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

Hot or Not?

creon.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 179 posts

Re: Hot or Not?

#41

Post by correlator »

jacquesm wrote: post #33
correlator wrote: post #32

I enjoyed this and respect citizens who feel motivated enough to look at underlying data.. This type of discourse ("here is what I did and here is what I saw") leaves room to comment and make progress. People can discuss measurement methods, statistical analysis, and other objective things about a tightly scoped project like this. This is very clear reading the comments in the substack. A comment exchange that remind…

You can't really draw climate change conclusions from the input data though, that's the fallacy that breaks this whole article at the foundation. Let me rephrase that to make it even more clear: if climate change to date would be such that it would show up in datasets like these then we would not have needed any climate research to begin with. We're talking about 1 degree average change over a 60 year period across t…

You're not wrong.

"I don't have the data or tools at my disposal to do this properly" Should not prevent you from trying, sharing, and learning. However, it definitely should prevent you from trying to change other people's minds.

Re: Hot or Not?

#42

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Centigonal wrote: post #4

This is why "climate change" is a better term than "global warming." Weather is really really complicated. More greenhouse gases in the air results in more of the sun's energy staying in our atmosphere as heat, but how that affects the ground-level temperature in a specific city can be very, very complicated. Some areas might even become significantly cooler as climate change affects the weather. Plus, many of the wo…

> This is why "climate change" is a better term than "global warming."

Indeed. The way I currently tend to think about the difference in my head is this: human activity has caused a large amount of extra energy to remain inside the atmosphere. Some of it is in the atmosphere itself, some in the oceans and lakes, some in ice, some in land. You can't trivially predict what a lot of extra energy will do when it ends up in such different storage "media". The obvious conclusion is "global warming", but there's no inherent reason for that to be correct. The extra energy could, for example, all go it into generating humungous sized and crazy fast storm systems, which would result in little change in temperature but very noticeable changes in weather and safety.

Of course, it is unlikely that all the extra energy will be directed into a single phenomena, but the example is enough for me to remember that it's really non-trivial to understand what it could do, let alone predict what it will do.

Re: Hot or Not?

#43

Post by natch »

My hypothesis is that blogs that may possibly be mistaken for climate change denial are often associated with a recent or an impending purchase of an ICE vehicle and a need to rationalize the same.

Re: Hot or Not?

#44

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

cleandreams wrote: post #37
FranchuFranchu wrote: post #29

I think that this has good intentions, at least. Science should be easily reproducible. But using the median for this is very very silly, and I don't think the results from this are very meaningful.

The claim that science should be easily reproducible is wrong. Take collider experiments, or huge data set analysis problems.

The actual claim is that it is better if science is easily reproducible, but sometimes you just have to make do with what's feasible.

Re: Hot or Not?

#45

Post by uniqueuid »

cleandreams wrote: post #37
FranchuFranchu wrote: post #29

I think that this has good intentions, at least. Science should be easily reproducible. But using the median for this is very very silly, and I don't think the results from this are very meaningful.

The claim that science should be easily reproducible is wrong. Take collider experiments, or huge data set analysis problems.

Well, the goal is fair: It would be nice to have science reproducible. There are simply a lot of pragmatic (and ethical, and legal ...) reasons why it often is not.

Re: Hot or Not?

#46

Post by adamrezich »

blueblob wrote: post #21
blangk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if existing literature and study is somewhat biased by 'green' funding?

That would be a testable hypothesis that you have not tested. Anybody can do whataboutism but it isn't a meaningful argument. If it's your belief that the literature is biased by 'green' funding, prove it.

how would this be done, without being dismissed as being "just a bunch of plots with no effort to engage with the existing literature and study"?

Re: Hot or Not?

#47

Post by starkd »

jacquesm wrote: post #24

The scientific consensus is more than clear, doing your own "research" isn't going to make a difference except to engage with the people that are already happy to ignore science. If anything you'd have to begin to wonder in what ways airports are going to be different from global averages and I can think of a whole pile of reasons why the two would diverge (such as the presence of a large chunk of asphalt or concrete…

It's comments like this that serve as a reminder of how we can't have valuable discussions about a topic of importance without it degenerating into name-calling and allegations of disloyalty to "science". Too many have become so fearful of climate change they are no long in the realm of a scientific discussion. They are worshipping a religion. The author of the article made a good faith effort to simply look at the data.

FWIW, the author Michael Crichton encountered much the same phenomenon in his novel "State of Fear" for which he was castigated for doing the same thing. Just looking at the data.

Re: Hot or Not?

#48

Post by drinkzima »

Has anyone found credible research around mean, min, max, average vis-a-vis climate change? Quick search didn't surface anything beyond lots of average temperatures and median forecasts, but less about the distribution of climate.

Edit: trying to understand the decomposition of average temperatures increasing (more hot days, hotter hot days, etc)

Re: Hot or Not?

#50

Post by darth_avocado »

correlator wrote: post #32

I enjoyed this and respect citizens who feel motivated enough to look at underlying data.. This type of discourse ("here is what I did and here is what I saw") leaves room to comment and make progress. People can discuss measurement methods, statistical analysis, and other objective things about a tightly scoped project like this. This is very clear reading the comments in the substack. A comment exchange that remind…

As much as I respect people coming up with analysis like this, there is definitely scrutiny needed everywhere. However, there can be flaws in analysis when not done by experts.

For example, I find the chart #3 misleading a little.

> The global median temperature (of the entire dataset) is uniformly subtracted from every data point, to keep things relative to an arbitrary x-axis of 0.

This only means that relative to the median, the temperatures do no fluctuate crazily on an average. This says nothing about the overall trend in global medians, nor does it say anything about the frequency of extreme temperatures. These need to be accounted for because in data visualization, you can use the same data to tell a different story depending on the design choices you made in you viz.

Post reply on HN