5 ms·

Not trying to deny anything but with the length of records and a random distribution you’d still expect “hottest year” to happen pretty often. (Somebody please

Not trying to deny anything but with the length of records and a random distribution you’d still expect “hottest year” to happen pretty often. (Somebody please do the statistics) With a very slightly warming planet it would indeed happen quite often. In other words… setting records means something, but less than one would expect by default. The more valid statistic is something like n of the last 30 years have been the warmest on record, or something along those lines.

maxlamb 3y ago
If you look at the graph of the last 140 years of global average temperatures it definitely does not look random at all.... it just keeps going up https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globaltemp/global_gis_2022_chart.png https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globalte...
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  It must have been so nice to experience the climate in the 1890s, imagine summers which were just nice and short, winters with beautiful, high quality and consistent snow falls and more permanently snow capped mountains. It must've been quite a beautiful time witness.
  - stavros 3y ago
    And with actual pleasant spring, rather than 10 C one day and 30 C the next. This was even happening in my childhood, you don't need to go as far back as 1890.
    - colechristensen 3y ago
      There are also natural long period climate cycles that global warming is on top of. Solar changes, small orbital and axis changes, long period climate resonances caused by many other things as well. Basically everyone ever for thousands of years experienced different weather patterns as adults than as children. Also perception of weather as an adult and what actually gets remembered… Climate is not naturally static and you can’t attribute every change to humans. There is a lot going on.
goodbyesf 3y ago
They headlined it for emotional impact and clicks. People read "on record" and think it's the hottest the earth has been ever. When it's really 'the hottest' it's been the past few decades. Also, depending on where and how you measure, it will naturally be 'hotter' because the world is getting more urbanized. And cities are artificially hotter. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/city-hotter-countryside-urban-heat-island-science-180951985/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/city-hotter-co... Are they taking more measurements from the artificially warmer cities?
- vkou 3y ago
  > They headlined it for emotional impact and clicks. People read "on record" and think it's the hottest the earth has been ever. When it's really 'the hottest' it's been the past few decades. It's the hottest it's ever been for human civilization, and it's going to keep getting hotter and hotter.
- defrost 3y ago
  I'm having flashbacks to a famous decades old climate denialism talking point heavily pushed by the Koch pro oil media think tanks. One so famous that it was studied in depth by a prominent US physics professor [1] and (then) climate skeptic using some Koch funding. The results of the 2013 Berkeley Earth land temperature data analysis on urban heat islands answers your concerns: When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that. [1] and The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05 °C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
claytongulick 3y ago
It's important to keep in mind that the sensationalism we see in this sort of reporting is generally far removed from the actual science. Most of this stuff is built on models that are constantly being improved with more data, or in some cases being skewed to meet a predetermined desired outcome.
IanCal 3y ago
> with the length of records and a random distribution you’d still expect “hottest year” to happen pretty often. (Somebody please do the statistics) No you wouldn't, it would be increasingly rare as time went on. > With a very slightly warming planet it would indeed happen quite often. Yes? The frequency it happens is based on how fast the planet is heating.
okaram 3y ago
I'm not sure which random distribution you mean ... But if you assume a normal distribution with constant mean, and, say, 100 years of records, the chances of you still getting the hottest now are very very small
eyelidlessness 3y ago
They also keep happening in closer concentration. It’s not like you just break a record once and then the record is settled.
- revelio 3y ago
  More than you could imagine. Climatology is unique in that records can be "broken" by lower temperatures than previous records. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest-month-on-record-please-stand-up/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...
klyrs 3y ago
Indeed, the atmosphere was some 230°C back in the Hadean, and we got along fine... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean#atmosphere https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean#atmosphere
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Methinks humans were not around at that time.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Most of our matter was? (note: gallows humor)
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      Gallows humor is fine if the plan is to throw in the towel on trying to find solutions of some sort and accept your death as inevitable. Not my plan in this case, but you do you.
upsidesinclude 3y ago
The earth is in the final stages at the end of an ice age. It's weird, but for some reason people can't seem to recognize this fact. We exited a major glacial period and have been, for 11000 years, ending an ice age (a period with glacial ice at both polar regions). CURRENTLY, the period of time we are living in, is considered interglacial despite glaciers still covering significant portions of earth. The expectation is a return to major glaciation. This would be horrible. It is also the predominant condition throughout the history of earth.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > It's weird, but for some reason people can't seem to recognize this fact. Who is not recognizing that fact? Where people are disagreeing with - and you've heard this before, don't act like this is new - is that us leaving an ice age doesn't explain the rapid rise in temperature we're experiencing. Previous ice ages haven't ended this abruptly. So what does your comment add here? People keep throwing in things like this as if it was an actual insight instead of a distraction.
  - upsidesinclude 3y ago
    Please provide some actual insight then. The state of climate will not have a direct effect on your life, the span of years you are alive. Not to a significant degree. It can have an indirect effect on your life by the introduction of harmful regressive policies designed to "account" for a changing climate and assign blame to everyday people. Everyday people do not cause any of the drivers of climate change. Large corporations, governments and militaries do cause these drivers. So what I'm adding here is sense. It makes no sense to cripple an economy and destroy the middle class when it is clear there will not be global cooperation in addressing climate change. To be clear we are talking about the fact that BRICs will not cripple their growth and economy for the sake of this guilt complex. Most countries can't even make a measurable change in comparison to these groups.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      > The state of climate will not have a direct effect on your life, the span of years you are alive. Not to a significant degree. The state of the climate already has a direct effect on my life by making summers way hotter than normal. I hate the warm temperatures over weeks, and my grandparents literally haven't known these kinds of summers until the last couple of years. This wouldn't have shifted so fast if it was just the exit of the ice age. And that's just me disliking warmth. There are people living in areas that now literally are getting too hot for humans, which they weren't previously. There are people living through catastrophes which most likely would have been less severe if not for climate change. > It can have an indirect effect on your life by the introduction of harmful regressive policies designed to "account" for a changing climate and assign blame to everyday people. It's having a worse effect just by itself! > Everyday people do not cause any of the drivers of climate change. Large corporations, governments and militaries do cause these drivers. And to work towards that fact you spread climate change denial in the form of "we're just exiting an ice age"? > So what I'm adding here is sense. You're adding lies.

