Climate Change Banter

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[Msalgado]

Seriously just stop.  Or take it to PMs.  But no one else cares.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Seriously just stop.  Or take it to PMs.  But no one else cares.

 

Actually, the few of us that truly care about the science, do care how the data is complied.

[skierinvermont]

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. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[nflwxman]

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.

 

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

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[skierinvermont]

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[Msalgado]

Actually, the few of us that truly care about the science, do care how the data is complied.

 

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.  

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[Msalgado]

Are you really trying the he started it defense?   

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[nzucker]

Will both of you guys just shut the F up? No one wants to see the thread clogged with this nonsense anymore.

[Isotherm]

If you follow the progression of the conversation, I think it's unfair to consider SOC as being problematic here, or the primary instigator of this discussion. As a reader, it's become apparent that skierinvermont continues to broach the same topic over and over again, seemingly in attempt to discredit SOC's credibility (as he directly states above - "you have no credibility"). I have seen it on previous occasions (attacking SOC's credibility). In the solar thread, his most recent post is now attacking the credibility of SOC, LEK, and myself. The behavior is both unprofessional and inappropriate. It's a major deterrent to new contributors to the forum as well. In all bluntness, the attacks on other posters' credibility decreases the credibility of the accusing party. The reasons for which he does this are beyond the scope of this discussion, and irrelevant to entertain at this point. However, the bottom line is that the accusatory posting consistently occurs, and is unproductive to civil, intellectual discourse.

[AvantHiatus]

 

If you follow the progression of the conversation, I think it's unfair to consider SOC as being problematic here, or the primary instigator of this discussion. As a reader, it's become apparent that skierinvermont continues to broach the same topic over and over again, seemingly in attempt to discredit SOC's credibility (as he directly states above - "you have no credibility"). I have seen it on previous occasions (attacking SOC's credibility). In the solar thread, his most recent post is now attacking the credibility of SOC, LEK, and myself. The behavior is both unprofessional and inappropriate. It's a major deterrent to new contributors to the forum as well. In all bluntness, the attacks on other posters' credibility decreases the credibility of the accusing party. The reasons for which he does this are beyond the scope of this discussion, and irrelevant to entertain at this point. However, the bottom line is that the accusatory posting consistently occurs, and is unproductive to civil, intellectual discourse.

 

I agree Isotherm but for different reasons. Many members on Americanwx take their forum reputation/standing very seriously and looking back on SOCs history, I do not advise provoking him. It's best to assume a sense of neutrality and formal discourse for everybody regardless if they have mental instability/personal issues and/or a history of banned accounts/trolling behavior.

 

This may sound too liberal but it's never any good to offend anyone on a deep level as you don't want to be responsible for anything that happens in the future as a result of instigating an issue with emotional context.

 

On the flipside, it's challenging to filter out truthful information thru all the propaganda and agendas. Regardless, i've seen improvement in the honesty of the discussion aside from increasingly sporadic personal attacks.

 

This does not mean we can let lies and dishonesty prevail at the expense of individual wellness. We can still call out dishonesty in more neutral terms without rehashing of the past. Hopefully the guilty party will lose ground overtime and be scientifically untenable.

 

Most people are not patient enough to wait for this outcome and they destroy their credibility in the process on the long-run or deep down they know what they believe is not scientifically tenable and are presenting false information for malicious reasons.

[nzucker]

 

If you follow the progression of the conversation, I think it's unfair to consider SOC as being problematic here, or the primary instigator of this discussion. As a reader, it's become apparent that skierinvermont continues to broach the same topic over and over again, seemingly in attempt to discredit SOC's credibility (as he directly states above - "you have no credibility"). I have seen it on previous occasions (attacking SOC's credibility). In the solar thread, his most recent post is now attacking the credibility of SOC, LEK, and myself. The behavior is both unprofessional and inappropriate. It's a major deterrent to new contributors to the forum as well. In all bluntness, the attacks on other posters' credibility decreases the credibility of the accusing party. The reasons for which he does this are beyond the scope of this discussion, and irrelevant to entertain at this point. However, the bottom line is that the accusatory posting consistently occurs, and is unproductive to civil, intellectual discourse.

 

The bottom line is that skierinvermont is basically correct. He may be aggressive, but he's clearly won the argument against SOC. 

 

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. 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. 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. 

 

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. 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. 

 

Skierinvermont may be annoying sometimes, but the most annoying part to you guys is that he's right.

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[Isotherm]

The bottom line is that skierinvermont is basically correct. He may be aggressive, but he's clearly won the argument against SOC. 

 

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. 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. 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. 

 

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. 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. 

 

Skierinvermont may be annoying sometimes, but the most annoying part to you guys is that he's right.

 

 

 

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.

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[nzucker]

Actually, I made a mistake. RATPAC does nothing in the way of gridding or spatial homogenization at all. They merely take the data from the 85 stations and average it out. Wow..that's just an awful way to go about this.

(Keep in mind, this a bit old/when UAH and RSS were lacking homogeneity, unlike now).

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~swsshine/sparc4/Lanzante_SPARCTabard.ppt

Here's the station map. Look how much of the Pacific and Southern Oceans are just left blank. Hilarious.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[PhillipS]

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.

 

It will probably go on until you man up and admit you were wrong. As shown by your own words.  I know that accepting responsibility for your actions is not your strong suit, so carry on with your semantic games and weasel wording - the credibility you trash is only your own.

[Isotherm]

It will probably go on until you man up and admit you were wrong. As shown by your own words.  I know that accepting responsibility for your actions is not your strong suit, so carry on with your semantic games and weasel wording - the credibility you trash is only your own.

 

 

Is this a Supreme Court trial? Even if he was wrong, which is your opinion, he has no obligation to publicly admit it.

[nzucker]

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.

You first said, "RATPAC does nothing in the way of gridding..."

 

Then later said, "I never claimed that the data in RATPAC wasn't gridded."

 

You did claim it wasn't gridded, right in your first quote. So stop trying to complicate things and admit the obvious, glaring fact that you did believe, incorrectly, that RATPAC had no gridding system. When skier called you out on this, you had to backpedal into semantics. ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG: You said there wasn't gridding, and there clearly is. OK you made a mistake.

[StudentOfClimatology]

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?

[Mallow]

Is this a Supreme Court trial? Even if he was wrong, which is your opinion, he has no obligation to publicly admit it.

 

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.

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

[nzucker]

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 were wrong when you said that RATPAC doesn't use gridding. Later, you claimed, "I never claimed that data in RATPAC wasn't gridded," even though you clearly had, and we copied the post for you a thousand times, which said, "RATPAC does nothing in the way of gridding." So, you changed your story. The reason that people are piling on is that they all agree you are wrong (skier, mallow, msgaldo, navy, me)...Don't you see that no one agrees for you? Not even educated meteorologists.

 

Who cares if I'm a French and Spanish teacher (I've been full time for a few years now) and you're a paleoclimate student? The fact is you completely contradicted yourself, and it is evident from comparing the two posts. And guess what, you're a paleoclimate student while Mallow is a degreed meteorologist, and Mallow thinks you're wrong. So if it goes by title, you're still wrong.