/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8528667
>>pic related
>We've already been over this. The "hot spot" wasn't a prediction of AGW.
>Please stop pointing out our failures. I can't answer this so I'll pretend I already did.

Now you're just flat out lying. The prediction was described in many places, and documented in Santer 2005.
See the graph of the predictions vs. results here:
>>8528652

And now you pretend that the hot spot wasn't supposed to be cause by AGW? Are you kidding me? What is this?

1. There are high water vapor levels above the equator.
2. The Hadley Cell above the equator features upward wind currents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
3. The moist adiabatic lapse rate has decreased. DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CO2/WARMING
4. A decreased lapse rate means that water vapor will go higher into the troposphere above the equator.
5. At this new height, the water vapor will be sufficiently cooled to make it condense.
6. Water vapor condensation is an exothermic reaction. This is the creation of the "hot spot."

That's right AGW is supposed to decrease the moist adiabatic lapse rate which leads to increased water vapor in the upper troposphere which causes significant positive feedback. But the water vapor increase in the upper troposphere (and concomitant hot spot) just isn't there.

You warmists are pathetic in the way you try to rewrite your history to hide your failures.

>>8246840

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification.

A flat out lie. The predicted hot spot didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.

>>8225021
>Water vapor has not EVER been a serious consideration for global warming and cooling cycles.
You have got to be kidding. Are you trying to rewrite the history of Climate Change? I can't believe how disingenuous climate change "science" is.

Climate Change/Global Warming predicted a hot spot in the troposphere over the equator caused by increased water vapor. It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2. The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

It didn't happen. That's why you pretend that prediction never happened They used to teach about a simplified version of this in school (so a friend told me). Anyway, the prediction IS at
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf . P. 675, 9.1(f).
PIc related.

Other references to Water Vapor induced "hot spot"

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483.

>>7755756
>The "tropospheric hot spot" was never a signature of AGW.
As always rewriting history to protect an unfalsfiable dogma.

>Hurr durr, IPCC doesn't care about the hot spot:
Translation, after utter failure, they dropped it in IPCC AR5 to maintain unfalsifiability. But, they certainly included in their previous work:
IPCC, Assessment Report 4, (2007), Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14 Page 631 shows the numerical prediction of water vapor increase. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
And see the attached figure for a graphic of the modeling results of that prediction. Sure looks like hot spot.

Funny how NOAA data don't show the hot spot (and see attached for a graphic of the data). That's why warmists hate satellite and radiosonde data; you can't tamper with it via UHI, TOB and instrumental "adjustments." Look at the data yourself, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/igra/index.php

So now that you deny Atmospheric Physics, which part are you denying?
1. There are high water vapor levels above the equator.
2. The Hadley Cell above the equator features upward wind currents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
3. The moist adiabatic lapse rate has decreased. (fundamental to AGW theory)
4. A decreased lapse rate means that water vapor will go higher into the troposphere above the equator.
5. At this new height, the water vapor will be sufficiently cooled to make it condense.
6. Water vapor condensation is an exothermic reaction.

>>7732294
>>>7732090 (You)
>>and lack of temp increase in the troposphere.
>We don't live in the troposphere.

AGW predicts strongest warming in the troposphere. Lrn2Scienz

>>>7732112 (You)
>>between the red and blue bars
>Which don't correspond to anything, and seem to be placed arbitrarily.
>Okay.

That correspond to an rewriting of the temperature record.

>>>7732084 (You)
>>Ice Thickness (m)
>> Look at the enormous amount of thick, multi-meter ice in the arctic.
>...what is that supposed to prove?

That cry-babies you say that its all about ice mass, ignore the increased arctic ice mass.

>>>7732116 (You)
>>Satellite data show no warming for almost 20 years in the troposphere.
>What's your fucking obsession with the twenty year trend in the troposphere?
> TAMPERED Surface measurements show a strong warming trend. Gosh, they didn't until about 6 months ago? What happened?
>TAMPERED Ocean measurements show a strong warming trend.
>TAMPERED Measurements on longer scale show a strong warming trend.