maxlamb 3y ago

If you look at the graph of the last 140 years of global average temperatures it definitely does not look random at all.... it just keeps going up https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globaltemp/global_gis_2022_chart.png https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globalte...

ChatGTP 3y ago
It must have been so nice to experience the climate in the 1890s, imagine summers which were just nice and short, winters with beautiful, high quality and consistent snow falls and more permanently snow capped mountains. It must've been quite a beautiful time witness.
- stavros 3y ago
  And with actual pleasant spring, rather than 10 C one day and 30 C the next. This was even happening in my childhood, you don't need to go as far back as 1890.
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    There are also natural long period climate cycles that global warming is on top of. Solar changes, small orbital and axis changes, long period climate resonances caused by many other things as well. Basically everyone ever for thousands of years experienced different weather patterns as adults than as children. Also perception of weather as an adult and what actually gets remembered… Climate is not naturally static and you can’t attribute every change to humans. There is a lot going on.

goodbyesf 3y ago

They headlined it for emotional impact and clicks. People read "on record" and think it's the hottest the earth has been ever. When it's really 'the hottest' it's been the past few decades. Also, depending on where and how you measure, it will naturally be 'hotter' because the world is getting more urbanized. And cities are artificially hotter. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/city-hotter-countryside-urban-heat-island-science-180951985/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/city-hotter-co... Are they taking more measurements from the artificially warmer cities?

vkou 3y ago
> They headlined it for emotional impact and clicks. People read "on record" and think it's the hottest the earth has been ever. When it's really 'the hottest' it's been the past few decades. It's the hottest it's ever been for human civilization, and it's going to keep getting hotter and hotter.
defrost 3y ago
I'm having flashbacks to a famous decades old climate denialism talking point heavily pushed by the Koch pro oil media think tanks. One so famous that it was studied in depth by a prominent US physics professor [1] and (then) climate skeptic using some Koch funding. The results of the 2013 Berkeley Earth land temperature data analysis on urban heat islands answers your concerns: When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that. [1] and The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05 °C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

claytongulick 3y ago

It's important to keep in mind that the sensationalism we see in this sort of reporting is generally far removed from the actual science. Most of this stuff is built on models that are constantly being improved with more data, or in some cases being skewed to meet a predetermined desired outcome.

