Wednesday, October 31, 2012

New paper falsifies basis of the theory of man-made global warming

A paper published today in Environmental Research Letters shows that the "hot spot" or "fingerprint of man-made global warming" predicted by climate computer models is indeed missing from satellite observations.  Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. However, satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified.
Satellite observed upper tropical tropospheric temperature anomalies [red] have not shown the warming trend predicted by computer models [black = model average, grey = spread].

Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites

Stephen Po-Chedley1 and Qiang Fu1,2
Show affiliations


Recent studies have examined tropical upper tropospheric warming by comparing coupled atmosphere–ocean global circulation model (GCM) simulations from Phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) with satellite and radiosonde observations of warming in the tropical upper troposphere relative to the lower-middle troposphere. These studies showed that models tended to overestimate increases in static stability between the upper and lower-middle troposphere. We revisit this issue using atmospheric GCMs with prescribed historical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs that participated in the latest model intercomparison project, CMIP5. It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem, but it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both.


  1. Sorry, but the basis of the theory remains intact: that's the physics of radiative heat transfer.

    What's negated is the observation of the consequences of the theory in the real world of planet Earth.

    While the basic theory remains intact it seems that it either does not apply to our Earth system, it is countered by negative feedbacks, its magnitude is not measurable or that it could be found flawed in the future.

    The GCM's are definitely invalidated. Did you notice how the paper allows for the difference to be attributed to observational error? That's because the gravy train goes off the tracks if the models are wrong.

  2. Sorry, but the basis of the theory is also not intact due to erroneous application of the physics of heat transfer