Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

May 14, 2015
Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made to suggest is not occurring as a result of increasing .

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

The results show that even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

Explore further: Heat still on despite warming slowdown

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007

Related Stories

Heat still on despite warming slowdown

April 23, 2015

The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.

New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier

July 28, 2014

A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere – a key amplifier of global warming ...

Recommended for you

Scientists capture Earth's 'hum' on ocean floor

December 7, 2017

Scientists have long known earthquakes can cause the Earth to vibrate for extended periods of time. However, in 1998 a research team found the Earth also constantly generates a low-frequency vibrational signal in the absence ...

Birth of a storm in the Arabian Sea validates climate model

December 6, 2017

Researchers from Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report in the journal Nature Climate Change that extreme cyclones that formed in the Arabian Sea for the first time in 2014 ...

52 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.6 / 5 (17) May 14, 2015
Another nail in the Denier coffin. But why do we have to put up with folk who oppose our efforts to save the Earth? They are in the great minority, but have the backing of Filthy Fuel Billionaires, so we are stuck.

Big Money will kill all of us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) May 14, 2015
Another nail in the Denier coffin. But why do we have to put up with folk who oppose our efforts to save the Earth? They are in the great minority, but have the backing of Filthy Fuel Billionaires, so we are stuck.

Big Money will kill all of us.
Why do we have to put up with brainless sloganeers and fact fabricators who are willing to distort statistics on CA solar power by 10x and 3x?

Why are liars and bullshitters such as this allowed to participate here?
gkam
3 / 5 (18) May 14, 2015
I find it instructive to see this was PREDICTED by the MODELS, but had to be found by looking for it. So much for the trashing of the models by those who do not understand them, nor actually even read them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (16) May 14, 2015
I find it instructive to see this was PREDICTED by the MODELS, but had to be found by looking for it. So much for the trashing of the models by those who do not understand them, nor actually even read them.
Well since you seem to have first-hand knowledge of these models, can you provide a link to at least one relevant earlier model which you are familiar with containing this hotspot so that we can all read it?

Or else we would have to conclude that you are just pumping more bullshit.

Link please.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (15) May 14, 2015
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (13) May 14, 2015
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
Uh huh. Now provide evidence 1) that you didnt just google this and read it for the first time and 2) for why you think that RF output from fighter jets and orbiting solar power stations are the same thing.

You can understand the need fo verification cant you?

cstme
1.9 / 5 (21) May 14, 2015
Another nail in the Denier coffin. But why do we have to put up with folk who oppose our efforts to save the Earth? They are in the great minority, but have the backing of Filthy Fuel Billionaires, so we are stuck.

Big Money will kill all of us.


Climate Science is "Big Money" silly caboose.
shavera
4.1 / 5 (18) May 14, 2015
Climate Science is "Big Money" silly caboose.


citation? because it definitely seems like there's a lot more money to be made in other scientific fields.

http://arstechnic...e-money/ (e.g.)
gkam
2.6 / 5 (17) May 14, 2015
cstme,

One can get really fat whoring oneself out to the Koch Brothers.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) May 14, 2015
Climate Science is "Big Money" silly caboose.


citation? because it definitely seems like there's a lot more money to be made in other scientific fields.

Shav
Not if you're one of the ground floor scientists hired to actually do the work...;-)
EWH
2.2 / 5 (10) May 14, 2015
So to skeptics, this will look like the authors of this paper took the almost certainly already-adjusted temperature record, and adjusted it again.

But let's say they started with the really raw data and did purely legitimate adjustments on it. What does that new adjusted temperature record look like and how does it differ from the other adjusted temperature records that are used in most climate papers? Does it refute any claims that relied on different adjustments? You can't legitimately adjust things a different way whenever it seems convenient. Anyway, the ground station record isn't all that relevant compared to the balloon data on windspeeds and temperature at different altitudes.

Here's an idea: use the data from airliner engine and avionics computers, which includes air temperature, pressure, true wind velocity and altitude over the whole depth of the upper / mid troposphere in spots generally out of the urban heat islands. This would give thousands of records every day.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) May 14, 2015
Another nail in the Denier coffin. But why do we have to put up with folk who oppose our efforts to save the Earth? They are in the great minority, but have the backing of Filthy Fuel Billionaires, so we are stuck.

Big Money will kill all of us.


Nail? 3" or 4" nail? Or will that data be adjusted after the fact to match the "predictions"?

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.


Fudge the numbers until it says what you want, science 101 from the AGWites...

