On the issue of the hot spot, just came across a reference to this paper: Fu, Q., Manabe, S. and Johanson, C.M. 2011. On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 10.1029/2011GL048101.

Probably as recent as it gets. Finds that models overstate the hotspot by up to 60% and concludes "in view of the importance of the enhanced tropical upper tropospheric warming to the climate sensitivity and to the change of atmospheric circulations, it is critically important to understand the causes responsible for the discrepancy between the models and observations."

A salient point Graham, thanks. Ergo, the hotspot exists - albeit you said on Saturday "no-one can find the hotspot".

Yes, the hotspot is there and is a signature of warming, regardless the cause. May I suggest to everyone to take a closer look at tropospheric warming together with stratospheric cooling.

Graham, I suspect many so called "sceptics" (not all) will use Fu et al to debunk global warming in general and AGW in particular - no surprise there.

Models (even complex ones) are just a tool - and as Fu suggests, more work is required to tweak them. Fortunately, the edifice does not just rely on models, contrary to the assertions of many here.

I too have my views on the coupling of the oceans and atmosphere, energy dynamics and the hydrologic cycle - but that is for another thread. As it is, Steven's is being derailed enough as it is.

Q&A the hot spot refers to the fact that it is supposed to be hotter than it otherwise would be, not that it isn't a bit hotter than other areas. Your misrepresentations from someone who claims to know what they are talking about are tedious. Or perhaps you don't understand. Probably the latter I guess. If you really understood you'd know that it is entirely about the models. They are the only thing that provides any reason for alarm as the simple mathematical model is fairly benign.

Firstly we have already established that the point about Dessler is immaterial to what is in issue here, which is that Steven’s argument is based on a fallacy, and that climate science does not justify the conclusion either that the results of AGW would be worse than better, not that policy action could produce results that would be better than worse.

The fact is, no-one would care about Dessler if AGW were not being used as the pretext for government action to tax and license corruption on a grand scale. So it is nonsense to suggest, as qanda does, that our denying any policy consequences is “derailing” the thread. If qanda concedes that the positive science does not justify policy conclusions, he should explicitly say so. If not, he should show how and why science supplies value judgments.

Secondly, my point with Dessler was only that this was an example of climate scientists displaying a transparently facile and biased use of statistics. Bugsy’s argument as to Dessler’s conclusion about the relation between climate models and his weak correlation does not refute that point, and is irrelevant to what is in issue here.

Fourthly, you guys won’t give away a bad egg. No-one has attempted to justify Dessler’s correlation as anything other than pathetic. And here you are rushing in to defend it. But if you aren’t, then say so and concede!

Fifthly, by itself Dessler’s sleight of hand might signify little enough, but the issue is precisely that this sort of obviously unsound practice is happening at the highest levels of the climate science whose integrity Steven relies on implicitly.

Sixthly, Bugsy is the only one who has come anywhere near joining issue, and he did that by conceding everything but what is irrelevant. Steven hasn’t even got to first base in acknowledging that his entire argument is based on a fallacy, and has not dared to deal with the all-important issues of human values. And qanda’s argument neither defends the defects in the climate science that are in issue, nor explains how they could justify any policy.

GY, you (amongst others) have claimed "no-one can find the hotspot", or it doesn't exist.

Yet Fu et al (your link) shows otherwise, despite not being as pronounced as first predicted. But hey, no model is perfect (not even the simple ones) and as hasbeen said, AGW does not just rely on models. Btw, recent observations are not unexpected given the rate of warming has decreased of late - La Nina anyone?

>> Your misrepresentations from someone who claims to know what they are talking about are tedious. Or perhaps you don't understand. Probably the latter I guess. <<

Yep, ditto ... right back-at-ya.

Point is, many here don't understand that the "hot spot" by and of itself is not a signature of AGW.

Again, the CAGW meme has been done to death (intentionally) by extremists on both sides. That is just silly.
However, the consequences of a warmer and wetter world will be bad enough, all other things considered.

PH, thirdly ... don't bother.

Steven, nice try, bye.

As it seems that some of chief protagonists have run off to lick their wounds. Now might be an opportune time for some audience feedback.

IMHO this has been one of the better OLO threads, with many posts of a high standard, particularly those of David Hume, whose every post reads like a mini-master piece of analysis and logic.

After digesting all that has been said --I can't help but think that even a dispassionate observer (like myself)-- could not but conclude that the AGW case is far from proven--and is in fact full of holes.