[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I don't know what 'warming' is being reported.

http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_table.html

Okay, I've been through the table of active buoys and not a single one of them shows 30C over average for surface temperature or air temperature (not all of them report air temperature).

Maybe it's .30C over average/normal? Because it sure as fuck isn't 30C over average/normal based on the reported data.

Maybe after you smoke a joint, drink a few shots, and then 'adjust' the data you might come up with 30C but the actual data you shared here doesn't support this figure in the least.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I don't know what 'warming' is being reported.

http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_table.html

Okay, I've been through the table of active buoys and not a single one of them shows 30C over average for surface temperature or air temperature (not all of them report air temperature).

Maybe it's .30C over average/normal? Because it sure as fuck isn't 30C over average/normal based on the reported data.

That's an awful lot of data to go through in such a short time. I prefer to rely on professionals who's job it is to analyze such data. But I am encouraged that you didn't claim there was no raw data this time.

0:

Arctic Temps 2016-12-28.JPG [ 157.9 KiB | Viewed 105 times ]

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#T2_anom

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Maybe after you smoke a joint, drink a few shots, and then 'adjust' the data you might come up with 30C but the actual data you shared here doesn't support this figure in the least.

I don't smoke joints. But I do rely on people who's jobs it is to do their job well. I don't grow my own bananas, I don't pave my own highways and I don't monitor the environment by myself. And I don't automatically dismiss people who do, just because their advice is counter to my own intuition.

I also didn't 'share' the data, it was a link in the posted article.

[BRAH]

____________________

We Didn't Listen!

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's an awful lot of data to go through in such a short time. I prefer to rely on professionals who's job it is to analyze such data. But I am encouraged that you didn't claim there was no raw data this time.

I exported the entirety of the data to .csv via the US government web tool located at http://catalog.data.gov/dataset and then imported it to SAS and ran a query against it for >30 and got nothing.

If you have SAS I can send you a link for the data set and the query.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's an awful lot of data to go through in such a short time. I prefer to rely on professionals who's job it is to analyze such data. But I am encouraged that you didn't claim there was no raw data this time.

I exported the entirety of the data to .csv via the US government web tool located at http://catalog.data.gov/dataset and then imported it to SAS and ran a query against it for >30 and got nothing.

If you have SAS I can send you a link for the data set and the query.

Well, there's your problem. Looking at the buoy data, it's a record of temperature at a given latitude and longitude at a given time of day. As each buoy drifts, it will give only local information that changes constantly.

So you'd have to import all the buoy data, group it for lat/long, then find an average for that area. Then compare today's temp to the nearest buoy and that average to get the +30c.

That's why I put that task to the professionals. I don't have a computer that fast, and I have things like shoveling the driveway and fixing the dishwasher to do.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's an awful lot of data to go through in such a short time. I prefer to rely on professionals who's job it is to analyze such data. But I am encouraged that you didn't claim there was no raw data this time.

I exported the entirety of the data to .csv via the US government web tool located at http://catalog.data.gov/dataset and then imported it to SAS and ran a query against it for >30 and got nothing.

If you have SAS I can send you a link for the data set and the query.

Well, there's your problem. Looking at the buoy data, it's a record of temperature at a given latitude and longitude at a given time of day. As each buoy drifts, it will give only local information that changes constantly.

So you'd have to import all the buoy data, group it for lat/long, then find an average for that area. Then compare today's temp to the nearest buoy and that average to get the +30c.

That's why I put that task to the professionals. I don't have a computer that fast, and I have things like shoveling the driveway and fixing the dishwasher to do.

I'm not finding a 30C variation at all. I'm not finding it in the active buoy data or in the inactive buoy data. Because it's not there. Not even on just ONE of them.

Oh, and I DO have a computer THAT fast. It's an HP z640.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm not finding a 30C variation at all. I'm not finding it in the active buoy data or in the inactive buoy data. Because it's not there. Not even on just ONE of them.

