13 ms·

Three loud climate warning signals

130 points by samizdis 5y ago

neffy 5y ago
And here's number four: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Comparison of the longterm mean temperature in the artic with each year going back to 1958.
- vaylian 5y ago
  HTTP 404 edit: Never mind. I had to disable the HTTPS everywhere extension.
  - alserio 5y ago
    Just like the snow in the arctic
    - egberts1 5y ago
      Just like your upvote (or lack thereof).
  - samizdis 5y ago
    I'm not getting a 404 (from the UK), but here's an archive link: https://archive.md/Ih5eQ https://archive.md/Ih5eQ
- dash2 5y ago
  So what should I be looking at here? Is it that the red line (mean temperatures) is much above the green line (climate, ie average over previous years)?
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    The green line is mean temperatures on the same days of each year from 58 to 02. The red one is 2002 onward.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
I'm no expert, but to sell this to the skeptics (if they'd even buy it), I guess an analogy would be, if you wanted to preserve an ice cube in a freezer where the temperature is -20C, incrementally rising the temperature won't matter, until it does: when it reaches the melting point of the ice. Are we at melting point now? Or very very close to it?
- neffy 5y ago
  Well above. Witness the rising sea levels caused by the glaciers melting.
- abainbridge 5y ago
  That would only work on some. The skeptic I know acknowledges that the world is getting warmer but doesn't believe this is a problem. I do believe it is a problem and find it hard to convince him.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  Skeptics gonna skeptic, no matter what now. Only thing left is to prepare for the crashing and brutal transition, and explain things to skeptics but not for their benefits but in the hope it tips off in the right direction the hesitant people who are silently listening to conversations. Like with covid.
- VHRanger 5y ago
  The problem is that it's a continuous event. A lot of places are on the margin where 1c or 2c matters a lot. This margin moves up the more we increase heat. But more than that, the volatility in the climate system increases at a much greater rate than the mean temperature. Extreme weather events will continue to get more frequent
  - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
    While this is a good argument, people's revealed preferences point in the other direction The countries that are closest to that margin, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Iran, are actually perfectly happy with pumping more fossil fuels. Bin Salman was actively trying to sabotage COP26 talks. Brazil continues the deforestation, with Bolsonaro being perfectly happy with it Florida beach front properties are not dropping in value. Migration towards Sun Belt in the US is a real thing. At the peak of summer heat, significant chunk of Europe's population temporarily moves to the hottest parts of the continent. Despite the global warming prospects and economic disparities, Greeks, Italians and Spaniards aren't flocking to Scandinavia. etc., etc.
Glench 5y ago
Don't forget there's also the millions of people dying from fossil fuel-based air pollution every year! https://lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n23/david-wallace-wells/ten-million-a-year https://lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n23/david-wallace-wells/ten-...
- retrac 5y ago
  Great point. There'd be compelling reasons to stop poisoning ourselves ASAP even if we weren't boiling ourselves alive in the process. Ontario phased out coal electricity for a mix of natural gas and renewables in the early-mid 2000s. Climate wasn't the primary motivator. Regular air pollution was. Smog has essentially disappeared from Toronto. I haven't had burning eyes and a scratchy throat on what would have once been bad summer days in almost two decades personally (atmospheric NO2 levels): https://files.ontario.ca/2086-figurea35-en.jpg https://files.ontario.ca/2086-figurea35-en.jpg Atmospheric mercury levels alone have fallen by 40%. I didn't even know so much Hg in the environment came from coal ash! > An independent assessment conducted by Toronto Public Health in 2014 suggests that improvements in Ontario’s air quality have translated into significant health benefits for Ontario residents. Toronto Public Health found that improvements in Toronto’s air quality from 2000 to 2011 have reduced air pollution-related premature deaths by 23% (from 1,700 to 1,300 per year) and hospital admissions by 41% (from 6,000 to 3,550 per year) in Toronto alone.
  - retwe321 5y ago
    This argument is mostly against cities though. Nowadays humans don't need to be tightly packed into pollution centres. Efforts should be made to make city living as expensive as possible since it's harmful for the environment. Internet has made cities pretty much obsolete anyway.
    - post-it 5y ago
      Sure, if you're fine with - never having a medical emergency - driving 30 minutes to get food - never going anywhere you can't drive home from
    - deleted 5y ago
AlwaysRock 5y ago
Years and years ago (around Gore v Bush) we hit a few "point of no returns" and I started to look up what can we actually do if we are past a point of no return. I found some relief in the idea that we could pump chemicals into our atmosphere to balance out the "bad" chemicals. I have a pretty naïve understanding of this and I was aware at the time that this was a bit of a nuclear option because its unsure if this would work and once we do it there isnt really any going back. But this is an option right? At some point some country that has been impacted by climate change enough will start to dump something into the air to counteract climate change. I havnt thought about this in years but someone asked me recently and I brought this up and they questioned it a bit and I realized I didnt actually know how it would potentially work.
- notabee 5y ago
  This is an entertaining video on that topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSu5sXmsur4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSu5sXmsur4
  - Maursault 5y ago
    Horrifying. Chemistry has and continues to do enough damage. I hope instead for a different, non-chemical kind of solution, like massive but skinny heatsinks stretched from the poles into space, in tandem with a new carbon-negative economy bent on natural habitat restoration, along with negative birth rates. An easy fix for the planet is to eliminate humankind... but the solution really it doesn't need to be this extreme. Eliminating just the men will have the same effect. And, in fact, we can be even more surgical and merely eliminate or sterilize the extraordinarily small percentage of men that cause 99% of the problem. It's probably like only 200 guys. We should find them and stop them.
- westcort 5y ago
  A firehouse flow worth of limestone slurry sprayed into the atmosphere from a plane could offset global warming, by some estimates. I wonder why this isn’t being done yet.
  - 5y ago
lettergram 5y ago
