Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Average Global Temperatures since 1850

kyso.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 125 posts

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#61

Post by lanevorockz »

Please, let's not go back to a debunked theory. Global Warming models did not work and we phased them out a long time ago. The real term for the past decade on climate science is Climate Change and Extreme Environment. There is a lot more data on this graph if you cross fossil data and ice sheet research.

Science is the only thing that everyone can agree with. I feel that it is our job to be accurate and not just do lazy one dimensional research. We might solve the wrong problem and just damage the environment on the process.

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#62

Post by alecmg »

lubonay wrote: post #8

I think humans are generally bad at prevention of and good at reaction to catastrophes. The next 50 years are going to be interesting... let's hope we leave the world in a manageable state for future generations.

Adapting to catastrophes has literally evolved for millions of years. Species that couldn't adapt to change - died. The ones that survived didn't survive because they successfully prevented a catastrophe.

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#63

Post by GoblinSlayer »

helenakyso wrote: post #51
tomtomtom777 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop buying stuff without thought. I know that a lot of people feel helpless because it's the big corporations that are emitting, but companies only emit CO2 if consumers pay them to do so. Buying everything consciously, whether its food, appliances, housing, or a ticket to some performance, will make the world better.

The problem is that the current society and economic system are "forcing" us to buy/have more and more thing on cheaper prices at any environmental costs.

It only convinces, doesn't force.

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#64

Post by southern_cross »

serpix wrote: post #56
southern_cross wrote: post #37

"The data are a mix of the CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. The HadCRUT4 data are neither interpolated nor variance adjusted." This is your typical half-truth (lie of omission). Even if the HadCRUT4 folks themselves don't make these kinds of adjustments, the folks who provide the data sets which HadCRUT4 is based on most certainly do.

so are you implying someone is methodically rigging up the data to show an anomaly for shits and giggles?

That's exactly what they've been doing! Or, perhaps more correctly, they've let their "algorithms" run amok without doing any quality control on the final results, thereby turning modest warming into "scary" warming. Whether this was intentional or not is debatable (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor), but it certainly looked that way to me at the time.

About ten years ago, after some remarkably incorrect statements about local heat levels made by the folks at NOAA or wherever, and then repeated (but very quickly retracted) by our own local weather folk, I went to the trouble of doing a bit of a deep dive on the HadCrut3 data sets. And what I found there was appalling. Other folks did more comprehensive deep dives and found far more problems with it than I had.

I could only do what I did at the time because some authority (I forget who) had finally forced the entire data set to be released to the public, over the strenuous objections of the folks who administer that data. Much of that data has since been hidden again, though, from what I can tell.

That was the older HadCRUT3 data set. The newest one is HadCRUT4, but I haven't done any kind of deep dive on that. (Without digging further into the matter I don't even know if there is enough data publicly available to do the kind of analysis on it that I did on the earlier set.) But other people have, and have noted serious problems with it, and have even written entire books about that. The short version, though, is that there is an awful lot of "data" out there which they're using that is mostly just made up, and what is genuine has been adjusted so much that it can no longer really be considered "data" at all.

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#65

Post by pfisch »

southern_cross wrote: post #41
H8crilA wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make sure your assets are shielded from the consequences. I'm a strong believer in voting with legs. For example - it's insane how the Miami real estate prices ignore what's going on (they even have a cheerful name - "sunny day floods"): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MIXRNSA Just sell it already! There's nothing good waiting for Miami, the city will die. Rent if you really want to stay till it blows up. As far a…

The flooding that is (was?) occurring in Miami was largely the result of a poorly designed rain-drain system, one which was installed with little to no back-flow prevention. This new system, which was put in place into allow rainwater to flow into the ocean more easily and so prevent flash flooding, unfortunately also allowed the ocean to easily flow back into the streets when conditions were right and so caused tida…

New Orleans is itself in a rapidly deteriorating state. I lived there for over 30 years, and it has gotten progressively worse and worse over time.

There are now frequent periods where you have to boil your water before you can use it, and it floods in a hard rain which didn't really happen 10 years ago.

