Claim: Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot over the Southern Ocean

First of all, consider the source, UNSW is the same outfit that sponsored the disastrous “ship of fools” aka The Spirit of Mawson.

Secondly, Dr. Roy Spencer has been looking for this for years in the satellite data and hasn’t found it.

Thirdly, radiosonde coverage in their area of study is pretty sparse. From the University of Graz:

While many users are familiar with traditional radiosonde temperature and moisture data, the spatial and temporal coverage of radiosonde data are limited, especially over ocean and high latitude areas. Satellite remote sounding provides far greater temporal and spatial coverage of the entire planet.

Global Radiosonde Coverage - each dot represents a launch point. Map from University of Graz

Global Radiosonde Coverage – each dot represents a launch point. Map from University of Graz

Fourth, if they have really found it, where’s the picture or graph of it in the press release? You’d think that would be front and center. Instead, it isn’t shown, and they don’t even mention the title of the paper or the DOI. Essentially they are saying “trust us, no need to read the paper”. I’ve looked for the paper on the ERL website, and have yet to locate it. It is not listed in today’s ERL news feed (as of this writing) (UPDATE: located, and the abstract is posted below). It’s like Lewandowsky’s seepage paper, that had a press release over a week ago, but the paper is still not published.

Fifth, Steve Sherwood is a well known climate alarmist, and his confirmation bias seems quite strong to me. For example, see this WUWT post where we state “Professor Sherwood is inverting the scientific method”.

Sixth, by their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for. That sounds more like a selecting process in the scope of confirmation bias than science. (added) The real question is, how many stations did they keep as they define as “good”?

Color me skeptical, I’m sure Dr. Roy Spencer will have something to say about it.

From the University of New South Wales:


New publicly available dataset confirms tropospheric hot spot and increased winds over Southern Ocean

Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

“Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere,” said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

“We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see.”

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques — linear regression and Kriging.

“We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them,” said Prof Sherwood.

“All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977.”

The results show that even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

“I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean,” said Prof Sherwood.

“However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen.”

###


UPDATE: The paper has been located. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)

Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant

Letter

We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim.21 5336–52). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases, thereby avoiding estimation biases inherent in traditional homogenization methods. One modification now enables homogenized winds to be provided for the first time. This, and several other small modifications made to the original method sometimes affect results at individual stations, but do not strongly affect broad-scale temperature trends. Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features. First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models. Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods. Wind trends over the period 1979–2012 confirm a strengthening, lifting and poleward shift of both subtropical westerly jets; the Northern one shows more displacement and the southern more intensification, but these details appear sensitive to the time period analysed. There is also a trend toward more easterly winds in the middle and upper troposphere of the deep tropics.


The paper is open access: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/pdf/1748-9326_10_5_054007.pdf

Here is the figure from the paper that should have been in their press release:

sherwood-2015-fig1-hotspot

The SI is pretty thin, containing a single figure with no explanation: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/media/erl054007_suppdata.pdf

Advertisements

176 thoughts on “Claim: Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot over the Southern Ocean

    • Nyquist is doing several RPM (on average) in his current location.

      I understand false color plots; they can make the most mundane data exciting. (I use them all the time in non imaging optical design.)

      And it all goes limp when I switch to a real color plot, where the true contrast is ho hum.

      Color me infra red. on the hot spot.

    • Latitude:
      I thought it said they put the data onto a structural model?
      “This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases, thereby avoiding estimation biases inherent in traditional homogenization methods.’
      So is not the results based on their model and no longer statistics?

      • HOMOGENIZATION or HOMOGENISATION (if you speak Brit like some Canuks)

        “However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen.”

        How can one clearly see through murk? That is the question.

        Here is what went down for AR5 on the question of the Hot Spot.

        First: The theory is that the ‘greenhouse’ which is a semi-sort-of glass-reflective effect of CO2, intercepts the IR as it leaves the earth and ‘gets hotter’ at 8-16 km above the ground. As everyone knows, there is no tropospheric hot spot – millions of measurements have been made looking for it. It is not there. It is not actually spotted in the sky as a ‘hot…spot’, it is detected as a change in temperature relative to its old temperature at that altitude. It is not hot at all – it is quite cold, but the idea is: it is heating three times as rapidly as the surface. That is the direct prediction of the physical model that says GHG’s ‘do that’ in the atmosphere.

        Second: Because between AR4 and AR5 there was a serious effort made to find the Hot Spot in all its multi-coloured, banded glory, there was a lot of (loser-bait) data sitting on some servers before the relevant chapter of AR5 was written. So, what to do? They obviously could not show the data to anyone because it would confirm that Christopher Monckton was correct all along – the hot spot doesn’t exist. In fact Monckton’s oldest paper shows there is even a slight cooling in the very spot that should be warming the most.

        The warming in the hot spot is not happening at the same rate as at the surface. The CO2 physical model has the Hot Spot warming at three times the rate of the ground. So the story is somewhat complicated by the fact that the ground isn’t warming at all any more, meaning the rate of increase at 12 km is also going to be zero (three times the ground warming rate). But why let a little math get in the way of a good story! From 1997 to date the warming rate at 12 km altitude matches expectations: 0 x 3 = 0. So far so good.

        There is no easy way out of this conundrum for the IPCC. If the surface is not warming, there is no expectation that the Hot Spot will appear, as it is a CO2 feedback/back radiation effect. If it was hotter up there, it would be hotter on the ground. What is most amazing about the paper above is that ‘they found warming’ in a place where none is expected, at least until the surface starts warming again. Chew on that for a while.

        Third: Source of what comes next: An Author of AR5, who warned me to look for this: As he/she reads this blog perhaps they would like to chip in anonymously to correct anything I am not putting down correctly.

        Because the data from balloon measurements is so precise and the coverage so good and the result so disappointing, they ‘homogenised’ the data. As is correctly described in another comment below, the data from the nearby altitudes is considered, data from sources other than balloon-borne instruments, anything and everything. What the process of homogenisation was, I don’t know, only that the ‘solution’ to the problem of there being no Hot Spot involved homogenising the data until it was badly corrupted; very murky.

        Next, the corrupted, mangled, homogenised data was examined by a third party who did not know what this lot of junk and mess and smearing was. The quality of the data set was so degraded by the homogenisation, that if there was a signal in there, it was buried in the murk and could not be teased out again (assuming it was there). Too much noise to signal.

        The third party them wrote a report (which is cited in AR5) saying that the data is of such poor quality that the hot spot could not be reliable found, but they still had high confidence it is there.

        No kidding, that is what they did. They messed up good data until there was no chance of being able to see whether or not there was a hot spot in it, and declared the lousy data to be just that (which by then it was). They next expressed confidence that the hot spot was probably there somewhere. This idea and process was created and monitored by the authors of AR5. I don’t think AR5 contains manipulated junk science, I know it does.