It’s kinda funny that project veritas released a clip showing CNN and media were going to start selling this issue (for profit) and now it’s happening... https://www.projectveritas.com/news/part-1-cnn-director-admits-network-engaged-in-propaganda-to-remove-trump/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/part-1-cnn-director-admi... > It [COVID] will taper off to a point that it's not a problem anymore. Climate change can take years, so they'll [CNN will] probably be able to milk that quite a bit…Climate change is going to be the next COVID thing for CNN…Fear sells Some other factoids: - 20,000 years ago an ice sheet covered a large portion of North America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet - 10,000 years ago the Sierra was green https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-really-turned-sahara-desert-green-oasis-wasteland-180962668/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-really-tu... - generally, I agree with world is warming. Is that bad? I’m actually unsure. There’s a lot more data on this; it’ll definitely Impact our lives — but is there anything we can do about it? Seems like a trend going back tens of thousands of years.
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  You're not allowed to question climate change like this on HN. >generally, I agree with world is warming. Is that bad? I’m actually unsure. The eemian period was around 115,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian It was about 2 celcius warmer compared to today. Sea levels were ~6-9 metres higher. Which puts significant amount of current day valuable land under water. Flipside, this increase in warming also unlocks significant parts of the Canadian arctic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot... You can also see that it's always sudden spikes up to peaks. I suspect it's related to solar cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum When the solar cycle ended in ~1820 and we went into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum This is also why so many graphs showing climate change tend to start around 1820. Including data before 1820 would just muddy their conclusions.
  - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
hatware 5y ago
Oh look, another article asking ordinary citizens to shoulder responsibility for something that is almost entirely perpetrated by corporations. Yawn.
- jandrese 5y ago
  Everybody, corporations and individuals, need to do their part to fight climate change. We are all living on the same planet. If corporations aren't doing their part they need to be called out, but that is no excuse for you to shirk your duty.
- gruez 5y ago
  Are corporations emitting carbon for fun, or are they doing it at the behest of "ordinary citizens"?
  - postsantum 5y ago
    Behest of ordinary citizens is easily swayed by media, which are owned by corporations. Enjoy your nuclear hysteria while important people keep visiting Climate Change Conferences in their private jets
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    They are doing it because it's cheap and legal. Nobody is asking corporations to do it. We are allowing them to get away with it. We need to stop allowing it.
  - hatware 5y ago
    Neither. I believe they are doing it to make money. Which is perfectly alright. Isn't the government supposed to _evaluate_ and _regulate_ the market in order to account for the externalities created by X, Y, and Z corporations? If they are not doing this, what do we do? Cause we've been voting the same cronies in cycle after cycle, with the same result. What is the definition of insanity? Our reality.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
brandmeyer 5y ago
Climate change is a slow-moving problem, and the situation with the Thwaites Glacier is no exception. From the scientific article's[1] own plain-language summary: "The Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf is the floating terminus of the Thwaites Glacier, one of the fastest changing glaciers in Antarctica and contributing as much as 4% of global sea level rise today. This floating ice shelf is stabilized offshore by a marine shoal and acts as a dam to slow the flow of ice off the continent into the ocean. If this floating ice shelf breaks apart, the Thwaites Glacier will accelerate and its contribution to sea level rise will increase by as much as 25%." So, this specific ice shelf's collapse would increase global sea level rise by up to 1%. Over the coming decades, the dominant driver of sea level rise will continue to be thermal expansion of the ocean itself. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet in total may contribute 3 m of sea level rise... over a period of 13 thousand years[2]. [1]: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/978762 https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/978762 [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655561/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655561/
- echelon 5y ago
  So Miami gets submerged 13,000 years from now and not within the next 50? My coworkers laugh when I tell them I'm looking at Miami real estate. It doesn't look like it's going anywhere but up in my lifetime, though.
- gmuslera 5y ago
  The yearly average global temperature is moving slowly (but at increasing speed. we are increasing emissions, old emissions accumulate for centuries, and we are already triggering positive feedback loops). Extreme weather is not, both in severity and in frequency. Doing big averages from a far, safe distance hide you the fact that is not so safe at local level, and the increase frequency turns every place into a dangerous to be one eventually. Sea rises slowly in average, but still there was plenty of floods this very year. You don't have to wait till the ocean catches you, an atmospheric river could ruin your life too.
  - brandmeyer 5y ago
    Climate change is a big problem, but harping on ice-sheet collapse is a strategic mistake. We know a priori that ice sheet collapse is one of the longest-term threats. None of us will experience impact from them in our lifetime, and focusing on them hands the deniers their own talking points to them on a silver platter. Extreme weather events, wet-bulb temperature shifts, arable land changes, and habitat loss are near-term threats that are already having impact.
falcrist 5y ago
You can grab global average temperature data from NOAA[1] or NASA[2] and play with it yourself. Things immediately jump out at me, such as: Of the top 20 hottest years on record, the only one that isn't from the past 20 years is 1998. The year that got bumped out of the top 20 is 2008, which sits at 21st place. That seems like a pretty clear trend to me. [1] - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2020 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_... [2] - https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_...
- soco 5y ago
  And then come people saying "oh but there were always ups and downs". Hockey stick or not, natural causes or human causes debate aside, what this argument forgets is that insects and animals and plants and by extension humans will suffer through this a lot and we know we can mitigate it by lowering our own emissions. So why not doing it, even if the catastrophe would be from natural causes? Don't we want to avoid a natural catastrophe even if it's natural? Everybody agrees we should blast an incoming asteroid and nobody proposes to let it hit because "yeah we had already a few during history"...
  - 5560675260 5y ago
