Evidence that humans are responsible for global warming hits ‘gold standard’ certainty level

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 26, 2019 2:08 pm

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.

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 26, 2019 3:16 pm

The gold standard of pigs in a poke.

In related news, pork makes transatlantic flight.

Reply to  n.n
February 27, 2019 1:32 am

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 .

Reply to  n.n
February 27, 2019 4:19 am

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.

Reply to  Sara
February 27, 2019 6:17 am

Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!

Reply to  Yirgach
February 27, 2019 7:17 am

Mods –
That is NOT the youtube link I posted, here it is again:

Reply to  Yirgach
February 27, 2019 8:25 am

Yeah, but it was BODACIOUS FUN!!!!

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 26, 2019 3:23 pm

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:

If the law is on your side, pound the law.
If the evidence is on your side, pound the evidence.
If neither is on your side, pound the table.

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.

Reply to  commieBob
February 26, 2019 4:00 pm


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.

Dr. Bob
Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 4:17 pm

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.

Henry chance
Reply to  Dr. Bob
February 26, 2019 5:42 pm

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?

Reply to  Dr. Bob
February 26, 2019 6:10 pm

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.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Dr. Bob
February 26, 2019 6:18 pm

D. Anderson: rimshot and +1

Reply to  Dr. Bob
February 27, 2019 5:08 am

Dr. Bob:


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.

by Joseph d’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

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.

Jon Scott
Reply to  Dr. Bob
February 27, 2019 7:47 am

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!

Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 4:18 pm

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.

Reply to  BillP
February 26, 2019 9:23 pm

Like, within about 12 years? … when their world will end? 😉

Reply to  BillP
February 27, 2019 1:19 am

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.

Reply to  HotScot
February 27, 2019 2:08 am

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.

Jarrett Rhoades
Reply to  HotScot
February 28, 2019 4:40 pm

They HAVE to get CO2 redux in play before the cooling becomes undeniable. That way, they can claim credit for it.

Reply to  commieBob
February 26, 2019 7:08 pm

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.

iron brian
Reply to  commieBob
February 26, 2019 8:24 pm

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”.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  commieBob
February 26, 2019 9:47 pm

“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:


Reply to  commieBob
February 27, 2019 4:58 am

Bob – I think this is a better reference:
Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric temperatures.

Steve O
Reply to  commieBob
February 27, 2019 10:22 am

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.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 26, 2019 8:23 pm

Just because they make the claim, Wow. How about showing us the evidence and a good logical description and accompanying SCIENCE, please.

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 27, 2019 11:56 am

These people are ignoring science.

Here is the science which has been published many times but still it is ignored!


Who are the real deniers then?



Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 27, 2019 6:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 27, 2019 8:46 pm

Published: 25 February 2019
• 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.

LOL in Oregon
February 26, 2019 2:09 pm

So, how much does China pay them for this trash?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  LOL in Oregon
February 26, 2019 6:17 pm

Nothing, its the Russians and the Arabs.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 26, 2019 7:06 pm

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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 26, 2019 8:30 pm

They are the only ones that need to.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 27, 2019 12:57 am

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…


Reply to  griff
February 27, 2019 1:39 am

often they don’t even need icebreakers now…

1 out of 10 for reading comprehension Griff.

On its maiden voyage, the innovative tanker used its integral icebreaker to cross ice fields 1.2m thick

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.

Reply to  griff
February 28, 2019 12:54 am

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.

Emrys Jones
Reply to  griff
March 3, 2019 2:26 am

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.


It raises the question: Why are Warmists such shameless liars?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Emrys Jones
March 3, 2019 9:57 am

Because propaganda works, and it pays so well!

Reply to  LOL in Oregon
February 27, 2019 11:04 am

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?
A Team who likes skeptics just to pick on
‘Cause they can spot our hockey stick-on
Faces the media petrified with fright?
You mean that appalling clamoring
That sounds like a hard drive hammering
Is merely deleting declines of degrees?

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

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)

James Hein
February 26, 2019 2:09 pm

That would be the Fool’s Gold standard right?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  James Hein
February 26, 2019 2:21 pm

Great minds agree ……!

February 26, 2019 2:10 pm

5 sigma on the BS meter.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  SMC
February 26, 2019 4:19 pm

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?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 26, 2019 7:17 pm

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.

February 26, 2019 2:10 pm

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.

David Wells
Reply to  vukcevic
February 26, 2019 2:35 pm

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??

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!

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.

Reply to  David Wells
February 26, 2019 3:15 pm

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!

Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 3:37 pm

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.

Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 3:50 pm

Russ Nelson


Silly me. I forgot the first rule of climate science. CO2 is bad.

Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 3:50 pm

That CO2 may or may not cause warming, is not proof that the current warming is caused by CO2.

Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 4:06 pm


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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 4:15 pm

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.

Michael Hammer
Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 4:39 pm

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.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 4:40 pm

HotScott, not strange at all. CO2 is a critical nutrient limiting plant growth, but is a minor player in atmospheric physics.


Joz Jonlin
Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 5:12 pm

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.

Jim Hartley
Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 9:29 pm

Thank God for humor and sarcasm!

Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 26, 2019 11:22 pm

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.

Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 27, 2019 2:34 am


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.

John Endicott
Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 27, 2019 7:23 am

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.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 28, 2019 1:14 am

Jim Hartley, I’m with you. Unfortunately you can’t tell the difference any more.

John Endicott
Reply to  Russ Nelson
February 28, 2019 11:50 am

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.

Bob boder
February 26, 2019 2:10 pm

Well they are not wrong there is a deffinate manmade components to global warming, it’s called the adjusticene

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Bob boder
February 26, 2019 3:04 pm

Yes, Adjusticene Age.

Timo Soren
Reply to  Bob boder
February 26, 2019 4:25 pm

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.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Bob boder
February 26, 2019 5:21 pm

adjustments cool the record

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2019 6:24 pm

In the past, making the warming trend seem larger than it actually is.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2019 9:04 pm

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.

Reply to  Bob Johnston
February 26, 2019 9:55 pm

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.”

Bryan A
Reply to  WXcycles
February 26, 2019 10:36 pm

Far better than any of Griffs one liners
Griff is a stand up philosopher…
You are funny

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 27, 2019 2:03 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 27, 2019 6:54 am

adjustments cool the record

Indeed, the past keeps getting cooler creating the illusion of greater and greater warming.

February 26, 2019 2:15 pm

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.

Bryan A
February 26, 2019 2:16 pm

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)

Reply to  Bryan A
February 26, 2019 2:37 pm

They still haven’t demonstrated that any warming, caused by man or not, is harmful.

Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 3:17 pm


they still haven’t demonstrated CO2 causes the planet to warm, never mind man’s measly contribution.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  HotScot
February 27, 2019 12:19 pm

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.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2019 3:29 pm

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).

Lonny Eachus
February 26, 2019 2:18 pm

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).

Coeur de Lion
February 26, 2019 2:20 pm

I fear for UAH. Sabotage or assassination.

