People send me stuff.
The IPCC has announced (via a “leak” campaign only to selected media outlets, such as Reuters, NYT, WaPo) that they are now 95% certain. From Reuters:
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
I’m glad they pinned down “…since the 1950s”, that’s important.
According to this MotherJones report:
According to Jonathan Lynn, who is head of communications at the IPCC, the organization expects that leaks will occur because report drafts wind up in so many different hands. Lynn cautions that “there’s no question that the final report will not be the same as the drafts.”
I’ve been in touch with IPCC secretariat Mr. Jonathan Lynn, and while he’s glad to point out issues on WUWT, neither he nor any of the media outlets that have the “leaked” report are willing to provide WUWT with a copy. No matter, we’ll simply go with what we know.
Here is the statement again, emphasis mine:
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
OK, so here’s the 64 thousand dollar questions for IPCC cheerleaders:
- Which side is which time period?
- What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?
- How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is not?
h/t to Burt Rutan, but I believe the original comparison concept was by Warren Meyer.
BTW, the answer should be obvious which is which due to the telltale 1997-1998 El Niño signature in one graph.
barry:
In reply to my explanation at August 22, 2013 at 7:24 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1397076
of your misunderstanding of IPCC attribution studies you have writen your post at August 22, 2013 at 8:27 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1397155
Your post begins by saying to me
True, “There is no empirical basis for the supernatural powers of witches.”
But there were seemingly good reasons to assume what had no empirical basis when effect of witches was attributed.
It is also true that “There is no empirical basis for AGW.”
Now there are seemingly good reasons to assume what has no empirical basis when effect of AGW is being attributed.
In both cases, the attribution is an assumption. And the attribution study provides no evidence of any kind that the assumption is correct.
The remainder of your post displays your failure to understand that attribution studies are meaningless nonsense because they merely state that the IPCC assumes AGW is discernible (i.e AGW has an empirical basis). But there is no empirical observation of AGW as there was no empirical observation of the effect of witches.
Richard
Another pea-watch alert: They are now saying “since the 1950s, not “since 1950.” I.e., it’s now since 1960, IOW. I’ll leave further exploration of the meaning of this to others.
rogerknights:
re your excellent post at August 23, 2013 at 1:51 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1397959
It is worse than you say.
As you say, there is an implicit change of start date (from 1950 to 1960) of the period to the present. Importantly, in addition to that, there is the ambiguity of the phrase “main cause”.
You quote TimTheToolMan’s comment
It may or may not be true that ““main cause” means 50% or more of the warming”.
It may be that “main cause” means the largest single cause of the warming.
So, if a variety of natural causes of warmings together provide e.g. 80% of the total warming then “main cause” causes 20% of the warming.
The statement is open to many interpretations.
Richard
Barry
I was interested by your comparing a sceptical argument with belief in the “supernatural” powers of witches above.
I think the attribution of supernatural powers to witches was based on the grandiose assumption of prior knowledge of all possible natural causes of the unusual phenomena being observed. Anyone who actually studies witchcraft soon finds out that witches maintain that their powers are inherent in the natural universe and are in no way extraneous to it as the term “supernatural” implies. Such abilities are deemed “supernatural” by those people who wish to pretend that they already possess complete knowledge of all of nature’s mysteries. But unless they possess a god-like omniscience (in which case they would have no need of science) that would be an unscientific delusion.
Your report of the IPCC’s rationale above gives me the impression that it is falling foul of the same fallacy of delusional false omniscience as are those who dismiss the “supernatural” powers of witches out of hand. It is not logical or valid for the IPCC to claim that because it has eliminated all the natural causes of warming that it can think of, the amount of warming that’s left outstanding must be caused by humanity. The problem is that all the natural causes that it can think of might not exhaust all the possibilities that exist in nature, but its purported argument assumes that they do. That argument is in implicit denial of the logically inescapable problem of the ever-present “unknown unknowns”. In simple terms, the IPCC seems to be making a sweeping assumption of omniscience here.
In science the attribution of causes to phenomena is always a theoretical act and never an empirical one of direct observation. Causes must be inferred from phenomena; they can never be observed directly. Science is always looking for the best theory to explain the observed phenomena at the time and up to now the IPCC’s theory of AGW through the enhanced greenhouse effect has not demonstrated that it can explain modern global warming any better than the default theory of natural causes can do. Also, by requiring the existence of an extra, unnecessary causal principle to explain the alleged warming (ie. human carbon emissions) it violates Occam’s Razor. For at least these two reasons it has failed demonstrably as a candidate for the best available scientific theory up to now.
