Evidence supporting AGW

[Crick]

So, you can't answer the question. So you have no idea what CO2 does with the climate.

You never intended that the question be answered and never had the slightest interest in a response. I have lots of ideas about the effect of CO2 on our climate. They are all backed by mountains of experimental and observational evidence and I share them with (in fact I source them from) the vast majority of the world's climate scientists. The greenhouse effect has been "settled science" for nigh on 200 years. That humans have been the source for every bit of the CO2 in our atmosphere above 280 ppm is incontestable.

So infact you have nothing of value to add.

I have added extensive links to peer reviewed research and publications supporting the mainstream position: that AGW is a valid description of the climate's response to human GHG emissions. To my knowledge neither of you two have ever provided a link to a SINGLE peer reviewed paper supporting your position. I realize the primary reason for that shortcoming is fundamental: there are likely NO peer reviewed papers in publication which support the "position" you two take.

Why woudn't the CO2 be mostly human since there billions of us here living and breathing.

Another demonstration of your ignorance: your extreme ignorance.

The issue is you can't prove anything.

The issue is that the two of you are so stupid you've chosen to oppose the position of mainstream science despite having no supporting evidence and no understanding of how even basic science is supposed to work. THAT is the issue.

By direct, isotopic testing, 120 ppm of the CO2 in our atmosphere was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. I'm sorry if that exotic, high-falutin' point is just way over your pathetic little heads, but them's the facts. The added CO2 IS from humans and NOT from us breathing, you abysmally pathetics twits.

You have a philosophy which in itself is very flawed since they admit it.

I and others have told you and others, on numerous occasions, that the study of the natural sciences does not involve PROOF and that you mark yourselves as scientifically ignorant by your persistent demands for it. My philosophy has a name. It's called The Scientific Method. I understand you believe it to be flawed. Unfortunately you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about and are as wrong as wrong can be. If you want to reject the scientific method, you'd better grab a good stick and head naked into the woods cause that's more than a flat out rejection of the scientific method will leave you.

Again, what you fail to realize is that there is no evidence to support any of your claims.

I'd accuse you of ignorance were I not completely certain this is a willful lie. Why don't you visit the first, second, third, fourth and fifth assessment reports of the IPCC at www.ipccc.ch and explain to us why all those thousands of pages of material, of graphs, of links and references to thousands of peer reviewed studies - why you believe none of that to be "evidence"?

And right, I do not believe the science!!!!! You know why? Because the science doesn't even recognize itself since proof is unavailable.

No one doubts your ignorance gentlemen. There's really no need for further demonstrations.

Had someone merely documented what 120 PPM of CO2 does with temperature, simple little fnnnnnnn experiment.

Mythbusters did it. Your children have done it at school. The experiment was first performed in the mid 1800s. It's been posted here repeatedly. You just choose to lie about it. I guess you think you've got enough invested into your position that it's worth the destruction of your own reputation and personal honor to lie to us all over and over and over again when NO ONE - not even anyone on your side of the argument - thinks you're telling the truth. EVERYONE here knows you're lying. But you seem to be okay with that.

Wow!!!!!!!! So you don't even know what the correct temperature of earth should be. How then do you know it's too warm?

The desired temperature for the Earth is one within the range within which human culture developed, within which human infrastructure was build, within which humans located themselves vis-a-vis the coasts, crops, water supplies, desirable climates and the like. And any changes would be best to take place at the glacial pace of natural change vice the unprecedented pace of current change.

Gigantor to the window please!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, Gigantor is really cute and he looks so earnest. But a reliance on cartoons to make your points is not going to help your tattered reputations. It only identifies the chronological points where your respective intellectual developments came to a screeching halt.

 

[itfitzme]

[
The first 2 charts by themselves are pointless.

The third, once again, shows that CO2 increase DO NOT DRIVE CLIMATE!!!

Look at the 1,800m mark CO2 spikes and temperatures promptly collapse.

AGWCult Theory = FAIL

Well, not really.

 

[Crick]

What collapses is any contention that Frank can add 2 + 2 and come up with 4.

Frank, have you ever noticed that mainstream science has never denied that warming temperatures have increased atmospheric CO2 levels on many occasions? No one is denying that. What is denied is your claim that somehow that's the only process that can take place; that greenhouse warming just doesn't exist in Frank's world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Old Rocks charts

Notice temperature collapse AFTER CO2 peaks. According to the AGWCult, that should be physically impossible because CO2 DRIVES the climate

Their own charts out them as liars and gullible and stupid

 

[Crick]

No one has EVER claimed that was impossible. It has been mainstream science that brought you that data and told you what it showed.

