Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis...

[Billy_Bob]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

 

[Weatherman2020]

But AOC says.....

 

[Crepitus]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Kinda serta off topic BUT...…….what say you about a pole shift or wander and it's effects on changing weather conditions? Just wonderin


Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

LOL....

Paper was discredited as their MODELING was flawed and created the "heat". The paper was subsequently retracted. When the model was placed against empirical evidence it failed miserably. I find it funny that you would even attempt to use this as it is thoroughly discredited, even in major scientific journals.

LOL..... Your quoting SKS (Skepticalshitscience)

 

[Billy_Bob]

So lets look at why the hot spot does not exist.

In the Hadley Cell there are eddies and abrupt flows which are caused by thermoclines within the atmosphere and pressure cells, which do not allow the formation of any single warm region. These obstacles cause rapid down flows and rapid up flows in the air, within the cell.

The overall cell itself is massive:

IMG Source: Hadley Cell - Windows to the Universe

The Mid-tropospheric Hot Spot is supposed to be here:

Empirical Evidence shows that it does not exist:

IMG Source: Dr David Evans

Now on to why it does not exist... It is the Micro Cells within the Hadley Cell that keep this from happening as they can dissipate the heat energy in seconds. In my next post we will address these Micro Cells.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In understanding Micro Cells we use the average thunderstorm as it is a Micro Cell;

IMG Source:Thunderstorm Formation - Windows to the Universe

A; Is the warming stage where the earths surface is warmed and an updraft occurs. IF there is water vapor it will create clouds. As this rises it cools. This is the region of the atmosphere where the Mid-troposphere hot spot is to occur.

B; Is where heat energy is released as LWIR greater than 20um. The water re-nucleates as precipitation and the cold dry air begins to fall rapidly pulling the droplets with it. In some cases the border between the two flows is pronounced and water re-enters the up draft and is frozen creating hail stones.

C; Is where the area has cooled sufficiently to slow or stop the updraft and the storm dissipates.

This Micro Cell moves rapidly releasing massive amounts of energy that can not be impeded by CO2.

In my next post I will show how these flows interact and make it impossible for a hot spot to exist.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In the tropics you have a point where both Hadley cells are in an updraft (A; in the previous post). this along with heating of the ocean surface causes a rapid rise in air. This circulation is enhanced by earths rotation. Inside these updrafts, micro cells form causing wind shear due to rapid down flows. This slows the rolling of the bigger cell. This disruption allows the heat/energy from the micro-cells to be dissipated above the cloud boundary and in a colder region, in a wavelength which is longer in length than CO2 can impede.

This simple Micro Cell causes the heat/energy to be released before it can be returned to the earths surface and stops the formation of any hot spot within the atmosphere. Micro cells are always in groups of two. One hot and wet, one cold and dry. Place hundreds of thousands of these in the equatorial region and you then understand why water vapor content is not increasing and why heat is not being built up.

Thus no hot spot exists. There is more cooling in this region as the empirical evidence shows.

It is, simply put, the physics of our atmosphere self regulating the temperature through water vapor. This is why the earth has withstood levels of CO2 above 7000ppm and never had a runaway temperature problem. The lag is just 10-20 years and it always regulates itself away from heating up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

IN the empirical data there is actually a cooling of the area the IPCC says it should be warming. This is due to the Micro Cell functions of this region.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Kinda serta off topic BUT...…….what say you about a pole shift or wander and it's effects on changing weather conditions? Just wonderin


Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis - Wikipedia

Using Wiki as a source is questionable as the information is unreliable and at best deceptive.

Pole Shifts can induce glaciation as the paleo record shows. But shifts in solar output are more common and can happen in very short time spans.

 

[Oddball]

soph

 

[Crepitus]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

LOL....

Paper was discredited as their MODELING was flawed and created the "heat". The paper was subsequently retracted. When the model was placed against empirical evidence it failed miserably. I find it funny that you would even attempt to use this as it is thoroughly discredited, even in major scientific journals.

LOL..... Your quoting SKS (Skepticalshitscience)

Prove it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

LOL....

Paper was discredited as their MODELING was flawed and created the "heat". The paper was subsequently retracted. When the model was placed against empirical evidence it failed miserably. I find it funny that you would even attempt to use this as it is thoroughly discredited, even in major scientific journals.

LOL..... Your quoting SKS (Skepticalshitscience)

Prove it.

I already did by this thread... Epic Fail...

 

[Crepitus]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

LOL....

Paper was discredited as their MODELING was flawed and created the "heat". The paper was subsequently retracted. When the model was placed against empirical evidence it failed miserably. I find it funny that you would even attempt to use this as it is thoroughly discredited, even in major scientific journals.

LOL..... Your quoting SKS (Skepticalshitscience)

Prove it.

