An article from Apple news notes:
OSLO – Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.
“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.
They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.
Five F@##%^ sigma dude!
Of course it’s from good ol’ Back Alley Ben Santer, :
Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.
“The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.”
Not to be outdone in the shouting of hyperbole, we have Peter Stott:
Peter Stott of the British Met Office, who was among the scientists drawing that conclusion and was not involved in Monday’s study, said he would favor raising the probability one notch to “virtually certain”, or 99-100 percent.
Here is the verbatum conclusion from the article at Nature Climate Change
Because of this confluence in scientific understanding, we can now answer the following question: when did a human-caused tropospheric warming signal first emerge from the background noise of natural climate variability? We addressed this question by applying a fingerprint method related to Hasselmann’s approach (see Supplementary Information 1). An anthropogenic fingerprint of tropospheric warming is identifiable with high statistical confidence in all currently available satellite datasets (Fig. 1). In two out of three datasets, fingerprint detection at a 5σ threshold — the gold standard for discoveries in particle physics — occurs no later than 2005, only 27 years after the 1979 start of the satellite measurements. Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Evidence that humans are responsible for global warming is now far greater than the evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow or that pigs will eventually learn to fly.
The gold standard of pigs in a poke.
In related news, pork makes transatlantic flight.
With “only 27 years after the 1979 start of the satellite measurements” which was totally in the period declared to be affected by human emissions, you do not even have a baseline period in which to assess “natural variation”.
This gold standard BS .
The psychobabble is priceless> “Because of this confluence in….” Always use polysyllabics wherever possible, if you want to “WOW!” people who are somewhat brain-lazy and/or uninformed.
I do appreciate the knack these guys have for latching on to advertising language to sell their product. I sometimes wonder if they listened to those old ads for Speedway 99’s Sunday races.
Thanks for the article, as always.
Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!
Mods –
That is NOT the youtube link I posted, here it is again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohp_nmI_TFA
Yeah, but it was BODACIOUS FUN!!!!
Perhaps we should accept their argument.
They accept satellite measurements as valid. If we go by the satellite measurements, the climate models run hot. Not only that but estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on satellite data tend to be less than 1C. link
I suspect the reason ‘they’ started pushing a 1.5C limit is that they realized that that’s all we’re likely to see. ‘Their’ problem is that the MWP was almost certainly warmer than 1.5C above the preindustrial temperature that 1.5C limit is based on. The RWP even more so. The Holocene Optimum again higher.
As their science shrinks, ‘they’ get louder and louder. It reminds me of a legal maxim:
As far as I can tell, the case for drastic CO2 cuts keeps getting weaker. What we’re observing is a lot of table pounding.
commieBob
I think you’re over complicating it.
The IPCC reduced warming predictions from, what, 3C, to 2.5C, to 2.0C, to 1.5C.
They have also steadily reduced the timescale over which those target temperatures will prove catastrophic.
It seems to me they are in a hurry. Perhaps they know something we don’t like, Oh……lets speculate…….that the world will begin to cool in, say, 5 years time.
I guess then the money would run out for an AGW scare, we would be back to a global cooling scare and the public just might say, Err…..haven’t we been here before?
But that’s just silly, right? No one is actually making billions of $£ from global warming so what would there be to gain from reducing both the temperature threshold and the time-scale? It’s not like some people want to sequester money away, that’s confined to CO2.
I still have never heard anyone state with any level of certainty what the optimum temperature of the earth really is? If that simple question cannot be answered, how can we know what level of warming (if that is even controllable by the magic molecule) is acceptable.
I asked the question of Joe Romm years ago when the Center for American Progress had not merged.
What the the optimal temp in utopia?
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That’s how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
D. Anderson: rimshot and +1
Dr. Bob:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/16/fracks-lacking-backing/#comment-2630896
[excerpt]
Acceptance of the (failed) global warming hypothesis leads to huge errors in government policy, which drive up energy costs, drive away jobs and increase Excess Winter Deaths.
Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. Global warming is NOT a serious problem, but cool and cold weather clearly is.
COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
by Joseph d’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in just England and Wales last winter.
This huge Excess Winter Death rate in the UK, which last winter was about THREE TIMES per capita the average rate of Canada and the USA, is the issue that should be emphasized to the voting public – it is a national tragedy and a national disgrace.
