Talk:Instrumental temperature record/Archive 1

Urban Heat Islands

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)) Good paper, take a look at what I wrote about it on the urban heat island page...

Rename and reorg proposal

(William M. Connolley 16:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) There is a discussion of various T pages at Talk:Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#Subject_of_article including the desire to rename this page "instrumental temperature record" and move non-instrumental content out. Please discuss over there not here. Thank you.

Needs more about construction

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)

Bad science 1a

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)

Note: These graphs are misleading in that rises in CO2 are generally known to lag Temperature rises by about 800 years. Even the proponents of humans being the immediate cause of global warming like RealClimate.com say "At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations." This would also put the present period at about 800 years after peaks of the Medieval Warm Period.

During glacial terminations. Have you noticed one recently? William M. Connolley 21:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read this contribution to this site you will notice that glacial terminations are not a single point in time, but a process that lasts over vast periods of time:

"the Huelmo/Mascardi Cold Reversal in the Southern Hemisphere began before the Younger Dryas, and the maximum warmth flowed south to north from 11,000 to 7,000 years ago. There appears to be a south to north pattern, with southern latitudes displaying maximum warming a few millennia before the Northern Hemisphere regions.

The Holocene climatic optimum was a period of warming in which the global climate became 0.5-2°C warmer than today. However, the warming was probably not uniform across the world. It began roughly 9,000 years ago and ended about 5,000 years ago, when the earliest human civilizations in Asia and Africa were flourishing. This period of warmth ended with a cooler period with minor glaciation, which continued until about 2,000 years ago. At that time, the climate was not unlike today's, but there was a slightly warmer period from the 10th-14th centuries known as the Medieval Warm Period. This was followed by the Little Ice Age, from the 13th or 14th century to the mid 19th century, which was a period of significant cooling, though not as severe as previous periods during the Holocene.

The Holocene warming is an interglacial period and there is no reason to believe that it represents a permanent end to the Pleistocene glaciation. It is thought that the planet could return to a new period of glaciation in as little as 3,000 years from now, although 19,000 years is also suggested. However, if the current global warming continues, a super-interglacial might occur, and become warmer and possibly longer than any past interglacial periods in the Pleistocene."

All very interesting, but rather beside the point William M. Connolley 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Graphs

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)

Unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record

This article needs to address two very important issues: 1. the controversy around unwarranted government adjustments to the temperature record (to adjust for "rural cooling" rather than "urban warming")[1] and 2. ongoing research into the controversy regarding poor siting of temperature stations leading to a warming bias. Government adjustments to the temperature record are continuing. But check this out [2] and this. [3] I came across this on Comment 15 here.[4] I have done enough reading now to be convinced that the 1990s were NOT warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s. I believe alarmists like Jim Hansen are playing with the temperature record. In effect, these "adjustments" to the temperature record are done in order to create evidence of global warming. I also believe there are a number of warming biases in our land surface temperature network as pointed out by the Davey and Pielke paper in 2005. [5] I am aware of the Peterson paper in 2006 which tried to say the problems Davey and Pielke found in eastern Colorado are not wide spread and there is no UHI warming bias. However, there are a number of problems with the Peterson paper. [6] Pielke has called for a thorough documentation of the sites, including photographs and that effort is underway now led by Anthony Watts [7] and encouraged by Pielke [8] [9] and Steve McIntyre.[10] I need some help locating additional reliable sources on temperature adjustments. If anyone would like to participate in this effort, you can go to my User Page and click the "Email this user" button and we can discuss where this information may be found. RonCram 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify a few points. Pielke and Matsui's paper "Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same?" [11] refutes Parker's paper "Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban." [12] The Davey and Pielke paper "Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations - implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends." [13] showed a number of poor quality stations in eastern Colorado. Peterson's 2006 paper "Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations" [14] was written in response to the Davey and Pielke paper and claims the few poor stations in eastern Colorado are not a big deal. Pielke wanted to publish a response but the journal publisher would not allow it (this type of gatekeeping is another big issue in this controversy). But Peterson did not consider a number of factors, as Pielke points out on his blog. Peterson's paper has a host of problems starting with the fact it flies in the face of a number of peer-reviewed papers (besides Pielke's) including:

• “Reexamination of instrument change effects in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network” by Hubbard K. and X. Lin August 2006 [15]
• “Land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate” by R. C. Hale, K. P. Gallo, T. W. Owen, and T. R. Loveland in 2006 [16]
• “The Geoprofile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited” by Rezaul Mahmood, Stuart A. Foster and David Logan in 2006 [17]

When taken together the evidence indicates even the rural surface stations have a warming bias through the decades due to land-use changes at these stations. The work being done now by SurfaceStations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org/) documents that this is not limited to eastern Colorado. The GISS should not be adjusting temperature downward for the 1930s and 40s nor adjusting the temperature upward in the 1990s. These weather stations were put into service to provide forecasts for the military and to predict severe weather events. The station network was not originally designed to provide information on climate or to measure global warming by tenths of a degree. While some adjustments to the temperature record may be warranted, the adjustments done by the GISS fly in the face of the evidence or a warming bias in the peer-reviewed literature. RonCram 20:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron, this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. A Pielke paper written after a Parker one refutes it; but a Peterson paper written after a Pielke one doesn't. Your biases are just too obvious. You seem to be spamming this discussion all over; I for one can't be bothered to repeat the same things over several different pages William M. Connolley 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

William, you are a born comedian. Once I mentioned that a particular paper was the last word on a subject and you disagreed. You claimed that just because another paper was written after does not mean the first paper was refuted. I agreed at the time and still do. It is funny because you now seem to have changed your tune. From the above, it appears you think Peterson's paper refutes Pielke even though Peterson is the one in the minority. There are loads of problems with Peterson's paper and the AR4 did not even cite it. I just cannot guess what you are going to say next. You claim I am biased but do you really think anyone agrees with Peterson now that www.surfacestations.org has come out? RonCram 11:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific challenges to the temperature record

This entire section was a very bad case of WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:Undue_weight. Lets take them in the order mentioned:

1) WP:OR: It does not follow that the temperature record will show a bias because single weather stations show a bias.

2) WP:POV: The author of this apparently is of the opinion that it will be shown that the temperature record is wrong. That there is a warm bias - and that every other scientist involved in this is wrong.

This goes especially for paragraph 3 - which read as a veritable conspiracy theory. ie. Pielke must be right, NOAA, AR4 etc conspire to show him wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

3a) WP:Undue_weight, the whole section is weighted entirely on Pielke Sr., and a website that may/or may at some time in the future provide some valuable contribution to this issue. It totally ignores all other scientific evidence.

3b) No evidence of a scientific controversy has been shown, nor any evidence that this issue is notable enough to be mentioned here.

Its (so far) a fringe theory - that propagates on blogs. And as such doesn't merit any mention. --Kim D. Petersen 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, (1)in no way does the section every say that the ENTIRE temperature record will show a bias because a single station show a bias, hence your WP:OR claim is baseless.

Lets dissect it then: "Some scientists are concerned" - which? Are they representative of the scientific opinion? Do the people who generate the temperature record consider this a problem - or is this (once more) an extrapolation of a single mention? The temperature record is adjusted for UHI and station biases - so does the evidence show that they are wrong (or that there is concern?)? First reference does not support the claim. [18] says nothing about it influencing the temperature record. --Kim D. Petersen 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

2 journal articles were cited, those are some scientists, I'm sure there are more, it just hasn't been fully developed at this point as I previously mentioned. The other reference is for background information and I never claimed otherwise. As for representative, there is no clear consensus as far as I can tell, realclimate and climate science both agree there are imperfections. Which part of the paragraph is problematic? Do you want to cite the two journal articles right up front after the word scientists?--Theblog 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I dug up this for you Kim, is this good enough? In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: “Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press”, online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, durector of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating." --Theblog 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice Theblog, but unfortunatly the NRC report is not talking about station problems - nor is it limited to the temperature record. It is about climate variables of which temperature is but one - they are talking about (amongst others):

These activities are influenced by precipitation and water availability, temperature, storms, solar radiation, and sea level, and how they vary over time and with geography. Variables most useful for climate change detection and attribution are: three-dimensional temperature and water vapor; surface wind, sea level pressure, precipitation; sea ice and ice sheet properties; streamflow, groundwater and land water reservoirs; vegetation cover; and ocean upper-level temperature and salinity, deep ocean temperature and salinity profiles and the height of sea level

Its very much WP:OR when you are taking those quotes and apply them to a single of these - and claiming it supports your assessment. --Kim D. Petersen 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're actually trying to say that he considers the temp portion good, but the rest not so good? --Theblog 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No - i'm saying that its WP:OR by your part that they consider the temp portion bad. Which is nowhere to be found in the NRC report. --Kim D. Petersen 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(2)As for WP:POV, the original author did not make a claim of a warm bias, I included a line from another journal article that indicates that HE thought the stations he inspected were warmer than they ought to be. I do agree that the Peterson or other articles that state the high quality nature of the temperature record could be fleshed out more however. However, it is not WP:POV violation as it stands currently.

This:

This issue has become controversial because the warning issued by the Davey and Pielke paper did not cause a full review of the quality of surface stations. Instead, the NOAA supported a study by Thomas C. Peterson attempting to show that any problems with siting could be handled by making adjustments to the temperature record. The IPCC did not cite either paper in the 4AR. Pielke and others were not persuaded by this paper and have continued to call for a full review.

Reads as POV so much that it almost hurts. Is this a conspiracy theory? Pielke is (apparently deliberately) being contradicted and dismissed by NOAA and the IPCC AR4 - "Pielke... is not convinced" - Ok and why is that important? Who are the "others" btw? --Kim D. Petersen 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets see your rewrite then. As I mentioned before I was in the process of adding more Peterson information. --Theblog 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing to salvage - the whole thing is a POV disaster. Is it a conspiracy? --Kim D. Petersen 17:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(3a) This is patently false as I added a couple other cites and I was working on finding more information for the Peterson article when you reverted everything without discussion, the surfacestations site has had several mentions in the popular press and I cited those. As for undue weight, I do not think this is a problem, even realclimate admits there is problems with the surface record data quality, it is a well known issue and should be discussed in the article. --Theblog 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The surfacestation site is not science (and also not a WP:RS. Sorry. Its an amateur accomplishment, that may (or may not) at some time become a valuable resource. Its for all intents a WP:SPS and as such not a reliable source. Popular media and its opinion is rather irrelevant on science subjects. --Kim D. Petersen 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The man who runs that is a weatherman, why do you think he is unqualified to make observations about temperature measurement? Mentions in popular press of his scientific efforts are notable. Maybe you have other examples of the instrumental temperature record in the popular press? --Theblog 17:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to read a bit more on WP:RS and WP:SPS. The trouble with blogs and other self-published sources is reliability, editorial oversight and so on. Weather man doesn't mean anything. Is he a meteorologist? Does he have expert knowledge? What publications on this subject has he made? --Kim D. Petersen 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever claim that site was WP:RS? No, I used the articles in newspapers to outline what he was doing to avoid relying on him as a source. --Theblog 19:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a science article - not a popular opinion article. It is uninteresting what local newspapers are saying - what does the science say? The newspaper articles that you've found are not sufficiently reliable on science subjects. --Kim D. Petersen 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

News of the day is significant enough to introduce the subject, Watts is a meteorologist, so he is a qualified source as well. --Theblog 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is he? Can you substantiate that claim? Because everywhere i've looked he is referred to as a weatherman. That usually indicates that he has passed the AMS test for TV/Radio meteorological presentators. Assertion is not enough. Can you point me at a CV? Where did he graduate? etc. --Kim D. Petersen 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(3b) Many journal articles, at least a couple newspaper articles that I've found in the 20 minutes I've been looking, many blog posts (from qualified climate blogs) all indicate that it is noteworth enough to be included. It is not a fringe theory. --Theblog 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are 2 blogs that are usable on this subject: Pielke's and Realclimate. (climateaudit is not a WP:RS). I'm quite interested in what journal articles you've managed to pull up. But popular media and news are not of interest. --Kim D. Petersen 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

2 expert blogs which both acknowledge the problem. However, you feel that it is not worthy of mention, who is doing OR here? --Theblog 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm? Where exactly does RC say that problems with individual station data will propagate into a bias in the global record? In fact i find when i read it - that they are saying exactly the opposite[19] of "the surface network is not of sufficient quality to provide a reliable temperature record" (mistaken assumption #6) --Kim D. Petersen 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Where exactly does RC say that problems with individual station data will propagate into a bias in the global record?" <-- Who made the statement that it would? No one, strawman. --Theblog 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked it up for you, this is what I'm saying, realclimate has said the instrumental temperature record has some issues. "Mistaken Assumption No. 2: [Mainstream science] thinks that all station data are perfect."[20] There it is in black and white for you, if they didn't think it had issues, it would be perfect, however, they are acknowleding problems. --Theblog 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking around the issue? This is from the page: "the surface network is not of sufficient quality to provide a reliable temperature record." <- thats a statement on the national/global record - not about individual station data. (mis.amp.#1 is talking about individual stations).

