11 ms·

A graph that should be front-page news

• turtleyacht 3mo ago
  Is there a graph starting from the 1950s? https://www.lyrebirddreaming.com/post/el-ni%C3%B1o-isn-t-an-excuse-for-global-warming https://www.lyrebirddreaming.com/post/el-ni%C3%B1o-isn-t-an-...
• l1chorpe 3mo ago
  Looking at the graph left me wondering just what it means exactly. I'm not well versed in statistics so "the standard deviation is 3.5°C" doesn't mean much. Also, what's up with that other line going down to -3.5°C? And what do the colors mean? In the sense that I'm not sure whether a darker blue means closer to or further from today.
  • bestouff 3mo ago
    > Each blue line represents a different year since 1982. The red line is this year. It doesn't just set a new record. It has departed entirely from the range of previous observations.
  • ArnoVW 3mo ago
    my layman understanding, a real statistician will surely intervene. standard deviation is a measure that informs about the distribution. A high standard deviation means a "wide bell curve". A low standard deviation means that all values are closely clustered around the middle of the curve. So if your value is 2 x standard deviation (for example) that means it is a relatively rare outlier, since 2 x standard deviation covers 95% of the bell curve. In particle physics I believe they require 5 standard deviations to confirm an observation.
  • danhau 3mo ago
    I'm not an authority on this, but here's is my understanding - I'd appreciate if someone could correct my mistakes. The baseline of 0.0 represents the average of all years. Anything above / below the baseline is a (standard) deviation from the average. The blue lines are the individual years since 1991 [1] while the red line is the year 2026. If a line is above the baseline, then the sea-surface temperature was hotter on that day than average. If below, it was cooler than average. The year 2026 is an outlier, dwarfing all the others starting around June / July. The Nino 3.4 sea-surface temperature is significantly hotter than any previous year during that time. New record, I guess? [1]: I'm confused about the two date ranges given: 1982-2026 and 1991-2020. I'm assuming this graph is based on measurements from 1982-2026 to calculate the average, but the lines shown are only from 1991-2020, for some statistical reason I don't understand.
    • plough 3mo ago
      I think it is the other way around: SD is calculated from 1982-2020, while all measurement readings in the plot are 1982-2026. I believe this is meant to not introduce an unwanted shift but compare to sort of a 'stable process'. However, that should have been described and argued somewhere.
  • blaze33 3mo ago
    You can go to the source website https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4 There's is an interactive chart that's easier to understand
    • camillomiller 3mo ago
      Check out 2015, it had way hotter temperatures in November, with higher temperatures than the average in this period, but I would like a climatologist to explain this, draw correlations etc. The original post is a weird LLM-mediated mix of vague scaremongering with some easy piling on journalism "just because". So what am I supposed to with it? Nothing, because it's written by an LLM, I guess.
      • stymaar 3mo ago
        > Check out 2015, it had way hotter temperatures in November That's what El Niño is about: instead of declining after a peak in June, temperature plateaus and then rise again later in the year. So the fact that the Pacific is much hotter than it was in 2015 is particularly scary, because it leads us to believe that it will also be this hotter than 2015 in November.
    • 2b3a51 3mo ago
      Thanks for posting that link. The graph has a key on the right hand side that clearly labels each colour of line, and the horizontal axis is scaled in months of each year. Scrolling down gets you notes and links to data sources. In answer to another poster in this thread, the dataset only reaches back to 1983, I'm assuming because that is when they started monitoring these temperatures?
  • bitter_michael 3mo ago
    I had the same concerns and think the chart would benefit from color grading the individual years by age. If the other outlier in the opposite direction is equally likely then it should also be concerning (obviously it is not). My understanding is the deviation is from the 1991-2020 subset avg, so a warming trend would be indicated by relative drift towards positive in the std dev across years from 82-present
• anirudhak47 3mo ago
  i have seen this couple of times here and there. with eu melting looks concerning. i guess build more data centers
• jones89176 3mo ago
  Shouldn't the y-axis better be called "Standard DeviationS"? According to one comment on the site, the 3.5 means "3.5 times the SD", which makes much more sense to me. I initially tried to make sense of "SD being 3.5 on that day of the year", which seems to be a wrong interpretation.