        So if that’s how did they do it for AR5, how did they do it for the paper above? Homogenised iteratively? Again and again, and again? And maybe again? At what point and according to which sign did they know they have performed enough homogenisation interations? Has anyone validated their method?

        How do I know this paper’s conclusion is false?

        Because they have created a hot spot that is hot relative to the area around it, and we know it is not there from literally millions of direct measurements. There has been certain warming, no doubt, on the surface since the start of the subject period. The hot spot would be three times as detectable if the physical model is correct. Three times faster warming is about 9 times easier to detect so no excuses, please. Yet no one managed to detect it with the same technology that is available to measure the evident surface increase (until about 18 years ago when the increase all but stopped).

        Their claims are pretty easy to check: take the data up to 1997 and demonstrate that the hot spot is detectable. Then use only the data from 1997 to 2013. There should be no detectable hot spot from 1997 to 2013 because there has been no net surface warming. If the analysis shows a hot spot between Jan 1997 and Dec 2013, they are making it up, literally, because if the physical model is right, there should be none. And there should be none because we know there has been no net change in the surface temperature. If there exists a hot spot up there which created no change on the surface, then a CO2 increase is nothing to be alarmed about. Which is it: Not there or no surface effect?

        Remember, something manufactured out of nothing is magic. Magic involves hocus pocus.

      • Just read yours of 5:05pm, Crispin of Waterloo — APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!

        Well done! THAT should be a main post!

    • iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data
      =================
      the “game of life” is also “iteratively homogenized”. If you run it often enough, you can get any pattern imaginable.

      adding in the wind data hardly seems reasonable if you are looking for temperature, as the units are different.

      maybe what they have actually found is the “Atmospheric Windy Spot”. convection cells would largely explain Figure 1.

  1. That will be the same hot spot that became unimportant all the time it did not appear as predicted. Expect it to become important again now it has been magicked into existence.

    • “””””…..“All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977.”…..”””””

      That’s akin to telling me that the concept of “average” was established (well) by statisticians in 4000 BC.

      Mathematicians have been “establishing” (well) things for thousands of years, but the physical universe simply refuses to respond to ANY statistical wellestablishment, of the mathematicians. It always responds exactly to whatever happens when it happens, and at no other time, and to nothing else.

      I think I’ll invent my own “statistical fauxverage” given by :

      fxv (n+1) = (fxv(n) /2 + s(n+1) ) /(n+1)

      Don’t know what possible physical significance it could have; but it seem to diminish the importance of stuff that happened ages ago; like in 1977.

      The syntax is self evident; so don’t ask.

      g

      • a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977.
        ===============
        and misapplied routinely since then to “prove” all sorts of nonsense that is not supported by the underlying data.

        this has been a significant boom to the medical community, where press release after press release announces “significant findings”. billions of dollars are made on some new wonder drug, only to find that 10 years later the results cannot be replicated, the wonder drug works no better than a placebo, but has the small, nuisance side effect of killing x% of the patients treated.

        not to be outdone, climate science has now latched onto this money making formula. the new wonder drug promises to cure climate 100 years in the future and make all of us wealthy and immortal in the process beyond our wildest dreams. And best of all, no unpleasant side effects. Not a single one. be sure to see your doctor for an erection lasting more than 4 hours.

    • Figure 4 shows an intriguing chart of the temperature anomaly falling rapidly over the past 30 years.

      This article has more cop outs than a stock promoter as regard the methodology used.

  2. “That warming is now clearly seen.” Sing with me all ye faithful:

    Mine eyes have seen the warming of the atmosphere of earth;
    It is heating up the climate where the storms of wrath are stored;
    It hath loosed the fateful lightning of the terrible warming earth:
    The warmth is marching on.
    (Chorus)
    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    The warmth is marching on.

    • Excellent parody Dan. If I may make a suggestion.

      Where you have
      Mine eyes have seen the warming of the atmosphere of earth;
      It is heating up the climate where the storms of wrath are stored;
      It hath loosed the fateful lightning of the terrible warming earth:
      The warmth is marching on.

      I would pen the following
      Mine eyes have seen the warming of the atmosphere of earth;
      It is heating up the climate where the storms of wrath are [birth’d];
      It hath loosed the fateful lightning of the terrible warming earth:
      The warmth is marching on.

      Seems to fit better for me and does not detract from the theme, tried it with my guitar and it works.
      Take care.

  3. Maybe this is all a ploy by “climate deniers” to encourage the IPCC to revive all its hotspot stuff it suppressed from its previous report. And then, when the IPCC does so revive all that hidden stuff, the climate deniers will come out and say, “Fooled ya!” Oh how devious of them there climate deniers, eh?

    • “Oh how devious of them there climate deniers”

      And well paid too, just cashed another Koch check.

  4. Presumably the good professor is a super-bureaucrat, so we should never forget the following:

    The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy

    Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
    Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
    Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
    Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
    Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
    Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one’s political opponents.
    Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”

      • Another thing that Peter Miller is not making up is the fact that my dissertation for my Master’s degree was overseen by Professor Krige, who was then at the Anglovaal mining company in South Africa.

        One day we discussed kriging and I had just analysed some recently made available drilling results and got the same resource gold grade and tonnage as the mining company (not Anglovaal). I shall always remember him saying “kriging is only accurate if you are using the same family of statistics and you must always remember to add, or subtract, a constant to get the correct result.”

        Young and foolish I asked: “How do you determine the constant?”

        His reply was, “by observation of course.” He meant by observation of other similar family of statistics elsewhere. In this case, it presumably would mean the Planet Zarg.

        My faith in statistical methodology never recovered from that remark.

      • “Young and foolish I asked: “How do you determine the constant?”

        Excellent point, Mr. Miller. Your question cuts right to the crux of the sc@m:

        ““We deduced from the data
        what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them,” said Prof Sherwood. ***

        “This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, …. .”

        ********************************************

        That is, the baseline, “natural variation” was determined by:

        a model.

        That is, code based on the programmer’s assumptions.

        The entire “finding,” is, thus, JUST CONJECTURE.

        {{{CLANK!}}}

        (sound of junk landing in garbage can)

      • Judith Curry (and Anthony Watts) on Kriging and satellite temp. data:

        “Kriging across land/ocean/sea ice boundaries makes no physical sense.” (Dr. Curry)

        “Note how the data near the poles starts to get spotty with coverage? Note also how the plot doesn’t go to 90N or 90S? NOAA doesn’t even try to plot data from there, for the reasons that Dr. Curry has given:

        “Second, UAH satellite analyses. Not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature).