What is new in AR5 that would enable the IPCC’s theory to pass the rigorous tests of honest science this time?
Richard,
The absorptive properties of greenhouse gases have been long inventoried. Upwelling radiance in the spectral bands pertinent to CO2 have been observed to darken over time from satellites. Your opinion is at odds with even the skeptical climate scientists and popular bloggers, like Roy spencer, Roger Pileke senior, and Anthony Watts, who to their credit eschew the notion that increased GHGs in the atmosphere will have no effect on global temperatures. Surely you’re not one of those Sky Dragon Slayers?
The capacity for CO2 and other GHGs to absorb long-wave radiation is not an assumption, it is a well-verified fact, and the absorptive properties for various gases at thousands of spectral wavelengths have been observed and calculated through spectroscopy since at least the 1960s and the information stored in databases, like the HITRAN database. This is a fundamental, empirically derived component of modeling for attribution studies, which include line-by-line calculations for the gases in the atmosphere.
Not all processes in attribution modeling are empirically derived, but to claim that there is no empirical basis is flat out wrong.
Magic Turtle,
The notion of witches was not brought up by me.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1397076
I was unsure of what the poster was arguing, but I did say that attributing cause to unknown unknowns is akin to saying mystical forces cause things to happen. That may be so, but fortunately we are not a species that becomes paralysed by eternal speculation.
I don’t see why IPCC should not update their figures in line with better understanding, but let’s quote the Summary for Policy Makers.
AR4 SPM – “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
AR5 SPM – “It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s.”
Mid-20th century is equivalent to 1950s, isn’t it?
barry:
I am addressing the gross scientific errors in your post addressed to me at August 23, 2013 at 8:00 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1398174
The issue is empirical evidence for AGW and NOT who thinks what about AGW.
As it happens I think some AGW is very likely but AGW sufficient to be discernible is extremely unlikely because the feedbacks are negative (n.b. observation of a discernible effect of AGW would be detection of AGW).
Yes, as you say, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that empirical fact is NOT empirical evidence for AGW.
There is NO empirical basis for AGW: none, zilch, nada. And you cite none.
There will not be any empirical evidence for AGW unless and until there is observation of a climate behaviour which is definitively known to be an effect of AGW.
And this is the importance of the missing tropospheric Hot Spot which is predicted by AGW as it is emulated by climate models.
The absence of the tropospheric Hot Spot is empirical evidence that either
(a) AGW as emulated by climate models is NOT happening
Or
(b) The climate models don’t work
Both points are pertinent to consideration of IPCC attribution studies. If one assumes (a) is correct then there is no AGW for the studies to attribute. If one assumes (b) is correct then the models don’t work so their indications cannot be used to attribute anything.
Importantly, the IPCC attribution studies use the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’: i.e. it is not known so it must be “X”.
This is what I explained in my factual post at August 22, 2013 at 7:24 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1397076
which you did not like because the truth hurt. I wrote there
Richard
The evidence that the contribution to increased CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily from fossil fuels is incontrovertible from many lines of emiprically measured evidencde (isotopic ratios, fossil fuel inventories etc).
The empirical evidence that increasing the amount of CO2 in a column of air has been known since the 1860s.
Radiance changes anticipated from occlusion of upwelling infrared radiation in the spectral bands associated with CO2 have been empirically measured by satellites.
The globe has warmed.
None of these are derived from climate models. They are some of empirical bases for the well-known understanding that increased GHGs should cause some warming.
Enhanced tropical tropospheric warming is not a signature of greenhouse warming. It is the expected effect from warming of the atmosphere by any source (solar, volcanic etc). It is a function of atmospheric heat ransfer, not greewnhouse gases. Lack of observed enhanced heating in this zone says nothing about AGW.
.
Lowered temperature of the lower stratosphere is a signature of greenhouse warming and has been observed by satellites.
Same goes for global winters warming faster than summers over the long-term.
Same goes for reduction of the diurnal range over the long-term (observed over the period from the mid-20th century).
These effects are not anticipated to be evident on shorter time scales. These are long-term climate predictions which become evident with enough data.
