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
Jules Verne put men on the Moon in 1865. Surely there must have been satellites before then. Right?
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.
=======================================================================
A little nut in Yamal?
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?
Conclusion-based conclusion drawing – the hallmark of sh!t scientists.
Why do they even bother putting the model results in the middle ?
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.
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
Doubting Rich:
At September 18, 2013 at 7:43 am you ask
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
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
{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
“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…
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
Nathan Gillett hedges his bets being associated with this garbage while publishing on inaccurate models in Nature…
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.
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…
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
Beg the question fallacy writ large.
This is called Full Assault. Coordinated Attack. Take No Prisoners. Fight to the Death. No Surrender. Circle the Wagons. Custer’s Last Stand…
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 …
daviditron says:
September 18, 2013 at 8:23 am (replying to)
GREAT LINK!
mobihci says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:05 am
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?
It is possible to simulate whatever. Even gods …
… but in the name of religion, anything is possible …
What was that acronym again? Oh yes.
G. I. G. O.
Says it all, really.
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.)