        NOAA knows high latitude near-pole data will be noisy and not representative, so they don’t even try to display it. UAH is the same way. Between the look-angle problem and the noise generated by sea ice, their data analysis stops short of the pole. RSS does the same due to the same physical constraints of orbit and look angle.” (Watts)

        {Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/curry-on-the-cowtan-way-pausebuster-is-there-anything-useful-in-it/ }

    • You’re missing Rule #8, which is very common among bureaucrats and government contractors.

      Rule #8:
      Declare success and time to move on frequently and loudly; especially whenever questions are asked.

    • Good list. As a long-time bureaucrat, I can tell you that the British comedy “Yes, Minister” (and the sequel “Yes, Prime Minister” is less a fiction than it is a training manual for civil servants…

      • about 15 years or so ago an ex bureaucrat in Canada wrote a book ( short) called CYA ( cover your ass). enlightening to say the least.

    • Reminds me of the 5 steps to becoming a despotic ruler or government:

      1. Adopt a noble cause
      2. Exaggerate the threat to that noble cause
      3. Propose a solution to the threat, claiming that it is the only possible solution
      4. Demonize all those who have a problem with your solution as being against the noble cause
      5. Require a sacrifice (money, freedom or both) from the population to implement the solution

      Sound familiar? Not everyone touting a noble cause is a power hungry megalomaniac. You can first recognize the good from the bad by how much they exaggerate the problem (step 2). Since the threat of Global warming has been so greatly exaggerated from the start, it is obvious that it was never about the protection of Earth’s climate, but about a huge power grab.

    • Don’t forget that with the Paris Conference being the “last” chance to fix the world it is vital that as many warmist prognostications as possible are realised before December. It does not matter to the believers nor the media whether they are true just so long as the headline reinforces the meme. There have been many ridiculous claims so far this year but expect a rash of them over the next few months. What is really needed is another release of Climategate type emails/writings.

  5. “We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them,” said Prof Sherwood.

    No clue about scientific method. “Inverted scientific method” is a good description.

    • Reminds me of a birthday card you may have also see. Front has older guy with wife. He is saying to his wife “That’s called ‘Stick-Out Point’ because of the way it sticks out like that”. On the inside the card says “You’re getting to the age where you start making crap up.”

      Sounds like these mates have hit that age..

  6. No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot.”

    We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim. 21 5336?52). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007

    In statistics, originally in geostatistics, Kriging or Gaussian process regression is a method of interpolation for which the interpolated values are modeled

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriging

    So if no “climate models” were used, were these fashion models?

    • Kriging is a good way of predicting values where there is sparse data coverage. However, it ain’t as simple as pressing the ‘krige’ button and sitting back while the computer spews out the interpolated map.

      The image shown above shows what looks like artifacts caused by interpolation from extremely sparse data – the regular polygons. These also show that the ‘real’ data points are the highest and lowest values, with (naturally, unless a complex form is used) no interpolated values higher or lower than the observations. I invite readers to spot the data points! You can almost count them.

      • I am familiar with Kriging, and it is a form of modeling, which was my point.

        Once data has been adjusted, it is no longer data, it is an artifact of analysis.

        The grantologists point to artifacts, and claim it as ‘data’.

        da·ta ˈdadə,ˈdādə/ noun
        1- facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

        ar·ti·fact ˈärdəfakt/ noun
        1- an object made by a human being…

      • According to Wikipedia (if the climate warriors can use environmental NGOs in IPCC summaries I think I can use Wikipedia) this is how Kriging (sounds a little like Klingon, doesn’t it?) came to be:

        ‘The theoretical basis for the method was developed by the French mathematician Georges Matheron based on the Master’s thesis of Danie G. Krige, the pioneering plotter of distance-weighted average gold grades at the Witwatersrand reef complex in South Africa. Krige sought to estimate the most likely distribution of gold based on samples from a few boreholes.’

        Wow, does that sound appropriate for multizillion dollar climate research grants doesn’t it? Kriging is also commonly used in real estate appraisal. What a surprise! As Deep Throat said, “Follow the money.”

    • Seems more like data selection and Grubering than linear regression and Kriging to me.

    • “The new data-set was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.”
      So all in all the same methodology that is used by the Met office in the UK and the BoM in Oz to “Homogenize” temperatures to suit a hypothesis.. Totally discredited “Picking Winners” BS!

  7. Well – slap me with a wet kipper:

    The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

    Journalist: What, yes, no, sure, no, right, wrong.
    Sherwoodstock: Yes, spot on!
    Journalist: So you adjust the data to reveal real changes as opposed to the artificial record made by those who originally collected the data?
    Sherwoodstock: Yes, we reveal the artificiality of the existing record by making alterations to it which demonstrate real changes in temperature.
    Journalist: And no one has done this before?
    Sherwoodstock: Sure, no, yes, we are inline with common precedent. We follow the Worlds BEST practice!

  8. The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes.

    Aah – the famous Bezerkeley Earth scalpel. Well it worked for BEST, what’s not to like?

  9. The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes.

    Aah – the famous Bezerkeley Earth scalpel. Well it worked for BEST, what’s not to like?

  10. “The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques — linear regression and Kriging.”

    Ah, Kriging…otherwise known as MAKING STUFF UP.

      • No it’s not. German for torturing is foltern.
        “Krige” doesn’t exist in the German language but “kriege” does, as a noun “Kriege” means “wars”, as a verb as in “Ich kriege Dich” it means “I’ll get ya”.

    • I was interested as well up until I saw Kriging. Kriging has no physicality. All the researchers have done is create a statistical atrefact. That has gotten many a gold mine investor into trouble. LOL

  11. “Sixth, by their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for. That sounds more like a selecting process in the scope of confirmation bias than science.”

    That does not sound like selection. In fact it sounds like creative writing – as in fiction.

    • Yes, but just following the example of throwing out rural stations, and infilling with urban stations.

  12. The claim cannot just be ‘there is warming’ in the Hot Spot. It has to be at three times the rate of the surface warming in order to validate the physical model. Nowhere does that claim appear in the Abstract, critical as it to the claim to have ‘found it’.

    As they have been fiddling the surface warming, we have to be careful to reproduce the fiddles in the upper air numbers as well. Alternatively, we have to careful that like is being compared with like. What happens to the surface temperature record if it is treated in the same manner? Will the ‘rate of warming’ in the Hot Spot be shown to be 3 times the surface warming?

    There has in effect, been no increase in the average surface temperature for about 18 years. So how is this reflected in the Hot Spot? Is there also a Hot Spot pause that stalled with the last recorded upward change in surface temps?

    You can see where this is leading: if they fiddle the surface change rate upwards, that mercury movement has a rate of change. The physical theory says the Hot Spot will warm at three times the surface rate. If they fiddle the surface temps to make it look higher and faster, they have to fiddle the Hot Spot temps by three times as much. I doubt they can pull that off.

    Is the Hot Spot seen in all tropical zones? If it does not appear, then it is a local phenomenon, not a result of “CO2 physics”.

