StudentOfClimatology

Members
  • Content Count

    4,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StudentOfClimatology

  1. Getting a nasty case of autumn fever now. I'm so ready for frosty mornings, falling leaves, and low dewpoints. Unfortunately, the next 10 days look horrific.
  2. I'm sorry if I called you any names. Personal attacks are unproductive and uncalled for. That said, I'm sticking with the consensus of the peer reviewed literature regarding the error potential in the radiosonde data. In the shorter term (<15yrs), most of the divergence between the two can be attributed to inhomogeneities in the radiosonde data. Obviously this is all debatable still, and I'm sure you disagree, so I hope we can end this on a positive note.
  3. Fine. I had a bizarre change of mind that lasted 15 minutes. The sentence in reference was wrong. I was wrong. Is that an adequate admission? Getting back on topic, my initial argument still stands. The shorter term divergence between the satellite and radiosonde data can be largely attributed to inhomogeneities in the radiosonde data. The majority of the peer reviewed literature comparing the two reaches the same conclusion.
  4. That's fine. You don't have to believe me, but I can tell you exactly what it is I meant. There's nothing inconsistent about my re-worded quote. That's what I have and continue to imply regarding the extrapolation process, if that's what you're referring to. That post is correct. A simple extrapolation with no interpolation between grids is a gridded average. Every dataset is essentially a tuned conglomerate average. What RATPAC does is put the data into equally sized grids to account for areal bias, then extrapolates the data from these stations through the grid boxes they belong to. When there are multiple stations in a grid box, an interpolation procedure is done. When there is only only station in a grid box, no interpolation is done.
  5. Here, I'll post my original quote, then I'll edit it to reflect what I was intending to convey. Original quote: Re-organized quote: Is that better? I'll concede that the first quote was worded poorly, but I never believed they did no gridding. That would be ludicrous.
  6. Maybe you interpreted it that way, but that's definitely not was I was trying to say. See my post below, I was referring to the idea that macroscale homogenization was taking place. If you won't let this go, this roundabout will continue forever.
  7. What was I wrong about? Everything I've said regarding the inhomogeneities in the radiosonde datasets is accurate, and can be verified with numerous peer reviewed analyses. If you disagree or would like to discuss the issue, I'm happy to have a respectful, open-minded conversation with you about it. However, if you'd rather mischaracterize one of my posts in order build a strawman, please don't waste my time.
  8. For christ's sake, I never said they don't do gridding. I've explained what I was intending to say several times now. You don't have to believe me, but continuing this accusatory roundabout is pointless. Let it go. Instead of continuing this pointless back and forth, let's have a scientific discussion regarding the inhomogeneities and uncertainties in the radiosonde data. I have more than 10 peer reviewed papers that I'm ready to post and discuss, should anyone be interested.
  9. Mears et al 2012 http://images.remss.com/papers/Mears_JGR_2012.pdf
  10. I understand why that post could be taken out of context. The use of the word "or" was a bad idea on my part because it creates a mutually exclusive appearance between "gridding" and "spatial homogenization". However, I honestly did not intend for that to be the interpretation. I want to make that abundantly clear.
  11. Another good paper by McCarthy et al 2008. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.524.608
  12. A paper by Free/Siedel (2007) expanding on Fu/Randel (2005). http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dian_Seidel/publication/241620702_Comments_on_Biases_in_Stratospheric_and_Tropospheric_Temperature_Trends_Derived_from_Historical_Radiosonde_Data''/links/004635331e6260eb33000000.pdf
  13. I didn't create any disruption. My words were clearly out of context. The peer reviewed literature supports my point of view. This is Fu/Randel et al 2005, back when the radiosonde data was running colder than the satellite data, for the same reason(s) it's now running warmer. http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/JCli_2006.pdf
  14. I agree with that. The problem is it's less reliable on <15yr baselines, due to regional differences in the magnitude of warming over time. Eventually, these differences smooth out, but a lot of the periodic divergence can be chalked up to a simple lack of coverage over the Southern Hemisphere and Pacific Ocean.
  15. Thank you. I see it basically the same way. I don't think skierinvermont has any personal vendetta against me, and frankly he doesn't sound like the kind of guy that would take things personally on an internet forum. He just doesn't trust me.
  16. There was nothing "direct" about that quote, and you were clearly taking it out of context. You resorted to throwing personal attacks at me because, I believe, you realized your mistake but didn't want to admit it. I don't know, but I can tell you that I certainly did not intend to imply what you think I was implying. There was no misinformation posted in that discussion, and I think you know it. Everything I post here is based on peer reviewed literature and common sense. You don't have to agree with me, and I make mistakes sometimes just like everyone here, including you. That said, all I care about is objective science and honest debate. So, when I'm being unfairly called out, I'm going to respond to that.
  17. I have a sketchy history with a few posters here, unfortunately, most of it being my fault. That's the main issue and I think it's going to take time to heal. That being said, I make sure never to throw deragatory names and personal attacks around, because it's unproductive and hypocritical to do so. Regarding the "donation" rumor, all I did was purchase a model subscription package. I have no idea where the mega-donor rumor originated, but it's not true.
  18. I'm not the problem this go around. I don't take anything personally here, but honestly I'm surprised at the low level of discourse displayed recently. I've been trying to have a scientific-minded discussion with posters who deliberately take my statements out of context, attack my character, and call me names. I've tried to get the entire discussion moved into PM, to no avail. I've tried to provide peer reviewed literature a to better elaborate on my positions, to no avail. So yeah, I'm at a loss as for what to do here.
  19. Thank you, very much appreciated. I've done my best to conduct myself professionally since I've been back.
  20. Don't assume what you don't know. After the model site was paywalled, I contacted the administrative team, explained who I was, and was given the okay to make a new account. I'm very thankful for that. I was banned 4 years ago (as a teenager struggling with substance abuse). After the layoff, completing rehabilitation, and returning to finish my education, I was given a second chance to participate here. I've really enjoyed my time here since I've been back, and I hope to continue to improve as a poster.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. That looks more like an eddy spinoff to me, albeit a strong one. Might be the old LLC.
  24. Apparently, Maryland averages 9.9 tornadoes per 10,000 square miles each year. That's 3rd highest in the nation, behind Florida and Kansas. We beat Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/shock-stat-maryland-has-third-highest-tornado-density-in-us/2012/03/26/gIQAReMmgS_blog.html The last 2-3 years have just been an exceptionally boring in the severe weather department.
  25. Where in the west were you? I can't imagine living in SoCal, waiting 10 weeks for a rain shower.