Is this the confusing issue for you? That individual stations are not indicative of the broad picture? RC does not agree with the intro statement quoted here. You are doing WP:OR by blowing individual stations into a broad scale picture. --Kim D. Petersen 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do you read this in the article? "That individual stations are not indicative of the broad picture?" --Theblog 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"temperature record" is the broad picture. That individual stations have biases and other problems is not in dispute. Its the next step: That the combined record of all stations (the broad picture) is significantly influenced by the individual stations that is the trouble. --Kim D. Petersen 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that a scientific challenge exists. The Davey and Pielke paper was published in BAMS, so it is in the literature. The challenge was significant enough for NOAA to fund a response in the form of the Peterson paper. Anthony Watts work shows that the conclusions from the Peterson paper are not valid, so a controversy does exist. There is no rational reason for keeping the information about the controversy from Wikipedia readers. Let them have the information and let them make up their own minds. If I wrote something that is poorly worded, correct the wording - don't censor the information. RonCram 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is how I feel, improve on the article, there is obviously agreement that the instrumental temperature record has its problems, if realclimate and pielke agree on something, then I don't see how we can whitewash it over like it is not a concern as Kim is attempting to do. --Theblog 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm? RC and Pielke agree on lots of things - this is not one of them, as can be seen in the "blog war" that is being fought over this. (Pielke starts, RC rebutts, Pielke rebutts). I find it rather strange that you are saying that they agree. --Kim D. Petersen 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See above for the RC quote, and actually its the other way around RC starts, Pielke rebutts. --Theblog 19:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect - the RC post is a reaction (to amongst other things) Pielke and climateaudit. If you read the Pielke rebuttal.... its not that hard to decipher. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Did the RC post link any of Pielke's posts? --Theblog 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The are problems with the sfc t record. There are no credible sci challenges to it. This new section is absurdly US-centered, it cannot possibly stand as it it. This is the *global* record we're talking about. You need some credible scientific papers, not pictures of stations. As far as I know, the sfcstations stuff has merely documented problems with some station sitings and maintenance, etc. There is not even the beginning of an attempt at quantifying what influence, plus or minus, this might have on the record. If you're interested, there are papers about the effects of switching from north-wall screens to stevenson screens; thatched huts in africa; etc etc William M. Connolley 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

William, your comment "There are no credible sci challenges" is patently false since the entry cites a credible reviewed article that challenges it. Photographic evidence (both from the Pielke paper and Surfacestations.org) brings added credibility. Contrary to another of your claims, an attempt to quantify the influence has been made and is a part of the entry, not that a quantification is necessary for Wikipedia standards to discuss the controversy. The only objection you made that has any credibility is that it is US-centered. If the problems with the surface record exist here, there is a good chance problems exist in other countries as well. The proper thing to do is to tag the section so other editors can bring a global perspective and not delete it wholesale. RonCram 18:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, its patently true. I see a Pielke paper about Eastern Colorado which, as far as I can see, provides absolutely no quantitative data about how large the biases in the T record might be, even for Colorado, let alone the word. What exactly are you referring to - please quote. If your attempt at quantification is Differences in average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures between proximate stations are as large as 1.6 and 3.8 °C, respectively - no, thats not close to good enough. It doesn't even address the bias in the overall record William M. Connolley 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't even address the bias in the overall record" Or does it claim there are, whats the problem? --Theblog 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is defintely a problem with it - what exactly is your piece saying? If its saying, there are problems with the siting and exposure of some stations, then thats fine. But without some context - what fraction of the stations, for example; what effect does this have on the temperature record - the current version is misleading. And of course hopelessly US-centric William M. Connolley 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Which lines are misleading? You are the one inferring things where there is none. I will work on the US-centric portion some, I don't think it should be that hard to rectify, and there is already one source that claims it is a global problem, Karl and Jones. --Theblog 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But there are more problems: what is the source for especially since the record is being used to extrapolate warming measured in tenths of a degree per decade (and what does it even mean?). This issue has become controversial because the warning issued by the Davey and Pielke paper did not cause a full review of the quality of surface stations - this is somewhere between false and undefined. Has it? Clearly in Pielkes opinion, but what is the source for this statement? The IPCC did not cite either paper in the 4AR - true; is this supposed to imply that they are unimportant; or that the Vast Global Conspiracy (tm) is in operation again? Etc etc William M. Connolley 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed two of the statements you discussed above and added a cite needed to the other statement. --Theblog 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jolly good, but there is lots more. Your source for the NRC panel quote is the TOC page; thats rather weird. Stephan has disputed your interpretation of that report, and until you can supply a proper ref, checking the in-contextness is tricky. Knowing what they tend to talk about, I'd guess they were talking about the distribution of stations rather than their siting/exposure. Have you actually read it, or is this a cut-n-paste from CA? William M. Connolley 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[21] might be useful William M. Connolley 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold on... this gets worse. Are you sure the NRC said that "the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating." at all? It might have, but google sez thats the WCRP in 1997, e.g. [22]. And the NRC search doesn't throw it up [23] William M. Connolley 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

More... you cut-n-pasted from [24], no? That may be a lesson in WP:RS William M. Connolley 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote is in there (in the executive summary) - but not as a conclusion - but as the reason to do the NRC report [25]. Its quoted badly out of context both here, and on the surfacestation website. --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Stephan Kim, I don't see the quote on that page, though there is another. William M. Connolley 08:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Its the 2nd (and last paragraph) here. (and its Kim or KDP - don't wanna get people thinking im a sock for Stephan :-). --Kim D. Petersen 11:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry (on both counts). So tB still needs to say where he got the text from William M. Connolley 11:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm reading you right, your whole problem with the quote is that it does not include a specific reference to temperature? --Theblog 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you appear to have cut-n-pasted the quote from what turns out to be an unreliable source. Please answer: where did you get that text from? William M. Connolley 08:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote is accurate and sourced. I did link to the TOC myself because I felt that would provide the user access to the entire book/report which is more useful, instead of just one section. I will fix the error that you noted in future versions. --Theblog 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

William, you seem to be making a big deal that - instead of the NRC - it was the UN's World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) that said "the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating." Why not just make the change in the article? You seem to think the error originated on Surfacestations.org, but it did not.

Really? How can you be sure of that? Where exactly *do* you think the error originated? Try googling In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study and you get a choice of two likely places tB copied it all in from William M. Connolley 08:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You also speculate that the issue the WRCP was concerned with was the "distribution of stations" but that is not at all the issue. In response to the WCRP's report, the NRC studied the issue and suggested the health of the networks be closely monitored. The task of monitoring the stations was given to a unit of the NOAA. "Currently, the “health” of three observing networks is monitored using various performance indicators. While the suite of indicators varies from network to network, special attention is paid to changes in baseline performance and to the detection of undocumented changes. Examples of performance indicators are provided and a simple framework permitting feedback between the monitoring system and network managers is discussed." [26] Note the phrase "special attention is paid to changes in baseline performance and to the detection of undocumented changes." Detection of undocumented changes is a siting issue. Did someone just pave an asphalt parking lot next to the weather station? The NOAA is responsible for checking out these questions. Pielke, Christy, and Watts have all published photographic evidence of this kind of thing happening. Instead of the NOAA doing the job, they funded Peterson to publish a paper that attempted to obfuscate the issue and then attempted to prevent Watts from completing the task. RonCram 04:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

William, also if you want more scientists than Pielke, check out Pielke's coauthors on this paper. [27] Do you think we should list the names of all of the coauthors? :) RonCram 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pielke was kind enough to provide a list of reviewed papers on the subject of poorly sited weather stations. [28]

* Hale, R. C., K. P. Gallo, T. W. Owen, and T. R. Loveland, 2006 Land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate Geophysical Research Letters [29]

* Mahmood, Rezaul , Stuart A. Foster and David Logan, 2006: The Geoprofile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited International Journal of Climatology [30]

* Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press. [31]

* Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, M. Cai, N. Doesken, S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., in press. [32]

Please, let’s stop this fantasy that this is not a signficant scientific issue. I just learned that even the NOAA has given up its effort to stop Anthony Watts. [33] The truth is out and more information is coming out all the time. There is no rational reason for censoring this info from Wikipedia readers. RonCram 06:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble here Ron, is that noone is disputing that there are Stations that are poorly located - nor that they individually are showing biased trends (+/-). The trouble is the next step, where you say that this influences the temperature record (the combination of all stations) in a significant manner. --Kim D. Petersen 11:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I think you are jumping to conclusions and accusing me of something I have not done, WP:OR. Can you tell me where I have said something the scientists have not said? The scientists are saying that confidence in the temperature record is broken when the state of the network is in such poor shape. That is the scientific challenge to the temp record. How badly off is the temperature record? We don't really know yet because the NOAA has not done their job of monitoring the health of the network. Instead, they funded a PR study by Peterson attempting to prop up confidence in the record. Also, the NOAA tried to prevent Watts from completing his task. Thankfully, they have now given up on that. Let me ask you a question, Kim. Are you arguing that the temperature record is completely reliable even though we know poor quality stations are pervasive throughout the network? What information do you have that convinced you of this scientific opinion? If you have evidence, it should be in the article, but you have put forward no evidence at all. All of your efforts have been directed at trying to prevent readers from knowing the facts of this case. RonCram 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ron, "Instead, they funded a PR study by Peterson attempting to prop up confidence in the record. Also, the NOAA tried to prevent Watts from completing his task" <- thats a conspiracy theory, and has nothing what so ever to do here. Unless you can find some very seriously reliable sources to substatiate this extraordinary claim. --Kim D. Petersen 14:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those phrases are in the actual article entry. You two are both reading things into the entry that aren't there.--Theblog 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, yes, those phrases are not in the article. Please deal with the article. However my opinion is based on the fact that after Watts began his work, the NOAA pulled the stations locations off their website. For a while the work was stopped. Just a few days ago, the NOAA reversed the decision and the locations are available again. I have already provided a source for this. Regarding the fact Peterson's study was funded by the NOAA, that info is available in his study. RonCram 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron, Please stop using this talk page as your own personal soapbox - this is not the place. You can chat about them on climateaudit and elsewhere - i don't care. But it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen 15:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I am not using it as a soapbox. I am discussing facts around the controversy that may or may not deserve to be in the article. Reliable sources exist for both points. Neither point is in the entry at this time and it may or may not be appropriate to include them. We can discuss that later. It seems to me you are trying to change the subject. Please address the points made regarding the entry you have deleted. Why are you trying to prevent the uncertainties about the temperature record from being known to Wikipedia readers? RonCram 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron, i think i have explained myself sufficiently. Station data contains bias - correct. That this affects the temperature record significantly is WP:SYN/WP:OR and WP:Undue_weight. Why btw. are you referring to the 1997 report - and not the NRC report (1998) - or the later 2003 assessment of progress report?

I disagree with you (Kim?). Station record contains contamination - yes. But does it contain *bias* - as in an overall tendency to upwards or downwards trends? No clear evidence William M. Connolley 22:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

<---Kim, "Station data contains bias - correct. " And the article should cover it, no one disputes that it is unbiased. As such, it should be discussed in the article. "That this affects the temperature record significantly " How about we let the research and scientists speak for themselves? All we are doing is adding relevant information to the subject. I don't know where you're getting this conclusion from. --Theblog 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1) This article is not about Station data or Station bias - its about the global instrumental temperature record.

2) That station bias should affect the temperature record was stated in the very first sentence: "...the surface network is not of sufficient quality to provide a reliable temperature record."

3) The statement in #2 is based upon Dr. Pielke, his blog and none else. That is WP:Undue_weight. Surfacestation.com is not a reliable source.

4) Have you looked at the various papers that discuss this issue? I mean the temperature record - not the papers about station data?

5) Have you as an editor tried to determine the weight of this issue - for instance by doing a Google scholar search - like this? Or are you simply relying on Pielke and surfacestation.com?

I could continue here - but i think we've been through this a couple of times. --Kim D. Petersen 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I agree with Theblog. It is certainly not WP:OR or WP:SYN since we are only quoting scientists. The idea it is undue weight is bizarre. I only want to make readers aware that scientists are saying that confidence in the temperature record is broken and the only way to get confidence back is to do a full review of the network, including photographic evidence. Metadata is critical to establishing the health of the network and confidence in the record. I do not want my personal opinions in the article. If some of my opinions seep into one of my entries, feel free to edit the entry. But if the entry itself contains good science and is interesting, you should not delete the entire entry just because an opinion slipped by. Wholesale deletions do not show an attempt to seek consensus. Regarding your question, I am happy to include the 1997 report, the 1998 NRC report and the decision to give the monitoring task to that unit of NOAA. However, I am concerned that too much detail of the history will become undue weight. I feel the history should be summarized so more space can be devoted to the current scientific assessment of the network. BTW, do you have a link to the 2003 progress report? I have not seen that one and it might be interesting. RonCram 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I just read your latest entry. You do not like the statement "...the surface network is not of sufficient quality to provide a reliable temperature record" because Pielke is the only author. You are wrong. Have you read any of the other reviewed papers I cited here? Did you look at the list of coauthors? Kim, do some reading and get informed before you come in pounding on the delete key when you do not have the facts. Your POV is showing through. GEEZ. BTW, Surfacestations.org deserves to be in the article because because it a response to the call for a full review by Pielke and his coauthors and because of the photographic evidence it provides. Surfacestations.org has been in the news and is definitely notable. RonCram 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, regarding the google search you did, these articles are not very helpful if they all rely on a temperature record that has been compromise by poor siting. Surely you understand that point, right? RonCram 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

William, regarding why the NRC studied the issue of our deteriorating surface station network, did you read this quote: "The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating. Consequently, the National Research Council (NRC) undertook an assessment of the U.S. climate observing capacity." [34] No credible question exists that the NRC studied the issue because of the WCRP's conclusion. No credible question exists that the WCRP and NRC were concerned with quality of individual stations and changes to the stations which may have introduced a bias. No credible question exists that the NRC decided the stations needed to be closely monitored and that the task was given to a unit of NOAA. Can we now move on to more important issues? RonCram 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you and tB seem to be missing the point, which is that tB inserted, and you reverted, this text: In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: “Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press” The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, durector of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:"that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating. which you are now admitting is false: the text concerned is no part of the NRC conclusions, it comes from the WCRP. The text tB added (and you reverted) is sourceless, and tB refuses to say where he got it from, but a google search [35] strongly suggests its a cut-n-paste from either the surfacestations site or from CA (either or which makes it a copyvio and ineligible for wiki. Or is tB pretending to have written the text himself?). Which I take to be a lesson in WP:RS. Meanwhile, I am entirely in agreement that there are issues with individual stations, and enirely in disagreement that Pielke is the major source for any of this. As to the important issues... what exactly are they? Maybe a restart under DF's comment is a good idea William M. Connolley 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

William, you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is not a part of the article anymore, let it go. As I said before, if you find a mistake you are welcome to correct it yourself - but deleting an entry wholesale is no real attempt to build consensus. What do you mean when you say you are "enirely in disagreement that Pielke is the major source for any of this?" I thought that was exactly what you were saying. Theblog and I are the ones saying Pielke is not alone in his views. So, are you now admitting that Pielke has a great deal of support from other scientists? RonCram 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that tB is too embarrassed to answer this point, nor do you justify or apologise for reverting the incorrect copyvio text. I suppose that was to be expected. By saying that P is not the major source, I mean that plenty of people are interested in the sfc T record, and have published papers on corrections to it etc etc. As far as I can see P isn't a major player in this - he just happens to be blogging about it William M. Connolley 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Peterson paper was a direct response to Pielke's 2005 paper. Pielke is the corresponding author of two papers refuting Peterson and the combined papers have about 25 co-authors, so Pielke has gotten a lot of support for his view in the scientific community. Pielke is also the reason SurfaceStations.org was established. To try to rob Pielke of the credit here is just ridiculous. RonCram 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

William, the question you ask is irrelevant. I hope your day is going well. --Theblog 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The key point

Everyone agrees that there are individual sites with biases, drifts, and other problems. The crux of the dispute here is the validity/prominence of the interpretation that because some stations have biases then the global instrumental record is "not of sufficient quality to provide a reliable temperature record". The presence of errors in the individual components does not necessarily imply error in the composite. For example, if the individual biases are random (i.e. both positive and negative) then they would be expected to mostly average out. In addition, all of the major organizations doing this kind of work have processes in place to measure regional consistency and eliminate stations that appear to deviate significantly from nearby stations in their local group, thus empirically determining and removing sites that appear biased. And a variety of independent data (such as glacial retreat and borehole measurements) can be used to confirm the broad long-term trends. Given the internal programs for bias checking and independent confirmation, most scientists appear to accept that the instrumental temperature record is reliable.

That said, the key dispute being raised over the proposed text is not whether some sites are problematic (of course some are, and I see no problem providing some mention of ongoing efforts to identify and eliminate biases), but whether or not there is significant support for "Some scientists are concerned ... the surface network is not of sufficient quality to provide a reliable temperature record". So RonCram, et al., could you please be specific which scientists feel this way. It is not even clear to me from the quotes offered that either the NRC or Davey and Pielke really feel that the global composite temperature record, in particular, is unreliable. Dragons flight 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree: the key point is for justification for "...not of sufficient quality...". Who exactly is saying this? If its just Pielke in blog postings, its not enough William M. Connolley 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you even reading the rest of the stuff posted Connolley? Kim's source indicates that plenty more people believe there are problems. "The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the global capacity to observe the Earth's climate system is inadequate and is deteriorating worldwide: Without action to reverse this decline and develop the Global Climate Observation System, the ability to characterize climate change and variations over the next 25 years will be even less than during the past quarter century""[36] Then we have the list of cites Ron presented. The phrase "some scientists" means two or more, what do you think it means? We can however, reword the section as fact, no one is claiming that no sites do not have issues. In fact, one could say, there is no known research that indicate as such. Even Peterson's research indicates there are various problems, open the file here [37] and read chapter two. --Theblog 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. Indeed there are problems. What you are failing to establish is if people say the record itself is compromised and the trends deduced from it are wrong William M. Connolley 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not my "failing" I am just reporting the facts. If you have some info regarding the above, by all means, add it. --Theblog 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have redone the section and retitled it, it still obviously needs more work, but I think I have removed or dealt with the major distressing phrases which other editors complained about. If you have a criticism, please list is separately below and specifically lay it out. --Theblog 03:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found another paper, this one is an MS thesis. The author writes: "Temperature trends from the HCN appear to be significantly biased by non-climatic factors such as site exposure, regional land use land cover changes, and station moves. These results show that HCN sites do not provide an unbiased record and other data besides temperature needs to be assessed for climate change in order to accurately gauge the occurrences of climate change in Indiana and throughout the world." (page 79) [38] RonCram 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragonsflight, you can read the names of all of the co-authors of the four papers I provided above. I believe there are more than 25 different names. To that list you can add Ashley Brooks, the author of the MS thesis I quoted just above. RonCram 06:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Those four papers each criticize particular details of site management but only the third directly challenge the global composite. The first is correlative, not causative, and merely identifies a warming trend that they say could be bias but needs more study. The second studied only 12 sites, and rightly refrains from drawing large-scale conclusions. The fourth argues that correction techniques for addressing biases in individual sites are inadequate but avoids any assessment of the resulting global impact (arguably this could be extrapolated as saying there needs to be greater uncertainty on the global reconstructions, but they don't attack it directly). Still, one clear set of statements about the global average is progress. Dragons flight 06:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The only claims that are made come directly from the papers, so it doesn't really matter. I think some of the problem lies in the poor name of this article. First off, I believe it is the surface temperature record we're talking about, if not, we should definately add stuff about satellites, which are part of the instrumental temperature record, but already have their own section. Second, are we talking about a specific temperature record? The one displayed? The temperature records are constantly updated and any one of them is only going to be notable for a couple years, so to talk about just one of them is a bit silly. --Theblog 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is currently entirely about the US record; I have retitled it accordingly. I still think its so US-centric that it doesn't really belong William M. Connolley 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

World Climate Research Programme concentrates on the US? --Theblog 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, SurfaceStations.org will eventually address all of the stations part of the GHCN. They are currently focusing on the USHCN, which is part of the GHCN. The effort will go global.[39] RonCram 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wake me up when they do William M. Connolley 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

William Im curious. You have a PhD in numerical analysis yet here you are demanding that Watts and his group survey every single station before you will even wake up and pay attention. I have a question for you as an expert in numerical analysis. There are 1222 USHCN stations. Mr. Watts and his group have survived 291 of these. Now with that population and sample size given a 95% confidence level what is the maximum confidence interval? Now as an expert so note worthy in your field as to warrant your own wikki page at what confidence interval would you wake up?GTTofAK 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the sample were random, you might have a point. There's no reason to believe that the sample to date is random -- quite the opposite, given that Watts has stated he expects to discredit the temperature record. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Watts is not the one going out surveying all these sites. These are volunteers going out to sites around their area and surveying them. Its purely random. Given the population it is very difficult to get a nonrandom sample. Weather stations don’t have sexes races incomes etc. Its like reaching into a bucket of red and green balls. Is the ball red or green? Does the weather station meat NOAA standards or not? Given the current sample size we are well past the point that what little nonrandomness there could be is being outweighed by the sample size.

Furthermore your argument kind of defies logic. Mr. Watts stated goal is to survey all 1222 stations so what is the point of messing with the sample?GTTofAK 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think surveying all the stations is a good idea. However, the reason that one might suspect it is not yet random is because of survey bias. People, regardless of their intentions, are less likely to report stations that meet NOAA standards than stations that do not. How often do you think people call those "How's my driving?" numbers to say "I think you're driving is great"? This is just like those surveys that add the disclaimer "not a scientific survey" (except without the disclaimer). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The goal is to report all stations. Why would someone go out and survey a station and not report it. It will be reported eventually. There is no point to your little conspiracy theory.GTTofAK 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are an ordinary volunteer, what is the purpose of reporting a station that is complying? (This is a rhetorical question and meant only to illustrate the mindset of a typical volunteer.) I do not see that my "little conspiracy theory" is any different than the "grand conspiracy theory" involved in not reporting drivers that are driving just fine. Do you understand that I'm not attributing any malicious intent here, because it sure seems like that point flew right past you. I would argue that volunteers are far less likely to report instances of people/things doing what they're supposed to be doing, regardless of the motives of those gathering the volunteer data. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring the stated goals of the project. Report every station. There is no point to not reporting a station because someone else will. I think you also have a wholly misinformed notion of the project. Your how's my driving analogy isn't really apt at all. These people don’t just drive bye a bad weather station and call it in. They go on NOAA's website find weather stations in their area than track them down which sometimes isn't that easy as NOAA isn't always right on where they are located.

