Talk:Instrumental temperature record/Archive 1

message: There is a major ommission,
Peterson, T.C., 2003: Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found. Journal of Climate, 16, 2941-1959.
and a powerpoint based on the above paper
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rural.urban.ppt
I see no discussion regarding the fact that most temperature stations in cities are based in parks and gardens which leads to underestimates in warming.
(William M. Connolley 14:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Heat Islands 

message: (William M. Connolley 16:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename and reorg proposal 

message: This page is good on the result of the record, but says almost nothing about the process of construction the record from obs. William M. Connolley 09:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more about construction 

message: I cut this to talk, from the page:
: Bad science 1a: the top graph is scaled to a high gain, this shows the measurments of +- 0.5 degrees. The error of many the instruments for 108 years in the USA and Canada are up to +-5%. ( later many became +-1%) So ,tell me how did THEY resolve accurate data , in the band of ERRORS? In effect you just plotted Noise. Where I have worked for years the practice is to gray band the error band so that idiots dont try to plot the gray band. Go back to school or spend a day reading at NIST.com. I am a certified calibration tech, retired.
Its fairly easy to tell its not noise, even if you know nothing about the data, because it has a significant trend. That would be rather unlikely if it were noise. Individual thermo readings are good to 0.1 oC; but more importantly the error reduces with averaging, so is much less (from this source) William M. Connolley 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: During glacial terminations. Have you noticed one recently? William M. Connolley 21:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All very interesting, but rather beside the point William M. Connolley 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad science 1a 

message: Someone should edit the graphs: it's "La Niña," and "El Niño," not "La Nina," and "El Nino". 207.22.18.137 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs 

message: William added a tag that the main article is Urban Heat Island.  Not true.  Poor siting refers to stations that do not meet the minimum standards and happens in rural locations as well as urban.  UHI is a result of large urban development, not changes to the microsite. UHI and poor quality stations both contribute to uncertainty in the temperature record, but they are very different causes. RonCram 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron is correct.  --Theblog 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor siting not equal to Urban Heat Island 

message: There is yet more hideous cherrypicking going on by tB/RC: the Karl bit: 
: In 2002, NCDC Director Thomas R. Karl and others called for fully documenting each observing station and its operating procedures.  
Reading the link, (a) the op proc bit is merely point 3 of 10 - why exactly is this one point being pulled out? and (b) karl hasn't even originated these things, they are from NRC 1999 and (c) the lead author is Trenberth anyway William M. Connolley 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, I do not understand your problem with this.  This section is about the scientific challenges to the temp record and the areas of uncertainty.  Karl is the NCDC Director and a co-author of the report that calls for full documentation (something that is was never done by NCDC and is now being done by Anthony Watts and Surfacestations.org).  Trenberth is the lead author and mentioning his name would be fine with me.  What purpose would be gained by adding other material from the report?  This point is the only one I remember being pertinent.  Also, I also do not understand the  tag.  What exactly is being synthesized incorrectly?  It is almost a straight quote from the report. RonCram 22:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list of ten things was previously published and shows up in many places, I thought Karl was the original author, but still did not indicate that he was, only saying he called for.  Regardless, there are other things in the report that are somewhat interesting, but they do not fit in with what other sources are saying.  For example, parallel testing is just good scientific practice, but as far as I know no one has published a paper or newspaper article on the subject, yet quite a few sources are available concerning metadata, hence the focus on metadata.  If you have some sources concerning the parallel testing criticism, then by all means, lets add them.  --Theblog 00:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trenberth et al are not calling for individual station metadata - what they are primarily calling for in the paper is real-time data. Something which is completely unrelated to this context. What is being done with this paper is cherry-picking of the worst kind... because the paper lists the 10 points - we can nicely pick #3 and say that this paper "calls for it", and get a 2002 stamp on it... Despite that the paper doesn't address this particular point. --Kim D. Petersen 01:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You read too much into it, I'm fine with changing the word to suggesting, or whatever word along those lines you want, but you have not addressed my other point.  --Theblog 04:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theblog, thank you for finding that the Pielke paper was already published in BAMS.  I did not think it was out yet.  However, the link you provided is just an abstract.  Since we know where the full paper is available, wouldn't it be better to provide readers with a link to the entire paper?  Kim admitted that this is done so I do not anyone would have a problem with it if you do not.  Regarding the  tag, no one has addressed the question I raised and it appears to be an almost direct quote.  I am removing the tag. RonCram 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can get the full article if you click on the pdf tag on the abstract page, I guess its just a matter of preference, would you like to review the abstract on a html page first, or see the full pdf article?  I'm fine with either!  --Theblog 16:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theblog, thank you for pointing out that the full article is free.  I did not bother to click on the pdf because I thought it would take me to a page to buy the article.  Since the full article is available in BAMS typeset, I think we should use that link.  I will put it in. RonCram 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more problems 

