+John Christy and the Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot, Part 1

For a somewhat shorter discussion of specific issues related to the hot spot, see the "Myths about the Hot Spot" posts listed on the "Quick Scientific Debunking" page.


The outline for this post is as follows:

1. Introduction
2. Summary of the Objections
3. Elaboration on the Objections
4. References

This is part 1 of a two part series; part 2 is available here. If you want the "tl;dr" for this post, then I suggest reading sections 1 and 2. Alternatively, if you are familiar with John Christy's congressional testimony and you know what the "tropical tropospheric hot spot" is, then simply skip ahead to section 2.

Each numbered point in section 2 corresponds with a numbered portion of section 3. So there is no need to read this entire post; instead, you can see which numbered point you find interesting in section 2, and then for further details you can skip to the corresponding numbered portion in section 3.

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.

1.  Introduction

Earth's atmosphere contains multiple layers. The layer closest to the Earth's surface air is known as the troposphere. Above the troposphere is the stratosphere, above that is the mesosphere, and above the mesosphere is the thermosphere. Tropospheric temperature decreases with increasing height. The rate of decrease  is known as the tropospheric lapse rate.

Climate models and basic physical theory predict that warming at Earth's surface will cause more water to evaporate, especially over tropical oceans. This evaporation increases the amount of water vapor in the air, since warmer air can hold more water vapor. The vapor-rich air then rises by convection into the troposphere. The water vapor subsequently condenses with increasing tropospheric height, since tropospheric temperature and pressure decreases with increasing height. Condensation of water vapor releases some of the energy that went into evaporating the water. So water vapor condensation causes more warming of the lower troposphere and even more warming of the upper troposphere, reducing the magnitude of the tropospheric lapse rate.

Thus the tropical troposphere will behave somewhat like a moist adiabat, in which the rate of warming increases with increasing height in response to water vapor condensing from moist, vapor-saturated air [1; 2; 98; 123; 124; 146, from 31:01 to 31:48; 161, pages 181 and 182; 163; 164; 249, pages 4, 12, and 22; 357 - 359]; so the amplified tropospheric warming has more to do with heat released by condensing water vapor (also known as release of latent heat), and less to do with CO2 emitting radiation into the troposphere [302; 303; 357; 359; 364; 365]. This tropical amplification of tropospheric warming is known as the tropical tropospheric hot spot. Though climate scientists have discussed this tropospheric temperature amplification since at least the 1970s [89, section 9.4.4.4 on page 701; 97; 106; 186, section 8.6.3.1.1 on page 635; 249, page 4; 277; 357 - 359] up to 2012 [146, from 30:13 to 31:48] (before some of the more recent tropospheric amplification data was published), the term "hot spot" largely originated in climate "skeptic" websites, as opposed to in mainstream scientific sources [107, page 6].

The climate scientist John Christy co-authored a report in which he argues that there is no evidence of a hot spot [3, page 4]. I will critique the first edition of Christy et al.'s report in this post; in part 2 I will critique the second edition. In his report, Christy defines the hot spot as follows:

• statistically significant warming in the tropical upper troposphere, lower troposphere, and Earth's surface
• greater warming in the tropical upper troposphere vs. the lower troposphere
• greater warming in the tropical lower troposphere vs. the Earth's surface

Christy also links the hot spot to the magnitude of tropospheric warming [107, pages 6 and 7]. I will address that issue in my post "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming".

According to Christy and his report co-authors Wallace III and D'Aleo [90, signer #7; 91], the hot spot is expected to be a fingerprint of global warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) [3, pages 4 and 12]. So the lack of a hot spot, according to Christy et al. rebuts the US Environmental Protection Agency's claim that CO2 is a pollutant that causes dangerous global warming [3, pages 4 and 7]; this claim has been re-iterated on a number of climate "skeptic" websites, in an attempt to cast doubt on CO2 being a significant cause of recent global warming. So the hot spot has become a major "skeptic" argument against the science on anthropogenic climate change; the argument has been taken up by "skeptics" such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer [90, signer #17; 91], S. Fred Singer, Roger Pielke Sr., Judith Curry, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton, Paul Homewood, Tom Nelson, and David Evans [2; 88, page 942; 148; 167 - 169; 174; 190; 191; 193; 194 - 201; 238; 263; 264; 276; 280; 285; 286]. Christy et al. are some of the most prominent purveyors of this "skeptic" argument.

In their report, Christy et al. also argue that El Niño (also known as the El Niño phase of ENSO or the El Niño-Southern Oscillation) and the Sun, not CO2, are responsible for most of the global warming trend observed since the 1970s [3, pages 4, 57 and 68; 5, page 10]. This may initially make sense, since even young children know that the Sun warms the Earth. Furthermore, scientists know that during the El Niño phase of ENSO, both the oceans' surface and the troposphere warm [1; 58].

As Christy states in his testimony to the US Congress:

"Indeed, I am a co-author of a report in which we used a statistical model to reproduce, to a large degree, the atmospheric temperature trends without the need for extra greenhouse gases. In other words, it seems that Mother Nature can cause such temperature trends on her own, which should be of no surprise [4]."

Christy also cites this report on other occasions to justify his position on environmental regulation [5, pages 10 to 11]. The report/blogpost is not peer-reviewed, and the report, as it stands, lacks much merit. So let's go over some of the issues with the report.

2. Summary of the Objections

There are a number of problems with the Christy et al.'s report. Competent peer review likely would have corrected these problems. So it is quite telling that Christy et al. did not first get their report peer reviewed, before citing the report to Congress. Their report seems less about providing credible research to informed, skeptical scientists, and more about politically influencing uninformed, credulous politicians. So let's take Christy et al.'s advice:

"Given the potential significance of this research, it is appropriate to question everything about it [3, page 66]."


Below is a summary of some of the report's deficiencies:


1) Christy et al. do not address much of the scientific research showing the hot spot, even though Christy et al. claim that there is no evidence of a hot spot. Christy himself presents evidence of a hot spot, thereby contradicting the conclusion of the report he co-authored. The report provides no sound argument against the existence of the hot spot, especially since Christy et al. do not directly compare the rates of upper tropospheric warming, lower tropospheric warming, and surface warming.

2) Christy et al. incorrectly state that the hot spot is claimed to be a fingerprint/signature of CO2-induced global warming. In reality, scientists know that surface warming caused by other factors (such as increased solar activity) would also result in a hot spot. Christy et al.'s proposed solar-induced and ENSO-induced ocean warming should result in a hot spot. Yet Christy et al. claim there is no hot spot. So Christy et al. position may be internally inconsistent.

3) Christy et al. discount CO2 as a cause of post-1970s global warming, even though they do not discuss data showing radiative forcing (meaning "change in energy per unit area") from CO2. This forcing may be indicative of a warming effect from CO2. CO2 might also indirectly warm the atmosphere by increasing the frequency or intensity of El Niño events. If this is the case, then Christy et al. are incorrect when they claim that ENSO, not CO2, is responsible for much of the post-1970s global warming.

4) Christy et al. claim that there is no statistically valid evidence showing that CO2 significantly contributed to post-1970s temperature changes. However, Christy et al. overlook one of the fingerprints/signatures of CO2-induced global warming: stratospheric cooling. Long-term stratospheric cooling has occurred. CO2 also explains much of the observed mesospheric and thermospheric cooling. This cooling is not easily explained by Christy et al.'s proposed mechanisms of solar forcing and/or ENSO, which may be why Christy et al. conveniently overlooked this cooling.

5) Christy et al. use a cumulative ENSO index that makes little sense in terms of atmospheric physics, undermining their report's central argument. A more plausible ENSO index undermines Christy et al.'s contention that ENSO caused most of the recent global warming, consistent with Christy's own co-authored research and in contradiction to Christy et al.'s claims.

6) Christy et al. attribute much of the recent global warming to the Sun, even though they do not discuss much of the scientific evidence against the Sun being a cause of most of the recent global warming. A more plausible use of TSI undermines Christy et al.'s contention that the Sun caused much of the recent global warming.

7) Christy et al. make unjustified references to "alarmist" scientists, despite there being multiple studies debunking canards regarding "alarmist" scientists.


Let's examine each of these objections in turn.

3. Elaboration on the Objections

3.1 Avoiding evidence of the hot spot and failing to provide evidence against the hot spot's existence

Christy et al. do not address much of the scientific research showing a post-1970s hot spot [1; 6 - 12; 105; 109; 172, figures 2c and 4c; 182; 183; 189; 205; 221; 247; 250; 252; 278; 279; 287; 328], even though Christy et al. claim that there is no evidence of a post-1970s hot spot [3, page 4]. This evidence includes some of the same lines of evidence Christy has drawn on in his other work [5, pages 4 - 7; 347]: weather balloon (radiosonde) thermal wind and temperature data [8; 9; 11; 12; 172, figures 2c and 4c; 205; 287], temperature re-analyses [7; 221; 247; 250; 252; 278; 279], and satellite data [1; 6; 105; 109; 182; 183; 189; 328]. Earlier research found reduced tropical tropospheric temperature amplification [8; 182;183; 250; 252] or virtually no amplification [96; 187; 188; 252], due to artificial biases in the tropospheric temperature record. These biases are known as heterogeneities, and include factors such as equipment erroneously reading stratospheric temperature as tropospheric temperature [1; 6; 105; 109; 172, figures 2c and 4c]. Later research used homogenization to correct for these heterogeneities, resulting in greater tropical tropospheric temperature amplification for both radiosonde and satellite temperature records, along with re-analyses [1; 6; 7; 9; 11; 105; 172, figures 2c and 4c; 181; 189; 221; 278; 279]. However, some research generated a hot spot that exceeded model-based projections [237, figures 12 and 13] (see section 3.1 of "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming" for more on heterogeneities and homogenization).