Henry chance
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
February 26, 2019 5:46 pm

Somebody shot at their windows.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
February 26, 2019 5:58 pm

[snip -same old Mosher with the tactless denigrating arguments – get a new song to play -Anthony]

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2019 6:06 pm

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.

James A Schrumpf
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2019 11:55 pm

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.

February 26, 2019 2:24 pm

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…

R Shearer
Reply to  tty
February 26, 2019 3:07 pm

Since when was the carbon footprint changed to a “human fingerprint?”

Reply to  R Shearer
February 26, 2019 4:07 pm

R Shearer

The moment someone put their greasy thumb on the scale.

Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 9:52 pm

I think they’re giving us the middle finger.

Reply to  tty
February 26, 2019 4:09 pm

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?

Bryan A
Reply to  ironargonaut
February 27, 2019 12:34 pm

given their atrocious predictive skill relative to satellite/surface/balloon measuremrents
comment image
I would say the models actual sigma is around -3

Dave Fair
Reply to  tty
February 26, 2019 4:40 pm

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.

Reply to  tty
February 26, 2019 8:13 pm

Ensembles of “Climate Models”, none of which individually have ever been validated and have obviously failed !!

Reply to  brent
February 26, 2019 11:36 pm

… And they are mutually excluding, since they each one assigns different values to the parameters they are using.

Reply to  tty
February 26, 2019 11:25 pm

Well put.

February 26, 2019 2:24 pm

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!

Kevin Collins
Reply to  justadumbengineer
February 26, 2019 4:54 pm

I’ll drink to that !!

Andre Lauzon
February 26, 2019 2:28 pm

If man had not evolved from monkeys, how would monkeys deal with the present situation?

Reply to  Andre Lauzon
February 26, 2019 3:23 pm

Andre Lauzon

Find a typewriter and wait until they produced the entire works of Shakespeare.

As credible a suggestion as man made global warming.

Bryan A
Reply to  Andre Lauzon
February 27, 2019 12:36 pm

Throwing Darts into a predictive chart
(and have better success)

Flight Level
February 26, 2019 2:31 pm

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.

Paul Johnson
February 26, 2019 2:33 pm

Meatloaf noted that two out of three ain’t bad, but in the real world it is far from 5 sigma.

February 26, 2019 2:35 pm

They are still trying to claim that any warming must be caused by CO2.

February 26, 2019 2:36 pm

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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 26, 2019 4:19 pm

Yes, it seems to me that recently the propaganda has been more frequent and more shrill. They must be running scared!

Paul Miller
February 26, 2019 2:37 pm

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.

Reply to  Paul Miller
February 26, 2019 2:57 pm

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.

Andrew Burnette
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 3:26 pm

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.

Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 4:33 pm

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.

Reply to  Paul Miller
February 26, 2019 4:10 pm

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.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  Paul Miller
February 26, 2019 5:30 pm

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!

February 26, 2019 2:45 pm

a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning….we relied on models

..and the models have never been right

Gary Ashe
February 26, 2019 2:45 pm

I wont be believing it until its a platinum standard certainty.

paul miller
February 26, 2019 2:48 pm

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.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  paul miller
February 26, 2019 4:08 pm

Since we’ve been flat lining for the last 20 years, it must be very very small.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
February 26, 2019 10:56 pm

Careful the tropospheric readings are very different to surface readings you may be thing of.

CJ Fritz
February 26, 2019 2:59 pm

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.

Reply to  CJ Fritz
February 26, 2019 3:26 pm

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.

Reply to  CJ Fritz
February 26, 2019 3:36 pm

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.

CJ Fritz
Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 4:58 pm

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… 🙂

Reply to  CJ Fritz
February 26, 2019 6:43 pm

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.

Steve O
Reply to  KT66
February 27, 2019 10:34 am

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.

Alan McIntire
February 26, 2019 3:01 pm

I just ran a “random coinflip” program in R, 50 coinflips and summing the series, Heads count +1, tails -1.

v<-c( rbinom(50,size=1,p=0.5))
lm(T1 ~ v4)
(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


February 26, 2019 3:03 pm

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).

John Mason
Reply to  tty
February 26, 2019 3:33 pm

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……

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  John Mason
February 26, 2019 4:12 pm

They now need to run the model with and without Unicorn farts. I still believe it’s the Unicorns what donit.

Rick K
February 26, 2019 3:09 pm

Now they’re just making stuff up. Like they always have — just more so.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rick K
February 26, 2019 5:30 pm

“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.

David Wells
February 26, 2019 3:10 pm
Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  David Wells
February 26, 2019 4:08 pm

I see…. RCP 8.5 …..
I’m convinced…. NOT!

February 26, 2019 3:11 pm

If the recorded rise in atmospheric CO2 is not responsive to the recorded changes in emissions (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/), how can someone detect a fingerprint of the emissions in the temperature record that certainly has not followed the CO2 rise very well.

Dave Fair
Reply to  DMA
February 26, 2019 5:00 pm

Read the methodological description. They adjust the TMT with lower Stratospheric data.

Rick K
February 26, 2019 3:11 pm

Obviously, they’re on the “nobrainium” standard…

Bryan A
Reply to  Rick K
February 26, 2019 8:02 pm

Perhaps they have been huffing too much nobrainium

Linda Goodman
February 26, 2019 3:17 pm

Step up the alarmist bulls*it to back the ruinous Green New Deal against the MAGA agenda – can’t have an eco-fascist world government with a thriving American economy mocking its insanity.

February 26, 2019 3:19 pm

So, we’re back to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Catastrophic if you’re a politician, or green as in naive.

February 26, 2019 3:21 pm

Ben Santer has form. He singlehandedly changed the 1995 IPCC report to indicate a human signal in the climate when other scientists had concluded that there wasn’t one.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gerard
February 26, 2019 5:17 pm

As immortalized by then Senator Harry Reid, “It worked, didn’t it?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gerard
February 26, 2019 5:50 pm

Good point. People ought to do a search on Santer and read about how he singlehandedly distorted a UN climate report to make it look like humans were causing the Earth’s climate to change. Now, here he is making these same kinds of claims.

The shameless dishonesty in climate science is just beyond belief I guess when there is money and power involved all that honesty goes out the window.

February 26, 2019 3:22 pm

Scientific mumbo-jumbo to fake some degree of credibility for laypeople…

Rud Istvan
February 26, 2019 3:25 pm

This latest Santer nonsense can be easily refuted in several ways, including by his own recent paper on CMIP5 modeled versus ‘real’ tropical troposphere hotspot—finding (after an erroneous correction) only a 2x discrepancy rather than the UAH 3.5x discrepancy. Wrong is still wrong.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 26, 2019 3:35 pm

As an unintended result they didn’t highlight and ignored, Santer’s seasonal heartbeat paper showed clear evidence the previously claimed tropical mid-troposphere hotspot was non-existent in the observational data.


