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.
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 greenhouse gasses, 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 climate evolution 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 human influence 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.
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.
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
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.
.
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.
If not their virtue, you at least have to admire their virtuosity in selling pure virtuality.
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]
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.
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)
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
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. ]
They missed Mickey Mouse off the author list.
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.
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?”
You can “Prove” young-Earth creationism with a model if you pick the right parameters.
Missing link in warmist climate science— The Scientific Method.
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..
“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.
You really think a 5 day forecast works pretty nicely? You have REALLY low standards. 5 day forecasts are fairly useless.
It’s an aggressive assertion of clear intent:
“You will be assimilated”
That’s what they’re saying.
That’s an easy one Rick …
http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/history/pennsylvania/pennsylvania.html
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!
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/
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
Friends:
At September 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm Pippen Kool says:
I suppose that means the PNAS paper is a picture book.
Richard
Simulated data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by satellites.
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.
@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.