The missing Greenhouse signature?

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 hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes—weather... show more
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 hotspot about 10 km 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 hotspot whatsoever.
So an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of the recent global warming. So we now know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.

The theoretical signatures come from the latest big report from the IPCC, which is the most authoritative document for those who believe carbon emissions caused global warming. The IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4), 2007, Chapter 9. Figure 9.1, in Section 9.2.2.1, page 675, shows six greenhouse signature diagrams.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4W... .

The theoretical combined signature expected by the IPCC contains a prominent and distinct hotpot over the tropics at 8 – 12 kms. This hotspot is the signature feature of an increase in greenhouse warming.

The observed signature at 8 – 12 km up over the tropics does not contain a hotspot, not even a little one.

Therefore:

1. The IPCC theoretical signature is wrong. So the IPCC models are significantly
wrong.
2. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is missing. So the global
warming from 1979 to 1999 was not due predominately to increased
greenhouse warming, and was therefore not due to carbon emissions.

Disagree?
Update: Edit : Bestonnet - I understand your take on the Scientific Method . "Because we cant think of anything else , it must be Co2."-- Brilliant ! The instrument data is quite accurate . Measurements have been taken Hundreds of times , no signature can be found . It is the case for Co2 warming that is... show more Edit :

Bestonnet - I understand your take on the Scientific Method . "Because we cant think of anything else , it must be Co2."-- Brilliant ! The instrument data is quite accurate . Measurements have been taken Hundreds of times , no signature can be found . It is the case for Co2 warming that is week . The sun cannot be ruled out , Solar forcing is poorly understood . You first have to have a more complete understanding to rule out The Sun . We have enough understanding of the relatively benign Co2 , to start ruling it out . 30 years with this theory and still no proof .
Update 2: Edit : The uncertainties in temperature measurements from a radiosonde are indeed large enough for a single radiosonde to maybe miss the hotspot. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answers, so statistically it is not possible that they collectively failed to notice the hotspot. Recently the... show more Edit :

The uncertainties in temperature measurements from a radiosonde are indeed large enough for a single radiosonde to maybe miss the hotspot.
Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answers, so statistically it is not possible that they collectively failed to notice the hotspot.
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 hotspot. If you believe that you believe anything.
7 answers 7