Yeah here it is. And notice that Lambert lifted his inane argument and the diagrams straight from this hateful article that Gavin would not put his name to, like some sleezy commie spy picking up his orders from one of Stalins reps in a basement in Washington. NEVER LEAVE THE BOAT. Its like what Marlowe says when it comes to their fixation with the Goddard model. NEVER LEAVE THE MODEL. So Evans shook these guys up much more than he probably realises. They did not dare take him on directly. So look what they did:

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=David_Evans

So they listed the comebacks of every dirty commie and science-grant-whore that took the bait. You go to one of these links and its got a different diagram. One that said that we did get the hotspot. But the hotspot had to be a comparative deal with what was seen on the ground. Not an absolute but a comparative deal. And a bit of solar warming wouldn’t comparatively lift temperatures in those altitudes (longitudes/latitudes) to the extent that purely greenhouse based warming would. But when you check to see the diagrams that the follicly and morally challenged pervert put up there they aren’t labelled. They tell you jack shit. And they say “see post 179 for more detail” or some such legend. Its in no way readily apparent where the hell to go to find this here more detail. So of course you know he’s lying. And that we will find that these diagrams do not represent a falsification of David Evans’ take on the matter but rather a falsification of the standard models that never work and never will.

I wanted to lay it out right from the start but I thought I could shame that little bitch SOD into making some sort of explanation for himself.

Sods defamatory idiocy in this matter comes from a single realclimate thread so dishonest that not one of these pigs would put their name to it. But since it involves the failed Goddard computer model I’m blaming it on that compulsive liar Gavin Schmidt. It is on the basis of this dishonest thread that Australias useful idiots have based their critique.

Here’s what these IDIOTS AND LIARS say:

“The basis of the issue is that models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface. This is true enough. Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):

The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.”

Did you catch it? These idiots, proving David Evans absolutely right, had to increase the suns power by TWO PERCENTAGE POINTS in order to get their model to produce an equivalent equilibrium hotspot.

One of the arguments this same belly-crawling slime had for denying the role of the sun was that if you averaged each years solar output for solar cycle 23 the averaged variation was only 0.1 of 1 percent. So they had to crank up the sun twenty times that variation in order to make the two hotspots look the same. Further disproving their model and absolutely vindicating David Evans’ take on the matter.

How much is 2%? Two percent would be a disaster. Since the planet ACCUMULATES joules and doesn’t work on this instantaneous flat earth model that the idiot side of the argument works with. And that unfortunately the rational side of the argument seems to be stuck with to some extent as well. Gavin well knows that under contemporary mainstream solar theory, right or wrong, that our sun is held to be on the MAIN SEQUENCE. What this means is that our sun is supposed to increase its average energy output 4% every billion years. Hence it would be at least about 400 million years for a solar output increase of 2% average, under Gavins own understanding of the issue.

Now it remains the case that all these models, flawed as they were, predicted that if there were CO2-warming that it would show up disproportionately at certain heights and areas. Thats what they said and thats what David Evans said. And Gavin is NEVER willing to let go of his crap model. So he here reinforces the Evans thesis. Since he shows that to get that same hotspot he needs to crank the solar input into his stupid, yet representative model, by a whopping 2%.

Now bloody bloody bloody bloody and I wish I could use stronger language but bloody bloody apologise SOD!!!!!!!!!!

Its not alright for you to get about defaming people anonymously like this. On the basis of crap that Gavin will not even sign his name to. Gavin wouldn’t even refute Evans, cowardly dog that Gavin is. He knew Evans was right on the basis of Gavins own model. So that when you search for David Evans in realclimate you get a wiki page and you get a list of people who have allegedly refuted David. But they have done so on the basis of a filthy dishonest article that came from realclimate itself.

So that filth at realclimate weren’t going to go up against David Evans. They just manipulated matters so that their useful idiots would bury the issue. This was a difficult situation for this filth because they never abandon their model. But they had to bury David Evans’ refutation of it.

Apologise SOD.

First he counters the published scientific literaure with a blog post. I’m sure Stockwell is a fine statistician, but a climate researcher he ain’t.

Then he links to a paper that doesn’t do what he thinks it does. He grabs a straw and ignores the haystack. Yes they point to a small decrease in relative humidity, but confirm an increase in tropospheric moisture and the existence of a positive water vapour feedback, while also dismissing any possibility of a negative feedback.

Ignoring this paper he linked to, cohenite then asks why there is no increase in cloud cover if there is increasing evaporation. Well, duh! (slaps forehead) The Minschwaner paper!! (hint – clouds will increase with increasing relative humidity)

http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-of-water-vapor-and-the-ipcc/

You’ve also forgotten Relative Humidity; I included a graph above, but Minschwaner and Dessler had a look at that in 2003;

http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf

Then there is the problem of where the water is coming from; Dessler’s recent paper where he posits an increase in SH, ‘q’, based on temperature ignores the decline in Pan Evaporation over the last 30 years as found by Gifford’s team; that means the water must be coming from the ocean [if SH was increasing] which means Spencer and Braswell’s stochastic -ve feedbacks would come into play through increased cloud cover; has cloud cover been increasing, and if not, if Soden and Dessler are right, why doesn’t the increase in oceanic evaporation, which must be the source of their assumed increase in SH, produce an increase in cloud cover?

“Major problems are found in the means, variability and trends from 1988 to 2001 for both reanalyses from National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and the ERA-40 reanalysis over the oceans, and for the NASA water vapor project (NVAP) dataset more generally. NCEP and ERA-40 values are reasonable over land where constrained by radiosondes. Accordingly, users of these data should take great care in accepting results as real.” – National Centre for Atmosphereic Research

And which data set does the NOAA graph come from? NCEP.

RSS is considered to be the best data, and as luck would have it Soden et al (2005) looked at this data and found a trend of increasing moisture between ‘82 – 2004.

In summary, Watts looked at an unreliable data set from one slice of the troposphere and drew insupportably strident conclusions despite a warning against “accepting [the] results as real”.

The provenience of the graphs has not been questioned, just Watt’s inability to understand what they are and what they show.