Also, HOW is it possible to claim with certainty that the current warming is man-made if it is not understood what controlled the occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period and then what controlled the occurrence of the Little Ice Age? To claim that man is at fault it must be demonstrated that what is happening now is different otherwise there is no basis in science for any of the claims coming out of some very well-funded once august academic institutions and all the rest of the usual suspects. This fundamentally flawed methodology making a mockery of science would get a 16 year old’s science project a D grade!
As I see it they know that the only way they can bring the models in line with reality is to cut CO2 emissions. The models will then predict what is actually happening and they can claim they have “saved the planet.”
Their problem is they have to do this before the general public notices how wrong their predictions are. While it is difficult to overestimate public stupidity, the alarmists are clearly running out of time. Hence the desperation to cut CO2 quickly.
Like, within about 12 years? … when their world will end? 😉
They know they only have 12y left to take over the world , after that it will be abundantly obvious to everyone that it was all an over blown scam.
You have to be careful with a gold standard because it makes it much harder to manipulate. That’s why Nixon left the gold standard and started to inflate the dollar into worthlessness.
They HAVE to get CO2 redux in play before the cooling becomes undeniable. That way, they can claim credit for it.
Thanks for that excellent link commieBob.
This reinforces my own humble opinion on this matter which reckons that water vapor contributes a strong NEGATIVE feedback to the Greenhouse Effect contrary to the IPCC’s claim that it is positive.
This is based on the fact that at phase change the Planck equation coefficient is Zero for water since the process occurs at constant temperature. Thus any energy absorbed by the water is transferred into Latent Heat with no increase in temperature.
Using the generic Sensitivity value with respect to water therefore results in an error and leads to an overestimate of temperature.
Also, this Latent Heat is then driven upwards towards the Tropopause for dissipation, by the resulting buoyancy of the vapor with respect to dry air.
All this being part of the atmospheric Rankine Cycle, well understood by engineers but seemingly ignored by the IPCC.
they are in a hurry because when the climate cools due to the 30 yr Pacific cycle, they want their programs online so they can point that they “are working”.
“They accept satellite measurements as valid.”
They do now, but only because now they’ve molested the satellite measurements similar to the way they molested the thermometer measurements:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
Bob – I think this is a better reference:
Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric temperatures.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
One of the reasons for a target of 1.5C may be that you can’t justify wealth transfers unless you have failure to meet targets.
When a low target is combined with the current strategy of fighting the warming with an expensive soup of unworkable solutions such as converting to “renewable” energy, failure is assured.
Just because they make the claim, Wow. How about showing us the evidence and a good logical description and accompanying SCIENCE, please.
These people are ignoring science.
Here is the science which has been published many times but still it is ignored!
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Who are the real deniers then?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzraland.wordpress.com
Repeating a belief is not evidence of it’s truth. What evidence – don”t say “gold standard” evidence. State the evidence, argue the facts. Anything else is just snake oil marketing. If the evidence sonsists of theories and models then go away and do some real homework before you make the claim again.
Published: 25 February 2019
CELEBRATING THE ANNIVERSARY OF THREE KEY EVENTS IN CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE
• Benjamin D. Santer,
• Céline J. W. Bonfils,
• Qiang Fu,
• John C. Fyfe,
• Gabriele C. Hegerl,
• Carl Mears,
• Jeffrey F. Painter,
• Stephen Po-Chedley,
• Frank J. Wentz,
• Mark D. Zelinka &
• Cheng-Zhi Zou
Nature Climate Change volume 9, pages180–182 (2019) |
Climate science celebrates three 40th anniversaries in 2019: the release of the Charney report, the publication of a key paper on anthropogenic signal detection, and the start of satellite temperature measurements. This confluence of scientific understanding and data led to the identification of human fingerprints in atmospheric temperature.
Based on the satellite temperature data since 1979:
“They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.”
___________
So the satellite record since 1979 has shown some warming – so what? Few people dispute this, even on the skeptic’s side. There is NO evidence that this warming was caused primarily by increasing atmospheric CO2. NONE!
Prior to the satellite record, fossil fuel combustion accelerated strongly from ~1940 and global COOLING occurred until 1977. So does increasing atmospheric CO2 cause warming or cooling or The Pause, or what? The only 5-sigma I see here is 5-sigma falsehoods.
So, how much does China pay them for this trash?
