10 ms·
Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year
- tn13 10y agoHow many years in one year, this sort of news comes every few months.
- umanwizard 10y agoGot links to back that up? I suspect you're confusing "hottest year on record" news with stuff like "hottest April on record".
- tn13 10y agoJust check the following Google news results and scroll back to see how frequently this sort of news is being churned out https://www.google.com/search?q=hottest+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=hottest+year&tbs=qdr:m,sbd:1&tbm=nws&start=160 https://www.google.com/search?q=hottest+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf...
- Oletros 10y agoIt seems that all the results about 2016 are from yesterday. Can you provide examples of this is the hottest year not in January, the month the data is presented?
- nine_k 10y agoA link with nice plots: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth... In short, the temperature record of 2015 is beaten last Wednesday; the record of 2014 was beaten in 2015. So, we've had three record years in a row.
- pdx 10y agoThis youtube channel has a lot of videos by scientists regarding global warming. https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly/videos?sort=p&shelf_id=2&view=0 https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly/videos?sort=p&shelf_... One video that HN readers may enjoy, given it's mathematical nature is a talk given by Dr. Murry Salby https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM I hope you'll actually at least watch the one by Dr. Salby to perhaps see why some of us are not as convinced as the rest of us about this issue.
- martythemaniak 10y agoIndeed. Much more eloquently put by our great leader: The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. - President Trump
- marcosdumay 10y agoSomehow, he is right. And he must be really upset, because that is replacing an age where everybody was completely sure about anything that powerful people (like him) wanted them to be.
- harwoodleon 10y agoUnfortunately, there is no consensus algorithm to prove him wrong on this point. Upset? I think he's doing just fine btw.
- epistasis 10y agoCurious about an appeal to the authority of this "Dr. Salby," I went to his Wikipedia page: >In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby's federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed "a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money.[2] He resigned his position in Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 he was dismissed by the university on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.[3] He is unconvincing as an authority on the subject due to his ethical issues. As far as presenting an actual argument, let's see it as traditional scientific papers rather than a collection of YouTube videos, hmm?
- legodt 10y agoDo conspiracy theories make you feel special and smarter than others or do you legitametly disbelieve in science and willfully follow a propaganda train funded and supported by predatory oil and coal companies looking out for their own interests? The idea that when confronted that their profit seeking actions are destroying the world they rely on, humans will react by trying to cover it up squeeze out a few more decades of extreme wealth is a solid argument that, as a whole, we deserve extinction.
- pdx 10y agoI am impressed that you watched an hour long lecture in only 5 minutes. I think if you're actually technically inclined, which as an HN reader, you probably are, that you'll understand and enjoy the lecture.
- legodt 10y agoThank you, but I have no interest in a channel that puts "science" next to a video titled "Donald Trump exposes the globalists." Or one that uses a scientist that has been exposed as a fraud repeatedly and stripped of their titles. My dad was into all of this stuff for years, it's really disheartening that regular folks with no ties to the industry feel invested in their lies.
- awinder 10y agoThey probably just googled Murry Salby, found that they had quite the history of dodgy behavior, and moved on with their life. That's what I did at least, and I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.
- pdx 10y agoThe closed mindedness of many people that are reflex downvoting the mere suggestion that they actually try to understand those on the other side of the argument is stunning. The video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM is taylor made for the highly technical level of the average HN reader. Why not watch it and see what all the fuss is about?
- edwinksl 10y agoSomewhat dated (2015) but useful visualization for factors driving climate change and global warming: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
- b_emery 10y agoThe money quote from that site: "Atmospheric CO2 levels are 40% higher than they were in 1750".
- codeddesign 10y agoHere are the graphs to the actual data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ I never understand why these article don't just provide you with the sources where this data was captured...let alone the actual data used. I guess we are just suppose to "believe" them?
- saycheese 10y agoBecause it would make it easier for competitors to source the information and the average reader likely doesn't care to fact check, dig deeper, etc.
- minikites 10y ago>I guess we are just suppose to "believe" them? That's generally the purpose of a journalistic organization, yes.
- r_smart 10y agoThanks for tracking this down. It would be one thing if journalists on the science beat were generally accurate and reliable, but they get so much stuff wrong all the time. edit: Do you (or anyone else) know why they choose their zero point the way they do? If the graph is going back to 1880, why not just call that the zero? The closest year I could find that was at 0 was 1972 at +0.01C. Is it supposed to be based around when the satellites started taking measurements or something?
