like it is hard to argue against.

  140. Go Home says:

    I guess now that they have the CO2 satellite model tuned, we can do away with sending up any more satellites for climate observations.

  141. Go Home says:

    The only real good that came from their article…”And while many [worlds scientists] also support the notion that the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is likely due to human emissions, few are willing to go on record claiming that global warming is due directly to human activities.

    I guess they have disproved the 97% consensus. We need to get this out quick to the media. Wonder what Cook et al think.

  142. ferd berple says:

    The mystery of recent stratospheric temperature trends
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/fig_tab/nature11579_F1.html
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html
    A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances.

    The flat-line in stratospheric temperature anomalies since 1995 calls into question CO2 as a driver of surface warming. It also calls into question the ability to simulate past stratospheric temperature. Science cannot explain the flat-line – thus is is called “the mystery”

  143. Fabi says:

    Your assessment is far too kind, Anthony. This is despicable. Extrapolating a limited data set to those bounds produces nothing but fantasy. Divining the anthropogenic element from within the same data set is absurd. There is no reasonable statistical basis for this methodology.

  144. Steve Oregon says:

    Perhaps I’m too simple minded but…
    Were not the “model projections” which failed to match real observations during the last 16 years effectively the same as “satellite simulations”?
    Which therefore makes both their modelling and satellite simulations worthless?

    As for the “we don’t know enough therefore our theory must be right” card being played?
    Imagine if that approach were used in medicine or biotech research.

    A cure for cancer could be claimed solely by the absence of any explanation. And when it fails to cure (as do the climate models fail to project) researchers just repeat their claim based upon the lack of any other cure.

    Modern man’s ability to advance science is in catastrophe with this kind of insanity.
    The immense amount of resources being devoured by layers of governments to broaden a fully corrupted agenda is indeed a crime against humanity. Because these are people making choices with eyes wide open to deprive humanity of what could be it is unforgivable.

  145. ferd berple says:

    If you look at block A in the first figure, the flat-line in stratospheric temps post 1995 is quite evident. this matches the lat-line in observed surface temps, and is at odds with the theory of increasing surface temps with increasing CO2.

    quite obviously climate science knows about this problem and is trying to sweep it under the rug with this simulation. another “hide the decline” all dressed up in fancy computer lingo to try and impress the public.

  146. DirkH says:

    Someone please explain circular reasoning to these numpties.

    But I think they know full well what they have done. They are not scientists; they are crooks; bought and paid for by the state.

  147. Jeff Alberts says:

    John B says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:44 am

    Santer, Solomon, Wigley and Schmidt. All that’s missing is Mann then you have a complete set. Stupid is as stupid does.

    That would be a Royal Straight Flush, as in flush it straight down the throne.

  148. JimS says:

    The is absolutely wonderful! Now, perhaps this team can use their computer model to go back 1,000 years to the Medieval Warming Period and establish what/who was responsible for the warming way back then.

  149. Gunga Din says:

    Jules Verne put men on the Moon in 1865. Surely there must have been satellites before then. Right?

  150. ferd berple says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:02 am
    This is an egregious instance of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of argument from ignorance. “We can’t think of any other reason why the world is warming, so it must be Man.” That is really all this pathetic paper says.
    ============
    In effect the authors are saying that they know everything there is to know about climate. That there is no possibility that the “unknown” is the cause.

    question: if the scientists involved know all there is to know about climate, then why are we paying them to do climate research? Publishing papers about things you already know isn’t research. It is called publishing and doesn’t require high paid scientists.

  151. Gunga Din says:

    JimS says:
    September 18, 2013 at 7:26 am

    The is absolutely wonderful! Now, perhaps this team can use their computer model to go back 1,000 years to the Medieval Warming Period and establish what/who was responsible for the warming way back then.

    =======================================================================
    A little nut in Yamal?

  152. Doubting Rich says:

    So the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled? I teach a short course on meteorology and world climate. My students know enough to suggest from that information that perhaps the polar fronts have increased slightly in latitude, as this would have precisely the effect of increasing mean temperatures in the troposphere and reducing them in the stratosphere. It would also mean that temperatures in the tropics would be unaffected, as seen in reality. So there is one scenario, potentially divorced from human influence, that would explain everything. How have they ruled this out?

  153. philincalifornia says:

    Conclusion-based conclusion drawing – the hallmark of sh!t scientists.

    Why do they even bother putting the model results in the middle ?

  154. Ric Werme says:

    I don’t see the simulations showing the warming in the 30s and 40s and then cooling into the 1970s. That’s as much of a red flag as the Hockey Stick missing the Medieval Warm Period. “They were unable to produce the type of warming we’ve seen with just natural events” – looks to me like they can’t reproduce the warming or cooling we’ve seen with anthropogenic factors either.

  155. G. Karst says:

    I am a little surprised that Frank J. Wentz signed off on this. He knows better, but he is susceptible to peer pressure and going with the flow. Shame he cannot be his own man. GK

  156. Doubting Rich:

    At September 18, 2013 at 7:43 am you ask

    So the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled? I teach a short course on meteorology and world climate. My students know enough to suggest from that information that perhaps the polar fronts have increased slightly in latitude, as this would have precisely the effect of increasing mean temperatures in the troposphere and reducing them in the stratosphere. It would also mean that temperatures in the tropics would be unaffected, as seen in reality. So there is one scenario, potentially divorced from human influence, that would explain everything. How have they ruled this out?

    I answer:
    They rule it out by ignoring it along with every other natural possibility for the cause of global temperature change because that is what the IPCC is mandated to do.

    The first of the PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK says

    The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

    This is because the IPCC exists to provide information useful to implementation of the UN Framework Convention on

    Climate Change (FCCC) which has the following objective
    The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

    {emphasis added: RSC)
    http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php

    In other words, the IPCC is a political body established to provide ‘information’ useful to the implementation of political policies based on the FCCC. Politics uses a different definition of evidence from science, and the paper discussed above is intended to be of use to the IPCC.

    Richard

  157. Frank K. says:

    “The researchers in this new effort are one such group and they claim they have proof.

    Really?? From a COMPUTER MODEL??? REALLY???

    By the way, to see the garbage that passes for climate simulation at NASA/GISS please visit their web site:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    I urge everyone (especially those with numerical simulation computing expertise) to download the software and have a look for themselves: You will see the link for modelE1.tar.gz. Check out the FORTRAN code, if you dare.

    And there is NO usable documentation for code, just fluff. No differential equations listed. No numerical methods. Nothing. There is a message by Gavin that he is somehow “improving” the documentation, but that’s just B.S. He doesn’t care about documentation.

    And no one from the GISS modeling group will EVER discuss the inner workings of their code, either here and anywhere else. They are more interested in blogging, tweeting, and being climate rock stars…

  158. JJ says:

    This just in!

    Organizing for Action has just simulated an 1860 tweet from President James Buchanan:

    “Gravity exists. The Earth is Round. If we don’t act now to prevent the invention of the coal fired electric powerplant and the internal combustion engine, climate change will happen.”