February 26, 2019 3:27 pm

“over the past 40 years”

A 40 year data set is hardly the history of climate on Earth.

Joel Snider
February 26, 2019 3:27 pm

So – I guess lying bullshit is the ‘gold standard’.

Joel O'Bryan
February 26, 2019 3:30 pm

This is a red herring issue meant to distract from the above relevant question on sensitivity.
It has been said over and over, but I suppose it needs to be said again:

The only relevant scientific question is: What is the climate sensitivity to increasing CO2?
The observational data after 39 years is that the sensitivity is in the vicinity of 1.6 (+/- 0.5) K per CO2 doubling.

It is totally irrelevant for policy (and thus action) that there is now a model determined fingerprint with 5-sigma confidence in anthropogenic-attributable global scale warming.

From Wiki:
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which is premised on a distortion of the other party’s position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 26, 2019 3:41 pm

You’re not wrong – but it’s hard to fit that on a bumper sticker.

That’s why guys like Chuck Schumer (just today) stick to their one parrot-line: ‘Climate Change is Real.’

Reply to  Joel Snider
February 26, 2019 4:02 pm

“Climate Change is Real, Therefore I Steal,” is the whole thought.

John Tillman
Reply to  Joel Snider
February 26, 2019 4:11 pm

Hence the counter bumper sticker:

CACA is a Crock!

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Tillman
February 26, 2019 5:23 pm

CACA is Shit

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 26, 2019 7:16 pm

Dave Fair
CACA Happens!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2019 8:00 pm

As my wife observed about Obama’s transgender bathroom edicts, his legacy is in the crapper (along with alarmist CACA).

Reply to  Dave Fair
February 26, 2019 11:45 pm

Google translate program (Spanish to English) would agree

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 4, 2019 12:02 pm

So climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is a warm AMO?

February 26, 2019 3:30 pm

Most skeptics don’t say humans haven’t been responsible for some fraction of the warming since 1850 or 1950. It would be really hard to say we didn’t with a straight face while we are going on 7.5 Billion people on the planet along with land use change and UHI. Which begs the question if everyone agrees that UHI and land use change is contributing to that fraction, then not all the blame can be put on CO2 for the remaining fraction for which we really don’t know how much is also due to long term climate cycles and natural variation coming out of the LIA since 1850. It would only be a wild guess by anyone that it might be 50-50 that the human component of warming, but I would be willing to live with that concept that humans have added a 1/2 degree C since 1850.

And then the other honest question we have to ask about this slight beneficial warming the last 170 years is whether it is bad to have things a little warmer. Isn’t it really in the scheme of things an insurance policy on some black swan weather event that would freeze our cereal crops in the mid lattidudes NH, leaving humanity in a real lurch for a few years while we recovered from that? Or what if the last 30-40 years was the warm side of a longer term climate cycle that now sees things cooling off a 1/2 degree over the next 30-40 years? Wouldn’t this smidgeon of a little extra warmth just tide us over until the next warming spell in 30-40 years?

We have to keep firing on all cylinders if humanity is going to prosper with 8-9 Billion people and we always prosper more when it is warmer than colder. In any event, there definitely shouldn’t be the level of wild alarmism that certain political groups within science/acedemia, politics and media are promoting against present day mankind. The best thing we can do is to keep gathering credible data and ensure it isn’t molested by people and groups with an agenda. And plan for adjusting to any climate change that comes our way the next 30-40 years because in the end that is all we can really do anyway. Being prepared and hardeng our infrastructure would be a much better expenditure of our resources than squandering a lot of monies down a black hole of socialist Marxist nonsense.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Earthling2
February 26, 2019 4:26 pm

You pretty much nailed it. The Earth has had much higher levels than we have today and survived quite well.

So what the real cause for alarm here? That the human race might have to adapt? And because of that we need to try and change the Earth? We can’t even control the weather. How in Pete’s name are we going to control the climate, especially as a human race spread out all over the globe?

If the Earth *is* warming and all we have done with a little extra CO2 is shortened the time frame to adapt, then why all the whining about trying to stop the need to adapt? That adaptation will have to happen no matter what we do. Better off getting on with it than fighting it! Tell the millionaires with prime beachfront properties that the long term prospects for that property isn’t good. Tell the farmers in Kansas and states north to get ready for having two tomato crops per year instead of just one. Buy stock in Trane and Lennox.

Reply to  Earthling2
February 26, 2019 7:01 pm

‘It would be really hard to say we didn’t with a straight face while we are going on 7.5 Billion people on the planet along with land use change and UHI.’

We are ants. Take a plane ride. Look at earth from 35,000 feet. We are nothing.

Reply to  Gamecock
February 26, 2019 10:36 pm

I’ve thought the same thing many times, fly across Australia and look down for 4 or 5 hours. You’ll see nothing but a wilderness full of plants and animals in their billions. Humans are completely insignificant on this landscape. If you spot a town or road consider yourself lucky, there are almost none to be seen. The plants inhale CO2, the animals exhale CO2. Yet the idiot greenies, who pretend to ‘care’ about the ‘environment’, call what the actual environment naturally does, “carbon pollution”!

New-Speak much?

Reply to  WXcycles
February 27, 2019 5:56 am

But if you fly over the entire sub-continent of India or much of China, or continental USA/Europe, it would be a completely different picture than flying over the outback of Australia. While we don’t really know how much the feedback loops are with CO2, or even if the net could be cooling as some here suggest, there is no doubt that much of our land use change or UHI is accumulative to thermal warming. We literally have million of square miles of urban development, and it does soak up and retain heat helping in making winter temps a bit warmer, as well as night time temps a bit warmer. So much so, that it may have contaminated the thermometer readings of the weather stations the last 100 years as humanity has grown exponentially, even if they are located outside of the UHI area, but still located within the massive land use changed area we have engineered. This could actually be much of the temperature increase we are recording the last 100 years, which would really make CO2 even more redundant as the cause of global warming. This really does need more study and acknowledgement by both sides of this debate.

I think we want to be as honest as possible about all possible causes of warming, and if we do, we see that CO2 is getting the most blame while it may actually be the least of our concerns regarding any actual manmade warming. Plus CO2 is actually the most benign thing to happen as we see from increased plant growth across the planet that feeds 7.5 billion of us presently. I think it is disingenuous to state that we are ants in the scheme of things if we view ourselves from 35,000 feet. Humanity as a whole is much more significant than that and for the most part, it is mostly beneficial as compared to the opposite when we are in the depths of a full blown glacier advance for 70,000 years, and CO2 is approaching extinction levels and much of the planet is a dry, stormy and windy desert.

Frederick Michael
Reply to  Earthling2
February 26, 2019 8:18 pm


So what if we’ve proved that mankind has raised global temperature.

Prove that it’s not a good thing.

Toby Nixon
February 26, 2019 3:35 pm

We are not surprised that computer models designed to show that global warming is primarily caused by human activity do, in fact, show such a “fingerprint”. They were designed to do so. So what?