message: As logic would indicate, poor quality stations are not limited to the U.S.  Pielke has photos on his blog of a number of poor quality stations from poorer countries around the globe.  Pielke comments: "In addition, for locations where these poorly sited locations are the only data used to construct a grid area average in the global temperature trend data base, their use will introduce spatially unrepresentative data into the analyses... Clearly, the exposure to nearby buildings, parking lots and other local structures makes the use of these locations to detect tenths of a degree per decade in surface temperature trends inappropriate."    Think about that.  When a poor quality station is the only station in a grid cell, the entire grid cell is affected by a warming bias at one location. It appears the problems with surface temp record outside the U.S. may be greater than the problems inside the U.S. RonCram 03:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is likely that there are many poor stations outside the US, but many countries don't study their networks as the US does as far as I can tell, or at least study them in English.  I found a couple about S. Africa and Australia, but they don't go into much detail.  The US stations are actually considered good, if that is any indication of what the rest of the world's stations are like.  --Theblog 03:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quality stations found outside the U.S. 

message: Please clearly state your objections to the following, which you repeatedly delete:
* In 2002, Kevin Trenberth and NCDC Director Thomas R. Karl and others made a number of suggestions to improve the networks, including fully documenting each observing station and its operating procedures. 
:: As I've said before: why are you pulling out principle #3 of 10? What is the justification? It looks ike cherry picking. Why not use #1, "Assess how and the extent to which a proposed change could influence the existing and future climatology."?
:: And of course as the source makes clear, K+K aren't the source for this, they are just quoting NRC '99 William M. Connolley 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it to: "In 2002, Kevin Trenberth and NCDC Director Thomas R. Karl and others repeated suggestions to improve global climate observation networks including analyzing network changes and design, parallel observations, fully documenting each system (metadata), assessing data quality, and improving data and metadata access.[16]"  It now more or less covers all suggestions and clarifies that these suggestions have been made before.  --Theblog 04:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same point has been raised within the WMO system since 1917. What makes a suggestion by Trenberth and Karl special? Gabriel Kielland 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gabriel, its generally considered bad form to remove someone else's discussion comments.  I am open to leaving names out, the main point is that top officials have called for widespread significant changes.  --Theblog 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies for removing text. That was a mishap. Your two top officials are the ones currently in charge of making the US observation network work properly. Similar "suggestions" is routine in every WMO affiliated country since 1917. About half of this article is currently about US off topic political debate. The discussion on the overall quality of the temperature record is however interesting and should perhaps start with a reference to professor Hesselberg. Gabriel Kielland 15:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your point about the article and politics is well taken, it has turned out that way due to trying to please all criticisms.  I've never heard of Professor Hesselberg, but I'll look him up and see if we can use him to rewrite things more concisely, thanks.  --Theblog 16:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point by Point 

