Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

ssta.willhelps.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#31

Post by paganel »

mckirk wrote: post #8

Along these lines: I really like the 'Climate Reanalyzer' project by the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine [1]. There's so much good stuff there if you click around a bit; you can create custom plots for the surface temperature of different regions for example[2], which quickly shows you that Western Europe has actually warmed a lot more than the global average, and we're closer to +2°C already in t…

> https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries...

It can also be clearly seen that the 2020 limit on the sulphur content in the fuel oil used on board ships [1] had quite the negative effects when it comes to surface sea temperatures, but I haven't that many climate (and not only) scientists taking responsibility of that act (even though related warnings had been made, I remember reading one just before the measure went in effect).

[1] https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2...

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#32

Post by rexpop »

jstanley wrote: post #6
zug_zug wrote: post #4

Very emotionally powerful to watch something play out, even if I'm already consciously aware of it. Would love a speed where I can watch the whole dataset play out in about 1 minute.

What are we seeing play out? It just looks like some areas are warm and some are cold?

[dead]

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#34

Post by bkor »

illwrks wrote: post #16

Very nice. I had a quick look at the data source and I wonder if the more recent data is more sensitive/better quality since 2020? There's a clear trend of the oceans getting warmer but recently it seems like there's more and more heat retained. "CRW's first-generation global monitoring products were operational at NOAA until April 30, 2020, when they were officially retired, and succeeded by CRW's next-generation op…

As said by someone else, the temperature of the oceans rose significantly more after the low sulphur regulation went into effect. See https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2... for the regulation.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#35

Post by croemer »

In case you wonder how the anomaly is calculated:

   The daily global 5km SSTA product requires a daily climatology to calculate the daily SST anomalies. Daily climatologies (DC) are derived from the monthly mean (MM) climatology via linear interpolation. To achieve this, we assigned the MM value to the 15th day of each corresponding month, with the individual days between these dates being derived using linear interpolation.

   We then calculate the SSTA product using: SST_anomaly = SST - DC where the SST is the value for the day in question, and DC is the corresponding daily climatology for that day of the year.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#37

Post by zug_zug »

rob_c wrote: post #27
zug_zug wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it has anything to do with data-quality, I'd be surprised if even 10% of climate denialists have studied the numbers. Remember >20% of US citizens are still creationists, a lot of people aren't emotionally ready to believe scary things, and maybe they never will be.

And believing the world ending as in "the day after tomorrow" was the "still mask wearing" of the 2010s. Fear.

Feels like a really weak bad-faith take.

I guess you're trying to draw a false-equivalency between taking a problem extra seriously and denying/perpetuating it? However taking a problem too seriously doesn't harm people, if you want to wear a mask out of an abundance of caution you won't kill anybody else.

Also nobody believed the world was going to end in two days, that feels like a disingenuous talking point. If somebody literally believed the world would end in If your point is that you've met ~15 individuals in your life who were obnoxious/self-righteous/unlikeable about their attempts to make the world better -- congrats every movement has that. But it can't distract from the fact that one thing is true and the other is false, and anybody who tries to focus more on the stereotypes of the individuals in a movement than whether it's true or not is only creating noise.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#39

Post by marginalx »

croemer wrote: post #35

In case you wonder how the anomaly is calculated: The daily global 5km SSTA product requires a daily climatology to calculate the daily SST anomalies. Daily climatologies (DC) are derived from the monthly mean (MM) climatology via linear interpolation. To achieve this, we assigned the MM value to the 15th day of each corresponding month, with the individual days between these dates being derived using linear interpol…

This doesn't give me a clear idea as a layman on how to interpret this information. Is it ok for the layman to believe that may 1st 1985 the variations of -5 to 5 were around 86 mean but in 2025 the same were around 82 mean, if that were to be the case, irrespective of the variations, it would not give me an idea of whether its concerning or not (this is just a random example, don't read too much into my beliefs)

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#40

Post by rob_c »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #26
rob_c wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give you 2 reasons. a) published data tends to see corrections from sensors and methodology which take several years to work out the fine details. (This isn't an attack this is science) Which means always take yesterday's numbers with more scepticism than 2yr ago. (This is making no statement of any data you're looking at or any trend you claim to see) b) a field dominated by modelling needs data to back it up,…

No, most of these people consciously or otherwise, just want/need to be contrarians. Look at flat Earthers. There is no way any sane person would say the earth is flat.

Please don't bring up another thing started by idiot scientists for a laugh to laugh at stupid people. You have no idea what it's like dealing with the "just open your eyes" and "what else are they hiding" tier of pseudo-intellectualism enabled by nu-media.

There are reasons to be sceptical which are set in reason and it's worth not throwing that out with the bath water. Even if the bath water is full of low iq bitchute comments...

Post reply on HN