Talk:Argo (oceanography)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geography (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

More references needed[edit]

I am sure that Argo has had considerable coverage in the press. This is to request that references to such coverage be added to the article. Or perhaps there are overview or review publications of a general nature that might be appropriate. Bdushaw 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it has received considerable coverage especially when the target array was achieved. I have written some review articles showing how Argo can be used, but am nervous about adding such references because of the likelihood of conflict of interest arising. Hjfreeland (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in "Data Results" section[edit]

A major part of the "Data Results" section appears to be in error, based on a misreading of reference [10]. (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/ et seq.) While that article, containing a discussion with Willis, was published in Nov 2008, the "published correction" refers to Willis, J. K., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, and J. Gilson (2007), Correction to “Recent cooling of the upper ocean”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L16601, doi:10.1029/2007GL030323 , which was published in Aug 2007.

The section contains a statement that many subsequent publications have not recognized the correction. The denigration of reference [11] as being ignorant of the published correction, appears to be incorrect. Reference [3], a Nature item published at the time the correction was submitted, contains the following: "When the problem data are excluded from the analysis, the cooling trend drops below the level of statistical significance." Hence the statement in [11], viz. '"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.' is fully consistent with the correction. The comment in the footnote for [12] is gratuitous; naturally an article published in 2006 will be ignorant of a correction discovered in 2007. Reference [14] specifically mentions the correction in its introduction, with a citation of the GRL2007 correction, so can hardly be claimed to be based on the original (2006) results. In addition, its data citation is to a Willis 2008 publication. The article in reference [13] uses reference [14] as its source, so also should not be claimed to be unaware of the correction.

The statement "In an article from November 5, 2008, Josh Willis states that the world ocean actually has been warming since 2003 after removing Argo measurement errors from the data and adjusting the measured temperatures with a computer model his team developed" is incorrect. As discussed above, reference [3] indicates no statistical trend over the ARGO period, and the graph on page 4 of reference[10] shows OHC over the ARGO era to be roughly flat. --LijeBailey (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Contested edits in the lead[edit]

Hi Hjfreeland,

Let's review: You reverted my first edit with a somewhat rude edit summary.

You described this revert as correcting an error, but it does not. The text which this edit "corrects" does not say that all profiling floats are Argo floats but rather that the Argo array is made up of Argo floats. Furthermore, it now reads like lawyer-speak.

You have given no justification for the repeated edit summary requests

[1]

[2] (this edit removes cited material without justification)

[3]

to refrain from editing without private consultation. If there's a reason this can't be discussed here on the talk page of the article, or on one of our user talk pages, please let me know. If on the other hand, the intent is simply to intimidate, as is suggested by this edit summary which includes the email address but no request for communication, well, that is not how Wikepedia works. Quite the opposite, in fact: your association and the fact that you are using a (lately) single-purpose account could lead to a ban from editing this page under conflict of interest guidelines.

I have not been polite myself; I will do my best to change that. But what goes in and what comes out of the article is decided by consensus and by references, not by decree.

Rracecarr (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. It would be much better though if a document referring to Argo could be referenced that predates the 1998 publication using ARGO as an acronym. As it is, your note seems to directly contradict an Argo Science Team (old name of the Argo Steering Team) publication:
"This document describes some initial ideas for the design and implementation of Argo, a global array of autonomous profiling floats. The original concept grew out of two independent, but connected, initiatives, "A Proposal for Global Ocean Observations for Climate: the Array for Real-time Geostrophic Oceanography" (ARGO)..."
If indeed the name Argo was conceived before the acronym, it shouldn't be difficult to produce some evidence to that effect. If, rather, the acronym came first, then I'm afraid wishing it would go away is not a sufficient reason (though it is an understandable one) for excluding it from the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for unbiased information, not a branding tool. I'll leave the acronym out for now, but please provide a source if you can.Rracecarr (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never edited a talk page before, I hope I am doing this right. My apologies if I am not, I am from a pre-computer generation. Regarding evidence that the name came before the acronym, that is hard to do. Truly the acronym came after more than a few beers one night and jokes about what people would say about the name in years to come. Yes we invented the acronym that night and put it in the original Argo prospectus, which was not a wise move. We thought that the acronym we invented "Array for Real-time Geostrophic Oceanography" was so silly that nobody would ever quote it. Regretfully, we were wrong. It was never conceived as an acronym, we did put it in the prospectus, of which I was a co-author. One criticism of my position is that Argo was created before Jason was launched. This is true, but we were well informed and we did know what it was going to be called, and we all held our breath when the first Jason was launched.

On further issues on this Wikipedia page, profiling floats have been around for a long time, but Argo floats have only been around for about 12 years. A profiling float becomes an Argo float only after it is launched in compliance with the Argo data policy. Just because a float goes up and down in the water column does not make it an Argo float. So please be careful about names. At one time my phrase "profiling float" was changed to "Argo float" that is a profound misconception of the program. A float that profiles is not necessarily an Argo float, but it might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfreeland (talkcontribs) 21:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that someone else refers to my discrimination between Argo Floats and Profiling Floats as "Lawyer Speak" I assume that is a negative criticism. The fact is that the Argo program is ruled by the Law of the Sea especially by IOC directives on the operation of Argo to remain in compliance with the Law of the Sea. I was on the committees that determined the legal regime for Argo and legally, this is a very sensitive issue. It is actually important to discriminate between profiling floats and Argo Floats. The latter fall under the direction of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, every Argo float (but not every profiling float) carries a label identifying it as being part of a program belonging to the United Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfreeland (talkcontribs) 22:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add the reference to the legal regime for Argo floats (as distinguished from profiling floats) is in IOC Resolution XX-6, that is the 6th resolution passed by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission in the year 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfreeland (talkcontribs) 22:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, though I'm not sure what makes the acronym so bad.Rracecarr (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I see that an Egyptian IP has added the acronym again... Rracecarr (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)