message: Some of the pictures of the weather stations are making me wonder if the artificial warming bias is intentional and whether this should be discussed in the article.  The U.S. weather station showing the greatest amount of warming is located in Tucson and run by the University of Arizona Department of Atmospheric Sciences, where Malcolm Hughes (co-author of MBH98 of the Hockey stick controversy) is a professor.   I do not know how involved Hughes is with the monitoring of this station, if at all, but it seems to me that a good climatologist would be embarrassed to have such an obviously poor weather station on his university campus.  If I was Hughes, I would have been jumping up and down to get this corrected years ago. RonCram 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hanlon's razor.  An accusation of intentional bias would require much stonger justification than anything I've seen.  For example, are you even sure Hughes knew?  As a point of detail, he is with the Laboratory for Tree Ring Research in the Institute for the Study of the Earth, and not the department of Atmospheric Science.  Dragons flight 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dragonsflight, thank you for clarifying that.  I knew he was a dendro guy and had just forgotten.  But the question is still valid.  Someone in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences knew about it.  These guys get their funding to study global warming by scaring people with alarming scenarios of impending doom.  The station showing the greatest warming is a station overseen by people with a financial motive to see global warming in the temperature record. I think this may deserve to be discussed in the article. Oh, as far as assuming stupidity instead of malice, I would happily do that if the station was not being observed by the Department of Atmospheric Science. RonCram 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Severity of the Warming Bias in the Temperature Record - Is it intentional? 

message: Per the discussion in Talk:Global_warming#Surface_Station_Quality, I have added a section under the heading "Instrumentation Accuracy" which reads:
:Prominent individuals and scientists have criticized the accuracy of surface instrumental temperature records, claiming that the network of climate stations that provide much of the data for climate analysis is "inadequate and deteriorating"http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6424.html.  Interested individuals have used the internet to engage in coordinated efforts to document surface station data, including microclimate effects that can significantly impact station readingshttp://www.surfacestations.org.  Scientists have recently begun investigating the effects of the poor quality of these climate monitoring sites, concluding that "[t]he use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments."http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf.  Furthermore, these scientists conclude that microclimate factors produce "complex effects on surface temperatures...and...attempting to correct the errors with existing adjustment methods artificially forces toward regional representativeness and cannot be expected to recover all of the trend information that would have been obtained locally from a well-sited station."  The scientists also recommend that the use of statistical corrections that do not fully account for inherent uncertainties (such as urban heat island and microclimate effects) should be avoided.
I would encourage other editors to add to this section any other research on the uncertainty of instrumental accuracy, such as satellite readings. Zoomwsu 02:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim's point is taken and I'm not going to get in another revert-delete war with you people.  However, I would like to raise the question of whether this article needs a reoganization.  It seem to me that "Criticism" is an improper way of sorting out general criticism from more serious statements regarding instrumentation accuracy.  Thoughts?  Zoomwsu 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoomwsu, new information well be coming out shortly regarding the ratio of good quality to poor quality stations.  SurfaceStations.org has photographic data on more than 200 stations now and Anthony Watts plans to begin an analysis of these stations and will place them in five classifications - excellent, good, fair, poor and very poor - or something like that.  I suggest we wait for more data before we try to reorganize the article. RonCram 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instrumentation Accuracy 

message: I have split this info into two subsections, one on poor quality stations and one on unexplained adjustments to the U.S. temperature record. I think this will be more clear for readers. RonCram 20:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Anthony notable, or the site he created?  Both/neither?  Generally if a person is known for only one thing then one would create a page for that thing first rather than for the person.  See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for guidelines to help determine whether Anthony would qualify for his own page.  Dragons flight 23:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The work of Watts and McIntyre is different 

message: The "crit" section is too bloated, in my opinion, and needs to be cut back to something reflecting fair weight William M. Connolley 13:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  However, the solution is not to delete the subsection on unexplained adjustments and programming errors.  Far better to delete the non-essential portions on the quality of surface stations - such as the history. RonCram 14:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might wish to start but cutting back what you consider inessential, then William M. Connolley 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion of the station placement and management (and the "surfacestations" project) should probably be placed on another page entirely. Anthony Watts? 72.47.71.160 21:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony Watts deserves his own page, but the information belongs on this page as well. When significant changes are being made to the instrumental record, readers of this article should be informed why and the possibility of future changes. I have cut down the section on Watts to include the unexplained adjustments. RonCram 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shorted the 'Recent Adjustments to the U.S. temperature record' section a bit more; I think it's fine as is for the time being. I still can't find any information on how much NASA changed the global record. 72.47.71.160 21:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are missing the point here... or at least part of it.  The recent adjustment and reranking of temperature anomalies is important.  However, perhaps the larger point (and this is true no matter which side of the AGW debate you are on) is that NASA has not explained how 1934 jumped over 1998 as the warmest year.  Neither of these should have been affected by the error McIntyre found.  If I have written this poorly, I apologize.  But this is an important criticism of the U.S. temperature record. RonCram 22:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RealClimate says that the result of the changes on the global termperature record is "imperceptible". They refer to 'http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif'. I hate to give their position undue weight, but I can't find any independent evidence against it.
A RealClimate poster points out that "most people fully understand that this is US-only data... it is, indeed, US only, and only affects global temperatures slightly, but, given the fact that the US has the most reliable and well-maintained network, it raises concerns about the quality of data we have been using across the board." One of the first blogs to react- coyoteblog.com- says "This is not the end but the beginning of the total reexamination that needs to occur of the USHCN and GISS data bases."
RonCram, it's completely unclear what exactly was wrong with the intial data. RealClimate says "The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006." A before/after picture of the graphs is at 'http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php' which says that "1998 went from being 0.01 degrees warmer than 1934 in the US, to being 0.02 degrees cooler". RealClimate is confident enough to say that "None of these differences are statistically significant."
With this new adjustment, in my opinion, the GISS temperature graph 'http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif' appears as if AGW either does not exist or is much less drastic than expected. The global temperature record still looks convincing (to me).
The statement "NASA has not explained why 1934 is now considered warmer than 1998. Neither year were affected by the error McIntyre found." while factually correct, is misleading. NASA so far has said absolutely nothing about the temperature changes after quietly releasing the data. The fact that NASA does not release its formulae and calulations (forcing McIntyre to reverse engineer them) is very important, but it belongs in another section. 72.47.71.160 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Anonymous New User, first - Please register so I can address you as something other than that.  Second, NASA did make a statement about the corrected reranking it issued but that statement related only to the error found by McIntyre.  NASA did not give a reason for adjusting years prior to 2000.  The fact they make these adjustments without providing reasons to the scientific community is part of the criticism of the U.S. temp record and belongs in this section. RonCram 00:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Anonymous New User, welcome to Wikipedia.  I'm glad you are here and look forward to your contributions. RonCram 00:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA is a gigantic Soviet-style government beaucracy and it makes perfect sense that it would be slow to react. I think that the article should say something like "We'll keep you informed on this late breaking story as it develops" in an encyclopedia-like way. While coyoteblog.com, hotair.com, and dailytech.com all explicitly refer to the discovered error as "a Y2K bug", the climateaudit.org pages only said that it "appears to be a Y2K problem". RealClimate says "Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug". Whatever the error was, it was probably something quasi-systematic to the temperature ratings. Revolutionaryluddite 04:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James Hansen has just published an online statement at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf. He says that
"the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html) had a flaw in the U.S. data. In that (2001) update of the analysis method (originally published in our 1981 Science paper – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1981/Hansen_etal.html) we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.
Unfortunately, we didn’t realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused jumps in 2001 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over U.S. only)."
He goes on to say that "The effect on global temperatures was of order one-thousanth of a degree". He says that "our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures"- this is true in a sense, but misleading. His paper at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf  reports that "The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis. This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century." Also, Hansen doesn't refer to the fact that McIntyre discovered the error- despite having to reverse engineer the data. Revolutionaryluddite 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloat 

message: Is RealClimate considered to be "peer reviewed" by Wikipedia guidelines, and, if not, would a statement sourced to them within the article require something like "RealClimate does not subject its assertions to peer review." afterward? 72.47.71.160 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer review is a process used by research journals only.  The comments of RealClimate are not peer-reviewed and in many cases should be taken with a grain of salt. RealClimate is a website owned by an environmental public relations firm and their job is to scare people with prophecies of impending doom from global warming so more money is granted for global warming research. RonCram 00:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not it isn't. Ron, please stop foaming at the mouth William M. Connolley 15:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Steve McIntyre has a new post on Anthony Watt's blog strongly disputing Hansen's public statement. McIntyre concludes that "while the Hansen error did not have a material impact on world temperatures, it did have a very substantial impact on U.S. station data and a “significant” impact on the U.S. average. Both of these surely “matter” and both deserved formal notice from Hansen and GISS."
All the information about recent error does seem a bit out of place in the article as a whole, but I'm not sure where else it could be. Revolutionaryluddite 05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that its out of place - it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a day-book or blog about various non notable details. --Kim D. Petersen 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it belongs right here.  Science should never be afraid to discuss the potential errors and uncertainties.  It is wrong for scientists to discuss uncertainties among themselves and then present to the public the information as if there were no uncertainties. See my comment below. RonCram 13:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Corrections to the Temperature Record 

message: See here:
European heat waves double in length since 1880
New data published by NCCR Climate researcher Paul Della-Marta show that many previous assessments of daily summer temperature change underestimated heat wave events in Western Europe. The length of heat waves on the continent has doubled and the frequency of extremely hot days has nearly tripled in the past century. In their article in the Journal of Geophysical Research–Atmospheres Della-Marta and his colleagues from the University of Bern present the most accurate measures of European daily temperatures ever. They compiled evidence from 54 high-quality recording locations from Sweden to Croatia and report that heat waves last an average of 3 days now–with some lasting up to 13 days–compared to an average of around 1.5 days in 1880. "These results add more evidence to the belief among climate scientists that Western Europe will experience some of the highest environmental and social impacts of climate change," Della-Marta said.
Count Iblis 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the EU have a concentrated temperature record like the United States has the NASA/GISS record? Revolutionaryluddite 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're being sarcastic in your post, you must know that sarcasm is completely wasted on me. You'd have to lay it down rather thick for me to pick it up. I think it's some kind of genetic defect. 72.47.71.160 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections to the European temperature record 

message: I will be adding a new section that discusses some of the issues relating to uncertainties in the temperature record.  It will also discuss the fact that uncertainties have never been fully discussed and disclosed by the reporting agencies.  This section will also discuss how the various agencies who keep these records have refused to share data and methods with researchers who have requested it.  This refusal to share data and methods is an important issue because it prevents skeptical scientists from having confidence in the temp record. RonCram 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the current 'Criticism of the United States land surface temperature record' does a fairly good job of describing the uncertainties wihtout giving undue weight to the studies by Anthony Watts and the others. It does need some editing for grammar and clarity as well as the removal of some weasel words. Revolutionaryluddite 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does not because it only addresses the US temperature stations at the observing site.  Uncertainties enter in at each step of the process.  This is why it is important for readers.  Most people do not know the whole process or where errors can enter in.  Far better for you to wait and read what I have written before prejudging it. RonCram 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and I'm more than happy to wait and read. Revolutionaryluddite 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertainties in the temperature record 

message: Steve McIntyre explicitly refers to the correction as "Hansen’s Y2K error".  RealClimate emphatically denies this, saying that "Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug".  Hansen essay doesn't have any specific confirmation or denail.
Steve McIntyre claims that "GISS has emphasized recently that the U.S. constitutes only 2% of global land surface, arguing that the impact of the error is negligible on the global average. While this may be so for users of the GISS global average, U.S. HCN stations constitute about 50% of active (with values in 2004 or later) stations in the GISS network (as shown below). The sharp downward step in station counts after March 2006 in the right panel shows the last month in which USHCN data is presently included in the GISS system. The Hansen error affects all the USHCN stations and, to the extent that users of the GISS system are interested in individual stations, the number of affected stations is far from insignificant, regardless of the impact on global averages."  The gist of his arguement is that GISS computer adjustment procedures are not "equal to the challenge of “fixing” bad data" based on the improper siting and maintence of the weather stations.
I personally think McIntyre's idea that global warming may be a gigantic bunch of calulation errors is pretentious nonsense. See Satellite temperature measurements. However, I think that concerns that the GISS sites have a systematic Urban Heat Island bias does belong in the article so long as it doesn't have undue weight Revolutionaryluddite 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most everyone will remember the Y2K bug as a software problem relating to the data field for years being limited to just two digits.  The first two digits, 19, were assumed.  When the year 2000 rolled around, computers would be confused.  McIntyre's blog posting referred to "Hansen's Y2K error" only because it showed up in January 2000.  McIntyre never intended anyone to think it was related to the number of digits in the year field.  Anyone who read ClimateAudit would know that.  Unfortunately, it has been down the last few days due to a denial of service attack. RonCram 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I didn't get a chance to read the actual ClimateAudit posts before they were crammed down the memory hole. Revolutionaryluddite 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'criticism' section is for criticism after all, but it needs to be less United States-centric and discuss the actual software problems more. Revolutionaryluddite 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over the nature of the error 

message: Old data was taken from MSN search engine cache.  Dragons flight 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GISS USA Average: Old vs. New 

message: The section cut was this:
:One key component of the scientific method is to discuss and quantify uncertainties.    Roger A. Pielke published a paper calling for the NOAA to make “available an evaluation of the statistical uncertainty of each step in their adjustment process from the raw data to the processed values.“   Unfortunately, the NOAA has not made this available for researchers to better understand the steps and uncertainties of the temperature record.  
:NASA GISS also does not make its data and methods known.  This makes it more difficult for errors to be found by outside observers, but one was found in August, 2007. Stephen McIntyre investigated a sudden jump in temperature around the year 2000.  He discovered "a programming error" and detailed its distribution alongside the problems in the USHCN temperature data on his website.  He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and it promply issued corrected data. The old figures can be found here  and the new figures here.  The new rankings for the 10 hottest years are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939 (1st to 10th).  NASA has not explained why 1934 is now considered warmer than 1998. Neither year were affected by the error McIntyre found. :Uncertainty also enters if the weather stations are poor quality.  A number of scientists and scientific organizations have expressed concern about the possible deterioration of the land surface observing network.      The metadata needed to quantify the uncertainty from poorly sited stations does not currently exist.  Anthony Watts (see below) is leading the effort to document station quality in the U.S.  Roger A. Pielke has called for a similar documentation effort for the rest of the world, which will also be led by Watts. 
:Uncertainty is also introduced when a weather station network is sparsely populated.  Station densities are highest in the northern hemisphere, providing more confidence in climate trends in this region.  Station densities are far lower in other regions, including the tropics, northern Asia and the former Soviet Union.  This results in much less confidence in the robustness of climate trends in these areas.  If a sparsely populated grid has a poor quality station with an artificial warming bias, the impact on global temperature is greater than if it occurred in a grid with many weather stations. 
Ron, could you please sit down and read WP:RS - and the section on WP:V about self published sources. You cannot use climateaudit and Stephen McIntyre as a source here. This goes for other blogs as well. Except where they are written by experts on the subject that they are experts in. You really should know better.
This whole section is even more undue weight on the same subjects as before. And its just as ridden with original research and synthesis. And even dismissing all this for a moment - you are not even attempting to write a neutral rendition of this. All in all - i can only say: Arrgh! --Kim D. Petersen 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dr. Petersen, it is a criticism section, and I still don't understand your opposition to the other cut section 'Recent corrections to the U.S. temperature record'. Revolutionaryluddite 22:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, you made a few valuable comments before deleting the section.  I have addressed those concerns and am restoring the section.  I am indeed attempting to write this NPOV.  If you think I am only telling part of the story, you are welcome to tell the other side. If you can make other valuable comments, I welcome them. RonCram 23:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ron, I think that "One key component of the scientific method is to discuss and quantify uncertainties" doesn't really belong. "Unfortunately, the NOAA has not made this available for researchers to better understand the steps and uncertainties of the temperature record. NASA GISS also does not make its data and methods known. This makes it more difficult for errors to be found by outside observers" the fact that NASA doesn't allow independent fact-checking is an important one, but it really only deserves, say, one sentence. NASA is a gigantic Soviet-style government beaucracy; the quietness sorrounding the error makes perfect sense from their point of view. Revolutionaryluddite 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of Kim's earlier remark, I removed the term "key."  Uncertainties are a part of the scientific method.  They are supposed to be calculated and NIST goes to a lot of work to make certain scientists follow the rules.  But this is climate science and the rules are often not followed.  I also removed one of the sentences regarding NASA not providing data and methods.  Please tell me if you think more should be removed.  BTW, NOAA and NASA are different agencies keeping different datasets. RonCram 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The section looks very good right now. I'm going to make a few changes for clarity and grammar. 72.47.71.160 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've heavily editted this.  Among the most important contribution was actually saying what the errors are estimated to be.  However, I am concerned that Pielke is getting a lot of weight right now.  I also think someone needs to eliminate the considerable redundancy between the US uncertainty and general uncertainty sections.  Dragons flight 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next to last paragraph in this section should probably be incorporated into the last section. 72.47.71.160 00:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Heavily is a light word ;-) Good work. Yes - Pielke is getting considerably more than due weight. --Kim D. Petersen 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut: Uncertainties in the temperature record 

