Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

Post by vscode-rest » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 3:16 PM UTC

zug_zug wrote: post #24

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,…

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.

Post by mistrial9 » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 3:33 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #31

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 befo…

Post by Windchaser » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

vscode-rest wrote: post #41

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.

I take it you have data against creationism? Or that it is somehow less “scary”?

Post by vscode-rest » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

Windchaser wrote: post #45

vscode-rest wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you have data against creationism? Or that it is somehow less “scary”?

Indeed, there is quite a lot of data against (Biblical/young-earth) creationism. Everything from "humans' chromosome 2 is a fusion of two other chromosomes, and we see those two other chromosomes still present in chimpanzees and gorillas and bonobos", which argues for common descent, to "when zircon crystals form, they accept radioactive uranium but violently reject the lead that it decays to, and modern zircon cryst…

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 4:38 PM UTC

vscode-rest wrote: post #47

Windchaser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, there is quite a lot of data against (Biblical/young-earth) creationism. Everything from "humans' chromosome 2 is a fusion of two other chromosomes, and we see those two other chromosomes still present in chimpanzees and gorillas and bonobos", which argues for common descent, to "when zircon crystals form, they accept radioactive uranium but violently reject the lead that it decays to, and modern zircon cryst…

Chromosomal similarity argues for solid engineering principles just as much as it does common decent. Do you have any data to suggest that the almighty did not take a working chromosome 2 (made in their own image, perhaps), and reuse it in these other animals you reference?