THE General Circulation Models that underpin the theory of anthropogenic global warming, have, for a very long time, since at least the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (AR2), predicted that atmospheric warming would be most obvious as an observable hot spot in the troposphere. In particular, the climate models predict an increased greenhouse effect, a hot spot, about 10 kilometres into the atmosphere directly over the tropics.
Measurements from weather balloon radiosondes have found no hot spot. Satellite MSU sensors have found no hot spot.
So, should we toss out global warming theory? Not necessarily.
According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the apparent absence of a hot spot is because of likely errors in all the existing measurements of troposphere temperatures relative to the surface.
Now we have the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Have the errors in the measurements been found?
No comment in this report.
P.S. But no shortage of funds to look for the Hot Spot: according to published reports by the US government, the total Federal funding of climate change activities is greater than US$150 Billion since Fiscal Year 1993.
P.S.S. Image from Bob Carter’s book ‘Taxing Air: Facts & Fallacies about Climate Change’… visit http://www.taxingair.com. Click on the image for a larger/better view.
Well Robbie - I thought Debs might have been confused that there may have only been a datum point and not data. Regrettably in this post-modernist world I believe some are even sanctioning use of data as a singular collective noun in IT (some bounder like J Wilkes perhaps?).
But feel free to sledge away on grammar and spelling. I know Robbie would like a go.
But anyway Jen has given Neville a high up open thread so he can ply his vile trade.
I bet if you asked them the IPCC would still have 95% confidence in the THS that they got wrong.
Don Keiller observes:
Take these excerpts from Chapter 2, of the latest IPCC report. (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf) which deals with “extreme” weather. Among the findings:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.”
“Based on updated studies, AR4 [the IPCC 2007 report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
95% confidence = they don't know.
The word "data" is okay both as a plural or as a mass noun (singular). That's why even pedants are happy to say "much data" rather than "many data". Usage has prevailed over Latin origins. On the other hand...
"It’s missing ” no it’s not – why do say that ?"
Supercell him do talk like Red Cloud in John Wayne movie. Big snob like Supercell him need have some own own standard pullease. Maybe him plenty angry can't find THS.
PS. . . Nowhere was the word 'data' used deliberately as singular by me or anyone else (except of course in your own singular comment). More nonsense and irrelevant distraction.
Stop trying to be the 'grammar police' . . . You make as many unimportant grammar and spelling errors as anyone else.
It's boooooooorrrrrrrrrinnng and irrelevant commentary. . . . Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
More nonsense & rubbish Luke.
If the THS is NOT missing. . . Where do you suppose it is?
And yes. . . Data is data.
Of course it's 'good enough' it's just effing data FFS!
Data are plural Debbie. Have some standards pullease.
So are satellite data just data Debs? Are they? are you sure?
Well the data do need to apologise as they aren't good enough for you.
"It’s missing " no it's not - why do say that ? So Debs is my cat missing? (we know Neville's brain is missing - indisputable fact from observable evidence - no doubt)