These are not anticipated signatures of warming from non-GHG sources.
All these are empirically based observations.
I will be happy to provide reference material.
Attribution is not based on assumptions.
Unfinshed sentence:
The empirical evidence that increasing the amount of CO2 in a column of air will cause the air to heat has been known since the 1860s (Callendar) and demonstrated countless times since. It is a logical consequence of the absorptive properties of GHGs. It is not an assumed understanding.
It has become apparent from the empirically derived data that the previously used climate models underestimate the damping effects that nature has on the rate and sign of climate change. Whilst it is true that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, which it is thought to be caused by man burning fossil fuels, will nominally warm the atmosphere the actual outcome does not indicate anything to be concerned about thanks to the effect of these poorly understood damping factors.
As a consequence more research is needed , should government still be interested, to find out what the damping factors are and why they have the magnitude and sign they do.
( No losers and it would work today . . . as the MBA’s would say, it’s a win win.
The two graphs show natural variability had not disappeared or changed that much — we get ups and down at a similar rate — but the second is offset at a higher temp because of the steady rise of the average value that CO2 has created.
Why are people not using the BEST data for the graphs? That is the most comprehensive analysis. Or if we are going to use the likely inferior HadCRUT, why not use the most recent version? [Of course, it’s only a detail because these are all similar.]
richardscourtney>> There will not be any empirical evidence for AGW unless and until there is observation of a climate behaviour which is definitively known to be an effect of AGW.
What the heck does “no empirical evidence for AGW” mean? Can you define that?
Facts are that climate scientists have a model that predicts many things much more accurately than any competing theory or that other theory would have more sway. Do you have a competing theory that gets more correct? Specifically, do you have a competing theory that within some high confidence interval matches most of the historical temperatures?
The IPCC states that some parts of the models are less certain than others (it’s a model that aims to cover a lot of ground and gets some things much better than others). The main point of discussion here is about average global surface air temperatures. Again, do you have an alternative interpretation of physics or any model at all that comes close to the performance of AGW models in matching historical temperatures and being consistent with widely accepted physical principles?
The best science can offer today by a wide margin is AGW as generally defined by the IPCC. [But again I extend my invitation to provide an alternative you think does a better job.]
Keitho:
>> It has become apparent from the empirically derived data that the previously used climate models underestimate the damping effects that nature has on the rate and sign of climate change.
What study are you referring to?
The oceans dampen the rate (but not the final value reached) and that dampening is believed now to be a little greater I think, but the sign of any dampening (regardless of the source), by definition, is always negative in some sense (eg, to the forcings).
Factoring in all improvements in our understanding, the predicted direction of future (equilibrium and multi-decade) global surface temperatures is to a significantly higher level than our current levels. That is clearly reflected in each IPCC report so far. The predictions of this have not changed that much.
>> increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, which it is thought to be caused by man burning fossil fuels
Can’t argue there. The history is clear: very stable rates for millions of years and then a surge in the last century that took it to levels not believed to have existed on earth in millions of years.
>> the actual outcome does not indicate anything to be concerned about thanks to the effect of these poorly understood damping factors.
That’s not what the data says. That’s what you believe perhaps. Despite the uncertainties, it is becoming more and more certain (but not perfectly so, never) that if we don’t slow down significantly our fossil fuel burning, future generations of our descendants will have to deal with an environment humans and most of the species we depend upon have never seen. Further, it will imply significant changes to many major existing metro centers.
We will need to have major breakthroughs in farming, disease fighting, water conservation, and many other areas (like carbon sequestering) if we hope to avoid mass deaths. Or we can mitigate this by more quickly moving to the energy sources that future generations will eventually rely on since fossil fuels will be significantly more so depleted for them at our current rates of consumption.
Jose_X says:
August 23, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Lie. Exaggeration. Half-facts. Propaganda.
Corrected:
We will need to have major breakthroughs in farming, disease fighting, water conservation, and many other areas BY REDUCING THE PRICE OF ENERGY and INCREASING ITS AVAILABILITY and RELIABILITY if we hope to avoid mass deaths. Or we can MAKE THESE DEATHS FASTER AND MORE CERTAIN by more quickly MANDATING only those energy sources that current “green industrial” political donors DEMAND as payment for their emotions, votes and money.