What is your obsession with bad surface data, when satellite data is much more accurate?

No warming in the mid-latitude troposphere for 20 years, contradicting predictions. And no hotspot
No warming in the south polar region in the troposphere for 35 years, contradicting predicted strong polar warming.
No warming in the north polar region in the troposphere for nearly 15 years, contradicting strong predicted warming.
No cooling in the stratosphere for 20 years despite significant CO2 increase, contradicting predictions.

The theory has failed. You ignore accurate data and cling to poor data to maintain unfalsifiability.

>>7089685
More data supplantation

The failed hot spot prediction

>>7049466

The missing "hot spot" in the troposphere over the equator.

>>6841771

Their prediction was quite good. They said that there wouldn't be a "hot spot" over the equator in the troposphere. That's the hall mark of positive feedback ... Something skeptics say isn't occurring.

>>6793135

And how convenient of you to not mention the fundamental "signature" of increased water vapor, the "hot spot." Oh yeah, that prediction failed, so we shouldn't mention it, huh?

It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2. The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

See attached with the prediction and the actual data. Both have their references.

>nb4 hurr durr, noisy data!
Radiosondes have 0.1 degree resolution.

>>6764949

You never own up to your failed predictions do you?

Like here:
>>6764810
and here:
>>6764801
And the great prediction of the "hot spot," which is the signature of positive feedback from increased CO2? Never heard of that one did you? Well that's because it failed. See attached.

>nb4 hurr, durr noisy data.
The data has 0.1 degrees centigrade resolution.

So keep up with the ad hoc, after-the-fact explanations to maintain the unfalsifiability.
Or answer this questions:
>>6755944
You won't because you can't.

>>6736113

As I've said before:
Climate Change/Global Warming predicted a hot spot in the troposphere over the equator. It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2. The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

It didn't happen. That's why you never heard of it!! They used to teach about a simplified version of this in school (so a friend told me).

Anyway, the prediction IS described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632. So even the UN IPCC believed it was fundamental. See attached graphic with a depiction of the "hot spot" (on the left) and the measurements (on the right) which show it isn't there.

This is the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory; because it demonstrates positive feedback.

>>6625385

Here's the graphs comparing the theoretical prediction of the "hot spot" with the observed results.

Prediction failed.

CAGW has been falsified, what is left is a secular religion.

There is no scientific way to measure the effect OUR CO2 is having on the climate. Going by past history, and the fact that CO2 is a trace gas at 400 parts per million, there is no grounds to claim that our CO2 is causing catastrophic warming. CO2 has been much higher in the past with no runaway greenhouse effect. Temperatures have been much higher in the past and polar bears survived.

The consensus is fraudulent as well. There are thousands of scientists who debunk this stuff all the time, but they aren't given time on TV and they are usually not published in scientific journals. I could post relevant links all day but here's just a few
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

>>6595156
>Most of the scientific community agrees that it is.

Its not that simple. The proverbial "97% Consensus" is a strawman argument. Why? Well almost everyone skeptic and believer alike thinks that anthropogenic CO2 increases temperature. And almost all scientists agree that CO2 alone is a weak greenhouse gas. Its concentration has to be DOUBLED to get a mere 1.2 degrees C increase in global temperature. So Climate Change believers assert that there is positive feedback via water vapor. Skeptics believe there is either negative feedback or no feedback.

The signature of positive feedback is the "hot spot" The hot spot is a result of the basic atmospheric physics of the assumed positive feedback due to water vapor (from increased CO2)

The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

Anyway, it IS described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632. So even the UN IPCC believed it was fundamental. See attached graphic with a depiction of the "hot spot" (on the left) and the measurements (on the right) which shows it isn't there.

This is the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory. Because it demonstrates positive feedback from CO2 increase.

nb4 SkS says "its just stratospheric cooling," Nonsense, see UN IPCC reference above.

>>6577146

This fundamental - and failed prediction, can not be erased by popularity.