Nothing, its the Russians and the Arabs.
Russians have built a fleet of nuclear icebreakers. Their model comes the closest to obsrrvations. Soon, they will be the only nati9n able to ply the Arctic seas.
They are the only ones that need to.
The icebreakers are only practical because the ice is less thick and present for a shorter period along Russian coasts… it has declined to the point where you can now get an icebreaker through it.
and often they don’t even need icebreakers now…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/24/russian-tanker-sails-arctic-without-icebreaker-first-time
1 out of 10 for reading comprehension Griff.
Your “often” is ONCE and they did not need ice breaker support because the tanker WAS a ficking ice breaker.
Well done, Griff. Keep up your valiant effort convince the “few” remaining climate deniers and save the planet.
If you insist in quoting that crap from that BS newspaper in London, please note that I am actually in Russia now.
This winter has been one of the coldest and snowiest in Moscow, Ural and most of Siberia in quite a few years. (In fact in Moscow there were 3 record snow dumps this winter, one of which brought most traffic to a halt).
The sea is even frozen as per usual in the mouth of the Neva River in St Petersburg, which you can check quite easily online.
Being as I routinely walk my kids to school in streets which currently have 1m snowdrifts on the sidewalks,(tomorrow is March 1!), would you kindly like to explain to me why this could be?
I would say, the sea ice “has declined to the point” is something as a nice figment of your imagination.
It’s is unlikely to be borne out by reality on the ground/frozen sea or, of course by the British bollox broadcasters, or the Guardian warmisters who never get out of their SUVs driving along the Thames embankment or through Chelsea.
That story forgets to mention that the Christophe de Margerie was the world’s first ice-breaking LNG carrier. The ship, which features a lightweight steel reinforced hull, is the largest commercial ship to receive Arc7 certification, which means it is capable of travelling through ice up to 2.1m thick.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/first-tanker-crosses-northern-sea-route-without-ice-breaker-because-it-is-one-anyway/
It raises the question: Why are Warmists such shameless liars?
Because propaganda works, and it pays so well!
Not to mention that water vapor — once it condenses as high-albedo clouds — reflects sunlight.
This greenhouse effect of the vapor and reflective effect of the particles has kept the Earth in a relatively narrow range for billions of years. CO2, even at 10 times the current level, has been a relatively minor player.
And that Camelot piece up-thread is entirely appropriate. Years ago, I modified another Camelot piece when the first Climategate emails were released:
I Wonder What the Team is Doing Tonight
I know what you skeptics are thinking tonight,
As home in pajamas you ponder
All of you smiling in secret delight
You stare at our emails and wonder
The media’s leaning our way
But we still hear the blogosphere say:
I wonder what the team is doing tonight?
What database are they misconstruing tonight?
The emails at the U have finally seen the light
They show how many tricks we used to cause fright
How go the mass deletions
Just before investigations
Are illegally politically prepared?
Well, I’ll tell you what the team is doing tonight:
We’re scared!
We’re scared!
You mean that a Team so skeptic-wary
Who tricked up the graphs to make them scary
Answers the phone in terror and distress?
Yes!
A Team who likes skeptics just to pick on
‘Cause they can spot our hockey stick-on
Faces the media petrified with fright?
Right!
You mean that appalling clamoring
That sounds like a hard drive hammering
Is merely deleting declines of degrees?
Please!
You wonder what the Team is wishing tonight?
We’re wishing they weren’t successful fishing tonight!
What occupies our time while waiting for the ax?
We’re watching even friends now launching attacks
And oh, the Harry_Read_Me,
That said “fake the temps if need be”
That expose that we’ve been crooked, crude and dumb
Well, I’ll tell you what the Team is feeling tonight:
We’re numb!
We shake!
We quail! We quake!
And that’s what the Team is doing
Tonight!
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)
That would be the Fool’s Gold standard right?
Great minds agree ……!
5 sigma on the BS meter.
We are nowhere near 5 sigma statistical proof on determining if the satellite-measured temperatures are accurate.
How could we possibly determine the human generated temperature signal out of all of the noise at a greater accuracy than our sampling measurement?
5 sigma from clowns that can’t use Excel. Santer rewrote an IPCC report that concluded there was no sign of Misanthropo Calamaty Warming to say the opposite.
