2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record • Hacker News Board

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#61

Post by ps4fanboy » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:55 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #48

ps4fanboy wrote: post #32

Nuclear Power, until those who care about the environment accept that the only clean at scale power solution for base load is nuclear power we will get no where. "Renewables" are great and should be in the mix but they are not an at scale solution. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/source... By going mostly electric for our transportation and nuclear for power generation we could really make a den…

Earth has a set amount of uranium that is destroyed when creating energy. Currently we have about 200 years of uranium available for economical extraction. But if we tried to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear, we would be out within a few decades. Then we'd need to move to other non-renewable materials (thorium?) or start mining astroids. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glob... And the min…

Pick a problem, you cant solve them all at once.

- mining is pretty much a necessity of life at this point.

- 200 years to come up with solutions to energy production while not turning the planet into an oven sounds pretty good.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#62

Post by alayne » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

MCRed wrote: post #53

pfarnsworth wrote: post #35

There is a 10F difference in temperature between my upstairs and downstairs without any heat turned on. There is a 4F difference in temperature between the front of the house and the back of my house. There are so many factors as to how temperature is calculated, how exactly can we take a temperature today and compare it to values from years ago? I'll buy that satellite imaging will produce values that are useful ove…

Especially after climate gate where it was revealed that a warming factor was applied to the raw data, forcing a hockey stick....

Please don't spread this nonsense. "Climate gate" was a nonevent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#63

Post by kanamekun » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

josu wrote: post #43

oolongCat wrote: post #6

I live in one of those "Record Warmest" boxes, it really was hot during the past year. Its funny how people you would consider uneducated and poor in my country would understand that there is clearly something going wrong with the world around us, while some people with lots of money, influence and education choose to believe that this is all a conspiracy by a foreign government. It's just nuts, really, something is…

One cold morning, with a very clear sky, no clouds in sight, I overheard two old ladies discussing how when they were young the sky was bluer, they both agreed. This was in Salamanca, Spain, not Beijing, so no smog to account for.

Aging can cause a decrease in retain sensitivity: "Cells in the retina that are responsible for normal color vision decline in sensitivity as we age, causing colors to become less bright and the contrast between different colors to be less noticeable. ... In particular, blue colors may appear faded or "washed out." While there is no treatment for this normal, age-related loss of color perception, you should be aware of this loss if your profession (e.g. artist, seamstress or electrician) requires fine color discrimination."

http://www.allaboutvision.com/over60/vision-changes.htm

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#64

Post by sago » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

So next year, when there's a modest decrease in global temperature (as per regression to the mean, even if the mean is monotonically increasing), the climate skeptics will be out in force with their 'I told you so - it goes up and down'. Such a huge record seems like good news for climate change deniers, just deferred.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#65

Post by TearsInTheRain » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #59

jupiter90000 wrote: post #40

Is anyone aware if there is reliable data prior to say 1880? [1] Is there any possibility that large scale climate trends could be outside of the observed window of time available? For instance, some large scale natural state-shifting appears to occur on the order of hundreds of years (reference is about earthquakes, but maybe relevant?) [2]. Based on everything I've heard/read/etc about this, it seems unlikely that…

> but I get concerned I'm hearing lots of motivated agendas about it rather than facts. What motivation does anyone have to predict disaster?

power? Almost every issue has at least one of the parties predicting disaster

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#66

Post by ekianjo » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:58 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #59

jupiter90000 wrote: post #40

Is anyone aware if there is reliable data prior to say 1880? [1] Is there any possibility that large scale climate trends could be outside of the observed window of time available? For instance, some large scale natural state-shifting appears to occur on the order of hundreds of years (reference is about earthquakes, but maybe relevant?) [2]. Based on everything I've heard/read/etc about this, it seems unlikely that…

> but I get concerned I'm hearing lots of motivated agendas about it rather than facts. What motivation does anyone have to predict disaster?

Distract people from real issues and extract taxes, is usually how people use disaster predictions.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#67

Post by pfarnsworth » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:58 PM UTC

vectorjohn wrote: post #54

pfarnsworth wrote: post #35

There is a 10F difference in temperature between my upstairs and downstairs without any heat turned on. There is a 4F difference in temperature between the front of the house and the back of my house. There are so many factors as to how temperature is calculated, how exactly can we take a temperature today and compare it to values from years ago? I'll buy that satellite imaging will produce values that are useful ove…

Do you think people have systematically moved the locations of thermometers to warmer places? There's a thing called averages, medians, and other statistics that can remove or put error bars on that kind of uncertainty.

Please don't conflate some sort of political viewpoint to my my strictly scientific criticisms. I didn't say anything except that the idea of comparing data today to many decades ago seems ridiculous when there are so many factors involved with what the temperature is, including location, sun, wind, etc. I'm more interested in accuracy rather than politics or news-grabbing headlines.

Regardless, your point doesn't have any validity. There is a systemic difference between the front of my house and the back of my house in terms of temperature. My thermometers are extremely accurate, with 0.5F if I remember correctly. And the average/median would still show a net 4F difference. So no, your point is invalid, there is still a problem with the data due to location.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#68

Post by nostromo » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:58 PM UTC

ps4fanboy wrote: post #61

nostromo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth has a set amount of uranium that is destroyed when creating energy. Currently we have about 200 years of uranium available for economical extraction. But if we tried to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear, we would be out within a few decades. Then we'd need to move to other non-renewable materials (thorium?) or start mining astroids. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glob... And the min…

Pick a problem, you cant solve them all at once. - mining is pretty much a necessity of life at this point. - 200 years to come up with solutions to energy production while not turning the planet into an oven sounds pretty good.

You've misunderstood my comment.

We have 200 years of uranium left at current rates of consumption. But if we replaced all fossil fuels with nuclear, we'd consume 10 times more per year and we'd only have about 20 years of energy available before needing to move on to a new energy source.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#69

Post by lumpypua » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:59 PM UTC

colmvp wrote: post #26

If this keeps up, I have no idea how countries are going to deal with displaced migrants. We barely have the capability right now to properly deal with Syrians and African refugees.

The numbers in gumball form:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDceLiPLHWQ

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#70

Post by VLM » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 10:59 PM UTC

colmvp wrote: post #26

If this keeps up, I have no idea how countries are going to deal with displaced migrants. We barely have the capability right now to properly deal with Syrians and African refugees.

Moving is expensive. Cheaper to stay in place and work around it.

Note that I'm talking about overall total world costs. The only reason you have refugees now is the costs are being externalized. Bombing Syria is pretty cheap if Europe pays the refugee price, not sure the last time Germany bombed Syria, but they're paying the price for someone else doing it right now... Because of the ease of externalizing costs, I suspect we will get more refugees, but reducing it would be a wise goal.

Obviously there are very small exceptions to the very large general rule, like if your whole island submerges or whatever.