There are TWO processes taking place:

1) As global temperatures increase, gases, including CO2, come OUT of solution in the ocean just like the bubbles in a warm Coke. This is the temperature dependence of gas solubility.
2) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation that a warmed surface (land and sea) try to radiate to space, thus trapping it in the atmosphere where roughly half of it will eventually come back to the surface. This is greenhouse warming.

Both processes are completely independent of each other. Both are quite real. To continue, as you have been doing, to claim that because one occurs, the other cannot, is just to once more demonstrate your prejudice and your ignorance. PLEASE put your thinking cap on for the 5 seconds it would take someone in command of normal senses to realize the truth of what we've been trying to tell you.

 

[jc456]

So, you can't answer the question. So you have no idea what CO2 does with the climate.

You never intended that the question be answered and never had the slightest interest in a response. I have lots of ideas about the effect of CO2 on our climate. They are all backed by mountains of experimental and observational evidence and I share them with (in fact I source them from) the vast majority of the world's climate scientists. The greenhouse effect has been "settled science" for nigh on 200 years. That humans have been the source for every bit of the CO2 in our atmosphere above 280 ppm is incontestable.

So infact you have nothing of value to add.

I have added extensive links to peer reviewed research and publications supporting the mainstream position: that AGW is a valid description of the climate's response to human GHG emissions. To my knowledge neither of you two have ever provided a link to a SINGLE peer reviewed paper supporting your position. I realize the primary reason for that shortcoming is fundamental: there are likely NO peer reviewed papers in publication which support the "position" you two take.



Another demonstration of your ignorance: your extreme ignorance.



The issue is that the two of you are so stupid you've chosen to oppose the position of mainstream science despite having no supporting evidence and no understanding of how even basic science is supposed to work. THAT is the issue.

By direct, isotopic testing, 120 ppm of the CO2 in our atmosphere was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. I'm sorry if that exotic, high-falutin' point is just way over your pathetic little heads, but them's the facts. The added CO2 IS from humans and NOT from us breathing, you abysmally pathetics twits.



I and others have told you and others, on numerous occasions, that the study of the natural sciences does not involve PROOF and that you mark yourselves as scientifically ignorant by your persistent demands for it. My philosophy has a name. It's called The Scientific Method. I understand you believe it to be flawed. Unfortunately you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about and are as wrong as wrong can be. If you want to reject the scientific method, you'd better grab a good stick and head naked into the woods cause that's more than a flat out rejection of the scientific method will leave you.



I'd accuse you of ignorance were I not completely certain this is a willful lie. Why don't you visit the first, second, third, fourth and fifth assessment reports of the IPCC at www.ipccc.ch and explain to us why all those thousands of pages of material, of graphs, of links and references to thousands of peer reviewed studies - why you believe none of that to be "evidence"?



No one doubts your ignorance gentlemen. There's really no need for further demonstrations.



Mythbusters did it. Your children have done it at school. The experiment was first performed in the mid 1800s. It's been posted here repeatedly. You just choose to lie about it. I guess you think you've got enough invested into your position that it's worth the destruction of your own reputation and personal honor to lie to us all over and over and over again when NO ONE - not even anyone on your side of the argument - thinks you're telling the truth. EVERYONE here knows you're lying. But you seem to be okay with that.

Wow!!!!!!!! So you don't even know what the correct temperature of earth should be. How then do you know it's too warm?

The desired temperature for the Earth is one within the range within which human culture developed, within which human infrastructure was build, within which humans located themselves vis-a-vis the coasts, crops, water supplies, desirable climates and the like. And any changes would be best to take place at the glacial pace of natural change vice the unprecedented pace of current change.

Gigantor to the window please!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, Gigantor is really cute and he looks so earnest. But a reliance on cartoons to make your points is not going to help your tattered reputations. It only identifies the chronological points where your respective intellectual developments came to a screeching halt.

Back to groundhog day with you, eh? Again the mythbuster experiment addressed in a different thread, no need to rehash and you still have nothing. None, not one high school experiment, not one. You have nothing sir, listen your alarm just went off and there is Sonny and Cher singing.

And Gigantor soars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one has EVER claimed that was impossible. It has been mainstream science that brought you that data and told you what it showed.

There are TWO processes taking place:

1) As global temperatures increase, gases, including CO2, come OUT of solution in the ocean just like the bubbles in a warm Coke. This is the temperature dependence of gas solubility.
2) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation that a warmed surface (land and sea) try to radiate to space, thus trapping it in the atmosphere where roughly half of it will eventually come back to the surface. This is greenhouse warming.

