Interesting solar radiation data

[IanC]

Ian, what do you believe causes the tropical hotspot?

What hot spot? There is none to date.

Ian believes that they have been looking for the tropospheric hot spot in the wrong place... Rather than finding the hot spot at 6 to 14 km in altitude as the greenhouse theory predicts...Ian thinks the hot spot is actually mere millimeters off the ground.

I was one of the first here to point out and criticize the models predictions for the hot spot. And the misdirection by RealClimate who used changing scales and colours in their graphs (where your first graph originated). The hotspot is a water and convection process, obviously incorrectly modeled.

You are correct in pointing out that I believe the CO2 bottleneck is in the first ten metres from the surface. The atmosphere is warmed by the Sun, and by the surface. CO2 is the simplest to understand. All CO2 specific surface radiation is absorbed to extinction in the first ten metres. Adding or subtracting CO2 just changes the ten metre number down or up slightly. All that energy is absorbed very close to the surface and the atmosphere is warmed by thermalization when molecules collide and spread the energy around into different forms.

This is an important point! CO2 which is 100 metres up is not being excited by direct surface radiation. Not at 1000 metres or 10,000 metres either, it is all absorbed in the first 10 metres. A bottleneck, or as you put it, a hotspot.

 

[IanC]

The phase change component of water creates another method of moving energy away from the surface.

Evaporation removes surface energy, air containing water vapour is lighter and therefore rises, the temperature gradient of the atmosphere drops to the point where the water vapour condenses into clouds and precipitates, releasing the energy taken from the surface. An elevator constantly going up and down.

The models say that a warming world will evaporate more water and deposit the energy several kilometers up, causing a hotspot. Measurements disagree with the predictions, another model failure, and strong evidence that the CO2 warming influence is NOT being tripled by water feedbacks.

No feedbacks, no catastrophe.

 

[Old Rocks]

I guess that losing a lot of the residential areas in Florida is not a catastrophe if you don't live there. And spending 100's of millions of dollars on the east coast to prevent inland flooding is just normal.

Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes | Munich Re

3 March 2015 | Reinsurance

Press release
Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes
Over the past years, persistent extreme weather conditions have triggered severe natural catastrophes and caused losses in the billion range. There is a growing number of scientific studies that suggest an increase in quasi-stationary weather patterns and their correlation with the considerable rise in temperature in the Arctic due to global warming.

The current “Topics Geo 2014” publication, with its in-depth analyses and vast trove of data on the natural catastrophes of the past year, addresses this topic.

“Persistent” weather patterns can develop in winter, when outbreaks of Arctic cold-air masses in mid-latitudes over several weeks can inflict high losses regionally. In summer, stationary high- or low-pressure systems can produce heat/drought or precipitation/flooding.

Such Weather patterns, some persisting for weeks, accounted for several weather-related natural catastrophes in 2014. These included the heavy winter snowfalls and ice in many regions of the USA incurring losses in the billions, and the windstorms and floods in Great Britain in February. The generally consistent pattern of the jet stream over the eastern Pacific, North America and North Atlantic produced the frosty winter in the USA, yet a very mild winter in Europe. In its wake, twelve major winter storms swept over Great Britain and Ireland from December 2013 to mid-February 2014, also causing severe flooding.

Of course, if it happens to your neighbor, it is an inconveniance, if it happens to you, then it is a catastrophe.

 

[IanC]

I guess that losing a lot of the residential areas in Florida is not a catastrophe if you don't live there. And spending 100's of millions of dollars on the east coast to prevent inland flooding is just normal.

Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes | Munich Re

3 March 2015 | Reinsurance

Press release
Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes
Over the past years, persistent extreme weather conditions have triggered severe natural catastrophes and caused losses in the billion range. There is a growing number of scientific studies that suggest an increase in quasi-stationary weather patterns and their correlation with the considerable rise in temperature in the Arctic due to global warming.

The current “Topics Geo 2014” publication, with its in-depth analyses and vast trove of data on the natural catastrophes of the past year, addresses this topic.

“Persistent” weather patterns can develop in winter, when outbreaks of Arctic cold-air masses in mid-latitudes over several weeks can inflict high losses regionally. In summer, stationary high- or low-pressure systems can produce heat/drought or precipitation/flooding.

Such Weather patterns, some persisting for weeks, accounted for several weather-related natural catastrophes in 2014. These included the heavy winter snowfalls and ice in many regions of the USA incurring losses in the billions, and the windstorms and floods in Great Britain in February. The generally consistent pattern of the jet stream over the eastern Pacific, North America and North Atlantic produced the frosty winter in the USA, yet a very mild winter in Europe. In its wake, twelve major winter storms swept over Great Britain and Ireland from December 2013 to mid-February 2014, also causing severe flooding.

Of course, if it happens to your neighbor, it is an inconveniance, if it happens to you, then it is a catastrophe.

The IPCC produced a report on weather attribution between AR4 and AR5. It found basically nothing, so it got very little press coverage or discussion.

My concern about shoddy science in the CO2 models in no way means I want people in Florida to drown. It means I am concerned about shoddy science and false and improbable predictions of doom.

 

[SSDD]

I was one of the first here to point out and criticize the models predictions for the hot spot. And the misdirection by RealClimate who used changing scales and colours in their graphs (where your first graph originated). The hotspot is a water and convection process, obviously incorrectly modeled.

