4 ms·

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/def

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/
      - acqq 9y ago
        OK, so do we agree that looking for the "smallest difference" on the graph like you did has actually no practical use in analyzing the data? Can you also please cite your source that it's a "data import code" problem as you claim above? I don't see it in the article and I understand the article differently, I consider the assumptions they used being correct ones for the given data sources. Edit: I see your edit and I don't agree with your claim "it's just not the popular perception on either side of the debate" -- "it should warm the same everywhere" is only actively used by the "deniers" even if no scientist ever made such a claim: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global... https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/uks-met-office-reminds-us-its-not-cold-everywhere.html https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/uks-met-office-r... etc.

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/
    - acqq 9y ago
      OK, so do we agree that looking for the "smallest difference" on the graph like you did has actually no practical use in analyzing the data? Can you also please cite your source that it's a "data import code" problem as you claim above? I don't see it in the article and I understand the article differently, I consider the assumptions they used being correct ones for the given data sources. Edit: I see your edit and I don't agree with your claim "it's just not the popular perception on either side of the debate" -- "it should warm the same everywhere" is only actively used by the "deniers" even if no scientist ever made such a claim: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global... https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/uks-met-office-reminds-us-its-not-cold-everywhere.html https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/uks-met-office-r... etc.