Both processes are completely independent of each other. Both are quite real. To continue, as you have been doing, to claim that because one occurs, the other cannot, is just to once more demonstrate your prejudice and your ignorance. PLEASE put your thinking cap on for the 5 seconds it would take someone in command of normal senses to realize the truth of what we've been trying to tell you.

Are you calling Old Rocks chart total bullshit?

Start with 320,000. Temps up, CO2 up. All that ocean venting of CO2....and temperatures collapse? What? How? Why is OR chart a denier??

 

[Kosh]

It'd be almost sad were you not such an unabidable jerk.

So in other words you have no real science to back your religious beliefs.

Still waiting for that link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

 

[SSDD]

No one has EVER claimed that was impossible. It has been mainstream science that brought you that data and told you what it showed.

There are TWO processes taking place:

1) As global temperatures increase, gases, including CO2, come OUT of solution in the ocean just like the bubbles in a warm Coke. This is the temperature dependence of gas solubility.
2) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation that a warmed surface (land and sea) try to radiate to space, thus trapping it in the atmosphere where roughly half of it will eventually come back to the surface. This is greenhouse warming.

So where is the tropospheric hot spot demanded by that sort of energy movement? It has to be there or the hypothesis trips over its shoelaces and falls on its face...Where is it at. Half a million radiosondes say that it isn't there. No such process is happening...Get yourself another hypothesis...that one has failed. Only tremendous amounts of money and media support are keeping it alive.

 

[SSDD]

Come on crick...according to you, and climate pseudoscience, the atmosphere is absorbing radiation that warmed ocean and land masses are trying to radiate out into space...that radiation is being trapped in the atmosphere....

WHERE IS THE HOT SPOT THAT SUCH AN ENERGY TRANSFER WOULD INEVETABLY CAUSE???

A million or more radiosondes sent up since the 1960's say conclusively that there is no tropospheric hot spot...the satellites don't see a hot spot...but the models and the greenhouse hypothesis demand that it be there...Where is it if the hypothesis is valid?

 

[Crick]

The issue of the tropospheric hotspot bears no relevance to the point under discussion. CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR.

The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it's more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.

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.

There's a figure in the IPCC 4th Assessment report that shows the "temperature signature" expected from the various forcings that drive climate. This figure is frequently misinterpreted. Let's have a close look:

Figure 1: Atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1990 from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) greenhouse gases, (d) ozone, (e) sulfate aerosols and (f) sum of all forcing (IPCC AR4).

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

What about a long-term hot spot? With short-term observations confirming our understanding of the lapse rate, that leaves spurious long-term biases as the most likely culprit. However, as observations improve, if it turns out the long-term hot spot is not as strong as expected, the main question will be why do we see a short-term hot spot but not a long-term hot spot?

There's no tropospheric hot spot

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The issue of the tropospheric hotspot bears no relevance to the point under discussion. CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR.

The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it's more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.

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.

There's a figure in the IPCC 4th Assessment report that shows the "temperature signature" expected from the various forcings that drive climate. This figure is frequently misinterpreted. Let's have a close look:

Figure 1: Atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1990 from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) greenhouse gases, (d) ozone, (e) sulfate aerosols and (f) sum of all forcing (IPCC AR4).

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

What about a long-term hot spot? With short-term observations confirming our understanding of the lapse rate, that leaves spurious long-term biases as the most likely culprit. However, as observations improve, if it turns out the long-term hot spot is not as strong as expected, the main question will be why do we see a short-term hot spot but not a long-term hot spot?

There's no tropospheric hot spot

CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures

The fish won't dissolve in the ocean?

That's a relief.

 

[SSDD]

The issue of the tropospheric hotspot bears no relevance to the point under discussion. CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR.

Actually bulwinkle, it is the central issue and bears every relevance to the point under discussion...if, in fact, the additional CO2 is absorbing IR and preventing it from radiating out to space as you say, there would, in fact, be a hot spot in the troposphere..it would be the smoking gun...the fingerprint proving the hypothesis...it doesn't exist therefore what you claim to be happening isn't....and the hypothesis fails.

By the way, your excuse for no hot spot is as idiotic as the couple of dozen excuses for the fact that it isn't still warming...you have been fooled...you have been used...you are a dupe...you are a useful idiot...and you are too damned dumb to even know it or consider how badly you have been taken advantage of.

