A new 2019 climate paper
in Nature Climate Change,
by Ben Santer et al.,
claims the 40-year record
of global tropospheric
temperatures, from
weather satellites,
agrees with climate model
simulations of man made
global warming.
That makes absolutely
no sense !
Because the climate models,
on average, are so inaccurate
that they predict triple
the global warming
actually measured by
the weather satellites
( UAH dataset ) !
Analysis of the
alleged "agreement",
we are told,
shows less than a
1 in 3.5 million chance
( 5 sigma, one-tailed test )
the "agreement"
was only by chance.
What agreement?
Hold on to your hats !
The study actually says:
(1)
Climate models predicted warming since 1979
at a rate of +3 degrees C. per CO2 doubling,
and assume CO2 caused all the warming,
(2)
Satellites measured warming since 1979.
at a rate of +1 degree C. per CO2 doubling,
if you assume CO2 caused all the warming,
although the actual cause of the warming
is unknown.
(3)
In climate junk science,
(1) + (2) adds up to a
100% agreement,
and that somehow proves
CO2 caused all the warming (?),
( jumping to a conclusion
not proven at all ),
and if you disagree,
you're a climate denier !
The study does not claim
the UAH weather satellite
dataset is wrong,
so the climate models
are obviously wrong !
Actual warming since 1979,
cause unknown, could be
100% attributed to CO2,
as a worst case estimate
of the potential warming
effects of CO2.
That worst case estimate is
+1 degree C. warming per
CO2 level doubling ,
based on the actual
measurements since 1979,
not computer models.
That means
actual warming,
cause unknown,
was only one-third
of the average
computer model
warming prediction !
The new Santer et al. study
shows the satellite data
reflected warming since 1979.
But not mentioned,
is the satellites have
also detected almost
no warming from 2003
to the end of 2018
-- less than the very
small margin of error
in the measurements.
The study claims
the climate models
can only explain the
warming since 1979
by the increasing
CO2 levels in the air.
That's a deliberate deception:
(1)
If there's any global warming,
the models AUTOMATICALLY
blame rising CO2 levels,
without any scientific proof
that CO2 was the cause
of the warming, simply
because that's how
they are programmed,
and
(2)
The models can't reproduce
natural climate variability,
on a multi-decade time scale.
The Santer et al. study
looks at the 40-year period
(1979-2018) of temperature
measurements made by weather
satellites in the troposphere,
which is where the greenhouse
effect occurs.
They assume, with no proof,
that If there was global warming,
then it just had to be caused by CO2.
That's not real science !
Natural causes of climate change
have been very powerful
in the past.
Consider the global warming
in the past 20,000 years
( mainly from 20,000
to 10,000 years ago ).
That warming started with
most of Canada, Chicago and
Detroit, under mile-thick glaciers.
The melting took place BEFORE
any man made CO2 was added
to the atmosphere.
There was enough ice melting
to raise the sea level by 400 feet !
Meaning that natural causes
of global warming were
very powerful in the past.
The climate models
arbitrarily assume
that natural causes
of climate change
became negligible
after 1940, with
no explanation
ever provided.
( because it doesn't make sense ! )
That's an arbitrary
assumption, better
known as junk science.
The warming in the
satellite measurements
is only 1/3 that of the
climate computer models,
but the study ignores
that huge difference !
We already knew
the computer models,
on average,
predicted triple
the global warming
that the satellites
later measured.
In real science,
that huge discrepancy
falsifies the theories
used to program
the climate models !
In real science,
when reality
doesn’t match
the model,
it’s proof
the model
is wrong.
But using junk science,
climate alarmists insist
their models are correct,
and "adjust" measurements
to match their models !
They own the historical
temperature data actuals,
which they use to compile
the global average temperature.
And they repeatedly "adjust"
historical temperature records
to better match their models
( arbitrarily creating more warming
out of thin air ! ).
Ben Santer may
call himself a scientist.
But his "study"
is a steaming pile
of farm animal
digestive waste
products --
a blatant attempt
to twist known facts
into a false conclusion,
that does not add
anything to the
climate science
debate.
Another problem
is climate alarmists
refuse to debate
anything !
Liars like Ben Santer
are the real
"existential threat" !
"Hysterical climatology"
is not a hard science,
where “five sigma proofs”
would be possible.
Climatology is a soft science,
so “five sigma proofs”
are only marketing scams,
for propaganda purposes.