Yes, we heard that today from number of the CAGW advocates, led by Professor Joanna D. Haigh from Imperial College London as the London’s highest ever February temperature hit 21C.
Last year we had “beast from the east”, but last few days we had great weather, please give us CAGW any or even better every day of the week.
Some years ago Joanna Haigh was interviewed by Jim Al Khalili on BBC Life Scientific during which she said “its amazing what you can make climate models do with a little tweaking” what she mean was parameterisation or fake physics. I question her relationship with fake physics and she responded by trying to blind me with science. For a few years now I have sent here graphs from UAH and recently I had a long email exchange with Prof Rick Stafford Bournemouth University a Holistic Marine academic and I must assume he was copying Haigh my emails because this turned up in one of Staffords replies.
“From: Haigh, Joanna D
Sent: 14 February 2019 12:25
To: ‘Rick Stafford’
Cc: wellsdr1@btinternet.com
Subject: RE: Where are those 50 million refugees??
Rick
I take my hat off to you here but this guy has been emailing me for over 5 years and I don’t reply any more. He doesn’t listen to any science just, as you say, promotes politically-motivated rubbish and thrives on invective and puerile insults.
I could just block his email address but it’s quite entertaining to see what poisonous stuff he will come up with!
Jo
Joanna D. Haigh CBE FRS
Professor of Atmospheric Physics
Co-Director Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment
Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ
Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 5798/9666
Email: j.haigh@imperial.ac.uk
Grantham Institute: Working towards a sustainable, resilient, zero-carbon society.
Web: http://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham | Twitter: @Grantham_IC | Blog: Climate & Environment at Imperial
Read about people, planet and technology in our latest annual magazine”
Strange that what Haigh considers to be poison is now evidence of human induced climate change.
Strange they say no later than 2005 when satellite data shows that despite the planet emitting nearly one third of all Co2 ever emitted in one decade from 2000 the temperature of the lower troposphere plateaued for 18 years and 9 months. If Co2 is the cause of warming then this plateau should not have happened.
David Wells
Ask the b**ch to provide you with credible, scientific, empirically derived evidence that clearly demonstrate atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.
She can’t do it. As far as I’m aware the last attempt by Berkeley fell at the first hurdle when temperature measurements were taken from the depths of a La Niña to the heights of an El Niño. It’s my understanding that the IPCC itself states those events are strictly weather related and should be compensated for in calculations. I believe David Middleton also has other justifiable criticisms of the study on his blog as well.
When I raise the subject amongst alarmists they squeal that we don’t have another planet to do a double blind test on, in which case, why did Berkeley even try?
If atmospheric CO2 is the problem, why can no one adequately demonstrate it’s the problem in peer reviewed scientific studies which are replicable, time after time?
These people are predicating the planets future on a hypothesis that has failed the test of innumerable empirical studies, yet they maintain every assumption spilling from nothing is catastrophic.
I’m no scientist therefore, if I’m wrong, I apologise but, someone needs to convince this layman that CO2 is a real problem in the first place before going onto making claims which, at every point, assume CO2 is the single most important element in warming the planet.
Especially when there a socking great big ball of fire off our starboard bow that dominates everything in ways we are yet to understand!
I don’t understand. CO2 causes warming. Everybody knows that. You don’t have to prove your assumptions, you know. You don’t even need evidence. It’s just true. And people who deny it are deniers.
Russ Nelson
Ah!
Silly me. I forgot the first rule of climate science. CO2 is bad.
That CO2 may or may not cause warming, is not proof that the current warming is caused by CO2.
MarkW
When one can’t demonstrate it reliably, it’s a pretty good indicator that CO2 isn’t causing warming. Perhaps not conclusive, but when CO2 can be observationally attributed to an ‘unprecedented’ greening of the planet, it’s strange it can’t also be directly attributed to warming by observational science.
Russ Nelson
CO2 CAN cause warming. However, one has to look at the whole picture, not just one element of a complex series of feedback loops. Your claim is like saying that because you know that friction creates heat, the rotors on your brake system will melt from the heat. Well, that would be true if you conducted an extended test in a vacuum. However, air passing over the rotors cools them. That is why you have to look at everything in the system and quantify the contribution from each and everyone.
