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

Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

climatechangetracker.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#31

Post by mistermann »

marstall wrote: post #14

I'm presuming that the foundation here is solid and well-intentioned, but there are many different data sources that could be powering these visualizations so a clearer citation would be helpful (beyond what is provided, just the orgs, Berkeley earth+nasa).

I'd like to see some innovation in reporting on the human side of the puzzle....how people perceive the problem of global warming, how they feel about it, what is behind how they feel about it, etc.

Maybe it's just me, but preaching to the choir with ever more impressive science is not moving the ball forward very fast, and if you trust the science, moving the ball forward quickly is an ability that is crucially important.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#32

Post by DangitBobby »

zdragnar wrote: post #27
laichzeit0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling that the climate change charts induce a similar knee jerk reaction as IQ scores or vaccines. Most people have an ideology they subscribe to and will argue using facts and reason in order to support it. I have yet to witness a religious person be reasoned into atheism. I suspect the applies for the above mentioned categories, whatever side of the fence the person happens to be on.

Charts and visualisations are a great way to trick people. Not only is the source data obscured (and so readily cherry picked) but it opens up all sorts of tricks around visual perception. I also suspect most people yet to be convinced will immediately think back to Al Gore's infamous hockey stick chart when presented with visual simplifications of deeply complex climate data. At the heart of the matter, looking at s…

They have been trained to deny evidence that leads to conclusions they don't like.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#33

Post by [deleted] »

wcoenen wrote: post #19
Muromec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because co2 is not evenly distributed with most polluters concentrated in northern hemisphere and prevailing wind direction to be from equator to poles.

Any air moving towards the poles must necessarily be balanced by air moving away from the poles. This manifests as "Hadley cells" and other similar wind patterns. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Ea...

[deleted]

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#34

Post by landemva »

davidw wrote: post #22
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #3

I really dislike the use of the word "anomaly" in climate change circles. It may be technically correct, but it feels like propaganda. All it is is the difference to the average of an arbitrarily chosen time frame. It would actually be strange if temperatures where exactly like the average all the time, so calling it an anomaly if they are different from the average really seems misleading. Again, it may be the techn…

My understanding is that it's changing at a faster rate than previous non human caused shifts. That's the anomaly.

The fastest shifts occurred after large volcanic activity. And cold summers for a few years then led to crop failures.

Am really interested in more analysis of correlation of reduced sunspot activity and then increased volcanic activity. It appears to be a fascinating correlation.

Update - The mammoths with undigested grass in their stomachs, which froze to death while eating, may indicate magnetic pole flip creates faster climate change than volcanic activity.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#36

Post by GoodJokes »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #3

I really dislike the use of the word "anomaly" in climate change circles. It may be technically correct, but it feels like propaganda. All it is is the difference to the average of an arbitrarily chosen time frame. It would actually be strange if temperatures where exactly like the average all the time, so calling it an anomaly if they are different from the average really seems misleading. Again, it may be the techn…

Propaganda? Calling it not an anomaly would be way less scientific. Is it just not fitting YOUR propaganda?

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#37

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

Angostura wrote: post #11
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #3

I really dislike the use of the word "anomaly" in climate change circles. It may be technically correct, but it feels like propaganda. All it is is the difference to the average of an arbitrarily chosen time frame. It would actually be strange if temperatures where exactly like the average all the time, so calling it an anomaly if they are different from the average really seems misleading. Again, it may be the techn…

Temperatures are anomalous, given what we know about the state of all the non anthropogenic factors acting upon climate at the moment. Nothing really contentious or 'propaganda' there.

It is a technical term meaning difference to the average of a certain period of time. In itself such a difference to the average does not imply anything strange is going on. I'm not saying there isn't an anomaly in the sense of common speech, it just seems weird to me to use it in charts that are supposed to show the existence of an anomaly.

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

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#38

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

beowulfey wrote: post #10
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #3

I really dislike the use of the word "anomaly" in climate change circles. It may be technically correct, but it feels like propaganda. All it is is the difference to the average of an arbitrarily chosen time frame. It would actually be strange if temperatures where exactly like the average all the time, so calling it an anomaly if they are different from the average really seems misleading. Again, it may be the techn…

It is a comparison of two averages, not of a single temperature to an average. A changing average suggests a change in the underlying factors at play, because while a single observation may not ever match the average as you say, a system in equilibrium should not see the average changing. This is why it is called anomalous: the mean is changing continuously. It’s a crude metric but in the framework of the analysis (p…

I don't think that explanation is correct. The average temperature of a year is just a specific way to take a measurement. Comparing it to an average of averages over several years is then the same as comparing a measurement to an average of measurements.

That the climate should never see averages changing seems obviously false. There clearly are cycles that last longer than a year, for example, as several ice ages came and went before industrialization. El Nino take phases last between two and seven years.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#39

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

polotics wrote: post #8
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #3

I really dislike the use of the word "anomaly" in climate change circles. It may be technically correct, but it feels like propaganda. All it is is the difference to the average of an arbitrarily chosen time frame. It would actually be strange if temperatures where exactly like the average all the time, so calling it an anomaly if they are different from the average really seems misleading. Again, it may be the techn…

How and why does it feel like propaganda? What is being compared is averages with and without CO2 induced forcing.

No they picked a certain time frame and compare to the average temperature of that time frame. Nothing more, nothing less. I think the reference time frame is some 20 year period in the end of 20th century, but not sure if I remember it correctly.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#40

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

davidw wrote: post #22
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #3

I really dislike the use of the word "anomaly" in climate change circles. It may be technically correct, but it feels like propaganda. All it is is the difference to the average of an arbitrarily chosen time frame. It would actually be strange if temperatures where exactly like the average all the time, so calling it an anomaly if they are different from the average really seems misleading. Again, it may be the techn…

My understanding is that it's changing at a faster rate than previous non human caused shifts. That's the anomaly.

They use the term anomaly strictly in a technical sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_anomaly

It means the difference to the average of a certain time frame. Whether it was caused by human activity is a different question. That is why I call it misleading. They certainly want to imply humans caused it, but at the point where they show the chart they haven't really shown it. That requires considering other aspects.

Post reply on HN