Talk:Catenanuova/Archive 1

Archive 1

The OFFICIAL temperature record in Italy is 45.6 in Bari according to the sole OFFICIAL authority in Meteorology in Italy which is offcourse AM.

The word OFFICIAL is removed from the orignal text and I have added that this temperatures is not recognized by the World meteorological Organisation.The same goes for the station of Catenanuova it self.

Here is the extract which confirms that this is not an OFFICIAL station of AM and that Italy does not consider this record as OFFICIAL

Dear Sir,

with reference to your e-mail of March 25th 2010, we inform you that the extremes of maximum temperatures resulting from our official archive have been measured by the weather station of Bari Palese(ENAV) on July 2007,with 45.6°C, followed by Catania Sigonella(AM) with 45.4°C, registered on July 1998.These stations belong to our net, managed by Italian Air ForceMeteorological Service and ENAV (Civil Aviation), and follow the strict standards required by WMO (World Meteorological Organization) on measurement procedures.

With Best Regards,

Lt. Filippo Maimone

I Sec. Climatology CNMCA - Italian Air Force Met ServicePratica di Mare, Pomezia (ROME)

Cya Borat!!:)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

AM data refer to AM stations

And Catenanuova is not AM station.

Please do not vandalize this page anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amending (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

====oh really ?

What a pity that temperature was in JUNE NOT IN JULY. Ok, i have just emailed Mr. Maimone asking him while he gave the wrong date , while he didn't mention the Foggia Amendola 47.0C (which is in the AM website), while he didn't mention the Sigonella 46.4C of July 1962 (which is in AM website also) and many more etc etc... It is also strange how the text of the e-mail of Mr. Mamone doesn't match with the text you reported in 3 different references, one Wikipedia discussion page and two weather forums. Did he send you 3 different answers or you are changing his words ? Never mind, you don't need to tell me, i will ask myself to him through the Coronel Morrico, the chief of AM. He will surely clarify the "misunderstanding". MaXiMiLiAnO 16:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again

The word OFFICIAL temperature record for Italy DOES not apply and NEITHER DOES FOR EUROPE.We have been through this AD INFINITUM

The reference provided in the article shows that the sole OFFICIAL Authority in meteorology in Italy which is AM does not regard this as OFFICIAL.

The same goes for the OFFICIAL EUROPEAN record!The only OFFICIAL organization which EXPLICITY accepts EUROPE'S TEMPERATURE RECORD IS THE WMO AND GIVES THE RECORD TO THE WARMEST AREA OF EUROPE DURING THE SUMMER WHICH IS OFF COURSE ATHENS.

If you want to do original research then Wikipedia is not the place.WMO accepts ONLY ATHENS as the official temperature record in Europe.

Stop vandalizing the page your self.I shall keep an eye for your continuous vandalizing acts

You refer to WMO affiliated weather institutions

and the network of weather stations managing the Catenanuova station does not belong to WMO. So the fact that WMO recognizes the 48°C in Athens as WMO-affiliated networks highest does not imply that other non-WMO affiliated networks have not recorded and validated higer values (in fact, in Sicily the 48.5°C was measured and validated and it is in the official database and published in offical climatical tables, referred to in the article). Please note that the article does not say that the 48.5°C of Catenanuova is the WMO-affiliated record. The WMO-affiliated record is 48°C. Arguing that the value of 48.5°C in Catenanuova is not official is a pure lie. It is official and published in climatological tables that constitute official documents of the Region institutions. The regional network of Sicily supports the validity of the +48.5°C of Catenanuova and it is the highest offical temperature recorded in Italy. If you want to attack that record without falling into bad fallacies (for instance the genetic fallacy of saying that if a station does not belong to a WMO affiliated institution it does not fulfill WMO standards for the measurement of temperature) I suggest you two strategies to achieve that: 1) prove that the station operating in august 1999 was not fulfilling WMO rules (of course I say "prove" and not "slander"); 2) prove that the Region of Sicily official weather monitoring institutions have not validated the data and explicitally reject it; or 3) Demonstrate that some other Italian official station have measured and validated temperatures higher than +48.5°C, that would be a new record. Amending (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No mate.Wishful thinking

Official MEANS coming from the sole Authority of Meteorology in the country in which case it is AM. Secondly and most importantly HERE IT IS NOT PLACE TO CARRY ON ORIGINAL RESEARCH.The phrase that it is highest temperature record in Europe DOES NOT WITHSTAND since we need AN OFFICIAL ORGANIZATION TO EXPLICITY MENTION THIS which is the WMO The article is changed again for reasons of academic acuracy

These measures are fully official

Here are the laws making the Catenanuova data fully official.