People who make statements such as — “You don’t have to prove your assumptions, you know. You don’t even need evidence.” — are myopic.
yes Russ; increasing CO2 does cause some warming. Many people have calculated how much and they all get the same answer; the direct impact is around 1C per doubling which means when CO2 reaches 560 ppm the direct impact will be 1C. The issue is climate feedbacks – are they positive or negative and are they strong or weak. Warmists claim extremely strong positive feedback increasing the 1C by a factor of 3 or more. This is despite the fact that all naturally “stable” systems display strong negative feedback. The warmists also claim that temperature excursions caused by man far exceed natural excursions which implies they consider the natural climate to be very stable. Sceptics are claiming the climate exhibits negative feedback which will reduce the direct impact to less than 1C for 560 ppm. Unfortunately warmists refuse to debate this issue or address the points raised instead simply asserting the science is settled.
Can I suggest reading up about Lysenkoism and vernalisation. That also had a grain of truth (vernalisation did give some very slight increase in yield) , it also was strongly supported by politics and debate crushed. It also caused the death of millions of people and set back soviet agriculture by decades before it was finally exposed as wrong.
HotScott, not strange at all. CO2 is a critical nutrient limiting plant growth, but is a minor player in atmospheric physics.
SR
If you don’t need proof, you just believe it to be true. If you believe it to be true, then you’ve relegated science, particularly, climate science, to the level of a religion. I’ll assume Al Gore is your high priest. I would love to make a joke about Dr. Mann molesting scientific data, but that would be out of bounds. So, I won’t make that joke. Part of me would like to soften it a bit and say that Dr. Mann took advantage of you and innocent data, but again, it wouldn’t be appropriate. So again, I won’t make that joke.
Thank God for humor and sarcasm!
This comment, while nominally true, is total bonkers. The question is the sensitivity. How much warming. IPCC has not yet produced any progress on that sector.
I don’t trust modellers getting sensitivity over 3C, but then, I think if so happens, it is better to start preparing instead of thinking we can just make China stop emissions. Or the EU for that matter.
CO2 is causing warming, I agree, but the IPCC does not remotely agree on how much. The science is not settled.
HotScot
CO2 is not bad but in their way of thinking humanity is. So how do you fight humanity? Take away cheap and abundant energy.
That’s why everywhere these people are in power misery rules. That’s the real gold standard.
I don’t understand
that’s an understatement
CO2 causes warming
Very little on it’s own. And Man’s part of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an even smaller amount
You don’t have to prove your assumptions, you know. You don’t even need evidence. It’s just true
How very un-scientific of you. Not proving assumptions, not needing evidence is the realm of religion not science
And people who deny it are deniers.
The only deniers here are people like you who deny the scientific method with statements about not needing to prove assumptions and not needing evidence. Science isn’t based on faith. Science doesn’t work on “everybody knows”. Science works on testing what everyone knows by looking at the evidence to determine if the assumptions are valid or not. people who deny *that* (such as yourself) are the real science-deniers.
Jim Hartley, I’m with you. Unfortunately you can’t tell the difference any more.
Indeed Rainer, many of the alarmists are so far off the rails that they’ve become a living parody of themselves making it hard to distinguish between some real alarmists and those mocking them. Apologies to Russ if he was attempting to be the later rather then being one of the former.
Well they are not wrong there is a deffinate manmade components to global warming, it’s called the adjusticene
Yes, Adjusticene Age.
If you read the supplementary material, they adjust adjust and then adjust again.
They use synthetic TMT. They do corrections to corrections. Finally defining something that looks like the variance between the models and the adjust adjusted.
In addtion, since they bulk of CIMP models ceased in 2005 they then spliced onto their models an RCP 8.5 model with an overlap of something like 6 years. So we go another type of Mannian Manuever.
adjustments cool the record
In the past, making the warming trend seem larger than it actually is.
I actually got this same response form Gavin Schmidt on Twitter the other day. The only problem was he was comparing the purported raw GHCNv4 data to the current GISS. I say purported because some countries do their own adjustments to the data (like Australia) before handing it over to NOAA. Overall the trend was the same with the exception that the GISS dataset was 0.1 C less after 130 years (that’s some cooling!). I then replied I’d like him to compare apples to apples, I want to see all the iterations off NASA’s datasets over the years, which is what people are referring to when they say that adjustments always. Of course there’s been no response.
Deuteronomy 16:13
Thou shalt observe the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine: but thou shalt not lollygag with any climate-change heretic, nor suffer him to come unto thy daughters in the night, nor send such apostates emails of thee.”
