• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StudentOfClimatology

  1. I love these maps. Severe: Wind: Hail:
  2. Those events are exceptions to the rule, though, just like the winter of 2009-10 was down here. An F4 twister rolled through southern MD as recently as 2002. I'd never want to move up there. They may do snow better, but that's about it.
  3. New England is great at snow and marine air. They suck at pretty much everything else.
  4. The West Coast and New England are the worst when it comes to boring weather. You couldn't pay me enough to move to either region.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. The observed solar forcing is too small to account for the observed warming after 1950, I think we can all agree on that. That being said, there will be no linear relationship between solar forcing and climate change anyway because the system's thermal inertia is too high. It takes centuries for the system to equilibrate to any substantial, persistent radiative forcing.
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. That flare up is either right over the LLC or a bit south.
  17. That new convective blowup is pretty much right over the LLC or a bit south, but NW of the MLC, I believe.
  18. I'm pretty sure that paper is rebutting the proposed idea that planetary tidal forcings govern solar activity. It's not calling the BE^10/C^14 record into question. The beautiful thing about the proxy record is you don't need to worry about changes in telescope resolution, or in the way sunspots are counted, etc.
  19. Fast moving hurricanes pose the greatest risk in our area. The October 1878 hurricane made landfall in NC as a solid category 2, and was still a category 2 when it got here. Imagine what a category 4+ landfall would do under the same (or worse) circumstances.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. I think it's best that the entire ordeal move to PM. Unfortunately I expect a snarky post from skier loaded with false accusations.
  23. I was in Saint Simons, GA during Fay. Was/is one of my favorite weather experiences.
  24. I think Jeanne did it too, 2005?
  25. 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.