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
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
Do I hear a death rattle?
Reference #4 in the paper is:
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.
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
Why not the entire inter glacial, now that the instruments are calibrated?
/sarc
Friends,
Not to worry. Theses are only “Projections” …….. not “Predictions”.
Would you like me to explain the difference?
How long have you got?
/sarc
Why stop at 1860? why not go back to 1492 and prove Columbus caused global warming?
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 …
I have simulated data that shows that some simulated data is pulled directly out of my . . . hat.
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.
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…
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.
“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.
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!
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?
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.
I guess now that they have the CO2 satellite model tuned, we can do away with sending up any more satellites for climate observations.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
That would be a Royal Straight Flush, as in flush it straight down the throne.
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.