Far better than any of Griffs one liners
Griff is a stand up philosopher…
You are funny
Exactly what is wrong, duh.
So the “increase” due to CO2 and thus the “accuracy” of the models improves.
Pretty sure there’s an obvious problem with changing the data to fit your hypothesis.
adjustments cool the record
Indeed, the past keeps getting cooler creating the illusion of greater and greater warming.
On which satellite data bases? As it mentions two of three, I would make the assumption the one this “data” does not appear on is UAH.
So according to leading scientists it is statistically certain that the Human Fingerprint on Climate Change is discernible at what would be the middle of the Hiatus (That supposedly doesn’t exist thanks to modern adjustments to historic temperature records)
They still haven’t demonstrated that any warming, caused by man or not, is harmful.
MarkW
they still haven’t demonstrated CO2 causes the planet to warm, never mind man’s measly contribution.
They still haven’t demonstrated that man’s emissions are the cause of rising CO2 levels, unless you’re willing to accept their exclusion of actual CO2 measurements they don’t like, “estimates” of (1) emissions from all non-fossil fuel “sources” and (2) absorption by “sinks,” massive assumptions, and circular logic.
MarkW – My thoughts as well. I really don’t think any skeptic should be surprised that there is a correlation. Skeptics typically believe that man has had some impact on climate – but question how much, is it dangerous or beneficial, will corrective action do more harm than good, etc. It also shouldn’t surprise anyone that a 5-sigma finding is being shouted from the rooftops to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Personally, I sort of like greenhouse gasses. After all, with out CO2 and water vapor, we wouldn’t exist would we?
(Full disclosure – I’ve taken 6-sigma training and my grandparents immigrated from Norway).
How do they pretend to separate any source of tropospheric warming from “anthropogenic” warming?
After all, any significant warming from just about any cause should, theoretically, create the tropical tropospheric “hot spot” called for by the available science (and unidentified so far by instruments).
I fear for UAH. Sabotage or assassination.
Somebody shot at their windows.
[snip -same old Mosher with the tactless denigrating arguments – get a new song to play -Anthony]
What is it that you imagine, Mr. Mosher, that Drs. Curry and Spenser are doing at the University of Alabama?
And those damned, pesky colonialists will never defeat the mighty British Empire!
Go back to your Wandering In The Weeds. Either that, or hustling Chinese bit coin mining machines.
Steve has time to snark, but not to answer my questions about his odd fractional year calculation, or how he gets four-decimal precision converting Fahrenheit to Celsius.
Here is the core of the whole paper:
“…we assume that large ensembles of forced and unforced simulations performed with state-of-the-art climate models provide the best current estimates of a human fingerprint and natural internal climate variability”
So essentially the “Gold Standard” is based upon the fact on average CMIP5 climate models agree with themselves…
Since when was the carbon footprint changed to a “human fingerprint?”
R Shearer
The moment someone put their greasy thumb on the scale.
I think they’re giving us the middle finger.
We assume are our models are 100% correct, and based on this assumption we get five sigma.
That about sums it up. What is the sigma for the models?
given their atrocious predictive skill relative to satellite/surface/balloon measuremrents
I would say the models actual sigma is around -3
The UN IPCC AR5 report posted those ridiculous graphs showing model runs with and without anthro forcings. Since the models were tuned to the late 20th Century, they showed lower global temps w/o anthro forcings during that period. Circular logic at its best.
When I first read of the study, I assumed they had a new method for calculating anthro impacts to get some real accuracy in their computations. What we got, however, is the use of the same old wildly unreliable and unverified UN IPCC climate models. GIGO.
Ensembles of “Climate Models”, none of which individually have ever been validated and have obviously failed !!
… And they are mutually excluding, since they each one assigns different values to the parameters they are using.
Well put.
I thought mans influence on temperature started in 1850? now its 1979? or 2005? when is it?
the only 5 sigma I know is that the ribeye and cab will be good tonight. Thanks to more c02 for better grass for grazing and better grape yields!
I’ll drink to that !!
If man had not evolved from monkeys, how would monkeys deal with the present situation?
Andre Lauzon
Find a typewriter and wait until they produced the entire works of Shakespeare.
As credible a suggestion as man made global warming.