- mikeash 10y agoI believe that's what the linked paper is referring to by "base period" which it discusses a bit on page 2: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pdf https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pd... If I understand it correctly, the 0 point is the average of the period from 1951 to 1980, which was chosen relatively arbitrarily based on when research on this stuff began in earnest, but is about as early as it can reasonably be.
- roter 10y agoZero represents the 30-year mean of the years 1951-1980, i.e. some representation of a recent baseline climatology. Choosing 1880, or any other year, might skew perception positively or negatively. From the Earth Observatory [0]: > The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember. [0] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/deca...
- DoodleBuggy 10y agoBut it's cold outside, and the politicians keep telling me it's not true!
- throwaway2016a 10y agoWe just had a 60 degree F day in mid January in Northern New England. While I like being able to go outside with no coat and I like that the snow melts faster, that is dang warm for my part of the world in January. My favorite is trying to explain to people how climate change can produce more snow not less and that doesn't mean it is not getting warmer... it means that the air is warmer and because of that can hold more moisture and thus larger more severe precipitation events. So I've read, I'm not a climate scientist. Actual quote I hear multiple times per winter: "Look at all that snow! Global warming my ass!"
- Analemma_ 10y agoDon't forget the newspaper cartoonists. If they say global warming is a hoax, who are we to disagree.
- aswanson 10y agoThe snowball says it's not true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3koOUFp4crU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3koOUFp4crU
- tabeth 10y agoI find it very unlikely that we'll "solve" this problem. At best we'll just deal with the effects and survive accordingly. 1. The majority of the world isn't even on par with say, France, in terms of their contribution to this problem. It's only going to get worse as they develop (finally). 2. Those living in the countries that contribute the most aren't going to pay the price, figuratively or literally. Would you take an 80% paycut to eradicate this problem? Probably not. Would you not have children (who will comparatively consume, and therefore contribute far more than 3rd world children)? Probably not. This line of thinking is obviously a part of the problem.
- agd 10y ago> Would you take an 80% paycut to eradicate this problem? Where do you get this from? I haven't seen anything suggesting that such a paycut would be necessary and/or follow from the required CO2 reduction.
- throwaway2016a 10y agoIf you're an oil company executive you may need to take a 100% pay cut :) But in general I think* that sustainable energy and technology will actually make high quality of life cheaper and more achievable. * No sources cited, take with grain of salt
- tabeth 10y agoI guess I wasn't clear -- the point I was trying to make isn't about the paycut, or even the percentage, but rather just conveying that a huge lifestyle change would be necessary. One I'm skeptical that most would be willing, and able to make.
- throwaway2016a 10y agoI for one is scared of this lifestyle change... How am I ever going to live with electric cars with instantaneous torque that drive themselves? Or all the electricity I can get from the sun? I really don't know how I'm going to deal with paying almost nothing to heat my house in the winter due to geothermal heating instead of this nice gas fire that is currently burning in my furnace. And I'm going to miss having all those plastic bags from the grocery store under my sink. It will be so inconvenient having to reuse the same durable bag every time. And it's too bad I'm going to have to have a 1/2 cm thin high efficiency OLED 4k TV instead of having a 20 lbs monstrocity hanging from my wall. I'm being snarky and a bit of an ass but I see a world gone green as a world of opportunity not a world of sacrifice. And free fertilizer from compost instead of paying a small fortune for it at the store is a real drag. We really can have our cake and eat it to. In many many cases green technology is both better for the environment and just plain better all around. Well unless you're invested in dirty energy.
- smrtinsert 10y agoThis issue solves itself once South Eastern US states are submerged due to global flooding and thus lose the electoral votes.
- legodt 10y agoCoal and oil are a major industry outside of the south east. The Dakotas are big in that and so is utah
- sverige 10y agoAnd PA, West Virginia, Ohio, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas.
- umanwizard 10y agoNot if New York is submerged at the same time and California dies out due to drought.
- zbyte64 10y agoThe catastrophic almond milk shortages will kill everyone before then.
