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

81–90 of 179 posts

Re: Hot or Not?

#81

Post by misslibby »

reidjs wrote: post #52
starkd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Michael Crichton isn’t a scientist, though, why should we care about or even acknowledge his opinion on global warming as if there is some scientific merit to it?

Nobody is a scientist, it is all just people.

Re: Hot or Not?

#83

Post by cato_the_elder »

tonymet wrote: post #63

Given the massive lack of trust in media, and to a lesser degree the popular science community, we need a more formal system of information similar to the justice system. In america the justice system has the judge (representing the state) and the jury (representing citizens). other countries have similar tribunals , each member with a different allegiance. For science, we need a strong and formal amateur tier to rev…

> we need a more formal system of information similar to the justice system

Ministry of Truth?

Re: Hot or Not?

#84

Post by correlator »

thesz wrote: post #69
correlator wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The part of "it definitely should prevent you from trying to change other people's minds" clearly tries to change other people's minds. What data or tools do you have so that you are in the position to change other people's minds?

More complete datasets, a better understanding of how that data was collected and how to interpret it, solid statistical foundations, etc. etc.

People who go out to change minds should be versed in all this and more. But I don't believe they are required to roll up your sleeves and play with some data! :)

Re: Hot or Not?

#85

Post by correlator »

ekianjo wrote: post #59
jacquesm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Counterpoint. Most of the catastrophic predictions from al gore era have not come to pass so this should cause you to doubt the quality of models at hand. If you cant predict anything reliably then its not science.

The majority of published scientific papers have been proven wrong by future discoveries. This is what learning and progress looks like.

Re: Hot or Not?

#86

Post by butterNaN »

starkd wrote: post #47
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 d…

Comments like these are a _part_ of the discussion, though? They provide rebuttal of the methods used in the article. Why do you want to shut _them_ down?

If one wants to redo all the scientific research that has led to the consensus about Climate Change again, they can do so over and over again.

But in 2022, most of us are past the 'discussion' phase. We really, really, need to be in _Action_ phase. The discussions have been had for decades now - I implore you to find a new argument - almost every objection to climate change has multiple scientific papers published.

Re: Hot or Not?

#87

Post by tomjakubowski »

Looks like the hourly temperature plot graphs tend to get darker / "denser" as you look from left to right. Is that more data being available, more fluctuation, less fluctuation? What is that?

I can also see some trends like the variation increasing.

What's different when using another temperature data source? It would be nicer if the R source was just public without having to ask for it.

The author is clearly a knowledgeable person, they still might benefit from asking themselves what they don't know before drawing any strong conclusions.

Re: Hot or Not?

#88

Post by wedn3sday »

I think one of the issues here is that the plots just arent setup right for this kind of thing. The main take away plot of the least squares fit goes from -6 to +6, when a -1/+1 change is HUGE. The change only looks small because the plots vertical axis isn't formatted correctly.

There are many additional areas of analysis you could do with this dataset, for example, although the temps may be in the same range, how have those temps changed seasonally? A warmer January and a cooler September can average out to what looks like no change annually, but a couple degrees warmer in January can have huge environmental affects.

Re: Hot or Not?

#89

Post by bobthepanda »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #23
truculent wrote: post #5

This is just a bunch of plots with no effort to engage with the existing literature and study. Frankly, it is a waste of time trying to draw conclusions about global warming from this.

I don't think the author adequately considers changes to the local environment of the thermometer, changes in the equipment itself (eg replacement, movement) possible changes in recording methodology and so on. There was no real effort to understand the possible sources of noise or error in the measurements.

Also, 1920 is a very arbitrary starting year. Why then?

In 1920 the Industrial Revolution has been going on for over 100 years, the US petroleum industry was already big enough to have been affected by antitrust action, and Henry Ford's assembly line has been enabling mass motorization for the better part of a decade.

Re: Hot or Not?

#90

Post by ceejayoz »

moonchrome wrote: post #30
googlryas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't notice the vertical differences, you notice the horizontal distances (land that is covered which was not previously covered).

I'm a little bit younger than OP (~10 years) - I grew up on an island in Croatia and I noticed no difference in beaches that I visited when I was a kid. The shallow rock peers are all in the same place, beaches are the same size. Only difference I see is a slew of tourists packing every cm2 where there were far fewer while I was growing up, a lot of them getting off on how they are participating in "sustainable touri…

Not everywhere has the same beaches. Do a GIS for, say, Mont-Saint-Michel in France at low tide, and you'll see the water receeds miles. It'll be more apparent in these locations; a 10cm difference might mean hundreds of feet less beach at low tide.
Post reply on HN