4 ms·

Slightly misleading headline. The November 2017 temperature readings from Utqiaġvik (Barrow), Alaska were 2.5 degrees higher than November 1998. The NCEI's ing

Slightly misleading headline. The November 2017 temperature readings from Utqiaġvik (Barrow), Alaska were 2.5 degrees higher than November 1998. The NCEI's ingest code for their monthly report flagged this station as a probable sensor setup change and ignored the data. Crucially the code for choosing which data to ignore looks for "agreement" with nearby sensors. Utqiaġvik (Barrow) is one of the most remote sites, with the nearest other site being many smaller European countries away. The other "nearest" sites did not show similar warming, therefore the NCEI's code discarded Barrow. If there had been other, closer stations, showing similar data, their code would not have discarded it. A classic case of a programmer making an assumption that is almost, but not quite, universaly true. "There will always be many nearby stations who's average temperature will behave roughly similarly," works for most of the US, but not here. They are now updating their data ingest code to relax the agreement requirements for isolated, far north stations. - [Update: ye gads, how is this downvote fodder? My points are going up and down like a yo-yo! If I'm wrong about anything, here, let me know!]

ricardobeat 9y ago
Where is that temperature data from? The linked NOAA website only has data up to October 2017: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=met&type=temp https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&pro... It also sounds like you are downplaying the effects of climate change, in contradiction with the data displayed in the article, which is bound to get downvotes.
- danielvf 9y ago
  Thanks. I'm getting the temperature number from the graphs in the article. Here's one, showing Barrow temperature vs sea ice: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/barrow-temp-vs-nearby-seaice-820.png https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/barrow-temp-vs-n...
  - acqq 9y ago
    But the graph shows at least 25 degrees differece, whereas you claim only 2.5 degrees in your parent post!
    - danielvf 9y ago
      1998 was the previous high average in the last 20 years. Look in the bottom right side of the graph I linked to.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - acqq 9y ago
        I see, I've been looking at 1988, isn't it more interesting, looking for the biggest difference, not for the smallest one? Why do you believe is the small difference supposed to trigger anything? Can you quote something relevant?
        danielvf 9y ago
        I compared this high monthly average to the previous high average, a small difference as you said, because the headline sounded like extreme heat at Barrow overwhelmed measuring hardware, in contrast to the actual article that tells us that the breakage was in the data import code for a report - stemming from a programmer's two incorrect assumptions about the world. (These two being that nearby stations' temperatures would rise and fall together, and that all stations would have nearby stations.) From the article, the only change they are making to fix this breakage is to reduce the strength of these two assumptions for far north stations. - The popular perception is that the currently measured global warming means that every part of the globe is getting warmer at the same rate, all year long. The reality is that Barrow is getting a tiny bit warmer in the summer, a lot warmer than it used to be in the winter, and the rest of Alaska that we are measuring isn't seeing the same scale of changes. That's totally cool - it's just not the popular perception on either side of the debate. Here's a relevant XKCD for real life science https://xkcd.com/683/ https://xkcd.com/683/
- 3princip 9y ago
  There is sub-hourly (5 min) data for a station near Barrow here, since 2006: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html
riffic 9y ago
HN moderation is notoriously fickle and is a core weakness of this site. I wouldn't let the downvotes get you down.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- danielvf 9y ago
  Yeah, not bothered at all, just wondering if I missed something.
  - sulam 9y ago
    I’ve found climate stuff attracts the emotional vote.
inopinatus 9y ago
Ah, don’t sweat the popularity contest. No-one will lie on their deathbed wishing they had more upvotes.

ricardobeat 9y ago

Where is that temperature data from? The linked NOAA website only has data up to October 2017: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=met&type=temp https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&pro... It also sounds like you are downplaying the effects of climate change, in contradiction with the data displayed in the article, which is bound to get downvotes.

danielvf 9y ago
Thanks. I'm getting the temperature number from the graphs in the article. Here's one, showing Barrow temperature vs sea ice: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/barrow-temp-vs-nearby-seaice-820.png https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/barrow-temp-vs-n...
- acqq 9y ago
  But the graph shows at least 25 degrees differece, whereas you claim only 2.5 degrees in your parent post!
  - danielvf 9y ago
    1998 was the previous high average in the last 20 years. Look in the bottom right side of the graph I linked to.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - acqq 9y ago
      I see, I've been looking at 1988, isn't it more interesting, looking for the biggest difference, not for the smallest one? Why do you believe is the small difference supposed to trigger anything? Can you quote something relevant?
      - danielvf 9y ago
        I compared this high monthly average to the previous high average, a small difference as you said, because the headline sounded like extreme heat at Barrow overwhelmed measuring hardware, in contrast to the actual article that tells us that the breakage was in the data import code for a report - stemming from a programmer's two incorrect assumptions about the world. (These two being that nearby stations' temperatures would rise and fall together, and that all stations would have nearby stations.) From the article, the only change they are making to fix this breakage is to reduce the strength of these two assumptions for far north stations. - The popular perception is that the currently measured global warming means that every part of the globe is getting warmer at the same rate, all year long. The reality is that Barrow is getting a tiny bit warmer in the summer, a lot warmer than it used to be in the winter, and the rest of Alaska that we are measuring isn't seeing the same scale of changes. That's totally cool - it's just not the popular perception on either side of the debate. Here's a relevant XKCD for real life science https://xkcd.com/683/ https://xkcd.com/683/
3princip 9y ago
There is sub-hourly (5 min) data for a station near Barrow here, since 2006: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html

riffic 9y ago

HN moderation is notoriously fickle and is a core weakness of this site. I wouldn't let the downvotes get you down.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danielvf 9y ago
Yeah, not bothered at all, just wondering if I missed something.
- sulam 9y ago
  I’ve found climate stuff attracts the emotional vote.

inopinatus 9y ago

Ah, don’t sweat the popularity contest. No-one will lie on their deathbed wishing they had more upvotes.