Oh, and I DO have a computer THAT fast. It's an HP z640.

What are you using for your reference datum to calculate anomalies? Five-year running average? Or GISS, RSS or UAH baseline?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm not finding a 30C variation at all. I'm not finding it in the active buoy data or in the inactive buoy data. Because it's not there. Not even on just ONE of them.

Oh, and I DO have a computer THAT fast. It's an HP z640.

What are you using for your reference datum to calculate anomalies? Five-year running average? Or GISS, RSS or UAH baseline?

I ran it as a reconciliation against last year and then they also have a 2002-2012 dataset that I ran it against and still could not come up with one single instance of a +/-30C variation.

That's consistent with their OISST anomaly map for today which is measured against the 1971-2000 mean.



Maybe it's a .3C or even a 3C variation that someone is pushing a decimal point on but it isn't a whopping 30C.

[Zipperfish]

I don't think youa re doing iot right. The map here is sea surface temperature Given that water ahs about 1000 times the heat capacity of air, it would be pretty dramatic to see a 20 deg C change in sea surface temperature. The current arctic spike is weather.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think youa re doing iot right. The map here is sea surface temperature Given that water ahs about 1000 times the heat capacity of air, it would be pretty dramatic to see a 20 deg C change in sea surface temperature. The current arctic spike is weather.

The article cites ocean buoys reporting a 30C spike in air temps and some of the buoys do indeed report air temps.

But none of them show a 30C spike in air temps over this time last year or in the 2002-2012.

And air temps are going to at least somewhat correspond with surface temps in terms of demonstrating an increase.

A 30C spike in air temps is going to noticeably warm the surface.

[BartSimpson]

I'm just saying that someone is either drawing conclusions from the data that the data doesn't provide or someone just fucked up their math.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think youa re doing iot right. The map here is sea surface temperature Given that water ahs about 1000 times the heat capacity of air, it would be pretty dramatic to see a 20 deg C change in sea surface temperature. The current arctic spike is weather.

The article cites ocean buoys reporting a 30C spike in air temps and some of the buoys do indeed report air temps.

But none of them show a 30C spike in air temps over this time last year or in the 2002-2012.

And air temps are going to at least somewhat correspond with surface temps in terms of demonstrating an increase.

A 30C spike in air temps is going to noticeably warm the surface.

They are measured against a 1979 - 2000 baseline. According to the webspage: Temperature refers to air temperature at 2 meters above the surface. The temperature anomaly is made in reference to a 1979-2000 climatology derived from the reanalysis of the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFSR/CFSV2) model. This climate baseline is used instead of the 1981-2010 climate normal because it spans a period prior to significant warming of the Arctic beyond historically-observed values. For context, see this timeseries plot showing how various climate baselines compare against the NASA GISS 1880-2014 global land-ocean temperature index.

I can't run that model. Too complicated for me.

[BartSimpson]

I'd also question their 1880-2014 data becuase it's data like that which NASA and GISS and etc. are notorious for 'adjusting' downward to make the past appear cooler than it was reported to be.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

They are measured against a 1979 - 2000 baseline. According to the webspage: Temperature refers to air temperature at 2 meters above the surface. The temperature anomaly is made in reference to a 1979-2000 climatology derived from the reanalysis of the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFSR/CFSV2) model. This climate baseline is used instead of the 1981-2010 climate normal because it spans a period prior to significant warming of the Arctic beyond historically-observed values. For context, see this timeseries plot showing how various climate baselines compare against the NASA GISS 1880-2014 global land-ocean temperature index.

I can't run that model. Too complicated for me.

That's actually why I defer to the pro's. I look at that dataset and realize how complicated just sorting the data based on geolocation would be, then adding the weather models and accounting for the drifting of buoys . . . that's mainframe or Supercomputer territory. Time and hardware I don't have.

[BartSimpson]

Keep in mind I'm not doing anything that complicated. I'm just trying to find the 30C differential and it's not there.