message: The article currently has this sentence with tags:
:Roger A. Pielke has called for a similar documentation effort for the rest of the world, which will also be led by Watts in the future. 
The statement is not dubious and is taken from the link provided.  Here are the relevant quotes:
:Climate Science readers are invited to submit photographs of Global Historical Climate Network Sites, as presented on May 16, 2007 in the weblog Request For Photographs Of GHCN sites - A Need For Documentation.
And
:This is a very important need for the climate science community, and you are encouraged to obtain this photographic documentation if you can, and also share with the new website under development by Anthony Watts  when his website is ready.
His website is not ready to take on global weather stations yet because they are still documenting the U.S. stations.  Pielke is calling for people to begin taking the pictures now so they can quickly be uploaded to SurfaceStations.org when Watts is ready for them. Watts gives one of the goals of SurfaceStations.org as: To provide a standardized method for site survey and reporting so that interested individuals can gather site survey data, pictures, and anecdotal history of climate recording sites worldwide, and upload for screening   There is no question the statements are factual and not in the least dubious. I am removing the tags. RonCram 03:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GHCN != USHCN. Good... I guess i was tired. Now where does it say that "Watts will lead" anything? As i read the Pielke blogcomment - he is happy currently that Watts is collecting these on a website, but doesn't give any promises, nor do i see how Pielke can make any promises. The surfacestation site is (afaict) a convenience choice - not a deliberate choice. --Kim D. Petersen 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general i'd say that this section is a bit puffed up. Pielke "calls for" (on a blog posting), Watts "will lead".... Do we btw. have any assurance that these pictures, are enough metadata to satisfy the need to "quantify the uncertainty from poorly sited stations"? --Kim D. Petersen 06:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Ron - I prefer that wording. It should still be updated as progress is made. Hal peridol 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Pielke's call to document global weather stations 

message: The article has this statement:
:Pielke also claims to have identified a number of sites where poorly sited stations in sparse regions are contributing to a warming bias.    
The title of the post is "New Evidence Of Temperature Observing Sites Which Are Poorly Sited With Respect To The Construction Of Global Average Land Surface Temperature Trends."  Obviously, Pielke is unhappy with these poorly sited stations. Pielke specifically mentions stations on top of roofs, a situation that is known to cause a warming bias.  Pielke also specifically mentions the fact these stations are in sparsely populated grid cells.  Pielke says "no value is added from such sites. In addition, for locations where these poorly sited locations are the only data used to construct a grid area average in the global temperature trend data base, their use will introduce spatially unrepresentative data into the analyses." So again, it is clear Pielke is concerned about poor quality stations having a large nonclimatic influence on a grid cell.  By placing the  tag, someone is suggesting the statement in the article is reading too much into Pielke's intent.  Personally, I think the statement in the article represents Pielke's intent clearly.  However, it may be that some readers/editors will not know that a weather station on a rooftop will create a warming bias. Perhaps we should reword this statement to an exact quote from Pielke. RonCram 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably causes a warm bias, but doubtfully a warming bias.  Do you understand the difference? Raymond Arritt 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Its a simple enough issue, does Pielke assert that the poorly sited stations have created a significant net "warming bias"?  Given the number of stations, variety of issues, and the variety of corrections applied, it is not a simple matter to infer to actual impact of any particular problem; hence, we need to be careful about how strong a conclusion he is actually drawing.  Dragons flight 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Your change to the text seems fine, if that's as far as Pielke goes.  Dragons flight 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, I understand the difference.  Perhaps my wording was not the best.  Let me explain how a warm bias at a particular station translates into a warming bias across a globally averaged gridcell network.  Let's say Gridcell A has one station in it.  In 1975, Gridcell A station moves the weather station to a rooftop.  That introduces an immediate warm bias to the record of Gridcell A.  In 1976, Gridcell B's only weather station builds a parking lot next to the weather station introducing a warm bias.  It happens again in Gridcell C, D and E in following years developing a stepwise warming bias into the global record.  Another factor to consider is that poorly sited stations rarely have just one problem.  Let's say the weather station is moved to a rooftop in 1975.  In 1985, they decide to put in air conditioning and it vents directly onto the weather station.  In 1995, they decide to install a satellite dish for their TV introducing another warm bias.  In this way, even a particular station can show a warming bias over the period being studied. RonCram 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Classic OR/SYN. Merely putting a station on a rooftop, which was the original question, introduces no apparent temporal bias. Raymond Arritt 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to accurately reflect Pielke's intent.  The title of the post is "New Evidence Of Temperature Observing Sites Which Are Poorly Sited With Respect To The Construction Of Global Average Land Surface Temperature Trends"  Pielke has explained the stepwise warming bias in earlier posts so I had that background when reading this one.  But again, I have already made the change to remove the phrase "warming bias," even though that is exactly what Pielke is talking about. RonCram 15:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Pielke's photos of weather stations outside the U.S. 

