Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: May 20, 2008 Posts: 990 Location: I have a whole ward
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: No smoking hot spot
Isn't it funny how people can dismiss the claims of some, yet accept the assertions of Algore......whose educational background is, at best, mediocre.
"Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard). "
Yep. And an additional factor they don't even mention is that overall average humidity at the altitude of the predicted 'hot-spot' that he is referring to has been decreasing, which allows increased radiation of heat to space (water vapor in the atmosphere of course being a major greenhouse component). Thus the predicted hotspot is absent, since the models until recently did not factor in the drop in humidity.
"This graph shows that the relative humidity has been dropping, especially at higher elevations allowing more heat to escape to space. The curve labelled 300 mb is at about 9 km altitude, which is in the middle of the predicted (but missing) tropical troposphere hot-spot. This is the critical elevation as this is where radiation can start to escape without being recaptured. The average annual relative humidity at this altitude has declined by 21.5% from 1948 to 2007!"
This (the absence of the predicted hot-spot) in no way disproves anthropogenic contributions to GW. The only thing it shows is that the models are incomplete (as they always are)... _________________ "It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: No smoking hot spot
Please give a citation for the figure. The following paper shows conclusively that there is an increasing humidity trend in the tropopause region based on observations: Soden paper
Joined: Jun 02, 2008 Posts: 553 Location: Someplace where the sun does not shine
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: No smoking hot spot
AlexdeLarge wrote:
Isn't it funny how people can dismiss the claims of some, yet accept the assertions of Algore......whose educational background is, at best, mediocre.
"Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard). "
Thanks for that! I never thought much of Mr. Roboto! Its always nice to learn that the Drive-By Media adored him for no good reason! Poor flunky Algore. _________________
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: No smoking hot spot
dissident wrote:
Please give a citation for the figure. The following paper shows conclusively that there is an increasing humidity trend in the tropopause region based on observations: Soden paper
The quote above, referencing the graph of relative humidity readings at various altitudes, is from a review of Ferenc M. Miskolczi's paper Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres [PDF warning] at this website. Miskolczi's ideas are still hotly debated, so his conclusions are by no means confirmed. The dataset illustrated by the chart is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory's Physical Sciences Division and can be accessed here. _________________ "It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
So you're both on record with that, right? You cite to a blog?
And who writes that blog?
Quote:
"Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales."
Perfect example of unscientific approach of the GW guys.
Here's the interaction:
Anti GW guy says - GW models predict that there should be a hot spot.
Pro GW guy says - "The left [image] shows the pattern predicted for doubling CO2, while the right one shows the pattern for a 2% increase in solar output."
So Pro-GW guy doesn't actually come out and say, "we've found a hot spot." He goes into some distraction about stratospheric cooling. But then, realizing it's weak and he doesn't have the goods, he adds,
Quote:
"If the hot spot really is missing it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models. (Which might mean that things are worse than what the models predict.)"
!!!!!!!!
Now that, boys, says it all. And I'd like to thank all of you for making it so easy for me to make a good living without working too hard.
1. The guy says, "if the hot spot is really missing"!! He's not even sure! This is a flat out admission that he's unsure.
2. Instead of saying the scientifically accurate thing, giving the missing hot spot, he says, "the model must be wrong", and, in perfect, typical GW hysteria, throws in, "things might be worse!".
This is laugh out loud funny.
The GW cite to a blog entry by a guy who is not, by their own litmus, qualified to comment, and the guy's blog entry is a bloody mess.
What the guy should have said, were he honest, is - - - "there is no hot spot, and that is evidence that tends to make anthropomorphic GW less likely, but there is a chance that the models are incorrect, which needs further study."
But no.
Mr. Hysteria makes clear he is clueless, then throws in "maybe things are even worse!".
There are 3 types of people reading this thread.
If you are type 3, which means you are unsure about whether GW is caused by humans in whole or any part, they I strongly encourage you to read the OP's citation and that author's suggestion that a missing hot spot means that global warming is not being caused by a green house effect, and the deltoid blog link cited above.
Read both.
Read my comments on the deltoid blog.
Ask yourself, who seems more reasonable.
For your GW guys who cited to the blog - thanks! The inherent hysteria in Deltoid's response would have been the perfect example for me to cite!
Jeez, usually the other side makes me do all of my own leg work!
if the hot spot is REALLY missing
!!
Killing me here!