 

[Crick]

The number of gross and fundamental errors you maintain regarding numerous areas of basic physics disqualify you from expressing a worthwhile opinion on diddly squat. John Christy is one of the better qualified deniers you've got and his opinion is that the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between short and long term observations is measurement uncertainty - NOT a failure of AGW. The article I quoted referenced ten peer reviewed studies on this topic. You've not referenced one.

Why don't you get back to us when you grow a pair, intellectually speaking.

Ian - do you really want to encourage SSDD? Do you really want us to think you agree with any of his physics misconceptions?

 

[itfitzme]

It'd be almost sad were you not such an unabidable jerk.

So in other words you have no real science to back your religious beliefs.

Still waiting for that link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Odd becausebi already gave you that. All you do is repeat the same few statements, ad nausium. Try changing records.

 

[jc456]

It'd be almost sad were you not such an unabidable jerk.

So in other words you have no real science to back your religious beliefs.

Still waiting for that link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Odd becausebi already gave you that. All you do is repeat the same few statements, ad nausium. Try changing records.

Woooo, bubba, you have evidence? Wow let's see it, you know the one that shows that 120 PPM drives temperatures. Oh haven't you been reading all of the other threads in here? If you are, then you'll realize, you don't have any evidence, so ........LoSiNg

 

[SSDD]

The number of gross and fundamental errors you maintain regarding numerous areas of basic physics disqualify you from expressing a worthwhile opinion on diddly squat. John Christy is one of the better qualified deniers you've got and his opinion is that the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between short and long term observations is measurement uncertainty - NOT a failure of AGW. The article I quoted referenced ten peer reviewed studies on this topic. You've not referenced one.

Why don't you get back to us when you grow a pair, intellectually speaking.

Ian - do you really want to encourage SSDD? Do you really want us to think you agree with any of his physics misconceptions?

Sure you won't mind if I don't put much credence in the opinion of a poser, obviously pretending to be an ocean engineer. Sad and pathetic...being so embarrassed about whatever you are that you feel the need to pretend to be something you aren't to a bunch of strangers you will never meet.

Sad...damned sad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The issue of the tropospheric hotspot bears no relevance to the point under discussion. CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR.

The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it's more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.

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.

There's a figure in the IPCC 4th Assessment report that shows the "temperature signature" expected from the various forcings that drive climate. This figure is frequently misinterpreted. Let's have a close look:

Figure 1: Atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1990 from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) greenhouse gases, (d) ozone, (e) sulfate aerosols and (f) sum of all forcing (IPCC AR4).

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

What about a long-term hot spot? With short-term observations confirming our understanding of the lapse rate, that leaves spurious long-term biases as the most likely culprit. However, as observations improve, if it turns out the long-term hot spot is not as strong as expected, the main question will be why do we see a short-term hot spot but not a long-term hot spot?

There's no tropospheric hot spot

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot.

AGWCult models predict...AGW.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The number of gross and fundamental errors you maintain regarding numerous areas of basic physics disqualify you from expressing a worthwhile opinion on diddly squat. John Christy is one of the better qualified deniers you've got and his opinion is that the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between short and long term observations is measurement uncertainty - NOT a failure of AGW. The article I quoted referenced ten peer reviewed studies on this topic. You've not referenced one.

Why don't you get back to us when you grow a pair, intellectually speaking.

Ian - do you really want to encourage SSDD? Do you really want us to think you agree with any of his physics misconceptions?

Sure you won't mind if I don't put much credence in the opinion of a poser, obviously pretending to be an ocean engineer. Sad and pathetic...being so embarrassed about whatever you are that you feel the need to pretend to be something you aren't to a bunch of strangers you will never meet.

Sad...damned sad.

Hey Robin. Hope you're feeling better.

 

[Crick]

The number of gross and fundamental errors you maintain regarding numerous areas of basic physics disqualify you from expressing a worthwhile opinion on diddly squat. John Christy is one of the better qualified deniers you've got and his opinion is that the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between short and long term observations is measurement uncertainty - NOT a failure of AGW. The article I quoted referenced ten peer reviewed studies on this topic. You've not referenced one.

Why don't you get back to us when you grow a pair, intellectually speaking.

Ian - do you really want to encourage SSDD? Do you really want us to think you agree with any of his physics misconceptions?

Sure you won't mind if I don't put much credence in the opinion of a poser, obviously pretending to be an ocean engineer. Sad and pathetic...being so embarrassed about whatever you are that you feel the need to pretend to be something you aren't to a bunch of strangers you will never meet.

Sad...damned sad.

Hey Robin. Hope you're feeling better.

How about John Christy? Do you believe him to be a "poser"?