  • edwinjm 3mo ago
    No. The (standard) deviation is 3.5.
    • stymaar 3mo ago
      > No. The (standard) deviation is 3.5. 3.5 what, according to you? You're reading this graph wrong: we're currently 3.63 standard deviation above the mean. It's clearer on the original article[1] that this AI-generated blog is taking the graph from, the average temperature on the period at this time of the year is around 27.5°, the ocean is almost at 29.5°, just short of 2°C above average, and the standard deviation is 0.55°C. [1]: https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real Edit: note that the original article is 6 days old, and we've unfortunately crossed the 2°C threshold right after it was posted, so the situation of even direr than described: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4
  • frumiousirc 3mo ago
    I think you are right. The title of the figure is ambiguous about what "SD" really means but I guess it is plotting the number of standard deviations of the 1991-2020 data measured from the mean of that data and plotted per day for the 1982-2026 data. Here's the link that I read off the figure. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/json_2clim/oisst2.1_nino3.4_sst_day.json https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/json_2clim/oiss... Going up the URL path I get redirected to here: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2 That shows measured temperature and 2026 as very hot (surprise) and in fact is the hottest to date for June+July. The standard deviation of that data is not 3.5 C but something less than 1.0 C. It is plausible that current temperature is about 3.5 sigma from the selected mean. It's worth recognizing that the analysis is applying a biased conclusion prior to making the plot. It singles out post 2020 data to compare to pre-2020 data. and then concluding the held out data is a significant deviation with a cause. It almost certainly is but this is not a proper way to analyze data (unless one is pushing an agenda, be that for good or bad). I think the sst_daily plot stands on its own without crafting this SD plot to emphasize the point. Especially when the accompanying text doesn't even explain it. It's a disingenuous message.
• camillomiller 3mo ago
  I believe this post was written with some heavy help of an LLM. I hope the irony is not lost on the author, nor the readers here.
  • ericd 3mo ago
    Their daily shower used more energy than generating the article, it doesn’t invalidate the article.
• voidUpdate 3mo ago
  If it should be front-page news, shouldn't it also be at the top of the article, rather than right at the bottom?
  • zipy124 3mo ago
    That was my first reaction too. A perfect fit for a cover image of a story. Also generally when referencing something within an article you want to display a figure before talking about it.
  • Walf 3mo ago
    I thought it was quite effective. I read the whole thing in anticipation, and was still shocked by the graph.
    • ktm5j 3mo ago
      Most people are not going to do that though :/
  • Loquebantur 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    • PaulHoule 3mo ago
      If you want to to down that road the article reads like AI slop which cooks the planet itself with energy use. Or, alternately, if the message is that important it is all the more important that it be communicated effectively.
    • voidUpdate 3mo ago
      That's a lot of assumptions about me based on "the important figure should be at the top of the page, not the bottom". Joe Average isn't going to want to read 14 paragraphs before getting to the actual graph the title mentions
      • Loquebantur 3mo ago
• KingOfCoders 3mo ago
  There are many thing people could do, eat less meat, smaller homes, electric cars, green energy, no flights etc. but the vast majority of people does exactly nothing.
  • embedding-shape 3mo ago
    > eat less meat, smaller homes, electric cars, green energy, no flights etc. How much % of the world's population would have to do those things, for the graph to show a reversal of the trend? 10%? 50%? Everyone?
  • Hoodedcrow 3mo ago
    "Eat less meat, smaller homes, no flights"? Sounds like an average person to me because of poverty, lol. Even my family, well above the threshold for poverty, has to do this. "Electric cars" is less likely tho because having a car at all is a money drain.
  • cynicalsecurity 3mo ago
    Chinese and Indian CO2 emissions dwarf anything you mentioned. You can stop eating meat altogether and move to a small doghouse, it won’t make any global impact at all.
