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

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#51

Post by nielsbot »

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…

What should they say? “Turns out there’s a side effect we should put the sulfur back in diesel”?

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#53

Post by vscode-rest »

saalweachter wrote: post #49
vscode-rest wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nothing about the human body argues for solid engineering principles.

Presumably you have some data to back that up? A product designed by the worlds top biological engineers that is more effective?

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#54

Post by wat10000 »

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…

Cutting sulphur content wasn't about climate. Why would climate scientists be taking responsibility?

Blasting pollution into the air is generally a bad idea. If it becomes necessary in order to fight warming, it should be done deliberately and with due consideration, not by having a bunch of ships burning dirty fuel.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#55

Post by wat10000 »

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”?

There's a buttload of data against creationism. There are living trees older than the typical date given for the creation.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#56

Post by wat10000 »

lp4v4n wrote: post #28
pstuart wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Made worse that there's a significant number of people who refuse to believe it, and for all the wrong reasons at that.

Global warming doesn't exist. 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.

You're missing: it's real and we did it but it's good, and, it's real and we did it and it's bad but it would cost too much to fix it now.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#57

Post by Windchaser »

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?

> 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?

Why would an almighty god leave markers in our Chromosome 2 that look like they are from chromosomes 2a/2b in other apes?

It's not just that there's a huge genetic similarities between the chromosomes. Which there are! Chromosome 2 also has an extra, deactivated centromere, which was used in the copying of the previous chromosome 2b, before the fusion. And, remember that chromosomes typically have telomeres at their ends to keep them from fraying apart. In a fusion event you'd expect some telomeres from the end of the ingredient chromosomes to end up in the middle of the resulting fused chromosome. And this is what we see.

Of course God could have created our chromosome in such a way that it looks very much like the fusion of 2 chromosomes from our shared ancestor with chimpanzees, down to the addition of an extra centromere and telomere region. But why would he?

But, I've also got to say, man, please don't be surprised if I don't respond much. I have no offense intended towards you, but from my perspective, arguing with a young earth creationist is about as productive as arguing with a flat earther. There are about 6 orders of magnitude of difference in age between an Earth that's about 6k years old and 4 billion, and those differences should be readily apparent all over the natural world. And they are! We see an incredible wealth of evidence for an old universe.

But... well, horse and water and all that. I can't expect to change your mind any more than I'd expect to change a flat-earther's mind.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#58

Post by vscode-rest »

wat10000 wrote: post #55
vscode-rest wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a buttload of data against creationism. There are living trees older than the typical date given for the creation.

Oldest tree I see is reported as 5,000 years. Common creation date is held to be roughly 6000 years ago.

Not that I think the age estimates folks have has much basis is reality. But this is a particularly empty nothing-burger.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#59

Post by vscode-rest »

Windchaser wrote: post #57
vscode-rest wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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? Why would an almighty god leave markers in our Chromosome 2 that look like they are from chromosomes 2a/2b in other apes? It's not just that there's a huge genetic similarities between the chromosomes. Which there are! Chromosome 2 also has an e…

I get that you don’t understand why a creator might do things they way they might have done. I don’t either. But surely you admit your own lack of understanding is not a scientific proof point?

If I said “I don’t understand why the big bang happened”, would that be evidence it didn’t?

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#60

Post by wat10000 »

vscode-rest wrote: post #58
wat10000 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a buttload of data against creationism. There are living trees older than the typical date given for the creation.

Oldest tree I see is reported as 5,000 years. Common creation date is held to be roughly 6000 years ago. Not that I think the age estimates folks have has much basis is reality. But this is a particularly empty nothing-burger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

I’m sure you’ll say the older ones are wrong, of course.

Post reply on HN