I guess what I am saying is I don't believe you, and most of New Orleans going into the ocean as well.

New Orleans and Miami will just slowly deteriorate over time and people will stop investing in these places because it isn't worth the flood risks. Eventually New Orleans will really just be a tourist destination. The French Quarter and probably some of uptown around St. Charles will survive unless things get really bad.

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#66

Post by wallace_f »

lubonay wrote: post #21
wallace_f wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really easy to implement a carbon tax. And it solves the problem. But what politicians want is more power grabs, not solutions. All of our wars on poverty, drugs, terror etc are intended this way. They are wars on people. This is the same. These people dont give a fuck about you. That's rarely ever been the case.

Implementing an unpopular measure (more tax) is almost equivalent to political suicide, and people in power tend to want to stay in power. So yeah, technically it may be easy, but politically (which is what really matters here) this is almost impossible.

Every president has been essentially increasing taxes in the sense that they are raising spending, and spending increases are tax increases. People just dont want their gas prices to go up. Their fine with ignoring a financial catostrophe for the next generation which is the national debt. They are also very happy to soap box and advertise that they care about the next generation by talking nonsense about global warming.

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#67

Post by dsjoerg »

lanevorockz wrote: post #61

Please, let's not go back to a debunked theory. Global Warming models did not work and we phased them out a long time ago. The real term for the past decade on climate science is Climate Change and Extreme Environment. There is a lot more data on this graph if you cross fossil data and ice sheet research. Science is the only thing that everyone can agree with. I feel that it is our job to be accurate and not just do…

Can you offer a link to a light introduction to the topic and/or its data? This was my first search and I'm clearly not doing it right: https://www.google.com/search?q=Climate+Change+and+Extreme+E...

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#68

Post by lm28469 »

reallydontask wrote: post #35
tomtomtom777 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop buying stuff without thought. I know that a lot of people feel helpless because it's the big corporations that are emitting, but companies only emit CO2 if consumers pay them to do so. Buying everything consciously, whether its food, appliances, housing, or a ticket to some performance, will make the world better.

This is a pretty good idea but it needs a lot of people doing it. We're in the process of moving home and putting everything into boxes makes one realize how much crap one has bought unnecessarily. We're on a relatively special case in that we've only recently moved (18 months ago) so we actually have stuff that has never been used in our current house. A lot of this stuff has been donated to charity and some tossed…

> This is a pretty good idea but it needs a lot of people doing it.

There is no way out of this that doesn't involve a "lot of people doing" something. Our lifestyles are just not sustainable.

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#69

Post by polotics »

disordinary wrote: post #40
helenakyso wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I think that by the time the government start making changes, it will be too late, as it is too late now. Like humanity must have a dramatic change - from top to bottom. The system is against the world We live in a finite world consuming like it is infinite Every action counts, but it will be hard and it must be super reinforced by law

Well, depending on where you are you can also vote for the local green party. If you're in a proportional election system then that the bigger the green voting block is the better. If you're in a country with a first-past-the-post electoral system like the US, UK, or Australia then things are much tougher and you should also be campaigning for electoral reform to make your country more democratic.

Assuming your local green party representative doesn't think that shutting down a safe nuclear power plant has higher priority than CO2/Methane...

Re: Average Global Temperatures since 1850

#70

Post by lm28469 »

tomohawk wrote: post #25

Only going back to 1850 is exactly the kind of thing someone would do if they wanted to cherry pick their data to suit a case. You have to go back much further. It is known that at that time we were coming out of a period of much cooler temperatures. See for example the year without a summer (1816). There are periods of human history where it was warmer than it is now. For example, during the Viking expansion, and du…

The truth is that the past doesn't matter. If the current warm up is aggravated [0] by human activity, and pretty much everyone agrees it is, we should do something about it. Saying "it was warmer/colder before" makes it sound as it is a non issue. And tbh even if, and that's a big "if", pollution isn't directly linked to climate change everything reducing the air/water/food poising we're inflicting to ourselves is good.

[0] I'm not even saying 'caused' because at that point it doesn't change anything

Post reply on HN