StudentOfClimatology

I'm not assuming it. He has been demonstrably shown to be a provocative troll and liar and has been banned for it in the past. Why is he even allowed to post here at all after already being banned? He openly admits to being a banned member.

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.

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.

I have no idea why you changed your mind. But first you mention that RATPAC has gridding.

Then the next post you say "My mistake... RATPAC has no gridding technique"

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:

RATPAC does nothing in the way of gridding or spatial homogenization.

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.

It's all right there in black and white. Everybody else can see it so why bother lying?

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.

Furthermore, I don't need to make arguments for RATPAC's viability. It's a peer-reviewed widely used data source found in the AR5. You have presented no valid criticisms (which coincidentally is why you have changed nobody's mind).

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.

Here is a chart from Christy's upper-air section in the 2014 BAMS state-of-the-climate. He uses RATPAC data and shows that it agrees very well with other upper-air datasets.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/

Christy_upperair.png

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/

The long-term global trend based on radiosondes (starting in 1958) is +0.14°C decade−1 and based on both radiosondes and satellites (starting in 1979) is +0.13° ± 0.02°C decade−1.

Direct measurement of the lower-atmospheric bulk temperature utilizes radiosonde datasets with available data since 1958 and satellites since late 1978 (Christy 2014). In addition to radiosonde and satellite estimates, four reanalyses products are also shown (Fig. 2.2). There is reasonable agreement in the inter- annual variability and long-term trend between the reanalyses and observation products. ERA-Interim shows good agreement with satellite estimates and is used here to provide the spatial depictions (Plate 2.1b; Fig. 2.3). Note that the recent divergence between RSS and UAH satellite estimates is likely a result of no diurnal correction having been applied to UAH v5.6 during the AMSU period. Future versions will have diurnal correction.

Argh.

I think you both honestly believe what you're saying. And you both believe the other is being intentionally deceitful. And that's why this argument is still going on. Stop assuming the other is intentionally trying to lie to get an advantage and maybe the conversation will be more civil in the future.

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.

Also to answer soc's question why he would say there is gridding and then say there is no gridding is he changed his mind. "Actually i made a mistake... Ratpac does no gridding." See below. He was actually correct before he changed his mind (although the critique of coverage was still incorrect).

It appears he is taking his own post out of context without acknowledging he later changed his mind, in order to deceive you mallow. I'm sorry but I really can't stomache this kind of deception without calling it out. Don't be confused mallow. i understand it can be tedious for those not following. But it is impossible for the thread to function when you have this level of deception going on. I can't say or respond to anything without more deception and weasling in response. I appreciate nzucker putting his foot down for what is right.

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.

He made it sound like there was no area weighting but there is. And the coverage is more than sufficient for long term climate monitoring. There are peer reviewed estimates of the uncertainties related to coverage and gridding techniques for those interested ( hint: they are not "awful" as soc said).

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.

I have yet to see a peer reviewed critique of ratpac suggesting the uncertainty is greater than published. Until then I suggest we drop this argument and continue using ratpac as a decent source of data with uncertainty on par or perhaps a bit better than msu data such as rss. I welcome don's posting of the data and will continue to defend it vigorously from baseless attacks.

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.

I think people (including me) are confused because the post of yours that's been quoted several times doesn't seem to have any other possible reasonable interpretation. Your attempts to explain what you were trying to say with that post have been confusing, and I still don't know how one could interpret it to mean anything other than that you were saying it wasn't gridded. At the very least, it was poorly worded, and the amount of people that interpreted your post the way you say it shouldn't be interpreted is a testament to that.

In any case, this whole conversation is tedious and old, and I hope that it will be dropped soon.

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.

RATPAC has poor spatial coverage and a weak resolution even after the data is gridded. Huge areas of open ocean and uninhabited landmass are left blank before the gridding and homogenization process.

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.

I can prove you wrong.

This should settle it. I wrote this post before I supposedly claimed that RATPAC does no gridding.

RATPAC has poor spatial coverage and a weak resolution even after the data is gridded. Huge areas of open ocean and uninhabited landmass are left blank before the gridding and homogenization process.

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.

He was demonstrably wrong (not an "opinion"), but you're right, he doesn't have to publicly admit it. And this conversation played itself out a week ago. Like he keeps suggesting, take it to PM.

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.

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.

Actually, I made a mistake. RATPAC does nothing in the way of gridding or spatial homogenization at all.

Now that I've clarified this, you can drop it. Okay?

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.

I guess you did claim that it wasn't gridded or extrapolated. Just look at your above post.

You lose, Skier wins. Game over, buddy. Thanks for playing.

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.

