Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[IanC]

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

Why are you dragging CO2 into the post...he didn't say a thing about CO2...do you believe that radiation only happens in the very narrow CO2 wavelengths? Are you expanding the magical and mystic powers of CO2 now?

The only bullshit is that associated with the claim that CO2 in any way beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere affects the global climate.

Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.

We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?

 

[SSDD]

Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.

So what...water does which was the topic of his comment.

We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?

Observation supports me...what else do you need?

 

[IanC]

Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.

So what...water does which was the topic of his comment.

We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?

Observation supports me...what else do you need?

So show us these observations. Prove it.

as far as Billy Bob goes, I called him out on a bullshit statement. Prove him right, or prove me wrong. Now you are just saying that it doesn't matter. Of course lies matter.

 

[SSDD]

So show us these observations. Prove it.

as far as Billy Bob goes, I called him out on a bullshit statement. Prove him right, or prove me wrong. Now you are just saying that it doesn't matter. Of course lies matter.

Geez ian...you are becoming as dense and obtuse as crick, rocks, and the hairball...look around...pause going on what?....20+ years now...steadily increasing CO2...wake up...smell the reality...CO2 follows climate around like a puppy but has no effect on it beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

So show us these observations. Prove it.

as far as Billy Bob goes, I called him out on a bullshit statement. Prove him right, or prove me wrong. Now you are just saying that it doesn't matter. Of course lies matter.

Geez ian...you are becoming as dense and obtuse as crick, rocks, and the hairball...look around...pause going on what?....20+ years now...steadily increasing CO2...wake up...smell the reality...CO2 follows climate around like a puppy but has no effect on it beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.

I don't like saying things like this because it only encourages the warmers. Solar activity is down from the grand maximum of the end of the last century. A drop in temps would seem to be more reasonable than just a hiatus. The warmers cannot make a point of it because they are too invested in declaring solar as a non factor. To me though, it is disturbing.

 

[mamooth]

Incorrect. We've always point out solar has an effect, being that temperature tracked solar activity until about 1970.

And then, something changed.

AGW theory is the only theory that successfully explains what that something was, hence it is the accepted theory. If deniers want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data as well as AGW theory does. That's how science works. You don't get credibility just by nitpicking someone else.

 

[ding]

Incorrect. We've always point out solar has an effect, being that temperature tracked solar activity until about 1970.

And then, something changed.

AGW theory is the only theory that successfully explains what that something was, hence it is the accepted theory. If deniers want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data as well as AGW theory does. That's how science works. You don't get credibility just by nitpicking someone else.

You mean besides that they change the data or lower their estimates because their models aren't accurate?

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Billy_Bob]

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

Why are you dragging CO2 into the post...he didn't say a thing about CO2...do you believe that radiation only happens in the very narrow CO2 wavelengths? Are you expanding the magical and mystic powers of CO2 now?

The only bullshit is that associated with the claim that CO2 in any way beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere affects the global climate.

Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.

We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?

... CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....

as usual Billy Bob is totally confused and is just spouting bafflegab a la Cliff Clavin

CO2 absorbs and emits at 4 and 15 microns. the 4 micron band is ignored because there is little of that radiation incoming from solar input or outgoing from surface output. the 15 micron band is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in ~10 meters. that energy is mostly transferred to the total energy of the atmosphere because the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to re-emit the photon is more than ten times as long as the average time between molecular collisions at near surface conditions.

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.

So what...water does which was the topic of his comment.

We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?

Observation supports me...what else do you need?

So show us these observations. Prove it.

as far as Billy Bob goes, I called him out on a bullshit statement. Prove him right, or prove me wrong. Now you are just saying that it doesn't matter. Of course lies matter.

After going back and looking Ian is right. I miss stated the areas of emission and absorption in the OP post, but I was clearly correct in most (if not all the others) and in the graphing.

Sue me...

The base point I am making remains. Water vapor is very poorly understood and what we are finding out today as we study the earth empirically and document the evidence, throws the AGW theroy out the window as garbage.

The shear mass of the earths atmosphere and make up will not allow us to reach a "tipping point". The "Hot Spot" does not exist and can not due to conduction and convection enabled by water vapor.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Incorrect. We've always point out solar has an effect, being that temperature tracked solar activity until about 1970.