    • Another important point to emphasize!

      It has to be at three times the rate of the surface warming in order to validate the physical model.

      Crispin (in Waterloo).

      • Janice, the best paper on this matter is still Lord Monckton’s. It was when I read that piece that I knew the jig was up for the CO2 hypothesis. It is too high a hill to climb with only CO2 in hand.

        It is also available in briefer form the article
        http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

        See Figures 5 and 6

        What the new authors have done is turned Fig 6 into Fig 5. Quite a feat of statistics.

        If anyone missed it, see my post about homogenisation of the relevant data further up.

      • No No No, it does not have to be three times the surface. The surface does not need to warm a the rate of the model mean. All that is needed is a scratched and clawed for .003 “warmest year ever” and a “found hotspot!, and the media will take care of the rest.

  13. “The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves….”

    Correct me if I’m wrong: I know that station moves can have a significant impact if you’re measuring surface temperature (all those microclimates and such) but if you’re measuring the atmosphere, you would have to move it 1000’s of kms to make the slightest difference in long-term trends. Sounds like they’ve been cherry-picking instead and claiming “station moves” as a justification

  14. “Sixth, by their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for. That sounds more like a selecting process in the scope of confirmation bias than science.”

    Explain to me how this is any different than “Mike’s Nature Trick”?

  15. From the article:

    As seen in previous radiosonde analyses, there is strong cooling in the stratosphere, maximizing in the Antarctic and minimizing in the Arctic(figure1),as expected from the effects of ozone depletion and carbon dioxide increase. The zero crossing from warming to cooling occurs near 150hPa in the tropics and 300 hPa near the poles, which in both cases is near the (summertime) tropopause. The cooling rate shown here, roughly−0.55K/decade at 50hPa and in agreement with Haimbergeretal(2012) , is much less than shown in S08 for the 1979–2005 period (−1.1K/decade). This is because stratospheric cooling leveled off in the tropics (and the Northern hemisphere) around 2000 (seefigure4); the tropical stratosphere warmed by roughly 0.5K over2005–2012. This may represent natural variability or a response to ozone recovery, and merits further investigation.

    Am I the only one who sees a wild contradiction here? How can it be “ozone depletion and CO2” in the Arctic and Antarctic, and “ozone recovery and natural variability” in the tropics??

    • “How can it be “ozone depletion and CO2″ in the Arctic and Antarctic, and “ozone recovery and natural variability” in the tropics??”

      In Climate McScience anything is possible.

      All that is necessary is faith!

      (And the necessity of the renewal of one’s research grant, of course).

    • How does that get past peer review? That would be like a medical paper claiming that cancer in the brain and stomach of a subject was caused by smoking but the cancer in his lungs was from natural causes…

    • The stratospheric cooling was in two distinct steps – El Chichon and Pinatubo.
      “Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods. Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant”
      Is all they have done just to show that the 0.3 degree C tropospheric warming that the balloon and satelite datasets show, only occured below the troposphere?

  16. “The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves….”

    So there are weather stations in the troposphere now?

    Well, there you go!

    You learn something new every day.

  17. Prof Sherwood is clearly a campaigning scientist and one has to have concerns over his objectivity:

    “The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.”

    And:

    “However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen.”

  18. As in the case of certain faithful seeing images of the Virgin Mary in knotholes of trees, reflections, and other natural patterns, this may be a case of religious imagery and inspiration. Start the pilgrimages.

  19. I am not surprised. I think they will be publishing more bogus “proof” of AGW, as we approach the Paris “last gasp”. Many will believe anything “peer” reviewed, no matter how contrived. Just look at the debunked Mann-o-hockey stick, and the amount of “legs” that piece of turd obtained.

    This will probably live just as l long, I fear. The deck has been engineered and stacked against us, assuring that skeptics winning battles, will always be losing the war. Facts are irrelevant. GK

  20. Anybody seen any stratospheric cooling in the past 20 years? They always go back to 1979 at a time when there is some ambiguity due to previous vulcanism.

    It’s like saying you are not dead yet because we have averaged your heart rate since 1979 and the average has not yet reached zero.

  21. At his website, the lead author recommends RealClimate.org, New Scientist, and Wikipedia as “authoritative sources of information about climate change” (among others).

    Some other interesting comments there as well such as “A few of my colleagues claim that model predictions of future warming are excessive. They have no calculations to back this up, and in my view their claims have no valid scientific foundation – though they can’t be proven wrong per se until warming is fully realised.”

    http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/ClimateFAQ.html

    • “until warming is fully realised”

      Every hear of “Hollywood accounting”?

      That’s where blockbuster movies take in hundreds of millions of dollars, but somehow people who are supposed to receive compensation don’t because they will only receive their money when the film makes a profit. The film may make money to pay you, but until “profit is fully realized”, go pound sand.

      See: David Prowse

      • only receive their money when the film makes a profit.
        ===============
        great scam. pay yourself a percentage of the gross, and everyone else a percentage of the profits. you can’t lose and they can’t win.

      • This is why agents with an IQ over 50 insist that an actor’s remuneration is tied to the gross, not the profit.

  22. Sherwood et al 2008 “found the hotspot” by using wind shear – looks like they are using the same trick

    • Bill, read it again…it’s even worse……they went back a re-adjusted the already adjusted temp data

    • From where will the accounting come from? Certainly no government is going to demand it since it is the governments that want the bogus “crisis” in the first place.

      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. ~~ H. L. Mencken

  23. These (cough, cough) scientists don’t care about the validity of their methodology – it is all about getting the message out to the media. Government knows the effects of propaganda on the bulk of the human population and the dutiful media is only too happy to oblige.
    There is a saying….whoever gets the lie out first, wins.

    • Kokoda wrote: “These (cough, cough) scientists don’t care about the validity of their methodology …”

      If this were true, it wouldn’t have taken Sherwood more than a decade to produce this method of analyzing the available data. What we don’t know is how many equally valid methods were available for analyzing the data and whether all sensible alternatives produce the same result.

  24. Now it is a hotspot in trends, where it otherwise was a real hotspot in real temperature.
    Last time the hotspot was found, they found it by measuring windspeed instead of temperature.
    What is left now, the humidity maybe?

  25. Before the discovery of this hot spot how much of the energy was thought to have gone into the ocean because it wasn’t appearing in the atmosphere?

    • it·er·a·tion (ĭt′ə-rā′shən)
      n.
      3. Mathematics A computational procedure in which a cycle of operations is repeated, often to approximate the desired result more closely.

  26. @Svend Ferdinandsen

    Now it is a hotspot in trends, where it otherwise was a real hotspot in real temperature.
    Last time the hotspot was found, they found it by measuring windspeed instead of temperature.
    What is left now, the humidity maybe?