Rubes, one and all.

Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) May 14, 2015
So to skeptics, this will look like the authors of this paper took the almost certainly already-adjusted temperature record, and adjusted it again.

But let's say they started with the really raw data and did purely legitimate adjustments on it.

Isn't that what they did?
Here's an idea: use the data from airliner engine and avionics computers, which includes air temperature, pressure, true wind velocity and altitude over the whole depth of the upper / mid troposphere in spots generally out of the urban heat islands. This would give thousands of records every day.

Not a bad idea... Kinda like an "internet of Things" strategy...
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (12) May 14, 2015
Great article. I agree with Gkam, it's another nail deep in the coffin of this dead zombie. Here is a related article from last summer that I found interesting and I'm amazed one Water dude doesn't mention it.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

Basically their finding is that it's water vapor that is heating the troposphere. So this would seem to confirm that finding, Maybe old Waterprofit will jump in and tell us how wrong we all are about water vapor heating the troposphere. So one of the aspects in computer models of global warming includes models of troposphere warming from water vapor. Fascinating! I wonder if water knows that?

Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.3 / 5 (12) May 14, 2015
Otto, what's your problem?
Quit being a butt hole to people who don't deserve it, there are much more deserving people of your wrath
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (13) May 14, 2015
Hi Steve.
Otto, what's your problem?
Quit being a butt hole to people who don't deserve it, there are much more deserving people of your wrath

Seconded. Cheers.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) May 15, 2015
I find it instructive to see this was PREDICTED by the MODELS, but had to be found by looking for it. So much for the trashing of the models by those who do not understand them, nor actually even read them.

How exactly does this match the predictions of the models?
In particular, how much warming do the models predict and what was the warming from this "new" data?
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) May 15, 2015
otto is not real, he is a gamer sniping from his hiding place, , a coward. When he loses, he goes nuts with filthy language in ALL CAPS.

Why do you let him stay here to foul this forum?
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2015
I find it instructive to see this was PREDICTED by the MODELS, but had to be found by looking for it. So much for the trashing of the models by those who do not understand them, nor actually even read them.

How exactly does this match the predictions of the models?
In particular, how much warming do the models predict and what was the warming from this "new" data?

It's pick your poison @Antigore. There are 40+ computer models for global temp, some higher, some lower but none look good. A computer models is like a formula for predicting future temperature based on you current data, your future expectations of data, and what the science model (the formulas) predict. It's your data (in), the dials (settings), your circuits(compute model) and the results (output). If you listen to Al Gore, he has enough faith and concerns in all of the projections to warn everyone at the expense of his political reputation to deniers like you. He is true to the support of science,
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (8) May 15, 2015
Well, we all know I think I'm pretty smart, and I don't know what this article is supposed to prove. AGWers should note it's not really a nail in anyones coffin...
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) May 16, 2015
Water_Prophet with another useless post but STILL refuses to prove his case re CO2
Well, we all know I think I'm pretty smart, and I don't know what this article is supposed to prove
This is your big problem Water_Prophet, you focus on imagining your are smart but, thats all. You do NOTHING to actually gain knowledge, work through problems with maths & physics or even apply yourself to actually go down the path of increasing intellgence in concert with cognition of complex issues.

Imagining something Water_Prophet, should know, doesn't make it so, ie He IS immensely deluded !

Water_Prophet claims
AGWers should note it's not really a nail in anyones coffin..
That might be and is made far WORSE by Water_Prophet lying and cheating about a claim of CO2's radiative forcing !

Why must Water_Prophet spread stupid unprovable lies influencing those new to the field ?

Water_Prophet should be banned for FAKING his CO2 figure of 0.00009W/m^2, prove it !
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2015
I find it instructive to see this was PREDICTED by the MODELS, but had to be found by looking for it. So much for the trashing of the models by those who do not understand them, nor actually even read them.

How exactly does this match the predictions of the models?
In particular, how much warming do the models predict and what was the warming from this "new" data?


above your ability to comprehend... ;) first graduate mental school, then try again... ;)
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2015
Well, we all know I think I'm pretty smart, and I don't know what this article is supposed to prove. AGWers should note it's not really a nail in anyones coffin...


pitty the world see it differently (especially when youre so good at making beyond an idiot of you and your puppets... ;) but hey wer'e not complaining.... lol..

ooopp.... always begging for more... greedy little monkey... here ya go another 1 out of five coming your way.... no need to thank us it's our pleasure.... :D
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) May 16, 2015
I find it instructive to see this was PREDICTED by the MODELS, but had to be found by looking for it. So much for the trashing of the models by those who do not understand them, nor actually even read them.

