Jump to content

StudentOfClimatology

Members
  • Posts

    4,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StudentOfClimatology

  1. The irony in this post is off the charts, considering the fact that you're the one deliberately lying and mischaracterizing my posts. The fact that you've resorted to name calling speaks volumes as to the legitimacy behind your accusations. Yes, I was banned several years ago (as a teenager) for profanity and name calling, which is exactly what you're doing now. It's immature and reflects low self esteem on your part.
  2. You're demonstrably wrong in all of your assumptions. The fact that you've resorted to name calling reflects the unsubstantiated nature of your claims. That's definitely not what I said. You misinterpreted me (possibly due to sketchy grammar on my part) so I'm trying to clarify this for you. This was my post: I was referring to your nonsense claim that there is a "homogenization" procedure carried out in/between the grid boxes. When I wrote "gridding or spatial", the "or" was meant to refer to the fact that both terms reflect the same thing. Not the best grammatical structure, but definitely understandable. You'd rather believe that I mysteriously changed my mind, three times, for no reason? That's ridiculous. You're the one lying, not me. It shows, too, because I clearly stated that gridding/weighting took place in multiple posts before the one in question. I didn't mysteriously change my mind three separate times. The satellite datasets and radiosonde datasets are both peer reviewed and are in relatively good agreement (within 0.04C/decade) in the long run. However, there are shorter periods, throughout the data record, where the two diverge due to the varying regional nature of climate change. Due to RATPAC's lack of spatial coverage over much of the Pacific and Southern Oceans, it may fail to pick up these regional warming differentials. Notice how the MSU/AMSU data reveals reduced warming in the very areas where RATPAC lacks coverage.
  3. There isn't a drastic difference between the radiosonde data and the satellite data. Most of the trend differentials are shorter term, like the one currently. Looks like the potential error when aggregating the satellite and radiosonde datasets is 0.02C/decade, which is fairly low. The diurnal bias of UAHv5.6 is also mentioned. https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/chapter-2-global-climate/
  4. Thank you, I couldn't agree more. This would be the perfect time to drop it all completely, in my opinion, and get this thread back on track.
  5. This is a load of crap. Why would I claim that there is a gridding procedure done, only to change my mind and deny it, then change my mind again? You're harping on this because you know your arguments for RATPAC's viability have no merit, and the only reason you're supporting this dataset is because it's depicting the solution you ideologically prefer. I don't care what you believe regarding the datasets in question, but as long as you continue to spread falsehoods about me, I'll continue to call you out on it.
  6. Except none of this is true. I never said there was no areal weighting. It so happens that a lot of the difference between RATPAC and the MSU/AMSU data can be chalked up to RATPAC's lack of measurement in the Southern Hemisphere, particularly in the Pacific and Southern Oceans. There are close to one million square kilometers going completely unmeasured and unrepresented over continental Africa, the Pacific, and the Southern Ocean. The warming in all of the aformentioned areas has been very regionally divergent, and RATPAC has no way of depicting this. There isn't much literature on it. I agree that RATPAC has it's own advantages, but I'd never use it on a resolution under 30 years. RATPAC is used (relatively) rarely to depict global change in the peer reviewed literature. There's not much literature on it because the radiosonde network was never intended to measure climate change in the first place.
  7. Perhaps I could have worded it more effectively, but I made a post right before that fully acknowledging that there is a gridding procedure done. Doesn't that clarify pretty much everything? Below is the post that preceded the one you're referring to. I'd like to drop it here, too, but I certainly never intended to suggest that there is no gridding done. Why would I claim there is a gridding/weighting procedure, then change my mind and deny it only to change my mind again for a third time? That's pretty far-fetched, even for me.
  8. I can prove you wrong. This should settle it. I wrote this post before I supposedly claimed that RATPAC does no gridding. So, do you honestly think I mysteriously changed my mind three times? Why would I claim that the data was gridded, only to deny it, then change my mind again? I'm trying my best to clarify myself and end this, but unfortunately it seems you'd rather mischaracterize me, even after being proven wrong.
  9. Wrong about what? All I've seen is one of my posts repeatedly taken out of context. Here's the gist of the issue: - Skier was suggesting that extrapolation is a form of homogenization. That is factually incorrect. - RATPAC lacks sufficient coverage in many regions around the globe. Hence, the corresponding grids are large and may not capture regionally divergent climate change. That's just reality. Piling on is a clever tactic, though. It's an efficient way to discredit an argument without addressing it, even if the aforementioned argument is in fact legitimate.
  10. You're taking that post totally out of context. Here's what I wrote. I was referring to the claim that there is homogenization involved in these procedures, which there is not. Now that I've clarified this, you can drop it. Okay?
  11. How much longer is this going to continue? Can we relegate any future posts on this matter to PM? I don't think anyone wants to read this crap.
  12. You need to learn how to read. I said gridding/spatial homogenization. The debate was whether or not the aforementioned extrapolative procedures are considered homogenization, which they're not. I never claimed there was no gridding done. Basic English. Adjective preceding a noun in a fragment. Adjectives preceding and/or following nouns in a complete sentence. This is now the seventh time that post of mine has been regurgitated and mischaracterized.