http://www.osservatorioacque.it/?cmd=article&id=6

Since 1917 the Servizio Idrografico data were official data due to the law dated 0ctober 25, 1917. From July 1, 1977 to April 16, 2003 the institute is renamed Ufficio Idrografico Regionale and the data (with the official 48.5°C in Catenanuova) are officially measured and recorded by it. By a law of December 22, 2005 its functions have been moved to Osservatorio alle Acque and the contemporary organizational setup is given by a law of the Region Sicily (that is authonomous and has strong competences in several fields of public administration and ambient monitoring is among them) that labels the service Servizio Osservatorio delle Acque. See here http://www.osservatorioacque.it/?cmd=article&id=3 the Decree of the President of the Region (Sicily has it own Parliament, it is not a common Region like most of the others) december 5, numer 12, article two listing "registrazione attraverso la rete di osservazione dei parametri idrometeoclimatici" (registering, by the observation network, the meteoclimatic parameters). Italian and Sicilian laws make these observations official. They are measured by official institutions instituted by public political authorities with the precise duty to do that, duty that is worded explicitally in the text of laws and regulations. Please read in Wikipedia "official" to understand what "official" means and finally that Catenanuova data are official data and they should not be slandered again with untruthful attribution of unofficiality.

So, will you please provide the Italian law (reference, full text and exact sentence in Italian and English) attributing officially to AM the legal monopoly of measuring and recording climatological data in Italy? I inform you in advance that some Regions (such as Sicily, and the authonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano) have exclusive primary legislative authority on environment matter, and the Italian State can not even make laws contrasting with them in that topics, as they would be ineffetive and would be disavowed by the Constitutional Court.

Now I revert your vandalization.

No real instance for original research exists. The reference for being these 48.5°C the highest temperature in Italy and Europe are external, and others did the job, in particular Maximiliano Herrera, who is a respected professional climatologist working for dozen of climatological organizations. But maybe some regional organization (official) has recorded and validated (officially) elsewhere a value of temperature that is even higher than 48.5°C in Catenanuova and did not communicate it. Not all of such data are published. Some Regions measure and register, but do not publish. But the data are nevertheless official. Just, the general public has to pay in order to see it and people is not free to redistribute it. Then the 48.5°C, to be more precise, is the lower limit of the highest temperature recorded in Italy and Europe. Good and official higher values may exist and be uncommunicated.

Amending (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Zero OFFICIALITY in Italy and world-wide

Firstly NO one cares about a random climatologist.We need an OFFICIAL organisation claiming EXPLICITY that this is the European record and as we all know THIS DOES NOT WITHSTAND.Numerous of unofficial temperatures in Europe from crap meteorological stations exist with highest junk-crap data.ANY PHRASE that implies directly or indirectly that this station has a record in Europe is totally unacceptable on the grounds that this suggests original research.

Secondly let us no go into rounds.The OFFICIAL meteorological National Authority of Italy in meteorology is AM.

The article is once again corrected,hopefully for the last time.Your constant vandalism and deleting of references is simply beyond me.

Will you please provide

the Italian law (reference, full text and exact sentence in Italian and English) attributing officially to AM the legal monopoly of measuring and recording climatological data in Italy?

  Amending (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

==

Answer from Sr. Marco Castrogiovanni

Salve, anzitutto La ringrazio in anticipo per l'apprezzamento che rivolge alla nostra struttura. Le rispondo a titolo personale, non consideri quindi la presente una comunicazione "ufficiale" da parte dell'Ufficio. Non posso che sottoscrivere in pieno tutte le considerazioni da Lei espresse e aggiungo che, al di là della specifica problematica relativa alla certificazione del dato (questione, sottolineo, assolutamente fondamentale), Lei ha centrato un punto cruciale: la mancanza di coordinamento a livello nazionale e internazionale relativamente alla definizione delle Autorità che, alle varie scale spaziali, debbano essere considerate "ufficiali" ai fini del rilascio/certificazione dei dati. Addirittura il problema del "riconoscimento" esiste già a livello regionale.

Nel merito, per certo posso dirLe che il dato di Catenanuova è stato da noi espressamente verificato e possiamo sostenere la sua validità con ragionevole certezza.

The temperature is indeed absolutely official in Italy , giving the Osservatorio delle Acque official institution ,according to italian law signed by the Italian PRESIDENT BY DECREE IN 2009. Any act act to call "rubbish" or "junk station" an official station which data has been fully validated by an institution with the signature of italian president, is a mere tentative of bad faith and disinformation, besides being a potential serious violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No confirmation of officiallity in Italy

The Italian google translate reports that Mr Castrogiovanni mentions that due to a lack of national coordination at a national level the are problems of recognition even at regional level.Apart from that he expresses his personal view without confirming this is officially regarded as a record in Italy.

