
Alaskan North Slope climate change just outran one of our tools to measure it - based2
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/alaskan-north-slope-climate-change-just-outran-one-our-tools-measure
======
danielvf
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
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&pro...](https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=met&type=temp)

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
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-n...](https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/barrow-temp-vs-nearby-
seaice-820.png)

~~~
acqq
But the graph shows at least 25 degrees differece, whereas you claim only 2.5
degrees in your parent post!

~~~
danielvf
1998 was the previous high average in the last 20 years. Look in the bottom
right side of the graph I linked to.

~~~
acqq
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
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
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...](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-
warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere)

[https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/uks-met-
office-r...](https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/uks-met-office-
reminds-us-its-not-cold-everywhere.html)

etc.

------
3princip
Incidentally, I've been using the 5-minute USCRN dataset provided online [1]
for load testing, and one of the stations is Barrow (lat/lon: 71.32,-156.61).
Data starts in 2006.

Out of curiosity I just did some basic SQL queries on the dataset (min, max,
average) and the graphs look slightly different from those in the article. The
annual average temperature 2006 vs 2016 shows no difference for example. [2]

[1]
[https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html)
[2]
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vScsduBmVJxE...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vScsduBmVJxE-
fdTCrsA_j0-rYmQLWrE-DfMbEaDWVNmQDhCS9R9HTcN-CoGQ1eY7rnqcMl4BWIGaqE/pubhtml)

------
LeifCarrotson
> _It would be great if we just had 4000+ weather station gnomes whose
> families are bound to tend a given station’s climate record for generations,
> who knew every detail of a station’s quirks, and who always write down all
> the station’s data including margin notes like "moved down the runway, built
> a shed nearby, and swapped out the sensor" \- then hand carry their
> notebooks to NCEI each month. But instead, data ingest is an automated
> process, which means the handwritten margin notes sometimes get overlooked.
> So we need an automated process that flags problems and tells scientists,
> “hey, check out Barrow, there’s something odd there.”_

Hand carrying notebooks and notes in the margin are a sign that your automated
process is insufficient, not that manual processes would be better. Perhaps
each weather station should have a physical button that people can push to
insert a flag in the database that says to check the note in the margin?

(Also, it would be an ethical travesty to 'bind' generations of sentient
beings to slavery like that. But fortunately that was a hypothetical.)

~~~
DonbunEf7
They're _gnomes_. Tell them the truth: they'll be helping to care for the
planet. Throw in some vacation and pay and they'll love it.

------
aaronbrethorst
Interestingly, Barry Myers, the guy that Trump has nominated to run NOAA,
believes that climate change is primarily caused by humans. That's quite
different from, as far as I know, everyone else in the administration.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-
gang/wp/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-
gang/wp/2017/11/29/barry-myers-trumps-pick-to-run-noaa-declares-humans-are-
main-cause-of-climate-change/)

~~~
StavrosK
.

~~~
reallydude
Not constructive.

------
jfnixon
If only this were reflected in the US Climate Reference Data, with the gold
standard stations, carefully sited, equipped with the most accurate sensors,
properly calibrated. There are 29 of these stations in Alaska, one at Barrow,
in fact. Somehow I missed seeing the comparison of the older site's data with
the nearby modern site.

You can see the data for the USCRN station at Barrow here:
[https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/station.htm?stationId=1007](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/station.htm?stationId=1007)

------
bognition
That last chart is really interesting, and maybe quite alarming. Most of the
conversations around global warming focus on limiting the global temperature
increase to a few degrees c over the next few decades. However it looks like
the average temperature at this station has already increased from 6°-12° F to
what looks like 14°-20° F.

This is already an increase of 2° C! So while the global average may only have
changed slightly, temperatures in specific regions have already gone slightly
off the rails.

~~~
sulam
It’s worth being very alarmed. We are putting carbon into the atmosphere at a
rate 6X greater than during the worst hyperthermal of the Eocene, which is the
regime we are replicating. It’s noteworthy that sea levels (eustatic) were
anywhere from 100 to 200 _meters_ higher then, a combination of essentially
all surface ice melting and the thermal expansion of water.

Even if you’re so optimistic that you think we can drive our own emissions
down to less than 1/6th current levels, feedback loops are have started
driving non-anthropogenic carbon into the atmosphere that we have zero ability
to control.

Another supporting data point is that most reef-dwelling species experienced
an “anomalous” mass extinction during this period and not coincidentally we
are seeing the same effects already in today’s oceans.

Some people say climate change scientists are being alarmist. In fact they are
being very conservative and the data is scarier than what is reported.

~~~
sulam
Two more things — land animals during the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)
did -not- have mass extinctions, but there is evidence of mass migrations.
This is another example of something we are already seeing today (for quite a
while now). Now project forward 50-100 years and imagine the mass land animal
migrations are _us_. Given how well we aren’t handling comparatively minor
migrations today, you could be forgiven for thinking we are well and truly
f*cked.

Interestingly, it’s probably carbon capture “technology” that caused the
Eocene to go from 3500ppm CO2 to below today’s levels. Arctic cores show at
least 8 meters (!) of sedimentary Azolla that corresponds directly with a
massive reduction in atmospheric carbon, kicking off an ice age. Google the
Azolla event for more details.

