Global Warming Skeptics

Full Version: Tropospheric Hot Spot report
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

What is the Troposphere "Hotspot"?


The IPCC 2007 report in this SECTION,shows a charted set of modeling runs that purports to examine the level of warm forcing in the Tropical Troposphere.

It was taken from Santer et al. 2003.Where they show based on their AGW hypothesis beliefs.That it is Well mixed greenhouse gases that would cause the "Tropospheric Hotspot".

True the IPCC did not use the phrase Tropospheric HOTSPOT.But they sure imply it strongly and based on their Greenhouse forcing hypothesis.

[Image: figure-9-1.jpeg]

Quote:Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, © well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

To show that they are advocating the distinct warming of the Troposphere due to greenhouse gases.I quote again from the IPCC report:

Quote:Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c).

This means that 4 years ago they tell us we should be seeing a clear warming in this area.But for some reason they spend all their time talking about modeling runs,but not about actual temperature data.

Before we go to empirical temperature data.I would like to hammer home what the IPCC themselves say about the charts I have posted above.The chart is also in the link posted below.It is a detailed explanation of the chart in question.


Quote:9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the
Response to Different Forcings and their
Uncertainties Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Response
The ability to distinguish between climate responses to
different external forcing factors in observations depends
on the extent to which those responses are distinct (see, e.g.,
Section and Appendix 9.A). Figure 9.1 illustrates the
zonal average temperature response in the PCM model (see
Table 8.1 for model details) to several different forcing agents
over the last 100 years, while Figure 9.2 illustrates the zonal
average temperature response in the Commonwealth Scientifi c
and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) atmospheric
model (when coupled to a simple mixed layer ocean model) to
fossil fuel black carbon and organic matter, and to the combined
effect of these forcings together with biomass burning aerosols
(Penner et al., 2007). These fi gures indicate that the modelled
vertical and zonal average signature of the temperature response
should depend on the forcings. The major features shown in
Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models. On the
other hand, the response to black carbon forcing has not been
widely examined and therefore the features in Figure 9.2 may
be model dependent. Nevertheless, the response to black carbon
forcings appears to be small.

The next paragraph is quite specific.That it is the "well mixed greenhouse gases" that is the source of the modeled Tropospheric warming signature.To support the AGW hypothesis:

Quote:Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in
the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient
simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the
NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface
response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure
9.1c). The spatial pattern of the transient surface temperature
response to greenhouse gas forcing also typically exhibits a
land-sea pattern of stronger warming over land, for the same
reason (e.g., Cubasch et al., 2001).


Starting on page 674.


Has the expected modeled warming of the Troposphere,showed up in actual data?

Since they make it clear using modeling run from 1890 to 1999,showing that a "hot spot" in the mid Troposphere should show up.To support the AGW hypothesis.It would make sense to look at the temperature data to see if it is there.

Based on this LINK.It is on page 116 in the link.

Based on the link.We see the HadAT2 radiosonde data on a chart.

The chart is below in comparison to the well mixed greenhouse gas model C:

[Image: hot-spot-model-predicted.gif]

To continue the examination of the temperature data.Lets take a look at these following charts.They are from HERE.

In the link.Click on Global Temperatures.Then Global Temperature Trends.

This is the Radiosonde data for the region 20North to 20South.The Tropics region,

[Image: HadAT%20200hPa%2020N-20S%20MonthlyTempSi...verage.gif]


[Image: HadAT%20300hPa%2020N-20S%20MonthlyTempSi...verage.gif]

This is the Satellite data,for the region 20North to 20South.The Tropics region

[Image: OLR%20Equator%20NOAA%20and%20UAH%20MSU%2...201979.gif]

As shown it is flat,barely warming and flat again with the Satellite data.

The Tropospheric "hotspot" is not showing up.

In conjunction with the Tropospheric "hotspot" claims being made by the 2007 IPCC report.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis believers have also have stated that a Stratospheric Cooling is evidence of the CO2 Greenhouse warming effect.That they post temperature charts to bolster that claim.

Quoting again from the IPCC report:

Quote:Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c).

bolding mine

Unfortunately valid Stratosphere temperature charts are not supporting their claim of a cooling trend either.Not since about 1993 anyway.That is now 18 years.While the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been rising all this time.

