Quote:You seem to gloss over this:


 

 

The very text admits that the models are wrong. The hot spot is supposed to be in the upper troposphere. The warming they are measuring is in the mid-troposphere, hence the not quite as high statement ("high" here refers to elevation). This does not support the existence of the hot spot.


Why are they using the limited radiosonde balloon data when the satellite data has full coverage of the region, and shows no hot spot? Could it be because the satellite data give an even worse fit to the models?


 

You have pasted parts of two papers. Both paper select data that fits the narrative (eliminating what doesn't fit) and adjust the remaining data to better fit the narrative. That's not what science does, that's what religion does.


 

And why are you not appalled at the lie from NASA.gov? If you really are a scientist you should be.

 

This is part of the introduction which includes a review of the available literature. It is fairly common to point out gaps in knowledge, and to illustrate how your research fills these gaps in. So, saying previous models where "wrong" or missing key information isn't really big deal. Secondly, the paper does find evidence of tropospheric warming as summarized by (

 

Additionally I think you need to re-read the following text, because you've misinterpreted what they said.

 

Quote: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.
 

 

This doesn't disprove the tropospheric hot spot in the upper region. They said the warming does not reach "quite" as high in the tropics and the subtropics when looking at previous studies and those included models. The rest of the paper addresses what the weakness of these models are and how their work improves on them. 

 

Quote:Why are they using the limited radiosonde balloon data when the satellite data has full coverage of the region, and shows no hot spot? Could it be because the satellite data give an even worse fit to the models?
 

 
Radiosonde balloon data is not only very reliable but strongly correlates with satellite data (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/sate...ments.html). However, satellite data does not offer the resolution of radiosonde balloon data. One of your climate denier websites even agrees (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-sat...-balloons/). They say:
 

Quote:Satellites are not particularly good at finding the hot spot because it is a very thin layer over the tropics and satellites peering down from on high find it difficult to measure signals from 10km up and separate them from signals, say 8km up. Radiosondes are much better at resolving the different layers, which is really what matters — only the uppermost layer of water vapor counts, not the total column. Having said that, satellites are pretty handy over the oceans where not many weather balloons get released, and it would be good if we could use them.
 

 
You say it is "limited" but that is an inaccurate description.  Weather balloons work very well. 
 

Quote:Both paper select data that fits the narrative (eliminating what doesn't fit) and adjust the remaining data to better fit the narrative.
 

 

What proof do you have of this? What data have they eliminated and adjusted (other than noise which is common in any research). Fudging data is a serious accusation. Where is your proof?

 

Here is an excerpt that describes exactly what these scientist did:

 

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">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.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">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.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">"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.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">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.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-sci...t.html#jCp

---