How exactly does this match the predictions of the models?
In particular, how much warming do the models predict and what was the warming from this "new" data?


above ...hee...haww....heee.....hawwww

And the DonkeyTurd goes....

HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2015
Hello my monkey... did i forget to give you your bannana... i'll make up for it on the next article... promise... ;) :D
ceeka
1.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2015
This article is hilarious.

"The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected."

Since when do station moves have to be taken into account by satellite data? For those alarmists commenting, satellites measure the troposphere, not surface temperature monitoring stations.

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2015
This article is hilarious.

"The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected."

Since when do station moves have to be taken into account by satellite data? For those alarmists commenting, satellites measure the troposphere, not surface temperature monitoring stations.


No it's you who are "hilarious".

Try reading the article and this time understand that satellites do NOT come into it.

It's done from radiosondes.
http://en.wikiped...diosonde
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2015
Since when do station moves have to be taken into account by satellite data? For those alarmists commenting, satellites measure the troposphere, not surface temperature monitoring stations.

Remember that satellites are rather bad at measuring tropospheric temperatures. Satellite measurements of the troposphere often get some of the stratosphere mixed up in them. Global warming is known to cause cooling of the stratosphere, while the troposphere is warming.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2015
It's so blatantly obvious! How was it overlooked?
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) May 17, 2015
even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere

Therein lies the AGW Cult's fraud.
RealityCheck
3.8 / 5 (10) May 17, 2015
Hi antigoracle.
even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere

Therein lies the AGW Cult's fraud.
Have you stopped thinking altogether? Can't you realize that the states of surface/underground/sea water change and absorb more heat energy even as the temp rise is minor (until the change is complete and the temp resumes its more significant/perceptible rise). Example, the ice cube in your glass of water can melt by abosrbing water's hear energy, but the temp of ice in cube remaining does not go above zero.

Whereas in atmosphere, the air is always a gas, and no state changes (except for localized/transient water 'loads' state changes) can mask heat energy increases trend in atmosphere.

Drop your one-dimension thinking and one-eyed commentary, and start actually engaging your objective intellectual faculties...for your own good! :)
ceeka
1.6 / 5 (7) May 17, 2015
I didn't realise radiosonde data was affected by station moves.
ceeka
1.6 / 5 (7) May 17, 2015
Thanks Jo Nova not just for the actual description of the deceitful methodology used but also Steve Sherwood's previous fraudulent attempt to show there was a tropospheric hot-spot in 2008.

As this site doesn't allow links Jo has a damning article titled Desperation — who needs thermometers? Sherwood finds missing hot spot with homogenized "wind" data.

No surprises that it has remained unscathed in pal review as UQLD John Cook's fraudulent 97.1% consensus paper that by it's own methodology showed a 0.3% consensus has. Jose Duarte tore that apart earlier.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2015
@ceeka

This site does allow links. Maybe the site you were trying to link blocked your attempt or you don't know how to copy and paste,
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2015
Partial confirmation for what I've been saying for quite a while about heat convection and the resultant warming higher in the atmosphere. Just a bit more to go. Looking forward to what is coming next.

In any case, it is gratifying to see them finally publish partial confirmation of what I have been saying for some time about convection of heat into that region of the atmosphere, which I have also stated mixes with the stratosphere where cooling is occurring. Have they finally 'found' a portion of their 'missing heat' and where it has been going? Time will tell but feel free to one-rank accordingly. I'm not watching this thread but thought I would weigh in a bit as soon as I learned of this. ;-)
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) May 18, 2015
Example, the ice cube in your glass of water can melt by abosrbing water's hear energy, but the temp of ice in cube remaining does not go above zero.

Wow realitycheck, were you born this stupid or dropped as a baby?
Is this the best your simple mind can fabricate to sustain your ignorance?