    I think you misunderstand the purpose of this paper. It’s to announce that finding the hotspot is no longer an issue. Not to actually describe where the hot spot IS.

    This paper can now be cited to senior people like Obama as proof that there is a hotspot. For this you don’t have to have found a hotspot – you just have to have a paper saying there is one,…

  27. OK, other than this:

    That CO2, as part of the “Green House Effect”, causes some warming in some part of the atmosphere

    what does the possible existence of this “hot spot” prove?

    I doesn’t prove that humans are the cause of the “hot spot” nor does it show precisely what, if any, portion of the “hot spot” may have been derived from anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

    I suspect that if one were to manipulate enough data in just the proper manner it could be shown that there is a “hot spot” over the South Pole.

    • “It doesn’t prove that humans are the cause of the {alleged} ‘hot spot.'”

      This is, indeed, the point to emphasize here.

      • It’s worse than that. What would the hot spot temp. have to be in order to warm the near surface by .8 of a degree. Remember, water has 1000 Times the heat capacity of air. My opening bid is 12,000 degrees.

  28. “The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.”

    What unmitigated balderdash! No respectable skeptic claims that climate is not changing due to increasing carbon dioxide emissions. We question the notion that CO2 is the control knob for the atmosphere.

  29. I am a geologist with little statistical training so excuse my naivety. Perhaps someone can explain to me why they need to torture the data as they do. The radiosonde data dates back to the 1930s. Can’t the data at each station be compared directly (corrected for seasons)? If at a particular location (understanding that the balloons drift) changes over time then you have information to focus on. If there is only a random or cyclical pattern then you haven’t seen the change you are looking for. Interpolated data is a “guess” with no real way of verifying it.

    • “Naivety” is believing evidence of significant man-made global warming can be produced in any way OTHER than torturing measured data. The first step in the “torture” process is knowing what shape you believe that data should form. Then you hammer that baby until it takes on the shape you know in your heart is inside there somewhere. The statistical tool-box at your disposal is almost unlimited, particularly if you do not confine any particular tool to its intended usage.

    • They try to pull the same thing not to long ago with the Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly. They are also suggesting it with the satellite temperature data.

      As I have maintained all along AGW theory is the only theory that makes the data adapt to it rather then the theory adapting to the data.

      It is unheard of and as they become more desperate this becomes more and more apparent.

    • Please see my answer to your question in the reply to the issue of ‘homogenisation’ well up the page.

  30. Read the paper then did some research. Sherwood’s previous 2008 attempt got shot down by Christy et. al. In 2010. In 2013 a major paper used COSMIC to develop sensor corrections for both day and night readings at 10 different altitudes for 13 different radiosonde instrumentation packages. These are used to make corrections for numerical weather forecasting. No need for homogenization. There are many radiosonde stations that have had no ‘station moves’, for example 31 along the pacific coast from Panama to Alaska used to calibrate UAH mid and uppertroposphere r^2 0.98, Christy 2014 APS testimony, transcript page 341.

    There was no need for this homogenization hash other than to ‘manufacture’ a weak hot spot. Pick a set of good global stations (NOAA provides a set of 87, for example), apply the instrument bias corrections, compute zonal averages without kriging. When done, no hot spot, just like both UAH and RSS. This was done by Christy compared to CMIP5 models for the APS review led by Koonin. See testimony transcript p.352 for the figure.

    • rist van says: “Sherwood’s previous 2008 attempt got shot down by Christy et. al. In 2010.”

      I don’t think so. In his 2010 paper, Christy used the Sherwood data, I would not call that “shot down” in any way. As I understand it, the satellite people use the radiosonde data for calibration.

      • Exactly how did Christy, et. al., “use” this “data” in “his 2010 paper (cite?)?”

  31. Add another entry into the dictionary for homogenization.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Homogenization or homogenisation is any of several processes used to make a mixture of two mutually [exclusive] [data sets] the same throughout. (The prefix homo- coming from the Greek, meaning the same.)[1] This is achieved by turning one of the [data sets] into a state consisting of extremely small particles distributed [the way we want] throughout the [data set]. A typical example is the homogenization of [temperatures], where the [outliers] are reduced in size and dispersed uniformly through the rest of the [data set).
    Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_%28chemistry%29

  32. It will be interesting to follow the development of this. Probably there is some important political event coming up and this type of hit and run science is a negotiations lubricant. Before it is debunked, the damage is done.

  33. I think it would be wise to listen to what Christy/Spencer comment on this. In principle they and the RSS people should be able to replicate the data in this paper now that they all know where to look.

  34. That map is a joke. Looks like kriged spatial data to me. I’m sure it’s just chance that the anomalies all center on the longitude grid lines. Sure.

  35. Now I’m not a scientist but is this study trying to explain the prevailing winds that cause the shift in Antarctic ice that was covered in a post at wuwt as a 60 to 70 year cycle tending to shift increasing ice to the west end of the continent and thereby create a bit more “open ocean’ in the east? If that’s the case somebody should send the article to them!

  36. The tone of this blog post is pretty judgmental regarding sherwoods character rather than the research. Shouldn’t we just highlight the publication of a potentially immortal paper and then await skilled analysis +\- critique as appropriate (assuming they have provided enough information.)
    The best thing we have going for us as skeptics is that we assess information on its own merits and think for ourselves. If you have already made your mind up about the paper before you read it then there isn’t much point reading it! That sort of stuff makes us look silly which we mostly aren’t

    • TC,
      If the was worth the paper is was printed on it would not be published in a open access pal-reviewed rag like Environmental Research Letters.

    • “Shouldn’t we just highlight the publication of a potentially immortal paper…”

      I think a certain amount of skepticism (and ridicule) is appropriate for a guy who has once again found something no one else can find.

      In fact, I’m reminded of the magic potion scene in “Big Trouble in Little China”:

      Burton: This [potion] does what again, exactly?
      Egg Shen: Huge buzz! [gulp] Ohhh, good! See things no one else can see. Do things no one else can do!
      Burton: Real things?

      Good question. :-)

  37. How long do we have to put up with the data being changed ,manipulated or said to be in error when it does not support AGW theory?

    This article is so pathetic in that they have tried to make the data once again conform to the theory.

    I am fully expecting Dr. Spencer ,to show this is nothing more then AGW manipulation of the data.

    More propaganda to promote their asinine theory.

  38. “Climate Change statistics travel around the world before the truth gets its boots on.”

  39. He’ll be interested to see if the stronger winds have anything to do with the pause? Has he not ever read a paper on ENSO or hear of the “Big Jumps” affiliated with large El Ninos? This is the troposphere around 0 degs he’s talking about, right?

  40. There is no ‘hot spot’. But that fact interferes with the agenda, so the push is on to try to pretend it exists.

    The government has a vested interest in convincing the public that man-made global warming (MMGW) is happening, and that it’s dangerous. Everything they say is based on that narrative.