Christy all but concedes the hot spot's existence in the following diagram from his 2017 congressional testimony [5, page 9]:

Figure 1: Comparison of tropical warming trend to model-based projections of the warming trend. The red and blue lines indicate projected warming from models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the effects of extra greenhouse gases (GHGs, such as CO2) are included in the red line projections, but not in the blue line projections. The gray lines indicate the observed warming trends [5]

Figure 1 is deeply flawed, as I discuss in "Myth: Santer et al. Show that Climate Models are Very Flawed" and "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming". But suppose one takes figure 1 at face value. Then the observations (the gray lines) in figure 1 show greater warming in the tropical troposphere vs. nearer to the Earth's surface, though the tropospheric temperature amplification is relatively slight. And Christy's co-authored research also shows greater warming in the upper troposphere than at the surface [280, figure 7]. So Christy's own figure and research shows a hot spot, thereby debunking the conclusion of Christy et al.'s report. One might think Christy would try to reconcile this inconsistency. He does not. Instead, on the page following figure 1, Christy cites the second edition of Christy et al.'s hot spot report/blogpost in which Christy et al. claim there is no evidence of the hot spot [5, pages 9 and 10]. Thus Christy cites the hot spot report, right after citing evidence that debunks the report. And Christy brazenly does this in his testimony to the US Congress. To borrow Christy's own words [5, page 9]: This took guts. It took guts for Christy to blatantly cite false claims to Congress, right after he all but showed that said claims were false using figure 1. So to borrow another quote from the "skeptic" Judith Curry [284]: I thought that there would be consequences for lying during congressional testimony. I guess not

Despite the hot spot in figure 1, Christy's University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) satellite data analysis does not show a post-1970s hot spot [193], as stated by Christy's UAH collaborator Roy Spencer [90, signer #17; 91]. This stands in contrast to three other independent satellite data analyses that do show a hot spot [1; 6]. Figure 2 illustrates this point by comparing the surface warming trend from HadCRUT4 and tropospheric warming trends generated by research groups at UAH, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Satellite Applications and Research (NOAA/STAR), and the University of Washington (UW) [6]:

Figure 2: HadCRUT4 tropical surface warming trends and tropical mid- to upper tropospheric warming trends (in K per decade) above the land, oceans, and both land and oceans from 1979 - 2012. Tropospheric warming trends are from UW, NOAA, RSS, and UAH satellite data analyses. UW(GCM) and UW use different methods for processing the satellite data. The value in parentheses is the ratio of the tropospheric warming to the surface warming for a given tropospheric temperature trend [6]. The RSS tropospheric warming trend is spuriously low due to an error in homogenization. The RSS team later corrected this error [248]. This resulted in a RSS tropical mid- to upper tropospheric warming trend that is between the NOAA trend and the UW trend [1, figure 4B on page 379].

To avoid the tropospheric amplification shown in figure 2, Christy sometimes sidesteps mid- to upper tropospheric warming in favor of lower tropospheric warming [276; 280]. I instead focus on mid- to upper tropospheric amplification for at least four reasons:

• Only RSS and UAH generate satellite analyses of tropical lower tropospheric temperature (another satellite research group generates lower tropospheric temperature analyses [237], though this group is rarely cited). In contrast, at least 5 research groups produce satellite analyses of tropical mid- to upper tropospheric temperature [1, page 383]. More groups means a greater chance for a group to catch and correct the mistakes made by another group. Christy should be aware of this since the RSS team addressed mistakes made by Christy's UAH research team (for more on this, see section 3.1 "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming"). Yet Christy often opts for lower tropospheric temperatures that have less opportunity for correction, instead of mid- to upper tropospheric temperature that have more chance for correction [276; 280]. That choice does not makes much sense, which is one reason why I focus on mid- to upper tropospheric temperatures.

• If Christy were trying to test for amplification, then Christy should look where the amplification is most pronounced and thus most likely to be found. And as I discussed in the introduction, mid- to upper tropospheric amplification is expected be greater, and thus more pronounced, than lower tropospheric amplification. Christy himself admits this [3, pages 14 and 42; 280, figure 7; 288, figure 1]. So Christy should be looking in the mid- to upper troposphere for amplification, not just the lower troposphere. This is what I choose to do as well.

• Christy's collaborator Roy Spencer notes that satellite-based lower troposphere warming measurements may not reach high enough in the troposphere to find the hot spot [193].

• Christy points out that stratospheric temperature contaminates measurements of mid- to upper tropospheric temperature. To avoid this contamination, Christy examines lower tropospheric temperature [280, section 1]. However, stratospheric contamination does not justify ignoring mid- to upper tropospheric analyses, since 5 research groups use 3 different methods to adequately account for stratospheric contamination [1; 6; 105; 189; 346]. Furthermore, the lower tropospheric temperature analyses Christy uses come with their own technical hurdles [326; 327]. Therefore lower tropospheric analyses may not be inherently more reliable than mid- to upper tropospheric analyses. Finally, Christy himself sometimes cites mid- to upper tropospheric analyses, when he thinks the analyses are convenient for his position [3, page 13; 5, figure 2 on page 5 and figure 3 on page 6; 107, page 21; 301; 325, pages 3 and 4]; he often does so without accounting for stratospheric contamination [1]. So if Christy supports his position by citing contaminated mid- to upper tropospheric analyses, then I would be justified in citing corrected analyses in response.

In addition to showing amplification in the mid- to upper troposphere, figure 2 also shows amplification above the tropical oceans and the sum of land+oceans, but not above tropical land. This result is not surprising [304]. To see why, first note that as the warm surface air rises to the troposphere, the warm air mixes by convection. This transfers heat from some of the warmer air that rose from the land to some of the nearby, less warm air that rose from the oceans. Thus convection makes the tropospheric warming rates above the tropical land more similar to the warming rate above the nearby tropical oceans [119, page 1; 249, page 4]. And since land surface warming should be greater than ocean surface warming [119; 146, from 31:47 to 33:33; 256 - 262], the similar tropospheric warming rates above tropical land and oceans would imply a lower amplification ratio above land than above oceans. One would also expect a greater amplification ratio above the oceans than above the land, since the oceans provide a readier source of water that can evaporate, condense in the upper troposphere, and thus produce the tropospheric hot spot [119, page 7].

The aforementioned explanations debunk Christy and Christy's co-author D'Aleo, since Christy and D'Aleo falsely insinuate that the hot spot should appear above land [255, pages 13 and 14; 276; 289], if the land surface record does not contain a warm bias due to heterogeneities [255, pages 14; 289] (in section 3.5 of part 1 of "Christopher Monckton and Projecting Future Global Warming", I discuss how scientists know that heterogeneities due to urbanization are not significantly biasing land surface temperature records).

Figure 2 also shows that UAH is the outlier among the four satellite data analyses, because UAH is the only analysis that does not show greater warming in the mid- to upper troposphere vs. the surface [1; 6; 193]. This discrepancy is likely due to errors with UAH's homogenization method, as I discuss in section 3.1 of "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming". Temperature re-analyses and radiosonde data tend to support the greater RSS/NOAA/UW warming trends, as opposed to the UAH's lesser warming trend (for more on this, see section 3.2 of "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming"). Thus Christy's UAH analysis likely under-estimates tropical mid- to upper tropospheric warming, which may explain why Christy et al. claim there is no tropical hot spot [3, page 4]. And Christy et al. may not have brought up other research showing the hot spot, because doing so would bring attention to the discrepancy between Christy's UAH research and the research published by other scientists.

The UAH analysis creates a further problem for Christy: Christy attributes much of the recent global warming to the Sun and the warm El Niño phase of ENSO [3, pages 57 and 68]. Warming from the Sun and ENSO should cause a hot spot (as I discuss in section 3.2), yet Christy's UAH analysis shows no hot spot [1; 6; 193]. So Christy's solar warming and ENSO-warming hypotheses further undermine the credibility of his UAH data analysis. Or his UAH analysis undermines the credibility of his solar warming and ENSO-warming hypotheses.

So let's this section recap by summarizing some of the relevant evidence on the hot spot:

• 3 out of 4 satellite analyses (or 4 out of 5, if one includes an earlier satellite analysis [189, figure 10] that was cited by Christy in his published work [288, page 1694]) show tropical tropospheric amplification, as shown in figure 2 [1, figure 9B on page 385; 6, table 4 on page 2285]. Christy et. al do not include mid- to upper tropospheric temperature from the NOAA analysis nor from an earlier satellite analysis [3, page 26]; ignoring these analyses allows Christy et al. to avoid some satellite evidence of the hot spot. Christy has cited these two analyses on some occasions and ignored them on other occasions [276; 280; 288, page 1694; 289; 301; 347]. Given this fact and the fact that Christy chose the temperature analyses used by Christy et al. [3 page, 11], it is unsurprising that Christy et al. would ignore some analyses that inconvenience Christy's position. Christy's UAH analysis is the only satellite analysis that supports Christy et al.'s claim of no post-1970s hot spot [1, figure 9B; 6, table 4]; UAH's result should be taken with a grain of salt, given UAH's history of incorrect tropospheric results based on UAH's faulty homogenization (for more on this, see sections 3.1 and 3.2 of "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming").

• 4 out of 5 radiosonde analyses show greater warming in the tropical upper troposphere (at an atmospheric pressure level of around 300 hPa, as shown in figure 3) than near Earth's surface [9, figure 9; 11, figures 1 and 2; 172, figure 2c; 181, figure 3 and table 1]. Christy et al. focus on radiosonde temperature at 150 hPa and 200 hPa (equivalent to 150 mb and 200 mb, respectively) [3, page 59]. This may cause them to miss the tropospheric amplification at 300 hPa. Christy is presumably at fault here since Christy chose the radiosonde temperature records in question [3, page 11]. This is a rather odd mistake for Christy to make, since Christy's co-authored research states that the model-predicted amplification is highest at 300 hPa [288, figure 1 on page 1697] and that the observed amplification is greater at 300 hPa than at 200 hPa [280, figure 7]. In any event, the Hadley Centre's radiosonde analysis HadAT2 is the only radiosonde analysis that does not show a hot spot over certain time periods [172, figure 2c; 181, figure 3 and table 1]; this may explain why some "skeptics" rely on HadAT [125, page 18; 283]. One should treat this HadAT result with skepticism, since the HadAT team strongly recommends that researchers not rely on just the HadAT data-set. Instead, the HadAT team recommend that researchers use other radiosonde data-sets as well, along with the RSS satellite analysis, to determine if their result in robust [281]. The other radiosonde analyses [9, figure 9; 11, figures 1 and 2; 172, figure 2c] and the RSS analysis show a post-1970s hot spot [1, figure 9B; 6, table 4]. Furthermore, the HadAT2 analysis does show the hot spot over a number of multi-decadal time periods [172, figure 2c; 181, figure 3 and table 1]. So the lack of a hot (over some time periods) in HadAT2 is not a robust result.