  13. Thank you, I agree. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another thing to make false accusations and intentionally mischaracterize others' positions. Debates like this are even more frustrating for me because the methodologies behind each dataset are readily available. To see people (intentionally?) misconstrue what should be elemental fact is quite astonishing to me.
  14. What a load of crap. Your interpretation of my argument is pure horses**t and (obviously) it is your intent to take my words out of context. I never claimed that the data in the RAPTAC sonde aggregation wasn't gridded or extrapolated. I explained that the procedures in reference can only be considered simple extrapolations, and are not homogenization or interpolation. There are not enough datapoints for a comprehensive interpolation procedure, which is detrimental to the dataset. You're wrong here, too. GISS uses a very solid, comprehensive technique that relies on interpolation as well as multi-domainal extrapolation. RATPAC applies a simple extrapolation and leaves the grids cells as-is upon completion. Wrong about what? Enough with the hand waving. I don't believe solar activity is responsible for any warming after 1950. Why are you making stuff up? I don't hold any "skeptic views" regarding solar forcing on climate change, so your conspiracy theory makes no sense The problem is neither your or skier actually read the paper. I read the draft that paper before it was even publicly released. I read it through and through after it was published. I don't have a problem with it, per se, outside the fact that every single piece of proxy evidence contradicts it. The reasons for my skepticism are purely scientific.
  15. I think it's best that the entire ordeal move to PM. Unfortunately I expect a snarky post from skier loaded with false accusations.
  16. Every dataset is (technically) a tuned, spatially representative conglomerate average. When you say "simply an average", my assumption is that you're referring to a simple numerical average, which I never implied was being done. This thread was back on track until recently, and I'm not the one that started it back up again.
  17. Please PM me if you want to continue this nonsense. The surface data is a conglomerate of over one thousand stations and floating buoys. We're talking grids on a 25-50km resolution. There is no comparison. No one is lying about anything. You don't even know the difference between extrapolation and homogenization, and here you are giving me a BS lecture on a dataset you know nothing about. I'm not trying to be rude, but your false accusations need to stop. It sure is an average. It's a gridded average. A simple, one dimensional extrapolation. You're internationally taking my words out of context, and it shows.
  18. It's not as blunted as you might think. Both the UAH and RSS data reveal very significant regional differences in the warming trend since 1979, with many areas over the Pacific and Southern Oceans actually cooling slightly while other areas have warmed significantly (some by over 0.8C). Unfortunately, RATPAC lacks sufficient coverage in many of these areas and the simple extrapolations obviously fail to pick up on these regional variations. If the satellite record were 60 years long, fewer of these caveats would apply. Unfortunately, 35 years isn't long enough to be useful for determining sensitivity or transient response. The surface datasets are irrelevant (they don't measure in the lower troposphere). The surface and troposphere are governed by very different thermodynamic processes and should not be expected to warm in sync even on 15-20 year periods.
  19. You're just wrong all around. Huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, and African continent are left unmeasured on RATPAC..we're talking millions upon millions of square kilometers drawing a blank. Since the extrapolation within each grid is one-dimensional, there's very little in the way of areal representation, and climate change varies significantly on a regional basis.
  20. It is an average of the 85 stations..a gridded average. Get it? It is gridded, but there's no homogenization being done within the grids. The data is extrapolated, not homogenized. Extrapolation is not homogenization.
  21. Gridding or spatial homogenization. READ. We were debating whether or not what they're doing is actually homogenization, which it isn't. Either you're trolling or lack the ability to follow context.
  22. Who argued for a simple average? The gridding process removes initial areal measurement bias, then a basic extrapolation procedure is carried out within each grid cell, using the data from the station(s) confined within that grid. That makes it a simple extrapolation, not a homogenization or an interpolation. As for the coverage issue, it's something that is detrimental to the RATPAC data on shorter timescales because huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, and African continent are left unmeasured, and climate change varies on a regional basis.
  23. Why are you deliberately taking that out of context? I've clarified and elaborated on that statement multiple times, but you're more interested in pulling a nonexistent "gotcha" out of illusionary hat. If you disagree with something I post or would like clarification, just ask me to elaborate or point out where you think I'm wrong. No need to jump to conclusions or scream accusations into the heavens. It's unproductive.
  24. Extrapolating data is not homogenization. Homogenization refers to the removing of non-climactic changes to the raw/measured data itself. Extrapolation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrapolation Homogenization: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_(climate) If you want to call it homogenization, fine. It doesn't matter to me, but you'd be incorrectly using the word. What GISS/NCDC do, as I'm sure you know, is referred to as interpolation. It's easier for them to do because their grids are smaller and contain more data. Interpolation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation
  25. The only extrapolation done is within the grid boxes. Every grid is equally-sized and on the same plane, so tens of millions of square kilometers go unmeasured/unrepresented because there's no nearby data. Climate change has varied significantly by region/locality since measurement began, so this is a problem. Extrapolating data isn't homogenizing it. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead. I don't really care. Try reading my reply again. I clearly stated what I implied and it's not false at all.
×
×
  • Create New...