I already did by this thread... Epic Fail...

So, I'm just supposed to take your word for it?

Well that's not happening, you are a bloody tRumpkin after all.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

LOL....

Paper was discredited as their MODELING was flawed and created the "heat". The paper was subsequently retracted. When the model was placed against empirical evidence it failed miserably. I find it funny that you would even attempt to use this as it is thoroughly discredited, even in major scientific journals.

LOL..... Your quoting SKS (Skepticalshitscience)

Prove it.

I already did by this thread... Epic Fail...

So, I'm just supposed to take your word for it?

Well that's not happening, you are a bloody tRumpkin after all.

You have refuted nothing and offered nothing...

More alarmist bloviation of baseless drivel.... Tell me how you missed the papers on which this is based (I included a link to it)? they are peer reviewed and published.
Satellite bulk tropospheric temperatures as a metric for climate sensitivity
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1


Even your own link and then the subsequent link to the actual paper show your fantasy as a fallacious argument.

"Satellite sounders available since 1979 can provide some constraint on the vertical variation of warming, but only in the form of broad weighted averages that span much of the troposphere and/or stratosphere. These data have been interpreted as indicating too little warming trend in the upper compared to the lower troposphere (Fu et al 2011, Po-Chedley and Fu 2012) and one satellite product shows less warming in the atmosphere than at the surface (Christy et al 2010)."

Source:Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

In other words; the satellites and the hard measurement sounders disprove their work. And its right in the re-submitted paper which they ignored. The article states that they used no models yet the paper clearly states they did... I love this kind of deception..

 

[SSDD]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Imagine that....a "hot spot" that can't be measured by thermometer but only by an anemometer..and then only with extensive "reevaluation" of the million radiosondes that said that there was no hot spot.

Are you really that stupid and gullible?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Imagine that....a "hot spot" that can't be measured by thermometer but only by an anemometer..and then only with extensive "reevaluation" of the million radiosondes that said that there was no hot spot.

Are you really that stupid and gullible?

He is part of the revisionist movement that changes the data when it doesn't fit his agenda. I dont believe he is gullible, its more like intentionally deceptive.

Homogenization is done by modeling as are derivative calculations....

Yet "no model was used"... ....

 

[Crepitus]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Imagine that....a "hot spot" that can't be measured by thermometer but only by an anemometer..and then only with extensive "reevaluation" of the million radiosondes that said that there was no hot spot.

Are you really that stupid and gullible?

He is part of the revisionist movement that changes the data when it doesn't fit his agenda. I dont believe he is gullible, its more like intentionally deceptive.

Homogenization is done by modeling as are derivative calculations....

Yet "no model was used"... ....

Smh

 

[SSDD]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Imagine that....a "hot spot" that can't be measured by thermometer but only by an anemometer..and then only with extensive "reevaluation" of the million radiosondes that said that there was no hot spot.

Are you really that stupid and gullible?

He is part of the revisionist movement that changes the data when it doesn't fit his agenda. I dont believe he is gullible, its more like intentionally deceptive.

Homogenization is done by modeling as are derivative calculations....

Yet "no model was used"... ....

Smh

Not much of a defense of your position...sucks when you have to rely on belief and trust in someone you don't really know, doesn't it? Leaves you in a position of not being able to actually defend your position...it makes your ignorance on the topic obvious to anyone who is looking...it highlights the fact that you really don't know anything at all about the topic...and makes it clear that you have no informed opinion of your own....simply an opinion given to you by someone with a political agenda.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why The Tropospheric Hot Spot does not exist and AGW fails as a Hypothesis..

This thread is designed to talk about the conduction and convection cycle. It is to show why CO2 can not cause runaway warming and why the CO2 hypothesis fails.

"Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.

Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.

Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming."

The reason that CO2 can not cause runaway warming is in the atmospheric process.

First some history on the IPCC hypothesis... The IPCC states that CO2 will trap heat in the mid troposphere, above the equatorial regions, where increased temperature and water vapor will redirect heat energy to the surface. The problem is the equatorial regions are not warming and water vapor is not increasing due to CO2 rise. In my next post I will discuss the close proximity flows within the Hadley cells and why this is not occurring.

Sorry kid, the found it back in 2015.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Imagine that....a "hot spot" that can't be measured by thermometer but only by an anemometer..and then only with extensive "reevaluation" of the million radiosondes that said that there was no hot spot.

Are you really that stupid and gullible?

"a "hot spot" that can't be measured by thermometer but only by an anemometer.."

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how they made this jump. I understand the hypothesis that wind movement causes friction and that can be measured by a model. But now were talking energy created in the wind not stored from solar input. They are measuring a product of solar energy imbalance not 'stored energy' and most certainly not something caused by AGW.