This is from the METOFFICE:

[Image: global_upper_air.png]

The next chart was given to me by someone who believes that increasing CO2 levels is causing the stratosphere temperature decline and specifically said so.Unfortunately for him, it shows the same lack of cooling since the early 1990's.Not only that it shows a possible Volcano spike and then subsequent decline of temperatures to a new lower level than before the volcano eruptions.

Large Volcanic eruptions maybe causing some of the cooling of the Stratosphere AFTER the initial upward spike?

The first chart shows it too.

[Image: stratosphere_temp_anomolies.gif]
The main point of this simple presentation,is to bring up the point that the AGW hypothesis is failing on the basic predictions on what CO2 and other "well mixed greenhouse gases" can do.To promote the positive forcing effect that is continually being promoted.

But POSITIVE forcings never seem to show up anywhere.And there have been a few recent number of published science papers showing that Negative forcings are the predominant climatic feature.

It seems to have been missed by many, but water vapour was turned into (within the climate models) a positive feedback in the early 1970s. It was accepted science by the time the Charney 1979 report was published, at the behest of the UN "ad hoc" group, Charney headed to advise governments. The report spends a good part early on describing "how" it was done. None too specifically obviously.

In the late 1960s the models showed cooling, but after the (1st) 1972 earth summit in Stockholm all of a sudden water vapour became a positive feedback and the models showed warming. Or, they could show cooling, depending upon what was to be decided, by the UN.... Environmentalism needed a new poster child, overpopulation etc, just were not working, the people were not alarmed enough. Warming was decided upon and so Hansen / Thatcher / Gore et all got on with selling Strong's (UN bureaucratic) wares to governments, companies, and then the public too. They did a damned fine job.... The public were alarmed and the largest gravy train in human history was launched. Bureaucrats, politicians, companies, academics, ALL (and more) could benefit, AND the public would happily pay for it all, thinking they were paying to "save the planet".

That is how a bureaucratically (and politically) correct pseudo science gained global approval, significance, and loyalty, from benefactor to victim, from top to bottom, ALL were aboard, to, "Save the planet"....

Why though? Why a false science? Why has so much effort been put in to making the public believe in an imaginary problem that does not exist?
Question - How do you cure a sick unicorn?
Answer - Any way you want to, a unicorn is imaginary.
All that has to be done is to get the public to believe there is a unicorn, and that it is sick. Then the "science" can dictate any "solution" that is wanted, with the added benefit that the "solution" will have almost no effect in reality (they hope / do not care about) other than to further tax and control the people.

THE problem with the current situation is that the "solutions" will have dramatic negative effects upon the economies and societies of many countries that will harm mostly the poor, the young, and the sick.

The underlying issue that is rarely if ever mentioned is that science has no protection from political funding, hence the old adage - "Pay a scientist enough and he / she will prove whatever you want proving." Using pseudo science of course, because science is not protected from funding bias...

Current climate science debates are mired, as they are supposed to be, in a two sided debate, the main stream and the sceptics, both of whom take greenhouse effect theory as an unquestionable given. In science nothing is above question, that greenhouse effect theory is above question proves it is NOT science. In point of fact the only "side" that adheres to the scientific method is the one side that has been excluded from the debate, namely those that question greenhouse effect "theory".

As Noam Chomsky so rightly said -
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
This is why the climate (pseudo) science debates can get so heated....
It is amazing that Water Vapor,with the long known ability to transport huge amount of "heat" into the upper atmosphere (Negative feedback) suddenly can't do that anymore. Water Vapor that can absorb huge amounts of "heat" which makes it rise upward into the atmosphere forming clouds and even Thunderclouds,that creates rain which is a long know cooling mechanism. It is how the majority of "heat" is removed from the surface.

I wonder how my Swamp Cooler manage to work then?
Update to post #2,in the link is a full table and chart to the January-December Stratospheric Global Temperature Anomalies

Microwave Sounding Unit Temperature Anomalies
From Climate4you,

[Image: EquatorSurface300hPa200hPaDecadalTempCha...RCHART.gif]