February 26, 2019 3:38 pm

Do these people lie awake at night thinking up ways to ratchet up their alarmist rhetoric? There seems to be no upper limit as to what they can come up with.

February 26, 2019 3:44 pm

An even stronger human hand in the Eemian?


February 26, 2019 3:47 pm

Between this crap and the betrayal of British democracy demonstrated in Parliament today over Brexit, I believe I’m witnessing the steady decline of the western world into CAS (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Socialism).

I was confident Trump was the beacon of democracy, free expression and free trade but it seems even he may not be able to stop the collective suicide of multiple nations determined to embrace an ideology which has failed everywhere it has been tried.

The Marxists will not stop until they have destroyed everything worth anything. Our children and grandchildren are indeed in danger.

Phil R
Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 5:50 pm


With respect, I sadly have to disagree with you. the Marxists will not stop until they are in complete control. The destruction of everything worth anything is just collateral damage, and a feature of Marxism (& socialism in general), not a bug.

High Treason
February 26, 2019 3:50 pm

The tone of urgency is a clear sign this is a desperate plea to BELIEVE-like it is a religion. Alas, it is to be expected at the end stage of a propaganda campaign. As the narrative is falling apart(the models are only in agreement with themselves, not the raw untampered data), the desperate measures come out-blatant inventions out of thin air, appeals to authority, punitive measures against contrarian opinion and finally execution of those that refuse to believe the lies.
We laugh at the BS shoved down peoples’ throats under totalitarian regimes and like to kid ourselves that we have outgrown such superstitious nonsense and witch hunts.
Time to look in the mirror-have humans evolved in to dung beetles? Only a dung beetle should be able to swallow that much BS. Even dung beetles do not chase their BS down with Kool aid.

Reply to  High Treason
February 27, 2019 3:05 am

The Climate Apocalypse Cult went public in 1988 with James Hansen’s testimony to Congress, and shortly thereafter Crispin Tickell convinced Margaret Thatcher to make a famous speech touting Climate Alarm

If instead of the above, the Politicians had said it was absolutely urgent to formulate a Political Position and prepare for a Biblical Apocalypse, everyone would have understood what was going on, and it would have been clear that it was in violation of the US 1st Amendment

February 26, 2019 3:51 pm

Is that gold chemically FeS2?

mike the morlock
February 26, 2019 3:54 pm

Hey guys I found out how they did it!


Brilliant of them.


Reply to  mike the morlock
February 26, 2019 4:16 pm

“Hey guys I found out how they did it!”

You mean to tell me they have their gold fingers all over it. LOL

Reply to  mike the morlock
February 26, 2019 4:17 pm

Had to be done!

Allen Cichanski
February 26, 2019 4:09 pm

One of the greatest tragedies of these modern times is that we have NO ONE who has the scientific skills and good sense of a Richard Feynman. Just a bunch of arrogant and ignorant imbeciles out for grant money and fame. God help this nation and this planet. The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Reply to  Allen Cichanski
February 27, 2019 12:31 am

We have Jordan Peterson

Chris Wright
Reply to  Allen Cichanski
February 28, 2019 3:58 am

I’ve thought that many times.
It’s a tragedy for science – and the whole world – that Richard Feynman died so young.

Gunga Din
February 26, 2019 4:12 pm

The US is no longer on the “gold standard”. That’s why the $$ saved no longer have the buying power they did when you saved it. A dollar saved a decade ago is not worth what what it was today.
Sort of the opposite of these claims.
We’re supposed to forget what their “gold standard” claimed a few decades ago!?
(Anybody remember that old saying, “Don’t take a wooden nickle.”?)

Pat Frank
February 26, 2019 4:15 pm

Here’s the major problem with that paper: “In the 1970s, there was recognition that GCM simulations yielded both signal and noise when forced by changes in atmospheric CO2 or other external factors18. The signal was the climate response to the altered external factor. The noise arose from natural internal climate variability.

Santer et al.,’s description implicitly assumes that GCMs inhere a perfect physical model. They do not.

GCM simulations produce signal, noise, and error. The error part is known to be so large (≥ 100 W/m^2), it swamps any possible signal.

GCMs don’t reveal anything about future climate. They are incapable of resolving any effect (if any) of CO2 emissions. They are unable to detect, reproduce, or predict any human influence on the climate.

There is no statistical method that will fix that problem.

Bob Greene
February 26, 2019 4:18 pm

They’ve made the assertion without any data presented. Science by press release.

Reply to  Bob Greene
February 26, 2019 5:43 pm

I noticed that. I’d kind of like to see the math they used for the 5 sigma level. Physicists share. Why aren’t these guys sharing? Oh….wait……

Pat Frank
Reply to  Sheri
February 26, 2019 6:37 pm

Sheri, there’s a supplemental information document (pdf) that gives the mathematical approach.

They compare CMIP5 climate model RCP 8.5 simulations with the three tropospheric temperature trends (RSS, UAH, and NOAA STAR).

However, none of the CMIP5 air temperature projections include any notice of model calibration error. That is, the physical simulation errors that show up when model calibration runs are compared with observations.

CMIP5 model calibration errors are hundreds of times larger than the thermal perturbation caused by CO2 emissions. It is impossible that CMIP5 models can resolve any CO2 effect at all on air temperature, assuming there is one and it’s detectable.

Also, none of the usages of satellite temperature take any note of their systematic measurement error, estimated to be ±0.3 C (even UAH assumes they subtract away, despite that they’re ±).

So, the entire ±3σ/±5σ is nothing more than an egregious exercise in utterly false precision. In which Nature (London) stupidly participates.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 26, 2019 7:56 pm

CMIP5 models begin their ‘projections’ in 2005. The results are highly inaccurate from then to now, using UAH6 as a comparison. Hell, they can’t even get their 2000-2005 hindcasts right!

From what I can tell, they use stratospheric temperatures to adjust each of the three satellite TMT series. The only one they can’t make jump up and bark is UAH6. Ha! Mears and NOAA even roll over and show their bellies for their ideological masters. [Just got back from the dog park.]

February 26, 2019 4:19 pm

Spaceball One has gone to plaid.

Ian MacCulloch
February 26, 2019 4:21 pm

In Australia, the fraud has been identified by M/s Nova generally and M/s Marohassy in particular. Simply put if the records for discussion commence on 1890 we have global cooling and we use the BOM preferred start date of 1910 we have global warming. The ‘Federation’ drought as it was called was responsible for deaths and misery of the likes that we have never seen since. Its significance is conveniently ignored as the quality of the base level data was deemed inadequate. Therefore to rely on satellite data from the last 40 years fails at the first hurdle of using less than at least a 100 years to cover the cyclic nature of the climate/weather.
The BOM forecasts for the 3 months of northern Australian summer were for below average rainfall. No mention of the severe flooding that eventuated and no warning. These Australian agencies need to lift their game.

February 26, 2019 4:21 pm

Holy Schniky’s CrapMan! …we got a Quintuple Sigma in Sector Seven! SitRep at a Level BFD! Get the FBI, CIA, DOD,OSS, MIS, MAD, WAM, BAM and OMG all on the Crap-Talkie Stat!

James Clarke
February 26, 2019 4:39 pm


Sorry for shouting, but this stuff drives me crazy! This announcement is akin to announcing that more water is flowing down the Mississippi now than it did in August and then arguing that we must dump all of our resources into building massive Arks for all of humanity!

Sure…the data indicates that it is warmer now than 40 years ago. Does anyone seriously doubt that? Is anyone saying that is not the case? We also believe that it has been warming for at least 200 years. Neither statement says anything about how much it has warmed or why, or even if it is a bad thing!

Claiming that the warming is now a ‘Gold Standard’ measurement, and then jumping to an immediate call to stop burning fossil fuels is just nuts! They have added absolutely nothing to the debate, while pretending that they have just one it!

Why are they not called on this immediately and ridiculed endlessly? Why does this foolish argument go unchallenged? Why is this press release not met with a yawn and a huge ‘so what’?

February 26, 2019 4:44 pm

Since they could not distinguish between human influences and natural influences before 2005 does this then prove that all climate scientists who said that humans were influencing global temperatures prior to this data did not have a clue what they were talking about or does it mean that they were all just lying to us?

Reply to  Robert
February 26, 2019 10:54 pm

They still can’t distinguish between them the Hasselmann’s approach simply makes an assumption there is no proper attribution in the process.

That is the bit left out it is gold standard on something but we have no idea exactly what.

Bruce Cobb
February 26, 2019 4:47 pm

Funny, innit, how the more their science fails, the more “certain” they become of it. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

February 26, 2019 4:57 pm

So… how are they wrong?


Reply to  Hyperborean
February 26, 2019 10:48 pm

The Hasselmann approach is a dog with some horrific problems that is ignored, and then to boot when programmed it is not even code implemented properly. Besides lots of errors the most stupid part of the analysis is the attribution which can’t be easily done because of knowledge of the composition and amplitude of climate variability and the lack of exact forcings for each operator.

However none of that you are really interested in because you were just asking a stupid question to troll with, now go back under your rock.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Hyperborean
February 27, 2019 4:38 am

“So… how are they wrong? Specifically?”

For one thing, they used the worst-case RCP8.5 computer model of the Earth’s atmosphere, the most unrealistic of the computer models. The real world isn’t close to looking like RCP8.5. So naturally, these climate alarmists use it to make things appear as bad as possible.

I can hear it now outside some congressional office: AOC and the Scared Little Girls will have “human fingerprint” as part of their new climate lexicon.. Ben Santer woke them up to new possibilities..

Richard M
Reply to  Hyperborean
February 27, 2019 6:48 am

They used models built with non-validated assumptions. Hence, nothing they found actually applies to Earth. It only applies to their virtual models and their assumptions.

What’s even funnier is they need to significantly adjust their data to even get that close to RCP8.5 assumptions. The real takeaway is they are obviously desperate.

February 26, 2019 5:16 pm

Alarmism is backed by science like money is backed by the gold standard.

Roy Spencer
February 26, 2019 5:16 pm

Ive examined their methodology and will be blogging on this in the morning.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  Roy Spencer
February 26, 2019 5:59 pm

Bravo, Roy, looking forward to it.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  Roy Spencer
February 26, 2019 5:59 pm

Bravo, Roy, looking forward to it.

February 26, 2019 6:04 pm

With any good lie, there shoudl be an element of truth.

Yes, CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since this property of CO2 was discovered by Thydall in 1823.

The physics show CO2’s ECS has a maximum limit of around 1.2C, and with negative feedbacks from increased cloud cover from higher ocean temps, could reduce CO2’s ECS to as low as 0.6C…

From what I’ve read, greenhouse gas warming from water vapor and CO2 add around 33C to earth’s average surface temperature, with water vapor (@30,000ppm) contributing 30C and CO2 (@400ppm) contributing just 3C of the total…

Since CO2 forcing is logarithmic per doubling, and that it has doubled 8 times to get to 400ppm, CO2’s ECS could be as low of around 0.4C/doubling (3.0C/8 doublings).

CAGW hypothesizes ECS @ 3C per doubling, which would give 24C total CO2 forcing , which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever… If that were true, water vapor, which absorbs almost the entire LWIR spectrum and is at 30,000pm, could only account for 9C of greenhouse gas warming to CO2’s 24C…. I’m not buying it…

CAGW is a joke, which is known fact with a certainty of 5 sigma.

michael hart
February 26, 2019 6:05 pm

“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.”

If quoted correctly, it’s very interesting that Ben Santer now wants to “win over skeptics”. That’s quite a turnaround from the man who, as you reminded us, previously just wanted to meet with skeptics/climate-auditors “in a dark alley”.
I wonder what has caused him to half turn away from the dark side.

“The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.”

I also wonder whose narrative he is referring to, because we certainly still don’t see it widely reported in the legacy media.

The other aspect that also never changes, is that not only does he know everything there is to know about the Earth’s climate, he also apparently knows all the socio-economic consequences, and what we have to do about it. Maybe some day somebody in the legacy media might care to ask him what he figured out first: The problem or the solution.

Reply to  michael hart
February 27, 2019 5:18 am

Ben (Shaman) Santer

If one then goes back into the ‘post-modern science’ from which the imperative to decarbonise originates, several cans of worms are waiting. I fear that when this whole enterprise collapses, as certainly as the tulip bubble evaporated in 1637, there will be a backlash against trust in science that will herald a dark age in which scientists are routinely regarded as untrustworthy shamans. My concern is that the integrity of science is under great threat and that my own subject, engineering, will get caught in the backlash, even though engineers have been among the most vociferous critics of the projects of imminent global catastrophe caused by humans
How will humanity extricate itself? One can hope that the accumulation of failed predictions over the next two decades will burst the bubble. The world academies cannot be asked to sit in judgment on the misconduct, as they will be in the dock. The UN is also hopelessly compromised

This book was a tour de force !! Thank you !!

February 26, 2019 6:17 pm

Besides the over arching clueless hype the article, the articles it’s drawn from have many problems. So 5 sigma is a red herring. Dupont went for 6 sigma processes in their chemical plants. HA! beat that. 10 times better, and they make more money doing it and don’t take many grants from the government.
Other issues- a casual search turns up much climate research on the temperature series is “models all the way down”.
All the temperature series, I’m pretty sure Wm. Briggs might agree, have some many problems that they can’t be effectively analysed with statistics. And even if you get something that seems valid, it’s not a prediction. Statistics can’t do that. Models do that.
All the climate models are chaotic and take fine tuning to hold together for 10 years, much less 100. Even if they do the cumulative error in the calculations blows up to 100% in as few as 10 iterations, much less years.