Jose_X says:
August 23, 2013 at 11:40 am
No, what the “data says” is that when CO2 is constant over a 15-25 year period,
Surface temperatures rise,
Surface temperatures remain steady,
Surface temperatures fall,
No, what the “data says” is that when CO2 is steadily rising over a 15-25 year period,
Surface temperatures rise,
Surface temperatures remain steady,
Surface temperatures fall.
There is NO “data” that says an increase inCO2 causes an increase in surface temperatures.
There is NO “model” which has been proven correct within even a 5% accuracy band. Further, 97% of the models now running have already failed within 15 years of any given start date and condition.
Ian W
>> The scientific arguments on what is meant by “95% certain” are similarly misjudged. Climate science never uses the correct units/metrics for anything. The AGW hypothesis is based on ‘trapping heat’ yet the climate ‘scientists’ use atmospheric temperature as the basis for their scare stories despite the fact this is not a measure of heat content.
Do you know what temperature is?
Do you know what happens when you keep adding heat to most any container? That’s right the temperature goes up.
Have you ever diverted the straight path sun’s rays from a large area onto a smaller area to observe a stronger rise in temperature in that small area (eg, via mirrors or lenses)? Maybe you should try that trick some day.
Have you ever closed the oven door or the house door or increased any insulation on anything and observed a rise in temperature — even without changing at all the source of power into the system? You should try that some day.
>> The climate ‘scientists’ use tree rings as indicators of heat content – despite the fact that there is no provable relationship, and on and on and on.
The association with tree rings is as a proxy for temperature (ie, rather imperfect substitute for a thermometer), and, as I wish your elementary school education had taught you, increasing the heat content into a container tends to correlate very well with an increase in temperature.
None of the data used by the BEST study is of tree-rings, yet those results (which already were known with less precision) are fundamental to AGW.
Tree-rings are a small fraction of all the proxy studies, btw. Tree-rings are important because of their observed tight relationship to temperature except in certain regions of the forest (that’s where “hide the decline” came from), but they aren’t necessary to the conclusions of AGW about temperature.
Take the tree rings out of Mann’s study, and I think you still get that most of the past proxies of the last 2000 years, taken together resemble red noise and so their average value will tend near zero. Then create a bridge between that and modern instrument data by using, eg, the most comprehensive study on temperatures since 1750 ever done (BEST), and you get a hockey stick like effect.
Or look at the changes in CO2 since 1700 (keelingcurve.ucsd.edu) and note how it matches the rise in average temp that we observe. Eg, look at 50 year consecutive periods and you’ll see that each such period more or less consists of natural variability centered at zero plus a displacement in temp upwards that matches the percent change in CO2 levels.. roughly. CO2 is superimposing onto the natural weaving and bobbing of temperatures a rising baseline.
>> Sandy was a ‘superstorm’ when it was less than the 1938 Long Island hurricane.
It brought more water into that region than did Sandy?
And what about the frequencies of powerful storms we have observed in the last couple of decades relative to the past?
Sandy is not blamed on global warming, but global warming very likely increased the damage Sandy did.
It’s great how you have no set of comprehensive studies to support your anti-AGW view coherently and usefully (eg, to “predict” temperatures of the past as well as the current models do), yet you are sure so many professionals of all walks of life are wrong. [If you do have support, sorry, and I’ll be happy to look it over some if I can access it freely.]
>> to the man in the street 95% certain means only 5% less than absolutely certain.
You are right. I find the majority of experts in the field a lot more believable the hold-out ones. You guys lack credible alternative theories to AGW.
Sorry, RACookPE1978, I think my version is more accurate.
You can’t make energy cheaper as supply runs out while demand remains high. That is basic economics.
You are aware that fossil fuels don’t grow on trees right? They aren’t renewable. Meanwhile the sun keeps shining its colossal amount of energy upon us daily without end in sight.
So you advocate pushing harm onto future generations and ignore taking action that can make their loss of fossil fuel a little easier to take.
“Thanks, great gramps. Now I know why I love you so much. Thanks.”
RACookPE1978
>> No, what the “data says” is
Thanks for supporting my point.
When you look at short term, natural variability hides the CO2 effect. You gave a very rough version of that (mind you, without any measurements or statistical analysis as do the scientists studying that problem).
When you look at long term as I said, you see the upward drift. That is what the data says, no matter how many times you say “No”.
