Addendum to proof disproved?

In my last article Proof” disproved and then further proof re Global temperature

I mentioned that the ISO standard pressure model for atmosphere had not changed. This is because according to a simple readjustment of the relationship of pressure with height we get:

Tsurface  = L.htrop/{1- (Ptrop/p0)^(R0.L/g.M)}

And as everything here appears to be a constant except htrop then if we see no change in htrop then there can be no change in global temperature.

Unfortunately I looked again and found that there are reports of changes in the tropopause height they do not give any scale of this change but they do show this – although it appears to be how much the models deviate from reality:

Worse, it appears to be that ubiquitous change since the 1980s. But let’s see if I can plug this into the above equation … now here’s a problem. According to a paper I was reading, the tropopause occurs at very much the same 0.1bar pressure in all planets we know with atmospheres. That’s put a spanner in the works

So, instead let work out what a 4mb change in pressure corresponds to in terms of height. Plugging it in (at 10km) it corresponds to a 100m change in height. Given a lapse rate of 6.5C/km this figure of “how much the models mismatch reality” makes a change of approximately 0.65C.

However I’ve no idea what this actual change represents. Here is the text which goes with it:

Figure 9.14. Comparison between reanalysis and climate-model simulated global monthly mean anomalies in tropopause height. Model results are from two different PCM (Table 8.1) ensemble experiments using either natural forcings, or natural and anthropogenic forcings (ALL). There are four realisations of each experiment. Both the low-pass filtered ensemble mean and the unfiltered range between the highest and lowest values of the realisations are shown. All model anomalies are defined relative to climatological monthly means computed over 1890 to 1999. Reanalysis-based tropopause height anomalies estimated from ERA-40 were filtered in the same way as model data. The ERA-40 record spans 1957 to 2002 and was forced to have the same mean as ALL over 1960 to 1999. After Santer et al. (2003a) and Santer et al. (2004).

Given that it’s clearly intended to be impenetrable text – it’s hiding something. It’s not hiding an actual change, because that would be spelled out in black and white. So, it’s hiding the fact this is no change at all.

The problem here is that we have text like this:

Analyses of radiosonde data have documented increases in tropopause height over the past 3 to 4 decades (Highwood et al., 2000; Seidel et al., 2001).

Which suggests that they’ve detected a change in the pressure level of the tropopause. In contrast, I’m predicting that a change in global temperature will see an actual change in the tropopause height (as in the distance measured to the level) – however it will still occur at the same pressure … it’s just the pressure levels all move up as the atmosphere expands like a thermometer bulb.


First – the report is clearly being intentionally obtuse and no doubt trying to suggest a change in the tropopause – which I think only exists in their models and not reality.

Second – there’s no evidence they understand why the tropopause would change in height.

Third – Like all the global warming scam … their report is thin on any actual science or evidence and is full of bogus and misleading blurb … apparently only there is allow them to publish the above misleading image as if it were science and not some imagined outcome of their failed climate models (which who knows what they include).


The addendum is important enough to place as an article in its own right as it is strong evidence against CO2 warming from 1979-1997.

See next article

However, I do wish to comment on this graph. To put this in perspective, the atmosphere is like a bulk thermometer and like a bulb thermometer an increase in pressure at a height like the tropopause represents warming.


Why have they turned a metric that when decreasing as this one shows, suggests global cooling into one that clearly suggests … and I believe was intentionally meant to imply … global warming.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Addendum to proof disproved?

  1. Will Janoschka says:

    “And as everything here appears to be a constant except htrop then if we see no change in htrop then there can be no change in global temperature.”

    Indeed Mike,
    Just as a global temperature has no meaning your altitude of the tropopause htrop has no meaning! Consider the average of just two temperatures That of newly prepared hot water bottle, (HWB) and HWB.and that of the inside of your freezer? What possible meaning can that average have? Any scientific meaning would be highly dependent on the volume of that water bottle, especially as its temperature decreased. What meaning? All is a deliberate scam to tax you to death, for the new global order! The range of temperatures about Earth’s surface is at all times greater than that of the freezer and HWB! What does it mean? Likewise with your tropopause altitude,(10kPa pressure), that altitude at the pole with no insolation (always present), is but 1/3 the altitude of (10kPa pressure) a location with the Sun at Nadir (directly above), (also always present)! What does this mean? You seem to be baffled by the intentional statistical BS promoted by Your enemy, professional Climate Clowns! :-(

    • Will Janoschka says:

      Nadir na, dats down, but Zenith, dats up! Just like putting PI on da top (gazonta) rather than da bottom (gazinta) give an order of magnitude error. I do it all the time!

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Yes, the variation in troposphere height with latitude grates against the assertion of a 0.1bar troposphere. It would be interesting to see whether a similar variation exists on other planets and moons.

      “That pressure at the pole with no insolation” …yes that must be it!! Because the pressure-height relationship is the only think in the atmospheric equation that is able to adjust to insolation … what we effectively have is a variety of INCOMPATIBLE pressure-height relationships across the globe. That in turn drives air movement attempting to restore balance.

      But you know what is worrying me … it’s that I don’t understand why the tropopause should be at a fixed 1bar.

      • “But you know what is worrying me … it’s that I don’t understand why the tropopause should be at a fixed 1bar.”

        I think you meant 0.1 bar or 10kPa.. It is not so fixed. Near earth it varies between 10-20 kPa. Only meteorologists fantasize it is a fixed pressure. Tpause, at any location is the altitude where the temperature lapse goes to zero and reverses, (the pause)! Mercury and Mars don’t have one, not enough ‘atmosphere’! It is where the molecules are so far apart that thermometric temperature ceases. Only mass of the molecules have temperature, not the space between. This again reenforces the concept that it is not rms velocity, but instead the volume rate of collisions, that gives the illusion of gas temperature. :-)

        • Scottish-Sceptic says:

          Yes – typo re 0.1bar

          However, across a range of planets the tropopause is approximately at 0.1bar. At first that made sense as I though it meant a fix number of atoms above – and that could be explained by the number of collisions of UV light. So, UV heating would end after it passes a certain number of molecules.

          Then I realised that different planets have different gravity and that was baloney.

          Your own explanation sounds attractive except that the temperature of planets vary massively such that PV=nRT and Pressure would change according to the Temperature. So but n/V = P/RT.

          What I’m now tending towards is that as the gravity increases on a planet, the pressure increases … and this makes convection more effective with less molecules … meaning the convective region of the atmosphere tends to extend further up. And that somehow this tips the balance so that the point at which convection versus UV heating swaps over is higher up, but still at roughly the same pressure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>