    Wow. Its uncanny. They tried to simulate him saying things that were inconsistent with ‘global warming’, but they couldn’t do it. So, this one must be true.

    /sarc

  159. David L. says:

    Their model doesn’t match observation so therefore it’s the fingerprint of man???

    The ideal gas law (PV=nRT) is a model. Let’s say I want to predict pressure of a system so P=nRT/V. If I plug in n,T, and V and I don’t get the correct pressure, am I to conclude it’s because of Man? No, it’s because the model only works in a narrow range of those parameters and you need a better model to account for “compressibility”, interatomic forces, etc. that are neglected in the simpler ideal gas law model.

    So reality doesn’t match the climate models: All that means is they haven’t accounted for everything in their models.

  160. Frank K. says:

    A quick follow-on to my previous post.

    Normally in modeling transport equations for fluid dynamics, we would describe the precise forms of the continuity, momentum, and energy equations we’re employing along with a description of assumptions made in their derivation (e.g. incompressible versus compressible flow, constant or variable transport properties, turbulence closures, etc.). Here’s how GISS describes the numerical solution of the atmospheric dynamics part of their GCM:


    3. Atmospheric model
    Dynamics

    The solution of the momentum equations is done within the DYNAM. The scheme is leap frog in time with an initial 2/3 time step every 8 leap-frog steps to prevent solution splitting. The dynamics are based on the dry physics (no water vapour effects in the pressure gradient calculation) and use potential temperature as the advected variable. Water vapour and tracers are advected outside the dynamics loop (once every source time step). All temperature, water and tracer advection is done using the quadratic upstream scheme to minimise numerical diffusion.

    Yep, that’s it!

    This brief paragraph starts off by stating that the momentum equations are solved in DYNAM using the Leap Frog scheme (why people still use this method, I don’t know, but that’s a subject for another day…). But then it talks about “potential temperature” being used as an “advected variable” (presumably for the energy equation). OK so DYNAM also solves the energy equation too? What form? And it’s based on dry physics? Hmmmm. Well, at least they’re using the QUICK scheme to “minimise numerical diffusion”. But hold it – aren’t they time marching with something like a 30 minute time step for 100 years worth of simulation??? What difference is numerical diffusion going to make – this isn’t a weather model and they could care less about spatial accuracy since they’re (apparently) only interested in the “global averaged temperature”.

    And I’m only scratching the surface here, folks…

  161. daviditron says:

    GREAT LINK!

    mobihci says:
    September 18, 2013 at 7:05 am
    They wait 17 years to do EXACTLY the same thing again -

    http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

    is this some sort of joke? its not april yet!

    ——————-
    worth a read, the same characters doing the same bad science 17 years ago. Can hardly be believed.

  162. GoneWithTheWind says:

    It is all about picking the right periods of data. A simulation of temperatures from 1250 to 1860 would prove that humans caused global cooling.

  163. TomRude says:

    Nathan Gillett hedges his bets being associated with this garbage while publishing on inaccurate models in Nature…

  164. This thread is chocked full of great comments about a pathetic paper. There is hardly a comment not worth reading, but some I which to highlight and applaud.

    @Barry Brill 12:32am: +1 on Nathan Gillet
    @Monckton… 2:02am: +1 “argumentum ad ignorantiam”, “pathetic.”
    Pathetic as in pathogenesis of science.
    @George Turner 2:30am +1 “Data.. From fevered imaginations.”
    @DEEBEE 2:44am +1 “second time as farce”
    @George Turner 4:01am LOL. “uselessness over longer time spans”
    @Kon Dealer 4:25 am +1 “Empty vessels make the most noise.”
    @Bill H 6:04 am: +2 “evidence” as simulation conjecture and their “fabrication of evidence”
    @michael hart 6:34 am. +2. Author list from Santer 1996.
    Round up the usual suspects.
    @Bill Illis 6:37am +2. Re: Santer 2012.
    Science from Bill.
    @DocattheAutopsy 7:01 am +1 Well said on model complexity.
    @JJ 7:05 am +1 “argument from ignorance” getting old.
    @Steve Oregon 7:21am +1 forecast wrong, hindcast worthless.
    @Ric Werme 7:52 am. +1 missing historical climate signals are red flags.
    @Frank K. 8:03 am, 8:23 am. +2 code ref links and critique.

  165. TomRude says:

    Ben Santer, the poster boy for Mike McCracken the ever busy propaganding Climate Institute director who cannot stop rehashing and defending the IPCC at climateskeptic on Yahoo…

  166. Reg Nelson says:

    I have proof that aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. In my model, if you take out the aliens you end up with cubes.

    QED

  167. Yancey Ward says:

    Beg the question fallacy writ large.

  168. mark says:

    This is called Full Assault. Coordinated Attack. Take No Prisoners. Fight to the Death. No Surrender. Circle the Wagons. Custer’s Last Stand…

  169. SasjaL says:

    Tom Trevor on September 18, 2013 at 6:55 am
    Why stop at 1860? why not go back to 1492 and prove Columbus caused global warming?

    Why not even further? The Norse and Swedish vikings was there before Columbus and the Native Americans even earlier …

  170. RACookPE1978 says:

    daviditron says:
    September 18, 2013 at 8:23 am (replying to)

    GREAT LINK!

    mobihci says:
    September 18, 2013 at 7:05 am

    They wait 17 years to do EXACTLY the same thing again -

    http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

    is this some sort of joke? its not april yet!

    The link to John Daly’s radiosonde data spans 1956 – 1996, showing a slow, steady long-lived decline in atmospheric temperatures over the whole period.

    Do we have data from the same radiosondes (balloons) for 1996 through 2013? Has anyone overlapped the radio data with the satellite data for the period 1979 – 2013?

  171. SasjaL says:

    It is possible to simulate whatever. Even gods …

    … but in the name of religion, anything is possible …

  172. Admad says:

    What was that acronym again? Oh yes.
    G. I. G. O.
    Says it all, really.

  173. What are the “peer review” publication requirements for the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” (PNAS) ?

    My understanding is that PNAS is the poster child for “pal review”, whereas the NAS member authors are allowed to nominate reviewers of their papers, if not actually submit the reviews with the papers. NAS membership is for life. So a “good ol’ pal network” develops quite naturally. High concentrations of CO2 accelerates the growth of that network. ;-)

    Refs: harrywr2, June 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm in Lindzen….

    Lindzen’s PNAS Reviews, McIntyre, June 10, 2011

    Peer Review, Pal Review, and Broccoli WUWT Eschenback, Feb. 17, 2011. 197 Responses.
    {A nomination for the Watt’s Best collection.)

  174. Bart says:

    A little OT, I am trying to start a meme. Yesterday on Doc Spencer’s blog, we were discussing the supposed heating of the deep oceans, by which it is posited that warm waters somehow made their way to the depths without affecting the intervening upper layers. I have dubbed this action “The Immaculate Convection.”

