This is David Evans theory, not the IPCC's theory.
This hotspot claim is nonsense, its not in the IPCC as confirmed by the quote you provided.
Look oh uneducated one
The hot spot is predicted because of the positive feedbacks which all of the IPCC models have.
It is the feedbacks which are the fundamental difference between how Alarmists and rational scientists view the greenhouse effect
The positive feedbacks drive the prediction of the hot spot.
These positive feedbacks are still in the IPCC models, otherwise they would be predicting much lower temperature changes
The only difference is the IPCC no longer publishes the prediction of the hot spot because it clearly displays their models are flawed.
The consensus has been confirmed by multiple studies.
And this absolves John Cook of his fraud how?
Once a so called scientist perpetrate a fraud with an attempt to mislead others his words are worthless
Something you (Groggy) should know but ignore
And its easily confirmed by noting that you quote only 3 climate change deniers here.
If the consensus is false, where are all these scientists who dispute its happening?
How many times do you need to be told a consensus is of zero value when proving or disproving a scientific hypothesis?
Science is only proven / disproven through empirical testing
If any of the testing results do not align with the expected values , the hypothesis has to be rejected
Had previous scientist adopted a proof by consensus approach which is unique to Climate science, teh innovate progress of man would have been retarded by centuries
The truth is only attained because some question the status quo of time
alarmists are using concesous & media hype to
Silence dissent
So the real question is what is best for humanity?
Healthy debate in which open minded scientists debate and re-examine hypothesis
or
The view of a well funded propaganda machine which brow beats and harasses anyone with an opposing view, while removing their access to research funding
The consensus has been confirmed by multiple studies.
And its easily confirmed by noting that you quote only 3 climate change deniers here.
If the consensus is false, where are all these scientists who dispute its happening?
Look
When a perpetual lair such as your self routinely resorts to Character Assassination in a malicious and despicable attempt to smart hard working honest scientist it raises serious question about your integrity
The fact that you obviously do not understand the science at all prompts the question, What is going on here?
I looked at both sides & was appalled by the amount of mis-information and deceit of Alarmists
John Cook is probably the worst example
However the internet is filled with examples of some "Explaining the Greenhouse effect" without showing or mentioning the concentrations of CO2 as in parts per million or worse not mentioning Water Vapor at all.
In addition every single weather event has been attributed to Global Warming
The Alarmist have been caught screwing with the data, Climategate
And several scientist have express a lot of concerns about the behaviour of the IPCC
https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/0...imate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Now here is typical Frankfooters bovine scatology
Is that why you keep posting 10 year old, previously debunked, nonsense?
There is no statute of limitations on bad science
You seem to feel you have the authority to define something as debunked. You a scientific know nothing?
THE IPCC models predicted a hot spot which never appeared & the models will still predict a hot spot , they just do not publish these predictions
Dr. David Evans worked on these models for years. He understand them infinitely better than you & infinitely better than John Cook
Like the decades old Time cover,
Despite your best despicable efforts to change history you can not
There was a global cooling hysteria in he 1970s, ask some people who are in their sixties now
the 9 year old false claim about AMS
That document with its results was published by the AMS, again you want to re-write history
I am willing to concede a more recent survey with differing results exists, however The AMS did publish a survey which showed a much lower level of Alarmism
It was most certainly not posted as an attempt to mislead anyone as you imply
and your 5 year old bait and switched atmospheric chart?
Look
You can not seem to understand the importance of atmospheric temperature change, despite the fact the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
Your insistence that the surface temperature record is the only record worth viewing because "That's is where the peoples are" just reaffirms
1. Your lack of any scientific understanding
2. Your pathological obsession to spew propaganda
the surface record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and its incomplete coverage of the planet
these are inconvenient truths you just choose to ignore
That is not how objective & rational people view an issue and it is most definitely not good enough if you are insisting I change my way of life
The IPCC is sticking to the same theory that Exxon's own scientists found, they are sticking to the century old theory of the greenhouse effect.
And you want to know why?
Because every year it gets more solid, with more evidence to back it up as the planet keeps getting warmer.
You were asked to explain how the surface could be heating up at a faster
rate than the atmosphere on a continuous basis despite it being a physical impossibility
and all you did was display how very little of the science you actually understand with some garbled nonsense that would get a F at a grade 7 level