And then, something changed.

AGW theory is the only theory that successfully explains what that something was, hence it is the accepted theory. If deniers want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data as well as AGW theory does. That's how science works. You don't get credibility just by nitpicking someone else.

You mean besides that they change the data or lower their estimates because their models aren't accurate?

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

An upper troposphere hot spot is highly unlikely simply due to the lack of water vapor and mass. The thermal gradient barrier, at the top of the Troposphere, does not work as well as it does in much heaver mass of water. Most out bound energy is above 16um in wave length at this point and its loss is not inhibited.

We keep looking where physics tells us it can not reside....

 

[ding]

Water vapor is very poorly understood and what we are finding out today as we study the earth empirically and document the evidence, throws the AGW theroy out the window as garbage.

This is absolutely correct.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Water vapor is very poorly understood and what we are finding out today as we study the earth empirically and document the evidence, throws the AGW theroy out the window as garbage.

This is absolutely correct.

Dr Spencer hit the nail on the head with this statement:

"The trouble is that radiosonde (weather balloons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

This is an EXPECTED result with water vapor release of energy in the UT at the same gradient or some what less than that of the surface warming. The fact that it is not holding onto heat tells us there is nothing with the power, at the radiated energy wave length being emitted, to retard heat/energy loss.

BOOM... No hot spot... AGW game over!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Incorrect. We've always point out solar has an effect, being that temperature tracked solar activity until about 1970.

And then, something changed.

AGW theory is the only theory that successfully explains what that something was, hence it is the accepted theory. If deniers want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data as well as AGW theory does. That's how science works. You don't get credibility just by nitpicking someone else.

The only thing that changed was making up data to fit an agenda..

 

[IanC]

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

Why are you dragging CO2 into the post...he didn't say a thing about CO2...do you believe that radiation only happens in the very narrow CO2 wavelengths? Are you expanding the magical and mystic powers of CO2 now?

The only bullshit is that associated with the claim that CO2 in any way beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere affects the global climate.

Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.

We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?

... CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....

as usual Billy Bob is totally confused and is just spouting bafflegab a la Cliff Clavin

CO2 absorbs and emits at 4 and 15 microns. the 4 micron band is ignored because there is little of that radiation incoming from solar input or outgoing from surface output. the 15 micron band is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in ~10 meters. that energy is mostly transferred to the total energy of the atmosphere because the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to re-emit the photon is more than ten times as long as the average time between molecular collisions at near surface conditions.

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.

So what...water does which was the topic of his comment.

We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?

Observation supports me...what else do you need?

So show us these observations. Prove it.

as far as Billy Bob goes, I called him out on a bullshit statement. Prove him right, or prove me wrong. Now you are just saying that it doesn't matter. Of course lies matter.

After going back and looking Ian is right. I miss stated the areas of emission and absorption in the OP post, but I was clearly correct in most (if not all the others) and in the graphing.

Sue me...

The base point I am making remains. Water vapor is very poorly understood and what we are finding out today as we study the earth empirically and document the evidence, throws the AGW theroy out the window as garbage.

The shear mass of the earths atmosphere and make up will not allow us to reach a "tipping point". The "Hot Spot" does not exist and can not due to conduction and convection enabled by water vapor.

I agree. the influence of CO2 is dwarfed by the uncertainty in our understanding of the water cycle. pointing out and focussing on clouds etc is a much better skeptical strategy than insane denial of CO2 having any effect at all

 

[Crick]

Most out bound energy is above 16um in wave length at this point and its loss is not inhibited.

Bullshit

Outbound energy peaks at about 12 microns. Most is NOT above 16. The bulk of out bound is NOT picked up by H2O but IS picked up by the 12-16 micron band of CO2.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Most out bound energy is above 16um in wave length at this point and its loss is not inhibited.

Bullshit

Outbound energy peaks at about 12 microns. Most is NOT above 16. The bulk of out bound is NOT picked up by H2O but IS picked up by the 12-16 micron band of CO2.

lol.. Show me this magical link in empirical evidence.. IF it were true, a hot spot must manifest itself. I have shown that CO2 does not uptake that heat and water does by empirical evidence..

