• Member Statistics

    15,535
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ransom
    Newest Member
    ransom
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Jonger

Climate Change Banter

Recommended Posts

The quality of discussion in this forum has decreased dramatically recently, not because of SOC, but due to certain individuals who apparently have something personally against SOC, and thus are trying desperately to discredit him / run him off the board. Meanwhile, I've seen nothing from him that necessitates a banning (however, a ban could be argued for those responsible for the verbal attacks). As I said before, it's unprofessional, inappropriate, and speaks volumes of the characters' of the people engaging in this behavior.

 

I'm not sure why a discussion on climate needs to devolve into something nasty (actually I do: it's because people cannot separate their emotional instinctive response from their more emotionally detached intellectual response, and the way to accomplish this is through simple discipline).

 

I hope this forum improves in the future, as climate is an important subject that deserves attention. But productive discourse cannot occur if there are folks constantly attempting to derail the threads with personal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the level of discussion improve when you quote something SOC says and he responds saying he never said that? In my last post before Mallow closed the thread I quoted him and he responded by saying "I didn't say that." Well, it's a direct quote. It's just impossible to have a discussion when even the most basic facts are denied. Literally it's impossible for anybody to interact with him unless they are just agreeing with everything he says. You pretty much have to let him have his way with the whole forum if you want to avoid conflict. Good posters come in like Don and make an informative post and SOC responds with a bunch of mis-information clogging up the forum and it's impossible to correct that because SOC will go to the end of the earth to not admit anything he said was mistaken. If he posts lies or misinformation I will continue to point it out. If that clogs up the thread, we should be looking at the source of the lies and misinformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but due to certain individuals who apparently have something personally against SOC, and thus are trying desperately to discredit him / run him off the board. 

 

For the record, I have nothing personal against SOC and have defended him many times in the past. I just don't like deception and bad information clouding out good information from people like Don. If he wants to lampoon a peer-reviewed data source like RATPAC, then he needs to provide some solid evidence preferably peer-reviewed. Until then, he shouldn't make up lies about insufficient global coverage or there being no gridding. As many posters have pointed out, the coverage is considered sufficient, there are peer-reviewed estimates of the uncertainty related to coverage, and even John Christy has used RATPAC (even on short timescales) as verification for UAH.

 

I do think he has shown himself in the past to be a disruptive poster (which is why he was banned) but this is not intended as a personal attack. And yes, I do think it would be a better forum if the TOS was enforced and he was not allowed back or else put on a very short leash. Also, I would think if someone is allowed back it would only be under the condition that they are responsible for not becoming disruptive again. It shouldn't be the responsibility of everybody else to handle a previously banned member with kid gloves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the level of discussion improve when you quote something SOC says and he responds saying he never said that? In my last post before Mallow closed the thread I quoted him and he responded by saying "I didn't say that." Well, it's a direct quote. It's just impossible to have a discussion when even the most basic facts are denied.

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.

Literally it's impossible for anybody to interact with him unless they are just agreeing with everything he says. You pretty much have to let him have his way with the whole forum if you want to avoid conflict. Good posters come in like Don and make an informative post and SOC responds with a bunch of mis-information clogging up the forum and it's impossible to correct that because SOC will go to the end of the earth to not admit anything he said was mistaken. If he posts lies or misinformation I will continue to point it out. If that clogs up the thread, we should be looking at the source of the lies and misinformation.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quality of discussion in this forum has decreased dramatically recently, not because of SOC, but due to certain individuals who apparently have something personally against SOC, and thus are trying desperately to discredit him / run him off the board. Meanwhile, I've seen nothing from him that necessitates a banning (however, a ban could be argued for those responsible for the verbal attacks). As I said before, it's unprofessional, inappropriate, and speaks volumes of the characters' of the people engaging in this behavior.

I'm not sure why a discussion on climate needs to devolve into something nasty (actually I do: it's because people cannot separate their emotional instinctive response from their more emotionally detached intellectual response, and the way to accomplish this is through simple discipline).

