new junk science found …

Once again, a new paper from the Sherwood camp of the UNSW is trashed by WUWT comments. So much is found to be made up, specially selected, homogenized, and ‘kriged’.

Kriging, is making things up with the use of nearby data. A useful method, apparently, of losing a lot of money in the search for gold. Of course, there’s been no surface warming, and the Southern Ocean is much colder, so a hot spot is impossible without ‘kriging’.


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…

You see, there are no meteorological stations over the Southern Ocean, and satellite data there shows no warming according to Spencer and Christy, the home of the UAH data set. Of course, specially selected, adjusted and moved around:

[…] 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”?

Crispin, especially picks this apart in comments:


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.

About Tom Harley

Amateur ecologist and horticulturalist and CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc. (Tom Harley)
This entry was posted in Climate, comedy, science, weather and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s