Attributes of several methods for detecting discontinuities in mean temperature series.
Abstract
Simulated annual temperature series are used to compare seven homogenization procedures. The two that employ likelihood ratio tests routinely outperform other methods in their ability to identify modest (0.33°C; 0.6 standard deviation anomaly) shifts in the mean. The percentage of imposed shifts that are detected by these methods is similar to that based on tests that rely on a priori metadata information concerning the position of potential shifts. These methods, along with a two-phase regression approach, are also best at identifying and placing multiple shifts within a single time series. Although the regression procedure is better able to detect multiple breaks that are separated by relatively short time intervals, in its published form it suffers from a higher-than-expected Type I error rate. This was also found to be a problem with a metadata-based procedure currently in operational use. The likelihood tests are strongly influenced by the presence of trends in the difference series and short (<20 yr) series length. The ability of a given procedure to detect a discontinuity is predominately influenced by the magnitude of the discontinuity relative to the standard deviation of the data series being evaluated. Data series length, correlation between the test series and its associated reference series, and test series autocorrelation also influence test performance. These features were not considered in previous homogenization method comparisons. Discontinuities with magnitudes less than 0.6 times the standard deviation of the time series represent the lower limit for homogenization. Based on the most effective homogenization techniques, 10% of the 1.25 standard deviation discontinuities are likely to remain in climatic data series, unless reference station correlations are exceptional or quality station metadata are available.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The procedure explicitly looks for both abrupt jumps and local, unrepresentative trends in temperature series.
“Last, the procedure explicitly looks for both abrupt ''jumps'' as well as local, unrepresentative trends in the temperature series (DeGaetano 2006).”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano 2006
Of the nine shifts not identified, six had a magnitude of less than 0.3σ.
“Of the nine shifts not identified, six had a magnitude of less than 0.3s, which is below the sensitivity of most tests for undocumented changepoints (DeGaetano 2006;Ducre ´-Robitaille et al. 2003).”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano 2006
For target series under M3 (step change with no trend), the overall power of detection is a function of the magnitude of the step.
“For target series under M3 (step change with no trend), the overall power of detection is a function of the magnitude of the step, as shown in previous investigations (e.g., DeGaetano 2006).”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano 2006
The standard normal homogeneity test (SNHT) has superior accuracy in identifying the position of a step change under a wide variety of step and trend inhomogeneity scenarios relative to other commonly used methods.
“While no one test clearly outperforms others under all circumstances, the standard normal homogeneity test (SNHT; Alexandersson 1986) has been shown to have superior accuracy in identifying the position of a step change under a wide variety of step and trend inho-mogeneity scenarios relative to other commonly used methods (DeGaetano 2006; R07).”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano 2006
Use of such tests in the presence of trends can lead to falsely detected step changes as well as inaccurate estimates of the magnitude of a shift when it occurs within a general trend.
“Use of such tests in the presence of trends can lead to falsely detected step changes as well as to inaccurate estimates of the magnitude of a shift when it occurs within a general trend (DeGaetano 2006;Pielke et al. 2007).”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano 2006
Misclassification removes some of the unique target series trend as a step adjustment, bringing the target series more in line with the regional background climate trend captured by the neighbors.
“The impact of this type of misclassification is to inadvertently remove some of the unique target series trend as a step adjustment, thereby bringing the target series more in line with the regional background climate trend captured by the neighbors (DeGaetano 2006;Pielke et al. 2007).”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano 2006
The biased estimate brings the adjusted target more in agreement with the background trend captured by the neighbors.
“Much like a false alarm when the target follows M2, the biased estimate would bring the adjusted target more in agreement with the background trend captured by the neighbors (DeGaetano 2006;Pielke et al. 2007).”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano 2006
Preserving local trends (trend inhomogeneities) can often result in undesirable adjusted series.
“Given that preserving local trends (i.e., trend inhomogeneities) can often result in undesirable adjusted series, the pairwise algorithm was modified to employ the more commonly used M3 adjustment for all step changes (DeGaetano 2006).”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano 2006
The correlation between temperature series in the United States is typically higher than in the simulations used here.
“As noted by DeGaetano (2006), the correlation between temperature series in the United States is typically higher than in the simulations used here.”
From Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons (2009) · cites this paper as DeGaetano (2006)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 72
- Authors
- DeGaetano, A. T.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- DeGaetano, Arthur T.
- ORCID
- DeGaetano, Arthur T.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2006-03-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 838-853
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2088183781
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 5.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Climate (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Precipitation Measurement and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Hydrology and Drought Analysis
- Keywords
- discontinuity detection, likelihood ratio test, two-phase regression, type I error, autocorrelation, station metadata
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review