    • isoprophlex 3mo ago
      This line of "hurrr but they are doing it too so why should I stop!" reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy that a motivated 9 year old is probably already able to reason themselves out of
      • voidUpdate 3mo ago
        How many people living in doghouses does it take to offset emissions from large industry?
        • ericd 3mo ago
• yellow_lead 3mo ago
  Lots of AI tells in this article. Ironic? > It's not a forecast. It's not a simulation of what might happen decades from now. These are...
  • jibal 3mo ago
    A lot of people mistake basic literacy for AI. Don't forget that LLMs are trained on human texts and replicate patterns within them.
  • tgv 3mo ago
    The site is apparently one of those AI generated bait traps. The link to the original article is in the (current) top comment.
  • tormeh 3mo ago
    I think that kind of breathless excited tone is justified by the subject matter. Unlike the usual LinkedIn posts this is actually about a pretty dire situation.
• stymaar 3mo ago
  This blog post is pure slop, stealing from this one: https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real the submission should be updated to link to the original instead.
  • lambdaone 3mo ago
    That article is vastly superior and is the one that should be being discussed, not this.
    • engineer_22 3mo ago
      > Turn the volume on the typical El Niño impacts up to eleven, then watch the collective infrastructure of modern industrial civilization crumble. Watch as flooding storms wash away roads and cities. Watch as trailing storms create new inland lakes, swamping farmland. Watch as fires raze forests and grasslands. Watch as heatwaves turn temperate regions into unsurvivable hellscapes. Watch as crops fail and dams burst. Watch as the shelves of your local grocery store gradually, then suddenly, go empty. I think this kind of writing is low quality.
      • stymaar 3mo ago
        Maybe, but it's refreshingly different from the industrialized junk prose we get to read more and more.
      • Atreiden 3mo ago
        What about it reads to you as low quality? The intention seems to be to convey alarm through description of catastrophe, which was effective for me.
        • engineer_22 3mo ago
          Disclaimer: this is only an opinion. The language is too strong for the context. Author uses religious imagery, prognosticates about an Armageddon scenario, and does so based on a relatively short time series.
• Arodex 3mo ago
  The Forest of Fontainebleau, just 50 km south of Paris, is burning, with Canada it's on the scene trying to contain it. Nearby highways and trains - some of the busiest of France - are cut. It is a temperate European forest, oak trees and beech. No AC is going to save European from that. In fact, it is American AC which is the main cause of it. They dumped all that energy and greenhouse gases and Europeans are the one impacted by these externalities.
  • anakaine 3mo ago
    AC?
    • phtrivier 3mo ago
      Air Conditioning. Aka "La clim'" in France. For some context: the conversation about climate change in general, and the recent heatwaves in particular, has been (quite cynically, but cleverly) reframed by far-right parties to be all about "we need to put AC in France to survive heatwaves". This is smart because it addresses on the physical sensations of people (it's the third heatwave since end of may, and counting), it has an element of truth (AC is critically lacking in schools), it seems much more "down to earth" than the grand plans of "decarbonization", and it makes other political parties look out of touch (the left and greens have been criticizing AC because of the energy impact.) Of course, this is both "smart" and incredibly cynical, given that the far right has been on the edge (or not so much on the edge) of climate denial for years. So year, "climate changes is not real" turned into "why didn't they put AC everywhere ?" then "vote for us, we'll put AC everywhere !" This is also very short sighted. But I guess no one has found a way to ask our future president (Marine Le Pen, twice convicted of embezzlement, waiting to know if she will have to run for President with a "jail from home" tracker, etc...) what exact amount of "putting AC and kicking immigrants out" is going to avoid Fontainebleau forest from burning. (Also, since those people are incredibly "lucky", I can only imagine what will happen if we learn that the fire was volontary, and the arsonist was an immigrant... ) The only "consolation" is that El Nino is coming back, and she takes office on the 15th of may, so _she_ will have to deal with at least a couple heatwaves between 2027 and 2037...