• 4 out of 5 re-analyses show greater warming in the tropical upper troposphere (at an atmospheric pressure level of around 300 hPa) than near Earth's surface [7, figure 23 and page 351; 221, figure 7; 250, figure 1; 279, figure 4]. Christy et al. largely ignore the re-analyses, presumably on Christy's advice [3, page 11], and instead focus on radiosondes and satellite data [3, page 59]. Evading re-analyses not only allows Christy et al. to ignore evidence inconvenient for their position, but the evasion also conflicts with Christy's use of re-analyses in his congressional testimony [5, pages 4 - 7] and in his peer-reviewed work [301, page 679 - 682]. The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP-2) re-analysis shows greater warming in the lower troposphere than in the upper troposphere [221, figure 7; 279, figure 4]. This NCEP-2 trend should be taken with a grain of salt, since the NCEP re-analysis has a history of under-estimating tropospheric warming [282; 340]; this may explain why the "skeptic" Anthony Watts gladly trumpets the NCEP re-analysis [263]. Other re-analyses, such as the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Interim (ERA-I) re-analysis, tend to have more upper tropospheric warming than NCEP-2 [221, figure 7; 279, figure 4] and tend to perform better than NCEP when it comes to representing atmospheric phenomena [250; 279; 315; 340; 341 - 345; 348]. So one should consider using another re-analysis instead of NCEP-2 [349; 355]. ERA-I shows greater warming near the surface than in the lower troposphere [221, figure 7; 279, figure 4]. This is because ERA-I under-estimates the rate of lower tropospheric warming, as acknowledged by the ERA-I team [7; 108].

Thus the hot spot likely exists, based on the preponderance of the evidence. This runs contrary to Christy et al.'s claim that there is no hot spot [3, page 4]. To make matters worse for Christy et al., tropical precipitation/convection patterns provide further evidence of a post-1970s moist-adiabatic lapse rate reduction [160; 339], indicative of a post-1970s hot spot. In addition, short-term warming produces a short-term hot spot with a decreased lapse rate [1, page 384; 118; 172, figures 3c, 4a, and 4b; 183; 251; 331, page 102; 363, figure 4]. And in the distant past, the lapse rate likely decreased in response to global warming [120; 354, figure 3].

In summary, since Christy et al. claim there is no evidence of a post-1970s hot spot [3, page 4] with a reduced tropical tropospheric lapse rate, then they need to square their claim with:

1. research showing a post-1970s hot spot [1; 6 - 12; 105; 109; 172, figures 2c and 4c; 182; 183; 189; 205; 221; 247; 250; 252; 278; 279; 287; 328] (Christy et al. would at least need to mention that there was research that purports to show a post-1970s hot spot)
2. tropical precipitation/convection observations indicative of a post-1970s hot spot [160; 339]
3. evidence that longer term warming in the distant past reduced the tropospheric lapse rate [120; 354, figure 3]
4. evidence of shorter-term hot spots with a short-term lapse rate reduction [1, page 384; 118; 172, figures 3c, 4a, and 4b; 183; 251; 331, page 102; 363, figure 4] 

Yet Christy et al. do none of this. They do mention a paper from Sherwood and Nishant [3, page 23], without mentioning that this paper found the hot spot [11]. They likely would not have gotten away with this if their "report"/blogpost passed competent peer review by a reputable scientific journal. This is because competent reviewers make a paper's author(s) address at least some of the evidence that might conflict with the paper's conclusions. It is therefore rather telling that Christy et al.'s "report" is not peer reviewed, since this allows  Christy et al. to blissfully ignore any scientific research that might counter their claims. Much of this opposing research was published before Christy et al.'s August 2016 hot spot report [6 - 9; 11; 105; 109; 160; 181; 189; 221; 250; 252; 278; 279; 287; 328; 354, figure 3], so Christy et al. could have easily addressed this research in their report. But they chose not to, in contrast to other scientists [11, pages 1 and 2] who cite previously published tropospheric amplification research [6; 8]. How convenient.

At this point, one might expect Christy et al. to provide some evidence against the existence of the hot spot. For example, they should measure the tropical rates of mid- to upper tropospheric warming, lower tropospheric warming, and surface warming. Then they should compare these rates to see if mid- to upper tropospheric warming is greater than lower tropospheric warming, and to see if lower tropospheric warming is greater than surface warming. This would let them know whether there is a hot spot, as per their definition of the hot spot [3, pages 14 and 42] and as per the test they set for themselves [3, section IV on page 14]. Yet Christy et al. do not directly compare the tropical rates of mid- to upper tropospheric warming, lower tropospheric warming, and surface warming. So Christy et al. did not perform the tests needed to check for the hot spot's existence. This, in combination with the aforementioned evidence of the hot spot's existence, undermines Christy et al.'s claim that there is no hot spot [3, page 4].

(Some tropospheric amplification also occurs globally [108; 110, page 119; 328], particularly over oceans [119]. Amplification also occurs in regions outside of the tropics [98; 99], as would be expected of global warming caused by greenhouse gases such as CO2 [98]. However, some regions of the globe do not show this tropospheric amplification [100; 111]. So tropical or global tropospheric amplification does not imply amplification in every region of the world [189, figures 8, 9, and 10], just as global warming does not imply that every region will warm.
Many higher elevation land areas also show elevated warming trends or elevation-dependent amplification [123; 129; 131 - 134; 362], consistent with trends observed in the distant past [120; 354, figure 3]. Some of the mechanisms that cause in elevation-dependent amplification also cause the tropospheric amplification that occurs in air far above land, though not all the mechanisms are shared between the two forms of amplification [123; 130 - 133; 362]. Some regions and data-sets, however, do not display elevation-dependent amplification [128; 129; 131] and the temperature data from higher elevations must be appropriately analyzed so as not to exaggerate the rate of amplification [126].)

3.2 Misidentifying a fingerprint/signature of CO2-induced global warming

Christy et al. state that the hot spot is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of global warming caused by greenhouse gases [3, pages 4 and 12]; Christy has insinuated as much when he enters the political [121; 122] or scientific realm [280]:

"These model simulations indicate that a clear fingerprint of greenhouse gas response in the climate system to date is that the trend of [the tropical lower troposphere] should be greater than [the observed temperature trend of the surface], by a factor on average of 1.4 [...] [280]."

"The climate-change-consensus community points to such indirect evidence of warming as glaciers melting, coral being bleached, more droughts and stronger storms. Yet observations show that the warming of the deep atmosphere (the fundamental sign of carbon-dioxide-caused climate change, which is supposedly behind these natural phenomena) is not occurring at an alarming rate [...] [121]."

However, this is not an accurate representation of the claims made by the mainstream scientific community; many scientists and non-scientists (including Christy's UAH collaborator Roy Spencer [285]) know that surface warming caused by other factors would also result in a hot spot, as long as the troposphere behaves somewhat like a moist adiabat [1; 2; 107, pages, 7 - 9, 26; 124; 174; 283; 285]. For example, short-term, non-anthropogenic warming events produce a short-term hot spot [1, page 384; 118; 172, figures 3c, 4a, and 4b; 243 - 245]. And increased solar activity would warm the tropical oceans, leading to a hot spot [2; 175 - 177; 179; 307, figure 12.5a on page 707]:

"Such tropical amplification occurs for any surface warming; it is not a unique signature of greenhouse gas (GHG)-induced warming, as has been incorrectly claimed (Christy 2015) [1]."

Since the hot spot would occur with any surface warming [1], the hot spot is not a signature/fingerprint that distinguishes CO2-induced warming from other types of global warming. Christy likely knows this [13; 107, pages 7 - 9 and 20] since, according to Bart Verheggen, Christy wrote the following in an email to Verheggen:

"Yes, the hot spot is expected via the traditional view that the lapse rate feedback operates on both short and long time scales. […] it [the hot spot] is broader than just the enhanced greenhouse effect because any thermal forcing should elicit a response such as the “expected” hot spot [13]."

Yet Christy et al. state that the hot spot is claimed to be a fingerprint/signature of CO2-induced warming and they cite [3, page 12] another source [292] as supporting this claim. This source states that warming results in a lapse rate reduction [292, page 19]. But nowhere does this source claim that the hot spot would occur with CO2-induced warming, but not with some other forms of global warming, such as solar-induced warming. Thus Christy et al.'s were incorrect when they said their cited source claimed that the hot spot is a fingerprint/signature of CO2-induced warming [3, page 12].

If a multi-decadal hot spot does not exist, then there are two main explanations for this lack of a hot spot:

1. There is no surface warming, and thus no warming for the troposphere to amplify.
2. The tropical troposphere does not behave like a moist adiabat.

Option 1 fails since there is clear evidence of multi-decadal surface warming for both land and oceans [108; 149 - 159]. There are also other signs of warming, such as sea level rise resulting from melting ice and thermal expansion of water [309 - 312], increased hurricane intensity [318, page 3; 319 - 321], and increased water vapor levels [7; 101; 313 - 317] (see section 3.7 of "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming" for more on this), among other metrics [322; 323; 375]. Furthermore, the absence of tropospheric amplification does not imply a lack of surface warming, since a number of regions (including deserts [370 - 372] and the Arctic [373; 374]) have surface warming without tropospheric amplification in the upper troposphere [370 - 374] nor amplification of warming with increased elevation [128; 129; 131]. These regions do not behave somewhat like a moist adiabat, consistent with climate model results [161; 366 - 369]. These and other lines of evidence debunk option 1.

That leaves option 2. If option 2 is right, then the magnitude of the tropospheric lapse rate did not significantly decrease. This implies greater global warming, since lapse rate reduction serves as a negative feedback that limits global warming [135; 163 - 166], though some researchers dispute this point [360]. Thus surface warming with no hot spot implies less negative feedback and greater warming, contrary to the claims made by some critics of mainstream climate science [166 - 169].

Some critics of mainstream climate science attempt to introduce an option 3, by claiming that the hot spot is a fingerprint of CO2-induced global warming in particular [2; 88, page 942; 148; 174; 194 - 198; 200; 263; 264; 276; 280]; Christy et al. rely on option 3 in their discussion of the hot spot [3, pages 4 and 12]. So if option 3 were true, then the lack of a hot spot would argue against CO2 being a significant cause of recent global warming. Option 3 and the hot spot have therefore become talking points on many "skeptic" websites, where critics doubt the impact of anthropogenic CO2 on recent global temperatures [2; 88, page 942; 148; 167 - 169; 174; 190; 191; 194 - 198; 200; 263; 264; 276]. These critics sometimes support option 3 by (intentionally or unintentionally) misrepresenting a figure made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2; 89, page 675, figure 9.1; 292, page 25]. The hot spot in the IPCC figure is not specific to CO2-induced warming. Instead, the pronounced hot spot appears in the CO2 portion of the figure because increased forcing from CO2 caused most of the recent global warming [2; 89, page 674]. If increased forcing from the Sun had instead caused most of the recent global warming, then there would be a pronounced hot spot in the solar portion of the IPCC's figure [1; 2].

