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

Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#21

Post by busymom0 »

rrmm wrote: post #18
busymom0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't answer the sudden change from 15C claims to 14C for the 1950-1980 period. For example, in the following data, for 2016, they say the average global temperature as 14.8C: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613 If the average global temp used to be claimed to be 15C but since 2000, they claim it was 14C, then somebody is making false claims about the avg temp.

Sorry I don't see 14.8 in the URL you gave?

> The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#22

Post by busymom0 »

rrmm wrote: post #19
busymom0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't answer the sudden change from 15C claims to 14C for the 1950-1980 period. For example, in the following data, for 2016, they say the average global temperature as 14.8C: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613 If the average global temp used to be claimed to be 15C but since 2000, they claim it was 14C, then somebody is making false claims about the avg temp.

The larger point I'm trying to make is that average global temperature is something that is calculated as a result of the specific method the people doing the study use. It's not a simple average of a list of numbers. It tries to account for missing and spotty data, instrument biases, location biases, etc. So if they find a better way to do it the calculated value will change.

That's a fair point and others have mentioned that before. However, all the sources I have used in my original comment are from the same person - Dr James Hansen who served as the director of NASA Goddard institute for 35 years. He used the 15C claim for many years until he suddenly decided to switch to 14C. In any scientific claim, especially when such small changes could impact major things, a scientist shouldn't simply be allowed to change their data claims without any explanation, especially when it suddenly doesn't fit their claim.

Also in this source:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=VyFpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA...

in 1997, the scientific community knew that the temperature was actually going down and not up:

> "Global Temperature Down Slightly"

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#23

Post by bsaul »

busymom0 wrote: post #14
Tepix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting observation. Changing by a whole degree celsius is quite a big change that needs a good reason. If you wouldn't use the word "magic" in your post, I'd perceive it as neutral/curious.

I am curious but I have pointed out similar discrepancies quite a few times but never received a satisfactory response. Now a days, I am pretty much afraid to even point out such discrepancies in other data too. I can share another example if anyone's curious.

are you familiar with the blog made by tony heller (also on youtube) ? He regularely points out those exact same remark.

I am very careful to wait until other people confirms that there is indeed a methodological problem before jumping to conclusion, but it really sounds very interesting.

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#24

Post by _8j50 »

jshevek wrote: post #20
_8j50 wrote: post #4

Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?

This would have the net effect of warming the atmosphere, unless you developed new technology to simultaneously beam significant heat energy into space.

Does it have to be space? Can't you send the excess heat to deep ocean waters or into the earth's mantle?

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#25

Post by _8j50 »

has2k1 wrote: post #7
_8j50 wrote: post #4

Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?

> or artificially cool surface ocean water Good curiosity, but they would have to put out atleast an equal amount of heat into the atmosphere! (2nd law of thermodynamics).

Why the atmosphere? Deep ocean water is already super cold right? Plus water does a good job of absorbing heat.basically transfer the surface heat energy to deep waters,that way surface level glaciers are kept frozen?

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#26

Post by majewsky »

_8j50 wrote: post #24
jshevek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would have the net effect of warming the atmosphere, unless you developed new technology to simultaneously beam significant heat energy into space.

Does it have to be space? Can't you send the excess heat to deep ocean waters or into the earth's mantle?

The "to space" method has the smallest probability of backfiring in surprising ways. For instance, heating deep ocean waters could disrupt the local ecosystem down there, and we don't fully understand yet how the deep ocean is connected to everything else on an ecological level.

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#27

Post by _8j50 »

winrid wrote: post #5
_8j50 wrote: post #4

Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?

To create that cooled air you have to heat something else right? I'm not sure that's the right direction...

Something other than the atmosphere and surface ocean water? A mile or so under the earth crust, or 5k meter+ under ocean water heat release/transfer

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#28

Post by _8j50 »

majewsky wrote: post #26
_8j50 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it have to be space? Can't you send the excess heat to deep ocean waters or into the earth's mantle?

The "to space" method has the smallest probability of backfiring in surprising ways. For instance, heating deep ocean waters could disrupt the local ecosystem down there, and we don't fully understand yet how the deep ocean is connected to everything else on an ecological level.

True, the situation at the surface seems much more dire and urgent though.

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#29

Post by pjc50 »

_8j50 wrote: post #4

Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?

If we have this level of surplus energy, we should be using it to first replace all fossil fuel consumption and then secondarily start drawing CO2 down from the air. We can't out-cool the sun.

Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019

#30

Post by pjc50 »

_8j50 wrote: post #24
jshevek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would have the net effect of warming the atmosphere, unless you developed new technology to simultaneously beam significant heat energy into space.

Does it have to be space? Can't you send the excess heat to deep ocean waters or into the earth's mantle?

Underground is generally warmer than the surface, and warming the ocean causes problems of its own. But really the problem is that the amount of heat you'd have to move is absolutely massive - the best we can do is alter the atmosphere to increase the amount of heat radiated to space, because we can't out-cool the sun.
Post reply on HN