Many of the papers, as mentioned, do experiments with models, trying capture the variability in their results. With careful tuning they can get a group of models to generate less variability than just one. Since the models have only limited basis in reality they have no relevance to a climate with many additional variables. They can calculate certainties and uncertainties to their hears content but none of it bears on the climate. The current weather models are reasonably effective for 2-3 days. Beyond that they start to lose it. The predicted snowstorm may be rain and two days late, but it’s still helpful to know something else is likely coming at you.

Paul Rossiter
February 26, 2019 6:18 pm

Yeah, but what Santer knows is that his rubbish will grab the headlines and any sensible refutation will not. And we all know, whatever is in the headlines is the “new” reality for the population in general and the vote-seeking politicians in particular. We need someone with a high public profile to call out the scam and keep at it until the media can no longer ignore it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Paul Rossiter
February 26, 2019 6:20 pm

President Trump’s climate group will be hard at it, Paul!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 27, 2019 4:55 am

I hope some reporter asks Happer about Santer’s “human fingerprint”.

February 26, 2019 6:22 pm

5 sigma certainty and 0 sigma accuracy. How does that work?

Richard M
Reply to  Craig
February 27, 2019 7:14 am

It will be interesting to see McKitrick’s take on this.

February 26, 2019 6:25 pm

Isn’t it impressive how Climate Crisis Central can blanket the world with a scary message, with enough variety in titles to disguise the robotic repetition? Yet just reading the headlines already suggests to anyone with critical intelligence what is false about this alarm. Let me list some of the obvious flaws before digging into this issue.

1. It’s a projection from a climate model, not a finding from observations.

2. It is based on highly uncertain supposed mechanisms.

3. It presupposes CO2 concentrations 3 times the present level.

4. The possible effect will occur after almost all readers will be dead of natural causes.

5. It claims a runaway warming “tipping point” which the earth has suppressed until now.

6. It contradicts the logic of a warmer world increasing the hydrology cycle with more clouds and precipitation.

7. It stokes fear of “hothouse earth” when presently we are slowly emerging from “severe icehouse earth.”


Reply to  Ron Clutz
February 26, 2019 6:30 pm

Sorry, I meant this comment for the cloud tipping point thread.

Robert of Texas
February 26, 2019 6:26 pm

5 sigma demonstrating what exactly? That there has been some amount of warming over the last 40 years? Or is it the last 27 years? And this means…we have to do…what?

Is it land use? Is it pollution? Is it CO2? OR…is it still mostly natural and they just don’t understand a complex chaotic natural system as well as they think they do?

Are they REALLY suggesting they understand natural variability so well that they can pin point EXACTLY how much warming is caused by humans? WOW. Just…WOW. These people are either fools or liars.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 26, 2019 7:46 pm

The ‘gold standard’ claim they make is that a human influence on climate has been detected beginning in 2005. So what? What does it mean? What is the level of man’s influence on the climate? What are the drivers other than man’s, their impacts?

This is jumping up and shouting “You’re guilty!” Of what, they don’t say. Santer’s intent of grabbing headlines is met, though. He is a particularly shifty liar.

February 26, 2019 6:29 pm

You’ll just be wasting your time; Santor has never been wrong … not once.

He has not even ever made a mistake.

He has never misplaced his keys, never bought the wrong size belt, never had to retie his tie, and has never placed his right foot in his left shoe.

He is infallible. To suggest otherwise is, deservedly, asking for a punch in the nose.

Bart Tali
February 26, 2019 6:35 pm

Their Pokemon played the “gold standard” attack. You just can’t beat that one. Time to shut down WUWT.

Snarling Dolphin
February 26, 2019 7:58 pm

Oops. That’s a mistake. Unless they really mean “virtually certain” as opposed to “real world certain.” Then that’s different but not nearly as persuasive.

February 26, 2019 8:06 pm

They found a tropical hotspot? Where is it?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Martin557
February 26, 2019 9:13 pm

I believe they claim detecting man’s fingerprint on seasonal changes in tropospheric temperatures. I don’t understand how they are able to claim that. Anybody know anything?

Mike in MN
February 26, 2019 8:14 pm

Interesting thought. Ask an alarmist which is a larger temperature difference, five degrees Kelvin or five degrees centigrade. If they don’t know tell them it’s obvious they don’t understand what the hell they’re trying to talk about. This should take care of at least 70% of the useful idiots (5 sigma certainty on this). 😉

February 26, 2019 8:15 pm

Evidence that human cities are responsible for global warming hits gold standard certainty levels!


Jim G.
February 26, 2019 9:12 pm

the U.S. led team…..

I do not think that means what it used to mean.

February 26, 2019 9:18 pm

One of these things is not climate-change research – can you spot which one is not?

“ … “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. …”

What can you expect of fraudulent anthrophobic absurdists masquerading as true-blue ‘scientists’, who think “climate change” data will come from satellite observations any time in the next 200 years.

Alternatively, field-observations data shows this:

Scientists Present New Artifact Evidence From An Arctic Island That Was 5-6°C Warmer 9000 Years Ago

5 to 6 deg C due to natural variability ebb and flow alone.

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals”


February 26, 2019 9:19 pm

As I said to Mosher the other night – correlation does not imply causation (why do supposedly scientific literate people need to be reminded of this?). The only situation I’m aware of where a correlation is assumed to prove causation is that of smoking and lung cancer simply because the risk of contracting lung cancer is raised by 3000%, a simply staggering number.

The true gold standard of proving causation is a randomized controlled trial with hundreds to thousands of test subjects. There’s only one earth and it’s obviously multi-factored and horribly confounded so it’s impossible to actually perform the “gold standard” RCT on the effect of CO2 on earth’s temperature. Anyone claiming we know for certain is either a liar, a science illiterate or hopelessly conflicted.

Reply to  Bob Johnston
February 27, 2019 12:35 am

“Anyone claiming we know for certain is either a liar, a science illiterate or hopelessly conflicted.”

You need to embrace the full range of available conjunctives. The simple three letter word “and” can do so much for you.

February 26, 2019 11:55 pm

“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.”

I find it difficulty to believe that someone with a college degree, let alone a PhD, could be so dense as to make an argument that is so illogical. A level of confidence that something beyond random distributions about a flat mean is warming the planet says nothing about the cause of such warming.

