The reason I managed to find errors in the Met Office data and code
It turns out the reason is rather simple. In the evidence being given today to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee the Met Office says of their quality control procedures:
Contrast that with what they say about NOAA's procedures for the same sort of data:
Given the amount of data it's unsurprising that 'manual inspection' isn't enough.
Update There's a lovely bit of evidence from Professor Darrel Ince about software quality that I wholeheartedly agree with.
Manual inspection, including real-time quality control using GIS software; quality control described in literature for the various regional studies.
Contrast that with what they say about NOAA's procedures for the same sort of data:
A long series of automatic quality control tests based on both statistics and physics (e.g., outlier tests, identical values two months in row, etc.)
Given the amount of data it's unsurprising that 'manual inspection' isn't enough.
Update There's a lovely bit of evidence from Professor Darrel Ince about software quality that I wholeheartedly agree with.
Labels: climate change
If you enjoyed this blog post, you might enjoy my travel book for people interested in science and technology: The Geek Atlas. Signed copies of The Geek Atlas are available. Looking for a new job? Try UseTheSource.
1 Comments:
Steve Easterbrook has taken issue with Darrel Ince on several of the points he made here
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1388
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home