7 ms·

In Greece we practically didn't have a winter this year. Temperatures are above 15 degrees Celcius for most months since November. On the other hand we had a ca

In Greece we practically didn't have a winter this year. Temperatures are above 15 degrees Celcius for most months since November. On the other hand we had a catastrophic rain of epic proportions that flooded an entire county. As I speak I sit in my office with the windows open since it's 18 degrees outside. I dread of what might come during summer.

germandiago 3y ago
[flagged]
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  > climate always varied along history Over much (much much) larger timescales, with much (much much) smoother transitions (due to the timescale). Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ And, I mean, the Earth will be fine and "life finds a way". The "internet native" generations' grand-children? I'm not so sure.
- padjo 3y ago
  They’re not “hidden” or “omitted”. They’re a widely known part of the climate record. Perhaps if they’re news to you you should take that as a sign that you’re not well informed about the topic.
  - germandiago 3y ago
    Now some yes, well-known. Before there were efforts to hide data in certain forums. Please take a look at the link from a well-known newspaper in Spain. Unfortunately it is in soanish but you could use a translator if you cannot speak spanish. There was a scandal in 2009 related to this topic because a hacker leaked evidence of manipulation.
- CYHSM 3y ago
  AFAIK the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a time with high temperatures but this was mostly local (restricted to few areas), while the current increase in temperature is global and is also clearly linked to human activites Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
  - germandiago 3y ago
    There are reports from the 90s where the medieval warm period was hidden conveniently. Where some politicians wanted the data manipulated to pull money from Siemens (this is just two examples of real, factual manipulation that happened, that you will find in the first link below). Also, the models used were "toucehd" to fit wanted predictions, the models chosen also were (and still are I think) the most catastrophic. I am NOT saying the climate change is not mostly due to humans (I think so though). What I am saying is that I have very reasonable doubts. Link here with lots of examples with intentional manioulation examples in the past: https://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/el-watergate-climatico-la-farsa-del-calentamiento-global-al-descubierto-1276376962/ https://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/el-watergate-climati... This is basically all related. A Climate Gate from a hacker that stole the data and exposed it in 2009: https://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/que-es-el-watergate-climatico-1276378131/ https://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/que-es-el-watergate-... I guess, even if you vote negative, that I have reasons to at least doubt about this as a whole, given the high level of manipulation that there is around it, since what I see here is a huge effort to do an exercise of cherry-picking and bias confirmation: some scientists are discarded or hidden, the data is used in the most catastrophist way, manipulated at convenience, information omitted... it looks certainly suspicious to me.
    - defrost 3y ago
      * The medieval warm period was a great deal less global than many climate skeptic bloggers present it to be. It's never been "hidden" in any legit modelling where it's been relevant. * The models were "touched" - I'm tempted to ask you show me on a globe where they were touched and how that made you feel .. but seriously; 1/ All gathered raw instrument data for whatever purpose is inevitably normalised, leveled, scaled, transformed in some manner or another for completely legitimate, numerically sound, physically sensible reasons, and 2/ "the (climate) models" are clusters of families of models that bracket parameters in order to tease out { worst case | best case } probability spread scenarios - this is normal and expected. * ClimateGate ... ffs, seriously? Cherry picking internal emails to expose the worst parts that individuals say to other individuals is something that rips the lid of a giant climate conspiracy?? You don't actually by into that, btw, do you? For what it's worth I've been in global scale exploration geophysics for energy and mineral resources for decades ... I've done all this big scale data work for the people least likely to support AGW theories .. and the AGW case is extremely sound. We've significantly increased the insulation properties of the atmosphere at large and it's gradually causing more and more energy to remain trapped at the land|sea interface where hilarity ensures; climbing mean tempretures, more extreme storms, cold cells, and hot cells being driven by that surface layer heat engine, etc.
- Brybry 3y ago
  The first link, and its author, and some of the core claims, seem a bit controversial (not necessarily that there was a MWP but claiming it was similar to current warming). [1][2][3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up#cooling-any-minute https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/1... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_tem...
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  FWIW, the title of this piece is accurate because global temperature records only go back something like 200 years. We do have a pretty good idea that human activity has had an outsized impact and is responsible for a lot of problems we are currently experiencing. I do think there are variables being overlooked. Most likely, they will continue to be overlooked. It's a complicated topic and HN is a bad place, unfortunately, to say roughly "I don't really know and I don't really trust what the media tells me and I reserve the right to draw my own conclusions." It's not an invalid position but it's also not going to be well received by people who think they do know with greater certainty than is likely the case.