    I find it appropriate for describing a conjecture which is more religious than scientific in nature. And, the initials, TIC, aptly relate it to the neurological disorder which proponents suffer when they grasp for it to fend off the overwhelming cognitive dissonance with which they must cope when presented with the evidence that Nature is not paying ball with their desires.

    If you find it appropriate, please pass it along. I would be interested in seeing how far it penetrates into common parlance.

  175. philincalifornia says:

    Bart says:
    September 18, 2013 at 10:03 am
    A little OT, I am trying to start a meme. Yesterday on Doc Spencer’s blog, we were discussing the supposed heating of the deep oceans, by which it is posited that warm waters somehow made their way to the depths without affecting the intervening upper layers. I have dubbed this action “The Immaculate Convection.”
    ——–

    Ha ha ha, yes, and no sentence where it is used should be without the name “Travesty Trenberth” in it.

  176. This is not worth the paper it is written on. This is beyond ridiculous.

  177. TomE says:

    Obviously this is based upon a 3am bull session by some fraternity brothers after a long night of beer. Please tell me why these people are being paid. Climate science fiction.

  178. Richard Day says:

    Refresh my memory. Was it Sputnik or Telstar that was in orbit in 1870?

  179. Peter in MD says:

    For a long time, their playbook has been:

    “If you can’t dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bulls?!t”

    I’d say this this is spot on to that end!

  180. ATheoK says:

    Authors of this allegedly research paper who are authors for WG1 IPCC AR5

    IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Authors and Review Editors As of 23 July 2013
    Working Group I
    Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models &
    150 Gleckler, Peter Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA, Chapter 9, Lead Author

    Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change : from Global to Regional
    164 Gillett, Nathan Environment Canada Canada, Chapter 10, Lead Author

    Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility

    215 Taylor, Karl Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA, Chapter 12 Review Editor

    Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface

    22 Thorne, Peter (NOAA), USA, Chapter 2, Lead Author

    Papers referenced or attributed in above paper whose authors are also authors/editors to WG1 IPCC AR5

    S1. “Mears C, Wentz FJ, Thorne P, Bernie D (2011) Assessing uncertainty in estimates
    of atmospheric temperature changes from MSU and AMSU using a Monte-Carlo technique. J Geophys Res 116, D08112, doi:10.1029/2010JD014954″

    S3. “Santer BD, et al. (2013) Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature.
    Proc Nat Acad Sci 110:26-33.”

    S4. “Santer BD, et al. (2003) Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to
    recent tropopause height changes. Science 301:479-483.”

    S5. “Tett SFB, et al. (2002) Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change. J Geophys Res 107, D16, doi:10.1029/2000JD000028.”
    Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and irreversibility
    216 “Tett, Simon, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, Chapter 12, Review Editor”

    S6. “Gillett NP, et al. (2011) Attribution of observed changes in stratospheric ozone
    and temperature. Atmos Chem Phys 11:599-609.”

    S8. “Eyring V, et al. (2013) Long-term changes in tropospheric and stratospheric
    ozone and associated climate impacts in CMIP5 simulations. J Geophys Res
    (in press)”
    Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
    148 Eyring, Veronika Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Germany Chapter 9, Lead Author

    Pal review? Incestual perhaps describes the relationships better. Nothing like determining what is needed and tailoring a paper to fulfill that role. Haste and desire are unlikely to bring any sort of quality to the paper and results.

    While discussing results;
    Other models contribute data to this series,
    Observational data is spliced in,
    Anomalies are determined, kinda , maybe, forced, yeah that’s the ticket,
    Prognosticating past history from bad present day models with models that never worked, nor have their developers ever figured out why they don’t work,
    Splice data to modeled data to observations to respliced data, splice it again and again! &

    Then use the results to bafflegab the world.

    How Gavin ever got roped in agreeing to be an identified author on this paper is sort of surprising. I had thought he was starting to stay with hard science; maybe he restricted his role…

  181. ATheoK says:

    Looks like I forgot to end my next line &nbsp with a semi-colon. My apologies!

  182. OldWeirdHarold says:

    If I model a dog’s tail as a leg, how many legs does it have?

  183. Billy Liar says:

    philincalifornia says:
    September 18, 2013 at 7:43 am

    Conclusion-based conclusion drawing – the hallmark of sh!t scientists.
    Why do they even bother putting the model results in the middle ?

    I’m sure you know the answer to your question but let me spell it out for those unfamiliar with climatology – it’s to keep the modellers (ie Gavin et al) in plenty of grant (ie your) $$$$$$!

  184. ATheoK says:

    “Bart says: September 18, 2013 at 10:03 am

    A little OT, I am trying to start a meme. Yesterday on Doc Spencer’s blog, we were discussing the supposed heating of the deep oceans, by which it is posited that warm waters somehow made their way to the depths without affecting the intervening upper layers. I have dubbed this action “The Immaculate Convection.”

    Uhoh!
    Well, since CAGW is a faith and definitely not science,
    I love it Bart!

    I certainly wouldn’t call the authors for this paper disciples, but the extreme catholic faith movement called ‘Flagellantism’ comes to mind, “…Flagellants was to take this self-mortification into the cities and other public spaces as a demonstration of piety…”,  
    “…Flagellants was to take this self-mortification into the cities and other public spaces as a demonstration of piety. …”  
    “… Thousands of citizens gathered in great processions, singing and with crosses and banners, they marched throughout the city whipping themselves. …”  
    “… However, one chronicler noted that anyone who did not join in the flagellation was accused of being in league with the devil. They also killed Jews and priests who opposed them…” (from wikihell)  

    Remarkable similarity to the CAGW religion’s ‘man must pay’ meme along with their frequent calls for ‘inquisitions’.

  185. ATheoK says:

    Mods:
    Should I resubmit my earlier post with the broken &nbsp(s) with corrected next line coding?

    [Done. Mod]

  186. Louis says:

    If these people have so much confidence in their ability to model chaotic systems, why don’t they model the stock market and get rich? Oh, that’s right. They would have to risk their own money. They don’t have THAT much confidence in computer models.

  187. Further on the bias and quality of peer review at Proceedings of National Academy of Science (PNAS):

    A Black Day For Science – PNAS publishes a paper based on a skeptic blacklist
    WUWT June 22, 2010 on

    Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science? about a paper rejected by PNAS (a rare event) but accepted by Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
    by Chip Knappenberger, June 9, 2011

    Follow-up WUWT post June 9, 2011. (136 Responses) Posted in: Peer Review

  188. Louis says:

    While they were busy modeling the past, why didn’t they model the future, too? Were they afraid to expose their methods to a testable prediction? We shouldn’t have any more confidence in their methods than they do.

  189. Mike Ozanne says:

    Claim: simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans
    Posted on September 18, 2013 by Anthony Watts

    Right which one of you bastards hacked my time settings, it says 18th Sep but its blatantly April 1…..
    Honestly I can’t figure out what to do, smear a couple of them with peanut butter, I suppose, and chuck them in the pound to be buggered to death by Great Danes and wolfhounds. See it it improves the work output of the rest….

