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

Global warming has accelerated significantly

researchsquare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#881

Post by virgildotcodes »

devwastaken wrote: post #785
notarobot123 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, those still unconvinced of the human influence on climate change seem to be the sort that would trust the basement randos more than they would reputable scientists

[flagged]

Tax plundering, really dude?

Quick guess, do you think more tax dollars have gone to the fossil fuel industry, or climate scientists?

Political power, just again, amazing.

Who do you think wields more political power in the world? The fossil fuel industry and petro states, or climate scientists?

It's such a blatant, weird attempt to invert reality. It's the whole "accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty" approach.

I don't understand how this propaganda talking point sticks in anyone's head and doesn't fall apart with two seconds of critical thought.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#882

Post by triceratops »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #229
queenkjuul wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China produces a lot less carbon per capita than we do

Global warming doesn't care about 'per capita'. Edit: Individuals do not build coal power plants, utilities (and therefore, governments) do. India and China are continuing to build fossil fuel power generation. Global warming does not care about 'fairness', global warming cares about co2 PPM in the atmosphere. When we address climate change, we have to do so at the government level, or we mine as well not bother. The…

> global warming cares about co2 PPM in the atmosphere

And yet you say "historical emissions" is bullshit. How do you think we got to the current co2 PPM level?

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#884

Post by blueeon »

apt-apt-apt-apt wrote: post #584
blueeon wrote: post #281

I am in Wuhan, China. This past winter, I was able to bike along the lake all day. In previous winters, due to the cold and strong winds, we rarely exercised by the lake. This has had the biggest impact on me, and it's still a positive one.

Isn't this like a frog in a pot saying, ah the water was cold but now it's warm!, moments before getting cooked?

Some say that when encountering difficulties, one should either change them or adapt to them, and be able to distinguish between the two. It is obvious that we cannot change climate change, and even if individuals can do some environmental protection, they still cannot change it.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#885

Post by toomanyrichies »

tlogan wrote: post #266

The sad reality is that much of the climate work done in the West does not matter because China, India, and the rest of the world are not involved.

Keeping one's side of the street clean is the right move, regardless of what anyone else does.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#886

Post by toomanyrichies »

code4life wrote: post #779
bakies wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dismissing thousands of years of global temperature averages because you had a cold winter, very smart.

Im not dismissing anything. I’m just saying, when a measurement was taken in my region in 1925 it was warmer then than it was 100 years later in 2025.

The surface area of the Earth is roughly 510 million square kilometers. Of which you occupy a, let's say, small portion. You also seem to be ignoring every data point in between 100 years ago and today.

So out of 365 days per year * 100 years * 510 million square kilometers, you're basing your beliefs on... 2 data points? 100 years ago, and today? Really?

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#887

Post by ajam1507 »

greekrich92 wrote: post #871
standeven wrote: post #303

The main driver of this is human-produced CO2, and there are meaningful ways to reduce usage. -Switch to an electric vehicle -Migrate from gas appliances (range, furnace, water heater) to electric (induction, heat pumps) -If your power grid isn’t clean, add rooftop or balcony solar -Encourage friends and family to do the same

It's the year of our Lord 2026 and people are still making personal responsibility pitches to fix the CO2 levels which haven't been seen in 300 million years

What would you have them do instead?

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#888

Post by refurb »

timr wrote: post #868
eykanal wrote: post #3

For those (like me) who don't know the authors, apparently they are well-published authors in the field of climate science whose work is very highly cited: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=gra... Not a perfect measure of whether this is a reputable article but at least readers should know this isn't from some randos in a basement somewhere.

Setting aside the names of the authors, this is a very bad paper. They take temperature data sets, "adjust" [1] them by attempting to remove the biggest recent factors (volcanism, solar and el nino cycles) affecting temperatures , then do a piece-wise regression analysis to look at trends in 10-year chunks. This is just bad methodology, akin to what a junior graduate student with a failing thesis might do to find sig…

This has always been the big issue I have with the conclusions draw in climate publications. I encourage anyone with strong opinion on climate change to do a deep dive on the temperature analysis.

The best example I can think of is the "global warming hiatus" that was discussed in depth in the top climate journals in the mid-2010s. Nature Climate Change even devoted an entire month to it.[1]

5 years later publications were saying "there was no hiatus at all".[2]

And as you said, when you dive into the paper, you realize that temperature measures are not objective at all. And I would ask - If everyone was in agreement that temperature increases paused, then 5 years later everyone agrees they didn't, how much confidence do we really have in the measures themselves.*

As someone who conudcted scientific research, this has a ton of inherent problems. It doesn't matter what I'm measuring, if the data collection is not objective, and there is no consensus (or at least trong evidence for adjustments), then the data itself is very unreliable.

If I tried to publish a chemical paper in a top journal and manually went in and adjusted data (even with a scientific rationale) the paper would be immediately rejected.

[1] https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp [2] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-pause-cli...

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#889

Post by apt-apt-apt-apt »

blueeon wrote: post #884
apt-apt-apt-apt wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this like a frog in a pot saying, ah the water was cold but now it's warm!, moments before getting cooked?

Some say that when encountering difficulties, one should either change them or adapt to them, and be able to distinguish between the two. It is obvious that we cannot change climate change, and even if individuals can do some environmental protection, they still cannot change it.

Humans are actively causing climate change (or greatly contributing to it), so it must be possible to change it to some degree.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#890

Post by timr »

refurb wrote: post #888
timr wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside the names of the authors, this is a very bad paper. They take temperature data sets, "adjust" [1] them by attempting to remove the biggest recent factors (volcanism, solar and el nino cycles) affecting temperatures , then do a piece-wise regression analysis to look at trends in 10-year chunks. This is just bad methodology, akin to what a junior graduate student with a failing thesis might do to find sig…

This has always been the big issue I have with the conclusions draw in climate publications. I encourage anyone with strong opinion on climate change to do a deep dive on the temperature analysis. The best example I can think of is the "global warming hiatus" that was discussed in depth in the top climate journals in the mid-2010s. Nature Climate Change even devoted an entire month to it.[1] 5 years later publication…

> And as you said, when you dive into the paper, you realize that temperature measures are not objective at all.

I don't know if I'd go that far. The measurements are as objective as they can be given the limits of technology and time, but what we do with the datasets afterward is usually filled with subjective decisions. In the worst cases, you get motivated actors doing statistically invalid analysis to reach a preferred conclusion.

This happens in every field of science, but it's often worse in fields that touch politics.

Post reply on HN