Ben, yes we understand you are not attributing malicious intent. Perhaps you are saying that the poor quality stations are more likely to be documented first. That could be. We should not make too big a deal out of any preliminary gradings of the network. Let's wait until all of the evidence is in. RonCram 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually my point is slightly weaker than that. I'm merely stating that they might be more likely to be documented first. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t agree at all. The confidence interval is at 3%. Even if there was some malicious intent statistically we already know that there is a problem. Even in the highly unlikely scenario that every single remaining station was compliant with NOAA standards(statistically impossible) we would still have 5% of all stations noncompliant with NOAA standards. That is a problem. In truth if Mr. Hockings conspiracy theory was correct it would actually be closer to 15%.209.193.41.50 15:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I love the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe "survey bias", I don't think the phrase "statistically impossible" means what you think it means. All statistics make certain assumptions. If you do not assume statistical independence, then the scenario that you describe (all remaining stations are compliant) is not statistically impossible, although I would grant you that under almost any assumption, it is unlikely. Your point about even 5% of the stations being noncompliant as a problem is correct (assuming that the volunteers are determining compliance correctly). I sense hostility in your wording (e.g., "conspiracy theory"). Consider where that is coming from. It seems interesting that a few "global warming skeptics" don't like skepticism with regards to this research. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

209.193.41.50, I must be unaware of the data you are discussing. You say the confidence interval is 3%. Can you provide a link to this? RonCram 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong actually I was doing the math in my head. Its actually 4% http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#factors do it yourself. Sample size 291 population 1222 percentage 20 (I believe that is approximate the percent they have found at fault). And yes Ben it is statistically impossible. You have a sample of 291 and find 80% to be compliant. The odds that the remaining 931 are all compliant are so astronomically low it is statistically impossible. And that really gets to the crux of this whole AGW argument. AGW theory is based around statistical analysis. You put your full faith in it. Yet when I come on using statistics that don’t agree with your position you do far more than just question them. All of a sudden statistical analysis is not adequate. No you demand that Mr. Watts go out and survey every single station before any conclusions can be made, suddenly we can no longer use statistical analysis. Your hypocrisy is oozing out. You will notice that the person with a Phd in numerical analysis isn't touching this argument with a 10 foot pole. He knows what the confidence interval is. He knows what it means. He also knows how ridiculous it is for someone with a Phd. in numerical analysis to demand that someone survey the entire population.GTTofAK 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(A) Statistical analysis only works if you're making the right assumptions about your distribution. You need to know if it can be adequately approximated as a normal distribution, a binomial distribution, a poisson distribution, a beta distribution, etc. You also need to know about statistical dependence. In short, you can't just pull out a little calculator you found on-line and pretend you know something about statistics. (B) You're confusing me with someone else. I never demanded that Mr. Watts go out and survey every single station before any conclusions can be made. (C) The only hypocrisy I see here is someone who appears to think the statistics behind AGW are not valid, but that the statistics that he invents are, even though apparently he has an incomplete understanding of statistics. Don't get me wrong — I'm no expert in statistics, but I have had a few graduate level courses in it (well, one in statistics itself, one in signal/noise theory, and a couple in statistical mechanics). (D) I'm guessing the person with the Ph.D. in numerical analysis (that you previously confused me with) isn't touching it because he thinks your mistakes are obvious, or, more likely, he's currently not reading Wikipedia. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think I am a moron and you can throw around some big terms like poisson distribution and walk away the winer. Tht is a cheasy rehortical tactic used by psudo intellectuals. Poisson distribution? Don’t make me laugh. Do you even know what a poisson distribution is? If you did you wouldn't have brought it up. Binominal distribution? Again not apt at all. Do you even know what these mean? Beta Distribution? Again not apt at all. I'm sitting here talking about apples and you come back saying I need to know if we have apples oranges or bananas, redicilous. But that is really the point of your whole argument here isn't it? Obfuscate and obstruct. You allege a sample bias even though you cannot say exactly how the sample bias would occur despite some vague claim about faulty stations being reported first yet you provide no such explanation on to why that would happen that than malfeasance on the part of Watts and his volunteers which makes no sense. They have no clue if a station is compliant or not until they go out and survey it. They only way your sample bias claim can be true is if they intentionally withhold the report. That claim is easily rebuked since 80% of all stations reported so far have been compliant and the stated goal of the project is to survey all stations making any withholding a worthless endeavor. The facts are clear. They have survived 291 stations statistically we already know that there is a problem. Even if you are right, which you are not, and there is some big malfeasance going on we still have 5% of all stations noncompliant and that is a major problem. Watts project is noteworthy and should be included in this thread. And FYI I calculated the confidence interval in my head first and was only off by 1%. Lets see you do that.209.193.41.50 16:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're a moron. Obviously, none of those distributions apply to the station sampling — including the normal distribution. I am not alleging a sample bias, I was stating that it was possible that a survey bias could occur, and I gave a description that others have recognized assumed no malfeasance on any person's part. Also, I have not argued that the data should not be included here. Again, you're confusing me with someone else. You're obviously very angry, and I apologize for having contributed to it. Is there a way I could make my point without making you angry? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There could be so many reasons for a bias right now. One possible reason is (an example that comes to mind); I understand that one of the problems that might affect the stations recordings is changes in the surroundings of the stations. These changes tend to be brought upon by urbanization of the surroundings of the stations (air conditionings, parking lots, etc..) If we assume that it is easier to get to urbanized areas in than to get to non-urbanized areas then we are likely to sample the stations in the urbanized areas first. Luckily, they have made a commitment to sample all the stations, so lets be patient. Also, remember to assume good faith. Brusegadi 16:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And even if that were true is that any reason to keep it off the article? Watts’ project has been widely reported and has brought up serious questions already. Like I said we know for an absolute fact that 5% of all stations are noncompliant and we know for a statistical fact that the number is far larger. In that alone watts has proven that there is a problem. His project is more than worthy to be included in the article.GTTofAK 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi: That's not just a supposition you're making. If you look at the Surface Stations plot of where they've sampled so far, it does appear to be concentrated in urban locales. Hopefully, this project will get wrapped sooner rather than later and the debate can come to an end — one way or the other. (I know, wishful thinking.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor siting not equal to Urban Heat Island

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)

Ron is correct. --Theblog 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WCRP Report was about station standards

William made an edit claiming the 1997 report was about the number of stations and not the standards. [40] He is half-right and half-wrong. It was about both. The report reads:

Operational weather observation systems, integrated in the WMO World Weather Watch (WWW), are under serious threat in several regions of the world. The maintenance of these networks, enhancement where necessary to meet the requirements for observing climate, and data archival in electronic form for climate analysis and modelling purposes, are of critical importance; [41]

Requirements and standards are equivalent. This needs to be corrected in the article. RonCram 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

From the quote above you really can't tell, but certainly I can't see any good evidence from the above that they were concerned about siting problems. They certainly didn't say so. From the quote used in the article, its about numbers. Should we really be using quotes in the article that we can't even agree how to interpret? William M. Connolley 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The WCRP was concerned that the network "meet the requirements for observing climate." Is it your opinion that WCRP would think that poorly exposed stations would "meet the requirements?" Such an opinion is not sensible and I do not believe you hold it. RonCram 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

William, I should also point out that it was this WCRP report that caused the NRC to assess US station quality. The idea the WCRP was not concerned about quality is just bizarre. RonCram 23:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron you are making a mistake here - you are thinking that the WCRP report and the Adequacy report is primarily about the GCOS GSN stations. Thats not the case - its about Ocean, Radiosondes, Satellites and so on. They are not only talking about the narrow concept of in-situ temperature measurements and stations. The Adequacy report is primarily concerned about the loss of stations within this narrow segment of climate variables - and those primarily in the developing world. The second report notices that this loss has been arrested to a large extent[42], but notices that there still is a loss of stations with long records (which is a large concern). I'd recommend that you sit down and read the two adequacy reports (as i've just done), or at least skim them - just to get a feeling of how many climate variables that we are talking about.

In effect when the WCRP (and the later reports) are talking about climate variables - they are talking about a host of things. Measurements of hydrology, glaciers, permafrost, near and upper troposphere pressure/temperature/humidity..., ocean surface temperature (upper and lower), cloud observations, river discharge, ocean color, salinity, current, and so on in a steady stream. (see page 55-56 Appendix 1 in the 2nd report). You are doing severe WP:SYN by concluding that you can just take statements on the general system and narrow it down to a couple of parameters, and expect all statements to be about this. --Kim D. Petersen 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think a "conventional observation network" consists of? --Theblog 02:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Check Appendix 1 - page 55-56 --Kim D. Petersen 03:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is backwards, it is SYN to conclude any of those variables are not included, not that they are. --Theblog 03:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It could have been if the reports hadn't made the distinctions themselves (read them! otherwise how can you describe them.) - Pielke is talking about parts of the GCOS GSN. Plus it is of course rather easy to check via either the GCOS, NOAA etc. sites. --Kim D. Petersen 13:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific - the reports are speaking about the entire GCOS (global climate observation system) - of which GSN is a subset - and of which again the unmanned land-based stations are a subset - and of which the US part is an even smaller subset. --Kim D. Petersen 13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I fully understand the WCRP was looking at the full observation system. I have never doubted that. I never said the WCRP report was only about poorly exposed stations. But the report is about establishing and maintaining a network that meets the requirements of climate observation. Did you read the quote I provided? Are you really trying to argue that the WCRP would be happy with poor quality sites? That is a ridiculous position for you to take. No one else thought poor quality sites would be okay. That was why the NRC was asked to assess the quality of the sites. The NRC recommendations were the reason the "Health of the Networks" unit was set up at NOAA. All of these events are connected. You are trying to push a boulder uphill, Kim. It is not going to work. RonCram 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/public-review-draft/sap1-1prd-all.pdf !?!

Why is a draft (when the finished report is available) report on Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere being used as a reference for "But these stations may undergo undocumented changes such as relocation, changes in instrumentation and exposure and changes in observation practices"? Who wrote this stuff? Furthermore the thing is 300+ pages long - where is the relevant text supposed to be?

I've browsed the thing. All the stuff I could find in there was along the lines of "we're pretty happy with the sfc record but less confident of the trop record". So I've replaced something they didn't say with something that they definitely *did* say (p12) William M. Connolley 22:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

William, the idea widespread biases may cancel each other out is a bunch of hooey. Even the report admits it is an idea that is unproven. It should not be in the article. Here's a quote from the report from page 36:

Because such a cancellation has not been rigorously proved, partly due to the lack of adequate metadata, it is conceivable that systematic changes in many station exposures of a similar kind may exist over the land during the last few decades, which may give biases in trends of one sign over large land regions."

It is ironic that they say the idea has not been proven due to a lack of metadata while Anthony Watts is out getting the metadata that will (IMHO) prove the theory is hopelessly wrong. I should point out that sea surface temp record has its own problems and biases due to a change in instruments, but there is no evidence the SST would cancel out the biases seen over the land.RonCram 23:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron, of course its conceivable - maybe all the stations are consistently showing cooling trends. (which is as good a conclusion as any other from that text). Btw. why did you remove the context? Here is the full sentence about cancellation:

It is generally accepted that local biases in trends mostly cancel through the use of many stations or ocean observations. Because such a cancellation has not been rigorously proved, partly due to the lack of adequate metadata, it is conceivable that systematic changes in many station exposures of a similar kind may exist over the land during the last few decades, which may give biases in trends of one sign over large land regions.

So the quote that you found is in fact not saying that its "a lot of hooey" - its saying the exact opposite. --Kim D. Petersen 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"But these stations may undergo undocumented changes such as relocation, changes in instrumentation and exposure and changes in observation practices" taken directly from Page 83 --Theblog 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I updated it to agree with the final draft here [43] chapter 2 page 31 I reworded it slightly to fit in one sentence, the book says "These stations often experience relocations, changes in instrumentation and exposure (including changes in nearby thermally emitting structures) effects of land-use changes (e.g. urbanization) and changes in observation practices, all of which can introduce biases into their long term records. The changes are often undocumented." --Theblog 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, what page and chapter are you using to support your "these local biases are generally considered to cancel each other out using many stations and the ocean record." addition? --Theblog 02:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Search for the quote i mentioned above... But for the lazy its [ed: Chapter 4] "6.2 Land surface Temperature Uncertainty" page 85 - just after the reference to Hansen et al 2001). --Kim D. Petersen 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you using the draft still? The one linked now is the final and chapter 6 starts on page 119. --Theblog 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using the draft - i'm using the pdf of the full report. But its Chapter 4 - 6.2 - page 85. (sorry) --Kim D. Petersen 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [marked in the above now --Kim D. Petersen 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)]

got it, ty --Theblog 03:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so at least we're on the final report rather than the draft. Its still (obviously) not the right report to be using. And its being appallingly cherry-picked. You can't pluck out one bit of crit and ignore the entirety of the "key findings" section. So I've removed:

These stations often undergo undocumented changes such as relocation, changes in instrumentation and exposure (including changes in nearby thermally emitting structures) changes in land use (e.g. urbanization), and changes in observation practices, all of which can introduce biases into the stations long term records, these local biases are generally considered to cancel each other out using many stations and the ocean record, although this has not been proven.[44]

until it can be done better (unless, of course, this secion header is to be taken literally: this section is entirely about *crit* of the T record; and nothing positive about it may be said?). So things that were key conclusions - like the first: The observing systems available for this report are able to detect small surface and upper air temperature variations from year to year, for example, those caused by El Niño or volcanic eruptions. need to go in ahead of any detail William M. Connolley 08:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I did not claim the quote said the idea of cancellation was a bunch of hooey. Obviously, that is my opinion. The report is in favor of the idea of cancellation but the quote I provided from the report admits the idea is unproven. What we are seeing come in from Surfacestations.org is a bunch of sites with an obvious warming bias. The idea of a cooling bias is an alarmist's fantasy. The idea has been bandied about but (IMHO) no evidence exists for one. RonCram 13:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

William, the section is about the scientific challenges to the temp record. It answers questions like: What is the level of certainty around the temp record? Are there different opinions on certainty? What are the factors that increase uncertainty? What scientists have studied the issues? What organization is responsible for maintaining a quality network? Is this organization doing a good job? What metadata is considered to determine if the networks are reliable or if they might be subject to some bias? Is any work being done currently to determine the quality of the network? Any relevant information, positive or negative, is open for consideration for this section. In fact, there may be other relevant questions the section should answer that I have left out. RonCram 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I added your line, althought it flows worse than it did before, maybe we should just move the general stuff to the main article, which does not for example discuss the ability of the network to detect el nino like changes. --Theblog 14:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually now that I rearranged it a bit I like it. --Theblog 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I renamed the section a while ago to make William happy and he added on to it. Right now I'm not really happy with the name, but it doesn't overly concern me, I think the article being named wrong is a bigger deal. --Theblog 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Theblog, I am not overly concerned with the name of the section either. William's comment had to do with the content of the section and whether it was NPOV or not. Specifically, William asked parenthetically "(unless, of course, this secion header is to be taken literally: this section is entirely about *crit* of the T record; and nothing positive about it may be said?)." My comment addressed this question. BTW, I see that William has again deleted the two preprints by Pielke and coauthors. This is unacceptable. I do not care how the papers are described, but the papers are important and readers deserve to know about them. William's censorship is not the answer. RonCram 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the last edits....

