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

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#71

Post by paganel »

nielsbot wrote: post #51
paganel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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”?

Something like: What we scientifically thought was going to improve things has made them worst.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#72

Post by paganel »

wat10000 wrote: post #54
paganel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So, who decides what? What's worst? Dirtier air or a hotter climate? Who makes those decisions? On what considerations?

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#73

Post by iso1631 »

jstanley wrote: post #70
iso1631 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe there are still so-called intellegent people coming out with this crap. 1985 sure. Maybe 2000 But now?

I think you may be reading more into my comment than I wrote. I was only talking about what we are seeing in the Show HN. I have no baseline to compare it to so all I can see is a map of the oceans with some areas red and some areas blue.

And over time the volume of blue reduces and changes to red, and even deeper red appears

It's generally accepted that red = hot and blue = cold, and there is a scale showing that anyway

It's quite obvious based solely on the site that this shows surface sea temperatures over 40 years, and it's far higher now than it was 40 years ago

But sure, just go on the "I'm only asking questions" crap.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#74

Post by nielsbot »

paganel wrote: post #71
nielsbot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Something like: What we scientifically thought was going to improve things has made them worst.

Scientists are saying that tho. We’re talking about those findings rn. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Scientists don’t own their mistakes?

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#75

Post by engineer_22 »

Windchaser wrote: post #44
engineer_22 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries... What changed in 1979?

Probably just an El Nino / La Nina oscillation. Looks similar to the changes leading up to 1998 (another big El Nino), 2016 (same), and 2024. More glibly: "the temperature"

Haha, actually the long term trend changed abruptly

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#76

Post by wat10000 »

paganel wrote: post #72
wat10000 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, who decides what? What's worst? Dirtier air or a hotter climate? Who makes those decisions? On what considerations?

Those questions sum up one of the great problems of our time.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#77

Post by Windchaser »

vscode-rest wrote: post #59
Windchaser wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Are you familiar with the idea of Last Thursdayism?

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#78

Post by vscode-rest »

Windchaser wrote: post #77
vscode-rest wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you familiar with the idea of Last Thursdayism?

Certainly.

Which is why I contest anyone who makes claims like “smart people like me know that Science says the earth is N years old and everyone who disagrees is too dumb to understand these indisputable facts”.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#79

Post by jfengel »

paganel wrote: post #71
nielsbot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Something like: What we scientifically thought was going to improve things has made them worst.

It didn't make them worse. It solved one problem. That made the extent of the other existing problem more apparent.

That was known and expected. We could not continue to put sulfur in the air; it causes acid rain.

The fact that we also cannot afford to put CO2 into the air is a separate problem. That goes beyond temperature: even if additional sulfur would mitigate the temperature increase, it would also make ocean acidification worse.

Re: Show HN: 41 years sea surface temperature anomalies

#80

Post by vscode-rest »

vscode-rest wrote: post #78
Windchaser wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you familiar with the idea of Last Thursdayism?

Certainly. Which is why I contest anyone who makes claims like “smart people like me know that Science says the earth is N years old and everyone who disagrees is too dumb to understand these indisputable facts”.

For reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47394235
Post reply on HN