  190. dbstealey says:

    daviditron is right, the John Daly link is only one page, but it destroys Santer’s underhanded shenanigans.

    That is a classic case of lying with statistics: truncating post and prior data, in order to cherry-pick a graph that supports their dishonest conclusion. Typical of the pseudo-science games being played by the climate alarmist clique, who cannot make a credible case without resorting to lying.

    Just one page. You don’t even need to read it, just overlay the partial and the full graph. They lie for money. They should be prosecuted for scientific misconduct.

  191. Bob says:

    It is fourth down and long. The game is nearing a tipping point. The TEAM huddles at mid-field and needs a quick touchdown. The game has gone all wrong in the last couple of quarters as the world got colder, and snow was up to the center’s rear.
    In the huddle, Quarterback Gavin directs the next play.

    Gav: Ok, guys, we gotta do a hail Mary on this one. Susan, you’re the tight end so I want you to fake a run-block on the left side while I sprint-out, hide-the-decline, and throw it to Mann for the touch.

    Susan: That stumble-bum Mann is on the bench where he belongs. Besides, I am not a tight-end. I am a wide receiver, and I want to run a post route to the end zone, and we don’t need to hide-the-decline. You can run the play-action thing the way we practiced it.

    Gav: No, Susan. That was not the play-action pass we practiced. I tossed a real pass to you, but you did not want to play.

    Ben: Hey, guys. Don’t I get to do anything? I’m going to tell my boss that you have been reading Watts Up With That, and you will all have to do twenty… uhh, push-ups not years.

    Tom: Since I am the center, I have something to contribute to this huddle. Singer is playing nose guard, and I need some help. With the stats he brings to the game, we are all in trouble.

    Gav: No, Tom. I am the center of things since Hansen took the last coal train to the coast. All you have to do is block Singer and make sure Spencer doesn’t get through to our backfield. I have to worry about Christy. The Force is strong in that one. Ben, it is your job to take on Christy.

    Ben: Block Christy? He doesn’t play fair with all his facts and satellite stuff. You work for NASA, too. Why aren’t you using satellites instead of Hansen’s jury-rigged series? It would make more sense, and we would have a chance.

    Gav: Look folks, the way we modeled this thing is that we don’t have to have proof. All we gotta do is stonewall a few FOIA’s, fake some data, and boot-leg the peer review. It can’t work any other way according to the models. OK, Team. Remember, deception is our game!

  192. Pippen Kool says:

    Bill Illis says: “I love the part where they have NO long-term impact on the stratosphere from volcanoes (and ascribe all of the stratosphere cooling to CO2 rather than the Ozone depletion caused by large volcanic eruptions).”

    Why would there be a long term impact from volcanic aerosols? They are not permanently up there.

    And they DO attribute the lowering in the stratosphere from ozone depletion:

    “The decrease in TLS (their abbr. for lower stratosphere) is primarily a response to
    human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion, with a smaller
    contribution from anthropogenic changes in other greenhouse
    gases (GHGs) (19, 22, 23).”

  193. rogerknights says:

    Politics uses a different definition of evidence from science, and the paper discussed above is intended to be of use to the IPCC.

    Richard

    Here’s Robert Anton Wilson’s take:

    If A is less than B, and B is less than C, then A is less than C, except where prohibited by law.

  194. I would like to thank tha authors of this paper for finally showing the world that when a climate science paper is deemed to be “peer reviewed” it in no way means that it or its finding are correct and validated.

    Anyone can see that this is nonsense. So the next time you hear the “but it’s peer reviewed” just quote this paper. Imagine if the accountants at CERN realised that according to this groups’ logic, you didn’t need to build a supercolider to find the Higgs Boson – you just needed to build a model!!!

  195. RACookPE1978 says:

    rogerknights says:
    September 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm (replying to)

    Politics uses a different definition of evidence from science, and the paper discussed above is intended to be of use to the IPCC.

    Richard

    Here’s Robert Anton Wilson’s take:

    If A is less than B, and B is less than C, then A is less than C, except where prohibited by law.

    Rather:
    If A is less than B, and B is less than C, then A is less than C, except where desired by lawyers. And climate scientists.

  196. more soylent green! says:

    If this was a Star Trek episode and Mr. Spock did the simulation. I might be somewhat less skeptical — if I were also a fictional character in a make-believe universe.

  197. Mike E says:

    PNAS? Well that’s embarrassing. If you have a pal in the national academy your paper will get in with essential no peer review, I know, I have done it myself.

  198. Bob says:

    mickyhcorbett75 says:
    September 18, 2013 at 12:59 pm
    “Imagine if the accountants at CERN realised that according to this groups’ logic, you didn’t need to build a supercolider to find the Higgs Boson – you just needed to build a model!!!”

    HEAR! HEAR!

  199. Simulated data. If I did my taxes this way, I’d be in jail.

  200. milodonharlani says:
  201. Outrageous Ampersand says:

    97% of human history is war, slavery, and exploitation. To perpetuate this, every culture on earth has invented a priest class to explain why these are all Good Things.

    Cultural differences abound, but always these priests have fancy titles and intimidating costumes. They alone claim to be able to interpret the wishes of the gods, and invariably the only way to assuage the gods’ anger is some variant on sacrificing a virgin daughter (but never the priests’ daughter of course).

    Some think this is only a scientific or political issue, or that it is something new. It is not. This is hummanity’s default state.

    The enlightenment having run it’s course, we now return to the dark ages.

  202. Allan MacRae says:

    This paper is more than “just nuts”, Anthony.

    This is a seminal work from PNAS!

  203. Richard M says:

    The authors are basically claiming they are Gods. To make such claims they must be all knowing. Nothing could exist that they don’t completely understand. Did they finish the paper with … “Amen”?

  204. Mark says:

    Looks like they were a little late publishing this. Unless they are going to try for a Hugo in 2014.

  205. Kevin R. says:

    Horse races are less chaotic than climate but even the best computer simulation that predicts races that already happened (regressive) will break your heart if you try to use it as a holy grail. Horse races are very much less chaotic than climate but the best computer simulation will only give an informed knowledgable person a reasonable odds line but never a sure thing. A sure thing needs no computer simulation.

  206. dbstealey says:

    Pippen Kool says:

    The decrease in TLS (their abbr. for lower stratosphere) is primarily a response to human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion, with a smaller
    contribution from anthropogenic changes in other greenhouse
    gases (GHGs)…

    You’re obviously new at this, so let me give you some background information:

    The stratosphere was a very minor issue, which no one paid much attention to because there is no testable cause-and-effect between tropospheric temperature and “carbon” emissions.

    Rather, the universal alarmist prediction was that a tropospheric hot spot [the "Fingerprint of Global Warming"] would appear, thus confirming AGW.

