I assume temperature anomaly means deviation from 40y mean of temperatures on that exact day? Would be good to have a definition somewhere. There might be other ways to remove seasonality.
Also, would be great to cite the data source.
Update: found the methods
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.
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 that region.
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).
I made something like this (in the VERY broadest sense) 10 years ago - inspired me to revisit and update both visuals and data (a lot has changed in that time).
This looks cool but it's missing a clear legend on the default view to help the viewer understand what they're looking at.
It's not immediately clear if it's just absolute temperatures or relative temperatures or what. You have to look at the color scale to notice that it's from -5 to +5. But relative to what? Over what timescale? Is it a moving average?
I guess I could dig into the data link to figure it out but most people aren't going to do that.
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.
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, otherwise the conversation would be, "Why is the LHC failing to find strong theory which is absolutely there" vs "I wonder if the modelling is correct based on..."
This is a certain level of maturity that certain sciences are only starting to reach after playing in the ballpark of "let's go model my idea and make a press release which will just so happen to help my funding".
Yes sea level temps are rising, absolute numbers are still difficult to come by though and last UN summary doc I read still put things at 5C global average over a century. (Yes still horrifically catastrophic for the wrong people, but I'm also not in charge)
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.
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 < 10 years they'd likely quit their job, spend all their savings, etc.
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.
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.
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 operational daily monitoring products."
For those interested in this type of climate data visualization apps, I have worked on this one in the past, which is actively maintained with a lot of love, and very nice:
Serious question. Why are there static (in absolute positional terms) anomalies in the data that seem to be recording at the other end of the spectrum to their immediate surrounding waters?
Also nice to see several shipping lanes crop up when watching it.
Also, would be great to cite the data source.
Update: found the methods
[1]: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2 [2]: 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...
What changed in 1979?
Half a century of satellite remote sensing of sea-surface temperature (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003442571...
I haven't looked but there will probably be references somewhere explaining the dat sources.
https://callumprentice.github.io/apps/global_temperature_cha...
and
https://callumprentice.github.io/apps/climate_temperature_ch...
It's not immediately clear if it's just absolute temperatures or relative temperatures or what. You have to look at the color scale to notice that it's from -5 to +5. But relative to what? Over what timescale? Is it a moving average?
I guess I could dig into the data link to figure it out but most people aren't going to do that.
1985 sure. Maybe 2000
But now?
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, otherwise the conversation would be, "Why is the LHC failing to find strong theory which is absolutely there" vs "I wonder if the modelling is correct based on..." This is a certain level of maturity that certain sciences are only starting to reach after playing in the ballpark of "let's go model my idea and make a press release which will just so happen to help my funding".
Yes sea level temps are rising, absolute numbers are still difficult to come by though and last UN summary doc I read still put things at 5C global average over a century. (Yes still horrifically catastrophic for the wrong people, but I'm also not in charge)
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 < 10 years they'd likely quit their job, spend all their savings, etc.
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.
"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 operational daily monitoring products."
If it does, it's not that bad.
If it gets bad, it's not a big deal in reality.
If it becomes a big deal, it was not humanity's fault.
And if it was humanity's fault, at least the planet was saved from a global dictatorship run by scientists.
https://portraits.ouranos.ca/en
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/products/ocean/sst/contour/
Also nice to see several shipping lanes crop up when watching it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC534568/