Throwing Darts into a predictive chart
(and have better success)
Quite an awkward situation. Nations mobilize considerable means and efforts in their defense systems.
While on anther hand, intellectual terrorists have tangible chances to inflict significant damages to industry and economy without breaking a single law.
A new absolute warfare forcing entire nations to gladly surrender without even a fight.
It happens right now, consider Germany, the former economic power of the continent. Reduced now to suffer the hardships of an organized energy suicide. All with a smile.
Meatloaf noted that two out of three ain’t bad, but in the real world it is far from 5 sigma.
They are still trying to claim that any warming must be caused by CO2.
How can these ostensibly intelligent scientists be so incredibly wrong about something so important? My best guess is that the recent doubling down on rhetoric is in response to Trump’s recent appointments that will be taking ‘consensus’ climate science to task.
co2isnotevil
Yes, it seems to me that recently the propaganda has been more frequent and more shrill. They must be running scared!
So, If I read the post right, about 1980 they can discern a distinct human signal against the variability. so for the last 40 or so years SOME of the warming has been human induced. DUH! Does anyone argue with that? 5 sigma confidence is arrogant, but not necessary. I f I had to be I’d say their overconfidence is wrong, but I’s take I’ll take 2 or 3 sigma confidence. The significant question is what is the magnitude of the human caused signal compared to the natural temperature trend (which was has been rising for over 100 years). we’ve had 1.5C warming in the past 150 years or about .1C per decade on average. is the new human part and additional 10% of that? I’d buy that. That gets us an additional .1C over the next century on top of the continued trend of 1C per for a whopping 1.1C next century. even 100% of the background signal (unlikely. we would have noticed it before and deviate from he prior trend by much more than we have) would give only 1 more degree for 2 more total degrees C in the next century. . So with VIRTUAL CERTAINTY we can expect to see between 1 and 2C warming in the next century assuming our models are correct. Not a big deal. We can all go home now.
Recent variability is still less than has been seen many times over the last 10,000 years.
So I really don’t know how they can say with any certainty whatsoever that some of the recent warming must have been caused by CO2.
Exactly, MarkW. How can 40-years possibly be long enough to show our influence in the noise and periodic forcings with wavelengths ranging from a few years to 1000’s of years? It defies logic.
First we have the usual trick of confusing what is being discussed.
Paul Miller said “SOME of the warming has been human induced,” you respond with “So I really don’t know how they can say with any certainty whatsoever that some of the recent warming must have been caused by CO2.” Paul did not mention CO2, so why are you mentioning it?
Then there is the scale issue.
We know that humans can affect microclimates, for example the urban heat island effect. I don’t know if the net effect of human activity is warming or cooling, but it is virtually certain that we are having some effect, that effect may be infinitesimal, but that is not the same as none.
Paul Miller says: ” so for the last 40 or so years SOME of the warming has been human induced. DUH! Does anyone argue with that? ”
Sure. None of the warming is caused by humans.
Paul Miller: You state:…So with VIRTUAL CERTAINTY we can expect to see between 1 and 2C warming in the next century assuming our models are correct. Not a big deal. We can all go home now.
Note: IIMO postings during the past year indicate the warmists have significantly rolled back from their 3.5C and are now saying we must only keep it under 1.5C. Climate realists are conceding that yes, double CO2, next century and 0.0lC/year is reasonable. But the warmists insist that if it gets to 2.0C we’re all going to die. Life or death over 0.5C? Incredible, especially when one realizes that within a couple decades small scale nuclear will begin incrementally meeting the increasing demand for electric power. The only issue now is to not ignore the Germany’s “energy suicide” (aptly described earlier) and stop spending $trillions for wind and solar, a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist!
a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning….we relied on models
..and the models have never been right
I wont be believing it until its a platinum standard certainty.
Crud! I did read it wrong. The definite human fingerprint did not emerge till 2005–only 15 years ago. I believe the rest of the back-of the envelope analysis stands…what is the magnitude of this “fingerprint” in relation to the background noise? probably only 10-20% of the total signal. No problemo.
Since we’ve been flat lining for the last 20 years, it must be very very small.
Careful the tropospheric readings are very different to surface readings you may be thing of.
Good Lord Man!
This is all just getting silly… Let’s have a comparison shall we?
The Scientific Method-
1- Make an observation or observations.
2- Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3- Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4- Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5- Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6- Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.