    But no such tropospheric hot spot has ever appeared. The models were wrong, as usual. The alarmist models are always wrong; falsified by empirical observations.

    Therefore, the alarmist response was to move the goal posts. Now the claim is that the stratosphere is cooling. But notice that the cooling began in 1990 — thus, it can hardly be due to the steady rise in CO2, which did not take any kind of unusual jump at that time.

    The baseless assumption that the stratosphere cooled in 1990 due to CO2 is only claimed because of the abject failure of the “Fingerprint of Global Warming” to appear as predicted: the tropospheric hot spot was predicted as a certainty. But it never appeared. In science, that means your conjecture has been falsified. Human CO2 emissions cause no measurable global warming. But you cannot accept what the real world is telling us. You are ruled by Belief.

    Really, the entire argument for catastrophic AGW is based on the devious principle of “Say Anything”. When one prediction fails, simply move the goal posts. How do you explain the fact that every alarmist prediction has failed? How many failures will it take for you to admit you were wrong? Or are you completely incapable of ever admitting you are wrong about the catastrophic AGW conjecture?

    That is not science, that is advocacy of a failed narrative. No science is involved, only devious rhetoric. My previous advice has been to think for yourself. That is still good advice. The alarmist conjecture is that a rise in CO2 [specifically, the ≈3% of CO2 emitted by humans] will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

    But that failed conjecture has been shown repeatedly to be ridiculous. Why embarass yourself by trying to argue with the highly educated folks here who know better? The CO2=CAGW belief has been repeatedly falsified. Why are you still trying to flog that dead horse?

  207. Mark says:

    wobble says:
    What’s wrong with what they are doing?

    I once pretended what it would be like to fly the space shuttle above Civil War battles. How is this any different?

    You probably had a better plot :)

  208. clipe says:

    Limerick time

    Santer, Solomon, Wigley and Schmidt

    Had puplished a paper full of…

  209. clipe says:

    grr…published

  210. galileonardo says:

    I was reading my Hysteriam Trickster Dictionary as I do every Wednesday afternoon and in light of the reemergence of Ben Santer (not that he’d gone anywhere) I thought this was interesting:

    San·te·ria noun \ˌsan-tə-ˈrē-ə, ˌsän-\
    Definition of SANTERIA:
    1. a religion practiced originally in Cuba in which Yoruba deities are identified with Roman Catholic saints*
    2. a religion practiced by pseudoscientists in which your über-deities are identified as omnipresent IPCC oracles
    3. abnormally frequent intestinal evacuations with more or less rhetorical stools, synonymous with speaking out of one’s buttocks or speaking excrement

    And the next entry:

    Santer-punch noun \ˌsan-tər ˈpənch\
    Definition of SANTER-PUNCH:
    a mythical weapon used to strike the noses of those who blaspheme AGW dogma

    Cheers!

    *No offense intended toward practitioners of Santería

  211. TonyG says:

    mickyhcorbett75 says:
    Anyone can see that this is nonsense.

    Sadly, that’s not the case, as one poster on this thread clearly proves.

  212. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    Does anyone still read RC? Has Gav the Chav made a defense of this POS?

  213. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    OldWeirdHarold said on September 18, 2013 at 11:27 am:

    If I model a dog’s tail as a leg, how many legs does it have?

    Three. The pair of limbs closest to the head are always designated as arms to maintain compatibility with the reused programming modules originally developed for the primate simulation.

    And as there’s a leg growing where a tail should be, the recommendation will invariably be necessary and necessarily expensive surgery to immediately correct the problem. Too bad.

    Next time model the tail as a horn. There’s an overwhelming consensus of 97% of the surveyed carnival barkers who agreed that would be beneficial.

  214. John says:

    I’m amazed at the length the natural climate change deniers will go thru to “prove” it’s man caused.

  215. Gail Combs says:

    Outrageous Ampersand says: @ September 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    ….The enlightenment having run it’s course, we now return to the dark ages.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are of course correct. A quicky on isms, ocracies and ologies

    …OK, so the Enlightenment was not popular with the Old Right (Kings and Clerics) nor is it popular with the New Left (postmodernists, feminists, and various socialists). All the folks grasping after power not liking the idea of individuals able to ignore centers of power. What a surprise…

    …I hope this brief survey lets you rapidly focus on what to promote, and to some extent what to avoid….

    My bias is to the side of The Enlightenment and Naturalism. I’ve seen little to indicate anything since then has been an improvement… So simply knowing that lets me not be so ‘buffaloed’ if someone starts to spout about “humanist positivism” or the superiority of “moral relativism in the post-modernist reductionist age”. I can simply look at them and calmly state: “I prefer the liberty and humanity of a Naturalist Enlightenment as it works much better.” – E.M. Smith

    Sort of help explain why the ‘Right” and the “Left” are both interested in trashing individual liberty and no matter who we elect another bit of liberty gets sacrificed as more laws and regulations are pasted and the bureaucracy grows ever larger.

  216. Zeke Hausfather says:

    Roy Spencer says:
    “wow, I didn’t know you could create satellite observations out of a climate model. The model must be as good as observations after all.”

    Roy, given that you have written a number of papers comparing modeled and observed TLT temperatures (e.g. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/r-358.pdf) I find it rather hard to take your surprise that seriously. If GCMs produce atmospheric temperature estimates after 1979 based on a specified set of forcings, it stands to reason that they would also do so before 1979. You just can’t validate them against observations prior to the date.

  217. dbstealey says:

    Zeke Hausfather,

    Dr. Spencer was being sarcastic, but it flew right over your head.

    In fact, your models are wrong, whether you’re trying to validate them with or without observations. Not a single multi-million dollar GCM was able to predict the past seventeen years of no global warming. Their “atmosphere temperature forecasts” were wrong. All of them.

    So isn’t it about time for you to admit that your entire CO2=CAGW conjecture has been completely debunked? And if not, when will you finally admit it? When glaciers flow down over Chicago again? Is your True Belief really that strong?

    See, real world observations debunk your alarmist nonsense. I understand that you are paid for by a guy who got lucky in the stock market. But he doesn’t know jack about this topic. And what you think you know is plain wrong — as the real world is making clear.

  218. Pamela Gray says:

    So how does that mesh with a study published last year that concluded unimpressive results about the ability of this CMIP-5 model to hindcast or simulate observations very well?

    http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/Kim_et_al.2012_GRL.pdf

  219. Pamela Gray says:

    Mark, I swear I am not a druggie but I thought you wrote, “You probably had better pot.” After I dried my tears from laughing so hard, I saw that you actually wrote, “You probably had a better plot.” And then I laughed some more.