Strongly disagree. It is your opinion that his argument is correct, and besides, you've completely missed the point. Who is correct or incorrect is irrelevant. We can have civil, scientific disagreements without attacking posters' credibility, which skier has done to SOC in this thread (and SOC, LEK, and myself in the solar thread). He's done this on numerous occasions, and it appears you're condoning this both unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Anyone who dissents from his opinion(s) are treated as intellectually inferior. It is very unfortunate because solid, good posters will be driven away from the climate forum, and soon, it will become an echo chamber in which only a handful of people possessing the same views remain.

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.

SOC claimed there was no homogenization/interpolation of data in RATPAC. Skierinvermont produced contrary evidence that the data was gridded, and then the average of the grids was taken.

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.

While Skier should have acknowledged that this does not completely eliminate the problem of poor aerial coverage in the Southern Hemisphere, where the warming has been least, his basic argument was correct: RATPAC uses a similar method to GISS to calculate anomaly, though not quite as accurate.

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.

SOC tried to backpedal and use semantics to cover up the fact he was wrong. He should have admitted such, and simply insisted that some data was still lacking.

Wrong about what? Enough with the hand waving.

SOC also jumped on the solar study just because he perceived it might negate arguments that higher solar activity is responsible for global warming instead of human activity.

I don't believe solar activity is responsible for any warming after 1950. Why are you making stuff up?

Even though the study doesn't really change much, he worried it might weaken the skeptic position that solar activity is as important as anthropogenic inputs, so he immediately attacked the study. This without even reading the original paper. Skierinvermont was, once again, correct.

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.

Are you really trying the he started it defense?

I think it's best that the entire ordeal move to PM. Unfortunately I expect a snarky post from skier loaded with false accusations.

This isn't an argument about data. Its semantics. There's no debate about what is being done to the data gathered but rather an argument over what to call it with no real change on what is being done.

I will say this: It should be damn obvious its not simply an average.

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.

Please PM me if you want to continue this nonsense.

Likewise, the surface data sets have huge holes which they extrapolate over. The RATPAC procedure is similar and more than sufficient.

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.

Plus your post was a blatant lie so you don't have any credibility anyways. You're obviously just out to undermine a well accepted peer-reviewed (albeit imprecise) data set in favor of a controversial non peer-reviewed source.

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.

RATPAC is not 'a simple average of the 85 stations' and the data is gridded. Your post is factually incorrect.

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.

It does on a regional basis, but that regional bias is pretty blunted over a 60 year period.

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.

This is evident by the fact that RATPAC, GISS, HadCrut4, and NOAA are all within 15% of eachother on the surface trend since 1950. The results speak for themselves.

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.

Plus the point of your post was to criticize RATPAC. The criticism is completely unjustified. The data is area weighted and has sufficient global coverage.

Your post is factually incorrect on the details (it is gridded, it is not 'merely an average') and it is incorrect in the big picture as well. The area coverage and spatial homogenization is perfectly acceptable.

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.

So you said it's an average of the 85 stations. It's not.

It is an average of the 85 stations..a gridded average. Get it?

You said there is no gridding OR spatial homogenization. It is gridded, and it is spatially homogenized.

It is gridded, but there's no homogenization being done within the grids. The data is extrapolated, not homogenized.

Extrapolation is not homogenization.

Wait, I thought you said there was 'nothing in the way of gridding...'

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.

Because the statement is wrong no matter how you slice it.

The global coverage is more than sufficient. It is not a simple average. It is an area weighted average which accomplishes the exact same thing as extrapolation.

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.

Lies!

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.

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

In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation range, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.

Homogenization:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_(climate)

Homogenization in climate research means the removal of non-climatic changes. Next to changes in the climate itself, raw climate records also contain non-climatic jumps and changes for example due to relocations or changes in instrumentation. The most used principle to remove these inhomogeneities is the relative homogenization approach in which a candidate stations is compared to a reference time series based on one or more neighboring stations. The candidate and reference station(s) experience about the same climate, non-climatic changes that happen only in one station can thus be identified and removed.

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

In the mathematical field of numerical analysis, interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points.

First of all, the way you're defining homogenization doesn't even fit the way you're using it. You're saying it's only homogenization if you're removing faulty data. But then you say that they aren't doing homogenization because there is no extrapolation between grid cells (which there is). So you're contradicting yourself.

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.

Second, your definition of homogenization is wrong. Homogenization is the removal of non-climactic signals. Processing the data, by example area weighting, fits such a definition.

Extrapolating data isn't homogenizing it. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead. I don't really care.

Third, you said specifically that they simply average the 85 stations. That is blatantly false. You have not addressed this falsity at all.

Try reading my reply again. I clearly stated what I implied and it's not false at all.