New paper shows no "hot spot" as predicted by climate models, invalidates AGW

[SSDD]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations

This paper, recently published in Geophysical Research Letters once again, proves that the hot spot, predicted, and required in order to validate the AGW hypothesis is still conspicuously missing. Without a hot spot, the AGW hypothesis is, and remains dead in the water insofar as the scientific method is concerned.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, um, er, it's missing because of AGW

 

[SSDD]

Well, um, er, it's missing because of AGW

Supposedly AGW causes more cold weather so it may as well have cooled down the hotspot.

 

[RollingThunder]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations

This paper, recently published in Geophysical Research Letters once again, proves that the hot spot, predicted, and required in order to validate the AGW hypothesis is still conspicuously missing. Without a hot spot, the AGW hypothesis is, and remains dead in the water insofar as the scientific method is concerned.

That paper doesn't say any such thing. You're just too stupid to comprehend what science papers actually say so you rely on the twisted misinterpretations fed to you by some nutjob denier cult blog.

Here's what the paper actually says:

Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L22701, 5 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL053850
A recent study of 1979–2010 tropical tropospheric temperature trends in climate model simulations and satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU) observations concluded that, although both showed greater warming in the upper than lower troposphere, the vertical amplification of warming was exaggerated in most models. We repeat that analysis of temperature trends, vertical difference trends, and trend ratios using five radiosonde datasets. Some, but not all, comparisons support the notion that vertical amplification in models exceeds that observed. However, larger ranges of radiosonde trends compared with those for MSU, and the sensitivity of results to the upper-tropospheric level analyzed, make it difficult to conclude unambiguously that models are inconsistent with radiosonde observations. The larger ranges are due to the availability of more radiosonde datasets with different approaches for adjusting measurement biases. Together these two studies highlight challenges of using imperfect observations of tropical tropospheric temperature over a few decades to assess climate model performance.

 

[SSDD]

[.........using five radiosonde datasets........

You really are rediculous. Do you know that?

Five.....count em folks.....five radiosondes say that there is a hot spot when literally tens of thousands of radiosondes say that there is no hot spot and the warmers believe in the hot . The logic of climate science brought to us by rolling thunder.

Give the man a round of applause.

 

[RollingThunder]

[.........using five radiosonde datasets........

You really are rediculous(sic). Do you know that?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I think I found a picture of you at a teabagger rally....

Five.....count em folks.....five radiosondes say that there is a hot spot when literally tens of thousands of radiosondes say that there is no hot spot and the warmers believe in the hot . The logic of climate science brought to us by rolling thunder.

I guess it is not too surprising to find that you are too retarded to even be able to read and comprehend that Abstract. After all, you didn't quote the paper to begin with, you just parroted some ridiculous misinterpretation you got off some denier cult blog. The scientists talk about "using five radiosonde datasets" and that is about the only even faint resemblance to the retarded gibberish you just spewed. No "five radiosondes" vs "tens of thousands of radiosondes" - that was just a total fabrication. What they actually said was: "Some, but not all, comparisons support the notion that vertical amplification in models exceeds that observed. However, larger ranges of radiosonde trends compared with those for MSU, and the sensitivity of results to the upper-tropospheric level analyzed, make it difficult to conclude unambiguously that models are inconsistent with radiosonde observations." Too bad that you're far too stupid, SSooooDDuuumb, to be able to understand the difference between what the scientists are actually saying and what your oil corp puppet masters are telling you that they're saying.

So then....your drivel would seem to be 'the lamebrain loser lack of logic brought to us by another clueless denier cult retard who is just SSooooDDuuuumb'.

Give the man a round of applause.

Please.....give the poor cretin a round of derisive raspberries.





***

 

[Old Rocks]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations

This paper, recently published in Geophysical Research Letters once again, proves that the hot spot, predicted, and required in order to validate the AGW hypothesis is still conspicuously missing. Without a hot spot, the AGW hypothesis is, and remains dead in the water insofar as the scientific method is concerned.

No, that is not what it says at all. It points out that the present data indicates that while the models predict correctly that the upper troposphere would warm, the warming was not as great as the what the models predicted. Hardly invalidates the models, simply says that some factors have not been taken into account.


Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations

Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations



Key Points•Warming amplification in models exceeds satellite-observed
•Comparisons of models with radiosonde data only partially support this finding
•Results are sensitive to dataset choice and upper tropospheric level analyzed

Dian J. Seidel

Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA, College Park, Maryland, USA

Melissa Free

Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA, College Park, Maryland, USA

James S. Wang

Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA, College Park, Maryland, USA

Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, Maryland, USA


A recent study of 1979–2010 tropical tropospheric temperature trends in climate model simulations and satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU) observations concluded that, although both showed greater warming in the upper than lower troposphere, the vertical amplification of warming was exaggerated in most models. We repeat that analysis of temperature trends, vertical difference trends, and trend ratios using five radiosonde datasets. Some, but not all, comparisons support the notion that vertical amplification in models exceeds that observed. However, larger ranges of radiosonde trends compared with those for MSU, and the sensitivity of results to the upper-tropospheric level analyzed, make it difficult to conclude unambiguously that models are inconsistent with radiosonde observations. The larger ranges are due to the availability of more radiosonde datasets with different approaches for adjusting measurement biases. Together these two studies highlight challenges of using imperfect observations of tropical tropospheric temperature over a few decades to assess climate model performance

 

[SSDD]

I guess it is not too surprising to find that you are too retarded to even be able to read and comprehend that Abstract. After all, you didn't quote the paper to begin with, you just parroted some ridiculous misinterpretation you got off some denier cult blog. The scientists talk about "using five radiosonde datasets" and that is about the only even faint resemblance to the retarded gibberish you just spewed. No "five radiosondes" vs "tens of thousands of radiosondes" - that was just a total fabrication. What they actually said was: "Some, but not all, comparisons support the notion that vertical amplification in models exceeds that observed. However, larger ranges of radiosonde trends compared with those for MSU, and the sensitivity of results to the upper-tropospheric level analyzed, make it difficult to conclude unambiguously that models are inconsistent with radiosonde observations." Too bad that you're far too stupid, SSooooDDuuumb, to be able to understand the difference between what the scientists are actually saying and what your oil corp puppet masters are telling you that they're saying.

So then....your drivel would seem to be 'the lamebrain loser lack of logic brought to us by another clueless denier cult retard who is just SSooooDDuuuumb'.

Wow, you really don't know much about this stuff beyond what you are spoonfed by skeptical science et al do you.

A radiosonde data set consists of the atmospheric pressure, geopotential height, and temperature captured by one radiosonde, not a fleet of radiosondes. Each radiosonde captures and delivers one dataset. So yes, your idiots are pitting five individual radiosondes against tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of radiosondes which have failed to find the hot spot required to validate the AGW hypothesis.

 

[RollingThunder]

I guess it is not too surprising to find that you are too retarded to even be able to read and comprehend that Abstract. After all, you didn't quote the paper to begin with, you just parroted some ridiculous misinterpretation you got off some denier cult blog. The scientists talk about "using five radiosonde datasets" and that is about the only even faint resemblance to the retarded gibberish you just spewed. No "five radiosondes" vs "tens of thousands of radiosondes" - that was just a total fabrication. What they actually said was: "Some, but not all, comparisons support the notion that vertical amplification in models exceeds that observed. However, larger ranges of radiosonde trends compared with those for MSU, and the sensitivity of results to the upper-tropospheric level analyzed, make it difficult to conclude unambiguously that models are inconsistent with radiosonde observations." Too bad that you're far too stupid, SSooooDDuuumb, to be able to understand the difference between what the scientists are actually saying and what your oil corp puppet masters are telling you that they're saying.

So then....your drivel would seem to be 'the lamebrain loser lack of logic brought to us by another clueless denier cult retard who is just SSooooDDuuuumb'.

Wow, you really don't know much about this stuff beyond what you are spoonfed by skeptical science et al do you.

You seem to be using your tongue to decipher 'braille' on the walls of Exxon's rectum to get your 'information'. You oughta try jerking your head out of there sometime.

A radiosonde data set consists of the atmospheric pressure, geopotential height, and temperature captured by one radiosonde, not a fleet of radiosondes. Each radiosonde captures and delivers one dataset. So yes, your idiots are pitting five individual radiosondes against tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of radiosondes which have failed to find the hot spot required to validate the AGW hypothesis.

First off, none of that nonsense is in the paper. Nowhere do they talk about anything like that. You are just making it up in a very idiotic way. Try backing up your nonsense by pointing out just where anyone says that their results are based on five radiosondes vs "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of radiosondes".

Secondly, you obviously have no idea how the term "radiosonde data set" is actually used by scientists.

MADIS Radiosonde Dataset
NOAA
The MADIS radiosonde dataset provides data from all stations in North America, as well as observations from many other stations around the globe.