Talk:Satellite temperature measurements/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Strat cooling mostly from ozone?

Don't think I belive this [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

William, Shine et al. 2003[2] report this for the lower stratosphere: "At 100 hPa, the modelled cooling due to ozone depletion alone is in reasonable agreement with the observed cooling at all latitudes."

See also Randel 2008 [3] and the Thompson 2009 [4] paper which states: "Attribution experiments indicate that the long-term cooling in the global-mean lower-stratospheric temperatures is driven mainly by changes in stratospheric ozone (e.g.. Rosier and Shine 2000; Ramaswamy and Schwarzkopf 2002; Shine et al. 2003;Langematz et al. 2003;Ramaswamy et al. 2006)" --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Science 2005 articles

Can anyone give more detail on this:

Some believe that much of the disparity may have been resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered reading the papers? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

UAH 5.3 is worth noting William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article information seems to go well beyond its title

The sea surface temperature article has been revamped due to improvements made in the numerical weather prediction article. When doing a web search, I ran across this wikipedia article regarding satellite temperature measurements, so I started incorporating some of the SST article information into this article. After I noticed the article structure, I was initially confused. A cursory review of the article shows that its content goes well beyond its name. It looks strongly linked to the global warming/climate change articles, and even mentions information you would not expect to be involved in an article with this name. My question is: Should the article be renamed, Satellite temperature measurements (climate change), or should the information within the article be aligned with its current title? If so, the order of this article would need to be flipped, surface information/SST first (since that's where we all live and that information was first available via satellites, so it makes sense chronologically as well) with a decent amount of material eliminated since it goes beyond the scope of its title. Thoughts? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, wouldn't want to see this article ripped apart. Satellite measurements are a key portion of the climate change discussion, and as such the information here is useful (for the most part). In addition, the historical problems with satellite data (and to a degree their continuing limitations) have been an important part of the uncertainties surrounding climate change in both the scientific and public perceptions. Yes, the study of climate change is only one application of satellite temperature data, but it certainly one of the most important applications. That said, I can certainly see other things that would also fall under this topic heading. For example, a more detailed discussion of the technology and its history could be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
   I don't fully understand the proposal. What you suggest (qualifying "Satellite temperature measurements" with "climate change") suggests that there are other subtopics of comparable weight that merit their own articles (such as technology, other applications, etc.?) Where might those articles be? Until such independent articles appear would it not be better to keep this article as the main topic? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just trying to fix what appears to be an undue weight (and for that matter, a wikification) problem. I have no problem keeping global warming information within it, in its own subsection. But the order of content within the article seems illogical to me. It will require basic restructuring. The percentage of global warming information is going to drop. Some of the drop will be due to new content being added, the rest due to some restriction of content, though I'm not sure how much right now. Since the title of the article is what it is, other information (such as radiosonde-related information) generally doesn't belong here. I agree with Dragons flight about what information could be added, which would help resolve the issue. J. Johnson, there just might be room for subtopics here. Since the feedback is limited so far, I will not rename the article. Thanks for the input so far. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If this article will not focus over climate change it is definitively necessary to create a new article with the old content (MSU temperature measurement?) because people clicking on links to this article expect to find a discussion about msu trends and uncertainty. Also it would be better to use a subpage to make massive changes, currently T2 trend discussion is under "surface measurement".--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The climate change articles should focus on climate change. This article is meant to be an overall treatment of satellite temperature measurements, not primarily a discussion on their impact on the global warming debate. The current structure is more evenly weighted than versions from previous days. Uncertainty is meant to be minimized within wikipedia articles, per the Manual of Style (MoS). If you want to create an article specifically talking about the evolution of certain datasets, create articles about those specific datasets, which can then be linked from this article through wikilinks. For example, the new article on the UAH satellite temperature dataset preserves much of the "lost content" from this page. There was a significant amount of information about that dataset formerly in this article, which is better treated within a subarticle specifically about that dataset. Other information not in the current version of this page still lies within the history of this page; no information has been lost, per se. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

New page created: --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Method of taking measurements

The lead has this: "Surface measurements are derived from skin temperature, determined by thermal infrared imagery of weather satellites."