• retube 3mo ago
  You also need to ask what is the likelihood you get this move just by chance
  • gpderetta 3mo ago
    According to https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real, this is a 1 in 7000 years event (i.e. 3.5 sigmas).
    • noosphr 3mo ago
      I'm not sure how you can make that claim with only 29 years of data without making some pretty big assumptions about the underlying distribution.
      • sph 3mo ago
        We have ways to determine the past climate without having access to direct measurements.
        • qsera 3mo ago
          But there is no way to confirm that those methods are accurate...
          • inigyou 3mo ago
            Yes there are. Scientists compare the measurements from both methods in the time when there's data from both. For example ice cores formed last decade should match direct temperature measurements from last decade. It's the same way the oldest rings from living trees are matched against the newest rings from tree fossils, and radiocarbon dating is checked against all of that.
            • qsera 3mo ago
              That does not look very reliable to me, because that implies certain things are only affected by ambient temperature. Btw, Can you tell me how ancient temperature is measured from ice cores? My lookup only says we can detect atmospheric composition, and not temperatures from the ice cores.
• RecycledEle 3mo ago
  I make this prediction: In 5 years, we will have learned that the red line was in error, and the temperatures will be in the bottom half of the graph. I know this because every prediction of climate doom turned out to be false. Entire nations were going to disappear under rising sea levels. It has not happened. I'm not saying no land sinks, but sea levels are not rising rapidly enough to prevent Al Gore (author of "An Inconvenient Truth") from buying an ocean-front home. The same applies to John Kerry and dozens of other outspoken prophets of doom who warned us that rising sea levels would submerge entire nations. They used the proceeds of their fear-mongering to buy oceanfront homes. I remember signs in Glacier National Park telling us the glaciers would be gone by the year 2,000. It has not happened. This "signal" too will pass.
  • zaik 3mo ago
    The red line is not a prediction, it is a measurement.
    • RecycledEle 3mo ago
      1 in every 100 measurements will give a 1-in-100 result. Please check back in 5 years.
  • locknitpicker 3mo ago
    You seem to be deep in denial. These are not projections. These are measurements. These are known trends from the past century. The trend is accelerating in what seems to be an exponential pattern. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... We are experiencing record heat in northern Europe, with temperatures in line with what a couple of decades ago would be expected in north Africa during the summer. Southern Europe is already experiencing massive droughts in major urban centers.
    • RecycledEle 3mo ago
      > We are experiencing record heat in northern Europe Nope. They color coded the maps differently, but the temperatures are in line with what is normal for that part of the world. > Southern Europe is already experiencing massive droughts in major urban centers. But a quick we search tells me: "Southern Europe is currently experiencing wetter-than-average conditions" Where is rainfall down so much that there are "massive droughts" in Southern Europe? > These are not projections. These are measurements. Please check back in 5 years. The temperatures in the Niño 3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific will be below the 100-year average by then.
• iDon 3mo ago
  Representing that as a "climate spiral" would make it unnecessary to adjust for the seasons, and the original data could be used instead of a statistical view. It makes it easy for anyone to see the trend. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_spiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_spiral - https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/visualizing-daily-global-temperature https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/visualizing-daily-global-t... - https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/spirals/ https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/spirals/
  • HPsquared 3mo ago
    Polar coordinates are such a nice way to visualise periodic data.
    • crazygringo 3mo ago
      They often are not, because they highly distort shape and size. Values that are smaller than the mean occupy much less space (area-wise) and seem less significant than they really are, while values that are larger than the mean occupy much more space (area-wise) and seem more significant than they really are.
  • _kulang 3mo ago
    These are nice if you are scientifically literate but I suspect not so great for the lay
  • holowoodman 3mo ago
    Thanks. Those are much better than the graph trash in the original article.
    • Filligree 3mo ago
      Though the graph is ten years old. Why is it so hard to find recent data? :-(
      • donaldihunter 3mo ago
• nixonaddiction 3mo ago
  “wahhhh this is bad” ok sure but how. what will the downstream effects be. how can we model increased ocean temperatures and how they will affect weather patterns or whatever? gives me no info on the implications, let alone info on the implications with rigor.
