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
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.”
The really sad part of this charade? This is what passes for climate “science”. Voodoo and witchcraft.
Another Climate Model rant by the usual suspects.
Empty vessels make the most noise….
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..
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.
“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?
“(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
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.
Was it a steam-powered satellite?
Nylo says: @ur momisugly 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.
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!
They like simulations so much; I trust that their salaries will be simulated.
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 😉
Nylo says: @ur momisugly 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.
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 .
So much virtuality. So little virtue.
Jimbo says: @ur momisugly 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
Not models again…
Oh dear.
Clearly desperation is setting in.
Why is everyone so skeptical? My computer model goat entrail simulator produces the exact same results.
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…
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.
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).
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)
RoHa said on September 18, 2013 at 3:42 am:
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.
“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.