It proves that the sun is a hoax masterminded by Al Gore.
"Then came Wattsup's voice, cooing softly like the voice of a wood-pigeon from the high elms in an old garden at three o'clock in the middle of a sleepy, summer afternoon; and it said:
"What is this sun that you all speak of? Do you mean anything by the word?"
"Yes, we jolly well do," said Scrubb.
"Can you tell me what it's like?" asked Wattsup (thrum, thrum, thrum, went the strings).
"Please it your Grace," said the Prince, very coldly and politely. "You see that lamp. It is round and yellow and gives light to the whole room; and hangeth moreover from the roof. Now that thing which we call the sun is like the lamp, only far greater and brighter. It giveth light to the whole Overworld and hangeth in the sky."
"Hangeth from what, my lord?" asked Wattsup; and then, while they were all still thinking how to answer him, he added, with another of his soft, silver laughs: "You see? When you try to think out clearly what this sun must be, you cannot tell me. You can only tell me it is like the lamp. Your sun is a dream; and there is nothing in that dream that was not copied from the lamp. The lamp is the real thing; the sun is but a tale, a children's story."
"Yes, I see now," "said Jill in a heavy, hopeless tone. "It must be so." And while she said this, it seemed to her to be very good sense.
Slowly and gravely Wattsup repeated, "There is no sun." And they all said nothing. He repeated, in a softer and deeper voice. "There is no sun." After a pause, and after a struggle in their minds, all four of them said together, "You are right. There is no sun." It was such a relief to give in and say it.
"There never was a sun," said Wattsup
"No. There never was a sun," said the Prince, and the Marsh-wiggle, and the children.
My understanding is that the climate models showed that if the earth warmed there would be a a hot spot. This was mentioned in an IPCC report although I don't think it was called "hot spot" there.
The problem is that no amount of thermometers sent into the atmosphere on balloons have managed to find it. So if the models are right then there is no warming. However, we think there has been warming so where does that leave the models exactly?
Rumour has it that the hotspot is not going to be mentioned in the next IPCC report.
What they said in AR4 (Section 9.7 a) was:
"Tropospheric warming is detectable and attributable to anthropogenic forcing (latter half of the 20th century)"
and
"Simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing has been observed (latter half of the 20th century)"
The lack of a tropospheric hotspot proves that all the computers models were false and based upon false premises.
No. And even the skeptical scientists state as such. The possible lack of a tropospheric hotspot is dependent on what data set you use.
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missi...
And it deals with the moist adiabatic lapse rate.
Zippi: You are bringing up some of the most insane denial arguments around and rehashing them. Learn the science. Stop paying attention to the OISM project, the same group of 3 individuals that have a home schooling course using early 20th century text books before the onset of 'socialism' in school, and listening to one of the founders of the weather channel, who just so happens to be a TV/Radio weatherman. Learn to look at data and look into science. why do you have to take someone else's opinion on the matter rather than actually learning?
Zippi: Before you put your trust in something I suggest you begin by actually looking into it. It is the Robinson School Curriculum and they use such things as the the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanicca and the 1913 Noah Webster's dictionary. They also teach nuclear war survival skills and many other handy tools such as the ability to beat cancer via poor nutrition (Though they do state that the best is a vegetable and fruit diet. Doesn't exactly sound like a diet in poor nutrition as many fruits and vegetables are high in nutrition and low in calories.) Another way they recommend on curing cancer is by starving yourself. Click on the first link in my source.
Any temperature starts with the sun's radiation affect so the answer to your question on Global temperatures has nothing to do with hot-spots or the lack there of.
Recent Solar Activity Highest in 8000 Years
Sun’s magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%
300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system
Mercury magnetosphere experiencing significant increases
Venus – 2500% Increase in Green Glow
Mars – Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone
Mars – Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone
Jupiter Plasma Torus increasing – moon Io observing same changes
200% Increase in Density of Io’s Plasma Torus
Jupiter’s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 – recent increase in storms
Io’s Ionosphere 1000% Higher
Europa “Much Brighter Than Expected”
Ganymede 200% brighter
Saturn’s Plasma Torus 1000% Denser
Aurora First Seen in Saturn’s polar regions in recent years
Uranus featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999
Uranus 2004 also markedly brighter than in 1999
Neptune 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range – 1996 – 2002
“Global Warming on Pluto” – 300% increase in atmospheric pressure
If the sun can affect the other planet's atmosphere and energy balances, then it will surely affect Earth! How small does that change need to be?
Jeff M - "... The possible lack of a tropospheric hotspot is dependent on what data set you use."
A more plausible answer would be "Which data set fits the answer that you're looking for?"
'Research data use' is at the heart of the skeptic's argument. It seems that data manipulation has been a problem since the onset of climate research. 'Having an objective' is cynical. 'Being objective' creates opportunities to understand better. The time for alarmism has passed. We know that elevated CO2 levels aren't as big of a problem as originally thought. It's time to tone down the rhetoric and be more honest about the problem and its severity.
Shall we re-live the catastrophic claims that scared people into believing that we are destroying the planet? Why are 30,000 scientists wanting to sue Al Gore for his fear mongering? Is there a consensus on that lawsuit, especially when we know that there are that many scientists wanting him banned for politicizing the issue?
Jeff M - Who teaches that science course? Richard Lindzen? John Christy? Ian Clark? Tim Ball? I'm in!
Maybe you should take a course from one of these guys and maybe you wouldn't be so cynical?
That was gonna be my next question to the world.
No of course not, it just shows that CO2 (not the sun) has little effect on climate, it proves there is no positive feedback.
No but reality has shown that the Sun has an insignificant effect on GW
?
Does the lack of a tropospheric hotspot prove that the Sun has no effect on global temperature?