IanCal 3y ago

> with the length of records and a random distribution you’d still expect “hottest year” to happen pretty often. (Somebody please do the statistics) No you wouldn't, it would be increasingly rare as time went on. > With a very slightly warming planet it would indeed happen quite often. Yes? The frequency it happens is based on how fast the planet is heating.

okaram 3y ago

I'm not sure which random distribution you mean ... But if you assume a normal distribution with constant mean, and, say, 100 years of records, the chances of you still getting the hottest now are very very small

eyelidlessness 3y ago

They also keep happening in closer concentration. It’s not like you just break a record once and then the record is settled.

revelio 3y ago
More than you could imagine. Climatology is unique in that records can be "broken" by lower temperatures than previous records. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest-month-on-record-please-stand-up/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...

klyrs 3y ago

Indeed, the atmosphere was some 230°C back in the Hadean, and we got along fine... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean#atmosphere https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean#atmosphere

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Methinks humans were not around at that time.
- klyrs 3y ago
  Most of our matter was? (note: gallows humor)
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    Gallows humor is fine if the plan is to throw in the towel on trying to find solutions of some sort and accept your death as inevitable. Not my plan in this case, but you do you.

upsidesinclude 3y ago

The earth is in the final stages at the end of an ice age. It's weird, but for some reason people can't seem to recognize this fact. We exited a major glacial period and have been, for 11000 years, ending an ice age (a period with glacial ice at both polar regions). CURRENTLY, the period of time we are living in, is considered interglacial despite glaciers still covering significant portions of earth. The expectation is a return to major glaciation. This would be horrible. It is also the predominant condition throughout the history of earth.

Timon3 3y ago
> It's weird, but for some reason people can't seem to recognize this fact. Who is not recognizing that fact? Where people are disagreeing with - and you've heard this before, don't act like this is new - is that us leaving an ice age doesn't explain the rapid rise in temperature we're experiencing. Previous ice ages haven't ended this abruptly. So what does your comment add here? People keep throwing in things like this as if it was an actual insight instead of a distraction.
- upsidesinclude 3y ago
  Please provide some actual insight then. The state of climate will not have a direct effect on your life, the span of years you are alive. Not to a significant degree. It can have an indirect effect on your life by the introduction of harmful regressive policies designed to "account" for a changing climate and assign blame to everyday people. Everyday people do not cause any of the drivers of climate change. Large corporations, governments and militaries do cause these drivers. So what I'm adding here is sense. It makes no sense to cripple an economy and destroy the middle class when it is clear there will not be global cooperation in addressing climate change. To be clear we are talking about the fact that BRICs will not cripple their growth and economy for the sake of this guilt complex. Most countries can't even make a measurable change in comparison to these groups.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > The state of climate will not have a direct effect on your life, the span of years you are alive. Not to a significant degree. The state of the climate already has a direct effect on my life by making summers way hotter than normal. I hate the warm temperatures over weeks, and my grandparents literally haven't known these kinds of summers until the last couple of years. This wouldn't have shifted so fast if it was just the exit of the ice age. And that's just me disliking warmth. There are people living in areas that now literally are getting too hot for humans, which they weren't previously. There are people living through catastrophes which most likely would have been less severe if not for climate change. > It can have an indirect effect on your life by the introduction of harmful regressive policies designed to "account" for a changing climate and assign blame to everyday people. It's having a worse effect just by itself! > Everyday people do not cause any of the drivers of climate change. Large corporations, governments and militaries do cause these drivers. And to work towards that fact you spread climate change denial in the form of "we're just exiting an ice age"? > So what I'm adding here is sense. You're adding lies.