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

Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

koenvangilst.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#41

Post by sueneizhs »

ArnoVW wrote: post #21
flerp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how Much of it is global warming vs other effects! Would be nice to see a even longer historical overlay of the changes. Or even have the values corrected for anomalies that are not an effect of human involvement.

Sure, there is some uncertainty. But in reality, we have a pretty complete model of physics, chemistry, geology and biology. Generally, the predictions we made 10 or 20 years ago match with what we're seeing. So of course "science does not deal in certainties" but most of the questions are really at the second or third decimal point. There is an excellent video by David Louapre (of Science Etonnante fame) that explai…

[flagged]

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#42

Post by adrianN »

edgefield wrote: post #28

It’s hard to believe how many visitors to HN are climate science deniers. This is equivalent to claiming the earth is flat, denying the value of vaccines, or arguing that we didn’t really land on the moon.

You’d be surprised how many people deny the value of vaccines.

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#43

Post by lucb1e »

edgefield wrote: post #28

It’s hard to believe how many visitors to HN are climate science deniers. This is equivalent to claiming the earth is flat, denying the value of vaccines, or arguing that we didn’t really land on the moon.

It's probably because "+1" and "yup" comments are discouraged, so the people that immediately feel like they have something to add are the ones that think the article is not telling the whole story. At least, that's my guess. I would expect that a representative poll (https://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll might be a starting point) would show an overwhelming majority of readers/commenters does think global warming is real and caused by human emissions.

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#44

Post by jeffbee »

graemep wrote: post #31
lucb1e wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct words, but blatantly misleading as a concept. As an example: sure, Einstein found in the 1900s that Newton's theory of gravity from the 1600s was wrong, but it's wrong to such a degree that it doesn't matter for everyday applications and we still use and teach Newton's law of universal gravitation because it's a very good approximation with a very simple formula. If we had based the mechanism of climate chang…

How do you test the predictions of climate science models? I have never found a satisfactory explanation. There is insufficient data for backtesting models of that complexity. Arrhenius's original model have help up pretty well, but it is also simple. Some models from decades ago including some that were very widely publicised in the 80s/90s have been badly wrong.

> I have never found a satisfactory explanation.

Translation: I have never looked for an explanation.

"""Time series of global average temperature anomalies show excellent agreement between observations and model simulations (Figure 1b)."""

Randel, W. J., Polvani, L., Wu, F., Kinnison, D. E., Zou, C.-Z., & Mears, C. (2017). Troposphere-stratosphere temperature trends derived from satellite data compared with ensemble simulations from WACCM. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122, 9651–9667, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027158

Among many, many others in the literature. Climate models going clear back to 1960 have been right on the money, with the primary source of error being predictions about how much stupid shit humans would do.

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#45

Post by whalesalad »

hotpotamus wrote: post #33
edgefield wrote: post #28

It’s hard to believe how many visitors to HN are climate science deniers. This is equivalent to claiming the earth is flat, denying the value of vaccines, or arguing that we didn’t really land on the moon.

I think at this point we have little choice but to live in denial. I’ve lived in South Texas my entire life, but this summer was the most brutal one I’ve ever seen. Hit new highs in actual temperature and heat index of course, but it was just the months-long unrelenting nature of it that hurt my soul. I’ve never seen so many dead trees and so many dead animals on the street. My co-workers well failed as did many of h…

It’s one thing to accept the circumstances. It’s another to undermine the discussion and deny that the problem exists.

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#46

Post by paganel »

ArnoVW wrote: post #21
flerp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how Much of it is global warming vs other effects! Would be nice to see a even longer historical overlay of the changes. Or even have the values corrected for anomalies that are not an effect of human involvement.

Sure, there is some uncertainty. But in reality, we have a pretty complete model of physics, chemistry, geology and biology. Generally, the predictions we made 10 or 20 years ago match with what we're seeing. So of course "science does not deal in certainties" but most of the questions are really at the second or third decimal point. There is an excellent video by David Louapre (of Science Etonnante fame) that explai…

[flagged]

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#47

Post by lettergram »

tgv wrote: post #18
lettergram wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Your first two "questions" have been answered, IIRC. A bit of duckduckgoing will e.g. lead you to https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-r... . Same for solar cycles. The data is not perfect, but unfortunately, there's no escape from the conclusion: we have to act, and we've already missed targets.