I hope this forum improves in the future, as climate is an important subject that deserves attention. But productive discourse cannot occur if there are folks constantly attempting to derail the threads with personal attacks.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RATPAC has already been proven to be usable and highly accurate on 30+ year baselines. The one thing I don't trust is UAH at this point until I have 10+ years of more data. Global surface datasets continue to tick up quite strongly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RATPAC has already been proven to be usable and highly accurate on 30+ year baselines. The one thing I don't trust is UAH at this point until I have 10+ years of more data. Global surface datasets continue to tick up quite strongly.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate is a field with many unanswered questions, and thus most topics are fairly debatable. I think part of the issue could be seeing things as black/white, right/wrong, rather than a difference in opinion. I've seen many posters fall victim to this way of thinking. Of course there are some aspects which are hard facts, but for example: one person could present a peer-reviewed study on a particular subject, but then I can respond with a peer-reviewed paper asserting something contrary to the one you posted (like ECS for instance). If someone holds an opinion that is different from your own, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong/liar. When someone cannot substantiate their claims with peer reviewed evidence, or at the very least, valid scientific reasoning, then it's a different story. But my interpretation of the entire conversation is that it boils down to differences of opinion regarding the utility of a dataset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As skierinvermont says, it's impossible to debate with someone who claims he didn't say one of his own direct quotes. Or someone who contradicts himself completely as in "RATPAC has no gridding" then "I never said RATPAC wasn't gridded." Just a total deceit in order not to admit being wrong.

Also, individuals who are banned aren't supposed to make new accounts in order to post under a different name. Admins need to track the IP address in this case. Also, SOC should be on a very short leash as a previously banned poster. How he can create another disruption (and the broad consensus was that SOC was the party responsible) and then not be permanently banned is a shock to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As skierinvermont says, it's impossible to debate with someone who claims he didn't say one of his own direct quotes. Or someone who contradicts himself completely as in "RATPAC has no gridding" then "I never said RATPAC wasn't gridded." Just a total deceit in order not to admit being wrong.

Also, individuals who are banned aren't supposed to make new accounts in order to post under a different name. Admins need to track the IP address in this case. Also, SOC should be on a very short leash as a previously banned poster. How he can create another disruption (and the broad consensus was that SOC was the party responsible) and then not be permanently banned is a shock to me.

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

ABSTRACT

Temperature trends derived from historical radiosonde data often show substantial differences compared to satellite measurements. These differences are especially large for stratospheric levels, and for data in the Tropics, where results are based on relatively few stations. Detailed comparisons of one radiosonde dataset with collocated satellite measurements from the Microwave Sounding Unit reveal time series differences that occur as step functions or jumps at many stations. These jumps occur at different times for different stations, suggesting that the differences are primarily related to problems in the radiosonde data, rather than in the satellite record.

As a result of these jumps, the radiosondes exhibit systematic cooling biases relative to the satellites. A large number of the radiosonde stations in the Tropics are influenced by these biases, suggesting that cooling in the tropical lower stratosphere is substantially overestimated in these radiosonde data. Comparison of trends from stations with larger and smaller biases suggests the cooling bias extends into the tropical upper troposphere. Significant biases are observed in both daytime and nighttime radio- sonde measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

We have examined data from some of the stations used in RW as examples of inhomogeneities and found two possible reasons.

At several stations in the western tropical Pacific (e.g., Majuro and Truk), shifts in the sonde–satellite difference series occur around 1989–90, coinciding with changes in ground equipment and, at some stations, with the resumption of regular nighttime soundings, which had been sparse or nonexistent since the 1970s. These coincident changes, although not providing a clear reason for a shift, suggest that the shift in the differences could have come from a change in radiosonde observations. As RW pointed out, radiosonde temperatures do not shift noticeably around this time (top of Fig. 1). Since night observations were not avail- able, and since day–night differences were an important aspect of the LKS analysis method, the LKS team had no reason to suspect an inhomogeneity. Furthermore, because the adjustment method depends on differenc- ing the temperatures before and after a change point, it cannot adjust effectively for discontinuities that are masked by natural changes. Without a reference time series, there is no way to reconstruct the true temperature history when a change point coincides with a real

FIG. 1. MSU channel-4 equivalent temperature anomalies (K) at (top) Majuro from RATPAC radiosonde data and (bottom) Hong Kong from RATPAC radiosonde data (0000 and 1200 UTC combined). Only daytime data were used for LKS at Majuro. Arrow shows time of apparent downward shift in the satellite– sonde difference series shown in Randel and Wu (2006).

change in temperature. LKS deliberately chose not to use the satellite data as a reference so as to produce an independent time series that could be compared to the satellite temperature series, but this choice may have made it harder to detect or adjust for some changes. The shifts in LS satellite–sonde difference series around 1988 shown in RW at Singapore, Antofagasta, and Ascensio, similarly show no obvious changes in the LKS time series (not shown). Again, there were little or no night data for comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have moved the relevant discussion on RATPAC to this thread, since it seems to be a catchall of sorts. Please keep the observation threads clear of accusatory posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good paper by McCarthy et al 2008.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.524.608

Abstract

Uncertainties in observed records of atmospheric temperature aloft remain poorly quantified. This has resulted in considerable controversy regarding signals of climate change over recent decades from tem-perature records of radiosondes and satellites. This work revisits the problems associated with the removal of inhomogeneities from the historical radiosonde temperature records, and provides a method for quan-tifying uncertainty in an adjusted radiosonde climate record due to the subjective choices made during the data homogenization. This paper presents an automated homogenization method designed to replicate the decisions made by manual judgment in the generation of an earlier radiosonde dataset [i.e., the Hadley Centre radiosonde temperature dataset (HadAT)]. A number of validation experiments have been conducted to test the system performance and impact on linear trends. Using climate model data to simulate biased radiosonde data, the authors show that limitations in the homogenization method are sufficiently large to explain much of the tropical trend discrepancy between HadAT and estimates from satellite platforms and climate models. This situation arises from the combi-nation of systematic (unknown magnitude) and random uncertainties (of order 0.05 K decade1) in the radiosonde data. Previous assessment of trends and uncertainty in HadAT is likely to have underestimated the systematic bias in tropical mean temperature trends. This objective assessment of radiosonde homog-enization supports the conclusions of the synthesis report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), and associated research, regarding potential bias in tropospheric temperature records from radio-sondes. 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

This is where all the confusion is stemming from. Any reasonable person would read that sentence as "... anything in the way of gridding, nor anything in the way of spatial homogenization." The word "gridding" is almost exclusively used as a verb/gerund. Nobody would assume you were using it as an adjective in the noun phrase "gridding homogenization", which is a phrase I've never heard uttered, when it could be interpreted as the much more grammatically standard format I quoted above (italics).

 

As for the other part, that you "mysteriously changed your mind"... you said it yourself in the very same post. "Actually, I was wrong." Any reasonable person, having read the following sentence in the way mentioned above (italics), would interpret the "I was wrong" part to mean exactly that--that you changed your mind.

 

So, saying "that's ridiculous" is unhelpful here. It's not ridiculous, as skier and I (and many others) interpreted your post exactly the same way. If you really did mean something else, then you chose one of the most poorly worded means to express yourself I've ever seen. To me, the grammar of your post so obviously meant exactly what skier is suggesting, that it is actually easier for me to believe that you were wrong and didn't like being called out, than that you honestly just worded your statement poorly and meant something that no reasonable person would interpret your post to have meant. And that's why skier is so combative with you.

 

Does that all make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, saying "that's ridiculous" is unhelpful here. It's not ridiculous, as skier and I (and many others) interpreted your post exactly the same way. If you really did mean something else, then you chose one of the most poorly worded means to express yourself I've ever seen. To me, the grammar of your post so obviously meant exactly what skier is suggesting, that it is actually easier for me to believe that you were wrong and didn't like being called out, than that you honestly just worded your statement poorly and meant something that no reasonable person would interpret your post to have meant. And that's why skier is so combative with you.