Thus the IPCC's figure does not support option 3's claim that the hot spot is a specific fingerprint of CO2-induced warming. There are several other reasons for thinking that the IPCC does not support option 3. These reasons include:

• The IPCC does not claim that a long-term lapse rate reduction is specifically a fingerprint of CO2-induced surface warming, as opposed to surface warming caused by the Sun.
• The IPCC claims that lapse rate reduction occurs because the tropical atmosphere behaves somewhat like a moist adiabat [186, section 8.6.3.1.1 on page 635]. If this were the case then similar moist adiabatic processes would also cause a hot spot from solar-induced warming and other forms of surface warming.
• Climate models (including models used by the IPCC) show lapse rate reduction in response to solar-induced surface warming [2; 175 - 179; 307, figure 12.5a on page 707].
• In its discussion of the lapse rate, the IPCC cites research showing lapse rate reduction in response to non-anthropogenic warming caused by factors such as ENSO [186, section 8.6.3.1.1 on page 635; 89, section 9.4.4.4 on page 701]. This cited research includes Santer et al. 2005 [187], along with Hegerl and Wallace 2002 [188].

So the IPCC's figure does not support option 3, and option 3 fails since surface warming caused by non-CO2 factors would also result in a hot spot. For example, a 2% increase in solar irradiance (which would warm the Earth's surface about as much as would a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels [175; 178; 179]) would cause amplified tropospheric warming with increasing height [2; 178]. Shorter-term increases in solar irradiance would also cause short-term temperature tropospheric warming amplification [175 - 177; 179]. Furthermore, the warm El Niño phase of ENSO causes a short-term hot spot [118; 187; 188; 243 - 245].

This creates another problem for Christy et al., since they attribute much of the recent global warming to solar activity and ENSO [3, page 68], while claiming that there is no evidence of a hot spot and while Christy's UAH analysis shows no hot spot [1; 6; 193]. Yet solar-induced and ENSO-induced surface warming should elicit a hot spot, as illustrated in climate models [2; 175 - 179; 307, figure 12.5a on page 707], basic physical theory [1; 2; 123; 124; 127], evidence of shorter-term hot spots [1, page 384; 118; 172, figures 3c, 4a, and 4b; 183; 251; 331, page 102; 363, figure 4], decreased lapse rate with global warming in the distant past [120; 354, figure 3], and Verheggen's account of Christy's position [13; 107, pages 7 - 9 and 20]. So not only do Christy et al. misidentify a fingerprint of CO2-induced global warming, but Christy may be contradicting himself. Christy is not the only critic to contradict himself in this way: Richard Lindzen has at times implied that the hot spot is a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming [88, page 942] and that the hot spot can occur via moist adiabatic processes in the absence of greenhouse-gas-induced warming [125, page 18].

But suppose that, for the sake of argument, one accepts option 3. Thus one accepts that the hot spot is a fingerprint of significant greenhouse-gas-induced global warming in particular. This implies that post-1970s greenhouse-gas-induced global warming occurred, since a post-1970s hot spot exists (as I discussed in section 3.1). So advocates of option 3 are in a bind:

• Option 3 proponents could accept that significant greenhouse-gas-induced global warming occurred. But many of them do not want to do that, for largely ideological reasons (see section 3.1 of "John Christy, Climate Models, and Long-term Tropospheric Warming" for more on this).

• Option 3 advocates could drop option 3 by admitting that the hot spot is not a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced global warming in particular. But they likely do not want to do that either, because they would then need to admit that they misrepresented basic climatology and admit that scientists were correct when these scientists corrected said misrepresentations.

• Option 3 proponents could refuse to accept the hot spot's existence, despite strong evidence that the hot spot exists. This refusal could involve explicitly denying the hot spot's existence, intentionally avoiding evidence of the hot spot, misrepresenting scientific research on the hot spot, etc.

The aforementioned bind explains why some "skeptics" refuse to accept the hot spot's existence. Christy et al. resolve this bind by settling on the last option: they refuse to accept the hot spot's existence [3, page 4]. Therefore the bind helps explain why Christy et al. wrote a blogpost/report denying that the hot spot exists [3]. That is what happens when ideologically-motivated "skeptics" misidentify a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced global warming.

3.3 Disregarding evidence of CO2's effect on radiative forcing, temperature, and (possibly) ENSO

Christy et al. discount CO2 as a cause of post-1970s global warming [3, pages 4, 67, and 68], even though they do not discuss data showing radiative forcing from CO2 within specific infrared wavelengths [14; 15; 146, from 9:13 to 10:28; 380]. This forcing represents one fingerprint of CO2-induced warming since this forcing translates into a warming effect; the radiative forcing's warming effect is proportional to climate sensitivity [73; 143; 144]. Multiple lines of evidence support a relatively high climate sensitivity, implying that CO2 significantly affected post-1970s global temperature (for further discussion, see the introduction to part 1 of "Christopher Monckton and Projecting Future Global Warming"). Even a low estimate of climate sensitivity would involve CO2 causing much of the recent global warming [73; 290, pages 1381 and 1382; 291 (discussed in 4)]. So the evidence on climate sensitivity rebuts Christy et al.'s claim that CO2 did not have a statistically significant impact of global temperature [3, pages 4, 67, and 68]. Christy et al. do not address any of this evidence on climate sensitivity and thus Christy et al. do not address one line of evidence against their position.

Nor do Christy et al. discuss evidence showing that forcing from anthropogenic CO2 contributes substantially to Earth's energy balance (the amount of energy the Earth takes up vs. the amount of energy the Earth releases) [170; 171; 324; 329; 330]. Ironically, CO2 might also indirectly affect atmospheric temperatures, by increasing the frequency or intensity of El Niño warming events [235; 236; 391; 392; 393, page 99; 398 - 401]. If this is the case, then Christy et al. are mistaken when they claim that ENSO, not CO2, is responsible for much of the global warming trend observed since the 1970s [3, pages 57 and 68; 5, page 10 and 11]. And even if CO2 did not influence the frequency/intensity of El Niño warming events, the observed radiative forcing from CO2 still debunks Christy et al. claim that there is no evidence of CO2 significant impact Earth's temperature [3, pages 4 and 67].

3.4 Ignoring the stratospheric, mesospheric and thermospheric signature of CO2-induced global warming

Christy et al. note that, based on their data analysis, there is no statistically valid evidence showing that CO2 impacted long-term, post-1970s temperature trends [3, pages 67 and 68]. However, Christy et al. conveniently overlook one of the fingerprints/signatures of CO2-induced global warming: stratospheric cooling [2; 16 - 18; 40; 41; 89, page 674; 249]. During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, scientists predicted that CO2-induced global warming would produce stratospheric cooling [19 - 25; 146, from 26:23 to 29:54]. Ozone depletion also contributes to stratospheric cooling [20; 21; 26 - 30], with some researchers arguing that ozone depletion contributes more to the cooling than does CO2 [31; 96].

There has been stratospheric cooling [11; 28; 29; 32 - 38; 96; 173; 356], with much of this cooling attributable to CO2 [27; 30; 39 - 42; 96; 97, pages 8, 9, 12, and 13; 173; 356]. Take, for instance, the following figure [11] from a paper cited by Christy et al. in their hot spot report [3, page 23]:

Figure 3: Tropical temperature trend versus height for weather balloon measurements. Pressure decreases from the Earth's surface (near the bottom of the y-axis) to the troposphere to the stratosphere (near the top of the y-axis). The green line extends to the beginning of satellite era of atmospheric temperature measurements (1979), while the purple line extends to before the satellite era. The inset legend for circles, diamonds, etc. indicates different temperature trends given different data analysis choices. The blue line roughly indicates the warming pattern expected for a moist adiabat [11].

Figure 3 shows a clear tropical hot spot, with surface warming, greater warming in the upper troposphere, and then cooling in the stratosphere. This is the atmospheric temperature pattern one expects from CO2-induced global warming in an atmosphere that behaves somewhat like a moist adiobat [2; 19; 97, pages 5, 8].

However, some data-sets do not show statistically significant cooling for the past two decades or so [26; 31; 43; 97], particularly in the lower stratosphere. The decreased rate of stratospheric cooling in the past two decades is very likely due to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty that led to reduced anthropogenic emissions of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The Montreal Protocol resulted in a slow recovery of stratospheric ozone levels [44 - 50]. This ozone recovery partially offset CO2-induced cooling of the stratosphere [26 - 31; 43], in line with the scientific predictions made in the 1970s and 1980s [20; 21; 51].

The El Niño phase of ENSO also causes stratospheric cooling [102; 103; 243 - 246; 396, page 606], though ENSO likely does not account for most of the long-term stratospheric cooling [29; 43; 101; 104; 396]. Furthermore, solar forcing does not explain most of the long-term stratospheric cooling [2; 16 - 18; 29; 39 - 41; 43; 89, page 674; 97; 101; 147; 178; 179]. Christy et al. conveniently overlook how this stratospheric cooling conflicts with their solar-induced warming hypothesis [3, pages 57 and 68; 5, page 10]. This is rather surprising since this issue was pointed out in a report co-authored by Christy [97, pages 5 and 8]. In contrast, CO2 and ozone depletion explain this lower stratospheric cooling rather well [20; 21; 26 - 30; 39 - 42; 89, page 674; 96; 97; 356]. CO2 also accounts for much cooling higher in the stratosphere [26 - 29; 356]; this mid- to upper stratospheric cooling has persisted over the past two decades [26 - 29; 32 - 35; 38; 356], despite the more pronounced decrease in the rate of lower stratospheric cooling [26 - 29; 31; 33 - 35; 38; 43; 97]. Furthermore, CO2 explains much of the cooling above the stratosphere, in the mesosphere and thermosphere [265 - 270; 351; 352; 381]. So stratospheric, mesospheric, and thermospheric cooling debunk Christy et al.'s claim that there is no evidence of CO2 significantly impacting recent temperature trends [3, pages 67 and 68]. And Christy et al. have yet to show that ENSO can account for most of the recent, long-term stratospheric cooling.

3.5 Using implausible physical indices

So there is evidence that the hot spot exists (see section 3.1), Christy et al. do not perform the tests needed to find the hot spot (see section 3.1), and there is evidence that CO2 significantly impacted post-1970s atmospheric temperature (see sections 3.3 and 3.4). Why then do Christy et al. claim otherwise [3, pages 4, 67, and 68]? To make their case, Christy et al. generate a cumulative multivariate ENSO index and cumulative total solar irradiance (cumulative MEI and cumulative TSI, respectively) to represent ENSO and the Sun, respectively. They then subtract these indices out of various temperature records, thereby removing warming while correcting for TSI and ENSO. Since there is no significant tropospheric warming left in these corrected records, then there is no tropospheric hot spot, according to Christy et al.'s reasoning. Their reasoning makes no sense, since showing no TSI-corrected ENSO-corrected hot spot does not show that there is no hot spot before correction for TSI and ENSO; so even if their TSI and ENSO corrections are correct, the hot spot could still exist. Thus Christy et al. do not do the tests needed for investigating the hot spot's existence, as I discussed in section 3.1.