    Their motive is obvious: carbon taxes. If they are able to pass a carbon tax into law, it will not change the planet’s temperature by one ten-thousandth of a degree. What it will do is give the government something that every government has salivated over throughout human history: taxing the air we breathe.

    Carbon taxes would raise immense revenue because almost every industrial process emits CO2, which means that a huge number of dollars would be confiscated from the productive population and funneled to unaccountable, unproductive bureaucrats.

    Anyone who believes that an initial carbon tax would not rise inexorably has not paid attention to the income tax, which began with a promise that it would never exceed 1% of income, and only for about the top 3% of wage earners; those making over $4,000 per year at that time. Who would have guessed the government was lying to get a new tax passed?

    The ‘dangerous MMGW’ hoax is based on governments’ desire for a carbon tax. Science has nothing to do with it. The UN/IPCC is a thin pseudo-science veneer intended to give the idea of ‘dangerous MMGW’ legitimacy. Now governments all over the West, all with dollar signs in their eyes, are jumping on board. The UNSW is just a small part of the action.

  41. Very kind of all that missing heat to congregate in one spot so that these chaps could find it!

  42. It doesn’t matter what statistical method you use to interpolate the data if you selectively throw out data you don’t care for.

    • “selectively throw out” is EXACTLY what they did:

      Sherwood, et. al.: “… anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts … {we} removed them.”

      **********************

      Just like those all those little “one-offs” that have no significant correlation with a certain religion….

  43. I love when I hear on the news about the massive amount of data and evidence for AGW. Here we have the main feedback loop that is needed to support the hypothesis that never materialized… ever. “But the glaciers are melting and plants are all confused” this is like a bad relationship where the writing has been on the wall for a while.

  44. iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data
    ==================
    alarm bells should be ringing. take a picture, say the Mona Lisa. cover it with dust to obscure the image.

    now, to reveal the image, since you don’t know what is image and what is dust, smear all the paint and dust together. do this repeatedly over the surface in an iterative fashion. voila, I give you the Mona Lisa.

  45. When one of your peers can ‘publish’ utter shite to great fanfare in the ‘press’ it emboldens one to do likewise. This is lewpaper by any other name.

  46. The IPCC’s tropical troposphere “hot spot” is over the tropics, not the southern ocean. If the IPCC are correct, the hot spot is significant enough that it can easily be found by normal methods, ie. without multiple linear regressions, data manipulations, etc. This study looks in the wrong place and has to go to great lengths to statistically manipulate a warming out of a very small amount of data. It’s interesting that researchers can only find warming where there aren’t many thermometers. There’s a lot of similarity between this hot spot and the missing heat in the deep ocean, methinks.

  47. I’m waiting to see what Jo Nova has to say about this tropospheric hot spot found. She has always claimed that there isn’t any observed data presented to her about this hot spot. One of here major 4 points that the AGW people cannot provide the data to her, she maintains…

    • But, but…

      if this “found” hot spot is only detectable by data manipulation

      then is it really there?

  48. You know they’re clutching at straws when they start homogenising. Especially homogenising winds. How can you “homogenise” winds? Clearly rubbish science. What does the actual raw data say?

  49. We did not use modelling but we used “kringing”.
    That is how the Arctic is warming using one station.

  50. Sherwoods paper ignores/does not address the fact that there has been almost no tropical region warming. The fact that tropical region of the planet has not warmed supports the assertion that both Sherwood paper’s conclusion and analysis methodology is incorrect.

    The tropical tropospheric hot spot is both a signature of the greenhouse gas warming and a cause of greenhouse surface warming in both the tropics and other regions of the planet.

    Theoretically the tropical tropospheric hot spot warms the tropical region (surface) by infrared radiation. If A had occurred (tropical tropospheric hot spot high at 8km to 10km in the troposphere) then there should be B (significant warming of the tropical region surface). There has been almost no warming of the tropical region surface, almost all of the warming has been in high latitude regions which is the latitudinal warming paradox.
    This is what the IPCC’s general circulation models predicted would occur.

    Clearly as the earth is sphere not a flat table, the most amount of tropospheric warming occurs in the tropics not in high latitude regions. The amount warming due to the increase in CO2 is proportional both to the logarithmic increase of CO2 (logarithmic means the forcing effect gets less and less (half as much as the same percentage increase, again and again) at higher concentrations) and is proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space at the latitude in question prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    There is almost no theoretical direct warming in the lower regions of the troposphere due to the increase in CO2 as the lower regions of the troposphere is saturated. The saturation of the lower regions of the troposphere occurs at the long wave absorption of water and CO2 overlap. High in the troposphere there is less water so that is the region where theoretical there should be the most warming.

    The warming in the upper troposphere then warms the surface by radiation. As there has been almost no tropical tropospheric warming that fact supports the assertion that there has been almost not tropical tropospheric warming at 8km.

    The paper that assertion they have found the tropical tropospheric warming must explain why there is almost no tropical tropospheric warming.

    1) Latitudinal Warming Paradox

    The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 50 years does match the pattern of warming that would occur if the recent increase in planetary temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism.

    The amount of CO2 gas warming observed is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 times the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase.
    As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere (ignoring very heavy or very light gases which biases the altitudinal distribution in the atmosphere), the potential for warming due to CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.

    The amount of warming is also proportional to amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Now we know that as the earth is a sphere the tropical region of the planet receives the most amount of short wave radiation and hence also emits the most amount long wave radiation to space. The tropical region of the planet should have hence warmed the most due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
    There is in fact almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet. The observed warming is at high latitudes rather than in the tropics. This observational fact supports the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    As it is fact that there is in the paleo record cycles of high latitude warming and cooling that correlate with solar cycle changes and solar activity has the highest in 8000 years in during the last 30 years, the no brainer answer for what caused the high latitude warming is solar cycle modulation of cloud cover.

    P.S. During the next solar thread I will address the solar gate papers. There has been a cottage industry attempt to hide both the fact that the planet warms and cools cyclically and that the cyclic warming and cooling correlates with solar cycle changes.

    2) The 18 year pause without warming Paradox
    As atmospheric CO2 is increasing with time, the delta T (increase in planetary temperature due to the increase in CO2) should also be increasing with time. As we now that there has been a period of 18 years with no surface warming when atmospheric CO2 was increasing for each and every year we know that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC general circulation model calculated warming due to CO2 is orders of magnitude too high.
    The following peer reviewed paper provides the strike 1 and strike 2 observational data and specifically states the observations support the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 30 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    P.S. The fact that there has been almost no tropical tropospheric warming also rules out an increase in TSI (total solar radiation) as the cause of the warming, in addition to the fact that TSI has not significantly increased. If TSI did increase the tropics will warm more than the poles of the planet. The cause of the high latitude warming is solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover which theoretically do to the mechanisms has the greatest effect in high latitude regions.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
    The atmospheric CO2 is slowly increasing with time [Keeling et al. (2004)]. The climate forcing according to the IPCC varies as ln (CO2) [IPCC (2001)] (The mathematical expression is given in section 4 below). The ΔT response would be expected to follow this function. A plot of ln (CO2) is found to be nearly linear in time over the interval 1979-2004. Thus ΔT from CO2 forcing should be nearly linear in time also.