  220. cui bono says:

    Certainly there was a Victorian-era satellite. It was lovingly crafted, and was (inadvertently) manned. An excellent vehicle from which to measure Stratospheric temperatures.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brick_Moon

  221. dbstealey,

    We will have to agree to disagree about the utility of GCMs. They are far from perfect, and discrepancies over the past decade are certainly significant (among other model shortcomings). However, for this sort of analysis the ability to differentiate between scenarios of natural-only and natural + anthropogenic forcings is useful, and the ensemble of models provides a range of potential error due to different assumptions (models, after all, span a climate sensitivity of around 2 C to 4.5 C). All models are wrong, but some are useful.

    I’m not sure what your statement that “you are paid for by a guy who got lucky in the stock market” is supposed to mean; the first angel investor in my past company Efficiency 2.0 was indeed quite lucky (he managed a rather large hedge fund). However, we didn’t really focus much on climate issues. The fellow who bought my company last year was a self-made billionaire (Tom Siebel), and if anything he is something of a climate skeptic. I write papers and blog about climate for fun, not profit.

  222. Merovign says:

    I only hope, perhaps foolishly, that people in general remember that the people who made science a joke were scientists.

    Unfortunately I think the closest thing to a “solution” is for people everywhere to develop a habit of suspecting *everyone*, which is a sad way to live but probably not as sad as most of history.

  223. Pippen Kool says:

    dbstealey says: “The stratosphere was a very minor issue”

    Right, but that was the focus of my earlier Q, not the troposphere.

    I never really appreciated the fact that the stratosphere was cooling, and after no one at this _climate_ site answered my Q, I went to the (evil) paper and found it in simple English, with references backing their claims. You know, that ‘sciencey’ thing they do.

    And, this is a site of skeptics, so I am skeptical of your analysis which always reads modelers make up their models to just fit the data period. You know, the models aren’t just complex linear regressions. And I will be the first to admit that models have their weaknesses, but 5 day weather prediction works pretty nicely, and that _is_ a very useful model, and it was developed by the same guys doing the climate models.

    BTW, the PNAS paper is a great read if you can get it.

  224. bit chilly says:

    thanks people for the excellent comments.i had steam coming out my ears after reading the initial post.by the time i got to ken harveys comment of so much virtuality,so little virtue i had a smile on my face.
    i find it inconceivable that a paper based purely on the imagination of the authors can find its way into any scientific journal.
    .

  225. pete says:

    zeke, how can it possibly be useful? The models clearly get the forcings wrong, so i dont see how you can draw meaningful conclusions from them.

    More than likely you are coming to mistaken conclusions as you are putting faith in the ability of a model to differentiate natural and man-made forcings when they can do no such thing. If my model assumes X natural forcing and Y man-made, then i am drawing conclusions based on X and Y when the “true” values are in fact W and Z. That’s less than useless; useless would give you no meaningful answer, this produces a misdirection.

    Frankly i see this paper as a candidate for the award of “Worst scientific paper ever published”. Though scientific may also need to be in quotes, there is little to no science here.

  226. 1sky1 says:

    If not their virtue, you at least have to admire their virtuosity in selling pure virtuality.

  227. ATheoK says:

    “ATheoK says: September 18, 2013 at 11:45 am

    Mods:
    Should I resubmit my earlier post with the broken &nbsp(s) with corrected next line coding?

    [Done. Mod]

    Wow!! Thank you! Over and above the call; as I would’ve been content if you deleted the post I buggered and allowed me to resubmit. Then again, I can likely find infinite ways to screw up a post, so [your] way is probably for the best.

    [ 8<) Mod]

  228. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    Pete, I would add that people who do not follow this issue closely will read about this paper/study in the MSM and take it as gospel. (Low information voters)

    You MUST know, they also understand this.

    An untruth makes it around the world while the truth is still pulling it’s pants on. (apologies for butchering the quote)

    I am afraid that it is going to take 20 years of cooling for some people to realize that CAGW/CACC is bunkum.

    Tom R.

  229. F. Ross says:

    Using my pea-sized brain I created a Basic computer model that generates SuperLotto numbers.
    Playing the model generated numbers yielded NO winners; I can’t understand it; I considered all the variables; still no winners.
    Conclusion: the California Lottery machine must be defective. (cough, cough)

  230. Kevin K says:

    KD Knobel wrote;

    “Plus information retrieval was limited and haphazard, as each satellite could only hold so many hollow cannonballs that were filled with ticker tape. With orbital drift the clockwork-timed releases could have hit from Australia to the Arctic.

    But at least it worked better than what they had before, which was before they realized space really was airless up that high which explains why they never got any of the data presumably sent out with the carrier pigeons.”

    Information retrieval was indeed a huge engineering challenge for the first reconnaissance satellites (ca 1960). They did actually resort to “de-orbitting” film canisters from the orbiting satellite (i.e. camera). These where then retrieved by “snagging” them with a cargo airplane circling around over the Pacific with a long loop of “rope” behind it. The film was then flown back to land and processed. The film canister had a soluble plug that would dissolve and allow sea water to enter and destroy the film if we “missed” it and it “hit the drink”.

    Look up the US “CORONA” spy (excuse me, reconnaissance) satellite program, it helped prevent nuclear war. An amazing story of perseverance (the first dozen launches failed), engineering skill, cooperation between Government and Industry and LUCK.

    A US satellite program that held six of these film canisters named “HEXAGON” was recently declassified.

    Cheers, Kevin

  231. Pamela Gray says:

    Whenever I see correlation leading too quickly to causation, I always ask myself, what else going on in our complex planet could warm up or cool down something. Remember, on a planet awash in oscillations and subharmonics of oscillations, one can find a possible source for causation round every bend in the road. So to give us something to talk about other than anthropogenic CO2 cooling of the stratosphere, lets talk about the QBO.

    http://adrem.org.cn/Faculty/GongDY/class2008/QBO.pdf

    [It's best to tell the readers that the QBO is QUASI-BIENNIAL OSCILLATION Mod. ]

  232. Jeef says:

    They missed Mickey Mouse off the author list.

  233. KevinK says:

    Correction please, the US reconnaissance satellite known as “HEXAGON” only had FOUR film return capsules. But they contained 60 miles (yes, 60 miles) of film. And there was a small little film company in Rochester NY that may have supplied all of that film.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  234. Pamela Gray says:

    While I understand the desire to create an easy to follow blog and thread, I was actually using a little trick to get people to naturally think about something. The human brain will automatically think about something (and to a greater extent) when they themselves have asked a question. For example, if you see something AND say to yourself, “What is that?”, you will also think about it. A lot. Instead, if someone else tries to get you to think by them having asked the question and answered it, you do not respond quite as well with your full brain working on the topic. Instead it becomes a yes or no activity.

    So I don’t know if it worked, but simply thinking about CO2 being or not being the culprit (because someone else asked the question and is telling us their answer) may narrow and dismiss thinking about the cooling beyond what was presented. I wanted people to look at something possibly related to stratospheric cooling and ask themselves, “What is that?”

  235. Brian Epps says:

    You can “Prove” young-Earth creationism with a model if you pick the right parameters.

  236. Sunsettommy says:

    Missing link in warmist climate science— The Scientific Method.