This is why my personal focus is on carbon capture as a potential solution.
Azolla apparently took us from greenhouse earth to an ice age in under 1M
years, so I’m hoping we can do better. I also have a lot of respect for Elon
Musk’s plan.

Oh, and in a truly delicious ironic turn, oil companies are investigating
whether or not they can find oil in Arctic sedimentary deposits created by the
Azolla event. I guess they want to put all that carbon back into the air!

~~~
colordrops
What is Elon Musk's plan?

~~~
emiliobumachar
Convert humanity as fast as possible to electric cars and solar roofs. Not a
full solution, particularly not at this time, but will, if successful, take
big chunks out of the problem.

------
kossTKR
This is on a tangent but lately i have begun to consider the possibility that
short term climate change will cause a rapid and complete global collapse.

This is from talking to actual climate scientists and seeing them making very
real short term practical investments and decisions regarding geographical
location, frugality and not having kids.

Examples of that here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIy0t5P0CUQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIy0t5P0CUQ)

And this is not fringe science anymore. The latest predictions from the
largest meta reviews are all, -even though still conservative-, blasting
through the ceilings of the worst scenarios. Latest a 4 degree celcius average
shift in 80 years.

[https://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/news-2017/worst-case-
glo...](https://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/news-2017/worst-case-global-
warming-predictions-are-the-most-accurate-say-climate-experts/)

While 4 degrees sounds manageable, it would actually cause a severe die-off
off most off the human population because of a complete break down of the
stable regional weather systems which the whole global ecology has adapted to
over thousands of years of evolution. There is simply no time for an
agricultural adaptation, and not enough time for migration or biological
transformation.

The previous changes in global climate has taken orders of magnitudes longer
than the current one, this is one of the many misconceptions floating in
around in the collective consciousness, in part pushed by the army of lawyers,
PR-employees and astroturfers employed by the energy sector. The internet and
the media landscape in general is rife with them as far as i have observed.

Also 4 degrees is extremely optimistic.

Look at this article about an increase in degrees ( Not very old and already
its focusing on 2 degrees, half of the new consensus ):
[http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/2degrees/](http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/2degrees/)

The goalposts keep getting pushed and the modeling from the Paris Agreement is
based of scenarios where deus ex machina like geo-engineering will suddenly
become available and save us all. Pure magical thinking at least from a
scientific perspective - even though i really believe in human ingenuity.

[https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/Geo...](https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/GeoEngineering%20Primer%20-%20Special%20Report.pdf)

But things are probably going to get much, much worse..

If we go just a bit out of the hyper optimistic consensus of the "policy
making parts" of the academic climate community we soon discover the
frightening prospects of the feedback loops that we are not even accounting
for; methane release, blue ocean event (reflection), ocean acidity threshold,
reversal of ocean currents etc.

The first phase begins in about four to five years where we will reach the
"blue ocean event". The first year of the arctic being virtually ice free.
This will kick in to gear a series of events we are unable to model.

[http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_max_loss_and_ice...](http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_max_loss_and_ice_remaining.png)

The ice sheet is already having trouble re-emerging this year in the north,
and this could lead to an increase more in the vicinity of 7-8 degrees at the
turn of the century. Which also means complete global collapse in 10-20 years.
And a heavy die off accelerating thereafter, until who knows what..

~~~
ajmurmann
I think I might have asked this before here: what are investments one can make
to take advantage of climate change. So many people have their heads on the
sand. That's usually a great opportunity to profit. Land and real estate in
colder climates is a obvious one, but it's hard to spread your risk with that
unless you have a ton of money and can buy in a variety of locals. What's the
big short of climate change?

EDIT: Some more thoughts:

1\. Shorting companies that primarily exist or do business in locations that
will be super fucked by this. What's those? Saudi companies? Companies located
in flat island states? Agriculture companies located in countries where
agriculture will be impossible. Where would that be?

2\. Buying stock of companies likely to profit. What would those be and how do
I know they have a moat protecting them from companies that used to be in now
uninhabitable areas from jumping into their market? E.g: If I invest in
agricultural companies in Greenland, what protects them from being pushed out
by Spanish agricultural companies that buy up land in Greenland? That would
especially suck if I shorted the Spanish companies...

~~~
knz
I think OP is thinking more about personal survival rather than how to profit
from an extinction level event....

~~~
prawn
Seems so, but if the lemons are getting crushed through small fault of your
own, does it hurt to make lemonade? It's an interesting discussion regardless.

I don't know if we'll see an entire global collapse, but I think we'll see a
lot of displacement that stresses communities already overly sensitive to
migration. Not to mention the likely deadly impact on many people.

That, to me, should be reason enough to act rather than ignore as impacting
only "those people over there".

~~~
FooHentai
>if the lemons are getting crushed through small fault of your own, does it
hurt to make lemonade?

If the things being crushed are what you need for basic survival, yeah sitting
there with a lemonade stand is pretty stupid.

~~~
prawn
I think you misunderstand my comment.

Let's say you're doing your part, to some reasonable extent. But you only have
one vote and the broader population votes for people that steer the country or
world in less effective ways. The planet is going to warm despite your best
efforts. Does buying cold-climate land that will become more suitable for
farming food in the future worsen the situation or indirectly make lemonade
from the sour situation?

------
mirimir
The same thing happened with satellite data on stratospheric ozone levels.

