Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The title's claim that that document had been signed by 1,600 scientists is clearly a lie. Can you claim otherwise?
And the declaration itself? Do you find it the least bit defensible? How many climate scientists have you seen claiming their models are magical? Do you find any part of that to be a clear refutation of any portion of AGW theory?
NYC, London, Miami, Malibu, etcetera are still all above sea level.You can't refute a theory that hasn't been established.
Still no Hot spot found.
Still no Positive Feedback Loop found.
Still no evidence of actual climate change anywhere.
Desert is still a desert, Steppe is still a steppe, Polar is still Polar and so on....
Koppen Climate Classification
LINK
One has nothing to do with the other and AGW is exceedigly well established. AGW could be falsified a dozen different ways but has not.You can't refute a theory that hasn't been established.
That is incorrect. The hot spot has been found, though it was never a test of AGW.Still no Hot spot found.
That is incorrect.Still no Positive Feedback Loop found.
Simple ignorance.Still no evidence of actual climate change anywhere.
Desert is still a desert, Steppe is still a steppe, Polar is still Polar and so on....
Koppen Climate Classification
NYC, London, Miami, Malibu, etcetera are still all above sea level.
Ooooo, pretty colors....Must be true!
The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is considered the world's leading expert on the subject. Have you got something better or have you simply chosen to reject it because you don't like it?Ooooo, pretty colors....Must be true!
When's the great liquidation of seaside real estate beginning?
One has nothing to do with the other and AGW is exceedigly well established. AGW could be falsified a dozen different ways but has not.
That is incorrect. The hot spot has been found, though it was never a test of AGW.
That is incorrect.
Simple ignorance.
Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, © well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).
Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c).
9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the
Response to Different Forcings and their
Uncertainties
9.2.2.1 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Response
The ability to distinguish between climate responses to
different external forcing factors in observations depends
on the extent to which those responses are distinct (see, e.g.,
Section 9.4.1.4 and Appendix 9.A). Figure 9.1 illustrates the
zonal average temperature response in the PCM model (see
Table 8.1 for model details) to several different forcing agents
over the last 100 years, while Figure 9.2 illustrates the zonal
average temperature response in the Commonwealth Scientifi c
and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) atmospheric
model (when coupled to a simple mixed layer ocean model) to
fossil fuel black carbon and organic matter, and to the combined
effect of these forcings together with biomass burning aerosols
(Penner et al., 2007). These fi gures indicate that the modelled
vertical and zonal average signature of the temperature response
should depend on the forcings. The major features shown in
Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models. On the
other hand, the response to black carbon forcing has not been
widely examined and therefore the features in Figure 9.2 may
be model dependent. Nevertheless, the response to black carbon
forcings appears to be small.
Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in
the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient
simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the
NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface
response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure
9.1c). The spatial pattern of the transient surface temperature
response to greenhouse gas forcing also typically exhibits a
land-sea pattern of stronger warming over land, for the same
reason (e.g., Cubasch et al., 2001).
The Hot Spot has nothing specifically to do with AGW or greenhouse warming. It should be present for warming from ANY source.Crick lies again as there is NO hot spot which he didn't post evidence for and it can't be the bogus Sherwood paper because his bullshit isn't accepted by the NOAA who tracks the atmosphere data and yes, it is a test for the hotspot since it was made as one by Sherwood and other warmist scientists starting 23 years ago, my my you forget already?
theconversation.com
WrongNo Hot Spot exist.
Wrong.No Positive Feedback Loop exist.
Nope.That is the reality.
The Hot Spot has nothing specifically to do with AGW or greenhouse warming. It should be present for warming from ANY source.
"When the surface warms, there's more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate - there's less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It's all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what's causing the warming. If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you'd still see a hot spot."
Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot
<p>Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.</p>skepticalscience.com
And the Hot Spot has been found
"...the “missing hot spot” has finally been found."
Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found
Climate models have been criticised because observations could not find the predicted “hot spot” of strong warming in the troposphere. But analyses now show that the tropospheric hot spot is indeed real.
Wrong
Wrong.
Nope.
Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c).
Have you looked at the dates in the text you posted?The NOAA doesn't accept the claims a fact you ignored which is why Sherwoods paper was savaged because it was STUPID sad that you and cartoon asshole Cook will lie away this inconvenience it is why you guys will lie when challenged but be very quiet hoping no one else sees it.
Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA)
LINK
You and dishonest SKS ignored what the IPCC specifically stated which I quoted in full:
red bolding mine
Here is the data based chart from climate4you
The initial versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases, as shown by the diagrams above. This observation gave rise to deep concern, and resulted in a number of studies (e.g. NRC 2000) where strong attempts were made to find warming in the troposphere. As new data sets have been made available and new corrections introduced, the scientific literature have witnessed a number of attempts of reconciling the modelled and the observed atmospheric warming pattern. Conflicting conclusions have, however, been reached. Some scientists conclude that a discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates still exists, while other argue that there is no longer a serious discrepancy. A few key references on this debate are represented by Lindzen 1999 and 2007, NRC 2000, Douglass et al 2007, and Santer et al 2008. Ongoing web-based discussions can be followed here and here. This debate reflects the importance of the point raised by Lindzen (1999) on monitoring temperature changes at the height in the troposphere corresponding to an infrared optical depth near 1.
View attachment 852447
Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
The three diagrams above (using data from HadAT and HadCRUT4) show the linear trend of the temperature change since 1979 between 20oN and 20oS to be ca. 0.00089oC/month at the surface, 0.00095oC/month at 300 hPa, and -0.00009oC/month at 200 hPa, corresponding to 0.10698, 0.11414 and -0.01022oC/decade, respectively (see bar chart above).
Thus, these radiosonde and surface meteorological data from the Equatorial region do not at the moment display the signature of enhanced greenhouse warming. With the observed warming rate of about 0.10698oC/decade at the surface, a warming rate of about 0.21-0.31oC/decade would have been expected at the 200 and 300 hPa levels to comply with the prognosis on this derived from the CO2 hypothesis.
LINK
What data point? The Tropospheric Hot SpotFunny that this thread runs into a single data point trying to refute an entire field of research that includes millions of those details all in order to avoid a simple fact: the thread OP and premise was an outright lie.
Yes, that is what he keeps going back to as if it refutes AGW in totality and as if it addressed the simple reality that the title is a fabrication.What data point? The Tropospheric Hot Spot
Okay. Then he missed:Yes, that is what he keeps going back to as if it refutes AGW in totality and as if it addressed the simple reality that the title is a fabrication.
link.springer.com
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www.theguardian.com
www.mdpi.com
So no different from any other interglacial period.
It’s one that’s Made in China too. Apparently American CO2 is different because it’s Per Capita CO2Man made climate change is not a "myth".
It is a scam and a religion all tied up in one.
Even L. Ron Hubbard would be zealous of this scam religion that so many yokels have fallen for.