  237. michaelozanne says:

    We’ll soon reach a stage where climate scientists travel in threes like the old Czech secret police. One who can read, one who can write, one to keep an eye on the two intellectuals..

  238. Theo Goodwin says:

    “But what has the team really convinced that humans are the true source behind global warming, is that they were unable to produce the type of warming we’ve seen with just natural events—it’s only when human emissions are added to models that such a trend can be realistically simulated.”

    If these so-called scientists believed that God exists they would be unwilling to share power with him. What blarney!

    Where did they get their list of natural events? How do they know the range of values, from lowest to highest, that can be assigned to each natural event in their list? Typical stupid as mud assumption that all causes are known along with their ranges. They hate actual investigation of the world. They are philosophers or politicians not scientists.

  239. Jeff Alberts says:

    Pippen Think’s He’s Cool said: “And I will be the first to admit that models have their weaknesses, but 5 day weather prediction works pretty nicely, and that _is_ a very useful model,”

    You really think a 5 day forecast works pretty nicely? You have REALLY low standards. 5 day forecasts are fairly useless.

  240. Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s an aggressive assertion of clear intent:
    “You will be assimilated”

    That’s what they’re saying.

  241. Blade says:

    Rick K [September 18, 2013 at 5:15 am] says:

    Why start at 1860?

    That’s an easy one Rick …

    http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/history/pennsylvania/pennsylvania.html

    “The most important oil well ever drilled was in the middle of quiet farm country in northwestern Pennsylvania in 1859. For this was one of the first successful oil wells that was drilled for the sole purpose of finding oil. Known as the Drake Well, after “Colonel” Edwin Drake, the man responsible for the well, it began an international search for petroleum, and in many ways eventually changed the way we live.”

  242. Peter Ward says:

    Isn’t this just a high-tech way of saying there’s a gap between reality and and our knowledge and the only way we can think of plugging it is with CO2? It’s the same message that AGW’s been based on since the start, but now with added satellites.

    Do you think anyone will notice that their nice red-and-yellow model lines don’t actually align with the reality blue lines, probably since 1960 and definitely since 1990? Isn’t that something of a shot-in-the-foot admission? But let’s ignore that and admire how they line up during the time there were no satellite readings to confirm the models!

  243. Katabasis says:

    We have duly worked on an appropriate scholarly rebuttal to the (Santer et al 2013) paper – it is (Corvid, Decair, Katabasis 2013):

    http://www.anonymong.org/2013/09/18/preliminary-response-to-forthcoming-ipcc-update/

  244. Ken L. says:

    There is no “proof ” in science. Theories cannot be proven. They can only be disproved . A hypothesis can be tested and accepted as a theory, but is only good until it fails to predict
    reality. Proof is for mathematics and any research that claims to ” prove ” a scientific theory must be
    viewed as suspect, imho.

    “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

    Richard Feynman

  245. Friends:

    At September 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm Pippen Kool says:

    BTW, the PNAS paper is a great read if you can get it.

    I suppose that means the PNAS paper is a picture book.

    Richard

  246. accordionsrule says:

    Simulated data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by satellites.

  247. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ken L. (September 19, 2013 at 12:43 am)
    “There is no “proof ” in science.”

    You’d better sober up and reconsider.
    You’ve drank too much of the propaganda.

  248. JPeden says:

    @Pippen Kool: “BTW, the PNAS paper is a great read if you can get it.”

    Nah, I can already spin around in circles right where I sit.

  249. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Observational satellite data and the model-predicted response to human influence have a common latitude/altitude pattern of atmospheric temperature change. The key features of this pattern are global-scale tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling over the 34-y satellite temperature record. We show that current climate models are highly unlikely to produce this distinctive signal pattern by internal variability alone, or in response to naturally forced changes in solar output and volcanic aerosol loadings.
    William:
    This paper is ignores paleo climatic data that disproves their hypothesis. The planet has cyclically warmed and cooled nine times during the current interglacial period the Holocene. The past nine warming and cooling periods were not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. Paleo-climatologists refer to the cycle warming and cooling as a Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycle (named after the discoverers of the cycle). The regions that warmed in the last 150 years are the same regions that warmed in past Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles.
    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    It appears the above paper is written by a biased group to push the extreme AGW agenda, as opposed to try to solve a scientific problem. The methodology to push the extreme AGW agenda is to ignore data, analysis, and logic that disproves their hypothesis.

    Changes in planetary cloud cover will also cause tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling (the solar radiation (short wave) that is reflected by clouds heats the ozone in the stratosphere (incoming radiation and again if the short wave radiation is reflected). A reduction in planetary cloud cover therefore causes the troposphere to warm and stratospheric cooling.
    The alternative mechanism – changes in planetary cloud cover – can explain the past nine warming and cooling periods. The alternative mechanism – changes in planetary cloud cover – can explain past and recent regional warming pattern.

    As note in this paper that latitudinal pattern of warming observed in the last 150 years cannot be explained by the CO2 mechanism. As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the observed warming should be proportional to the long wave radiation that emitted off to space. As the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space is in the tropics, if the warming in the last 150 years was caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2, the majority of the observed warming should be in the tropics. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth

    That is not observed. The most amount of observed warming in the last 50 years is in high latitude Northern hemisphere regions and the most amount of warming in the Northern hemisphere is on the Greenland ice sheet which matches past D-O cycles. As other papers have noted the general circulation models (GCM) do not and cannot produce warming that matches the observed warming pattern in the last 50 years.

    Another observation to support the above the comments, is the fact that there has been no warming of the tropical troposphere in the last 50 years.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    New paper that again finds the upper troposphere is not warming as predicted.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018
    Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu

  250. george e. smith says:

    The age of satellite data; whether real or simulated, began in 1957. I personally had the honor of reporting perhaps the earliest simulated satellite data, ever published in the Southern Hemisphere; the crusty side of the pizza.
    It came about as the USA project Vanguard became project Rearguard. The Vanguard satellite was to broadcast on a frequency of 40.0 MHz, and my Electronics Professor Brian Earnshaw, had constructed a fancy digital counter, consuming every single 12AT7 vacuum tube in the entire country of New Zealand. He could feed it the audio beat frequency between the satellite signal and a 40.0 MHz reference to measure that frequency and get the Doppler shift information as Vanguard flew by.

    Well sadly, this thing called Sputnik, happened first, and it didn’t beep at 40.0 MHz, but at 20.0 MHz instead. So while Earshaw scurried to get a 20.0 MHz reference oscillator going; we Radio-Physics students, got out our trusty ham radio receiver, and started to listen to the sputnik beeps, within hours of the launch.
    So we had a roster of shifts of students, sleeping on a cot in the RP lab, and taking turns, listening for sputnik to come up over the 20.0 MHz radio horizon; which we could determine from ionospheric predictions for reception at the 20.0 MHz frequency. So we recording start and stop times for the audio beep, which we wrote down on a strip of toilet paper, or something equally pee-er reviewed; with a #2 pencil (see how that works). Actually the don’t have #2 pencils in New Zealand; which literally means #2 soft, as distinct from a 2H, which is a technical drawing pencil used for writing text. An HB pencil, sitting on the fence, so to speak is used for writing things down so they smudge easily.

