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
All of which brings this memorable paper back to mind:
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Milleretal2010TempandPrecip.pdf
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.
“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.
Simulated data proves simulated manmade global warming. So let’s simulate complying with their idiotic plans and call it a day.
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
***
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.
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 🙂
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.
Evening of the Lunatics …
… all year around …
SasjaL says:
September 18, 2013 at 5:44 am
“Evening of the Lunatics …
… all year around …”
Or like locusts, every 7 years or so…….
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.
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….
I thought you’d never call, so was blind-sided.
====================
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?
& 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
——————————————————————————–
By logical extension, this is a simulation of science published by simulated scientists. Welcome to the Climate Matrix.
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…
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.
Bruce Cobb
Your description of GIGO in regards to the Global Warming cult is truly insightful:
GIGO – Garbage in, Gospel Out
“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.
Pippen Kool:
At September 18, 2013 at 5:23 am you say
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
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.
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.
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.
Brief summary for policymakers: