archiving |
We don't delete encyclopaedic content in order to manage talk page discussion. Archiving section that's hopelessly off topic |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
::::How do I wrongly presume such a procedure was used? I am describing their method as described in my nasa link (next topic). [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
::::How do I wrongly presume such a procedure was used? I am describing their method as described in my nasa link (next topic). [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Okay this is crap - some admin reverted me == |
|||
The section I removed was: |
|||
"However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view." |
|||
The view was that, "much of the temperature increase seen in land based thermometers could be due to an increase in urbanisation and the siting of measurement stations in urban areas." |
|||
I provided a [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011105/ link], which clearly states: |
|||
"Hansen and Imhoff are making a special effort to minimize any distortion of the record caused by urban heat-island effects as they research global warming. It is recognized that recorded temperatures at many weather stations are warmer than they should be because of human developments around the station. Hansen and Imhoff used satellite images of nighttime lights to identify stations where urbanization was most likely to contaminate the weather records." |
|||
"We find larger warming at urban stations on average," said Hansen, "so we use the rural stations to adjust the urban records, thus obtaining a better measure of the true climate change." |
|||
"Evidence of a slight, local human influence is found even in small towns and it is probably '''impossible to totally eliminate in the global analyses'''." |
|||
Obviously if nobody thought distortion was occurring then there wouldn't be an attempt to correct for it. Thus, I can see no reason to keep the sentence that I removed - a questionable sentence at best. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:You are assuming that the slight effect is important on the global scale - which is wrong. It affect the error envelope - not the reconstruction. And more to the point, there is a reference that states it - (see: [[WP:V]] verifiability not truth), your comment above is [[WP:OR|original research]]. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 23:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I didn't assume any such thing - I don't appreciate such a [[straw man]]. Nobody seriously thinks that the UHI affects global temperatures (the fact that such a straw man is in this article is evidence of its bias). The argument is that UHI have affected ''measurement'' - not global climate. This view is supported by my link, which disproves the absurd statement in the article - the sentence that you and your friend are so keen on including is an obvious NPOV violation. Shooting for another National Review article? [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::You may want to read [[WP:CIVIL]] and adhere to it, that way you will have more rapport. The link above does not support that UHI could be a significant factor scewing the global record. Sorry. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::You can go read [[WP:CIVIL]] - you obviously didn't read [[straw man]] since you are continuing to use it. And again, my link '''proves''' the statement that I deleted was false. I suggest you reread my initial statement so you can understand it better and quit accusing me of saying things that I have not said. I find it fascinating that you and Connoly have appeared in a few news outlets as examples of wikipedia's GW bias - has this not affected your behavior or provided cause for introspection?[[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No. I'm sorry your link does ''not'' "prove" such a thing. Lets try it slow. The statement starts with "However <u>these views</u>..." now these is here referring to the preceeding text, which says "...<u>much</u> of the temperature increase ..." as well as "no known <u>scientific peer-reviewed papers</u>", so does your link show that that "much" is caused by UHI? ''No.'' - lets also ask the question: Is your link a p.r. paper? ''No''.. So even had the answer to the former been Yes - the latter would've blown your "proof". Your [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] are not making it more correct. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<outdent> Nice bait and switch - no we aren't dealing with the previous sentence which I did not modify. We are talking about the ridiculous sentence which my source completely disproved. Apparently this sentence has come under scrutiny before, and quite rightly, and the view was that if it was disproven then it should be removed. The sentence is POV, false and has no place in this article. Oh, and you'd better check yourself, I didn't make any "personal attacks" - just observations of verifiable fact. If you feel some guilt, for some reason, and therefore think that was an attack then that is entirely upon your conscience. No, not an attack at all, in fact I '''admire''' the dedication you and Connoley have to the subject and I wonder how many people you've gotten rightfully banned from the subject since they don't believe the "truth" - after all, the ends justify the means right? [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 07:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Strangely enough you noticed in your first comment that "these views" was referring to the previous sentence (you quote both - and describe it), so your statement "no we aren't dealing with the previous sentence" is incorrect, and you are contradicting yourself. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::And as I said - that was a nice bait and switch on your part. You are obviously quite good at this. And, now that I've complemented you, let's get back to the subject at hand - the sentence is biased, the consensus was to remove it if it was proven false, I proved it false, removed it, and now you wish to discuss unrelated information that you can dissect (Didn't read [[straw man]] yet did you?). It is obviously designed to promote AGW and portray deniers/realists as kooks by saying they are basing their views on popular literature, when, in fact, the study I provided from [[NASA]] flat out says that the UHI affects measurements and is impossible to eliminate from global analyses. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 15:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, you are now going circular. Your link doesn't "prove" anything - because it doesn't say that much of the TI could be attributed to UHI.? --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 16:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::The only reason this is circular is because you refuse to accept any facts that don't fit with your hypothesis. You have apparently flat out refused to read my initial post which perfectly lays out the facts of UHI distortion of the temperature record. Honestly, considering your record, I have no idea how you've avoided a topic ban on this subject - well, that's not true, I perfectly understand the reason - and that's the horrific culture of this place called wikipedia. I find it amusing that when I correct scientific articles that aren't left-wing rallying points that they stay corrected - but even minor corrections to these article are talked/reverted to death by certain people. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Errm, I doubt this is going anywhere but I suppose I can make some effort to explain. UHI contamination - +ve and -ve -is present in various stations. Mostly, it gets taken out, so doesn't make a substatantial impact on the global T record. Various factors make this obvious - that the rural and total records; or the land and sea records; are all similar. If you're interested in the numbers, the article provides them and links to sources. No, we aren't going to change it just because you can't be bothered to read it [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Irrelevant and diversionary. The sentence is about the views of anti-AGW advocates and makes several false claims - one being that the concept of UHI affecting temperature measurements is present only in "popular literature" and that there are no peer-reviewed research papers that verify that this is the case. My source proves both ridiculous assertions wrong. Obviously this has come up before, from editors besides myself over the years, and yet you and Petersen, every year it comes up, refuse to see that this is both POV pushing and inaccurate. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I put up the NPOV tag due to the obvious issues of the section and since you and Petersen seem content to merely revert ad nauseum without backing up your actions. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 00:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, you do not seem to have convinced anyone, i'm sorry but tagging isn't there to enforce your will.. If you feel that too few people have discussed this, and that therefore a consensus is spurious - then do an RfC. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 00:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Enforce my will? I'm sorry, but you and Connoley have reverted this sentence for '''years''' when other people have rightfully tried to remove it. You two obviously have your mind made up and won't even address my argument - you address the straw men just fine though. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: That's two different miss-spellings of my name in a few minutes. That won't convince me that you are careful. If you find it difficult, I suggest "WMC" as the obvious abbreviation. Meanwhile: no-one dounts that UHI artefacts are present to some minor degree in the record, in that it wouldn't be binary-identical without. What you need to find is a source for your contention that the effects are major, or a serious paper asserting this. As KDP says, having failed to get the edit in, you can't simply expect to tag the page [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
It looks like this article's recent edit issues have fallen into the global warming gravity well of debate, of which there is no escape due to its content. Since this is merely a C class article (since it is lacking enough references for B class), and apparently not getting to GA status anytime soon, I suggest that the whole section be deleted for the time being in order to make peace. The other option is just to keep the deleted line deleted, which was originally done. There appear to be ownership issues with the global warming section which will make the debate continue for a long, long time, and make the article a relative orphan within the met project. Make wikilove, not wikiwar. These articles are everyone's to edit and modify. Otherwise, improve the article to GA status and leave the debatable content out so it can improved enough to pass. These debates just keep people from improving articles, and don't act to improve their content, despite best intentions. [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm reporting the recent behavior on this article's page, its talk page, and for years on the global warming page to an administrator. This behavior appears contrary to wikipedia standards and practices. Who reverts comments out of talk pages? [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The comment in question was a condescending violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:TPG]]. I'll stand by the removal. If [[User:Thegoodlocust]] thinks there is actually anything of substance in his comment, he is heartily invited to re-add it in a form at least marginally befitting for a grown-up discussion. The Admin. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::In that case, we need to take ALL of the non-civil comments out of this thread. It's not just one person, hence my comment and report to an admin. [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::: It would appear that you too are unable to spell my name [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Juliancolton&diff=prev&oldid=297009485]. Like I say, if its too hard for you, use "WMC". I've raised Tgl's behaviour with Black Kite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&diff=prev&oldid=297005456]. I note Tgd's lack of interest in Tgl's incivility [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::: And your comment is my point concerning multiple sources of incivility within this thread. Why be uncivil over a typo? How does that help solve disputes? As an admin, you should know better. [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 20:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*According to [[WP:NPA]], blatantly uncivil comments may be removed. Still, edit warring over it is unacceptable, both here and at the article itself. William, as an administrator I trust you to work out a solution in a civil and professional manner, and to advise others to do the same; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_heat_island&diff=294670556&oldid=294613648 rollbacking] good-faith contributions is inappropriate.<p> True, the article itself does appear to need significant work, but as mentioned above, edit warring is more harmful than it is productive. I'll keep an eye on this page, as temporary full-protection might be justified in the case of further disruption. –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 19:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmm? Ok - what exactly do you propose here? As you say it was a good faith contribution (actually deletion of sourced content), which ''was'' attempted to be resolved here, despite increasingly uncivil comments. So are you going to attempt to mediate? Which would be appreciated?! --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Attempting to return to the substance: ''Since this is merely a C class article (since it is lacking enough references for B class), and apparently not getting to GA status anytime soon, I suggest that the whole section be deleted for the time being in order to make peace.'' - I don't understand the logic of this suggestion. I care nothing for the C / B / FA class stuff, BTW, though you are welcome to. I assume the contentious material is represented by this revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_heat_island&diff=294613648&oldid=293327322]. You are suggesting deleting the entirety of the ''Relation to global warming'' section? That sounds very odd. As you'll see from the edit history, that is the most interesting part of the article [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
You can also read [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf] if you want to [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:What's amazing is that this lengthening thread started over one deleted line, and it blew up into this. Notice that I had two options presented. I see you noticed the first. Personally, I wish more people contributed to these articles and improved their quality, and the meteorology, now-dead climate, and tropical cyclone projects have fallen victim to sniping over the years. This is why I chimed in here, because I began to see the same issue happen on this page, just because people unintentionally didn't spell your name right. I also don't think pointing out a typo completely blows up an individual's argument, which appeared to be doing above, hence my comment about incivility. Some have pointed out in the past that mere accusations of incivility are uncivil. I put forward the first suggestion to help diffuse the issue. The second option presented is a simpler fix, and could have nipped this in the bud. If it were left deleted, this whole section would not exist on this talk page. [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 22:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:33, 17 June 2009
Environment C‑class | ||||||||||
|
Weather C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
Keenan alleges fraud by Wang on UHI relied on by IPCC
Added:
Douglas J. Keenan has “formally alleged that Wei-Chyung Wang committed fraud in some of his research,including research cited by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007) on “urban heat islands” (a critical issue).”[1]
This is a formal published allegation. Some web sites with further information:
- Douglas Keenan's remarks on his exposé, “The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang”. Informath.org
- Douglas Keenan, InformathAllegations of fraud at Albany - the Wang case scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com
- Climate Science Fraud at Albany University? WattsUpWithThat.com DLH (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reverting this. E&E is not a reliable source for scientific studies (its a non-peer reviewed social science journal). Given that the researcher's University officially cleared him of any wrongdoing, there is a pretty high bar to overcome before the evidence of any fraud (or willful coverup by his University) is valid and merits an inclusion here. Furthermore, Jones et al is hardly the only study out there on UHI...Zeke Hausfather (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Read something this a while ago but can't remember the details (ha ha, this I suppose). If you are correct that the researcher has been cleared, then either the original addition was deliberately partial with the truth or just doesn't know the issue well; neither speaks well for inclusion. I don't know whether this has any substance or merits inclusion William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI) considers its articles in Energy and Environment as peer reviewed. What evidence that it is not "peer reviewed"? It lists a large number of reviewers. DLH (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- It claims to be peer reviewed, but the process has been severely criticized. As KDP (IIRC) found out, Scopus lists it as a trade journal, and ISI does not index it at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking for some peer-reviewed literature about urban heat island effect and global temperatures? As far as I know this story primarily involves Chinese temperature records. In this case, I recommend you the following one:
P. D. Jones, D. H. Lister, Q. Li: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2008. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml
From the abstract: "Global surface temperature trends, based on land and marine data, show warming of about 0.8°C over the last 100 years. This rate of warming is sometimes questioned because of the existence of well-known Urban Heat Islands (UHIs). [...] In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C/decade over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period."
So in the case of China the amount of warming caused by urban heat islands over the period between 1951-2004 is 0.53 deg.C according to the paper above, and if I try to extrapolate the linear trend until this year, I will get 0.59 deg.C in 59 years. Compared to the observed surface warming in the last 150 years, it is lightyears away from being insignificant (even if it's only a local effect, but I think not).
To anyone who is interested in UHIs personally: go to GISTEMP surface station data browse page ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ ) and search for some urban stations, and then compare their records with neighbouring rural stations. You will have interesting results... I recommend this one first:
NY Central Park http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725030010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 West Point http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725030050&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.178.41 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to throw it out there
The "adjustment" that NASA did for the urban heat island effect [1] was done by adjusting urban temperatures by using rural stations. The obvious problem with that method is that people tend to settle in coastal areas or next to water (look at the night sky map they used) and coastal areas tend to be cooler than inland areas. So if they are adjusting urban areas (more likely to be close to water) based on data from rural (more likely to be inland) areas, then their adjustments would show higher temperatures.
Anyone with access to full text research databases know if anyone has done a study on this or adjusted for this rather obvious problem? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, first any adjustments are not done is such a naive way, but typically using equivalent stations or gridded averages. But, more importantly, you compare temperature changes, not absolute temperatures. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Being equivalent isn't the same as being equal. Last time I checked they didn't even try to correct for something as obvious as the UHI until nearly the year 2000. Also, comparing temperature changes in these different areas wouldn't make much sense - obviously the changes would be greater in inland areas due to less wind and more heat absorption (due to less albedo). TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you should either check more carefully or more often then. And you don't seem to get the gist of my comment. Yes, the procedure you wrongly presume has been used would not be a good one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- How do I wrongly presume such a procedure was used? I am describing their method as described in my nasa link (next topic). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- ^ The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang, Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7+8, 2007 pp 985-995