Study: Tropical Hotspot ‘Fingerprint’ Of Global Warming Doesn’t Exist In The Real World Data

But the (missing) “Hotspot” exists in junk-in, junk-out computer models, which are apparently evidence enough to justify the destruction of capitalism, and the spending of trillions of taxpayers $£€¥ on useless schemes and scams in a hubristic attempt to control the weather and halt an increment of (modelled) warning that, most probably, would be beneficial to humanity.

The “Missing Hotspot” IMHO is one of the most important (missing) pieces of the global warming aka climate change debate…

No Hotspot = Global Warming theory fail.

Watts Up With That?

One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers.

evans_wellmixed_hotspot What the tropical hotspot is supposed to look like. Graphic courtesy Dr. David Evans

Guest essay by Michael Bastasch, reprinted with permission

Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called “tropical hotspot” relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant “simply does not exist in the real world.”

They found that once El Ninos are taken into account, “there is no ‘record setting’ warming to be concerned about.”

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” reads the report…

View original post 915 more words

15 Questions Why Climate Change Is A Complete Hoax

“When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself.”  Mark Twain

“There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.” Richard Feynman, Letter to Armando Garcia J, December 11, 1985
US educator & physicist (1918 – 1988)

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” 
– Albert Einstein

climate change

No empirical evidence exists proving mankind’s extra carbon dioxide caused slight warming from 1976 to 1998, or whether humanity’s 3% addition to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused, or will cause, significant climate change.

The IPCC has spent upwards of one hundred billion dollars over the past twenty five years on climate research, energy studies and climate policy, and is still yet to identify a human signature in the global temperature record.

The only area where the effect of man-made CO2 has been detected is in the climate models which show, predictably, lots of warming. But models are assertions, not evidence, and the real world is falsifying the models and the assertions — all of them.

‘That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.’ (Bob Carter, Quadrant)

‘Scientifically’, alarmists have failed to make their case. However, ’emotionally’, they have captured the world’s intimate attention.

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”  – Bertrand Russell

It is scepticism that keeps science honest. And given the billions of dollars that are being poured into policies and research on the basis of alarmist model forecasts, people need to be asking a lot of questions about the science.

Here are some questions that sceptics have been waiting for years to receive answers :

  1. Why has there been no global warming for 17 years?
  2. Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this?
  3. Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years?
  4. Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder?
  5. What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval warm period?
  6. Why is it that CO2 has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans are dismissed?
  7. If there is consensus on manmade climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it?
  8. Do you think that it’s not necessary to have sceptics in order for science to progress?
  9. If human contribution to CO² in the atmosphere is 3%, how much should we attribute mother nature’s 97% to any ‘change’ of climate?
  10. By how much will the temperature of the globe change if we commit to a 20% reduction of world emissions by 2050?
  11. By how much will a doubling of CO² increase global temperature?
  12. Why has the rate of sea level rise decelerated since 2004, despite rising CO2?
  13. Why has global ocean heat content, 0-700 metres, failed to rise since 2004?
  14. What evidence would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

*Questions 1-8 via NoTricksZone. (Climatism links added)



15. What is the ideal temperature of the planet and who determines it? And what happens if the ‘ideal’ temperature changes?

H/t to John R. Bolton


See also :

IPCC Failed Climate Models :

Related :

Climatism Trending :

The Missing Hot Spot

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation


One of the most important pieces of the climate change debate … the missing ‘Hot-Spot’.


No smoking hot spot

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat island” effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

No smoking hot spot | The Australian


See also :


Climatism Links :

CACA Hot Links :

Quote source – The Green Agenda

Understanding How The Missing Heat Causes Climate Change

Real Science

There has been no atmospheric warming for 17 years, because 2.4 billion nuclear bombs worth of heat is hiding in the bottom of the ocean.

This heat at the bottom of the ocean is affecting atmospheric physics through a mysterious mechanism, which actually doesn’t involve any change in heat content of the atmosphere.

The symptoms of this are known as climate change, which has caused all sorts of highly educated people to remark  that they don’t remember any windy, hot or rainy days prior to a few months ago.

View original post