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

Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

sciencenews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

#61

Post by Timon3 »

austinjp wrote: post #59
Timon3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My god, I hate this line. Obviously people aren't referring to the ball of molten rock getting a case of the sniffles and achoo-ing all over the solar system. People are referring to - you know - ALL THE LIFE ON THAT PLANET. Wow, amazing, an amoeba will survive us fucking the planet up! Since life and the planet will survive, go nuts! Blow up your nukes, why should the rock care? That's all that matters, we will not…

Well that's kinda the reason _for_ the line. Climate change kills people. "Save the planet" is too vague, it's disempowering.

No. "Save the ecosystem on our planet on which we rely on" is too long, and only incredibly pedantic people would come in and say "well, akshually, the planet will not care either way". People who say this are not people worth talking to.

And akshually, climate change doesn't kill people. Higher temperatures and catastrophes kill people.

Re: Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

#62

Post by nerdchum »

austinjp wrote: post #58
nerdchum wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is so sensational about climate change but never looks at Earth's history. Were at the tail end of an ice age. For most of Earth's history, there were no polar ice caps. For 400 out of 500 million years the earth was warmer than it is now. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt...

That's disingenuous misdirection. The current change is a threat to humanity of our own making.

> threat to humanity of our own making.

How? Do you have concrete examples or just fear based conjecture?

Re: Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

#63

Post by nojvek »

kkielhofner wrote: post #36

I'd like to say politics could be avoided on this but not knowing anything about the science, historical stats, etc I've always had a simple nagging question on this issue that hopefully someone can help me understand. Elementary school science classes teach basic cause and effect. My question is: How is it possible the planet can be billions of years old, then all of a sudden we discover fossil fuels in the past few…

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

This book goes into good detail in human population growth, growth in energy use, and growth in use of coal, oil and other energy sources.

Highly recommended. Lots of stats, charts and math.

It’s not about climate change, the book is about understanding human growth and energy (across its various forms) and their implications.

Re: Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

#64

Post by revelio »

ben_w wrote: post #49
zackees wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

Why are weather stations even still a meme in these discussions? I used satellite surface temperature data nearly 20 years ago, it wasn't novel even then.

Because governments announce new "records" based on single thermometers that are located on the tarmac of airports, at the moment that jet fighters are landing.

Re: Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

#65

Post by revelio »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #30

> On July 3, the planet sweltered as the average global temperature reached 17.01° Celsius (62.62° Fahrenheit), the highest ever recorded, according to data from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction. That surpassed the previous record of 16.92° C (62.46° F) from August 2016. I am extremely curious about the error bars on these numbers. Are we really measuring the temperature in enough places around…

No. Error bars on satellite measurements are OK (not sure what they are exactly but not too bad), but for anything before the 1970s the error bars are wide. 0.5 degrees at best but more realistically 1-5 degrees depending on weather station. That's government's own CI estimates btw.

And that's before you get to the way they rewrite the past in the temperature databases. It leads to problems like this:

Jeff Berardelli, WFLA-TV (Tampa Bay) Chief Meteorologist and Climate Specialist: “In case you missed it. The temperature soared as high as 100 degrees in the Northwest Territories on Saturday, the hottest temperature ever measured north of 65 degrees latitude in the Western Hemisphere”. Tough keeping up with all this climate chaos.”

https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1678635894021005312

100 degrees, hottest ever measured in north of 65 degrees latitude. A factual statement?

No, because it's not true. It reached 100F at Fort Yukon (66.6 degrees latitude) in 1915, according to government logbooks since erased from their websites:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170209162324/https://www.ncdc....

This happens because climatologists engage in data fraud. They not only constantly change how they combine individual readings into global aggregates, but also rewrite the temperature history of every single weather station too. It leads to constant 1984-esque dystopian events, like trusted news sources claiming a new record has been broken when you can find records of that "record" having been previously already been reached or exceeded in newspaper archives and old documents.

Re: Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

#66

Post by ben_w »

revelio wrote: post #64
ben_w wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are weather stations even still a meme in these discussions? I used satellite surface temperature data nearly 20 years ago, it wasn't novel even then.

Because governments announce new "records" based on single thermometers that are located on the tarmac of airports, at the moment that jet fighters are landing.

Guess which bit of the planet the aforementioned satellite temperature data I used was? Not many airports in the oceans. Satellites covered everything, of course, but I was working with marine biologists at the time.

Now, do you want to try again, this time with an argument that isn't so trivial to dismiss with the stuff I did 20 years ago in the middle of my degree?

Re: Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

#68

Post by revelio »

ben_w wrote: post #66
revelio wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because governments announce new "records" based on single thermometers that are located on the tarmac of airports, at the moment that jet fighters are landing.

Guess which bit of the planet the aforementioned satellite temperature data I used was? Not many airports in the oceans. Satellites covered everything, of course, but I was working with marine biologists at the time. Now, do you want to try again, this time with an argument that isn't so trivial to dismiss with the stuff I did 20 years ago in the middle of my degree?

But we're not talking about what you, random HN poster, did twenty years ago. You asked, "Why are weather stations even still a meme in these discussions?" and the answer is "because governments keep announcing records based on them". Why would they not be a "meme" in this discussion, given that fact? If governments didn't use data from weather stations anymore for climatological purposes, indeed, discussion of them would eventually disappear. They will never do that because satellite data only goes back to the early 1970s and they want to talk about trends longer than that, therefore, weather stations will remain a meme.

So there's nothing to try again here. Your question was answered correctly the first time.

Re: Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

#69

Post by ben_w »

revelio wrote: post #68
ben_w wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess which bit of the planet the aforementioned satellite temperature data I used was? Not many airports in the oceans. Satellites covered everything, of course, but I was working with marine biologists at the time. Now, do you want to try again, this time with an argument that isn't so trivial to dismiss with the stuff I did 20 years ago in the middle of my degree?

But we're not talking about what you, random HN poster, did twenty years ago. You asked, "Why are weather stations even still a meme in these discussions?" and the answer is "because governments keep announcing records based on them". Why would they not be a "meme" in this discussion, given that fact? If governments didn't use data from weather stations anymore for climatological purposes, indeed, discussion of them…

> Why would they not be a "meme" in this discussion, given that fact?

"Given" assumes a falsehood to be true.

> Because governments announce new "records" based on single thermometers that are located on the tarmac of airports, at the moment that jet fighters are landing.

Give a link to one occasion where all of those things happened together.

Not each bit separate, all at the same time.

One government that's genuinely so incompetent that they literally announce something from one number literally during a landing.

And not just an intern on Twitter, an official announcement.

You don't get to mix different events. Nothing pre-satellite is:

> new "records"

Given the meaning of the word "new". Also:

> located on the tarmac of airports, at the moment that jet fighters are landing.

is fundamentally incompatible with

> They will never do that because satellite data only goes back to the early 1970s and they want to talk about trends longer than that

Given the actual trends people are interested in go back well before jet fighters, and indeed aircraft.

What we actually do is the exact opposite causation: observe what else correlates with satellite data so we can model the past. More satellite data makes such models stronger — and of course they also do publish the error bars, even if you didn't bother to look for them.

(The governments of the world also hate that scientists keep giving them these models, because it gives the politicians yet another problem to take the blame for no matter what; people keep demanding solutions that cost nothing and involve no changes to lifestyles, employment, products or services, which somehow also actually make a difference).

Post reply on HN