Tell me Crick, what defines the wavelength of the energy when emitted?

 

[Crick]

To what do you want a link? The absorption spectra of those gases? The spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation? Do you think these are all unknowns?

I don't give diddly shit about a hot spot. ANY warming will produce one. What I care about is stratospheric cooling. That has always been my position and that of others here not interested in pushing lies (like the necessity of a tropospheric hot spot).

Give us a cause for the stratospheric cooling we see nearly world wide that doesn't involve greenhouse warming Mr Atmospheric Physicist.

PS: Vibrational modes

 

[SSDD]

To what do you want a link? The absorption spectra of those gases? The spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation? Do you think these are all unknowns?

You have been asked repeatedly crick...actual experimental evidence that absorption and emission equals heating....

I don't give diddly shit about a hot spot. ANY warming will produce one.

If absorption and emission equaled heating, the hotspot would be clear and evident...and it would be growing larger and warmer...since it isn't, it is clear that absorption and emission do not equal warming....therefore the hypothesis is falsified and has been for a very long time...why is it still around if not because of political and monetary support?


As to the rest... The stratosphere stopped cooling in 1993, and began warming again around 10 years ago. Oddly enough, around 10 years ago is when some of the signs of a new cooling cycle began to appear

If, and it is a large if the cooling of the stratosphere really was due to greenhouse gasses, the lack of any further cooling since is strong evidence that the pause is real which also calls the AGW hypothesis into question since CO2 has been steadily increasing....

 

[Crick]

To what do you want a link? The absorption spectra of those gases? The spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation? Do you think these are all unknowns?

You have been asked repeatedly crick...actual experimental evidence that absorption and emission equals heating....

HAHAHAHaaahaahaahaaa.... what a fool you are.

I don't give diddly shit about a hot spot. ANY warming will produce one.

If absorption and emission equaled heating, the hotspot would be clear and evident...and it would be growing larger and warmer...since it isn't, it is clear that absorption and emission do not equal warming....therefore the hypothesis is falsified and has been for a very long time...why is it still around if not because of political and monetary support?

That explains 2K temperature of the surface of the Earth. Man, you're both stupid and twisted so bad you can't see straight.

As to the rest... The stratosphere stopped cooling in 1993, and began warming again around 10 years ago. Oddly enough, around 10 years ago is when some of the signs of a new cooling cycle began to appear

If, and it is a large if the cooling of the stratosphere really was due to greenhouse gasses, the lack of any further cooling since is strong evidence that the pause is real which also calls the AGW hypothesis into question since CO2 has been steadily increasing....

You are such a fucking idiot.

 

[SSDD]

To what do you want a link? The absorption spectra of those gases? The spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation? Do you think these are all unknowns?

You have been asked repeatedly crick...actual experimental evidence that absorption and emission equals heating....

HAHAHAHaaahaahaahaaa.... what a fool you are.

I don't give diddly shit about a hot spot. ANY warming will produce one.

If absorption and emission equaled heating, the hotspot would be clear and evident...and it would be growing larger and warmer...since it isn't, it is clear that absorption and emission do not equal warming....therefore the hypothesis is falsified and has been for a very long time...why is it still around if not because of political and monetary support?

That explains 2K temperature of the surface of the Earth. Man, you're both stupid and twisted so bad you can't see straight.

As to the rest... The stratosphere stopped cooling in 1993, and began warming again around 10 years ago. Oddly enough, around 10 years ago is when some of the signs of a new cooling cycle began to appear

If, and it is a large if the cooling of the stratosphere really was due to greenhouse gasses, the lack of any further cooling since is strong evidence that the pause is real which also calls the AGW hypothesis into question since CO2 has been steadily increasing....

You are such a fucking idiot.

Newsflash crick...your graph support my comment...you really should go to the local community college and see if they have a basic class in graph reading....

 

[Crick]

That graph does NOT support your comment. It clearly shows warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere. The latter is commonplace in a world warming for any reason while the latter is produced ONLY by greeenhouse warming. If you think you have some other explanation for those data, let's hear it whizbrain.