This:

"although this has not been proven."

Science does not do proofs. Gravity isn't proven. Fission isn't proven. etc. Please read up on the scientific method. The inclusion in the statement of "generally" specifies the meaning exactly - its "generally" so - it "might" be different. Going beyond that is trying to prove a point (POV). --Kim D. Petersen 20:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This:

....However, these standards are at times disregarded and stations often undergo undocumented ..

Is WP:OR. Nothing in the standard says that stations cannot be moved - RTFR please. --Kim D. Petersen 20:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This:

Pielke and co-authors have responded with two submitted papers disagreeing that such corrections are adequate [45] [46].

Is referencing sources that are not reliable sources. Not published - no evidence of peer-review - no evidence of editorial oversight. That its from Pielke doesn't matter - since the WP:SPS guidelines specifically rules out research, that has not yet been published elsewhere. RTFS please. --Kim D. Petersen 20:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. 1-Geez, Kim - "although this has not been proven" is a quote from the report. They are admitting this idea has never been tested (much less proven) because they do not have the metadata (because they never did the full documentation that Trenberth and Karl called for). Now that Anthony Watts and Surfacestations.org is doing the metadata collection, they will be able to test this idea and (IMHO) find out that it is completely bogus.

No it is not a "quote" from the report - please read it again - you can find what they say exactly cut/pasted in the section just above this one. --Kim D. Petersen 01:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote: You included a quote in the above section - which is nowhere to be found in the report. In fact there is exactly 2 places in the report where the word "proven" is used - these: Chapter 4,S8,p87 "...but these would not be unambiguous, may eventually be proven wrong" and Chapter 6,S4,p124 "Indeed, they have proven to be a very important tool for the climate research community." --Kim D. Petersen 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not in the draft either - so i'm quite interested in exactly where did you get this "quote"? --Kim D. Petersen 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What a wrong search word can't do you in for - sorry... The sentence is C4S6.2 page 85. And it says

Because such a cancellation has not been rigorously proved, partly due to the lack of adequate metadata, it is conceivable that systematic changes in many station exposures of a similar kind may exist over the land during the last few decades. If such changes exist, they may lead to small amounts of spurious cooling or warming, even when the data are averaged over large land regions.

which does not lead to the same meaning that is used in the article, but does say that its not "rigorously proved". --Kim D. Petersen 02:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the same meaning, not proved is not proved. --Theblog 04:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. 2-Regarding your second point, are you trying to say that there are no poorly sited stations? Since we do have much photographic evidence of poorly sited stations, what exactly are you trying to say?

Please read what i wrote. --Kim D. Petersen 01:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the statement for accuracy, it has been shown that the standards are not being met by several peer reviewed journal papers, as well as the statement in the book, which is not in question. --Theblog 04:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. 3-You are referring to two preprints of articles that have been accepted for publication by two peer-reviewed journals. I have seen William use preprints in the past. Why is it acceptable for him and not for others? BTW, I am not sure I see your point "the WP:SPS guidelines specifically rules out research, that has not yet been published elsewhere. RTFS please." What WP:SPS actually says is "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP." Pielke and co-authors are not writing about living persons, so BLP is not an issue. However, you seem to have missed this: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Pielke has published more than 300 peer reviewed articles. His status is unquestioned. BTW, I googled RTFS and learned that it means "Romanian Translators for Free Software?" Have you ever tried it? RonCram 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Put them in when they are published. The only places i've seen pre-prints used is when the article is already published - but a direct link needs subscription - then a pre-print becomes sensible and giving more information than just the abstract. --Kim D. Petersen 01:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One is published (the one more on topic) [47] I'll change the link, I assume the issue is closed. --Theblog 04:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

#1 Kim, your reasons for not including it are baseless, it is right in the source, it is not trying to prove a point. Also, you happily supported a completely unprovable claim in the UHI article.

#2 Kim, that is not referring to just moves, read the rest of the sentence, also your reasoning is wrong, the key word is undocumented.

#3 Kim, preprints are fine, if Pielke put the information in his blog, it would be fine, submitted papers are obviously a step up from that. Again, on the UHI article, you used a think tank hit piece to support a scientific claim. --Theblog 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - try to explain your point without packing it into a personal attack - Ok? --Kim D. Petersen 01:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth is a personal attack now? I'll try again:

#1 Kim, your reasons for not including it are baseless, it is right in the source, it is not trying to prove a point. It is trying to accurately represent the situation.

#2 Kim, that is not referring to just moves, read the rest of the sentence, also your reasoning is wrong, the undocumented station changes are against the posted rules. If they are not, then why bother having them at all?

#3 Kim, preprints are fine, if Pielke put the information in his blog, it would be fine, submitted papers are obviously a step up from that. --Theblog 04:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet more problems

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.[48]

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)

Mind you there is a lot of interesting stuff in that report that *could* be included William M. Connolley 21:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Poorly sited stations and a warming bias

William's latest edit seems to be an attempt to keep readers in the dark about the poorly sited stations that have been found.[49] The article cited is a reliable source. There is no reason to deprive readers of this information. RonCram 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that is one of the main points mentioned by the sources. --Theblog 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The words there are clearly biased. Why are only poorly sited sites mentioned. Why does it not say " a number of the sites have been found to be well sited?" Is there some reason you don't want to mention that? William M. Connolley 11:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

William, the point is that ALL of the sites are supposed to be well sited. If an omelet had one rotten egg in it, would you eat it? Would you say "It had two good eggs, why focus on the negative?" Of course not, readers are smart enough to know that all the stations are supposed to be well sited. When a number of them are found to have the same type of warming bias, scientists get concerned. That is what this section is about. RonCram 15:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

William, I reverted your last revert, I believe I've addressed all the issues and since there is no further talk on it besides the above, then I assume you agree. As for the above, it is assumed that if a station is not bad then it is good, it is notable to find the bad stations. I don't think you're arguing that the network has so deteriorated that it is notable to find the good stations and they should be mentioned instead? But if you want to frame it that way, I can agree for the sake of moving the article along. If you want to say, he's found some good and some bad stations, then that sounds a little silly to me.--Theblog 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that the cited article doesn't support the statement: "An unquantified fraction of these stations have been found to be in good quality locations." It supports the sentence in the article. --Theblog 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't agree; my objections stand. Your language is biased, and intended to mislead the reader. The cited article makes no attempt at quantification, perhaps deliberately so. William M. Connolley 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

William, you are not being reasonable. The article already says that in one study in Indiana, 12.5% of sites were graded "poor." How is the article being misleading? How do you want the language changed exactly? The cited article makes no attempt at quantification because the study is not yet complete. Why should that prevent readers from knowing about the article? Without some justification for your opinion, it makes it hard to assume good faith. Censorship is not the answer here, William, and I think you know it. RonCram 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

William, find a source which details the good percentage then, or one that says surfacestations is finding good sources, we can only go by what the sources indicate. The newspaper articles only detail the bad sources that were found. That is what we detail. This is one of the major criticisms, that the metadata is lacking.--Theblog 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

William, I note that you are rolling back changes beyond what you are updating the discussion about, I don't believe that it is fair to roll back changes without having some reasoning detailed which backs it up. As far as I can tell, you have no outstanding questions that have not been answered or concerns that have not been met. If you do have them, please detail them before rolling back other changes. --Theblog 03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. If you think I'm undoing stuff for which you've provided adequate answers, feel free to say which. Meanwhile note that "in many cases, these poorly sited stations are the only stations within their grid cell." was unjustified. Pielke does not assert that *any* of them are the only one in their grid cell William M. Connolley 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All of them have been adequately answered, or else you would have further comments on them. --Theblog 16:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. But I notice you reverted "In many cases, these poorly sited stations are the only stations within their grid cell." - do you think that Pielke says this? William M. Connolley 18:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed this line pending some looking into it. --Theblog 01:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to add some relevant context to the surfacestations.org following discussion on Talk:Global_warming#Surface_Station_Quality. To be honest, I think it should all be removed, as the research is junk. Discuss. 129.215.37.49 13:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Iceage77 deleted my addition without any comment or discussion. I've re-added a cut down bit that points out that Anthony Watts is motivated by his skepticism of global warming, and that annotating photos isn't actually science. 129.215.37.49 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but obviously biased material like this is always going to be removed. Iceage77 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I've removed the section on surfacestations.org altogether (as I originally suggested). Including material that suggests the project is some kind of credible scientific investigation, and failing to point out that it isn't, is biased and misleading. What I wrote was fact - he says he is an AGW skeptic, and that is his motivation, and what he's doing is not science, and has not been peer reviewed or published in a credible journal. 129.215.37.49 15:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Roger A. Pielke, a respected climate scientist, disagrees with your analysis. Iceage77 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If Mr. Pielke thinks that taking photos, annotating them, and then drawing conclusions without any control data or statistical analysis, is a valid scientific experiment, then he is welcome to that opinion. And he would be wrong. Anyway, I've added a quote from Watts himself on why he set up the site. 129.215.37.49 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Or I would have if not beaten to it.

Poor quality stations found outside the U.S.

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." [50] 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)

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)

Point by Point

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.[51]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• although this idea has not been tested due to a lack of metadata.

• Roger A. Pielke and co-authors have responded with two papers disagreeing that such corrections are adequate. The first was published in BAMS. [52] The second has been submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research. [53] Pielke also has photographic evidence of poorly sited stations outside the U.S. [54]

• An unquantified fraction of these stations have been found to be in poor quality locations with elements that could create artificial biases, including on building roofs or near trash burning drums and parking lots. [55]

Thanks, everyone please resond under the specific point you are addressing--Theblog 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Severity of the Warming Bias in the Temperature Record - Is it intentional?

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. [56] 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)

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)

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)

Trends cancelling

Ron, This sentence:

In the past, these local biases were generally considered to cancel each other out using many stations and the ocean record, [57] but this idea is now disputed. [58].

Is not supported by the Pielke paper.. It says alot about trend removal and station corrections - but nothing about how local biases influence the total record. And it doesn't mention comparisons with Ocean records at all... All Pielke may say here is that trends may be lost - but not that biases accumulate either way. --Kim D. Petersen 00:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, Peterson advocates making adjustments but then claims biases will cancel out. Pielke disagrees with this entire concept. The claim the biases cancel out is not based on any evidence, especially when the amount of artificial warming (or cooling) is not quantified. In other words, if it could be shown that warming biases were 50% and cooling biases were 50%, the claim of canceling might bear out. But this has not been shown. Here are two quotes from the Pielke paper:

However, after periods of dominant LULC change, significant trends in minimum, maximum, or mean temperature were far more common, and 95% or more of these significant trends were warming trends. (page 13)

A continued mode of corrections using approaches where statistical uncertainties are not quantified is not a scientifically sound methodology and should be avoided, considering the importance of such surface station data to a broad variety of climate applications as well as climate variability and change studies. (page 14)

Pielke and co-authors disagree with Peterson and have convincingly refuted him. I am restoring the comment. RonCram 02:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges.

1. Its not Peterson that is argued in the section where you put the sentence. (its the CCSP report).
2. You forget the rest of the sentence:

   Although the LULC changes have not been identified as the causative factor in the exhibited temperature trends, there is substantial evidence for such speculation. This issue is relevant to the Peterson(2006) analysis because the photographs in Davey and Pielke (2005) suggest that the landscape (and thus the microclimate) around the poorly-sited measurement location (and even the well-sited locations) is not likely to be static.

3. In this section we aren't talking microclimate, or station trends - we are talking about trends that are adjusted on a grid level - with comparison to both land based and ocean trends. Something which Pielke doesn't adress at all in his paper - which is about station trends and local bias.

Please divide station specific papers, local area specifics - and regional to large areas. --Kim D. Petersen 02:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note also that the paper agrees that multistation analysis over a large number of samples, such as the temperature record is not significantly affected:

Additionally, the adjustments derived for the most part from analysis of a large number of stations might only be expected to be appropriate when applied (and error assessed) over a large number of samples, rather than individual station pairs. Based on these results, assessment and potential inclusion of adjustments for microclimate influences within USHCN adjustments is recommended for consideration.

--Kim D. Petersen 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, you are correct about Peterson. I thought Peterson also made the claim that local biases cancel each other but I remembered incorrectly. Regarding local biases, the CCSP report "Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere" says "It is likely that these biases are largely random and therefore cancel out over large regions such as the globe or tropics, the regions that are of primary interest to this Report." (page 12) It is apparent from the Pielke paper that the biases are not random. This is the point. According to Pielke, a warming bias exists in 95% of stations that have had dominant land use land cover changes. It is these LULC changes that cause the stations to be poorly sited. Regarding your claim I did not quote the entire sentence, not true. You quoted the following sentence in the same paragraph, a sentence which confirms my point. The LULC changes have not been identified as the causative factor because the NOAA has not done the work they were given regarding the "Health of the Networks." The work SurfaceStations.org has already done shows that the poorly sited stations are much more common than originally thought. Your comment that Pielke's paper is not addressing the point is not accurate. The basis for the claim that the local biases cancel out is built on the view the biases are random. Pielke has shown this not to be true. RonCram 13:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you are ignoring that Pielke says that "a large number of stations" and "a large number of samples" will remove these biases. --Kim D. Petersen 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pielke never says that. RonCram 14:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually he does (i'll quote again): Additionally, the adjustments derived for the most part from analysis of a large number of stations might only be expected to be appropriate when applied (and error assessed) over a large number of samples, rather than individual station pairs. Based on these results, assessment and potential inclusion of adjustments for microclimate influences within USHCN adjustments is recommended for consideration. - you are focusing to much on site specific and temporal specific biases that you forget the broad picture. --Kim D. Petersen 14:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I was just rereading that section trying to understand how you are misunderstanding it so badly. Take the sentence in its context. Remember that Pielke has argued throughout the paper that the current adjustments practices for USHCN is not the correct way to do it. The sentence you are quoting is further criticism of the current adjustment practices. Pielke is recommending some changes to adjustment policy. Pielke is arguing that adjustments of a large number of stations should be done with many samples (with errors assessed), not just stations pairs as is currently done. In the sentence following- "Based on these results, assessment and potential inclusion of adjustments for microclimate influences within USHCN adjustments is recommended for consideration" - Pielke argues that LULC changes resulting in artificial warming bias of individual stations be adjusted out. I hope this clears it up for you. RonCram 14:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Instrumentation Accuracy

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". Interested individuals have used the internet to engage in coordinated efforts to document surface station data, including microclimate effects that can significantly impact station readings. 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.". 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)

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)

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)

Author wrote that Eaastern Antarctica "has not warmed significantly" while Antarctic Penisula significantly warmed. This is missleading statement because Penisula is very small fraction of Antarctica, circa two percents of overall Antarctic territory. But, this is also incorrect and misleading, because Antarctica as a whole actually has COOLCED during previous 30 years. See http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt. --Djovanelo 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen McIntyre finds error in GISS temp record

The surface temperature record appears to have a number of problems. Stephen McIntyre found one of them. [59] GISS has just admitted it and credited Stephen McIntyre for finding it. [60] GISS has not clarified how many years of the temperature record will be affected by this correction. RonCram 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By correcting the error, 1998 and 2006 are no longer the warmest years on record in the U.S. Now the warmest year on record is 1934. You can compare the new record board with the older record board on ClimateAudit.org. [61] RonCram 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and good for McIntyre. But this page is not a list of people or errors that have been found in the various records. You may want to mention it on his bio though - if you really think its a major accomplishment. --Kim D. Petersen 23:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it a major discovery, but the instrumental record is not now fundamentally different than the public has heard. The 1930s are now the warmest decade of the 20th century in the U.S. RonCram 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron, and so what? I didn't even know that 1998 or 2006 were the warmest in the US before you mentioned it.

And i see nothing "major" about an error-correction. There have been lots of error-corrections on the GISS record. --Kim D. Petersen 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the 1990s were the warmest in history is a common refrain among the alarmists like Jim Hanson, who evidently was responsible for this error. This finding invalidates a great many peer-reviewed articles about climate change. It may take several years to discover all of the fallout that results from this one discovery by McIntyre. To pretend this is a minor discovery is ridiculous. RonCram 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Global is not the US. That 1998 and 2005 were the warmest on record is a global statement. (And according to McIntyre) They still are globally. --Kim D. Petersen 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My statements all indicate the change is in the U.S. However, McIntyre also says the temperature record outside the U.S. has a greater warming bias than the U.S. temperature record. It is only a matter of time before he finds those errors as well. RonCram 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Surfacestations.org and perre-reviewed publications

Two months (June 4th -August 4th) are not enough to get a paper reviewed by most peer-reviewed journals (e.g. I just got the refferee reports from a paper I submitted in May), let alone to: do research, write a paper, have it reviewed, and then published. Therefore, the claim that "so far, surfacestations.org has not produced any peer-reviewed papers" is a classical red herring. I will delete it. Pedro Silva, August 6th 2007

Its not a herring - its a notification of the current status of the research. As long as nothing has been published - its still just a another site making a claim. Any conclusions or comments on the site (or about the site) has to be with this in mind. --Kim D. Petersen 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not every research aims at producing a peer-reviewed paper: a catalogue of surface stations showing which of those comply with WMO standards and which do not is a valuable resource, whether it is or not peer-reviewed. And what can peer-review add to the photographic evidence of (non-)compliance? From what I have gathered from my (admittedly very sparse) browsing of the literature, papers citing "high-quality stations" often do not provide almost ANY data about those stations, and peer-review does not solve that problem.

Full disclosure of information is always noteworhty, even if it is not made in a peer-reviewed way. As an example from my area, the protein databank contains many structures which have not been the subject of a publication on the peer-reviewed literature, but those structures can be cited anyway. In Physics and Astronomy, many publications are put directly in arXiv.org (or whatever its name is :-( ) , and that does not make them less legitimate. And newspaper articles are not published in "scientific peer-reviewed journals", but are relied as legitimate sources in WP ;-) Pedro Silva, August 11th 2007

There's nothing wrong with going around taking photos of surface stations for a hobby. But that isn't what Watts is doing - he's claiming that his little project will destroy the science behind global warming. So when he's making that link, then it's appropriate to point out that it isn't true, and that, valuable as a catalogue of poor placed stations may be, the link that he asserts exists, does not.172.188.190.67 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The work of Watts and McIntyre is different

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)

It still seems a bit unclear, doesn't Anthony Watts deserve his own article since Stephen McIntyre has one? 72.47.71.160 04:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC) New User

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)

Bloat

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)

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)

You might wish to start but cutting back what you consider inessential, then William M. Connolley 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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) New User

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)

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) New User

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)

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) New User

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)

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)

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) New User

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) New User

Anthony Watts disputes the claim that the SHCN corrections weren't "readily available" on his 'norcalblogs.com/watts/' blog. Revolutionaryluddite 05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User

Peer Review

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) New User

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)

Not it isn't. Ron, please stop foaming at the mouth William M. Connolley 15:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Corrections to the Temperature Record

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) New User

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)

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)

Cut: Recent corrections to the U.S. temperature record

Cut this entire section - it is a blatant example of WP:OR/WP:SYN. And on top of that its based almost entirely on self published sources, and most of these blogs are unreliable sources. Finally even if this had some notability - it would fall under WP:Undue weight, as its a small correction to a regional temperature record - which has nil effect on the instrumental temperature record for the globe (and almost none on the US record - see the Hansen graph [62]):

===Recent corrections to the U.S. temperature record===

Anthony Watts and other bloggers noticed a large jump in NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperate record around the year 2000. [63] Stephen McIntyre investigated the data and the methods used to calculate it. He discovered "a programming error" and detailed its distribution alongside the problems in the USHCN temperature data on his website. [64] He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and it promply issued corrected data. The old figures can be found here [65] and the new figures here. [66] The new rankings for the 10 hottest years are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939 (1st to 10th).

James Hansen published an online letter reporting 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)." [67] Anthony Watts disputes Hansens statement that the corrections weren't "readily available". [68]

It's unclear what effect the error had on the global temperature record. Michael Asher at dailytech.com states that "The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor". [69] The RealClimate blog concurs that "In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible" and finds "no change in anything that could be considered climatically important". [70] Libertarian Warren Meyer at coyoteblog.com argues that "This is not the end but the beginning of the total reexamination that needs to occur of the USHCN and GISS data bases" and adds "we must demand that NOAA and GISS release their methodology and computer algorithms to the general public for detailed scrutiny". [71]}}

Now we can dissect all this here on the talk page - but really... This is a news-item, and a storm in a teapot. Some people here want to inflate the importance of this - but it fails basic notability. Its a small correction, that has (virtually) no influence on the temperature record. We are talking a thousands of a degree in the global record. --Kim D. Petersen 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I disagree. To present an article on Instrumental temperature record without any criticism of the record or explanation about the uncertainties is not encyclopedic. The fact the U.S. record has errors and unexplained adjustments is important because it is widely seen as the best temperature network in the world, having the most stations and the highest quality stations. Now, if the best network has these kinds of problems then the networks in the rest of the world also need much closer scrutiny. This means the metatdata needs to be collected, the quality assessed, some stations cut from the network, then the methods and source code need to be examined. Jim Hansen at GISS refused to turn over their methods and code and McIntyre still found an error. Who knows how many other errors are lurking hidden in the shadows? Phil Jones at CRU has refused to turn over his code, making it look like he has something to hide as well. No, this is an important discovery that causes everyone to question the temperature record on a global scale. Watts has already said that SurfaceStations.org is going global once they finish with the USHCN. McIntyre is not going to stop either, even though people have temporarily shut down his web site with a denial of service attack. RonCram 13:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron, once more: Please do not use the talk pages as your personal soapbox. Jones is irrelevant here. Methods and the distribution or non-distribution of these is irrelevant here. Network problems is handled in the previous section. None of this addresses even a single thing in the above.

The section is still based upon unreliable sources. Its still original research with an original synthesis where reliable sources are adresses. And finally (and most importantly) it doesn't address the extremely undue weight that this minor correction to a regional record is being given. Please stay on the point and drop the irrelevancies. --Kim D. Petersen 14:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I am simply addressing your arguments. You claim this is not relevant to the global temperature record. That is not true for all of the reasons I stated above. You are saying these corrections do not matter and the fact they have not explained the adjustments prior to 2000 do not matter. That is not at all true. Science is supposed to be open. We cannot have an article on the temperature record without explaining to readers all of the areas that create uncertainties. RonCram 14:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

GEEEZ Kim, you have reverted a bunch of edits, some of them you don't even know what you have reverted. Then you make all kinds of claims about why you reverted, OR, SYN, unreliable sources. What a bunch of hogwash. You have never pointed out a source you think is unreliable. Which source is that? Hansen? NASA? GEEEZ. When you force me to explain every little point, that is where the bloat comes in. It really gets annoying, but I will do it. Then we will discuss what it necessary to get it down to a minimum and we will end up with something very like what you just deleted. RonCram 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The cut is good, but more needs to be done. The lead to the current section A number of scientists and scientific organizations have expressed concern about is bad: it gives undue weight to this minority opinion; it needs to be prefixed with some form of "most people think the record is fine".