    The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small. It is noted that low variability of trends with latitude is a result in some coupled atmosphere-ocean models. For example, the zonal-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature changes in models subject to “20CEN” forcing ( includes CO2 forcing) over 1979-1999 are discussed in Chap 5 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program [Karl et al.2006]. The PCM model in Fig 5.7 shows little pole to pole variation in trends below altitudes corresponding to atmospheric pressures of 500hPa.

    If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].

    An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.

    These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

    • Mr. Astley must be a teacher. As a layman, even get the gist of this. But I have to keep things simple. So all of the lost heat for the past 18 years is hiding in the troposphere in one place. There must be a temperature, yes? So, what is this temperature? Sherwoods? Gore? Anybody?

  51. The description of the methodology makes it pretty clear that they simply adjusted the “data” and used whatever statistical methods they could think of until a vague hot spot was ‘found’. Would love to see the list of what they tried before they got to kriging, which must be close to bottom on the list of ‘methodologies for desperate analysis’, and how many times they had to change their “adjustments” along the way.

    Said hotspot then just looks like artefacts from the torturing of their collection of numbers (I cant bring myself to call it ‘data’ again, because it isn’t). This one will be torn apart very quickly, and they’ll be back in a few years with yet another tortured method.

    It’s quite pathetic actually. That such a paper has been published speaks volumes about the journal and the lengths these alarmists will go to. Obvious contrived result is obvious.

  52. Dr. Roy Spencer has been looking for this for years in the satellite data and hasn’t found it.

    Perhaps he should consult with Gräfenberg.

  53. Guys get off their collective backs – they have 41 people working in that unit mostly Prof. or A/Prof. with a smattering of research students. If they don’t hit on some goodies the axe of austerity will fall in that relatively small university at the arse end of the world.

  54. So this hotsh*t, (hotshot if you’re genteel), down in “ship of fools” fantasy land has managed to find a hotspot in the troposphere.

    By thoroughly torturing data, eliminating the weak less attractive data, forcing the remaining data to resemble the data of their preference, these yahoos announced they found the hotspot amongst the remains.

    A hot spot no one else is can see or has seen in the original unaltered historical data?

    Yeah riiight.

  55. 1. Smacks of cherry picking. If you plotted surface temps from 1960 to 2012 you’d get a positive trend too. Which doesn’t change the fact that the trend over the last 18 years has been zero. So showing us two end points is meaningless.

    2. The removal of “anomalies” that previously exactly balanced the warming signal strikes me as extremely unlikely. What are the chances that irregularities in the data resulted in exactly cancelling the expected trend? The odds of that would be trillions to one.

  56. The hot spots, in the Northern Hemisphere is very close to equator and prominent but in the case of Southern Hemisphere, the hot spots moved away from the equator. This may be associated less land mass in those belts.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  57. Maybe it is time for climate researchers who do this sort of global study based on essentially “point” data conform to the same codes of practice and reporting applied to mineral resource estimation (the JORC code).
    A quick look at the “Global Radiosonde Coverage” distribution would quickly rule out the public reporting of any results over the majority of the world’s oceans.

    What this study has done however is identify areas that require additional study to confirm results prior to public disclosure. Using the minerals analogy, what has been presented by Sherwood et al is a prospectus to potential investors, not an outcome.

  58. Weak skepticism

    “First of all, consider the source, UNSW is the same outfit that sponsored the disastrous “ship of fools” aka The Spirit of Mawson.”

    1. guilt by association. This is actually the inverse of appeal to authority. You dont have to examine methods, just see what organization they belong to. Its the same logic that is used to dismiss skeptical
    papers.

    Secondly, Dr. Roy Spencer has been looking for this for years in the satellite data and hasn’t found it.

    1 two different datasets.
    2. Radiosondes are actual temperature measurements. Satellites estimates of temperature are based
    on models and adjustments. hmm and they are checked against radiosondes..

    Thirdly, radiosonde coverage in their area of study is pretty sparse. From the University of Graz:

    1. you cant simply claim its sparse. one the reasons why Spenser ( for example ) is able to use radiosondes to cross check satellite is that the variability of temperature over spatial regions is such that
    a small network can give you a good representation. In order words when the radiosonde data showed there was no hot spot, you never complained about the spatial sampling. Nobody ever said “maybe the hot spot” is smaller than the sampling can see.

    ‘Fourth, if they have really found it, where’s the picture or graph of it in the press release? You’d think that would be front and center. Instead, it isn’t shown, and they don’t even mention the title of the paper or the DOI. Essentially they are saying “trust us, no need to read the paper”

    1. you cant judge science by what the PR department decides to DO or Not to DO. The paper is the advertisement for the science. the Press release is advertisement for the advertisement.
    2. They are not saying trust us, quote their words.
    3. Even IF they said trust us, that has no bearing on the facts of the matter

    “Fifth, Steve Sherwood is a well known climate alarmist, and his confirmation bias seems quite strong to me.”

    1. funny, nobody objected to using his previous data set.
    2. The confirmation bias runs two ways. you expect bad things from him, so no doubt that you will invent them if you can find them

    “Sixth, by their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for. That sounds more like a selecting process in the scope of confirmation bias than science. (added) The real question is, how many stations did they keep as they define as “good”?”

    1. here is a description of the KINDS of things people do:

    “[8] We examined the data records of the 183 tropical
    stations available in the Integrated Global Radiosonde
    Archive (IGRA) database at the National Climatic Data
    Center [Durre et al., 2005]. To use a sonde profile to
    simulate LT, we required that it reach at least 100 hPa. To
    include a station, we required that it have at least 180 of the
    possible 312 months of data. Enforcing these criteria
    reduced the number of stations to 73. Comparing the sonde
    and satellite series for consistency we eliminated the 43000
    block (India) as being unacceptably noisy (as in Parker et
    al. [1997] and Lanzante et al. [2003]). We were left with the
    58 stations shown in Figure 1 and described in Tables S1
    and S21
    . Of these, 29 provided observations for both day
    and night, 28 for day only, and one for night only. ”

    WAIT! that is how Spencer threw out data when he looked at Sondes!!

    Please note that NOBODY here objected to what Spencer did with Sonde data.
    yes raw observations are CRAP. Every day in business I have to deal with raw observations. The first step is always screening and cleaning. and then adjusting.