Anyway, Christy et al. then reason that since the ENSO-corrected TSI-corrected temperature trend is flat, then there is no evidence left that CO2 significantly affected temperature. This temperature correction also allows Christy et al. to attribute most of the post-1970s global warming to ENSO and the Sun [3, pages 16, 18, 67 and 68; 5, page 10]. Christy also explains that using a cumulative TSI generates the same results as a cumulative MEI, so a cumulative MEI is not required [5, page 10]. Using the cumulative TSI has its own problems, as I explain in sections 3.4 and 3.6. In any event, Christy et al.'s central arguments hinge on their cumulative MEI and cumulative TSI; if either of these indices are deeply flawed, then Christy et al.'s "report"/blogpost fails. Unfortunately, both indices are physically implausible, as I will show later in this section.

To help provide context to Christy et al.'s use of a cumulative ENSO index, Christy cites other sources that use an ENSO index:

"The explanatory variables are those that have been known for decades such as indices of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), volcanic activity, and a solar activity (e.g. see Christy and McNider, 1994, “Satellite greenhouse signal”, Nature, 367, 27Jan). [One of the ENSO explanatory variables was the accumulated MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index, see https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/) in which the index was summed through time to provide an indication of its accumulated impact. This “accumulated-MEI” was shown to be a potential factor in global temperatures by Spencer and Braswell, 2014 (“The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a 1D climate model”, APJ.Atmos.Sci. 50(2), 229-237, DOI:10.1007/s13143-014-001-z.) [5, page 10]."

But these sources actually hurt Christy et al.'s case. To see why, note that in one of these sources ("Satellite greenhouse signal") Christy used a non-cumulative ENSO index [226]. The NOAA website Christy links to also uses a non-cumulative MEI [227] taken from another paper [228]. So neither source supports Christy et al.'s use of a cumulative ENSO index. That leaves Christy's last cited source: Spencer and Braswell. Spencer and Braswell use the same non-cumulative MEI [229, page 231] cited on the NOAA website [227] and presented in the NOAA's original source [228]. Despite this fact, Christy's congressional testimony insinuates that Spencer and Braswell use a cumulative ENSO index [5, page 10]. So to once borrow a quote from the "skeptic" Judith Curry [284]: I thought that there would be consequences for lying during Congressional testimony. I guess not.

So, despite Christy's claims, none of his listed sources justify Christy et al.'s use of a cumulative MEI, since all of Christy's sources use a non-cumulative MEI. At best, Christy et al. could cite some unpublished, non-peer-reviewed reports on the relationship between cumulative indices and global temperature [294 - 297; 299; 300]. But Christy may have realized that such citations would not persuade an informed audience. This may be why Christy cited more reputable sources, such as the NOAA and peer-reviewed publications [5, page 10].

But Christy cannot appeal to the NOAA's non-cumulative MEI, since the non-cumulative MEI is not the same as Christy et al.'s cumulative MEI. A similar point applies to Christy et al.'s cumulative TSI: the cumulative TSI is not the same as a non-cumulative TSI, so Christy cannot rely sources that use a non-cumulative TSI. This is made clear in the following four figures:

Figure 4: Cumulative TSI and cumulative MEI used by Christy et al. [3, page 18].

Figure 5: Non-cumulative MEI. The red peaks represent El Niño events and the blue troughs represent La Niña events. The relative magnitudes of the peaks and troughs are proportional to the strength of corresponding El Niño and La Niña events [227]. See figure 6 for a representation of some of the uncertainties involved in calculating the magnitude El Niño and La Niña events.

Figure 6: Non-cumulative ENSO index (Niño3.4) based on ocean temperature in the east central equatorial Pacific, up to the year 2016. Niño3.4 is one of several non-cumulative indexes used in generating the non-cumulative MEI shown in figure 5. Red lines indicate the Niño3.4 index values, while the black region represents uncertainty at the 95% confidence level [58].

Figure 7: Non-cumulative TSI from the NOAA's Climate Data Record (CDR), based on satellite observations. The peaks and troughs represent the 11 year solar cycle. Data sources are SORCE TIM (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment, with Total Irradiance Monitor), ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor) and PMOD (Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos) [231].

Christy et al.'s cumulative MEI (figure 4, red line) is clearly not equivalent to the non-cumulative ENSO indices in figures 5 and 6. Nor is Christy et al.'s cumulative TSI (figure 4, blue line) equivalent to the non-cumulative ENSO index in figure 7.

To support their cumulative TSI index [3, page 18], Christy et al. cite a 1993 paper [230]. There are at least four problems with their citation:

1. Christy et al.'s cited source does not use a cumulative TSI [230]. 
2. Christy et al.'s source suggests that solar irradiance and Northern hemisphere temperature diverged in recent decades ("recent decades" before 1993) in a way consistent with CO2-induced global warming [230, figure 10 on page 18,904]. The source's suggestion does not fit well Christy et al.'s claim that the Sun, not CO2, is responsible for much of the post-1970s global warming trend [3, pages 57 and 68; 5, page 10].
3. Other researchers have shown that non-cumulative TSI decreased or remained relatively flat since the 1970s, as measured from the maximum TSI during the 11 year solar cycle (see figure 7) [55; 231 - 234]. So a solar irradiance measured by a non-cumulative TSI would not explain post-1970s global warming [54; 55; 101; 115]. This places the onus on Christy et al. to explain why one should reject the non-cumulative TSI results in favor of a cumulative TSI. Christy et al. did not meet this burden.
4. The two authors of the 1993 paper [230] later recognized deficiencies in a data-set used [404] in their 1993 paper. One of the authors then went on to publish research showing a decrease in TSI during post-1970s warming [405].

To make matters worse, Christy et al. remain obscure about how they generate their ad hoc, cumulative TSI and cumulative ENSO index. Sou offers insight into how these indices may have been generated:

"How or why anyone would distort [the Multivariate ENSO Index] into a cumulative chart is anyone's guess. [...] It took me a while to figure out what [Christy et al.] did. [...]
1. Take an annual average (why on earth?). 
2. Add the second year's data to the first. 
3. For each subsequent year, add the current year to the sum of all prior years. [...] 
The current solar cycle is the weakest it's been for ages. Despite this, this pack of ratbags did the same thing with TSI that they did with [the Multivariate ENSO Index]. They developed what they called the "cumulative TSI" [53]."

And the scientist Timothy Osborn notes that Christy et al.'s cumulative indices are physically implausible:

"The statistical models used in this report co-authored by Christy are flawed and thus do not support his statement that Mother Nature can cause the observed warming trends on her own. They suggest that these trends arise from cumulative anomalies of ENSO or cumulative anomalies of solar irradiance, but offer no compelling physical basis for this hypothesis. There is no consideration that a warmer climate would cause increased loss of radiative energy to space, nor that a cooler climate would decrease the emissions of radiation to space. This effect is necessary to explain how the Earth’s climate has remained within a relatively small range of mean temperatures for much of the Earth’s geological history, yet their hypothesis assumes that a step up in temperature (due, e.g. to an El Nino event) would be sustained even after the El Nino had dissipated, because they use the cumulative ENSO index. Furthermore, a cumulative variable must have a physically-defined baseline from which the anomalies are defined, which has not been done in this case. Otherwise, the baseline can be changed to produce an entirely arbitrary upward or downward trend in the cumulative variable, and thus support a false claim that the cumulative variable can “cause” a trend in the climate [52]."

Similar comments have been made by other climate scientists [308]. Neither Osborn nor Sou support their claims with evidence from peer-reviewed publications, so their statements here should be taken with a grain of salt. However, Sou's summary of the cumulative indices [53] matches Christy's claim that the non-cumulative indices were summed through time in order to generate the cumulative indices [5, page 10]. Osborn is also right in his contention that Earth has remained within a ~10K to ~11K range for global mean temperatures (and ~17K for Antarctic temperatures) for much of Earth's history [94; 95], and that a warmer planet loses more energy through outgoing radiation [92; 93; 113]. Furthermore, the warm El Niño phase of ENSO results in Earth radiating more energy into space than Earth takes up [112; 114; 241]; this is largely because El Niño increases cloud cover and these clouds reflect the solar radiation Earth would otherwise absorb [112; 242]. This compensates [112; 241] for less emission of radiation by clouds during El Niño [239; 240]. Christy acknowledges this point, at least when it comes to clouds limiting global warming caused by greenhouse gases such as CO2 [4]. Yet, seemingly, Christy conveniently does not use this reasoning to show similar cloud-based limits on global warming caused by the Sun or ENSO:

"the models tend to be too sensitive to greenhouse gases, likely related to the fact the models tend to shrink clouds more than in reality, so that more sunlight gets in and heats up the Earth more. […] The Earth has a way to release the heat that greenhouse gases try to build up [4]."

So it is true that Earth releases energy from ENSO, in accordance with Osborn's reasoning: the El Niño phase of ENSO warms the surface air and the troposphere, then the El Niño passes, and the Earth transfers the excess surface and tropospheric energy into space [112; 114]. So El-Niño-induced warming is very transient [298] and does not account for most of the post-1970s global warming trend [54 - 57; 101; 115]. In contrast to a temporary El Niño, CO2 remains for much longer [94; 137], warming the Earth by absorbing radiation released by Earth's surface [14; 15]. This warming compensates for the energy that a warmer Earth releases into space. Thus CO2 can cause long-term global warming, as CO2 has done in the past [137; 143; 145].

As this CO2-induced warming continues, eventually Earth reaches an equilibrium state [143; 144] that can be much warmer than contemporary times [94; 95; 137]; in this equilibrium state, the Earth's release of energy into space equals the energy entering Earth from space and CO2-induced warming ceases [143; 144]. So CO2-induced warming does not necessarily imply a runaway global warming scenario where Earth continues to warm in an irreversible way [135; 137; 185; 225; 308; 389, pages 17 and 24]; Earth's warming and cooling patterns differ from the runaway warming that occurred on Venus [135; 136; 138 - 140; 203, from 1:55 to 3:36; 204; 389, pages 17 and 24]. Runaway warming on Earth will not occur for at least another billion years [135 - 141; 142, page 90; 389, pages 17 and 24]. Thus one can explain why CO2 causes long-term non-runaway warming and ENSO causes short-term warming, even if Earth has mechanisms that eventually stop both CO2-induced warming and El-Niño-induced warming. Christy et al. run afoul of these points by using a cumulative ENSO index that assumes energy from El Niño will accumulate in the troposphere and thereby result in a long-term warming trend [3, pages 16, 18, and 68].

