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

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Latitude

No climate models were used in the process …….they used statistics

Ernest Bush

How does that go? Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

george e. smith

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.

B.j.

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?

Crispin in Waterloo

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.

Janice Moore

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.

These are not the data they were looking for.
WUWT: The bias is strong in them….

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.

george e. smith

“””””…..“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

steve in seattle

Good ! and funny too !

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.

Rob Ricket

Paper has been published in Environmental Research Letters. Link:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007

Peter Miller

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.

Dan

“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.

P R Belanger

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.

JimS

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?

Paul

“Oh how devious of them there climate deniers”
And well paid too, just cashed another Koch check.

asybot

@paul, mine bounced, I guess my bank didn’t have the funds to cover the 15 million.

F. Ross

Sounds like a bunch of hot air — but not in the troposphere.

Peter Miller

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.”

commieBob

Peter Miller isn’t just making this up folks, it’s a real thing.
link

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.

Janice Moore

“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)

Janice Moore

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

PiperPaul

Rule #0: Conceal the fact that The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy are being followed!

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.

CaligulaJones

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…

asybot

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.

jclarke341

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.

Lawrie Ayres

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.

Theo Goodwin

“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.

false as usual . can not be taken seriously.

DD More

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..

gator69

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.

gator69

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…

Further to that, the diagram should be thresholded for significance.

Tom J

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.”

Dawtgtomis

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!

Rob Ricket

Click on the link below and you will doubtlessly conclude that Environmental Research Letters is a shameless rag frequented by activist-hacks.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
It’s none other than the (Cook et al. 2013) abysmal effort to keep Dr. Lew’s 97% ship afloat.

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!

wally

Viola!… man-made global warming.

Dave N

It’s music to their ears. I think the word you’re looking for is: Voila! 🙂

asybot

@Dave, unless he is talking about a thumb and index finger rubbing together ( the worlds smallest viola).indicating not much respect.

Billy Liar

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?

Billy Liar

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?

catweazle666

“The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques — linear regression and Kriging.”
Ah, Kriging…otherwise known as MAKING STUFF UP.

I think it’s German for “torturing”.

DirkH

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

Duster

“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.

David A

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

Crispin in Waterloo

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”.

Janice Moore

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).

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.

David A

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.

PhilCP

“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

Bill Illis

Sherwood’s home page talking about this methodology with data in .nc format.
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/radproj/index.html

MattN

“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”?

Crispin in Waterloo

They admitted it.

Eric H

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??

catweazle666

“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).

Eric H

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…

johndo

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?

catweazle666

“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.

MarkW

Perhaps they are using Shields flying aircraft carrier?

Aelfrith

From the article here (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/14/a-global-warming-fingerprint-confirmed-upper-troposphere-warming/) – “The new study, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature”

Old'un

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.”

Resourceguy

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.

G. Karst

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

TJA

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.

Craig

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

CaligulaJones

“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.

D.J. Hawkins

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

MangoChutney

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

The entire science is now supported by adjusted data only.
There has to be a reckoning some day.

Latitude

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

The entire scam is now supported by adjusted data only. No longer a science.

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.

Frank

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.

It makes sense to me. The hotspot is causing the sea ice to expand around the Antarctic. / sarc

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?

son of mulder

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?

… revealed by iteratively homogenized …
If that isn’t a red flag, what is?

cheshirered

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.

Dodgy Geezer

@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,…

Exactly right, Dodgy Geezer. They just needed a paper they can then quote.

AnonyMoose

Is the hotspot on the equator, where El Nino lives, or further south?

The Southern Ocean means the circumantarctic seas of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, so a lot farther south.

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.

Janice Moore

“It doesn’t prove that humans are the cause of the {alleged} ‘hot spot.'”
This is, indeed, the point to emphasize here.

siamiam

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.

greymouser70

“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.

Art Rosenshein

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.

Claude Harvey

“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.

Crispin in Waterloo

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

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.

trafamadore

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.

Janice Moore

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

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

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19138
This is the real deal, not the BS this article is conveying.

londo

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.

trafamadore

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.

Janice Moore

You do not “replicate” data. So, they won’t.
You observe data.
Human agents “replicate” contrived things like “data.”
Why would Christy, et. al. waste their time replicating this junk??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28statistics%29
To be science, results have to repeatable by the same methods by different workers or validated by other means of observation or measurement.

Pat Michaels

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.

lgp

I don’t know, “linear regression and cringing” Or was that k-rigging the results?

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!

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

Rob Ricket

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.

Gary Hladik

“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. 🙂

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.