Look at the CO2 data found on keelingcurve.ucsd.edu and at the BEST data. Do you still insist there is no upward drift in temperature that correlates well with the upward movement of CO2 during that time?
Of course, we are both amateurs who have hardly studied this topic and associated physics in any great detail. What do the pros say? Oh, that’s right, they support AGW. But I’m supposed to believe the amateur skeptics over the pros, over the academic and scientific bodies. Sure. Whatever.
I said >> Have you ever closed the oven door or the house door or increased any insulation on anything and observed a rise in temperature
To make it clear, I am talking about a house in Winter.. generally any case where the temp on the outside is cooler than the temp on the inside (note the reference: outer space is cold, planet’s surface is warm).
>> There is NO “model” which has been proven correct within even a 5% accuracy band. Further, 97% of the models now running have already failed within 15 years of any given start date and condition.
Can you be more specific what you mean?
Can you also summarize the AGW models with the absolute absolute absolute best skeptic models that you know about?
For the last point, what I want to see is that if we put in past historical data randomly, say going back 100 or 1000 or 1 million years, that we measure the error range somehow of that model with our best understanding of what the temp was in those time periods.
Can you provide us with a good head-to-head? I mean, the “skeptics” have known about “global warming” for decades now, so they have probably, feeling AGW was so wrong and considering how many there supposedly are, have come up with something competitive… by now.
Pretend I am a simple layman. I want a head-to-head contest. Can you help me?
If not, will you yield you cannot provide anything resembling a good contender to AGW?
PS: “natural variability” or the “null hypothesis” is a great model, but you need to provide the equations or a program that can answer my question. I don’t really care about philosophy. I just want the model that does the best job. Think of it as survival of the fittest in my mind. Or supply-demand with there being a lot of demand for the best model.
No.
NO “model” has ever attempted your “million year” , 100 thousand year, or 10,000 year range of CO2 vs temperature. See, in the past (several times) the CO2 has regularly been far above today’s mere 400 ppm. And temperatures ALWAYS increased AFTER CO2 rose. The models cannot duplicate those results In layman’s terms, as you requested above.
No “model” can re-create the “natural rise” of temperature from 1650 through 1850 through today.
No “model can re-create the Roman Warming Period, the Dark Ages, nor the Medieval Warming Period: That’s why the latest IPCC coverup only states its 50-50 conclusions to stop at the year1200. Worse, those “models” you so highly favor can generate their “mimic” results from even today’s 1950-1975 25 year timeframe ONLY by manually re-adjusting their aerosol feedback. But, once each of 21 different models has re-adjusted its hindcast, then NONE can duplicate that hindcasting past the 1975-1998 time frame.
No, these so-called “experts” are not credible: They are, more properly, “incredible at getting tens of billions to maintain their payrolls and their expensive laboratories – all at taxpayer expense for political goals.
Instaed, you prefer to kill millions NOW by denying them clean water, better roads, better bridges and railroads, sewage control and treatment, and better food, clothing and shelter. YOUR policies of fear and despair ARE responsible for those innocent deaths YOU are causing now with your CAGW propaganda and hero-worship of the Inquisition by Authority.
barry (August 23, 2013 at 8:14 am) says:
‘The notion of witches was not brought up by me….(etc)’
Thanks for clarifying this. My apologies for misunderstanding your point about witches. I have been having trouble tracking the comments here (something on this site seems to be slowing my computer down to a crawl) and I wasn’t able to check whose comments said what about them properly before posting my own.
However, your reply to me (here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1398186 ) seems to repeat the error that I was trying to draw to your attention with my points about the powers of witches, since you say:
‘… but I did say that attributing cause to unknown unknowns is akin to saying mystical forces cause things to happen.’
I think it is not akin to saying that at all. “Attributing cause to unknown unknowns” is merely a form of words to say “We don’t know what the cause is” and it means that we are not attributing the cause to anything in particular. That is quite different, surely, to positively attributing cause specifically to “mystical forces”. Yet you appear to be conflating them together.
Isn’t that a trick of the mind, whereby something that is totally unknown is subtly and irrationally converted into something known and familiar that can be dismissed without further ado? Such intellectual tricks have no place in honest science, do they? Real science is about finding out what it is that you don’t know surely, not about deluding yourself into believing that you already know it.