- Diederich 10y agoI think that there will be a lot more carnage (and I don't use that word lightly) associated with climate change via extreme weather well before there's really substantial sea level rise. Specifically, I think there's a chance that, worldwide, it will get more difficult to find places that basic food crops can be grown with sufficient reliability, due to extremes in heat, cold, storms, drought and flooding. According to the data I've seen, on a worldwide average, this hasn't started happening yet, but it already happening in some regions.
- howlin 10y agoThe Russian and Canadian permafrost tundras will be incredibly productive farmland once they thaw. The main food problems will come near the equator, where people tend to be poorer. They'll lose farm land as well as fish stock in the oceans.
- harwoodleon 10y agoAt the time I write this post :"What I Wish I'd Known About Equity Before Joining a Unicorn" has over 220 comments and 509 points. This post has 80 points and 81 comments. I know there is not much to say in response to this fact really - and HN is a tech news resource, but it saddens me that this topic garners less interest than making money. Like money will save us from the effects of this? "...as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics." According to Lovelock, this is just the start of a 100,000 year journey into the unknown for the planet. Just the start. Based on the current data, I think the predictions James Lovelock made 11 years ago were quite modest. http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html
- shrimp_emoji 10y ago>it saddens me that this topic garners less interest than making money. Like money will save us from the effects of this? Get enough money, and you can buy yourself some mighty good AC.
- thefalcon 10y agoOne article was posted four hours ago, the other posted two hours ago (at the time I write this post).
- robotjosh 10y agoHumanity causing its own end is a heavy topic. And it is a hopeless topic considering the new leadership in america.
- shrimp_emoji 10y agoYeah, Hilldog paving the way toward WW3 and for more abuse by intelligence agencies under the banner of fear would've been a step toward sensible sustainability.
- unabridged 10y agoThe temperature has been increasing for the last 130 years. But what does the average 130 period look like? What is the average variance for 130 year periods over the last 100k years? Imagine looking at the daily closes of a stock price, then trying to judge if the tick data from the last 5 minutes constitutes a meaningful trend. We just don't have the data to prove it yet. With that said: Should we stop polluting? Yes Should we research renewable energy sources? Yes Should we try to save energy and get more efficient where possible? Yes Should we aim to reduce energy usage per person over time? Absolutely not Energy use per capita is effectively our standard of living. Sure we might be able to keep making CPUs use less energy, but there will probably never be a way to make heating/cooling a house or manufacturing physical products a magnitude more efficient. Our only solution to make the world better is to increase energy production.
- zbyte64 10y agoYou need to add looking for another livable planet to the list. More energy * More people = more energy to dissipate. Eventually, even with the cleanest energy sources and the highest efficiencies, humanity's energy production will be too great for the planet to support. Since we don't have a planet lined-up for colonization and temperatures are already threatening stability - we need to deal with the first half of the equation before nature does it for us.
- karmelapple 10y ago> Should we stop polluting? Yes > Should we research renewable energy sources? Yes > Should we try to save energy and get more efficient where possible? Yes All of these questions have become weirdly politicized. It seems to come from thinking less pollution hampers business profits. If a company is required to pollute less, many think that increases cost. Two strategies that could fight this: 1. Point out how polluting less could also result in enhanced energy efficiency, which could overall reduce cost (especially when factored over many years) 2. Make it even more abundantly clear what the consequences will be. Many visualizations exist to help the consequences be visible, but they still seem very academic. Unless someone can internalize how something will negatively impact their life, inertia rules and no change will be made. I am working on something that will remind people of the concrete negative consequences more often, but I must be careful to still be accurate. Communicating what we know now in extremely concrete, easy-to-understand, visual and visceral terms, seems essential to removing the politicization of these questions.
- bryanmgreen 10y agoI think it's a shame that legislation on climate change seems to be the expediting/forcing factor behind getting companies to improve their products and services. It seems to me that Fortune 500 businesses have been especially slow taking advantage of computing developments over the last 10-15 years. I feel like there is so much potential for them to be better for the environment by more efficiently creating better products - and I can't understand how they would pass up on such opportunities. It's better for them because these improvements could lead to better product (competitive advantage) and marketing superiority (earth friendly!). Maybe I'm naive or maybe Jevon's Paradox makes it all useless.
- woodandsteel 10y agoObama on the clean energy revolution http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/science.aam6284.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/scien...