In your leap to "debunk" the article and indicate that Singer had not read the source document that largely reconciled troposphere and surface measurements, you left off the first sentence of Singer's comments, in which he restricts his comments to the tropics. You have then proceeded to take the general conclusion of the report as evidence that Singer is wrong, instead of the specific conclusions or lack of in the report regarding the tropics.
I assume this is an honest error on your part. Quoting from Singer, the first sentence is the one you left out -
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant.
Regarding Singer's speculation about the predictions from the models showing too much warming, you take exception with his suggestions as to possible causes for that. I don't get it. Surely everyone would want to reconcile the models with reality. What is wrong with making suggestions as to the corrections based on real world evidence?
Singer, in these two comments, (if I understand them right, and if the reporter who wrote this article got them right) indicates that he would like an evidence based calibration of the models and theory. Sounds pretty basic, but you argue against that?
Further, Singer has recently published a book based on ice core data that indicates a natural 1500 year cycle of warming. The stalagmite data is in reference to that.
Bob, since we know that the planet was coming out of a little ice age in the last century, how can you assert that Singer's comment that the planet was cooling for much of the last century to be incorrect (your link goes nowhere). As for Singer's saying the last 8 years showed no significant warming, on this very thread we have seen that opinion and its opposite both displayed, with supporting charts.
So Singer has raised a question worth looking into regarding an anomaly in the tropics troposphere temperature and he as made some reasonable comments as to why models don't match evidence. He has studied stalagmite and ice core data and written a book asserting that we have a 1,500 natural cycle of temperature, and asserts that temperatures today are a result of that.
I believe that covers the issues raised by AUP and Bob. Note the big picture from Singer's concluding paragraphs -
The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem.
Finally,
"sound of pump action shotgun chambering another round"
The sword moves faster than an opponent's reaction time; but in Texas we prefer chain saws.
That arm holding the shotgun, did it used to be part of you?