Hah! _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
I also did some research on the cooling trend and found this in the wiki related to J. Hansen:
Quote:
In August 2007 blogger Stephen McIntyre noticed that many U.S. temperature records from the Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) displayed a discontinuity around the year 2000. NASA corrected the data and reported that "data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center."[30] The correction resulted in a slight (0.15 degree C) decrease in U.S. average temperatures post-2000, and 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S. Note that the years have changed rankings before: in a 2001 paper 1934 was marginally warmer than 1998. Hansen argues that using yearly rankings in this way magnifies tiny differences, and that addition of new data to an analysis always causes values to fluctuate slightly. He further states that the difference between the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is insignificant and that the adjustment effect on the global temperature record is invisible
On the topic of computer models, this article from 1995 by Ralph Khan is available at the NASA JPL Misr site.
Quote:
By including the effects of aerosols, the models show unprecedented agreement with the 100-year historical record. Increased confidence in the model results is the key element behind the IPCC's new findings.
It's older, and a quick read, but combine this with Chinda burning lots of coal, and we may have a good candidate for a cooling effect.
But, since we're questioning models, I would like to point out that the 10km hot spot is suggested by a model. It's absence in the presence of repeated measurements means that
a) CO2 isn't to blame or
b) the model doesn't work.
Since the paper in question cited a corresponding aberation in humidity, I did some searching on that and outgoing long-wave radiation (IR leaving the Earth) and found this excerpt from an article from the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research (based on the Hadley Center Climate Model) ca. 2007
Quote:
Stratospheric cooling causes decreases of the OLR in the carbon-dioxide and ozone bands, whilst surface warming increases the OLR in the region of the atmospheric window. The signal in the water-vapour bands is more subtle, due to a near cancellation between the effects of changes in atmospheric temperatures and specific humidities that have little impact on the relative humidity. The residual signal is shown to be related to small changes in upper-tropospheric relative humidity, although at some latitudes this relationship breaks down.
This took some digging, but here's the actual data, and some of the other predicted signatures made by the same model:
Predicted:
Quote:
Zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change (ºC per century, 1890-1999), from two natural causes, three anthropogenic causes and one combined cause, simulated by the UN’s PCM model. The “hot-spot” signature of greenhouse warming is visible in (c) and (f). (IPCC, 2007, p. 675, based on Santer et al, 2003. See also IPCC, 2007, Appendix 9C).
The UN’s diagram shows the pattern of zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999, in °C per century from six causes –
(a) natural radiative forcing from changes in solar activity;
(b) natural radiative forcing from changes in volcanic activity;
(c) anthropogenic radiative forcing from emissions of CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases;
(d) anthropogenic radiative forcing from changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone;
(e) anthropogenic radiative forcing from pollutant sulphate aerosol particles emitted to the atmosphere; and
(f) all natural and anthropogenic forcings combined.
Immediately notice that the observed pattern doesn't match CO2's projected signature? Check. Also notice that it doesn't match natural warming signatures from solar radiance or volcanic activity. This came from an article also disputing APGW.
The model's projections don't look anything remotely close to what's actually happening, so I submit that we're probably just looking at a simulation that doesn't work. Therefore, since the dispute is based on the lack of the predicted 10k signature (actually from 8km to 12 km), and the model does not appear able to predict reality, it doesn't look very useful at proving or disproving causality.
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: Re: No smoking hot spot
The figure supposedly "proving" that there is no tropical troposphere temperature trend is obvious garbage. Where is the tropopause? It is not an accident that you can see the outline of the tropopause in all the model results. There are very sharp gradients at the tropopause that show up in anomaly plots since the stratospheric response is different from that of the troposphere. So we have one clown producing some BS plot while the rest of the world sees characteristic temperature changes in the troposphere from the same balloon and satellite data. Also, what is the crap about "UN climate models". There are no such things. There are GCM groups in the US, UK, Canada and other countries that can afford them. They don't work for the UN.
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: Re: No smoking hot spot
Excellent points! Maybe the tropopause is missing too, and that combined with the light reflected off Venus combobulating with the frequency response of Kryponite gas in the terrestriasphere proves that the Earth is about to go into an ice age.
I have to /agree with dissident here 100% - there seems to be too much wrong with the source information for this argument supposedly disproving greenhouse warming from the lack of the 10km zone heating. And I did some looking around - he's right - there is no "UN" climate model.
dissident wrote:
The figure supposedly "proving" that there is no tropical troposphere temperature trend is obvious garbage. Where is the tropopause? It is not an accident that you can see the outline of the tropopause in all the model results. There are very sharp gradients at the tropopause that show up in anomaly plots since the stratospheric response is different from that of the troposphere. So we have one clown producing some BS plot while the rest of the world sees characteristic temperature changes in the troposphere from the same balloon and satellite data. Also, what is the crap about "UN climate models". There are no such things. There are GCM groups in the US, UK, Canada and other countries that can afford them. They don't work for the UN.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