To make a long story short the WMO accepts data only from the official meteorological agencies of various countries and this is apparent in my WMO link.Apart from that I have asked for a weather expert administrator to intervene for mutual satisfaction of the wording.In any case the record does not withstand academic scrutiny according to the WMO.Btw I was refering to various junk stations all over Europe that report higher values that the Athens official —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling junk station a station worths 30000 euros of an official institution signed by PRESIDENTIAL DECREE is a very serious slander. You should avoid this kind of breaking the laws, which are forbidden in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.139.55 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No i was referring to various junk and unofficial stations.Policing is not the attitude here,if you feel a policing urge I dont think here is the place.We need to find a mutually acceptable solution for this.No polemics etc

Write the article like this "This is the reliable highest temperature ever recorded in Italy with modern instruments, although due to the lack of coordination between regional institutions, it is not universally accepted as a record"

I think this is reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.139.55 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a start,however independent academic research was already undertaken by Dr.Randal Kervensy of the WMO in 2007 and if this record was indeed as reliable as you hint then he would surely mention it.Reliable means that it conforms with the strict WMO standars for temperature readings.Can you provide some clear and consice evidence that this station conforms with the WMO standards? I would start the sentence like this According to Mr Castrogiovanni this temperature is reliable in Italy etc or According to some this temperature is reliable in Italy etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to leave the article as it appears now,but I believe the term reliable should not be used unless off course we counterbalance it with a probable non conformity of the WMO procedures for temperature reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Again the word Official for the Osservatory is misleading in that it implies that the record is offical in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The officiality (but not the monopoly) of Osservatiorio alle Acque is proved by law full text. Officiality of the data does not imply officiality of the record, not al all. Amending (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed,still it remains misleading in light of the current debate.The use of the word official in any capacity should be avoided in this article and in turn I would be happy to leave the artcile as is and resolve the issue.

In my opinion it is just a pun due to English language. Matter of rewording in order to emphasize that the institution is official and the data is official, but there is not official record. This is the point. Italy has not an institution handling climatic records. Amending (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By granting official status to the record it is like undermining the academic research of the WMO.In my opinion the word official needs to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because WMO explicitally says that it handles only WMO-members climatological records. WMO prestige is not threatened by the fact that non-member organization exist and they measure temperature. Some of them say they have sets of stations complying WMO standards and nevertheless they do not adhere to WMO. That's matter of membership, not of scientific standards. Amending (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And again we are going in circles.The closest we have internationally in terms of scientific standards is strict compliance to WMO standards,unless and until we have defenitive evidence that this station abides by them thenthe WMO will grant it official capacity as record.That is why the term official should not be used in any capacity especially in this article that we are talking about records —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WMO is formed by a bunch of incompetents who have a list of 90% completely irregular fake records, like the ridicolous Al Azizia recorded in a screen with BLACK TARRED ASPHALT which temperature was overestimating by 25C the real air temperature, like it is clearly seen in the nearby stations. That false and ridicolous record is obviously NOT ACCEPTED in Libya and by anybody who has a minimal knowledgment of climatology, but in the WMO nobody knows absolutely anything not even the basics of climatologist, that's why all their continental records are all wrong, from the completely irregular Asian fake record to the wrong South American records, etc etc.... Temperatures taken at 5 meters in a veranda with an alcohl thermometer closed in a tarred asphalt is nowhere even similar to what should be done, nor a thermograph which ink was spreading allover the paper, nor Gleisher open veranda screens. Definitely the worse reputation is what is WMO, which screens anyway have resulted to be THE WORST according to several studies and lab tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.18.12 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No,neither does the WMO accepts this Libya record totally but rather tentativelly.They have mentioned that they need to carry on further research on this record specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 09:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The 48.5°C value

I like the current version by 58.9.137.146 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catenanuova&oldid=396709336). It seems complete, equilibrated, not unbalanced towards tributing officiality to that value, not unbalanced towards censoring it or refusing it officiality. It is clear that there is a value measured by an official station handled by an official institution but it is not distributed as an official record and why. The data is official but the record is not. That's clear. Now it would be interesting to read page by page, line by line, all the Ispra (http://www.isprambiente.it/site/it-IT/) publications in order to check whether they ever mention it as the Italian record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amending (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not good enough

As I said the word official should be avoided since it can be misleading that the record has some validity or something and due to the nature of this discussion.If you insist on using the term official in any capacity then I would be inclined to add that the record is also not universally accepted due to non WMO compliance with temperature measurements to balance it out.