In contrast to Christy et al., other researchers (including Christy himself [226]) have used a physically plausible, non-cumulative ENSO index. This index allows for El-Niño-induced tropospheric warming to readily dissipate into space, in contrast to Christy et al. cumulative ENSO index. Researchers have found that when one uses this non-cumulative ENSO index, ENSO does not account for most the recent global warming [54 - 57; 101; 115; 184; 293], though some researchers attribute much of the tropospheric warming to ENSO [103; 104]. Similarly, using a non-cumulative TSI reveals that TSI does not account for most of the recent global warming [54; 55; 101; 115]. The following figure shows how much of the surface warming remains, even after ENSO and TSI are factored out [54]:

Figure 8: (a) Global surface temperature trend after correcting for TSI (solar), ENSO, and volcanic aerosols. The upper-left, boxed inset depicts a measurement of the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMO), a cycle that affects ocean temperatures. (b) Global surface temperature trend after correcting for the AMO, TSI (solar), ENSO, and volcanic aerosols [54].

It unclear whether the AMO is an independent cause of ocean warming vs. the AMO being a type of ocean warming caused by other factors [215; 217; 219; 379; 394, page 171]. There is also some dispute over whether the AMO impacts temperature as strongly as is shown panel (b) [207; 395]. For instance, aerosols, instead of just the AMO, may have partially offset CO2-induced warming during the 1940s to 1970s [146, from 40:29 to 45:59; 217; 383, pages 1328 and 1329; 384; 385, section 1; 386, page 5827; 387; 388; 390]. Some sources attribute much of the recent warming to the AMO [54; 208; 209], while other sources argue that the AMO does not account for much of the recent warming [210; 211; 220; 382; 395]. In either case, greenhouse gases such as CO2 substantially contributed to recent global warming [207; 212 - 219; 382]. 

Moreover, based on the ENSO index, the 1997-1998 El Niño was about as strong as the 1982-1983 El Niño in terms of warming of the ocean surface [58; 59; 227; 228] (see figures 5 and 6). Yet Earth's surface was warmer in 1997-1998 than in 1982-1983 [60; 108], while the mid-troposphere was warmer in 1997-1998 than in 1982-1983 [1; 38; 108]. Thus, significant global warming remains even after ENSO is factored out [54 - 57; 61 - 63; 101; 206]. Christy supports this point in research he co-authored [226] and cited [5, page 10]; this research uses a non-cumulative ENSO index, as opposed to Christy et al.'s cumulative MEI. So Christy shows a tropospheric warming trend even after correction for ENSO, thereby undermining Christy et al.'s claim that ENSO caused much of the recent global warming. Moreover, Ken Gregory, a representative of the organization Friends of Science, argues that Christy et al. did not perform an appropriate correction for ENSO [191, comment from Ken Gregory in the comments section]. Gregory makes this point despite the fact Friends of Science claims there is no hot spot [377]. So one could hardly way that Gregory's criticism is motivated by a misguided desire to show the hot spot exists. Taken together, these points support Osborn's contention that Christy et al. do not provide a compelling physical basis for thinking that ENSO caused most of the long-term global warming [52].

3.6 Disregarding evidence that the Sun did not cause most of the recent global warming

Christy et al. attribute much of the post-1970s global warming to the Sun [3, page 68; 5, page 10], even though they do not discuss much of the scientific evidence against the Sun being a cause of most of the recent global warming. For example, solar activity does not adequately explain recent stratospheric cooling [2; 16 - 18; 40; 41; 89, page 674; 101; 178], solar output has not correlated well with recent global warming [64 - 66; 180], significant global warming remains even after correcting for total solar irradiance [54; 55; 101; 115], and the relationship between solar output and global warming fails a number of statistical tests and model-based tests [67 - 74].

3.7 Unwarranted references to "alarmis[m]"

Christy et al., for no legitimate reason, call scientists "alarmist" [3, pages 43 and 61]. These hyperbolic references lack merit and are standard denialist rhetoric.

(Note: "Denialist" is a fairly well-defined term in science and philosophy, with AIDS denialists being one of the standard examples of a denialist group [75 - 82; 174; 192; 253; 254; 271; 272; 274; 275]. Denialism is not the same as scientific skepticism [79; 81; 192; 305; 306; 361], though many denialists try to portray themselves as being skeptics [77; 306; 361]. Everytime I placed the words "skeptic" in quotation marks in this article, I really meant "denialist".)

For example, many denialists claim that climate scientists are "alarmists" who exaggerate anthropogenic climate change and its effects [86]. This charge fails since scientists, both at the IPCC and elsewhere, tend to under-estimate the effects of climate change, as opposed to exaggerating them [1, figure 3 on page 378; 83 - 85; 107, page 22; 146, from 24:56 to 26:18, and 31:47 to 33:33; 162, page 5; 273; 350; 353; 376; 378; 397; 402; 403; 406 - 411; 415, section 1.4; 416]. In the case of scientists at the IPCC, their under-estimation of trends likely results from critics (often denialists themselves) applying undue pressure to mainstream scientists [85]. This contradicts the denialists' charge of IPCC "alarmism":

"A constant refrain coming from the denial campaign is that climate scientists are “alarmists” who exaggerate the degree and threat of global warming to enhance their status, funding, and influence with policy makers. The contribution by William Freudenburg and Violetta Muselli provides an insightful empirical test of this charge and finds it to lack support. Drawing on their prior work on the “asymmetry of scientific challenge” (Freudenburg & Muselli, 2010), they argue that the constant criticism coming from the denial machine (e.g., the denial books and conservative media) leads climate scientists to err on the side of caution and that consensus documents such as the assessments issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to understate potential climate disruptions. They then present evidence that IPCC assessments have in fact understated the degree of subsequently reported climate disruption, supporting their argument [86]."

This point is often ignored by critics of mainstream climate science. Instead these critics carefully cherry-pick particular instances in which the models used by the IPCC over-estimated a given trend, while disregarding instances in which the models under-estimated a trend [107, page 22]. The critics can then use this cherry-picking to falsely paint climate scientists as being "alarmist", just as Christy et al. did [3, pages 43 and 61].

And even though climate scientists could justifiably use "alarmist" language [116], the tone of IPCC scientists tends to be more tentative and less "alarmist" [87; 412; 414], with the IPCC paying proper attention to how to talk about uncertainty [18; 202; 413]. Many mainstream climate scientists also avoid defending hyperbolic notions such "[imminent] runaway global warming" (as I discussed in section 3.5) [135 - 141; 142, page 90; 389, pages 17 and 24] and "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" [117], despite denialist claims to the contrary [117; 222 - 224]. This again runs contrary to unwarranted charges about scientists being "alarmist," as does the fact that climate scientists often correct exaggerated media stories on climate change [332 - 338]. So Christy et al. should consider retracting their charge of "alarmis[m]," [3, pages 43 and 61] until they can provide a sound basis for this charge.