germandiago 3y ago

[flagged]

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
> climate always varied along history Over much (much much) larger timescales, with much (much much) smoother transitions (due to the timescale). Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ And, I mean, the Earth will be fine and "life finds a way". The "internet native" generations' grand-children? I'm not so sure.
padjo 3y ago
They’re not “hidden” or “omitted”. They’re a widely known part of the climate record. Perhaps if they’re news to you you should take that as a sign that you’re not well informed about the topic.
- germandiago 3y ago
  Now some yes, well-known. Before there were efforts to hide data in certain forums. Please take a look at the link from a well-known newspaper in Spain. Unfortunately it is in soanish but you could use a translator if you cannot speak spanish. There was a scandal in 2009 related to this topic because a hacker leaked evidence of manipulation.
CYHSM 3y ago
AFAIK the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a time with high temperatures but this was mostly local (restricted to few areas), while the current increase in temperature is global and is also clearly linked to human activites Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
- germandiago 3y ago
  There are reports from the 90s where the medieval warm period was hidden conveniently. Where some politicians wanted the data manipulated to pull money from Siemens (this is just two examples of real, factual manipulation that happened, that you will find in the first link below). Also, the models used were "toucehd" to fit wanted predictions, the models chosen also were (and still are I think) the most catastrophic. I am NOT saying the climate change is not mostly due to humans (I think so though). What I am saying is that I have very reasonable doubts. Link here with lots of examples with intentional manioulation examples in the past: https://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/el-watergate-climatico-la-farsa-del-calentamiento-global-al-descubierto-1276376962/ https://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/el-watergate-climati... This is basically all related. A Climate Gate from a hacker that stole the data and exposed it in 2009: https://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/que-es-el-watergate-climatico-1276378131/ https://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/que-es-el-watergate-... I guess, even if you vote negative, that I have reasons to at least doubt about this as a whole, given the high level of manipulation that there is around it, since what I see here is a huge effort to do an exercise of cherry-picking and bias confirmation: some scientists are discarded or hidden, the data is used in the most catastrophist way, manipulated at convenience, information omitted... it looks certainly suspicious to me.
  - defrost 3y ago
    * The medieval warm period was a great deal less global than many climate skeptic bloggers present it to be. It's never been "hidden" in any legit modelling where it's been relevant. * The models were "touched" - I'm tempted to ask you show me on a globe where they were touched and how that made you feel .. but seriously; 1/ All gathered raw instrument data for whatever purpose is inevitably normalised, leveled, scaled, transformed in some manner or another for completely legitimate, numerically sound, physically sensible reasons, and 2/ "the (climate) models" are clusters of families of models that bracket parameters in order to tease out { worst case | best case } probability spread scenarios - this is normal and expected. * ClimateGate ... ffs, seriously? Cherry picking internal emails to expose the worst parts that individuals say to other individuals is something that rips the lid of a giant climate conspiracy?? You don't actually by into that, btw, do you? For what it's worth I've been in global scale exploration geophysics for energy and mineral resources for decades ... I've done all this big scale data work for the people least likely to support AGW theories .. and the AGW case is extremely sound. We've significantly increased the insulation properties of the atmosphere at large and it's gradually causing more and more energy to remain trapped at the land|sea interface where hilarity ensures; climbing mean tempretures, more extreme storms, cold cells, and hot cells being driven by that surface layer heat engine, etc.
Brybry 3y ago
The first link, and its author, and some of the core claims, seem a bit controversial (not necessarily that there was a MWP but claiming it was similar to current warming). [1][2][3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up#cooling-any-minute https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/1... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_tem...
DoreenMichele 3y ago
FWIW, the title of this piece is accurate because global temperature records only go back something like 200 years. We do have a pretty good idea that human activity has had an outsized impact and is responsible for a lot of problems we are currently experiencing. I do think there are variables being overlooked. Most likely, they will continue to be overlooked. It's a complicated topic and HN is a bad place, unfortunately, to say roughly "I don't really know and I don't really trust what the media tells me and I reserve the right to draw my own conclusions." It's not an invalid position but it's also not going to be well received by people who think they do know with greater certainty than is likely the case.