You can of course,

but unfortunately that is a slander (did you know that it is illegal?), it is unproved, and I will revert it until you provide reference (or prove) of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amending (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont really go hand in hand with threats mate

So text again corrected since the wording is totally misleading and further efforts will be dealt accordingly.As I said threats dont go very nice with me.The reference is there,since WMO accepts Athens WMO record.You provide one that prooves that the station does conform with WMO standards.

A prove you should provide

is that the Catenanuova station does not comply with WMO standards for the measurement of temperature. Awaiting this prove, I translate the aforementioned theat into action and revert your entering slanders in Wikipedia (remember, this is a public access website, you are penally responsible of what you write) 93.145.253.232 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The link for the Athens official European record is there

You will need to provide to the WMO and here the credentials for this station.Unless and Untill we have that text is changed again.

==

Be adviced that your serious slanders saying that station is overexposed and irregular has been taken to the respective official institition which will take the necesarry legal step to make a lawsuit for which you risk several years of jail. Since Wikipedia is totally unable to stop continuos serious violations and libels against official institutions of sovereign governemts, be prepared to defend yourself in Court, although nothing can save you ,since there are proofs the station is totally regular, much better than the Athens "junk stations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.225.244 (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat?

Bsc it looks like one.Anyway article changed for reasons of accuracy yet again!!!

References that show this station does not have an official WMO id

Were added to show unreliability of any kinds of readings of this station —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.60 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning for 147.197.190.60 regarding sneaky vandalism

This is a warning for the editor 147.197.190.60 regarding iterate acts of sneaky vandalism in the Catenanuova article, done by insinuating slanderous (and of course unreferenced) statements about the Osservatiorio alle Acque, about how it measures temperatures ("allegedly"), how its station would be affected by noncompliance with WMO standards, sets of edits aimed to discredit the temperature values of Catenanuova by adding plausible misinformation and dropping documented information from the article in a very unconstructive way. The reference to the UK weather chat is circular: the editor is citing himself. Second, the list of WMO-affiliated Italian stations does not say that the Catenanuova station is non-compliant with WMO standards. It confirms what is already known, that the Osservatorio alle Acque is not WMO member. As this user has iteratively repeated those and other similar manipulations entering and restoring slanders about Osservatorio alle Acque practices and instruments so to potentially mislead the readers by distortions of reality, if such behaviors go on I'll ask an official repression. 93.145.237.252 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Whether there's a WMO id or not, please address these issues via Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy, not by continually reverting changes to the article. In particular, do not breach the "three-revert rule", even if you believe you are right. - Pointillist (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly

The above user has not agreed to a content for the past 4 months now.The references that are presented are valid since a non WMO reading is not considered official.Thus the term allegedly

Your list of WMO stations in Italy is biased

It omits Roma Collegio Romano (WMO id. 16240), Aosta Pollein (WMO id. 16054), Trento (WMO id. 16023) and several others. Your list is hence not complete and it is not suitable to prove that a given Italian station has not WMO id. If your aim is to do so, you need a complete station list and you must prove that the list is complete. But this is not necessary. You would confirm only that Osservatiorio alle Acque is not WMO-member institution (what is already known) while what your advocacy should try to prove is that the Catenanuova weather station in 1999 was non-compliant with WMO reccomendations for temperature measurement. It is possible, and maybe some prove was published in reliable sources (not yourself on the UK forum). Try harder. Up to that time, your statement about Catenanuova station noncompliance with WMO standards is unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.237.252 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) --93.145.237.252 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Pointlist

I would like to thank Pointlist for the contribution.As I have suggested in his talk page the version is balanced however the 0.5C can not remain in my opinion. Numerous unofficial or of unknown standards stations have recorded in Greece,Portugal,Spain and Italy values that are higher to 48.0C. Here we are scrutinising a continental record thus any explicit comparison between an official record and an unofficial one implies an uneven comparison and annules the officially researched results of the WMO in my opinion.I would kindly ask this 0.5C difference goes.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposal

Is that a but goes after the reported value.And would look like this but the World Meteorological Organization's officially recognised European maximum of 48.0°C (118.4°F) was recorded in Athens, Greece on July 10th, 1977. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's OK except that the article then reads: 48.5 measurement but WMO's record in Athens however Catenanuova isn't a WMO station. Chaining "but" with "however" seems clumsy to me (native English speaker). So I have rearranged it to read: 48.5 measurement however Catenanuova isn't a WMO station and WMO's record in Athens, which seems more grammatical and logical. If you don't like this, please change it! I won't keep this page on my watchlist any more. - Pointillist (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect

Perfect by me!Thank you and can agree with this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1