  • tramc 3mo ago
    It’s not spelled in nursery rhyme, but it literally does give info on the implications. As the article states, they are not as simple as A => B, so it provides general idea of the implications. The general idea being ecosystem destabilisation and intensification of extremes and their frequency.
  • dudefeliciano 3mo ago
    > How they will affect weather patterns or whatever? > This is why graphs like this matter. Not because they prove that catastrophe is inevitable, and not because they predict the precise sequence of events over coming years. Science rarely deals in absolutes. What they show is that Earth is moving beyond the range within which modern human civilisation developed. We’re entering climatic conditions that our infrastructure, ecosystems, economies and institutions were never designed to accommodate. Reading helps. Also it's pretty clear from the "waaaaah" that you are not asking a good faith question but rather dismissing the article, without bringing any information or sources to back whatever point you are trying to make - ironic.
• DivingForGold 3mo ago
  Conspicuous that the X axis is missing numbers ... weeks, days, or months ....
  • cbdevidal 3mo ago
    I couldn’t help but notice that there was an equally cold spike at the bottom.
    • RetroTechie 3mo ago
      Can you please define "equal"? (and exactly which pic you're referring to?)
      • holowoodman 3mo ago
        -3.5 sigma in the middle of the year in the only graph the article has.
  • Walf 3mo ago
    It's one year, from left to right. The termination of the red line is in the middle because it's the middle of the year.
  • pmnelson 3mo ago
    It is labelled "Day of Year".
  • jph00 3mo ago
    The range is provided in the title. Presumably it's just regularly sampled over that range.
• SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
  This happened a couple of El Niño cycles ago, in the 2015-2016 one: > The City of Cape Town began experiencing a drought in 2015, the first of three consecutive years of dry winters brought on possibly by the El Niño weather pattern and perhaps by climate change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town_water_crisis It's quite possible that this one could worse.
• inigyou 3mo ago
  This website is making heavy use of IP range blocking. Here's an uncensored link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260713092155/https://www.lyrebirddreaming.com/post/the-graph-that-should-be-front-page-news https://web.archive.org/web/20260713092155/https://www.lyreb... Alternatively, since the link that was posted is just an AI copyright theft site, use the original instead: https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890533
  • jstanley 3mo ago
    Interestingly web.archive.org is blocked for me but TFA isn't.
    • eth0up 3mo ago
      I just left a comment on this elsewhere, but are you using cloudflare or nextdns? They seem to block archive sites, especially archive.today (archive.is, etc)
      • pests 3mo ago
        Yes because they were running a DDOS attack off their CAPTCHA page.
        • eth0up 3mo ago
          See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48894441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48894441 The NextDNS (and others) blocking of archive.today goes back far beyond 2026 and this specific DDOS event. Perhaps that contributed to the hostility behind it, I don't know. But citing that event for other examples does not apply well. Please do not misinterpret this as an excuse or pardon of anything. I love archive.today and all their subdomains. I use it regularly and have been having problems for years, especially with NextDNS. I am seriously disappointed to learn of the DDOS event, but there remain other angles on the topic in general. I am still struggling to process WTF they would do what you reported -- how could they think that would be worth the consequences, accomplish anything? Almost seems suspicious in itself. Thanks for the info. But ever a shill for archive.is
• pyaamb 3mo ago
  the ignorance is a consequence of our societies system of incentives. everything keeps pointing back towards that each time theres an event like this. But if we aren't going to attach an economic price for emissions then it remains an externality and not a recognized reality to the economy. The current US administration is playing a leading role in keeping it that way. And voters keep voting for it. Incentives.
  • Loquebantur 3mo ago
    The economic system itself is incompatible with the physical reality of a finite planet. The ones steering society choose to crash and ruin everything rather than to jeopardize their positions in power. That obvious failure in morals and ethics, basic principles of adult responsibility really, is made possible by a lack of rational reflection in the populace. Objective truth has to take precedence over subjective desires when it comes to existential questions. Currently it does not.
