3 ms·

Those temps are not actually based on human records. They are based on models and inference and we sometimes realize at some point that a thing contained some e

Those temps are not actually based on human records. They are based on models and inference and we sometimes realize at some point that a thing contained some error or erroneous assumption. I stand by my statement.

kibwen 3y ago
[flagged]
- pixxel 3y ago
  The researchers.
- revelio 3y ago
  The models aren't based on observations and are regularly contradicted by them. GCMs are based on, in theory, physical laws. In practice they don't compute the right temperatures even for today, or the past, so we know they are incorrect or incomplete. Unfortunately nobody really knows why and this fact is hidden by only showing their outputs as self-anomalies, amongst other tricks.
SamPatt 3y ago
I think your point is a good one, there's some arrogance in assuming our short observations can be extrapolated forward, yet pointing this out is frowned upon. My guess is people fear inaction on climate change, so they are comfortable with working on incomplete information, and willing to pretend (consciously or not) that climate is well understood.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  I've lived without a car in the US for a lot of years. I'm a few classes short of a BS in Environmental Studies, intended as preparation for a Masters in Planning. I do plenty of research and I produce resources for fostering constructive change which mostly don't have traction. It seems like big feels in online forums is the extent of it for too many people.
  - jimmygrapes 3y ago
    You've been around here long enough that you should know better. Kudos for even trying, and I hope you keep on, but also don't let it get you down. Even if you agree with 99% of a cult, it's that 1% of error checking that gets you excommunicated, at best.
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. I've made the exact same point previously on HN and it got a few upvotes and zero argument. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27658488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27658488 HN is a big forum with around 5 million unique visitors per month last I heard a figure from a reliable source. It's probably more these days. Who sees it first, how they react, time of day -- heck if I know why I can say the exact same thing on HN at different times and get wildly different reactions, but I can and I do.
      - jimmygrapes 3y ago
        My apologies, I must have mistaken you for someone else.
  - adammarples 3y ago
    It's a bit much to dismiss all of our best analysis of our best data as "big feels"
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      I walk the walk. Other people buy electric cars to green wash their car-centric lifestyle and then hand wring about how we are doomed and all ye who enter here give up hope. And that analysis says the part we most fear is the man-made part of the equation. If it's man-made, it can be man unmade, and never mind how certain most people are that getting people to change is a lost cause.
    - revelio 3y ago
- acchow 3y ago
  It's not just extrapolation. It's also prediction based on well-understood chemical/physical processes in the atmosphere and glaciers and oceans.
JohnFen 3y ago
They aren't entirely based on models and inference. There is physical evidence mixed in there as well. The error bar is certainly larger, but the trend lines are very clear.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  They are also averages, not highs and lows. But I'm going to stop replying because whatever people are reacting to here it has nothing to do with scientific accuracy nor the accuracy of my statements.
  - rektide 3y ago
    The outside chance that maybe there was an afternoon once was hotter than the absurd heights we are reaching seems irrelevant. The odds of there being such years keeps shrinking, and is already below there being a one in a million chance of there ever having had been such an exceptional year in the past 10k years. The truth you cling to is on a statistically decreasing time line, as the average keeps riding. Whether a rare exceptional happened or not seems entirely beside the point. And far worse is looming with very high chance.

kibwen 3y ago

[flagged]

pixxel 3y ago
The researchers.
revelio 3y ago
The models aren't based on observations and are regularly contradicted by them. GCMs are based on, in theory, physical laws. In practice they don't compute the right temperatures even for today, or the past, so we know they are incorrect or incomplete. Unfortunately nobody really knows why and this fact is hidden by only showing their outputs as self-anomalies, amongst other tricks.

SamPatt 3y ago

I think your point is a good one, there's some arrogance in assuming our short observations can be extrapolated forward, yet pointing this out is frowned upon. My guess is people fear inaction on climate change, so they are comfortable with working on incomplete information, and willing to pretend (consciously or not) that climate is well understood.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
I've lived without a car in the US for a lot of years. I'm a few classes short of a BS in Environmental Studies, intended as preparation for a Masters in Planning. I do plenty of research and I produce resources for fostering constructive change which mostly don't have traction. It seems like big feels in online forums is the extent of it for too many people.
- jimmygrapes 3y ago
  You've been around here long enough that you should know better. Kudos for even trying, and I hope you keep on, but also don't let it get you down. Even if you agree with 99% of a cult, it's that 1% of error checking that gets you excommunicated, at best.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. I've made the exact same point previously on HN and it got a few upvotes and zero argument. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27658488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27658488 HN is a big forum with around 5 million unique visitors per month last I heard a figure from a reliable source. It's probably more these days. Who sees it first, how they react, time of day -- heck if I know why I can say the exact same thing on HN at different times and get wildly different reactions, but I can and I do.
    - jimmygrapes 3y ago
      My apologies, I must have mistaken you for someone else.
- adammarples 3y ago
  It's a bit much to dismiss all of our best analysis of our best data as "big feels"
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    I walk the walk. Other people buy electric cars to green wash their car-centric lifestyle and then hand wring about how we are doomed and all ye who enter here give up hope. And that analysis says the part we most fear is the man-made part of the equation. If it's man-made, it can be man unmade, and never mind how certain most people are that getting people to change is a lost cause.
  - revelio 3y ago
acchow 3y ago
It's not just extrapolation. It's also prediction based on well-understood chemical/physical processes in the atmosphere and glaciers and oceans.

JohnFen 3y ago

They aren't entirely based on models and inference. There is physical evidence mixed in there as well. The error bar is certainly larger, but the trend lines are very clear.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
They are also averages, not highs and lows. But I'm going to stop replying because whatever people are reacting to here it has nothing to do with scientific accuracy nor the accuracy of my statements.
- rektide 3y ago
  The outside chance that maybe there was an afternoon once was hotter than the absurd heights we are reaching seems irrelevant. The odds of there being such years keeps shrinking, and is already below there being a one in a million chance of there ever having had been such an exceptional year in the past 10k years. The truth you cling to is on a statistically decreasing time line, as the average keeps riding. Whether a rare exceptional happened or not seems entirely beside the point. And far worse is looming with very high chance.