As to what was wrong with the cut section... I'm astonished that even Ron is defending it. It's unclear what effect the error had on the global temperature record. is simply wrong: its quite clear what effect it had. We have the numbers after all. The effect on even the US record is negligible. Why on earth [72] is considered reliable is beyond me; its a blog, and it can't understand the difference between global/hemispherical and the US. Don't use it William M. Connolley 15:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the assertion that the US network is the best is merely an assertion, and a false one at that (where did you get it from?); we Europeans run things better William M. Connolley 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than cutting the entire section, why not just remove the objectionable sources and statements? I agree that "It's unclear what effect the error had on the global temperature record" is factually inaccurate now, but it was true until the actual adjusted temperature graph became available. The quote from coyoteblog.com is not a statement of fact, but an arguement for greater transparency in the data. I'm fine with it being removed. 72.47.71.160 16:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User

RealClimate and James Hansen's statements also violate WP:SPS under the extremely strict application being advocated. As for WP:RS, it's my understanding that blogs are not automatically proscribed. I know I'm a n00b, but this doesn't make sense. Revolutionaryluddite 16:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User

Revolutionaryluddite, no both the Hansen and Realclimate references are reliable sources under the self published sources rule - please read these policies/guidelines through. Since they are experts writing about the subject that they are experts on. Hansen's is a primary source here - since its his research that we are speaking about, and thus SPS doesn't come into account. --Kim D. Petersen 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPS states that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." The gist of the policy appears to be trust, but verify. I don't see why Stephen McIntyre's recent public statements violate this rule. Please humor me if I am widely misunderstanding wikipedia consensus on this. Revolutionaryluddite 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of all because Stephen McIntyre is not an expert (by any means) on this subject. --Kim D. Petersen 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate states that "The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006." It notes that "More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC)." The correction certainly just not justify the conservative blogs parroting "global warming is disproven", but it is still notable.

Why should the justification be notable? Because some blogs have talked about it? Or because you feel that this correction is more significant than other corrections in the past? How does this correction btw. scale against other corrections? The only (and i do mean only) claim to even minor notability here, would be that it has been found by a non-expert. --Kim D. Petersen 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't notable, why would James Hansen release a public statement of the subject? I'm not that familiar with the GISS record, so I don't whether or not it experiances large corrections like this on a regular basis. Regardless, the fact that someone who didn't work for NASA, Stephen McIntyre, discovered the error after having to reverse engineer the raw data is notable in and of itself. Stephen McIntyre, indeed, is not a climate scientist and his opinion on the attribution of recent climate change is irrelevent. He does have a mathematics background, since he "holds a Bachelor of Science degree in pure mathematics from the University of Toronto" and his statements- when specifically discussing the data anyalsis and not global warming istself- shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Revolutionaryluddite 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

With notablity, you can't have it both ways. Either the fact that the longer term US averages is up in recent years by around a tenth of a degree ºC is a convincing argument for global warming (in which case the recent correction is important), or the US averages do not show the effects of global warming very well (then the recent correction wouldn't matter because they don't affect the global record). Revolutionaryluddite 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User

We don't want it both ways... In the context of the article, the US averages isn't notable, and haven't had any mention at all earlier. The section on the USHCN is already disproportionally featured (and the only US centric info here). The US is a minor part of the globe (~1.9%). --Kim D. Petersen 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr.Peterson, if the point you're making is that this article is based on global temperature records and that any adjustments made to the records in the US, Canada, UK, et cetera should not be included unless it affects the global mean, I somewhat agree. Maybe the bulk of the disputed section could be moved to Stephen McIntyre with a one-paragraph summary reamining on this page. Revolutionaryluddite 19:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrections to the European temperature record

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)

Does the EU have a concentrated temperature record like the United States has the NASA/GISS record? Revolutionaryluddite 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Uncertainties in the temperature record

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)

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)

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)

I see your point, and I'm more than happy to wait and read. Revolutionaryluddite 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I posted it. I provide sources for several simple facts.

• It is part of the scientific method to provide uncertainty calculations and to share data and NOAA and NASA have not
• It is difficult for researchers to find errors if data and methods are not shared but McIntyre found one anyway
• Uncertainty enters when stations are poor quality
• Uncertainty enters when the network is sparsely populated - one poorly sited stations can affect an entire grid

I only ask that people will read the entry with an open mind. RonCram 21:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over the nature of the error

Steve McIntyre explicitly refers to the correction as "Hansen’s Y2K error". [73] RealClimate emphatically denies this, saying that "Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug". [74] 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." [75] 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)

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)

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)

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)

GISS USA Average: Old vs. New

Details of GISS Correction (click show to open)

	8/1/07	8/10/07		Difference	
1880	-0.27	-0.26		0.01
1881	0.28	0.29		0.01
1882	0.08	0.07		-0.01
1883	-0.67	-0.68		-0.01
1884	-0.63	-0.63		0
1885	-0.52	-0.54		-0.02
1886	-0.29	-0.28		0.01
1887	-0.2	-0.17		0.03
1888	-0.33	-0.32		0.01
1889	0.28	0.28		0
1890	0.18	0.2		0.02
1891	-0.2	-0.2		0
1892	-0.5	-0.51		-0.01
1893	-0.73	-0.72		0.01
1894	0.16	0.17		0.01
1895	-0.65	-0.66		-0.01
1896	0.17	0.19		0.02
1897	-0.08	-0.08		0
1898	-0.14	-0.15		-0.01
1899	-0.41	-0.41		0
1900	0.57	0.57		0
1901	0.05	0.05		0
1902	-0.13	-0.13		0
1903	-0.64	-0.65		-0.01
1904	-0.48	-0.48		0
1905	-0.46	-0.47		-0.01
1906	-0.01	-0.02		-0.01
1907	-0.25	-0.24		0.01
1908	0.14	0.14		0
1909	-0.28	-0.27		0.01
1910	0.27	0.28		0.01
1911	0.15	0.17		0.02
1912	-0.87	-0.88		-0.01
1913	-0.04	-0.03		0.01
1914	0.08	0.09		0.01
1915	-0.13	-0.15		-0.02
1916	-0.52	-0.5		0.02
1917	-1.06	-1.06		0
1918	0.06	0.06		0
1919	-0.11	-0.1		0.01
1920	-0.41	-0.41		0
1921	1.12	1.15		0.03
1922	0.17	0.18		0.01
1923	-0.07	-0.07		0
1924	-0.73	-0.74		-0.01
1925	0.36	0.36		0
1926	0.04	0.04		0
1927	0.14	0.15		0.01
1928	0.08	0.07		-0.01
1929	-0.57	-0.58		-0.01
1930	0.16	0.16		0
1931	1.08	1.08		0
1932	0	0		0
1933	0.66	0.68		0.02
1934	1.23	1.25		0.02
1935	0.03	0.04		0.01
1936	0.18	0.21		0.03
1937	-0.13	-0.13		0
1938	0.85	0.86		0.01
1939	0.84	0.85		0.01
1940	0.03	0.03		0
1941	0.62	0.61		-0.01
1942	0.09	0.09		0
1943	0.16	0.17		0.01
1944	0.14	0.14		0
1945	-0.03	-0.03		0
1946	0.7	0.72		0.02
1947	0.09	0.1		0.01
1948	-0.08	-0.08		0
1949	0.2	0.2		0
1950	-0.3	-0.28		0.02
1951	-0.42	-0.42		0
1952	0.32	0.32		0
1953	0.91	0.9		-0.01
1954	0.82	0.85		0.03
1955	-0.05	-0.03		0.02
1956	0.27	0.29		0.02
1957	0.14	0.14		0
1958	0.07	0.06		-0.01
1959	0.17	0.17		0
1960	-0.23	-0.24		-0.01
1961	0	-0.02		-0.02
1962	-0.02	-0.02		0
1963	0.19	0.19		0
1964	-0.08	-0.07		0.01
1965	-0.12	-0.11		0.01
1966	-0.24	-0.24		0
1967	-0.1	-0.1		0
1968	-0.28	-0.28		0
1969	-0.23	-0.23		0
1970	-0.12	-0.11		0.01
1971	-0.1	-0.1		0
1972	-0.36	-0.35		0.01
1973	0.25	0.24		-0.01
1974	0.16	0.15		-0.01
1975	-0.19	-0.2		-0.01
1976	-0.23	-0.25		-0.02
1977	0.37	0.37		0
1978	-0.51	-0.52		-0.01
1979	-0.58	-0.6		-0.02
1980	0.22	0.22		0
1981	0.65	0.64		-0.01
1982	-0.36	-0.36		0
1983	0	-0.01		-0.01
1984	0.02	0		-0.02
1985	-0.42	-0.42		0
1986	0.73	0.73		0
1987	0.85	0.83		-0.02
1988	0.34	0.32		-0.02
1989	-0.18	-0.19		-0.01
1990	0.88	0.87		-0.01
1991	0.7	0.69		-0.01
1992	0.31	0.3		-0.01
1993	-0.43	-0.44		-0.01
1994	0.47	0.46		-0.01
1995	0.35	0.34		-0.01
1996	-0.17	-0.17		0
1997	0.05	0.03		-0.02
1998	1.24	1.23		-0.01
1999	0.94	0.93		-0.01
2000	0.65	0.52		-0.13
2001	0.9	0.76		-0.14
2002	0.68	0.53		-0.15
2003	0.65	0.5		-0.15
2004	0.6	0.44		-0.16
2005	0.85	0.69		-0.16
2006	1.23	1.13		-0.1

Old data was taken from MSN search engine cache. Dragons flight 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

'B' Class

What does the labeling of this article as 'B' class mean? Revolutionaryluddite 21:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment: "... [U]sually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems..."

"B" is a fairly typical rating for articles that have substantial content but are either not yet comprehensive or have other evident deficiencies. There are three ranks above "B": "A", "GA" (good article) and "FA" (featured article). Dragons flight 21:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Revolutionaryluddite 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut: Uncertainties in the temperature record

The section cut was this:

One key component of the scientific method is to discuss and quantify uncertainties. [76] 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.“ [77] 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. [78] He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and it promply issued corrected data. The old figures can be found here [79] and the new figures here. [80] 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. [81] [82][83] [84] 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. [85]

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. [86]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Discussion of Pielke's call to document global weather stations

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. [87]

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 [88] 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 [89] 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)

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)

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)

Thanks Ron - I prefer that wording. It should still be updated as progress is made. Hal peridol 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Pielke's photos of weather stations outside the U.S.

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. [90]

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)

It probably causes a warm bias, but doubtfully a warming bias. Do you understand the difference? Raymond Arritt 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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" [91] 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)

Watts

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)

http://www.tvweather.com/weathercast/a_watts.htm Dragons flight 14:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AMS seal of approval for Certified Broadcast Meteorologist[92], 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)

Watts's job title is Chief Meteorologist. He now works for a radio station. [93] RonCram 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But does he have a degree in Meteorology? If so - which? And from where? --Kim D. Petersen 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Dragons flight 15:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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." [94] (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)

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)

I made the change because he is working in radio now, not television. I agree with Dragons flight that this is not an important issue, but rather than be misleading to anyone I will make the change to "broadcast meteorologist." He has been cerified by the AMS as broadcast meteorologist so that should not be a problem for anyone. RonCram 16:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Corrections to the Temperature Record

Why was all the information about Stephen McIntyre's recent discovery and the correction to the GISS record removed? Again, if it wasn't notable, why would James Hansen release a public statement on the subject? Revolutionaryluddite 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it was due to someone being slightly over-zealous due to it being misrepresented in so many places, most of which where even mentioning it was not appropriate (e.g., global warming). This is probably the only article where it is relevant. Furthermore, here it can be placed in the proper context - explaining how it is, in fact, much ado about nothing. The fact that there was "much ado" is why James Hansen released the public statement. I was not the one who removed it, so this is merely my guess. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I added:

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. [95] He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and it promply issued corrected data. [96] The adjustment caused the average temperatures for the continental United States to be reduced ~0.15°C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03 °C. The corrected data show the 10 hottest years in the United States to be 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939 (1st to 10th). The effect on global averages was ~0.001°C. [97]

Revolutionaryluddite 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-removed it. It doesn't merit a mention. To answer your question: no, not everything that JH comments on is worth adding to this article William M. Connolley 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a point. I retract my comment about being "over-zealous". My main point in my previous comment was that this was talked about in so many inappropriate places, and at least this place is more appropriate (which doesn't necessarily mean it is appropriate). Unfortunately, I do believe this is going to get a lot of play in the conservative media, so it might be nice to have an article/sub-article address it somewhere in an effort to clear up any misunderstandings that will no doubt arise. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the infromation is now at Stephen_McIntyre#Contributions_to_the_temperature_record with appropriate context. I agree that, given that the article is mainly about the global record, it should not be given undue weight. Still, I don't see how even two or three sentences can be called 'irrelevent' or 'non-notable' given that article already has a specific section called 'Uncertainties in the temperature record'. It's not like the discovery and correction of ~0.15°C changes in the six-year US temperature record is a regular occurance. Revolutionaryluddite 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that I am completely alone in my position, I fine with the article as is. Revolutionaryluddite 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections to setting up a bot archive for this talk page? Revolutionaryluddite 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not from me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Zoomwsu 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done; the archive will suck up everything over 100 days old. Revolutionaryluddite 02:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, 30 days may be better. Brusegadi 03:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think that it counts from the oldest message on the thread. I am not sure <><>... Brusegadi 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I meant newest, not oldest. I need a recess.... Brusegadi 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that got rid of 184 KB in a hurry. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the archive box link to this page. Revolutionaryluddite 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Temperature Record Uncertainty

I added February 2007 research [98] regarding temperature record uncertainty. I also revised the statement regarding error distribution to more accurately reflect the statements contained in the cited research. The new paragraph reads:

Many unresolved issues remain with regard to the accuracy of the surface temperature record, including nighttime minimum temperature warming bias, poor instrumentation siting, the influence surface air water vapor content, the quantification of uncertainties in surface temperature data homogenization, and the influence of land-use/land-cover change. Despite these problems, scientists have attempted to use statistical methods to quantify temperature record uncertainty. Such methods indicate that global average temperature uncertainty (95% range) is estimated to be ~0.05°C since 1950 and as much as ~0.15°C in the earliest portions of the instrumental record. Spatial distribution of error is dominated by the variation in observation density and frequency. Early records also have a substantial uncertainty driven by systematic concerns over the accuracy of sea surface temperature measurements. 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 such as the tropics, northern Asia and the former Soviet Union. This results in less confidence in the robustness of climate trends in these areas. If a sparsely populated grid has a poor quality station, the impact on global temperature would be greater than if it occurred in a grid with many weather stations.