Does that all make sense?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mears et al 2012

http://images.remss.com/papers/Mears_JGR_2012.pdf

Multidecadal-scale changes in atmospheric temperature have been measured by both radiosondes and the satellite-borne microwave sounding unit (MSU). Both measurement systems exhibit substantial time varying biases that need to removed to the extent possible from the raw data before they can be used to assess climate trends. A number of methods have been developed for each measurement system, leading to the creation of several homogenized data sets. In this work, we evaluate the agreement between MSU and homogenized radiosonde data sets on multiyear (predominantly 5-year) time scales and find that MSU data sets are often more similar to each other than to radiosonde data sets and vice versa. Furthermore, on these times scales the differences between MSU data sets are often not larger than published internal uncertainty estimates for the RSS product alone and therefore may not be statistically significant when the internal uncertainty in each data set is taken into account. Given the data limitations it is concluded that using radiosondes to validate multidecadal-scale trends in MSU data, or vice versa, or trying to use such metrics alone to pick a ‘winner’ is an ill-conditioned approach and has limited utility without one or more of additional independent measurements, or methodological, or physical analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As skierinvermont says, it's impossible to debate with someone who claims he didn't say one of his own direct quotes. Or someone who contradicts himself completely as in "RATPAC has no gridding" then "I never said RATPAC wasn't gridded." Just a total deceit in order not to admit being wrong.

Also, individuals who are banned aren't supposed to make new accounts in order to post under a different name. Admins need to track the IP address in this case. Also, SOC should be on a very short leash as a previously banned poster. How he can create another disruption (and the broad consensus was that SOC was the party responsible) and then not be permanently banned is a shock to me.

Pretty much this, I'm all for second chances but jesus....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much this, I'm all for second chances but jesus....

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

deadhors.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You were wrong, I'm not sure why you can't just drop it. Posting peer reviewed papers doesn't change what was said. The reason you're aggravating lots of people in here is because you can't drop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were wrong, I'm not sure why you can't just drop it. Posting peer reviewed papers doesn't change what was said. The reason you're aggravating lots of people in here is because you can't drop it.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where all the confusion is stemming from. Any reasonable person would read that sentence as "... anything in the way of gridding, nor anything in the way of spatial homogenization." The word "gridding" is almost exclusively used as a verb/gerund. Nobody would assume you were using it as an adjective in the noun phrase "gridding homogenization", which is a phrase I've never heard uttered, when it could be interpreted as the much more grammatically standard format I quoted above (italics).

 

As for the other part, that you "mysteriously changed your mind"... you said it yourself in the very same post. "Actually, I was wrong." Any reasonable person, having read the following sentence in the way mentioned above (italics), would interpret the "I was wrong" part to mean exactly that--that you changed your mind.

 

So, saying "that's ridiculous" is unhelpful here. It's not ridiculous, as skier and I (and many others) interpreted your post exactly the same way. If you really did mean something else, then you chose one of the most poorly worded means to express yourself I've ever seen. To me, the grammar of your post so obviously meant exactly what skier is suggesting, that it is actually easier for me to believe that you were wrong and didn't like being called out, than that you honestly just worded your statement poorly and meant something that no reasonable person would interpret your post to have meant. And that's why skier is so combative with you.

 

Does that all make sense?

 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just a matter of grammar either. The post began with "Actually I was mistaken" referring to his previous post where he talks about gridding. The following post is clearly, in context, a reversal in which he claims there isn't any gridding or spatial homogenization.

 

I said that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just a matter of grammar either. The post began with "Actually I was mistaken" referring to his previous post where he talks about gridding. The following post is clearly, in context, a reversal in which he claims there isn't any gridding or spatial homogenization.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

It's not just me - it's literally every single person that has read your posts and is asking you to stop. Most of those people don't have any bias one way or the other either. The normal thing to do at this point would be to own it and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, I'll post my original quote, then I'll edit it to reflect what I was intending to convey.

Original quote:

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

Re-organized quote:

Actually, I made a mistake. RATPAC does no spatial/gridding homogenization at all.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

First, this is a butchering of the english language and I have a hard time that when writing the first version you could possibly have been intending the second version.

 

Second, this is still inconsistent with previous posts which you described as mistaken.

 

Third, this is certainly inconsistent with your statement in the same post saying it is "merely an average of 85 stations"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.