message: Someone deleted the "television weatherman" description of Watts.  Is there any evidence that he's a meteorologist?  A quick search shows that his background is in electrical engineering, and that he owns a computer software company. Raymond Arritt 14:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.tvweather.com/weathercast/a_watts.htm  Dragons flight 14:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AMS seal of approval for Certified Broadcast Meteorologist, make it possible to call yourself Meteorologist with no more than a required to hold a bachelor’s or higher degree in meteorology (or equivalent). And if you've gotten it before 2005 - it requires no degree. So its still questionable, with the current references here and at Anthony Watts --Kim D. Petersen 15:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watts's job title is Chief Meteorologist. He now works for a radio station.  RonCram 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But does he have a degree in Meteorology? If so - which? And from where? --Kim D. Petersen 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter?  Dragons flight 15:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so concerned with whether he has a degree in the field (one of my close colleagues has his degree in solid-state physics). The question is more whether he has demonstrated any understanding of the essential concepts, like vorticity, Bowen ratio, and so forth. Raymond Arritt 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Dragons flight, it was my impression that just writing meteorologist, implied a degree (higher than bachelor) in meteorology - or extensive auto-didactic experience within meteorological research. So yes i believe(d) that it did. But then these things are different from country to country. --Kim D. Petersen 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both of you. What I'm looking for is evidence of the auto-didactic experience. (That would be a good album title, BTW.) Raymond Arritt 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of annoying the "true" meteorologists, when someone can hold the job title of "meteorologist" for 20 years, I honestly don't think further inspection of his credentials matter.  The AMS may have backed themselves into a corner with their seal of approval that was created "as a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public. Among radio and television meteorologists, the AMS Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction."  (emphasis mine).  So they have legitimized the idea that a "weatherman" can be called a "meteorologist".  With their new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" program they do require new applicants have a bachelors, but the old Seal program required no degree at all.  So in my opinion, he qualifies as a meteorologist under a common meaning of the term regardless of whether he is qualified under the academic meaning.  Dragons flight 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is he's trying to do something that should ordinarily be done at an academic level. As far as I can tell, if anything he's a software entrepreneur.  I propose that we simply say "Anthony Watts" with a link to his bio and let people decide for themselves. Raymond Arritt 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watts 

message: Any objections to setting up a bot archive for this talk page? Revolutionaryluddite 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it. Zoomwsu 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; the archive will suck up everything over 100 days old. Revolutionaryluddite 02:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that seem like too high of a number? This is my first try at this (not counting experimenting on my own talk page). Revolutionaryluddite 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, 30 days may be better. Brusegadi 03:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, I don't think the comments from around July-August 2007 should be archived since the same points are still being debated. Revolutionaryluddite 06:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it counts from the oldest message on the thread.  I am not sure <><>... Brusegadi 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo says it counts from the newest timestamp. So as long as a thread has seen activity within the past N days, it won't be archived. With this in mind I think we can set the limit experimentally to 60 days, and I have done so. Raymond Arritt 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I meant newest, not oldest.  I need a recess.... Brusegadi 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that got rid of 184 KB in a hurry. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the archive box link to this page. Revolutionaryluddite 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving