Why John Christy’s Missing Hotspot Matters

“One of the key predicted observations of anthropogenic CO2 climate theory is the existence of an equatorial tropospheric hotspot.

“But nobody has yet managed to unequivocally detect that predicted hotspot.”

IMO, one of the most important pieces of the “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” debate … the missing ‘Hot-Spot’.

Dr David Evans wrote an excellent piece on the missing “hot spot” back in 2008:

“No Smoking Hot Spot”
(The Australian)

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-missing-hot-spot/

—–

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein

Watts Up With That?

German garden gnome German garden gnome. By Colibri1968 at English Wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsGuest essay by Eric Worrall

One thing which struck me about the recent climate science hearing is how little attention was paid to Dr. John Christy’s demonstration of a flawed climate model prediction – the missing Tropospheric hotspot.

A flawed prediction does not automatically mean the models are totally wrong – but it is a strong indicator that something isn’t right.

Consider the primary observation. The world has warmed since the mid 1850s, and for the sake of argument lets assume that the world has warmed since the mid 1930s.

Given that warming, you could propose a number of different theories for the cause of that warming, for example;

1. Chaotic shifts in ocean currents or solar influences have influenced global temperature.
2. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused global temperature to rise

View original post 872 more words

Advertisements

One Comment on “Why John Christy’s Missing Hotspot Matters”

  1. The missing hot spot implies that either the warming is happening far too low down in the troposphere to have been caused by CO2 – or it’s not happening at the equator – or both.

    Either way it is a spanner in the CO2 gravy boat, and instead it supports low level warming created from the reduction in low level cooling that occurred before the 1970s clean air acts and which resulting in action to reduction pollution from approximately the 1970s-2000s when we got a pause in both pollution reduction and warming. I strongly suggest that was not coincidental.

    Liked by 1 person


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s