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

2025 was the third hottest year on record

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 249 posts

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#171

Post by arbitrary_name »

networkadmin wrote: post #165
b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Doomerist paralysis has been engineered by the folks who look to benefit the most from inaction, mainly the fossil fuel and related industries. To not even attempt to head for the lifeboats is suicide.

Exactly what is it about CO2, a plant food, that scares you so much? You do realize that green plants react to increased CO2 percentage with stronger growth? You're the one calling me a "doomer"?

Where do i even begin to respond to this?

Plants growing slightly faster does not mitigate the many consequences of increased CO2.

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#172

Post by tonymet »

foltik wrote: post #99
tonymet wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the raw data. The original recordings were made by merchants on parchment. They measured the volume of water in a wooden box, to set the buoyancy for their loads

What are you even talking about. They had weather stations with mercury thermometers and wrote down temperatures in a logbook.

Not on the ocean, and not covering even 1/1000% of the coverage we have with satellites on the surface

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#173

Post by scotty79 »

networkadmin wrote: post #164
rmitsch wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no amount of evidence that'll help. We have had a sufficient amount of that for a long while. It's entrenched economic interests fostering a lack of political will that's keeping us from taking this seriously.

[flagged]

Well, obviously climate change denialism is the fraud. There's billions to be made for every year of delaying action. By some people of course. The rest of us will lose trillions in the long run.

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#174

Post by tonymet »

NicuCalcea wrote: post #124
tonymet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so why not just be specific? “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago. And have you looked into the records? satellite surface temps and high resolution recording have not been around for very long. 1880 methods were very crude and narrowly scoped.

> “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago. I'm a journalist who has published "highest/lowest on record" statistics tens, if not hundreds of times, and I've never heard of anyone thinking it means "since Herodotus" or anything like that.

How would readers know the reference point unless you inform them. Of course they will defer to colloquialisms . In some cases 5000 years , some 1000 years . With something as broad and impactful as this, they certainly assume more than 150 years .

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#175

Post by scotty79 »

RickJWagner wrote: post #161
ainiriand wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am still confused why this argument is still valid to anyone... Not only China has 4 times more population than the US, but they produce all the stuff that the US buys, so if the US had to produce all that stuff on their own they would emit so much more carbon.

The US has no new coal plants under construction. 2024 had the highest number of Chinese plants in a decade.

US has barely any new renewables (both manufacturing and installation) when compared to China. One virtue doesn't wipe thousand sins.

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#176

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

networkadmin wrote: post #165
b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Doomerist paralysis has been engineered by the folks who look to benefit the most from inaction, mainly the fossil fuel and related industries. To not even attempt to head for the lifeboats is suicide.

Exactly what is it about CO2, a plant food, that scares you so much? You do realize that green plants react to increased CO2 percentage with stronger growth? You're the one calling me a "doomer"?

Nitrate is a plant food too, doesn't mean it's not killing large parts of the ocean.

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#177

Post by tonymet »

dpkirchner wrote: post #86
tonymet wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He means the original recordings. There were no digital recordings in 1880. Different apparatus, different methods. That’s the point

They can speak for themselves, you and I don't really know what they want, or what they think counts as "raw" data.

Regardless, ascii encoding isn’t raw data. You’re making software engineer assumptions. Statistical noise is introduced 4-5 steps before the data is recorded digitally.

Even after it’s digitized, more noise is introduced through recording errors and normalization.

To understand the original distribution, the entire workflow needs to have been recorded

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#178

Post by tonymet »

ori_b wrote: post #88
tonymet wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He means the original recordings. There were no digital recordings in 1880. Different apparatus, different methods. That’s the point

Ah, so a painfully obvious attempt at moving goalposts and showering people with bullshit.

I don’t think this is appropriate language

Re: 2025 was the third hottest year on record

#180

Post by tonymet »

genewitch wrote: post #100
tonymet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so why not just be specific? “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago. And have you looked into the records? satellite surface temps and high resolution recording have not been around for very long. 1880 methods were very crude and narrowly scoped.

and scientists edit the historical temperatures because of, and i hope you can see my eyeroll here "anomalous readings" - but they're overwhelmingly erroneous in only one direction. that's strange.

Given the amount of noise and normalization , I would like to see that claim better qualified.

That’s what I’m calling attention to. Being more formal with the claims , and transparent about the records origins

Post reply on HN