The hot spot is a result of the basic atmospheric physics of the assumed positive feedback due to water vapor (from increased CO2)

The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

Anyway, it IS described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632. So even the UN IPCC believed it was fundamental. See attached graphic with a depiction of the "hot spot" (on the left) and the measurements (on the right) which shows it isn't there.

This is the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory. Because it demonstrates positive feedback from CO2 increase.

>>6568820
>The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.

John Cook, Psychology grad student and proprietor of SkS is just making it up. As always. This statement is flat-out false. The hot spot is a result of the basic atmospheric physics of the assumed positive feedback due to water vapor (from increased CO2)

The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

Anyway, it IS described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632. So even the UN IPCC believed it was fundamental. See attached graphic with a depiction of the "hot spot" (on the left) and the measurements (on the right) which shows it isn't there.

This is the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory. Because it demonstrates positive feedback from CO2 increase.

>>6560191

Well there's no positive feedback loop.

Climate Change/Global Warming predicted a hot spot in the troposphere over the equator. See attached. It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2. The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

It didn't happen. That's why you never heard of it!! They used to teach about a simplified version of this in school (so a friend told me).

Anyway, its described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632. See attached graphic with a depiction of the "hot spot" (on the left) and the measurements (on the right) which show it isn't there.

This is the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory. Because it demonstrate positive feedback.

>>6520093
>>>6520074 (You)
>>Your the ones claiming that you can predict the climate
>So you can't predict the climate. You admit you have no predictive model. If you don't have a predictive model you don't have a testable hypothesis. What you are promoting is not testable and not science.

And you can't predict climate that's for sure. The difference is, we don't pretend that we can... but we both agree that we can predict what will happen if there is positive water vapor feedback from increased CO2. The "hot spot." in the troposphere over the equator. You predicted that too. We predicted no hot spot because of no positive feedback.

Skeptics predicted no hot spot, but AGW predicted a hot spot. See attached. It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2, see attached. It is a sign of increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. As a demonstration of positive feedback via water vapor.

Didn't happen. That's why you never heard of it!! They used to teach about a simplified version of this in school (so a friend told me).

Anyway, its described in UN IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, page 632. See attached graphic with a depiction of the "hot spot" (on the left) and the measurements (on the right) which show it isn't there.

This is the fundamental prediction of Climate Change theory. Because it demonstrate positive feedback.


>Weather forecasting was terrible when it started out but it has gotten better and better. To suggest that failure means it's impossible is pure ignorance.
Its still terrible.

>>6471696

So you're admitting the AGW is unfalsifiable? Because no observation can falsify it, right?

Data shows hot spot, AGW is TRUE!
Data shows no hot spot, AGW is TRUE!

The hot spot as predicted is described in United Nation's IPCC IPCC AR4, Chapter 8, page 632. It is also in this graph (on the left). The right shows the actual data. Let me guess?, that actual data which is much different proves nothing, right?

As always you only ask questions. You have nothing to show.

>>6465792

It was a real science until about the year 2001. That was when they started testing the fundamental prediction of AGW, positive feedback from CO2 increase. This feedback is needed (via water vapor) because CO2 alone is a weak greenhouse gas - CO2 alone needs to be Doubled to just increase the global temp by 1.2 degrees Celsius.

This fundamental prediction is an increase in the moist adiabatic lapse rate (compared to the dry adiabatic lapse rate) in the Hadley Cell. Specifically in the troposphere over the equator. It is commonly called the "hot spot."

This is described in United Nation's IPCC AR4, Chapter 8, page 632.

That prediction failed, indicating that the positive feedback is not there. See attached graphic. Scientists ignored (or excused away) this failed prediction and AGW/Climate Change ceased to be a science.

>>6457972

The theory of positive feedback can and has been tested. The fundamental prediction is an increase in the moist adiabatic lapse rate (compared to the dry adiabatic lapse rate) in the Hadley Cell. Specifically in the troposphere over the equator. This creates what is commonly called the "hot spot."

This is described in United Nation's IPCC IPCC AR4, Chapter 8, page 632.

That prediction failed, indicating that the positive feedback is not there. See attached graphic.