Sounds like pictures are taken of the satellites - anyway I'll remove it unless anyone objects, I only haven't done yet as I don't know what it means by in this context 'skin temperature'. IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted two edits by IanOfNorwich. In the first, I feel that obtaining satellite temperature measurements from the sea surface and from the troposphere, makes more sense than his alternative of satellites making temperature measurements of the sea surface and the troposphere. In the second edit, IanOfNorwich says that satellite datasets show the "predicted effects of an increase of greenhouse gases" in the lede. The previous wording summarised the section 'Reconciliation with climate models' in the article, which is cited to the 3AR and 4AR of the IPCC, the United States Global Climate Change Research Program etc. If any changes are due here, first the referenced section needs challenging, either on the quality of its references, or that of our treatment of them. You can't change the meaning of the lede in isolation. --Nigelj (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nigelj, We're now talking about 3 things here so I'll break them down.
1. I changed
"Satellite temperature measurements have been obtained from the sea surface since 1967 and from the troposphere since late 1978."
"Satellite temperature measurements of the sea surface have been made since 1967 and of the troposphere since late 1978."
It's a question of accurate use of language - the measurements are made/obtained from obit; the radiation is from the sea surface/troposphere. I'm fairly ambivalent between made and obtained, I pondered some time on that when editing - you can certainly be said to make, take or obtain a measurement. My rationale was a) given the choice of a simple or fancy word choose the simpler. b) obtain suggests pre-existence; measurements don't exist until a person/instrument makes them.
I agree there is a bit of clunkiness but I'd prefer a little clunkier and more accurate. Some of the clunkiness comes from trying to retain "Satellite temperature measurement" as the start of the sentence. Personally I'd prefer;
"Satellite measurements of the sea surface temperature have been made since 1967, and measurements of the tropospheric temperature since late 1978."
2.I changed:
"Satellite datasets show there has been warming in the troposphere over the past few decades, and cooling within the stratosphere, both of which are supported by global warming research."
"Satellite datasets show there has been warming in the troposphere over the past few decades, and cooling within the stratosphere, both of which are predicted effects of an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Nigelj says that "The previous wording summarised the section 'Reconciliation with climate models'". Which has:
"Climate models predict that as the surface warms, so should the global troposphere. Globally, the troposphere should warm about 1.2 times more than the surface; in the tropics, the troposphere should warm about 1.5 times more than the surface."
It's a fair point to say that the lede should echo the content. I have a problem with observations being said to be supported by models! I realise that the data sets in question are themselves the product of models...perhaps something like:
"Satellite datasets show there has been warming in the troposphere over the past few decades, and cooling within the stratosphere, which is in agreement with climate models."
This has the problem that it makes me ask what climate models? But that is at least reflecting the content of the section below.
3. Surely this can be improved/removed: "Surface measurements are derived from skin temperature, determined by thermal infrared imagery of weather satellites."
IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
At risk of sounding like I'm talking to myself here, how about the following for the lede:

"The temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes as well as sea and land surface temperatures can be infered from satellite measurements. Weather satellites do not measure temperature directly but measure radiances in various wavelength bands. These measurements can be used to locate weather fronts, monitor the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, determine the strength of tropical cyclones, study urban heat islands and monitor the global climate. Wildfires, volcanos, and industrial hot spots can also be found via thermal imaging from weather satellites.

Since 1978 Microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen, which is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere. Measurements of infrared radiation pertaining to sea surface temperature have been collected since 1967.

Satellite datasets show there has been warming in the troposphere over the past four decades, and cooling within the stratosphere, both of which are in agreement with climate modeling of the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

It looses the article name but that's OK - WP:LEADSENTENCE. IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Small but important quibble: the sentence should read "...consistent with the influence of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases" rather than " agreement with climate modeling of the increased levels of greenhouse gases." Modeling is not needed to infer that tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling will result from increased greenhouse gases. This relationship is expected from very, very basic physical considerations that don't require mathematical modeling. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've edited the lede to the version above with Short Brigade Harvester Boris's amendment plus " the atmosphere."
IanOfNorwich (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reconciliation with climate models