    • constantius 3mo ago
      I'd push back.on blaming the populace for this: the widespread belief in general polls is that the climate situation is dire and that drastic measures need to be taken. However, the constraints that most people have to contend with do not allow them to be more radical in their calls for change. You saw it in the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vests uprising in France, that was motivated not by the passion for IC engines but by the inability to weather the costs of taxation on older vehicles. The real culprit is far and away corporations that benefit from activities that carry with them extreme effects on the climate, and who can influence both politics and media. The research (sorry for lack of link) that shows that political direction is largely controlled by moneyed interests is not ambiguous. I do agree that the populace also deserves some of the blame however: regular renewals of electronic devices, and especially the continuing consumption of animal products, is a moral failure justified only by pleasure.
      • inigyou 3mo ago
        The culprit behind corporations is politicians who allow them to get away with what they do, and the culprit behind this nexus is game theory.
• sdevonoes 3mo ago
  In a world where we have people like Trump, Musk, Thiel, et al, with extreme power and resources, why would we hope for something like climate change to be addressed? What can scientists do? Even if they are 100% right and can prove it, they have no power to do anything. Governments of the top countries are puppets of the US, so there’s not much to do. Other governments are dealing with more mundane problems. And the “A fucked up planet affects everyone equally” is just not true. Billionaires can live in a fucked up planet just fine. They don’t even need people (as demonstrated by AI and its goal of replacing workers). They truly don’t care about us. And if the worst forecast for the planet is to come, they also won’t care (they would just live to their fullest while they can)
  • Telemakhos 3mo ago
    US Greenhouse gas emissions are down 18% from 2007 levels. CO2 emissions and electricity generation are no longer linked. You might not like them, but Trump, Musk, Thiel, et al (whoever the et al are) are doing a good job pushing nuclear power as well, which promises a more energy-rich future without greenhouse emissions. The people who truly don't care are not in the US; they're China and India, whose per capita CO2 emissions are exploding to the upside. China alone makes up like a third of the world's emissions. They don't talk about cutting emissions but about slowing their growth, and yet people are upset at US politicians as the US is busy meeting climate goals it doesn't even profess (and which don't bind China). When you look at actual data, the people you're blaming aren't the ones you should be blaming.
    • WA 3mo ago
      Your post is the typical "it's not us, it's them". - Per capita: US has the highest emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita - Cumulative, US has the highest emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?country=ZAF~CHN~USA~GBR~OWID_EU27~IND~BRA~CAN~RUS~Asia+%28excl.+China+and+India%29 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?c... As a European, we have the same thing going on, except we're usually saying "let the US and China do it first", but our cumulative baggage is also pretty big. In some way, the US and EU are even MORE responsible for reducing emissions and cleaning up their mess, because they reaped all the benefits of a high GDP because of massive burning of fossil fuels without investing heavily into renewable infrastructure.
• RetroTechie 3mo ago
  Tend to follow climate-related news closely. But even then: eyebrows raised. Heh.. Maybe in future we'll see wars being fought not over access to fossil fuels, but over attempts to stop other countries from pumping more fossils out of the ground. "What the planet is going to experience over the next 12 months is just a preview of the movie that’s coming. Godzilla is going to return, and return, and return and return … and as bad as the movie gets, we won’t be able to walk out of the theater." That's the scary bit: no escape hatch. We're all in this together. That's why international co-operation on climate change should NOT be opt-in. Your countries' freedom to emit greenhouse gasses ends where my countries' (future) safety is at stake.
  • exe34 3mo ago
    War is one of the biggest emitter of co2 though.
    • lotsofpulp 3mo ago
      Technically, could be negated if enough people who are projected to consume above a certain amount over the course of their lifetimes are killed.
      • exe34 3mo ago
        In that case you can just throw in a couple of nukes. If you choose the location and the yield just right, you can also buy a few years of cooling.
        • krupan 3mo ago
          You just reminded of the term Nuclear Winter. Is that still a thing?
          • exe34 3mo ago
            Well yes, a full exchange between the US and Russia would probably give us a long winter.
• deadeye 3mo ago
  The mean is created using 29 years of data. Why those particular 29 years? IDK. But I tend to dismiss findings like this that don't explain why they chose a very specific dates as the baseline.
  • VladVladikoff 3mo ago
    Yes I was wondering the same. Why is the mean using a different set of years than the total data set? There also seems to be a year where the swing was equally as extreme in the other direction, what year was this? Would be worth mentioning at least in the post.
    • penteract 3mo ago
      Based on https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4, 1988 is the year from the dataset with the lowest temperature throughout June and July.
      • card_zero 3mo ago
        I posted a comment earlier about how 1982-1983 (the start of the data) had a historically severe El Nino, and the comment got shadowbanned. I don't understand why that happens sometimes. Hasn't happened for months, but when it does it's always on innocuous factual comments, it's weird.
        • mikestew 3mo ago
          I vouched for this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48891223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48891223 …as it looks pretty innocuous to me. And more importantly, your other comments aren’t obnoxious. :-) I’d love to know the heuristic that flipped that bit on that one comment.
        • deleted 3mo ago
          [deleted]
  • 3mo ago
• jgalt212 3mo ago
  I see a negative outlier equal in magnitude to the positive outlier the author is drawing our attention to. What should we make of that data point?
  • bvan 3mo ago
    Yes, it is worth looking at. My thinking was, how fast did that sequence revert back to the’mean’? It doesn’t take away from the author’s message though.
• holowoodman 3mo ago
  This graph shouldn't be front-page news. Why? Because it is a crappy graph that says nothing. That there are deviations from the median is a normal statistical thing. Even deviations beyond 3 sigma. It happens. That's statistics. Those deviations might even be frequent more or less frequent than your statistics table says, because the data might not follow a gaussian normal distribution. See the graph, there is a -3.5 deviation in there... What would be an interesting graph is: From 1982 to 2026 on the x-axis, plot the yearly maximum and minimum daily sigma and the median. Or just plot all the overlapping segments from the original graph as a continuous sequence. That way one could see periodicity, rising and falling of those values and the overall change over time. (Edit: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890590 for much better graphs) But that graph is useless to convey any information beyond "well this year the line goes up". The article also does nothing to really explain the statistical background. Quite the contrary. The article shows things that the graph doesn't illustrate at all: Like "This is why graphs like this matter [...] What they show is that Earth is moving beyond the range within which modern human civilisation developed.". Like fucking hell it doesn't! The graph starts in 1982! Modern human civilization started in 1982? Like "The tropical Pacific is thus no longer oscillating around a climate that existed a century ago. It's oscillating around a much warmer baseline.". Well, and why then does this graph start in 1982? Why can't you show that century? Like "The red line is this year. It doesn't just set a new record. It has departed entirely from the range of previous observations.". No, it fucking doesn't!. Look at the graph, there is a line at -3.5 sigma! Well within range. And even so, it's statistics, outliers are to be expected. What this article and this graph need is a permanent relocation to the trash can. And a lesson for the author in science. Real science, not misleading propaganda that hurts the cause more than it helps.
  • bvan 3mo ago
    You’re welcome to go get the data and chart it the way you think it should be charted, and then we can have a conversation.
• mbgerring 3mo ago
  Instead of arguing about this on the internet you could do what I’m doing: working to take carbon emissions off the board. It’s not easy right now because of the funding and political climate, but you can find work where success is measured by metrics like “gallons of diesel not burned.” Start here: https://climatebase.org https://climatebase.org
  • Loquebantur 3mo ago
    Only, while such work is necessary it's also insufficient. You point at the actual problem yourself: political obstruction and funding going to the opposite. The relevant issues here are ironically precisely those you can solve by discussing them on the internet. They are caused by people not thinking right and having their emotions cross-wired. They can be solved by correcting those errors in reasoning and setting evaluations right. Via discussion.