    So the idea was that The UofA was surrounded by the 20 MHz radio horizon circle of some reasonably known radius, and when sputnik, orbited about every 90 minutes, if it ever came within our circle, we could record the start and stop times, while it was in the circle. now earth rotates 15 deg. per hour, so the satellite orbit slews about 22.5 degrees between each orbit. Our radio horizon was big enough that at most we could get three successive transits through our circle, giving beep tracks of three different lengths offset 22.5 degrees apart. We had to rough guess the orbit inclination based on the reported launch site.

    So we figured that if we tried to fit a pattern of three offset lines of different lengths onto our circle, we should be able to guess about where sputnik was when it passed through our circle. Well it was also desirable if it came near the center (on the middle track) and preferably at some time within about morning or evening twilight, where it might be sun illuminated, but in a darkened sky.

    So we had watched it on out ham radio for about 48 hours, and had got some rough patterns figured out, so now we had some idea, where the orbit was in its slew pattern.

    Well I was on watch around lunch time on the third day, and I was pretty excited, because it was looking like the pattern was saying we should have about an 8PM transit that evening, pretty close to the center of the circle.

    Well I was day dreaming, and the telephone rang. So I picked it up, and it was some guy who said he was from the Auckland Star, evening newspaper. What if anything did we know about this Commie gizmo. Well I told him, we have been watching it on the radio, so anyone with a reasonable short wave, could listen in.

    “Well”, the chap said, “what people really want to know, is when they might be able to actually see this thing if that was even possible.”

    Well still half day dreaming, and certainly not thinking, I blurted out, “well if it was me, I would go up Mt Eden tonight around 8pm and watch it go overhead.”

    So the guy hung up and I curled up on the cot for a bit.

    Well later that day, the Star came out, and there splashed across the front page, it said:-

    “The Radio-Physics Department at the UofA has calculated that the sputnik satellite will be directly visible over Auckland at 8:00 pm tonight.”

    Blimey ! what idiot told them that ? I hadn’t said word oe of any calculating; I just said I would go up Mt Eden and look.

    Damn ! thousands of people went up Mt Eden, and One Tree Hill, and many of the other 60 volcanos in the greater Auckland area, before 8 pm that evening, and right on schedule, sputnik came up brightly illuminated over the horizon and passed directly overhead right near 8:00 pm.

    Not me, I went to bed early because I had been up too many hours looking at sputnik on the radio.

    So I had to figure out a new possible time for the next evening to get my first glimpse of sputnik, that thousands had seen the night before.

    So yes, I know all about simulated satellite data; I have made up plenty of my own.

  251. george e. smith says:

    As a side note, Professor (actually Senior Lecturer at the time) Earnshaw, recorded the sputnik audio beat signals on a paper magnetic tape recorder, as they existed at the time, and then he ran those signals into his whirligig digital counter machine.

    OOoops !! Slight problem there Brian. Gizmo works great on lab audio oscillator signals, but the tape signals, are so bloody noisy, the digital counters are triggering on everything and anything; and to the best of my knowledge, that contraption, never ever extracted one binary digit of information from either sputnik, or project rear guard, when they finally got one to not blow up on the launch pad.

    In 2011 March, I had the pleasure of having lunch with retired Professor Emeritus Brian Earnshaw, at the Faculty Lounge, at the UofA. Without his teaching in electronics, I could never have started my career in industry in the USA in 1961.

  252. mkelly says:

    george e. smith says:

    September 19, 2013 at 11:27 am

    “…looking at sputnik on the radio.”

    What a great line.

  253. dbstealey says:

    Jeff Alberts explains to Pippen:

    “You really think a 5 day forecast works pretty nicely? You have REALLY low standards. 5 day forecasts are fairly useless.”

    Yet they are not nearly as useless as GCMs, which have all been totally wrong. Not one GCM predicted the past seventeen years’ lack of global warming. But Pippen still cannot bring himself to admit that computer climate models are one massive FAIL. Pippen displays cognitive dissonance in action.

    Pippen also explains his belated cherry-picking of the stratosphere: “…that was the focus of my earlier Q, not the troposphere.”

    But as I patiently explained to him, the heating of the troposphere was the endlessly repeated prediction of the alarmist cult: it was “The Fingerprint of Global Warming”.

    But the troposphere did not cooperate. It did not warm as predicted. So following that failed prediction, the cooling stratosphere was substituted — another devious cherry-pick.

    But as I showed, there was a one-time step cooling of the stratosphere in 1990 — hardly the result of steadily rising CO2 over a century and a half. It was merely a baseless conjecture that the cooling was caused by rising CO2.

    The ‘cooling stratosphere’ was a climbdown position, that’s all. That is how all the failed climate alarmist predictions end: by moving the goal posts, and by a “Say Anything” explanation, and all based on spurious conjecture. That is not testable science, that is witch doctor pseudo-science. Pippen falls for it, because he is a closed-minded True Believer. The Scientific Method is as foreign to Pippen as a Kabuki play is to a Detroit social worker.

    =========================

    Zeke H:

    As I am certain you knew, I was referring to Jeremy Grantham, who pays the alarmist bills in return for getting to pretend he is a climate expert. Grantham believes that because he got lucky in the stock market, that makes him an expert on global warming. Even you would have to admit how ridiculous that is.

  254. Frank K. says:

    dbstealey says:
    September 19, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Jeff Alberts explains to Pippen:

    “You really think a 5 day forecast works pretty nicely? You have REALLY low standards. 5 day forecasts are fairly useless.”

    Well, I’m a recreational runner (marathons mainly), and there have been numerous times when the 7 day forecast of sunny and warm for an upcoming race day turned into actual conditions being cold, windy and rainy…

  255. Ken L. says:

    Paul Vaughn said wrt ,”There is no proof in science”:

    “You’d better sober up and reconsider.
    You’ve drank too much of the propaganda.”

    Seriously ?

    Propaganda is publishing claims over and over again of having “proved” CO2 based AGW with
    computer models and simulated data. Even if those models predicted accurately ahead of time 20 years of temperature anomalies, the theory would still not be “proved”, All that would need to happen for that particular theory to be relegated to the recycle bin of history is for any subsequent period NOT to verify .

    Feynman, again, in a famous quote:

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

    The climate experiment is ongoing and unending. It will use REAL data, not simulated,

    Maybe you simply misunderstood.

  256. Brian H says:

    The reason they detect a “human signal” so far back is that it isn’t one, and they’re talking out their flatulent posterior orifices.

  257. Brian H says:

    g.e.s.;
    Yes, it did. Sputnik had no instruments, and its beep contained no information, other than, “I’m in orbit!” That’s the one binary digit worth.

Comments are closed.