I've been trying to make the Reconciliation with climate models section a bit more coherent. It seems that just about all the differences between the satellite record and models it was talking about were that the sat. data doesn't show a slightly greater warming at TLT than the surface, as would be expected, and that this effect is most marked/only occurs in the tropics. I fear it's now a bit repetitive as I couldn't find a source for the 1.2 and 1.5 times the warming at the surface statements but could source an absolute difference 0.3deg C from CCSP SAP1.1, so added that.IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the bit Giorgiogp2 added yesterday as I think it flows better there, hope this is OK. BTW, it says that some versions of the sat data show the amplification in the tropics - that's interesting - much better in so many ways though if we can say which ones? IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

UAH link to "UAH satellite temperature dataset"

I'd changed a link In this sentence "Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)." to point to UAH satellite temperature dataset rather than University of Alabama in Huntsville. That was reverted by JJ.

I changed it because in the past when I first came to this article I was frustrated because when I clicked that link I got the general UAH wiki page which had and still has nothing on climate science at all and no link to any. This didn't help me. What I wanted (and I imagine most people clicking the link would want) was more information about the data set and/or the people compiling it. That is available now at the UAH satellite temperature dataset, which incidentally has a link to 'University of Alabama in Huntsville' for anyone interested in the general institution instead. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence starts: "Among these groups...", which previously then referred the RSS and UAH groups. You redirected the second reference to a dataset, which is not a group.
The second reference was problematical as it was, in that it is unlikely the entire UAH was working on this topic, and certainly the "group" should be identified more specifically. (Which would lead more closely to "the people" compiling the data.) But the dataset is not a group. My recommendation would be to do some research and identify the specific group at UAH, and refer to them. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I see that the same edit (which I have also reverted) was made at Global warming by User:Simplex1swrhs. Is that you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Simplex1swrhs is certainly not me. I have only one account. I resent the suggestion that I have two accounts and would appreciate an apology. I assume that he made the edit for the same reason that I did - it is more useful that way. You can change the sentence to "Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville Global Hydrology and Climate Center (UAH)" if you want but unless you also want to create an article for the "University of Alabama in Huntsville Global Hydrology and Climate Center" it won't help with this question. Wikilinks are not semantic tokens that change the meaning of a sentence. They just make it easier to quickly move around the encyclopedia and thereby understand one article in light of other connected ones.
--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, cool down! I was just asking. And I don't really care much. I have a feeling Simplex is someone we know, but as long as he (she?) stays out of trouble I don't really care.
I agree that wikilinks are not semantic tokens, but "groups", "UAH", and "dataset" are. And I think it is reasonable to require sentences to be syntactically correct in having agreement of semantic tokens. (Also that "UAH" should link to UAH, not a dataset.)
But let's get past that. Please note: I sympathize with why you changed the link, and I agree it can (should) be improved. I am just saying that this "fix" isn't right. Allow me to make a suggestion: let's replace "UAH" with the particular group at UAH that produced the dataset. (Which I am pretty sure isn't "Global Hydrology and Climate Center" — that's NASA, right?) If they don't have a WP page, well, fine so be it. Or use an external link. (This should also be done at UAH satellite temperature dataset, which should certainly have more detail on who created it.) As to linking to the dataset article, well, you have that further down. Okay? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
According to this [5] the "Global Hydrology and Climate Center" is NASA but is at UAH. Just to be clear that we are on the same page, so to speak, I didn't change the text that appeared on the page only the destination of the link, right?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a start. I see that your link links "UAH" to a paper (grrrr) where Christy's affiliation is given as "ESSC/GHCC" at UAH; I gather that means Earth Systems Science Center. I didn't see any mention of satellite datasets (are they hiding??), but perhaps if you nose around a bit you might find something. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've changed the wording. Personally I remain unconvinced that, in this context, linking "University of Alabama Huntsville" to their dataset was a problem, but at least it is still now easy to find further info on the topic, albeit at the cost of some clunkiness. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Much improved. Particularly the being prepared "at" UAH rather than "by" UAH. I could see being prepared "by GSCC at UAH", but they do seem to be shy about it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ian: Just a suggestion, but your latest edit might be clearer with an insertion like "corrections are necessary for the satellite's orbital drift and decay." - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ian: your most recent edit seems okay in itself. But it did seem rather furtive, in that you did not mention what you were doing, and it is very similar to the matter previously in issue here. Perhaps you could provide a little more "heads up" in the future? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, point taken.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)