I doubt I can alleviate your stupidity, so here goes nothing.
Take a hot object (the earth radiated by the sun) and put it out in the air (the atmosphere). Now try to figure out how the air further away can heat up without the air closer to the object not getting hotter.
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (7) May 18, 2015
Hi antigoracle.
even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere

Therein lies the AGW Cult's fraud.
Have you stopped thinking altogether? Can't you realize that the states of surface/underground/sea water change and absorb more heat energy even as the temp rise is minor ....
Drop your one-dimension thinking and one-eyed commentary, and start actually engaging your objective intellectual faculties...for your own good! :)


naa antisciencegorillamonkey is just upset because i did not gave him his bannana today,i had to punish him for not reaching his 200 dumb post target, but it looks like he's at least trying today by the looks of his comments and the one out of five ratings that was proudly awarded thus far.. :D
jeffensley
2.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2015
Funny that writers will invoke the old phrase "global warming" when they can find data to support something in the climate is warming... when something is cooling or remaining stable however, it becomes "climate change". Frustrating bias.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2015
Funny that writers will invoke the old phrase "global warming" when they can find data to support something in the climate is warming... when something is cooling or remaining stable however, it becomes "climate change". Frustrating bias.

Not "bias" at all.
The Globe is warming - that is the global reality.
Climate change is the localised version of that, because warming is neither temporally nor regionally uniform.
jeffensley
1.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2015
Funny that writers will invoke the old phrase "global warming" when they can find data to support something in the climate is warming... when something is cooling or remaining stable however, it becomes "climate change". Frustrating bias.

Not "bias" at all.
The Globe is warming - that is the global reality.
Climate change is the localised version of that, because warming is neither temporally nor regionally uniform.


While what you say is true, it doesn't change the fact that the political side of AGW bailed out on that term when global surface temperature anomaly leveled off where it has remained relatively steady since 1998. Yes, I understand that means the Earth is still warming, just at a steady rate below the increases we predicted.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere,
This is so-o-o-o much B.S. and loaded with confirmation bias it surprises me the AGWites think anyone would fall for this.

Here is what is really going on in the upper troposphere:

http://tinypic.co...iLPlViko (sorry about all the ads).

Some places are cooler, some places warmer.

http://images.rem...hannel=5

I wonder where they concentrated their "research?"

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2015
Global warming is known to cause cooling of the stratosphere, while the troposphere is warming.
Really? How does that even make sense (not withstanding the lie claiming the troposphere is warming)? Does CO2 have some sort of innate sentinece that it affects this, but not that ...these, but not those?

Please, explain this magical mechanism.

RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (9) May 18, 2015
Hi antigoracle.
Example, the ice cube in your glass of water can melt by absorbing water's hear energy, but the temp of ice in cube remaining does not go above zero.
Is this the best your simple mind can fabricate to sustain your ignorance?
When dealing with personally/mercenarily compromised biased intellects, the most simple examples illustrating the point is a first step to break through that bias. It seems your type of 'studied insensibility' is of an unusually 'resistant strain' that does not even recognize the point made by that example, let alone address it. Perhaps the 'dropping' in your case was more frequent. :)
Take a hot object (the earth radiated by the sun) and put it out in the air (the atmosphere). Now try to figure out how the air further away can heat up without the air closer to the object not getting hotter.
If you didn't get that ice cube in glass of water implications, you will have no hope of comprehending anything else. Try. :)
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (11) May 18, 2015
Hi uba, long time no 'speak'! :)
Global warming is known to cause cooling of the stratosphere, while the troposphere is warming.
Really? How does that even make sense (not withstanding the lie claiming the troposphere is warming)? Does CO2 have some sort of innate sentinece that it affects this, but not that ...these, but not those? Please, explain this magical mechanism.
Consider: The previous ground/sea/lower-atmos re-radiation levels which made a contribution to temp of stratosphere layers is being slowly reduced/lagged such that some of that former heat contribution is now 'blocked' by more CO2 and recycled back through troposphere layers and back to lower altitudes air/ground/sea. So stratosphere is getting less heat from below while troposphere dynamics is getting more of the heat which would previously add to stratosphere dynamics and/or lost to space. See? No 'magic mechanism' involved. Less sarcasm; more objective research/comprehension/commentary, uba. :)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2015
Consider: The previous ground/sea/lower-atmos re-radiation levels which made a contribution to temp of stratosphere layers is being slowly reduced/lagged such that some of that former heat contribution is now 'blocked' by more CO2 and recycled back through troposphere layers and back to lower altitudes air/ground/sea. So stratosphere is getting less heat from below while troposphere dynamics is getting more of the heat which would previously add to stratosphere dynamics and/or lost to space. See? No 'magic mechanism' involved. Less sarcasm; more objective research/comprehension/commentary, uba. :)
RC, I see you're still up to your same old paralogisms.