    Alternative to suffering from rising temperatures is adapting to them. Lowering emissions is also going to cause suffering and might be as effective as blasting (into general direction of an) asteroid with a water cannon.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      "Adapting" to higher temperatures will mean moving at least tens of millions of people away from their homes because the area becomes inhospitable. Large refugee streams tend to cause a lot of suffering, both for the refugees as well as in the countries where they go to.
bell-cot 5y ago
We are talking about the behavior of a species which repeatedly hunts extremely valuable prey species to economic extinction, builds houses and raises children on the slopes of smoldering volcanoes, etc. And displays neigh-zero regret - let alone long-term learning - when such antics go horribly wrong. No way in hell will Homo Sapiens change its behavior (at anything resembling a useful scale) based tiny-looking shifts in a few climate statistics. Nor harmless-looking events on a distant and neigh-uninhabited continent. A better question: How fast could Mr. Musk's fleet of Starships deploy enough giga-scale solar shades to reduce Earth's total insolation by (say) 5%?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- arrrg 5y ago
  This is too defeatist and doesn’t acknowledge the progress already made. Being too needlessly cynical about what is possible is also dangerous. Basically you are forming a coalition with deniers and stand in the way of meaningful progress. I agree that the challenges are immense and (as is pretty clear to everyone, I think) adapting to the changes will always be part of it. Does not mean that making progress on prevention is meaningless. Let the people who do not want those preventive changes work on adaption alternatives.
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    Well...I see "keep the Earth at least (say) 80% as habitable as it currently is" as an "absolute must-do" engineering requirement. Praising progress already made, proclaiming faith in humanity's potential to unify toward that goal, etc. - those are social niceties & tactics. Extremely useful in advancing one's own social status within certain segments of the population. Not so useful in actually meeting the must-do requirement. Certainly my own experience with big, tough "must-do" projects is that there's damned little overlap between the folks who jump up to do 95% of the posturing and talking, and the folks who show up and do 95% of that actual hard work needed to succeed. And that second crowd has fairly underwhelming respect for most of the first crowd.
verisimi 5y ago
Why though, is there such a disconnect between what we personally experience (colder weather) and what we are told (global warming)? Must I take the science on trust?
- rkk3 5y ago
  You can still experience cold weather in a system that is warming. Are you personally sensitive to small average temperature changes over decades?
  - verisimi 5y ago
    Its very hard to read personally - you have to take a long view. It seems to me that some years are warm, some years are cold. The beaches I went to as a kid seem to be at the same height. But this is really a question about the science. And we do know that they a/ don't have a perfect record, and b/ edit the historical record they have. https://web.archive.org/web/20160322230859/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160322230859/http://blogs.tele... "Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP): ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…." (Fwiw, these sorts of articles are hard to find. All you can easily find online is confusing info, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c... is an exercise in obfuscation)
immmmmm 5y ago
there was a plot the other day of the "Temperature Anomaly (rel to 1980)" over Europe in the morning: the adjusted scale was going from -30 to +30 °C. i know climate change has the effect of "shifting and widening gaussians", still an anomalous temperature differential of 60 Celsius was a bit of a shock.
euroderf 5y ago
The only scene missing from John Carpenter's "They Live" is the one where the aliens and their collaborators talk about how great the terraforming is progressing.
- Method-X 5y ago
  Was this a deleted scene, or do you mean it should have been a scene?
  - euroderf 5y ago
    Shoulda!
cletus 5y ago
I'm a climate fatalist: it really doesn't matter if climate change predictions are true or the degree to which they're true because there is absolutely no way humanity, as a species, will do anything about it that inconveniences a large number of people in any way. The ugly truth is that people are quite willing to let other people die or simply to live in abject poverty to preserve their way of life, even if it's just temporarily. We've seen it with Covid: a significant number of people won't get a vaccine with, at best, extremely minor risks of side effects, certainly much less than driving a car or flying on a commercial airplane, or wear a mask even though it demonstrably hampers transmission. There are a multitude of reasons for this (both Covid and climate change). It's a scary situation. Historically, it's better to bet against the Mayans: the Mayans predicted the end of the world so what is the point in betting they're right because the world ends. For some, it's simply easier to pretend none of this is happening. But a lot of people are just struggling to get by. There are two things we need to do to actually address climate change, in my opinion: 1. We need to elevate the standard of living of the baseline of people such that they aren't struggling, they aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck and they aren't at constant risk of financial ruin (eg unexpected medical expenses). People will care about these things when they aren't completely focused on basic needs like food and shelter. A key part of this is that the ultra-wealthy need to start paying for the politically stable world that made their wealth possible and continues to do so. The ultimate form of wealth redistribution is war and revolution and nobody wants that. 2. The solution to emissions is economic not altruistic. You want to replace fossil fuels for energy? You need something cheaper. Nothing else matters. So, as for the warning signs in this post: I can't speak to how meaningful they are. I am 100% convinced however that it doesn't matter because no one will listen or, more importantly, change their behaviour to a sufficient degree. I am always skeptical of "the sky is falling" predictions however. Climate, in particular, has a bad track record for failed predictions. The Earth has been around for 4+ billion years and it's been a lot warmer than it is now, even very recently (ie within the last 100,000 years) so I'm skeptical about claims of runaway climate change, as just one example. 4 billion years is a long time for runaway conditions to occur naturally. We simply don't have adequate knowledge of what mechanisms will kick in in extreme conditions.
rob_c 5y ago
And if we accidentally make the planet nicer for everyone by cleaning up and having the rich spread the wealth and caring about others.... oh wait, this is driven from countries with a lower value on human life so I guess this explains it....