    • The bottom line is there is NO tropical hotspot and there is a negative feedback between upper atmospheric water vapor concentrations and increasing CO2.

      This is why OLR emissions to space are NOT decreasing in response to an increase in CO2.

      But AGW proponents will say the data is of course either wrong ,inaccurate or needs to be adjusted so it will fit in with their theory as you have just tried to do in this post.

      Throw out data if it does not support the theory rather then looking at the theory to see why the data does not support it. A backwards approach and an absurd approach when it come to science.

  59. All

    method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases, thereby avoiding estimation biases inherent in traditional homogenization methods.

    I’ve never heard of iterative universal kriging. Universal kriging yes, and if you’re using it then you’re probably using a search neighbourhood. This is far from ideal to begin with. Either way they are effectively solving a unique linear systems per grid point which incorporates a local structural component – the sum of the structural parts is unlikely to be the global trend (global structural modal).The issue here is that the structural trend is assumed to be absolute but it isn’t – it is in itself a statistic and a series of local ones. So it comes with its own biases etc.

    I never understand why researchers just don’t use a global trend and perform simple kriging with the residuals then add the trend back in. But either way the point stands that using kriging – any type of kriging – is not a silver bullet. It is an excellent method but if you’re using a structural component that has an amplitude that is an order of magnitude greater than the variance of the residuals about this trend then you’re effectively determining the “static” in the signal. The issues lie with your structural component that gets lost in the universal kriging method (and the assumptions therein). In short we need to model the structural component first and assess this and the experimental issues there.

    • …need to add before someone puts me in my place. If they’re solving for each grid using the global set then the UK will be akin to just detrending using the same type of structural model and performing SK and then adding the trend back in.

  60. Garth Paltridge did a paper looking at all the weather balloon data which was available for about 50 years and couldn’t find much evidence that as the Earth had warmed slightly that vital increase in water vapour was there. He eventually had it published, but when it was first submitted for publication, it was rejected on the basis that the message that it would send would give too much encouragement to sceptics, which really just draws attention to the need to open up the scientific process, to deal with this kind of attempt to politicise it, to suppress views that are inconvenient.

    This latest claim about a hotspot is nonsense and no doubt, if and when the evidence behind the UNSW claim is independently scrutinized, it will be found to be no more credible than the 97% consensus claim. This latest claim is just all part of the overall effort to raise alarm in time for the December Paris conference.

  61. Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

    The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

    Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.

    We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).

    Tropics. Nothing.

    Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.

    Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did.

  62. I had an unsatisfactory relationship with Krige over my analysis of one of his databases. Kriging does not handle skew data very well. I believe RSA gold mines are largely a special case. Maybe one should not extrapolate to other continents with abandon. Errors of sampling in geostatistics are transferred to the answers one gets (Clark). He actually is in print defending his methodology and saying no further research need be done.

    • Here is what Peter Miller stated over at Jo Nova:

      “Peter Miller
      May 16, 2015 at 5:34 pm · Reply · Edit

      Jo

      I did my dissertation for my Master’s degree under Professor Krige, who at the time was a consultant for the Anglovaal mining company in South Africa.

      He was a truly brilliant individual, so one day I asked him about his system of statistical analysis, which is now known as kriging. My reason was that I had just calculated the same gold reserve figure for a new mine called Deelkraal, but I knew instinctively (as I had worked on a nearby mine) that the numbers were too high.

      He responded by saying it only works if you are using statistics from the same population group and if you adjust your result by a known constant.

      I knew the Deelkraal drill results divided into two population groups and redid the calculation, which resulted in a much reduced grade and tonnage, which is exactly what happened when the mine was in commercial production.

      As for the constant needed for adjustment, this was a figure that had been calculated for this particular orebody in adjacent mines. I cannot remember if this constant was a negative or positive figure, but I suspect it was negative.

      So to return to Sherwood’s tosh. You cannot use kriging for results which are a mixture of population groups, such as over the land, over the oceans, or over the poles. I very much fear different elevations/atmospheric pressures should also not be combined.

      Also, because the sun is the principal driver of our planet’s temperature, I suspect you should be dividing the kriging analysis into bands of latitude.

      And you very definitely should not exclude correctly gathered data just because they contain inconvenient numbers.

      As for the correcting constant, I guess you have to go to Planet Zarg, wherever that might be, to get it.

      My conclusion on Sherwood’s ‘research’ paper? Mannish at best, complete BS most likely.”

      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/#comment-1711282

      The key words appears to be..” He responded by saying it only works if you are using statistics from the same population group and if you adjust your result by a known constant.”

  63. What the authors have done is “methods shopping”. They have applied different numerical techniques to the data until it delivered the answer they were looking for – the hotspot.

    “methods shopping” is simply a form of “cherry picking”, in which the computer, not the researcher picks the cherries. as a result the researcher is often mislead into thinking there is no bias in the result.

    however, if the method finally “bought” is valid, then the pattern revealed should also be visible using a wide variety of other methods. If only one method delivers the answer, then that is a strong indication that the result are simply an artifact of the method, not supported by the underlying data.

  64. “The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes.”

    Am I missing something? He’s looking at Radiosonde data. He’s looking at weather balloons. Balloons Move!

    Is he tagging on some kind of adjusted ground station dataset, ala Mann?

  65. Call me stupid, but if the oceans are giving off heat, (and I can tell because, for example, the surface across the Pacific Equatorial band is warmer than usual and all that evaporating water and heat are making for clouds…really big ones), it would stand to reason that this heat is then rising to warm the atmosphere. If it wasn’t, and just stayed in the oceans never to come out, then we would indeed not ever want to visit states and countries along the Gulf Stream, let alone the scantily clad beaches lining extravagantly clad tropical resorts.

    I think what was found was that our oceans are losing heat. It’s sort of like thinking you have discovered some new orifical phenomenon only to find out it was your own ass.

    • Just read the abstract, will look closer into the paper later. But I may have found an autocorrelation. The authors state that, “One modification now enables homogenized winds to be provided for the first time.” I believe they mean the trades. If these indeed were a part of the modeled framework, heat would indeed invade the troposphere under calm El Nino trade wind conditions.

      • Yes, Pam, it is certainly not enough to find heat in the upper troposphere. It also must be caused by absorption of LWIR by CO2. Convection/thunderstorms taking heat up from the sea surface raises the temperature of the troposphere, even the top of troposphere,on its way to radiating to space, as do the trade winds and volcanoes. This is another cobbled together paper anticipating the Paris clatch. Oh the desperation at the moorage of the ship of fools, the centre of excellence indeed.

    • Hi Pam,

      Well. If nothing else, at least the analogy in that last sentence (@9:09am) got me to pay attention. I’m still trying to figure out what kind of analogy it is, exactly.

      Otherwise, yes, oceans emit heat.

Comments are closed.