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

Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#121

Post by nojvek »

Humans evolved to work in tribe as a unit. They hunted and raised families in tribes. Then agricultural and industrial revolution happened in last few 100 years changing the game. We discovered fossil fuels, heat engines, electromagnetic forces and amplified the shit out of resources found in nature. Quite amazing.

However we are really bad at coordinating at a global scale on what to do about problems we're causing now that will hit generations later. Worse if those problems are negative feedback problems that self-amplify with time.

However what does make me sad is how we're so divided on whether this is even a problem. Like a frog being slowly cooked.

I'm optimistic since we got a handle on banning CFC gasses, getting a handle of tabacco causing cancer, or lead additives causing toxicity.

Rise of solar and how fast it came down in price has also been amazing to witness. Although still Sometimes I do wonder if the evidence of lack of any intelligent life out in the universe is because any species that naturally evolves in intelligence ends up eventually destroying itself due to not being able to solve for long term negative feedback loops.

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#122

Post by rolldat777 »

seydor wrote: post #34

I believe Temperature is now a politicized measure, therefore it forever impossible to know it's true value.

I think this is more insightful, or at least interesting, than replies are giving credit. Sure, you know your temperature from the thermometer at your house, but how do you measure the world's temperature? What is included and excluded in the calculation? Scientific facts don't exist in isolation - they are created in people processes in a political environment. New and existing metrics can be cited or withheld to support an agenda. Anyhow, given this specific case is from a single source, it seems to be at least self-consistent.

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#124

Post by SirMaster »

_Microft wrote: post #13
replygirl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the boy who cried wolf is about that

You're mistaken there: "The boy who cried wolf" is about lying about there being a wolf while it isn't, not about speaking the truth but nobody wanting to listen. Edit: check for yourself if you like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

All the people decades ago saying that the sea levels would be way higher today certainly didn't help instill confidence in their prediction abilities however.

One could see how that could be seen as crying wolf.

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#125

Post by SirMaster »

pengaru wrote: post #35
replygirl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think you misjudged this as a climate denialist comment. it's not. the boy who cried wolf was about someone stirring hysteria so much it desensitized people beyond the point of caring when the threat was actually existential. it's not a perfect analogy but basically we've been crying wolf for decades (focusing on the wrong things: denuclearization, air quality, ozone layer, full-electric cars; vs. energy density, d…

Climate change is such a slow-moving massive-scale issue of course there's going to be decades and decades of observational reporting on its myriad effects. The boy who cried wolf is about telling fibs ruining one's credibility, it's entirely different. Our news sources shouldn't suppress reporting slow-moving disasters just because humans have a short attention span.

So all the climate scientists in the 1980s who said that the sea levels would be a meter higher today did not ruin their credibility?

I think if you asked the average person about that they would not think they are very credible.

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#126

Post by pengaru »

SirMaster wrote: post #125
pengaru wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change is such a slow-moving massive-scale issue of course there's going to be decades and decades of observational reporting on its myriad effects. The boy who cried wolf is about telling fibs ruining one's credibility, it's entirely different. Our news sources shouldn't suppress reporting slow-moving disasters just because humans have a short attention span.

So all the climate scientists in the 1980s who said that the sea levels would be a meter higher today did not ruin their credibility? I think if you asked the average person about that they would not think they are very credible.

> So all the climate scientists in the 1980s who said that the sea levels would be a meter higher today did not ruin their credibility?

I don't know what specific claims you're referring to. I was a child in the 1980s and you should provide citations when making such historical claims. For all I know these purported scientific predictions were qualified with murky probabilities. Publications having error bars +- 50 years, and we're just playing some kind of 40+ year game of telephone hearsay.

But you are speaking as if sea levels went down since the 1980s which is obviously not the case.

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#127

Post by jfengel »

anonymousiam wrote: post #97
wrycoder wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two sets of satellites that measure the temperature of the global troposphere, and have been doing so for over forty years. The data from one of them, UAH, is analyzed here.[0] It is increasing at 0.13C per decade, averaged over 44 years. [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-...

Interesting that until Remote Sensing Systems revised their historical data six years ago, no warming trend was evident. How could they have been so wrong for such a long time? https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-da... https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss...

It's so damn weird that Dr. Spencer -- whose job is producing the data that shows climate change -- is a climate denialist. The link in the grandparent comment, showing .12C/decade, is the very same site with the denialist claim you link to.

It's not just him, either. His colleague John Christy is also responsible for the UAH lab, and also a climate denialist.

They are different kinds of denialist. Spencer is in the "It's real but it's not our fault" camp, while Christy is in the "It's real and our fault but not important" camp. They are, however, very popular with the camp of "it's not real", and I've never seen them reject those claims, even though they are the ones responsible for the data that prove it is real.

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#128

Post by SirMaster »

pengaru wrote: post #126
SirMaster wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So all the climate scientists in the 1980s who said that the sea levels would be a meter higher today did not ruin their credibility? I think if you asked the average person about that they would not think they are very credible.

> So all the climate scientists in the 1980s who said that the sea levels would be a meter higher today did not ruin their credibility? I don't know what specific claims you're referring to. I was a child in the 1980s and you should provide citations when making such historical claims. For all I know these purported scientific predictions were qualified with murky probabilities. Publications having error bars +- 50 y…

Claims like this.

https://people.com/archive/co2-could-change-our-climate-and-...

https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3g5l.jpg

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#129

Post by pengaru »

SirMaster wrote: post #128
pengaru wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So all the climate scientists in the 1980s who said that the sea levels would be a meter higher today did not ruin their credibility? I don't know what specific claims you're referring to. I was a child in the 1980s and you should provide citations when making such historical claims. For all I know these purported scientific predictions were qualified with murky probabilities. Publications having error bars +- 50 y…

Claims like this. https://people.com/archive/co2-could-change-our-climate-and-... https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3g5l.jpg

"could"

Re: Monday was hottest day for global average temperature, as climate crisis bites

#130

Post by wrycoder »

jfengel wrote: post #127
anonymousiam wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that until Remote Sensing Systems revised their historical data six years ago, no warming trend was evident. How could they have been so wrong for such a long time? https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-da... https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss...

It's so damn weird that Dr. Spencer -- whose job is producing the data that shows climate change -- is a climate denialist. The link in the grandparent comment, showing .12C/decade, is the very same site with the denialist claim you link to. It's not just him, either. His colleague John Christy is also responsible for the UAH lab, and also a climate denialist. They are different kinds of denialist. Spencer is in the…

Spencer is a "lukewarmer". He believes that warming is real, and it's partially caused by human emissions. So, not different from the IPCC in kind, just in degree.

It's not correct to call him a "denialist", given the above. But, he is quite skeptical of the computer models and the general state of climate science.

His point is the actual temperature record of the global troposphere over the last forty years takes precedence over a number of computer models, given that many of the inputs to the models are variables which are not well-characterized. Those models are failing to predict actual events.

He thinks that the 1.3C/century trend shown in the actual data is not a reason to panic and mangle the economy. He thinks that the overall benefit of global warming and greening due to CO2 may be net positive. His book is pretty even-handed.

Post reply on HN