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >And if we accidentally make the planet nicer for everyone by cleaning up This is for sure happening. The huge push to electric cars for example is because we must get off oil. Not because of climate change but rather practicality. We have ~50 years of oil left. Today people are driving around in 20 year old rust buckets. Those people aren't buying EVs until they have had a good time depreciating. So we're decades from true adoption. Long before that we are going to have oil prices skyrocket due to scarcity. Iran is talking nuclear deals because they ran out of oil. Or at least oil they can access. More importantly, even russia and china are siding with the usa and eu saying iran is the one in need and needs to change. It's hard to predict what is about to come about their nuclear talks. Afterall, Iran is basically in an economic depression right now. Their inflation is trucking around 50% annual. Their prime lending rate is ~18%. This is what happens post-oil if you haven't moved your economy off of oil. >and having the rich spread the wealth and caring about others.... Are they not? The rich effectively pay for the government. The net-benefits to the non-rich are greater than they pay in taxes. The rich are who pay for everything and are spreading their wealth. >oh wait, this is driven from countries with a lower value on human life so I guess this explains it.... The poor person in those undeveloped parts of the world arent even driving 20 year old rust buckets. They are operating with like 2 cycle motors that barely function. The sooner we move away from oil, the less likely there's a huge economic fall out for others later.
robomartin 5y ago
The ice pack at the poles provides proof enough that temperatures have risen. That isn't something that anyone can dispute. What bothers me as an engineer is that I can't see how anything over a 150 year span at a global, hemispherical, continental, national or even regional level can be calculated to an actual accuracy of 0.1 degrees C and, even worse, enough precision to support conclusions with one digit after the decimal point. For those who might not be clear in the difference between accuracy and precisions, here's what I hope is a simple explanation you can remember (works for me). How close are you to the absolute correct number? "Absolute" starts with "A". This is accuracy. You are trying to cut a piece of aluminum to 1 unit in length. If every piece is about 1.2 units you are not very accurate. If every piece is about 0.95 units, you are far more accurate. You are closer to your target, absolute or real measurement. Precision is related to grouping. I remember this by thinking "Group ends with P = Precision". Think of this in terms of how closely grouped your measurements might be. Absolute > Accuracy Group > Precision Imagine you have to make an aluminum bar 1 unit in length. Here are various outcomes from making five bars and their accuracy/precision classification: Accurate and Precise: [1.000, 1.005, 0.999, 1.002, 0.998] Accurate and NOT Precise: [1.000, 1.050, 0.959, 1.022, 0.978] NOT Accurate and Precise: [1.200, 1.205, 1.199, 1.202, 1.198] NOT Accurate and NOT Precise: [1.220, 1.105, 1.127, 1.272, 1.298] Sorry for the detour. I read a number of documents [0] [1] (and more on that second link) describing the NOAA data used for most of these studies. I would not be honest if I didn't say that I can't help think there's a lot of stuff that feels less than correct. I also revert to the simplest ideas (call it an Occam's razor impulse) that tells me that measuring temperatures over such long periods of time to these purported degrees of accuracy and precision is simply impossible. 0.5 degrees C over 150 years? The only way this happens is if you takes averages of averages of averages, eliminate a bunch of readings and pretty much ignore some of the reality of such readings. And, BTW, you keep significant digits when, perhaps, you should not. Here's a simple example in the spirit of Occam's razor thinking: Take a look at this picture [2], source [3]. It is very easy to see that both where and when a temperature is measured can have a massive effect on the readings. Focusing on the peaks (both low and high), there's a roughly 3 degree C difference between the location with the lowest curve and the highest. Even if limited to temperatures from the same location, if your measurement is displaced by one hour the difference can is in the 1 to 2 degree range. If I measure the "Technical Services" location at 14:00 and "Music Hall" at 12:00 I get the same temperature. If I lump these measurements with measurements made at different location at different times, and average multiple times to aggregate across regions and time, well, there's no telling what the end result actually means. In this context, you'd be lucky to be able to claim results accurate within 1 degree and a precision of + or - 1 degree from there. The evidence is clear, melting ice does not lie. However, these studies seem to be lacking something very fundamental. I can only put my finger on trying to extract accuracy and precision from data that cannot possibly support reporting at those levels. To make matters worse, most of these graphs plot deltas with respect to averages from what I will call hot periods. What do I mean by this? The graph in question does not plot a 150 year history with respect to the mean temperature spanning 150 years. They tend to use a contemporary average (I don't remember, let's say it is from 1980 to present day) as their baseline. Of course, with respect to this baseline everything before the reference period will look like an ice age (being dramatic). In my opinion, this makes for a more dramatic looking graph. Not necessarily a more truthful presentation, just more dramatic. Someone mentioned in anther comment the idea of what you'd have to do to convince those skeptical about climate change. Well, for starters, the data and graphs presented has to be unimpeachable. Anyone can rightly ask "How could you possibly know the temperature in 1880 or 1910 to an accuracy of 0.1 C?". And they would be right to question such a claim. Not sure how to fix this. Just pointing out something that seems troublesome to me. [0] https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pdf https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pd... [1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php#references https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalie... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322719908/figure/fig3/AS:587034641072146@1516971373928/June-hourly-temperature-averages.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322719908/figure/fi... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/June-hourly-temperature-averages_fig3_322719908 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/June-hourly-temperature-...
jiggawatts 5y ago
It makes me laugh how IT people comment how the government has done nothing about this predicted, slow-moving catastrophe. What have you done about switching to IPv6?
- adrianN 5y ago
  We're doing okay? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#/media/File:IPv6-as.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#/media/File:IP...
jooize 5y ago
I want to build on a piece of land a personal ecosystem that can sustain at least one adult human under extreme weather conditions.

