Thursday, 7 November 2013

Summary of Regional Inhomogeneities

A few months ago the Benchmarking group made a call to the homogenisation community to submit any times/characters of known inhomogeneities occurring in different regions.

Thanks to the many contributors we now have an overview for a number of countries:
Spain
Poland
Canada
Switzerland
Australia
Tropics
Italy
Central Europe
Russia
Slovenia
Netherlands
UK
Austria
USA

There is always room for more. If you come across any useful information or would just like to see what is there so far please go to:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al6ocsUAaINSdHpTREJzVkRZUTdfVjNPRlh0Q1V3WUE&usp=sharing#gid=0

This is an online editable document so please do add info. A static version will be scraped once a month.




Kate










ISTI/Benchmarking talk at Reading University Meteorology Department lunchtime seminar

I was invited to present the work of the ISTI at Reading University Meteorology Department.

The talk covered the aims and workings of the ISTI: to facilitate robust climate analysis of land surface temperature.

1) Provide a version controlled, comprehensive, traceable to known origin, openly shared databank of surface temperature data with digitally attached metadata.

2) Set up an international standard for benchmark testing homogenisation algorithms and other methodological choices for building climate data-products to help quantify homogenisation and methodological uncertainty and aid product selection and methodological advancement.

3) Provide a portal for all ISTI related products with user tools to help inform choice of product, visualisation and intercomparison of products.

I then focussed on the benchmarking side of things to explain why this is needed and how we are going about it.

The slides for the talk are available here: The ISTI: Dragging the land surface temperature data kicking and screaming into the 21st Century

A few of the interesting questions that I remember:

Will the ISTI databank include non-standard station data?
Yes, there are plans to incorporate data from amateur stations. This will be flagged and prioritised appropriately.

How do you deal with uncertainties between the true shaded air temperature verses the biases created by poor ventilation or insolation issues in screen temperatures?
This is a big problem as we need to quantify changes/impacts on the smaller, more local scale. By making as much data available as possible, in addition to metadata, the ISTI can help address this problem. Having a higher density of stations increases the statistical power in detection of errors. Making it easier to build surface temperature products enables more people to tackle the problem and apply a wider spread of methodological choices. This may help to constrain the uncertainty to come extent.

Can you provide a list of stations used to make up each gridbox in gridded products?
This is something that we would encourage anyone building data-products to do. Ideally they would list the stations and which stage and version they come from. The data-portal will have to be able to cope with hosting ancillary information pertaining to the data-products in an easily searchable and usable manner.

Can other people make their own error worlds/synthetic data?
Yes - all of our code will be written in R and published on the website. The idea is that others can use the code and tweak various parameters to make their own clean synthetic stations and add errors as they wish.

Monday, 19 August 2013

Benchmarking Workshop Agenda and Report

The workshop agenda and full report can be found here: https://sites.google.com/a/surfacetemperatures.org/home/benchmarking-and-assessment-working-group#Minutes

Below is the executive summary.

1st – 3rd July 2013 Benchmarking Working Group Workshop Report Executive Summary National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Asheville, NC, USA

Attended in person:
Kate Willett (UK), Matt Menne (USA), Claude Williams (USA), Robert Lund (USA), Enric Aguilar (Spain), Colin Gallagher (USA), Zeke Hausfather (USA), Peter Thorne (USA), Jared Rennie (USA)
 

Attended by phone:
Ian Jolliffe (UK), Lisa Alexander (Australia), Stefan Brönniman (Switzerland), Lucie A. Vincent (Canada), Victor Venema (Germany), Renate Auchmann (Switzerland), Thordis Thorarinsdottir (Norway), Robert Dunn (UK), David Parker (UK)


A three day workshop was held to bring together some members of the ISTI Benchmarking working group with the aim of making significant progress towards the creation and dissemination of a homogenisation algorithm benchmark system. Specifically, we hoped to have: the method for creating the analog-clean-worlds finalised; the error-model worlds defined and a plan of how to develop these; and the concepts for assessment finalised including a decision on what data/statistics to ask users to return. This was an ambitious plan for three days with numerous issues and big decisions still to be tackled.

The complexity of much of the discussion throughout the three days really highlighted the value of this face-to-face meeting. It was important to take time to ensure that everyone understood and had come to the same conclusion. This was aided by whiteboard illustrations and software exploration, which would not have been possible over a teleconference.

In overview, we made significant progress in terms of developing and converging on concepts and important decisions. We did not complete the work of Team Creation as hoped, but necessary exploration of the existing methods was undertaken revealing significant weaknesses and ideas for new avenues to explore have been found.

The blind and open error-worlds concepts are 95% complete and progress was made on the specifics of the changepoint statistics for each world. Important decisions were also made regarding missing data, length of record and changepoint location frequency. Seasonal cycles were discussed at length and more research has been actioned. A significant first go was made at designing a build methodology for the error-models with some coding examples worked through and different probability distributions explored.

We converged on what we would like to receive from benchmark users for the assessment and worked through some examples of aggregating station results over regions. We will assess both retrieval of trends and climate characteristics in addition to ability to detect changepoints. Contingency tables of some form will also be used. We also hope to have some online or assessment software available so that users can make their own assessment of the open worlds and past versions of benchmarks. We plan to collaborate with the VALUE downscaling validation project where possible.

From an intense three days all participants and teleconference participants gained a better understanding of what we're trying to achieve and how we are going to get there. This was a highly valuable three days, not least through its effect of focussing our attention prior to the meeting and motivating further collaborative work after the meeting. Two new members have agreed to join the effort and their expertise is a fantastic contribution to the project.

Specifically, Kate and Robert are to work on their respective methods for Team Creation, utilising GCM data and the vector autoregressive method. This will result in a publication describing the methodology. We aim to finalise this work in August.

Follow on teleconferences, Team Corruption will focus on completing the distribution specifications and building the probability model to allocate station changepoints. This work is planned for completion by October 2013. Release of the benchmarks is scheduled for November 2013.

Team Validation will continue to develop the specific assessment tests and work these into a software package that can be easily implemented. This work is hoped to be completed by December 2013, but there is more time available as assessment will take place at least 1 year after benchmark release.


Monday, 13 May 2013

Call for regional inhomogeneity info

To create realistic benchmarks we would like to reproduce times and locations of known sources of inhomogeneity as best we can. Please can you help us. If you know of any regional/countrywide changes to the observing system over time please can you list them here or point us to some documentation/reference. Any information is valuable - even if its quite vague.

Ideally we'd like to know:

WHEN - specific date or month or year or even decade etc.
WHERE - a region, a country, an international GTS/WMO change etc.
WHAT - a change in shelter, thermometer type, automation, observing time/practice etc.
HOW - are there any estimates of the size/direction/nature of the effect of this change?

Please post here and encourage others to do so. We then hope to reward you with some realistic error-worlds to play with.

Kate