Zoomwsu 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not necessary to copy here everything you write. I reverted: you text gives vastly undue weight to one piece of unpublished research (it would be undue weight even if it were published) William M. Connolley 09:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the Pielke et al paper gives a very nice introduction to the subject of surface monitoring uncertainty. You need to establish a consensus that it is undue weight before it is removed. One man's opinion that it is undue weight should not be enough to overrule the inclusion of peer-reviewed research (by 14 authors, no less!), "published" or not. Zoomwsu 14:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Climate Articles: Fastest Reverts in the West! Does the paper not give a good into to uncertainty? Is it not peer-reviewed? Did not 14 scientists put their name on it? Come on you guys are raising the bar way too high! Zoomwsu 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pielke's views are presented currently beyond what weight accords it. And an unpublished paper shouldn't be presented here at all, wait until its published, and reactions have had time to settle. --Kim D. Petersen 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Pielke's views that are represented, it's also the 13 other authors who also put their names on this paper. Moreover, it would make sense that Pielke is prominent on this page, because of his intense focus on uncertainty in climate measurements. You wouldn't complain about undue weight in favor of Einstein on the relativity page. Also, on this publishing thing--not exactly sure what's implied. Does research need to be in Nature before it can even be included? I thought peer-reviewed scientific research was enough. Your idea of "settling time" is also quite silly (where's the WP policy that addresses this?)--the article has been out since February!

May I also remind you of these Wikipedia policies, which you and WMC are in violation of: "Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution" and "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to."

Please respect my contribution and establish a consensus that it should not be included before reverting it out. Zoomwsu 15:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out that the Pielke reference is only for that first sentence. (I had started writing about portions I liked and then realized that those portions still exist.) Although I do not feel that the WP:WEIGHT argument applies necessarily to authors as it does to arguments (there's no way you can give all authors their "appropriate" weight), I do agree that waiting until it has been published makes sense. (Note: there might still be a weight problem if one or more portions of that view point is not shared by most people, but I currently have no reason to believe so, and I see no references challenging it.) Also, 14 authors is not the same thing as peer reviewed. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. I did not claim that it was. The fact that it is peer-reviewed is a seperate point from the fact that the paper is peer-reviewed. Also, I'd like some more explanation of the criteria for including research on this page. I didn't know Nature had to publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper before it could be included. Zoomwsu 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When you said unpublished (or rather, "'published' or not"), I took it to mean that it hadn't gone through peer review, either. Who peer-reviewed it, and do you see a problem with waiting until it has been published? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My only concerns with waiting for publication are (a) that it may be forgotten by then--I'm not known for my memory with these sorts of things and (b) my suspicion that it is a tactic to suppress content that may be unpleasant to many here (this technique has been used before for AGW-challenging material, but I have not seen it used on the flip side). In principle, I have no major issue with delay, so long as the reasons are compelling and clear. Zoomwsu 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Zoomwsu - you should assume good faith. If the paper is significant, then it will be included here, according to weight. As for your suspicion - you have just added a survey to Scientific opinion on climate change that is a) not published and b) non-AGW challenging material (the opposite actually (imho)). And still people won't include it because its not published. But one comment here: we should never just include things because a) we are prone to "forget" it b) just because it sounds interesting or c) because it promotes a specific point of view... --Kim D. Petersen 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

On the "published or not" issue...I guess I'm unclear on what "published" actually means. As far as I'm concerned, offering it for public consumption is publishing, but I suspect others have a different understanding. Do you mind clarifying so we're on the same page? Zoomwsu 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is the standard "waiting period"? How long do we have to wait to include peer-reviewed scientific research? Zoomwsu 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the waiting period, I think that as long as it's not controversial (and this doesn't seem controversial to me), the waiting period would only be until it has been published. For more controversial material that somehow still has weight, my personal suggestion would be to wait long enough to hear from more mainstream opinions as to what might be wrong with the research. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was presented beyond adequate weight because the Pielke paper addresses the CCSP report which comes to a different conclusion. That there are still uncertainties is not contested - that the uncertainties pointed out in the Pielke paper are significant is something that both can and will be contested, when/if the paper passes peer-review and is published. Quoting Pielke's blog comment about this paper (in Nov '06) [99]:

The type of analyses that are presented in our paper should have been included in the CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences“. Unfortunately, as I discuss in my Public Comment on CCSP Report, the CCSP Report failed to provide the appropriate beadth of perspectives that the policymakers need. That CCSP Report, therefore, is an advocacy document which promotes the narrower perspective of its authors on the subject of reconciling surface and tropospheric temperature trends. The JGR paper that we have completed should, therefore, be considered as adding information to be communicated to policymakers on the robustness of the multi-decadal surface temperature trends.

From my reading of the above, Pielke is aware of the controversy it will present - and very much aware that this may be a minority viewpoint. --Kim D. Petersen 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So, assuming good faith from Zoomwsu, who seems to merely want a good introduction, is there a good introduction that you think could be culled from the CCSP Report for this section? (I'm speaking here as someone who is interested in the subject but somewhat out of my league on the specifics being discussed here.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While the intro is a significant part of it, I also think Pielke et al's paper should be included because its subject is directly relevant to the subject of this article. I still disagree that we need to wait. Zoomwsu 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably a lot of published articles meet that criteria as well, however. (More than we have room to include in this article, that is.) As for whether this article has been published yet or not, it has been accepted to J. Geophys. Res., but it is not yet published. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Submitted is not accepted - or peer-reviewed. --Kim D. Petersen 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to that - we have no context before its published. We do not know if it will be published with corrections, commentaries etc. We also do not know if it actually påssed peer-review (this should not be seen as a negative comment on the authors - most scientists get papers rejected from time to time). --Kim D. Petersen 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, your most recent reversion cites undue weight. I thought we've already addressed that issue. Please state your unaddressed objections to the content regarding undue weight concerns. Zoomwsu 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Submitted is not accepted - or peer-reviewed." However, accepted is accepted, and in this case, peer-reviewed. However it is not yet published, which was my primary point. Here is why I say it was accepted and not just submitted:

R-321 Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press.

vs. another ref of his:

R-334 Brown, F., J. Annan, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2007: Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1? Eos, submitted.

Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are probably correct then that its been accepted - and peer-reviewed. We still miss the context, with regards to comments. And we still have the larger aspect of weight. --Kim D. Petersen 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (Zoomwsu, the weight argument that Kim gave was that in that article, Pielke is basically admitting that it is not the mainstream view. I'm sure Kim will correct me if I'm misstating his position on that.) Kim, since you seem to be more familiar with the issue, could you draft an introductory sentence based on the CCSP Report? It would be interesting to see how that would differ from what was culled from the Pielke article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The significant issues are already covered - the CCSP basically concludes that the remaining uncertainty is minor, mostly cancels each other out, or are removed during data-processing by intercomparison of station data and other bias removal processes. The major issue left is in the tropical satellite data - something which is covered in Satellite temperature measurements. --Kim D. Petersen 19:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) So I take it you're not going to offer a new introduction based on the CCSP? If not, then I think it's pretty clear we should go with the one I drafted, which includes content from both Pielke et al's paper and the CCSP Report. Moreover, it's very important for balance that we include the Peilke et al paper, considering it addresses gaps in the CCSP Report. In order to avoid 3RR, does someone mind re-inserting the contribution I made, since Kim's points have been addressed? Zoomwsu 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentence appears to disagree with the majority of significant sources:

Many unresolved issues remain with regard to the accuracy of the surface temperature record, including nighttime minimum temperature warming bias, poor instrumentation siting, the influence surface air water vapor content, the quantification of uncertainties in surface temperature data homogenization, and the influence of land-use/land-cover change.

That just doesn't agree with what I'm now reading in the CCSP report. I will see if I can come up with some sort of introductory sentence though, if you still think it needs one. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do. The old revision jumps right into a statistical estimate of uncertainty. The intro to the section should overview all points of remaining uncertainty. I stress that this intro should be as inclusive as possible (i.e. citing all available research-based claims on remaining uncertainty). Zoomwsu 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the paper is unpublished, and using it for the lead is undue weight. When and if its published it will still be undue weight. Comparisons with Einstein are absurd William M. Connolley 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then would you like to draft a lead that overviews all remaining uncertainty relative to the instrumental/surface record? Also, you don't actually reason why you think my analogy is absurd, leading me to believe you're not responding in good faith. It's apparent that Pielke has made uncertainty a focal point of his research, and as has been pointed out previously, undue weight has to do with the substance of arguments and balancing different views, not necessarily the source of those views. If your argument were applied to the relativity article, Einstein's prominence would be undue weight. Zoomwsu 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about creating an introductory sentence based off the CCSP report, not the new Pielke article. And I didn't compare anyone to Einstein. ;) Here's what I have so far:

Previous uncertainties in both the land surface record and the satellite record have led to discrepancies between the two. However, significant progress has resolved many of those discrepancies. Currently, the uncertainty in annual measurements...

Zoomwsu, does that meet your criteria for an introductory sentence? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I think we need to cite the variety of specific points of uncertainty. Moreover, your new intro doesn't find a way to include the Pielke content, which I think we should find a way to include. Zoomwsu 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To build on my point, I also think that my original paragraph did a fine job of including the Pielke content and then addressing how scientists have attempted to quantify these uncertainties. It seems to flow really well in that regard (outline uncertainties, show how scientists have quantified those uncertainties, details about uncertainty quantification). Is my stance clear or should I explain further? Zoomwsu 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When I have time, I'll locate those specific points of uncertainty in the CCSP report. As for your other point, my new intro deliberately didn't include the Pielke content as his perspective is a minority view (by his own admission) and therefore wouldn't belong in an introduction. This will take some work, and I'm not inclined to work on it if you don't indicate that it would meet your objections.

Once the Pielke article is published, if we do decide to put it in the article it should be placed later as it follows from the CCSP report and not vice-versa. (I.e., it is a critique of the CCSP report.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe make the structure something like this: Scientists have attempted to quantify uncertainties in the record...blah blah. Others have criticized these efforts, saying there remains a number of uncertainties yet to be accurately quantified...blah blah. More details about quantification...blah blah. Zoomwsu 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait until the report is finally published. Will KDP and WMC agree that this is reasonable, or are they still going to whine about undue weight? Zoomwsu 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that even following publication of this paper, care should be taken to avoid concerns with undue weight. There are literally thousands of published papers concerning the temperature record that discuss uncertainties in it. A single paper should be cited by other published papers or have accrued a significant degree of recognition before much weight is put on it. Hal peridol 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite the general consensus of waiting to include this articles content until it is published, I still recommend we revise the section per my previous recommendation for structure (Revised slightly in light of the Pielke et al article's exclusion): points of uncertainty, attempts to quantify uncertainty, gaps in those attempts, other details. Zoomwsu 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the article should be published and reviewed-- not necessarily subject to a strict peer review process, but undergoing anaylsis in some way-- first. Revolutionaryluddite 06:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)