130 points by samizdis 5y ago

And here's number four: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Comparison of the longterm mean temperature in the artic with each year going back to 1958.

vaylian 5y ago
HTTP 404 edit: Never mind. I had to disable the HTTPS everywhere extension.
- alserio 5y ago
  Just like the snow in the arctic
  - egberts1 5y ago
    Just like your upvote (or lack thereof).
- samizdis 5y ago
  I'm not getting a 404 (from the UK), but here's an archive link: https://archive.md/Ih5eQ https://archive.md/Ih5eQ
dash2 5y ago
So what should I be looking at here? Is it that the red line (mean temperatures) is much above the green line (climate, ie average over previous years)?
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  The green line is mean temperatures on the same days of each year from 58 to 02. The red one is 2002 onward.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

I'm no expert, but to sell this to the skeptics (if they'd even buy it), I guess an analogy would be, if you wanted to preserve an ice cube in a freezer where the temperature is -20C, incrementally rising the temperature won't matter, until it does: when it reaches the melting point of the ice. Are we at melting point now? Or very very close to it?

neffy 5y ago
Well above. Witness the rising sea levels caused by the glaciers melting.
abainbridge 5y ago
That would only work on some. The skeptic I know acknowledges that the world is getting warmer but doesn't believe this is a problem. I do believe it is a problem and find it hard to convince him.
johnchristopher 5y ago
Skeptics gonna skeptic, no matter what now. Only thing left is to prepare for the crashing and brutal transition, and explain things to skeptics but not for their benefits but in the hope it tips off in the right direction the hesitant people who are silently listening to conversations. Like with covid.
VHRanger 5y ago
The problem is that it's a continuous event. A lot of places are on the margin where 1c or 2c matters a lot. This margin moves up the more we increase heat. But more than that, the volatility in the climate system increases at a much greater rate than the mean temperature. Extreme weather events will continue to get more frequent
- thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
  While this is a good argument, people's revealed preferences point in the other direction The countries that are closest to that margin, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Iran, are actually perfectly happy with pumping more fossil fuels. Bin Salman was actively trying to sabotage COP26 talks. Brazil continues the deforestation, with Bolsonaro being perfectly happy with it Florida beach front properties are not dropping in value. Migration towards Sun Belt in the US is a real thing. At the peak of summer heat, significant chunk of Europe's population temporarily moves to the hottest parts of the continent. Despite the global warming prospects and economic disparities, Greeks, Italians and Spaniards aren't flocking to Scandinavia. etc., etc.

Glench 5y ago

Don't forget there's also the millions of people dying from fossil fuel-based air pollution every year! https://lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n23/david-wallace-wells/ten-million-a-year https://lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n23/david-wallace-wells/ten-...

retrac 5y ago
Great point. There'd be compelling reasons to stop poisoning ourselves ASAP even if we weren't boiling ourselves alive in the process. Ontario phased out coal electricity for a mix of natural gas and renewables in the early-mid 2000s. Climate wasn't the primary motivator. Regular air pollution was. Smog has essentially disappeared from Toronto. I haven't had burning eyes and a scratchy throat on what would have once been bad summer days in almost two decades personally (atmospheric NO2 levels): https://files.ontario.ca/2086-figurea35-en.jpg https://files.ontario.ca/2086-figurea35-en.jpg Atmospheric mercury levels alone have fallen by 40%. I didn't even know so much Hg in the environment came from coal ash! > An independent assessment conducted by Toronto Public Health in 2014 suggests that improvements in Ontario’s air quality have translated into significant health benefits for Ontario residents. Toronto Public Health found that improvements in Toronto’s air quality from 2000 to 2011 have reduced air pollution-related premature deaths by 23% (from 1,700 to 1,300 per year) and hospital admissions by 41% (from 6,000 to 3,550 per year) in Toronto alone.
- retwe321 5y ago
  This argument is mostly against cities though. Nowadays humans don't need to be tightly packed into pollution centres. Efforts should be made to make city living as expensive as possible since it's harmful for the environment. Internet has made cities pretty much obsolete anyway.
  - post-it 5y ago
    Sure, if you're fine with - never having a medical emergency - driving 30 minutes to get food - never going anywhere you can't drive home from
  - deleted 5y ago

AlwaysRock 5y ago

Years and years ago (around Gore v Bush) we hit a few "point of no returns" and I started to look up what can we actually do if we are past a point of no return. I found some relief in the idea that we could pump chemicals into our atmosphere to balance out the "bad" chemicals. I have a pretty naïve understanding of this and I was aware at the time that this was a bit of a nuclear option because its unsure if this would work and once we do it there isnt really any going back. But this is an option right? At some point some country that has been impacted by climate change enough will start to dump something into the air to counteract climate change. I havnt thought about this in years but someone asked me recently and I brought this up and they questioned it a bit and I realized I didnt actually know how it would potentially work.