Moreover, the idea that you could scientifically identify a “fingerprint” of human-induced warming is equally silly. Fingerprints are useful only to the degree that you can demonstrate their uniqueness, i.e. that no one else shares a given person’s fingerprint. There is no such thing as an “anthropogenic fingerprint” of warming and there never will be because you can never test the efficacy of such “fingerprints. Science-by-analogy is the hallmark of junk science

February 27, 2019 12:15 am

Does anyone have a link to the original “5-sigma” fingerprint article in Nature Climate Change? I’ve looked at the contents of the latest issue and I’m not seeing it …


Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 27, 2019 12:17 am

However, I did find the following, which made me feel much better …


Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss
Climate change has a gradual influence on landscapes and ecosystems that may lead to feelings of loss for those with close ties to the natural environment. This Perspective describes existing research on ecological grief and outlines directions for future inquiry.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 27, 2019 12:30 am

Not so much for me. Call me a cynic, but I see this as nothing more than an obvious plea for a reliable stream of “research” funding, and that given the current climate (pun absolutely intended) it will likely be successful. Stupidity shouldn’t be rewarded.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 27, 2019 4:46 pm

See the tweet from Gavin here:


In the case of the man-made climate change discussion, there is clearly no such “well-defined null hypothesis”. In particular, when Schmidt and others discuss the “signal-to-noise ratio”, they don’t really know what part of the observed data is “noise” and how strong it should be.

Anna V
February 27, 2019 1:22 am

Here is the nature article for those that have access: https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41558-019-0424-x%3A5FG3ZiZzwC5uRnvVU5P9F2jgWn8&cuid=1359516 which I do not

It seems their analysis depends on this method https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs003820050185%3ATKba35KXXdhBfho9zTu2EMmQ7z4&cuid=1359516 , by K. Hasselmann

where in the abstract:

“A statistically significant climate change signal is regarded as consistent with a given forcing mechanism if the statistical confidence level exceeds a given critical value, but is attributed to that forcing only if all other candidate climate change mechanisms (from a finite set of proposed mechanisms) are rejected at that confidence level. ”

I would be willing to bet that they have fudged in their analysis the second part of the statement :

>but is attributed to that forcing only if all other candidate climate change mechanisms (from a finite set of proposed mechanisms) are rejected at that confidence level. ”

They claim the particle physics gold standard, but particle physics does not depend of sleight of hand, all variables and their errors are clear and checkable.

Anna V
February 27, 2019 1:58 am
February 27, 2019 2:08 am

So what is the new evidence? If you don’t have more actual new evidence, what do they have?

Anna V
Reply to  Phoenix44
February 27, 2019 3:51 am

Nobody doubts that the temperature rises, and skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What we are skeptical about is the anthropogenic contribution, and whether the feedback method used by climate modellers to give to the 0.5% contribution to greenhouse gases ( H2O is the highest one at 75%) the dominant role in the rise in temperature. Roughly, the programs assume that “more CO2, more H2O released in the atmosphere in a strong feedback cycle”. This has not been proven by observations, rather the opposite as far as I remember.

There is nothing new, just reanalysis of the already known data.

As far as I can see from the limited access I have, they are reanalysing the satellite temperature data for each year, using a program that accepts several inputs to the ratio of ” signal/noise “, and they triumphantly come to the conclusion that from the several inputs contributing to a rise in temperature, (rom solar cycle to albido …?) they can give 5 sigma statistical error that the anthropogenic dominates. In the abstract they do not mention which are the other mechanisms, the errors etc, and also that they have adhered to the method’s proposal that the rejected cotributions are also rejected at 5 sigma.

They only have the one figure that is available in the links above, and the extra information freely provided discusses this one figure: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0424-x/MediaObjects/41558_2019_424_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Models all the way down, as in turtles all the way down.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Anna V
February 27, 2019 10:05 am

Anna V, nice to see you back.. 🙂

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 27, 2019 2:10 am

Gosh, so human produced CO2 has fingerprints! Who’d have thunk it, another amazing property of the gas that keeps giving. A case for Sherlock Gnomes methinks.

Phil Clary
February 27, 2019 5:29 am

“Fingerprint detection” in 2 out of 3 since at least 2005? Seems to be a distinct setback for them if you analyze it. Some undefined influence 67% of the time only very recently. Gold standard BS indeed!

Alice Thermopolis
February 27, 2019 5:32 am

How many scientists does it take to change a planet’s climate?

Judging from a paper published online on June 19, 2017 – “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates” – by Benjamin Santer, Matthew England, Michael Mann and others – at least sixteen, being the number of authors.

This Santer et al. paper is revealing, both in content and timing. It tries to explain (in six pages) the divergence between actual global temperatures and those projected by climate models during the past two decades. A stunning admission, one confirming what sceptics had been suggesting for years: the models were not infallible.

The divergence arose, the paper concluded, because one could not predict correctly the magnitude of certain so-called natural forcings, including solar intensity, volcanic activity and internal variability. As for model “sensitivity” to atmospheric carbon dioxide, it apparently was correct.

“We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

It was a cheeky, fallacious argument. For if model projections (aka “predictions”) could be explained away on this occasion by evoking “systematic deficiencies”, nebulous phenomena such as “internal variability”, or the poor quality of real-world data, presumably they could be explained away in future by the gatekeepers of climate-truth and their masters. In other words, the hypotheses hard-wired into the models were unfalsifiable.

Heads we win, tails you lose is hardly Gold Standard.

See: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2017/12/climate-elfs-cheer-santer-pause/

Steve O
Reply to  Alice Thermopolis
February 27, 2019 10:41 am


February 27, 2019 6:12 am

If you do an internet search trying to find the original paper on which this story is based, then, no matter which website you arrive at, you will find the exact same wording of the story, with no clear reference to the paper being reported on. Clearly, this story is a marketing ploy, because everywhere it appears, it is the same, … using the exact same press-release wording pushed out there by whomever is trying to advertise it.

What small fragment of the original article that is out there is just a tease for the pay walled full text, of course, making access as difficult as possible for anyone who wants to scrutinize the basis of the claims.

This is cheap, sensationalized, marketing and rehashing of the same old data and arguments in a different cover. Nothing new here …. AT ALL.

TACTICAL NOTE: When your old arguments seem to be loosing ground, just repeat them in different words in new locations. Do a retrospective of the history, and make new claims about the strength of the history (never mind that it’s history of a myth) reinforcing the strength of the claims in that history.

I’m not paying to read it, because I’m not buying it.

Earl T Hackett
February 27, 2019 6:32 am

I don’t know why folks get all upset about warming. Warm is good, cold is bad. We’ve had our 12,000 years of nice weather and the next ice age is on the way – just not next year. If CO2 could cause warming we should dig up every scrap of coal we can get our hands on and burn it. Unfortunately I don’t think it would have enough of an effect to stop the ice sheets from burying New York.

February 27, 2019 7:09 am

I’ll wait for the platinum album.

Jon Scott
February 27, 2019 7:31 am

Where is the empirical data behind this claim? All I have found is assertions and models!

Reply to  Jon Scott
February 27, 2019 8:40 am

Yes, we apparently find assertions, references to models, and aggrandizing the history of the same reports that have been picked apart critically before.

… same old cake with new icing. It might look good on the plate, but it tastes like __________________ [fill in the blank].

February 27, 2019 8:38 am

Blimey, it was only back in 2013 that the MET declared- “Global warming stopped 16 years ago”

February 27, 2019 9:00 am

Pure gold (24 karats) is actually 99.9% gold. 5 σ is app. 1 – (1/3500000) = 99,9999714286%.

All other idiocies aside, even the title is wrong.

February 27, 2019 9:07 am

There’s Gold in them thar Standards… Just because the chocolate melted out of your fake nobel medals does not mean your failed models and fiddled data are any more credible Dumb Dumbs.

“Tamino, 5 sigma, and frame-dragging

Grant Tamino Foster and other AGW fundamentalists can’t swallow a bitter pill – that hard sciences still exist: see my previous text, Defending statistical methods.”

I had a recent discussion on Quora with a Matthew McCarthy, PhD Oceanography. Who made the claim that “scientists like myself have, of course, checked every other possible source and found none that explain the observations.”

So I asked him to quantify all Climate Forcing’s and explain why the models can’t make skillful predictions.

“It always surprises me how fixated deniers are on models and stats while simultaneously demonstrating a poor understanding of their roles in climate science. There’s a common saying in science: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” We really don’t rely much on models because modeling a system as complex as the global climate can only be reasonably interpreted in broad terms, like trajectories, which have been validated with existing data.

Further, you appear fixated on statistically rejecting a null hypothesis, but don’t understand causation vs correlation. Robust statistical analyses would find a strong enough correlation between rising temperatures and the number of electric vehicles sold to reject a null, but there is no causation between the two. CO2 is the mechanism, and has been known to be since the 19th century. And it explains 90–120% of the variability in current climate change.”

Funny because other’s have claimed that the data is not as “useful” as the models. “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” “All Data is Wrong, Some is Useful”. I’m confused. Who gets to decide what WRONG models and data are “useful”? And how about the saying in science that “Correlation does not prove Causation”?

He stopped responding… He’s a busy guy I assume.

As others have pointed out, if the models and data are wrong and need error bars, how can they claim a 5 sigma result when the admitted errors are many times larger than their claimed data resolution?

In my CNC hobby if you want accuracy of .001″ you need equipment and measuring tools that measure to .0001″, which my magnetic linear scales do. How can they do this? They have a resolution of .00001″ Which exceeds the runout of the spindle or the accuracy of the drive screws.

cLIEmate UNscientists use the opposite method. They claim .001 C degree accuracy from equipment that has a .1 degree resolution. By using fuzzy black box statistics, hand waving and magician level misdirection…

Reasonable Skeptic
February 27, 2019 9:49 am

So does this mean they have substantially narrowed the estimate of unknown portion of ECS, which was last reported to be from 0.4 to 3.4 deg. C per doubling of CO2? If they haven’t they can put that 5 sigma, gold standard certificate beside the fountain of youth certificate.

February 27, 2019 10:05 am

The gold standard they are referring to is clearly a reference to “ fools “ gold. It just ain’t what it seems.

Steve O
February 27, 2019 10:17 am

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level…”

I don’t believe there are many people HERE who disagree with that particular statement. After all, we are emitting CO2, and CO2 will lead to some amount of warming.

Now all they have to do is show why the AMOUNT of warming we will experience will be harmful. Then they have to show that there are actions we can take where the expected costs outweigh the expected benefits.

But so far, what they claim to have proved is not even relevant. What difference does it make if global warming is caused by mankind or not? IF it will lead to catastrophe, and IF we can something productive about it that meets the cost/benefit criteria, then we should take action whether we are the proximate cause of the warming or not. Likewise, if we can’t do anything about it, it doesn’t really matter if it’s dangerous or not, or whether we’re the proximate cause.

E J Zuiderwijk
February 27, 2019 12:23 pm

The noise you just heard was Icarus crashing after he found out that 5 sigma was too close to the Sun.

February 27, 2019 12:52 pm

Your honor, we have irrefutable proof that this man has caused devastating global warming.
What is the evidence? Your honor, it is a man’s fingerprint.
Then table the evidence.
The polar bear ate it your honor.

February 27, 2019 2:31 pm

That is utter BS. Humans are 100% percent responsible fro Global Warming®. They invented it in the first place!

Robert in Busan
February 27, 2019 3:08 pm

“The CAGW Defense Team STRENUOUSLY objects to the skeptics with 5 sigma confidence.”(Attorney Demi Moore, A Few Good Men, LLC)

Ronald Abate
February 27, 2019 3:23 pm

So what. Of course humans are influencing the climate. That’s not the issue. The issue is will our influence be catastrophic? That is a matter of intense debate in the climate science community, and sorry folks, computer climate models will never provide robust empirical evidence. Not only is it impossible to determine how much the climate is being influenced by both natural and anthropogenic forces, within the anthropogenic influences it is impossible to determine how much is due to the burning of fossil fuels, the urban heat island effect, how much from agricultural practices etc. So far I suspect the effect has been net beneficial.

Reply to  Ronald Abate
February 27, 2019 4:22 pm

Influencing, meaning variation of system variables, that makes sense. UHI is a good exemple. But a “climate change” that doesn’t make.

February 27, 2019 5:46 pm

virtually certain = not sure

nutso fasst
February 27, 2019 7:22 pm

There is a house of lunatics
called Climatastrophism.
And its been the ruin of scientists
who justify sophism.
Oh mothers warn your children
don’t listen to that crew
who say you have no future
if you exhale CO2.

Dave Fair
Reply to  nutso fasst
February 28, 2019 10:38 am

Sung to the tune of “House of the Rising Sun.”

February 28, 2019 2:24 am

A 5 sigma gold standard certainty for a spurious correlation?

Please see


With special reference to paragraphs 7,8,9.

Gordon Dressler
February 28, 2019 9:34 am

If there’s a “gold standard”, five-sigma, one-in-million-chance-of-AGW-being-wrong, I’ve died and gone to hell.

How does this level of confidence reconcile global atmospheric temperatures declining over the last two years at a statistically significant drop of almost 0.3 C (UAH and HadCRUT4 datasets) despite those two years having the highest measured levels of atmospheric CO2?

How does this level of confidence reconcile that there was a global temperature cooling trend from 1940 to 1975, and a pause (i.e., zero slope) in global warming from 2000 to at least 2015, despite a smoothly accelerating curve in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1910 to present?

Facts matter. Assertions not necessarily so.

John Bills
March 1, 2019 2:40 am

The new Santer et al. study merely shows that the satellite data have indeed detected warming (not saying how much) that the models can currently only explain with increasing CO2 (since they cannot yet reproduce natural climate variability on multi-decadal time scales).


William Everett
March 7, 2019 1:01 pm

A document labeled Satellite Detects Human Contribution To Atmospheric CO2 from NASA Earth Observatory contains a map which is purported to show the human contribution of atmospheric CO2 within the United States. This map shows that the humans in 16 of the western states make almost no contribution while the humans east of the Mississippi make almost all of the CO2 contribution. This difference is not explained. What is also not explained is why the concentrations of CO2 align more closely with the location of broad-leafed woodlands and forests than with the population centers of the East.