Isn’t this the same intellectual trick that the IPCC is playing with its positive attribution of modern global warming to man-made GHGs in the absence of a comprehensive knowledge of how the complex global climate system actually works? In trying to understand it we are like schoolboys trying to comprehend the workings of a Swiss watch while its up and running and without being able to take it apart to examine its components individually. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the IPCC claims it can safely eliminate all the unknown unknowns from its calculations without its even knowing what they are, let alone knowing what their possible contributions to global warming might be. That claim sounds highly pretentious to me I’m afraid.
To propose AGW as a testable hypothesis is one thing but to assert it as a probable fact that has already been proven at the 95% level is quite another. I think rational-minded people would need to see sound proof of that claim before they could accept it. That is why I asked what is new in AR5 that would enable the IPCC’s theory to pass the rigorous tests of honest science this time. So far I haven’t seen anything of that nature in your report of what it intends to say in AR5.
[By the way, HITRAN is a theoretical radiative transfer model, ie. a computer programme. You cannot take an observation of the actual state of the real climate system by reading the output of a computerised model, no matter how good a substitute you might believe it to be. Therefore statements about the real climate system that are based on such computerised theorising are not authentic and they are not empirical. To conflate empiricism with computer modelling is a corruption of the scientific method in my view, since it replaces true empiricism with a deceptive counterfeit that separates the observer from direct contact with reality via observation and isolates him in an imaginary, virtual reality that has been manufactured artificially on a computer.]
barry:
I am replying to your post in reply to me which you provide at August 23, 2013 at 9:50 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1398277
Firstly, I offer you some kindly advice. When you are in a hole, stop digging.
My post you are answering was a genuine attempt to correct serious scientific errors you had made. You did not learn from that, you have iterated your mistakes, and you have presented additional (and worse!) mistakes.
I explained what would constitute empirical evidence for AGW in my post at August 23, 2013 at 9:07 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/#comment-1398231
My explanation told you
You have ignored that and expanded on irrelevancies which I explained to you are NOT empirical evidence for AGW.
You not understanding the nature of empirical evidence is merely ignorance which can be forgiven. But you choosing to ignore information which removes your ignorance and then continuing to display that ignorance is deliberate stupidity.
And I said of my explanation for you as to what would constitute empirical evidence for AGW
Your response to that is wrong and is so stupid it beggars belief that anyone could make such a statement.
You have replied
Barry, think about what you have claimed there.
You have asserted that there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING FROM ANY SOURCE INCLUDING AGW because enhanced tropical tropospheric warming is the expected effect from warming of the atmosphere by any source and that enhanced warming has not happened.
But – fortunately for your claims of AGW – you are completely wrong about that, too. Let me help you by telling you the truth.
The AGW hypothesis as exemplified by climate models predicts that temperature at ~10 km altitude in the tropics will rise by between 2X and 3X the rate of temperature rise at the surface. So, a region of elevated temperature (i.e. the Hot Spot) will occur at altitude. This effect is an effect of the water vapour feedback (WVF) which the AGW-hypothesis requires for AGW to be discernibly large.
This Hot Spot is induced by warming from greenhouse gases and NOT by warming from any other source. This is shown by Figure 9.1 and the associated text of the most recent IPCC Scientific Report (AR4) and its associated text which can be seen and read here http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Clearly, the indication is that the Hot Spot is only visible in the Figure as 9.1 (c) showing effect of “well-mixed greenhouse gases” and Figure 9.1. (f) “the sum of all forcings”.
But no such enhanced warming at altitude has been observed by radiosondes mounted on weather balloons since 1958 or by microwave sounding units mounted on satellites since 1979.
Hence, the absence of the Hot Spot indicates
(a) The AGW hypothesis emulated by the climate models is wrong
OR
(b) There has been no discernible global warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” since 1958
OR
(c) There has been no discernible global warming from any cause since 1958.
The next IPCC Report (AR5) will need to explain this absence of the Hot Spot if the AGW hypothesis – and scare – is to be continued.
This problem is so serious a problem for the AGW hypothesis that Allen & Sherwood published a paper which attempted to claim wind speed was a better indicator of temperature than calibrated temperature sensors on weather balloons!
Barry, I could go on but your wilful ignorance and stupidity are so great that I am embarrassed to be revealing them in public. Therefore, I request you to read each of my posts addressed to you and try to learn from them.
Richard