notabee 5y ago
This is an entertaining video on that topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSu5sXmsur4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSu5sXmsur4
- Maursault 5y ago
  Horrifying. Chemistry has and continues to do enough damage. I hope instead for a different, non-chemical kind of solution, like massive but skinny heatsinks stretched from the poles into space, in tandem with a new carbon-negative economy bent on natural habitat restoration, along with negative birth rates. An easy fix for the planet is to eliminate humankind... but the solution really it doesn't need to be this extreme. Eliminating just the men will have the same effect. And, in fact, we can be even more surgical and merely eliminate or sterilize the extraordinarily small percentage of men that cause 99% of the problem. It's probably like only 200 guys. We should find them and stop them.
westcort 5y ago
A firehouse flow worth of limestone slurry sprayed into the atmosphere from a plane could offset global warming, by some estimates. I wonder why this isn’t being done yet.
- 5y ago

lettergram 5y ago

It’s kinda funny that project veritas released a clip showing CNN and media were going to start selling this issue (for profit) and now it’s happening... https://www.projectveritas.com/news/part-1-cnn-director-admits-network-engaged-in-propaganda-to-remove-trump/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/part-1-cnn-director-admi... > It [COVID] will taper off to a point that it's not a problem anymore. Climate change can take years, so they'll [CNN will] probably be able to milk that quite a bit…Climate change is going to be the next COVID thing for CNN…Fear sells Some other factoids: - 20,000 years ago an ice sheet covered a large portion of North America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet - 10,000 years ago the Sierra was green https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-really-turned-sahara-desert-green-oasis-wasteland-180962668/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-really-tu... - generally, I agree with world is warming. Is that bad? I’m actually unsure. There’s a lot more data on this; it’ll definitely Impact our lives — but is there anything we can do about it? Seems like a trend going back tens of thousands of years.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago
You're not allowed to question climate change like this on HN. >generally, I agree with world is warming. Is that bad? I’m actually unsure. The eemian period was around 115,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian It was about 2 celcius warmer compared to today. Sea levels were ~6-9 metres higher. Which puts significant amount of current day valuable land under water. Flipside, this increase in warming also unlocks significant parts of the Canadian arctic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot... You can also see that it's always sudden spikes up to peaks. I suspect it's related to solar cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum When the solar cycle ended in ~1820 and we went into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum This is also why so many graphs showing climate change tend to start around 1820. Including data before 1820 would just muddy their conclusions.
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago

hatware 5y ago

Oh look, another article asking ordinary citizens to shoulder responsibility for something that is almost entirely perpetrated by corporations. Yawn.

jandrese 5y ago
Everybody, corporations and individuals, need to do their part to fight climate change. We are all living on the same planet. If corporations aren't doing their part they need to be called out, but that is no excuse for you to shirk your duty.
gruez 5y ago
Are corporations emitting carbon for fun, or are they doing it at the behest of "ordinary citizens"?
- postsantum 5y ago
  Behest of ordinary citizens is easily swayed by media, which are owned by corporations. Enjoy your nuclear hysteria while important people keep visiting Climate Change Conferences in their private jets
- user-the-name 5y ago
  They are doing it because it's cheap and legal. Nobody is asking corporations to do it. We are allowing them to get away with it. We need to stop allowing it.
- hatware 5y ago
  Neither. I believe they are doing it to make money. Which is perfectly alright. Isn't the government supposed to _evaluate_ and _regulate_ the market in order to account for the externalities created by X, Y, and Z corporations? If they are not doing this, what do we do? Cause we've been voting the same cronies in cycle after cycle, with the same result. What is the definition of insanity? Our reality.
  - pessimizer 5y ago

brandmeyer 5y ago

Climate change is a slow-moving problem, and the situation with the Thwaites Glacier is no exception. From the scientific article's[1] own plain-language summary: "The Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf is the floating terminus of the Thwaites Glacier, one of the fastest changing glaciers in Antarctica and contributing as much as 4% of global sea level rise today. This floating ice shelf is stabilized offshore by a marine shoal and acts as a dam to slow the flow of ice off the continent into the ocean. If this floating ice shelf breaks apart, the Thwaites Glacier will accelerate and its contribution to sea level rise will increase by as much as 25%." So, this specific ice shelf's collapse would increase global sea level rise by up to 1%. Over the coming decades, the dominant driver of sea level rise will continue to be thermal expansion of the ocean itself. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet in total may contribute 3 m of sea level rise... over a period of 13 thousand years[2]. [1]: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/978762 https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/978762 [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655561/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655561/

echelon 5y ago
So Miami gets submerged 13,000 years from now and not within the next 50? My coworkers laugh when I tell them I'm looking at Miami real estate. It doesn't look like it's going anywhere but up in my lifetime, though.
gmuslera 5y ago
The yearly average global temperature is moving slowly (but at increasing speed. we are increasing emissions, old emissions accumulate for centuries, and we are already triggering positive feedback loops). Extreme weather is not, both in severity and in frequency. Doing big averages from a far, safe distance hide you the fact that is not so safe at local level, and the increase frequency turns every place into a dangerous to be one eventually. Sea rises slowly in average, but still there was plenty of floods this very year. You don't have to wait till the ocean catches you, an atmospheric river could ruin your life too.
- brandmeyer 5y ago
  Climate change is a big problem, but harping on ice-sheet collapse is a strategic mistake. We know a priori that ice sheet collapse is one of the longest-term threats. None of us will experience impact from them in our lifetime, and focusing on them hands the deniers their own talking points to them on a silver platter. Extreme weather events, wet-bulb temperature shifts, arable land changes, and habitat loss are near-term threats that are already having impact.

falcrist 5y ago

You can grab global average temperature data from NOAA[1] or NASA[2] and play with it yourself. Things immediately jump out at me, such as: Of the top 20 hottest years on record, the only one that isn't from the past 20 years is 1998. The year that got bumped out of the top 20 is 2008, which sits at 21st place. That seems like a pretty clear trend to me. [1] - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2020 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_... [2] - https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_...

soco 5y ago
And then come people saying "oh but there were always ups and downs". Hockey stick or not, natural causes or human causes debate aside, what this argument forgets is that insects and animals and plants and by extension humans will suffer through this a lot and we know we can mitigate it by lowering our own emissions. So why not doing it, even if the catastrophe would be from natural causes? Don't we want to avoid a natural catastrophe even if it's natural? Everybody agrees we should blast an incoming asteroid and nobody proposes to let it hit because "yeah we had already a few during history"...
- 5560675260 5y ago
  Alternative to suffering from rising temperatures is adapting to them. Lowering emissions is also going to cause suffering and might be as effective as blasting (into general direction of an) asteroid with a water cannon.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    "Adapting" to higher temperatures will mean moving at least tens of millions of people away from their homes because the area becomes inhospitable. Large refugee streams tend to cause a lot of suffering, both for the refugees as well as in the countries where they go to.

