3 ms·

Time-series chart of Daily Surface Sea Temps compared year-over-year from early 80s to previous day: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https://clim

Time-series chart of Daily Surface Sea Temps compared year-over-year from early 80s to previous day: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Edit: This is the same source used by the article.

kortilla 3y ago
How are sensors added to a system like this without it no longer being a year to year comparison?
- wpietri 3y ago
  The system in question has always been something that combines various sensors, interpolating and adjusting to produce broad numbers. There's an extensive academic reference list here under the "About" tab: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst
- mhh__ 3y ago
  Meta Point: Ideally it'd be done very carefully. Climate change research is often people's first look at how professional scientists operate, so things which are merely carefully working around systematic errors in other contexts may be suddenly deemed evidence of a fraudulent conspiracy.
  - revelio 3y ago
    No it isn't. Most people learn about the scientific method in school, where the rules are taught. Then later they discover that climatologists routinely hide original data, present edited data as if it were measurements, drop inconvenient data, flip data upside down to ensure things get warmer, present conclusions whilst refusing to explain how they arrived at them, attack anyone who tries to double check their work and a million other things you're not meant to do because it results in deriving data from theory instead of the other way around. But when they point out that this isn't scientific, suddenly they supposedly don't understand the scientific method anymore because they aren't "professional scientists". A pure appeal to authority fallacy! Professional scientists are unfortunately the people with the strongest incentives to break the rules and obfuscate about it, because rule breaking isn't penalized in academia but lack of papers is. People can also see how much it varies by field. Climatological predictions get way more skepticism than, say, physical predictions about the nature of bosons, both because their methods are deserving of skepticism and because they constantly engage in fraudulent conspiracies to cover up those methods. Lest we forget: Phil Jones 2009: For much of the southern hemisphere between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there
    - mhh__ 3y ago
      In my experience I have spent a lot of time explaining what a systematic error is to people who went to school at least a decade ago. > Present edited data, drop data This is exactly what I mean. The people at the LHC (and probably LIGO) have to do this all the time because they generate vast amounts of noisy data too. CERN actually invented quite a lot of machine learning techniques to be able to drop as much data as they have to do. For example, there's a famous temperature sensor in the UK that is obviously biased by being in the middle of London, how you would you use that data? Berkeley Earth, funded by Koch brothers, independently produced a report concluding that global warming was not only real, but also with a curve that was broadly consistent with the IPCC curve too. And it's probably fair to say that I did make an appeal to authority, however I stand by it because I have spent quite a lot of time listening to people who obviously have no idea what goes on in a physics department — forget conspiracy, just the basics of how to make a quantitative statement about a process e.g. "How can you predict something that hasn't happened yet" is one example, or using "correlation isn't causation" as a Crux to deny literally any causal argument. Climate scientists for the most part aren't the best and brightest scientists however that doesn't really matter, because the basic concept of drawing a line through an obviously increasing curve and noting a strong link with CO2 emissions isn't very hard. The difficult stuff is working out which parts of the world will be more effected by local phenomena. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72 https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72
brabel 3y ago
You can hover with the mouse over the year labels at the bottom to highlight their curves... go on and do that for each column of years, from top to bottom... that will let you see how the curves rapidly went up for every single column, which is roughly a decade for each row. And it seems to be going up *faster* for the latest decades. This is really scary.

kortilla 3y ago

How are sensors added to a system like this without it no longer being a year to year comparison?

wpietri 3y ago
The system in question has always been something that combines various sensors, interpolating and adjusting to produce broad numbers. There's an extensive academic reference list here under the "About" tab: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst
mhh__ 3y ago
Meta Point: Ideally it'd be done very carefully. Climate change research is often people's first look at how professional scientists operate, so things which are merely carefully working around systematic errors in other contexts may be suddenly deemed evidence of a fraudulent conspiracy.
- revelio 3y ago
  No it isn't. Most people learn about the scientific method in school, where the rules are taught. Then later they discover that climatologists routinely hide original data, present edited data as if it were measurements, drop inconvenient data, flip data upside down to ensure things get warmer, present conclusions whilst refusing to explain how they arrived at them, attack anyone who tries to double check their work and a million other things you're not meant to do because it results in deriving data from theory instead of the other way around. But when they point out that this isn't scientific, suddenly they supposedly don't understand the scientific method anymore because they aren't "professional scientists". A pure appeal to authority fallacy! Professional scientists are unfortunately the people with the strongest incentives to break the rules and obfuscate about it, because rule breaking isn't penalized in academia but lack of papers is. People can also see how much it varies by field. Climatological predictions get way more skepticism than, say, physical predictions about the nature of bosons, both because their methods are deserving of skepticism and because they constantly engage in fraudulent conspiracies to cover up those methods. Lest we forget: Phil Jones 2009: For much of the southern hemisphere between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there
  - mhh__ 3y ago
    In my experience I have spent a lot of time explaining what a systematic error is to people who went to school at least a decade ago. > Present edited data, drop data This is exactly what I mean. The people at the LHC (and probably LIGO) have to do this all the time because they generate vast amounts of noisy data too. CERN actually invented quite a lot of machine learning techniques to be able to drop as much data as they have to do. For example, there's a famous temperature sensor in the UK that is obviously biased by being in the middle of London, how you would you use that data? Berkeley Earth, funded by Koch brothers, independently produced a report concluding that global warming was not only real, but also with a curve that was broadly consistent with the IPCC curve too. And it's probably fair to say that I did make an appeal to authority, however I stand by it because I have spent quite a lot of time listening to people who obviously have no idea what goes on in a physics department — forget conspiracy, just the basics of how to make a quantitative statement about a process e.g. "How can you predict something that hasn't happened yet" is one example, or using "correlation isn't causation" as a Crux to deny literally any causal argument. Climate scientists for the most part aren't the best and brightest scientists however that doesn't really matter, because the basic concept of drawing a line through an obviously increasing curve and noting a strong link with CO2 emissions isn't very hard. The difficult stuff is working out which parts of the world will be more effected by local phenomena. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72 https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72

brabel 3y ago

You can hover with the mouse over the year labels at the bottom to highlight their curves... go on and do that for each column of years, from top to bottom... that will let you see how the curves rapidly went up for every single column, which is roughly a decade for each row. And it seems to be going up *faster* for the latest decades. This is really scary.