4. References

1. "Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data"
2. https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
3. "On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot" & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding"
4. http://climatefeedback.org/scientists-reactions-us-house-science-committee-hearing-climate-science/
5. "U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 29 Mar 2017, Testimony of John R. Christy"
6. "Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies"
7. "Estimating low-frequency variability and trends in atmospheric temperature using ERA-Interim"
8. "Homogenization of the global radiosonde temperature dataset through combined comparison with reanalysis background series and neighboring stations"
9. "New estimates of tropical mean temperature trend profiles from zonal mean historical radiosonde and pilot balloon wind shear observations"
10. "Radiosonde bias adjustments- ERA-CLIM2 project; Bias adjustments for radiosonde temperature, wind and humidity from existing reanalysis feedback; Deliverable 4.1 of EU 7FP project ERA-CLIM2 (Grant No. 607029)"
11. "Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)"
12. "Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds"
13. http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/#comment-754
14. "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010"
15. "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997"
16. "Is the Sun causing global warming?"
17. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
18. "Comment on “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” by J. A. Curry and P. J. Webster"
19. "Tropopause height and zonal wind response to global warming in the IPCC scenario integrations"
20. "Ozone depletion, greenhouse gases, and climate change"
21. "Trace gas trends and their potential role in climate change"
22. "The greenhouse theory of climate change: A test by an inadvertent global experiment"
23. "Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model"
24. "Long-term temperature trends in the stratosphere: Possible influence of anthropogenic gases"
25. "Major greenhouse cooling (yes, cooling): The upper atmosphere response to increased CO2"
26. "A hiatus in the stratosphere?"
27. "Isolating the roles of different forcing agents in global stratospheric temperature changes using model integrations with incrementally added single forcings"
28. "Stratospheric temperature climate data record from merged SSU and AMSU-A observations"
29. "Stratospheric temperature trends over 1979–2015 derived from combined SSU, MLS, and SABER satellite observations"
30. "Stratospheric ozone change and related climate impacts over 1850–2100 as modelled by the ACCMIP ensemble"
31. "The impact of ozone-depleting substances on tropical upwelling, as revealed by the absence of lower-stratospheric cooling since the late 1990s"
32. "Regional and seasonal stratospheric temperature trends in the last decade (2002–2014) from AMSU observations"
33. "A method for merging nadir-sounding climate records, with an application to the global-mean stratospheric temperature data sets from SSU and AMSU"
34. "Linear trends and closures of 10-yr observations of AIRS stratospheric channels"
35. "The stratospheric changes inferred from 10 years of AIRS and AMSU-A radiances"
36. "Evidence for an earlier greenhouse cooling effect in the stratosphere before 1980 over the Northern Hemisphere"
37. "The JRA-55 reanalysis: Representation of atmospheric circulation and climate variability"
38. "The JRA-55 reanalysis: General specifications and basic characteristics"
39. "Attributing the forced components of observed stratospheric temperature variability to external drivers"
40. "Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature"
41. "Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere"
42. "Towards a physical understanding of stratospheric cooling under global warming through a process-based decomposition method"
43. "Stratospheric temperature changes during the satellite era"
44. "The ozone story: A model for addressing climate change?"
45. "Depletion of the ozone layer in the 21st Century"
46. "The Antarctic ozone hole: An update"
47. "Antarctic ozone loss in 1979–2010: first sign of ozone recovery"
48. "Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol"
49. "Evidence for the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer"
50. "Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer"
51. "Sensitivity of surface-temperature and atmospheric-temperature to perturbations in stratospheric concentration of ozone and nitrogen-dioxide"
52. http://climatefeedback.org/scientists-reactions-us-house-science-committee-hearing-climate-science/
53. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/barmy-bloopers-from-john-christy-and-co.html
54. "Deducing multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trends using multiple regression analysis"
55. "Global temperature evolution 1979–2010"
56. "Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature"
57. "Clarifying the roles of greenhouse gases and ENSO in recent global warming through their prediction performance"
58. "Ranking the strongest ENSO events while incorporating SST uncertainty"
59. "ERA-20C: An atmospheric reanalysis of the twentieth century"
60. "Estimating changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period"
61. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/
62. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67
63. http://www.politicalowl.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014-12-04_influenceof-nino-and-nina.jpg
64. "The impact of the revised sunspot record on solar irradiance reconstructions"
65. "Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate"
66. "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years"
67. "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?" 
68. "Solar variability and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850"
69. "Solar trends and global warming"
70. "Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium"
71. "Evidence of recent causal decoupling between solar radiation and global temperature"
72. "Statistical assessments of anthropogenic and natural global climate forcing. An update"
73. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century"
74. "Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century"
75. "Commentary: Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent"
76. "AIDS denialism and public health practice"
77. "HIV denial in the internet era"
78. "Science denialism: Evolution and climate change"
79. "How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
80. "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?"
81. "The ethics of belief, cognition, and climate change pseudoskepticism: Implications for public discourse"
82. "Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate"
83. "Reexamining climate change debates: Scientific disagreement or scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs)?"
84. "Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?"
85. "Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge"
86. "Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction"
87. "The language of denial: Text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics"
88. "Taking greenhouse warming seriously"
89. "Climate change 2007: The physical science basis; Chapter 9: Understanding and attributing climate change"
90. "Prominent signers of "An evangelical declaration on global warming""
91. "An evangelical declaration on global warming"
92. "Global monthly precipitation estimates from satellite-observed outgoing longwave radiation"
93. "An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950"
94. "CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate"
95. "Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years"
96. "Models versus radiosondes in the free atmosphere: A new detection and attribution analysis of temperature"
97. "Executive Summary: Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere - Understanding and reconciling differences"
98. "Homogenized monthly upper-air temperature data set for Australia"
99. "Temperature trends over Germany from homogenized radiosonde data"
100. "Recent trends in tropospheric temperature over India during the period 1971‐2015"
101. "Spectrally dependent CLARREO infrared spectrometer calibration requirement for climate change detection"
102. "Observed El Niño–Southern Oscillation temperature signal in the stratosphere"
103. "ENSO influence on zonal mean temperature and ozone in the tropical lower stratosphere"
104. "Analysis of the ENSO signal in tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures observed by MSU, 1979–2000"
105. "Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends"
106. "Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy"
107. "Extended Summary of the Climate Dialogue on the (missing) tropical hot spot"
108. "A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets"
109. "Satellite-derived vertical dependence of tropical tropospheric temperature trends"
110. "MERRA-2: Initial evaluation of the climate"
111. "Upper air temperature trends above Switzerland 1959–2011"
112. "ENSO-driven energy budget perturbations in observations and CMIP models"
113. "An analysis of the dependence of clear-sky top-of-atmosphere outgoing longwave radiation on atmospheric temperature and water vapor"
114. "Advances in understanding top-of-atmosphere radiation variability from satellite observations"
115. "Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled"
116. "The new climate discourse: Alarmist or alarming?"
117. "Polluted discourse: Communication and myths in a climate of denial"
118. "Interaction of the recent 50 year SST trend and La Niña 2010: amplification of the Southern Annular Mode and Australian springtime rainfall"
119. "Assessing atmospheric temperature data sets for climate studies"
120. "The tropical lapse rate steepened during the Last Glacial Maximum"
121. "McNider and Christy: Why Kerry is flat wrong on climate change"
122. https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnider-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/
123. "Elevation-dependent warming in mountain regions of the world"
124. https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/tropospheric-hot-spot/
125. "Global warming: How to approach the science; by Richard S. Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; November 17, 2010; Testimony: House Subcommittee on Science and Technology"
126. "Artificial amplification of warming trends across the mountains of the western United States"
127. "Future warming rates over the Hawaiian Islands based on elevation‐dependent scaling factors"
128. "Negative elevation-dependent warming trend in the Eastern Alps"
129. "Evidence of high-elevation amplification versus Arctic amplification"
130. "Mechanisms of elevation-dependent warming over the Tibetan plateau in quadrupled CO2 experiments"
131. "Regional air pollution brightening reverses the greenhouse gases induced warming-elevation relationship"
132. "Observed high-altitude warming and snow cover retreat over Tibet and the Himalayas enhanced by black carbon aerosols"
133. "Are the central Andes mountains a warming hot spot?"
134. "Impact of the global warming hiatus on Andean temperature"
135. "Positive feedback in climate: stabilization or runaway, illustrated by a simple experiment"
136. "Increased insolation threshold for runaway greenhouse processes on Earth like planets"
137. "Climate sensitivity in the geologic past"
138. "Delayed onset of runaway and moist greenhouse climates for Earth"
139. "The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres"
140. "Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates"
141. https://skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-advanced.htm
142. "Annex C: Cross cutting theme paper 4: Assessing the science to address UNFCCC Article 2; A concept paper relating to cross cutting theme number four"
143. "The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes"
144. "Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models"
145. "Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature"
146. Ray Pierrehumbert's 2012 video: "Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions - 2012 AGU Fall Meeting"
147. "On the detection of the solar signal in the tropical stratosphere"
148. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/02/why-john-christies-missing-hotspot-matters/
149. "Estimating changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period"
150. "Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls"
151. "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends"
152. Hansen et al.: "Global temperature in 2015"
153. "Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records"
154. "Assessing the impact of satellite-based observations in sea surface temperature trends"
155. "A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change"
156. "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
157. "Land surface temperature over global deserts: Means, variability, and trends"
158. "On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming"
159. "Global land-surface air temperature change based on the new CMA GLSAT dataset"
160. "Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection"
161. "Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models"
162. "A response to the “Data or Dogma?” hearing"
163. "Physical mechanisms of tropical climate feedbacks investigated using temperature and moisture trends"
164. "Regional variation of the tropical water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks"
165. "An assessment of direct radiative forcing, radiative adjustments, and radiative feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models"
166. https://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
167. http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/02/ipccs-global-warming-hypothesis-fails-ultimate-test-no-tropical-hotspot-after-17-years-of-immense-co.html
168. http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/01/ipcc-fail-tropical-hotspot-refuted-by-latest-empirical-evidence-those-stubborn-facts.html
169. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
170. "Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance"
171. "Insights into Earth’s Energy imbalance from multiple sources"
172. "Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends"
173. "Use of SSU/MSU satellite observations to validate upper atmospheric temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations"
174. https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/
175. "Why must a solar forcing be larger than a CO2 forcing to cause the same global mean surface temperature change?"
176. "Exploring the stratospheric/tropospheric response to solar forcing"
177. "Patterns of tropospheric response to solar variability"
178. "Robustness of dynamical feedbacks from radiative forcing: 2% solar versus 2× CO2 experiments in an idealized GCM"
179. "Observed tropospheric temperature response to 11-yr solar cycle and what it reveals about mechanisms"
180. "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature"
181. "Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations"
182. "On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations"
183. "Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites"
184. "Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus"
185. "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming"
186. "Climate change 2007: The physical science basis; Chapter 8: Climate models and their evaluation"
187. "Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere"
188. "Influence of patterns of climate variability on the difference between satellite and surface temperature trends"
189. "Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere"
190.  Stefan Molyneux's video: "Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case"
191. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/22/study-tropical-hotspot-fingerprint-of-global-warming-doesnt-exist-in-the-real-world-data/
192. "Sceptics and deniers of climate change not to be confused"
193. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/
194. David Evans': "The Missing Hotspot"
195. http://naturalclimatechange.us/disproofs-of-agw-hypothesis/the-missing-hotspot-2/
196. "The importance of the tropical hot spot to EPA's endangerment finding"
197. "The missing greenhouse signature"
198. "The ‘fingerprint’ of global warming doesn’t exist in the real world, study finds"
199. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_un_climate_panels_hot_spot_is_missing_in_action.html
200. "Greenhouse warming? What Greenhouse warming?"
201. http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/stunner-epas-co2-hot-spot-simply-does-not-exist/
202. "Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on consistent treatment of uncertainties"
203. "The Runaway Greenhouse Effect - James Hansen"
204. "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus"
205. "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere"
206. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-newspaper-claim-about-global-temperature-is-deeply-misleading
207. "Impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on deriving anthropogenic warming rates from the instrumental temperature record"
208. "Climate variability during warm and cold phases of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) 1871–2008"
209. "Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle"
210. "On forced temperature changes, internal variability, and the AMO"
211. "Tracking the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation through the last 8,000 years"
212. "The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation as a dominant factor of oceanic influence on climate"
213. "The role of Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation in the global mean temperature variability"
214. "The North Atlantic Oscillation as a driver of rapid climate change in the Northern Hemisphere"