You are correct in pointing out that I believe the CO2 bottleneck is in the first ten metres from the surface. The atmosphere is warmed by the Sun, and by the surface. CO2 is the simplest to understand. All CO2 specific surface radiation is absorbed to extinction in the first ten metres. Adding or subtracting CO2 just changes the ten metre number down or up slightly. All that energy is absorbed very close to the surface and the atmosphere is warmed by thermalization when molecules collide and spread the energy around into different forms.

This is an important point! CO2 which is 100 metres up is not being excited by direct surface radiation. Not at 1000 metres or 10,000 metres either, it is all absorbed in the first 10 metres. A bottleneck, or as you put it, a hotspot.

The greenhouse hypothesis isn't wrong because of where it predicts the hot spot will be...the greenhouse hypothesis is wrong because it predicts a hot spot at all..among all its other blatant failures. It is high time that flawed hypothesis is put down and work begins on a hypothesis which can actually predict reality without ad hoc fudge factors.

 

[IanC]

I was one of the first here to point out and criticize the models predictions for the hot spot. And the misdirection by RealClimate who used changing scales and colours in their graphs (where your first graph originated). The hotspot is a water and convection process, obviously incorrectly modeled.

You are correct in pointing out that I believe the CO2 bottleneck is in the first ten metres from the surface. The atmosphere is warmed by the Sun, and by the surface. CO2 is the simplest to understand. All CO2 specific surface radiation is absorbed to extinction in the first ten metres. Adding or subtracting CO2 just changes the ten metre number down or up slightly. All that energy is absorbed very close to the surface and the atmosphere is warmed by thermalization when molecules collide and spread the energy around into different forms.

This is an important point! CO2 which is 100 metres up is not being excited by direct surface radiation. Not at 1000 metres or 10,000 metres either, it is all absorbed in the first 10 metres. A bottleneck, or as you put it, a hotspot.

The greenhouse hypothesis isn't wrong because of where it predicts the hot spot will be...the greenhouse hypothesis is wrong because it predicts a hot spot at all..among all its other blatant failures. It is high time that flawed hypothesis is put down and work begins on a hypothesis which can actually predict reality without ad hoc fudge factors.

SSDD is now denying the existence of the water cycle. No evaporation cooling the surface, no convection transporting the energy aloft, no release of energy during condensation and precipitation.

Man oh man, boy we were stupid before he came along to tell us how wrong we were.

 

[SSDD]

Man oh man, boy we were stupid before he came along to tell us how wrong we were.

not necessarily stupid...just duped....and duped bad. you believe in magic and nothing will ever convince you that you are wrong...

 

[IanC]

Man oh man, boy we were stupid before he came along to tell us how wrong we were.

not necessarily stupid...just duped....and duped bad. you believe in magic and nothing will ever convince you that you are wrong...

If more water is being evaporated by warming surface temperatures then the cloudtop area should be warming faster, according to the models. This has not been found by inspection, therefore the models are not capturing the correct physics.

Any extra energy being transported is immediately being lost to space. A failure of the models, especially when you consider that they use a much lower estimate of evaporation per degree Celsius than is provided by calculation or theory.

 

[SSDD]

If more water is being evaporated by warming surface temperatures then the cloudtop area should be warming faster, according to the models. This has not been found by inspection, therefore the models are not capturing the correct physics.

Any extra energy being transported is immediately being lost to space. A failure of the models, especially when you consider that they use a much lower estimate of evaporation per degree Celsius than is provided by calculation or theory.

You are assuming a warming surface due to more CO2...a phenomenon which isn't..and can not happen...your whole position is based on a wrong assumption...bolstered by wrong physics...but then what else is new?

 

[gipper]

I guess that losing a lot of the residential areas in Florida is not a catastrophe if you don't live there. And spending 100's of millions of dollars on the east coast to prevent inland flooding is just normal.

Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes | Munich Re

3 March 2015 | Reinsurance

Press release
Risk aggravated by persistent extreme weather conditions – “Topics GEO” analyses 2014 natural catastrophes
Over the past years, persistent extreme weather conditions have triggered severe natural catastrophes and caused losses in the billion range. There is a growing number of scientific studies that suggest an increase in quasi-stationary weather patterns and their correlation with the considerable rise in temperature in the Arctic due to global warming.

The current “Topics Geo 2014” publication, with its in-depth analyses and vast trove of data on the natural catastrophes of the past year, addresses this topic.

“Persistent” weather patterns can develop in winter, when outbreaks of Arctic cold-air masses in mid-latitudes over several weeks can inflict high losses regionally. In summer, stationary high- or low-pressure systems can produce heat/drought or precipitation/flooding.

Such Weather patterns, some persisting for weeks, accounted for several weather-related natural catastrophes in 2014. These included the heavy winter snowfalls and ice in many regions of the USA incurring losses in the billions, and the windstorms and floods in Great Britain in February. The generally consistent pattern of the jet stream over the eastern Pacific, North America and North Atlantic produced the frosty winter in the USA, yet a very mild winter in Europe. In its wake, twelve major winter storms swept over Great Britain and Ireland from December 2013 to mid-February 2014, also causing severe flooding.

Of course, if it happens to your neighbor, it is an inconveniance, if it happens to you, then it is a catastrophe.

It is quite clear (to some of us) that climate science has become most Orwellian. If you disagree with the crazy warmer consensus, your career is over. The high priests of the Church of Warmers DEMAND obedience, conformity, and compliance...if any step out of line, they are destroyed. As such, few scientists step out of line.