Look at that chart, we changed the way we measure temperature in the 1960's with the introduction of digital thermometers. Prior to that we utilized mercury or worse alcohol. The chart itself raises the question(s) I just highlighted. Further, prior to WWII there was not "global monitoring" of temperature; let's highlight this comment:

> Remarkably, despite the differences in methodologies used by these independent researchers, their global temperature estimates are all in close agreement

Let's assume that's true (which I would argue is not true), even "similar" results will have a 2-5% fluctuation -- which is the entire range of the increase in temperatures. If something reads 98.2 one year and the prior reading is 97.3 we have a 0.9 increase in temperature, but in reality it could be the margin of error based on cloud cover or a change in instrumentation. We simply don't know. The article you linked admits as such:

> Each organization uses different techniques to make its estimates and adjusts its input data sets to compensate for changes in observing conditions, using data processing methods described in peer-reviewed literature.

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#48

Post by mrangle »

lucb1e wrote: post #20
twentysix wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If history has taught us anything, the idea of "settled science" is as anti science as it comes.

Correct words, but blatantly misleading as a concept. As an example: sure, Einstein found in the 1900s that Newton's theory of gravity from the 1600s was wrong, but it's wrong to such a degree that it doesn't matter for everyday applications and we still use and teach Newton's law of universal gravitation because it's a very good approximation with a very simple formula. If we had based the mechanism of climate chang…

I disagree that it's "blatantly misleading as a concept". Just as it is, as a concept, it's essential to being able to argue any conclusion. Which, in turn, is essential to science. There can't be fences. Even if your notes on practical process hold true most of the time.

Though it's a shame to use the climate science example, given the immense anti-science pressure that looks to bury dissenting theories and data instead of engaging them as a means of continuously proving itself in the context of the divisive politics. Which are inevitable given that this particular science seeks to make world altering prescriptions. The failed hope is to make such prescriptions in an environment of no allowable argument. The result is widely percieved corruption of science for political ends. That was never supposed to be an outcome of science, should its principles be followed in spirit and otherwise.

Conclusions have to defend themselves, forever. Ridiculous theories can be marginalized due to lack of evidence, but nothing should be silenced as a matter of working principle. In turn, we can operate based on consensus conclusions but these conclusions have to be able to defend themselves, forever, only on merit.

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#49

Post by ArnoVW »

sueneizhs wrote: post #41
ArnoVW wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there is some uncertainty. But in reality, we have a pretty complete model of physics, chemistry, geology and biology. Generally, the predictions we made 10 or 20 years ago match with what we're seeing. So of course "science does not deal in certainties" but most of the questions are really at the second or third decimal point. There is an excellent video by David Louapre (of Science Etonnante fame) that explai…

[flagged]

I would suggest you watch the video. It does precisely that: help non-PhD people understand what we know, build trust.

Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands

#50

Post by mpol »

flerp wrote: post #3
vnglst wrote: post #2

Something I've been working on this weekend: visualising climate change in the Netherlands. https://koenvangilst.nl/blog/rising-temperatures I particularly liked the heatmap with monthly temperature data since the 1900s. It's a lot of scrolling, but you can clearly see that climate is accelerating since the '90s.

I wonder how Much of it is global warming vs other effects! Would be nice to see a even longer historical overlay of the changes. Or even have the values corrected for anomalies that are not an effect of human involvement.

You have been downvoted, but it is a good question. Hopefully it was asked in good faith ;)

Since around the 1970s, the North Sea became a few degrees warmer. Fisherman more regularly find fish and other creatures that used to be only down in France or even more south. As far as I know, we don't really know what caused this trend of the gulf stream going more up north. For all we know, it might switch back and we get the climate of Canada; winter from September until April.

Now we find out that same gulf stream is slowing down. We did not predict that and don't really know why it happens and what the consequences will be.

By the way, inside the country, water coming in from more central Europe is coming in faster in winter, causing problems, while in summer not much is coming in, causing more draught. Germany and Belgium are not prepared for this. A few years ago many people died when rivers overflowed.

Post reply on HN