The Climate Change Scientific Method-
1- Make an observation or observations.
2- Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3- Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make wild, catastrophic predictions based on that hypothesis.
4-There is no four…
5- Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept the hypothesis or modify the data if necessary.
6- Propagandize the populace until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.
It makes me sad that this is what we’ve become.
This is what happens when a bureaucracy with an agenda that requires a specific effect from CO2 emissions becomes the arbiter of what is and what is not science relative to the effect CO2 emissions will have.
CJ Fritz
It makes you sad?
We laymen have to trust the distorted scientific method you have ably described, without question.
Nor is that a go at you. Thank you for your concise description of the scientific method.
Sad, for lack of a better description. More like powerless, and at the mercy of imbeciles. It is a difficult feeling to describe, so sad fits the bill I guess.
It is pushing a “mob rule” mentality that I despise, by a bunch of people so out of touch with reality that it hurts the brain to think about it too long.
That is about as much as I can elaborate on that matter.
If we could please step back to the “real” Scientific Method I think we would all be wiser, perhaps even happier, and certainly would not be concerned about matters over which we have little to no control, such as the climate of an entire planet!
Just my $0.02.
And I am by no means an expert on these matters, just a fellow with a keen eye for observation and cause and effect.
Oh, and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night… 🙂
CJ, the AGW method is more like:
1) Determine an end result to further your policy agenda.
2) Formulate an hypothesis that will give the desired end result.
3) Claim verification of hypothesis by claiming normal events are abnormal.
4) Dismiss or ignore evidence that could prove false your hypothesis.
5) Constantly adjust the data to fit the hypothesis.
6) Constantly move the goal posts if your predictions fail to become manifest.
7) Denigrate, ridicule, and silence any dissenters.
8) Codify your policy agenda into enforced law.
You left out the following: Claim that this is the first time that anyone has shown X. These are only preliminary conclusions. As there is much we don’t know, more study is needed.
I just ran a “random coinflip” program in R, 50 coinflips and summing the series, Heads count +1, tails -1.
T1<-c(1:50)
v<-c( rbinom(50,size=1,p=0.5))
v=2*(v-0.5)
v4<-cumsum(v)
lm(T1 ~ v4)
m|t|)
(Intercept) -4.5038 1.8516 -2.432 0.0188 *
v4 -3.0932 0.1742 -17.756 <2e-16 ***
—
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 5.354 on 48 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.8679, Adjusted R-squared: 0.8651
F-statistic: 315.3 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
MY p value, with a simple 50 coin toss, wound up with a 2.2 in 10^16 chance, FAR less than
3 sigmas, which works out to a lousy 3 in 10^7 chance.
For more on false accuracy with summed series, see
http://wmbriggs.com/post/257/
Apparently they did this by comparing averages of CMIP5 model runs with and without human “forcing”, so the only thing they have proven is that the models are reasonably stable (or that they can’t simulate internal variability, take your choice).
This is very definition of confirmation bias. They’ve built in the rule into their models, human cause the warming, then run it with and without humans and guess what? The warming is caused by humans!
Or is that circular reasoning? Humans burning fossil fuels produce C02 which cause the warming. But the warming has flattened out in spite of increasing C02 and all of this is well within past natural variation. I’m looking forward to the Red Team’s report.
An interdisciplinary approach would remove these peeps far enough from the trees to see the forest to realize there is nothing in the recent warming out of the ordinary with post glaciation temperature variations. In fact we are in the 6th peak and the lowest of the 6th. The trend line still points to a return of full glaciation conditions.
This whole politicized money train in science I’ve been watching for now decades. The goal posts keep being moved back. Now we have 12 years till the end of the world, yet the last couple of years have seen near record decreases in temperatures and sea level rise is slowing down.
Sad Sad Sad……
They now need to run the model with and without Unicorn farts. I still believe it’s the Unicorns what donit.
Now they’re just making stuff up. Like they always have — just more so.
“Now they’re just making stuff up. Like they always have — just more so.”
It’s all about the headline they can generate. All the average person will see is the banner headline of a human fingerprint on the climate is verified. The average person won’t realize they have been had because one has to dig deep to see what these alarmists have actually done, and very few are going to do that.
The headline is the point. They got what they wanted and their headline will be splashed all over creation as though it were the absolute truth.
This study is basically propaganda.