bell-cot 5y ago

We are talking about the behavior of a species which repeatedly hunts extremely valuable prey species to economic extinction, builds houses and raises children on the slopes of smoldering volcanoes, etc. And displays neigh-zero regret - let alone long-term learning - when such antics go horribly wrong. No way in hell will Homo Sapiens change its behavior (at anything resembling a useful scale) based tiny-looking shifts in a few climate statistics. Nor harmless-looking events on a distant and neigh-uninhabited continent. A better question: How fast could Mr. Musk's fleet of Starships deploy enough giga-scale solar shades to reduce Earth's total insolation by (say) 5%?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
arrrg 5y ago
This is too defeatist and doesn’t acknowledge the progress already made. Being too needlessly cynical about what is possible is also dangerous. Basically you are forming a coalition with deniers and stand in the way of meaningful progress. I agree that the challenges are immense and (as is pretty clear to everyone, I think) adapting to the changes will always be part of it. Does not mean that making progress on prevention is meaningless. Let the people who do not want those preventive changes work on adaption alternatives.
- bell-cot 5y ago
  Well...I see "keep the Earth at least (say) 80% as habitable as it currently is" as an "absolute must-do" engineering requirement. Praising progress already made, proclaiming faith in humanity's potential to unify toward that goal, etc. - those are social niceties & tactics. Extremely useful in advancing one's own social status within certain segments of the population. Not so useful in actually meeting the must-do requirement. Certainly my own experience with big, tough "must-do" projects is that there's damned little overlap between the folks who jump up to do 95% of the posturing and talking, and the folks who show up and do 95% of that actual hard work needed to succeed. And that second crowd has fairly underwhelming respect for most of the first crowd.

verisimi 5y ago

Why though, is there such a disconnect between what we personally experience (colder weather) and what we are told (global warming)? Must I take the science on trust?

rkk3 5y ago
You can still experience cold weather in a system that is warming. Are you personally sensitive to small average temperature changes over decades?
- verisimi 5y ago
  Its very hard to read personally - you have to take a long view. It seems to me that some years are warm, some years are cold. The beaches I went to as a kid seem to be at the same height. But this is really a question about the science. And we do know that they a/ don't have a perfect record, and b/ edit the historical record they have. https://web.archive.org/web/20160322230859/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160322230859/http://blogs.tele... "Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP): ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…." (Fwiw, these sorts of articles are hard to find. All you can easily find online is confusing info, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c... is an exercise in obfuscation)

immmmmm 5y ago

there was a plot the other day of the "Temperature Anomaly (rel to 1980)" over Europe in the morning: the adjusted scale was going from -30 to +30 °C. i know climate change has the effect of "shifting and widening gaussians", still an anomalous temperature differential of 60 Celsius was a bit of a shock.

euroderf 5y ago

The only scene missing from John Carpenter's "They Live" is the one where the aliens and their collaborators talk about how great the terraforming is progressing.

Method-X 5y ago
Was this a deleted scene, or do you mean it should have been a scene?
- euroderf 5y ago
  Shoulda!

cletus 5y ago

I'm a climate fatalist: it really doesn't matter if climate change predictions are true or the degree to which they're true because there is absolutely no way humanity, as a species, will do anything about it that inconveniences a large number of people in any way. The ugly truth is that people are quite willing to let other people die or simply to live in abject poverty to preserve their way of life, even if it's just temporarily. We've seen it with Covid: a significant number of people won't get a vaccine with, at best, extremely minor risks of side effects, certainly much less than driving a car or flying on a commercial airplane, or wear a mask even though it demonstrably hampers transmission. There are a multitude of reasons for this (both Covid and climate change). It's a scary situation. Historically, it's better to bet against the Mayans: the Mayans predicted the end of the world so what is the point in betting they're right because the world ends. For some, it's simply easier to pretend none of this is happening. But a lot of people are just struggling to get by. There are two things we need to do to actually address climate change, in my opinion: 1. We need to elevate the standard of living of the baseline of people such that they aren't struggling, they aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck and they aren't at constant risk of financial ruin (eg unexpected medical expenses). People will care about these things when they aren't completely focused on basic needs like food and shelter. A key part of this is that the ultra-wealthy need to start paying for the politically stable world that made their wealth possible and continues to do so. The ultimate form of wealth redistribution is war and revolution and nobody wants that. 2. The solution to emissions is economic not altruistic. You want to replace fossil fuels for energy? You need something cheaper. Nothing else matters. So, as for the warning signs in this post: I can't speak to how meaningful they are. I am 100% convinced however that it doesn't matter because no one will listen or, more importantly, change their behaviour to a sufficient degree. I am always skeptical of "the sky is falling" predictions however. Climate, in particular, has a bad track record for failed predictions. The Earth has been around for 4+ billion years and it's been a lot warmer than it is now, even very recently (ie within the last 100,000 years) so I'm skeptical about claims of runaway climate change, as just one example. 4 billion years is a long time for runaway conditions to occur naturally. We simply don't have adequate knowledge of what mechanisms will kick in in extreme conditions.

rob_c 5y ago

And if we accidentally make the planet nicer for everyone by cleaning up and having the rich spread the wealth and caring about others.... oh wait, this is driven from countries with a lower value on human life so I guess this explains it....

sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>And if we accidentally make the planet nicer for everyone by cleaning up This is for sure happening. The huge push to electric cars for example is because we must get off oil. Not because of climate change but rather practicality. We have ~50 years of oil left. Today people are driving around in 20 year old rust buckets. Those people aren't buying EVs until they have had a good time depreciating. So we're decades from true adoption. Long before that we are going to have oil prices skyrocket due to scarcity. Iran is talking nuclear deals because they ran out of oil. Or at least oil they can access. More importantly, even russia and china are siding with the usa and eu saying iran is the one in need and needs to change. It's hard to predict what is about to come about their nuclear talks. Afterall, Iran is basically in an economic depression right now. Their inflation is trucking around 50% annual. Their prime lending rate is ~18%. This is what happens post-oil if you haven't moved your economy off of oil. >and having the rich spread the wealth and caring about others.... Are they not? The rich effectively pay for the government. The net-benefits to the non-rich are greater than they pay in taxes. The rich are who pay for everything and are spreading their wealth. >oh wait, this is driven from countries with a lower value on human life so I guess this explains it.... The poor person in those undeveloped parts of the world arent even driving 20 year old rust buckets. They are operating with like 2 cycle motors that barely function. The sooner we move away from oil, the less likely there's a huge economic fall out for others later.

robomartin 5y ago

The ice pack at the poles provides proof enough that temperatures have risen. That isn't something that anyone can dispute. What bothers me as an engineer is that I can't see how anything over a 150 year span at a global, hemispherical, continental, national or even regional level can be calculated to an actual accuracy of 0.1 degrees C and, even worse, enough precision to support conclusions with one digit after the decimal point. For those who might not be clear in the difference between accuracy and precisions, here's what I hope is a simple explanation you can remember (works for me). How close are you to the absolute correct number? "Absolute" starts with "A". This is accuracy. You are trying to cut a piece of aluminum to 1 unit in length. If every piece is about 1.2 units you are not very accurate. If every piece is about 0.95 units, you are far more accurate. You are closer to your target, absolute or real measurement. Precision is related to grouping. I remember this by thinking "Group ends with P = Precision". Think of this in terms of how closely grouped your measurements might be. Absolute > Accuracy Group > Precision Imagine you have to make an aluminum bar 1 unit in length. Here are various outcomes from making five bars and their accuracy/precision classification: Accurate and Precise: [1.000, 1.005, 0.999, 1.002, 0.998] Accurate and NOT Precise: [1.000, 1.050, 0.959, 1.022, 0.978] NOT Accurate and Precise: [1.200, 1.205, 1.199, 1.202, 1.198] NOT Accurate and NOT Precise: [1.220, 1.105, 1.127, 1.272, 1.298] Sorry for the detour. I read a number of documents [0] [1] (and more on that second link) describing the NOAA data used for most of these studies. I would not be honest if I didn't say that I can't help think there's a lot of stuff that feels less than correct. I also revert to the simplest ideas (call it an Occam's razor impulse) that tells me that measuring temperatures over such long periods of time to these purported degrees of accuracy and precision is simply impossible. 0.5 degrees C over 150 years? The only way this happens is if you takes averages of averages of averages, eliminate a bunch of readings and pretty much ignore some of the reality of such readings. And, BTW, you keep significant digits when, perhaps, you should not. Here's a simple example in the spirit of Occam's razor thinking: Take a look at this picture [2], source [3]. It is very easy to see that both where and when a temperature is measured can have a massive effect on the readings. Focusing on the peaks (both low and high), there's a roughly 3 degree C difference between the location with the lowest curve and the highest. Even if limited to temperatures from the same location, if your measurement is displaced by one hour the difference can is in the 1 to 2 degree range. If I measure the "Technical Services" location at 14:00 and "Music Hall" at 12:00 I get the same temperature. If I lump these measurements with measurements made at different location at different times, and average multiple times to aggregate across regions and time, well, there's no telling what the end result actually means. In this context, you'd be lucky to be able to claim results accurate within 1 degree and a precision of + or - 1 degree from there. The evidence is clear, melting ice does not lie. However, these studies seem to be lacking something very fundamental. I can only put my finger on trying to extract accuracy and precision from data that cannot possibly support reporting at those levels. To make matters worse, most of these graphs plot deltas with respect to averages from what I will call hot periods. What do I mean by this? The graph in question does not plot a 150 year history with respect to the mean temperature spanning 150 years. They tend to use a contemporary average (I don't remember, let's say it is from 1980 to present day) as their baseline. Of course, with respect to this baseline everything before the reference period will look like an ice age (being dramatic). In my opinion, this makes for a more dramatic looking graph. Not necessarily a more truthful presentation, just more dramatic. Someone mentioned in anther comment the idea of what you'd have to do to convince those skeptical about climate change. Well, for starters, the data and graphs presented has to be unimpeachable. Anyone can rightly ask "How could you possibly know the temperature in 1880 or 1910 to an accuracy of 0.1 C?". And they would be right to question such a claim. Not sure how to fix this. Just pointing out something that seems troublesome to me. [0] https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pdf https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pd... [1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php#references https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalie... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322719908/figure/fig3/AS:587034641072146@1516971373928/June-hourly-temperature-averages.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322719908/figure/fi... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/June-hourly-temperature-averages_fig3_322719908 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/June-hourly-temperature-...

jiggawatts 5y ago

It makes me laugh how IT people comment how the government has done nothing about this predicted, slow-moving catastrophe. What have you done about switching to IPv6?

adrianN 5y ago
We're doing okay? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#/media/File:IPv6-as.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#/media/File:IP...

jooize 5y ago

I want to build on a piece of land a personal ecosystem that can sustain at least one adult human under extreme weather conditions.