215. "The Atlanto-Pacific multidecade oscillation and its imprint on the global temperature record"
216. "Imprints of climate forcings in global gridded temperature data"
217. "North Atlantic Multidecadal SST Oscillation: External forcing versus internal variability"
218. "Forced and internal twentieth-century SST trends in the North Atlantic"
219. "Interactive comment on "Imprints of climate forcings in global gridded temperature data" by J. Mikšovský et al."
220. "Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures"
221. "Detection and analysis of an amplified warming of the Sahara Desert"
222. http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/02/global-warming-climate-change-lies-obama-democrats-hide-science-facts-from-public.html
223. https://cei.org/blog/uns-narrative-fear-climate-change
224. http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/global_warming_faq.htm
225. "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming"
226. "Satellite greenhouse signal"
227. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ (accessed June 12, 2017)
228. "El Niño/Southern Oscillation behaviour since 1871 as diagnosed in an extended multivariate ENSO index (MEI.ext)"
229. "The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a 1D climate model"
230. "A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700‐1992"
231. "A solar irradiance climate data record"
232. "A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance"
233. "Reconstruction of total solar irradiance 1974–2009"
234. "A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing"
235. "ENSO and greenhouse warming" (DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2743)
236. "The 1990–1995 El Niño‐Southern Oscillation event: Longest on record"
237. "30-year atmospheric temperature record derived by one-dimensional variational data assimilation of MSU/AMSU-A observations"
238. https://climateaudit.org/2008/04/26/tropical-troposphere/
239. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr/
240. "Does vertical temperature gradient of the atmosphere matter for El Niño development?"
241. "Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty"
242. "The ENSO effects on tropical clouds and top-of-atmosphere cloud radiative effects in CMIP5 models"
243. "On the tropical atmospheric signature of El Niño"
244. "ENSO‐related moisture and temperature anomalies over South America derived from GPS radio occultation profiles"
245. "The vertical structure of temperature in the tropics: Different flavors of El Niño"
246. "Signatures of naturally induced variability in the atmosphere using multiple reanalysis datasets"
247. "Trends of MSU brightness temperature in the middle troposphere simulated by CMIP5 Models and their sensitivity to cloud liquid water"
248. "Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment"
249. "Response of the large-scale structure of the atmosphere to global warming"
250. "Impacts of atmospheric temperature trends on tropical cyclone activity"
251. "Influence of changes in observations on precipitation: A case study for the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR)"
252. "Intercomparison of temperature trends in IPCC CMIP5 simulations with observations, reanalyses and CMIP3 models"
253. "Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers"
254. "Debating global warming in media discussion forums: Strategies enacted by “persistent deniers” and implications for schooling"
255. "A critical look at surface temperature records", in: "Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming"
256. "Transient responses of a coupled ocean–atmosphere model to gradual changes of atmospheric CO2. Part I. Annual mean response"
257. "An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations"
258. "Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations"
259. "Mechanisms for the land/sea warming contrast exhibited by simulations of climate change"
260. "Communicating global climate change using simple indices: an update"
261. "Control of land-ocean temperature contrast by ocean heat uptake"
262. "Land–ocean warming contrast over a wide range of climates: Convective quasi-equilibrium theory and idealized simulations"
263. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/what-stratospheric-hotspot/
264. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-agw-hot-spot-wont-happen.html
265. "A model estimate of cooling in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere due to the CO2 increase over the last 3–4 decades"
266. "Evidence of CO2-induced progressive cooling of the middle atmosphere derived from radio observations"
267. "Ozone and temperature decadal trends in the stratosphere, mesosphere and lower thermosphere, based on measurements from SABER on TIMED"
268. "Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere-a consolidating model perspective"
269. "Effect of trends of middle atmosphere gases on the mesosphere and thermosphere"
270. "How will changes in carbon dioxide and methane modify the mean structure of the mesosphere and thermosphere?"
271. "Countering evidence denial and the promotion of pseudoscience in autism spectrum disorder"
272. "Science denial as a form of pseudoscience"
273. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/
274. "Science denial: a guide for scientists"
275. "Science denial and the science classroom"
276. https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/04/differential-temperature-trends-at-the-surface-and-in-the-lower-atmosphere/
277. "The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model"
278. "Westward shift of western North Pacific tropical cyclogenesis"
279. "Influence of tropical tropopause layer cooling on Atlantic hurricane activity"
280. "What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?"
281. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/index.html
282. "Response to Comment on "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes""
283. https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/hot-spot-2-tropospheric-warming-continues/
284. https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/31/deniers-lies-and-politics/
285. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/
286. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/another-attempt-to-find-the-tropical-hotspot/
287. "Revisiting the controversial issue of tropical tropospheric temperature trends"
288. "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"
289. "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere"
290. "Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model"
291. "The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates"
292. "Chapter 1: Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere - Understanding and reconciling differences"
293. Foster et al.: "Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean,C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter"
294. Stockwell and Cox: "Comment on ”Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter"
295. "The Southern Oscillation Index as a random walk"
296. https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/is-there-a-cumulative-enso-climate-forcing/
297. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/enso-and-pdo-explain-tropical-average-ssts-during-1950-2013/
298. "On the relation between ENSO and global climate change"
299. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/01/a-sea-change-for-climate-science/#more-96596
300. Comment #16.2: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-20-its-not-co2-so-what-is-the-main-cause-of-global-warming/
301. "The role of remote sensing in monitoring global bulk tropospheric temperatures"
302. "Anthropogenic weakening of the tropical circulation: The relative roles of direct CO2 forcing and sea surface temperature change"
303. "Quantifying contributions of climate feedbacks to tropospheric warming in the NCAR CCSM3.0"
304. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/muddying-the-peer-reviewed-literature/?wpmp_tp=1
305. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/tributes_to_steve_schneider
306. http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2008/09/evidence-sceptic-hiv-bogus
307. "Climate change 2001: The scientific basis; Chapter 12: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes"
308. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/
309. "An apparent hiatus in global warming?"
310. "Global sea level linked to global temperature"
311. "Twentieth-century global-mean sea level rise: Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?"
312. "Reassessment of 20th century global mean sea level rise"
313. "Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming"
314. "Trends in U.S. Surface Humidity, 1930–2010"
315. "Global water vapor variability and trend from the latest 36 year (1979 to 2014) data of ECMWF and NCEP reanalyses, radiosonde, GPS, and microwave satellite"
316. "Global water vapor trend from 1988 to 2011 and its diurnal asymmetry based on GPS, radiosonde, and microwave satellite measurements"
317. "The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening"
318. Walsh et al. 2016: "Tropical cyclones and climate change"
319. "Economic losses from US hurricanes consistent with an influence from climate change"
320. Knutson et al. 2010: "Tropical cyclones and climate change"
321. "Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change"
322. "Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures"
323. "A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era"
324. "Reconciling estimates of ocean heating and Earth’s radiation budget"
325. "Testimony. Data or dogma? Promoting open inquiry in the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth’s climate. Hearing in front of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, 8 December 2015"
326. "A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects"
327. "UAH version 6 global satellite temperature products: Methodology and results"
328. "Error Structure and Atmospheric Temperature Trends in Observations from the Microwave Sounding Unit"
329. "Observed and simulated full-depth ocean heat-content changes for 1970–2005"
330. "Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades"
331. "Effect of recent minor volcanic eruptions on temperatures in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere"
332. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
333. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/
334. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-telegraph-dan-hyde-earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years/
335. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/2017-track-among-hottest-year-recorded-scientists-not-surprised-thinkprogress-article-suggests-joe-romm/
336. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/climate-change-emergency-jet-stream-shift-warning-global-warming-extreme-weather-gabriel-samuels-the-independent/
337. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/alaskas-vicious-cycle-warming-tundra-spews-co2-speeding-up-warming-joe-romm-think-progress/
338. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/worlds-coral-reefs-severely-threatened-climate-change-human-impacts-abc-story-notes/
339. "Observed warming trend in sea surface temperature at tropical cyclone genesis"
340. "Validating atmospheric reanalysis data using tropical cyclones as thermometers"
341. "On the factors affecting trends and variability in tropical cyclone potential intensity"
342. "Evaluation and Intercomparison of cloud fraction and radiative fluxes in recent reanalyses over the Arctic using BSRN surface observations"
343. "Evaluation of multireanalysis products with in situ observations over the Tibetan Plateau"
344. "TropFlux: Air-Sea Fluxes for the Global Tropical Oceans – Description and evaluation against observations"
345. "Representation of tropical subseasonal variability of precipitation in global reanalyses"
346. "Uncertainty of AMSU-A derived temperature trends in relationship with clouds and precipitation over ocean"
347. "At what cost? Examining the social cost of carbon"
348. "Evaluation of atmospheric precipitable water from reanalysis products using homogenized radiosonde observations over China"
349. "Overview of current atmospheric reanalyses"
350. "Comparison of dryland climate change in observations and CMIP5 simulations"
351. "Temperature trends in the midlatitude summer mesosphere"
352. "Role of carbon dioxide in cooling planetary thermospheres"
353. "Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change"
354. "Modern and glacial tropical snowlines controlled by sea surface temperature and atmospheric mixing"
355. https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ncep-reanalysis-r2 ("Expert guidance" section)
356. "Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations"
357. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog_held/20-the-moist-adiabat-and-tropical-warming/
358. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog_held/54-tropical-tropospheric-warming-revisited-part-1/
359. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog_held/55-tropical-tropospheric-warming-revisited-part-2/
360. "Upper tropospheric warming intensifies sea surface warming"
361. http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics
362. "Savor the Cryosphere"
363. "ENSO‐related moisture and temperature anomalies over South America derived from GPS radio occultation profiles"
364. "Relationships between outgoing longwave radiation and diabatic heating in reanalyses"
365. "Large differences in reanalyses of diabatic heating in the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere"
366. "Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere"
367. "High-latitude climate change in a global coupled ocean-atmosphere-sea ice model with increased atmospheric CO2"
368. "Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis"
369. "The atmospheric response to three decades of observed Arctic sea ice loss"
370. "Observational evidence for desert amplification using multiple satellite datasets"
371. "Detection and analysis of an amplified warming of the Sahara Desert"
372. "Desert amplification in a warming climate"
373. "The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification"
374. "Amplified Arctic warming and mid‐latitude weather: new perspectives on emerging connections"
375. "Global and hemispheric temperature reconstruction from glacier length fluctuations"
376. "Evaluating CMIP5 models using AIRS tropospheric air temperature and specific humidity climatology"
377. https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710
378. "Twentieth century temperature trends in CMIP3, CMIP5, and CESM-LE climate simulations: Spatial-temporal uncertainties, differences, and their potential sources"
379. "Low-pass filtering, heat flux, and Atlantic multidecadal variability"
380. "The spectral signature of recent climate change"
381. "Global change in the upper atmosphere"
382. "A new estimate of the average earth surface land temperature spanning 1753 to 2011"
383. "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus"
384. "Disentangling greenhouse warming and aerosol cooling to reveal Earth’s climate sensitivity"
385. "Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth"
386. "Ocean mediation of tropospheric response to reflecting and absorbing aerosols"
387. "Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP historical and future climate simulations"
388. "Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings"
389. "Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide"
390. "Significant aerosol influence on the recent decadal decrease in tropical cyclone activity over the western North Pacific: Aerosol influence on decadal TC activity"
391. "Increased frequency of extreme La Niña events under greenhouse warming"
392. "Continued increase of extreme El Niño frequency long after 1.5◦C warming stabilization"
393. "El Niño and Southern Oscillation (ENSO): A review"
394. "Insights into Atlantic multidecadal variability using the Last Millennium Reanalysis framework"
395. "Evidence for external forcing on 20th-century climate from combined ocean-atmosphere warming patterns"
396. "Stratospheric temperature trends: Our evolving understanding"
397. "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011"
398. "Big jump of record warm global mean surface temperature in 2014–2016 related to unusually large oceanic heat releases"
399. "Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming"
400. "Response of El Niño sea surface temperature variability to greenhouse warming"
401. "Robust twenty-first-century projections of El Niño and related precipitation variability"
402. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-ipcc-underestimate-assessing-climate-risks-15338
403. "Recent climate observations compared to projections"
404. "Group sunspot numbers: A new solar activity reconstruction"
405. "Reconstruction of the sunspot group number: The backbone method"
406. "The Copenhagen diagnosis: updating the world on the latest climate science"
407. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/
408. "Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters"
409. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-global-warming-is-causing-ocean-oxygen-levels-to-fall [http://archive.is/6siTa]
410. "Climate change drives widespread and rapid thermokarst development in very cold permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic"
411. "Drivers and mechanisms of ocean deoxygenation"
412. "Statistical language backs conservatism in climate-change assessments"
413. "No time for smokescreen skepticism: A rejoinder to Shani and Arad"
414. "Evolution of 21st century sea level rise projections"
415. "Special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate"
416. .https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1230044600947134464 [ http://archive.is/JBSxU; https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1230043465582510080 (http://archive.is/wip/AXRn0)]