Mid Troposphere Hot Spot

[icefisher]

The Mid troposphere hot spot is a key part of settled science on surface warming caused by increased irradiation in the presence of a greenhouse effect. The hotspot applies to both warming from increased greenhouse gases or increased solar output in the presence of the greenhouse theory.

IPCC reports were finding a hotspot in the model output and devoted a good deal of talk regarding them in their reports.

The structure of the mid troposphere hot spot was a pattern of steadily increasing anomalies as you moved from the surface to the mid troposphere and then a pattern of steadily declining anomalies as you rose higher. Thus satellite records are expected to return higher anomalies than correctly adjusted surface station records.

Yet the satellite records are the ones reporting no warming. There is no sign of a hotspot and this is also comfirmed by weather balloon measurements.

The warmist community has been especially silent on the topic since they are now claiming that the heat from the increasing greenhouse effect is being absorbed down deep into the oceans. . . .however since oceans cannot reach up into the mid troposphere and absorb the heat before its created there has been practically no talk regarding this "signature" effect of the greenhouse theory that the models are built upon now for probably 6 years. And 6 years ago all the temperature records, except the heavily adjusted by convenient methods Astronomer James Hansen NASA GISS record was showing no warming.

The eminent climate scientist, MIT professor Dr Richard Lindzen is quoted as saying in regards to the plethora of adjustments to weather station data:
"It has become standard in climate science that data in contradiction to alarmism is inevitably ‘corrected’ to bring it closer to alarming models. None of us would argue that this data is perfect, and the corrections are often plausible. What is implausible is that the ‘corrections’ should always bring the data closer to models."

So what should we conclude? Since the "settled science" of the greenhouse effect is faithfully translated into every climate model under central government control, and that a signature effect of these models in producing warming from any increase in radiation is an increasing hotspot it would seem that there is strong validation from the models themselves that no warming is occurring while the surface station network is gaining adjustments from model output.

[sigurdur]

Surface warming is occurring. What is lacking is the understanding of convection etc and how it truly works in our atmosphere. That is why weather prediction is still only valid for approximately 6 hrs and even that short window of probability is breached with regularity.

[icefisher]

Yes absolutely they don't understand it.

Worse the basic assumptions of the greenhouse effect act independent of convection and conduction. Avoiding the cooling imposed on the atmosphere by the inclusion of greenhouse gases is considered the natural state before they go about calculating the warming. . . .and thats the case in every layer of the atmosphere they can imagine.

Is it an overall wash? Logically it seems it needs to be. attempts to make small models and test it bears out the idea its a wash.

And of course it seems climate science is well aware of that. So they focus on surface warming instead of the atmosphere effects and there they assume that the conduction from a cooler atmosphere has zero effect on the surface.

Depending upon which issue a scientist is working it seems a non-controversial issue that you consider all this within feedback. But feedback in the vein of atmospheric cooling ignores that its occurring concurrently with the greenhouse effect not as a result of it within the counteractive effect is also driven by radiation from the same molecule. They don't talk about it at all, but it shows up in the model output with a hotspot in the zone of the atmosphere where water vapor operates. And of course it shows up as a hotspot because the models are forcing the warming they predict. The models are parameterized until they get the effect they want. and when it comes to discussing what is wrong with your model when you are getting millions in computing dollars to run it is something folks just don't talk about. . . .instead they go home every night giving thanks to that check that shows up every week.

How to fix it? Well adopt the Teddy Roosevelt approach, send auditors into the field, build up the civil service so you don't need to rely on academia to fill key positions who have conflicts of interest in their role with models or institutions profiting from it all.

[nautonnier]

Sept 19, 2016 19:23:05 GMT sigurdur said:

Surface warming is occurring. What is lacking is the understanding of convection etc and how it truly works in our atmosphere. That is why weather prediction is still only valid for approximately 6 hrs and even that short window of probability is breached with regularity.

I think it is a misuse of terms. Hot, warming, heat. The first two are colloquialisms and really are meaningless from an engineering point of view. Heat if it is defined in kilojoules per kilogram means something but is often used as a transitive verb - heating the atmosphere for example.

It is the loose terminology that allows logic faults.

[missouriboy]

Bob Tisdale Compares surface and lower trophosphere temperature trends


The Divergence between Surface and Lower Troposphere Global Temperature Datasets and its Implications

bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/the-divergence-between-surface-and-lower-troposphere-global-temperature-datasets-and-its-implications/#more-11338

[nautonnier]

Again we have Bob whose work is extremely good talk about 'warming' rates and 'temperature' when what should really be searched for is an increase in heat. It is perfectly possible that there is a tropospheric heat spot that as it is higher enthalpy due to humidity has no affect or even lowers temperatures. But as no-one is measuring the correct metric, we will not know. The humidity at ground stations in the USHCN is also not being measured and the heat energy in Joules/gram or kilojoules/kilogram in the atmosphere is also not being recorded. As stated before 75F air at 100% humidity has twice the heat energy as 100F air at 0% humidity.

[missouriboy]

Oct 14, 2016 14:42:26 GMT nautonnier said:

Again we have Bob whose work is extremely good talk about 'warming' rates and 'temperature' when what should really be searched for is an increase in heat. It is perfectly possible that there is a tropospheric heat spot that as it is higher enthalpy due to humidity has no affect or even lowers temperatures. But as no-one is measuring the correct metric, we will not know. The humidity at ground stations in the USHCN is also not being measured and the heat energy in Joules/gram or kilojoules/kilogram in the atmosphere is also not being recorded. As stated before 75F air at 100% humidity has twice the heat energy as 100F air at 0% humidity.

Are there ANY data or proxies that would capture this metric?  Even if only at periodic intervals.
    

[nautonnier]

Oct 14, 2016 14:57:18 GMT missouriboy said:

Oct 14, 2016 14:42:26 GMT nautonnier said:

Again we have Bob whose work is extremely good talk about 'warming' rates and 'temperature' when what should really be searched for is an increase in heat. It is perfectly possible that there is a tropospheric heat spot that as it is higher enthalpy due to humidity has no affect or even lowers temperatures. But as no-one is measuring the correct metric, we will not know. The humidity at ground stations in the USHCN is also not being measured and the heat energy in Joules/gram or kilojoules/kilogram in the atmosphere is also not being recorded. As stated before 75F air at 100% humidity has twice the heat energy as 100F air at 0% humidity.

Are there ANY data or proxies that would capture this metric?  Even if only at periodic intervals.
    

Need to know the humidity, and the maths for enthalpy get really complex below freezing

[Ratty]

New Science 17: Solving the mystery of the missing “Hotspot”

[douglavers]

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Richard Feynman