The lower troposphere is NOT warming.

http://woodfortre....3/trend

RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (12) May 18, 2015
Hi uba. :)
The lower troposphere is NOT warming.
If you could lose your reading confirmation bias, and resist kneejerking/insulting therefrom, you would see I actually said:
...such that some of that former heat contribution is now 'blocked' by more CO2 and recycled back through troposphere layers and back to lower altitudes air/ground/sea.
See?...recycled "THROUGH" troposphere and "back to ground/sea/lower altitudes".

Any 'hot spot' in troposphere is subject to dynamical chaotic heat-transport mechanisms like storms, downdrafts and re-radiation to Earth surface; hence troposphere hot-spots effectively MAINTAINED 'in heat energy flux' equilibrium ONLY until the chaotic dynamical system moves from one 'localised' node to the next.

See? As long as there is more heat flowing up/down to/through it, there will always be a 'current node' HEAT SOLITON FEATURE created in troposphere forming 'hubs' of flows in/out/around it (polar vortexes, cyclones/hurricanes etc). :)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2015
Any 'hot spot' in troposphere is subject to dynamical chaotic heat-transport mechanisms like storms, downdrafts and re-radiation to Earth surface; hence troposphere hot-spots effectively MAINTAINED 'in heat energy flux' equilibrium ONLY until the chaotic dynamical system moves from one 'localised' node to the next.

See? As long as there is more heat flowing up/down to/through it, there will always be a 'current node' HEAT SOLITON FEATURE created in troposphere forming 'hubs' of flows in/out/around it (polar vortexes, cyclones/hurricanes etc). :)
...and you're still up to your same old rationalized arguments of jargon (argument by gibberish).

RC, sell it to someone who is buying.

RealityCheck
3.8 / 5 (13) May 18, 2015
Hi uba. :)
Any 'hot spot' in troposphere is subject to dynamical chaotic heat-transport mechanisms like storms, downdrafts and re-radiation to Earth surface; hence troposphere hot-spots effectively MAINTAINED 'in heat energy flux' equilibrium ONLY until the chaotic dynamical system moves from one 'localised' node to the next....
...and you're still up to your same old rationalized arguments of jargon (argument by gibberish). RC, sell it to someone who is buying.
I'm 'selling' nothing. This exchange was your doing, not mine. You asked:
Please, explain this magical mechanism.
So I obliged, by explaining the mechanism and showed there was no 'magic' involved, only known atmospheric/thermo dynamics explaining the effect/process behind observations. If you didn't want to know, then why bother asking for explanations? Mate, take a step back and a deep breath and drop your confirmation bias and kneejerking on these matters. They are too important for such games. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2015
RC and Uba,
What I believe your conversation might be lacking is consideration of the fact that CO2 radiates/reflects in ALL directions....
RealityCheck
3.8 / 5 (10) May 18, 2015
Hi W G.
RC and Uba, What I believe your conversation might be lacking is consideration of the fact that CO2 radiates/reflects in ALL directions....
That is already a given. It's the other more misunderstood aspects involved which cause the facile approach to give misleading 'conclusions' when these other factors are not properly considered. Just as I pointed out to uba above about the subtle aspects which he missed regarding how the lower Stratosphere can 'cool' while the upper troposphere can contain nodal 'hot spots' as finally observed. Cheers and thanks anyway for your polite and well meant contribution to the exchange, mate. :)
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (7) May 19, 2015
Another nail in the Denier coffin. But why do we have to put up with folk who oppose our efforts to save the Earth? They are in the great minority, but have the backing of Filthy Fuel Billionaires, so we are stuck.

Big Money will kill all of us.


Climate Science is "Big Money" silly caboose.


Not even comparable to a drop compared to what the cockh brothers earn to relentlessly befilth the earth, ground water and air we and you little monkey breathes powering those 2 hardworking braincells of yours does not require much fresh air though...
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
ubavontuba FAILS in claim
The lower troposphere is NOT warming.
http://woodfortre....3/trend
Over a weather period this may be the case, the only way to show it ubavontuba is to compare the mean for your last short period with what it was 30 years before but, can you do that ?

OR
Look over correct 30year climate period & shows its (still) warming
http://woodfortre....3/trend

AND whats more the higher altitudes cool as lower warms which is consistent with reduced outgoing heat flux consistent with accepted & proven Physics of heat flow which ANYONE can prove with one of this remote IR temp sensors
http://images.rem...ies.html

Surely with ubavontuba told before & rather often that weather is NOT a climate period then why in hell is he trotting out the same old rubbish.

Conclusion either stupid (& OCD) or paid to lie

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.