    • bluebarbet 3mo ago
      This is a decidedly optimistic take given what we know about social media. HN may be a rare exception. Rather than using reason to get people to surmount their "emotions" and to "think right", I'd argue we rather need to frame the issue in terms of their self-interest, and to try to persuade and convince not them but rather their tribal leaders.
    • mbgerring 3mo ago
      I’m going to tell you, as a person whose path went from journalism to activism to engineering in climate tech and climate justice: persuasion isn’t going to get the goods. Changing the reality on the ground through R&D and deployment moves the needle. There are a lot of very good, very smart people who have been heads down since the 70s building the infrastructure for decarbonization, and we’re winning, even as we continue “losing” the political argument.
      • Lord-Jobo 3mo ago
        Yup. If solar panels are good enough and cheap enough, if grid storage and battery density improve fast enough, the economic costs of staying on fossil fuels will create huge pressure in the political space and economic competition. You can overwhelm the issue. We shouldn’t HAVE to do this, our politicians should represent our desires and our long term necessities. But that’s clearly not an easy problem to solve, and it sure doesn’t seem to be going in the right direction. So RND to push the economy makes perfect sense to me as a way to fight this from the other direction.
• andyjohnson0 3mo ago
  People quibbling about whether TFA was written by an AI and why the chart is at the end of the article and what a standard deviation. Meanwhile the planet is simmering.
  • holowoodman 3mo ago
    The article is crap as well as the graph. And the author made the planet simmer even more to produce this crap.
    • birksherty 3mo ago
      Most crap thing here is this species.
    • amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
      Data visualization is hard, but what do you think is wrong with the graph?
      • CivBase 3mo ago
        Graphs tell stories and the only story this one actually tells is "29-year high". It doesn't do a good job of establishing trends and its sample size is too low to discern how significant of an outlier this is. Actually there is a similar outlier on the bottom of the graph, which suggests the current outlier might not actually be that significant. And that's definitely not the story intended by the author.
  • anthomtb 3mo ago
    When the substance of an article is accurate, the best people can do is argue over the presentation.
• the_real_cher 3mo ago
  Apparently El Nino reduces Gulf of Mexico hurricanes. So being in New Orleans is a mixed bag for me.
• bitternophile 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• zombot 3mo ago
  > The question is whether we're willing to pay attention and act before the changes become too large, too rapid and too interconnected for us to manage. I think I can guess the answer to this. It's an easy extrapolation of the past.
• harimau777 3mo ago
  If we assume that governments aren't going to address climate change and coordination between private citizens is unlikely to be enough to stop it, has anyone written anything on what individuals should do to avoid its effects? It feels like we are at the point where we should be talking a lot more about how live decent lives assuming that prevention and mitigation are unlikely.
  • dghlsakjg 3mo ago
    It’s going to be very hard to avoid global phenomena. On top of that, predicting higher order effects on a system this complex is hard. I live in the PNW on the Canadian side of the border (PSW?) where people have argued that we might be a climate change safe haven due to plentiful water and a temperate climate. That hasn’t stopped us from having extreme weather events. In the past five years we have seen a heat wave that killed hundreds, floods that cut us off from the rest of Canada for weeks, concerns about water supply since our summer water supply relies on snowmelt, and we are getting less snow and more rain in the winter. Fire and dangerous smoke over huge parts of the province is now a given from mid July onwards. The list goes on, but the point is that there is no avoiding its effects.
  • coryrc 3mo ago
    You're looking for "deep adaptation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Adaptation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Adaptation
  • snowwrestler 3mo ago
    I know of people who bought property in western North Carolina with this mindset. It’s higher elevation, far from coasts, near fertile farm land, with lots of surface water to drink and use. And far from other geo hazards like volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. On paper it checked a lot of boxes for long-term safety. Then a hurricane went where it had never gone before and wrecked their entire neighborhood. It’s hard to know exactly how a complex chaotic system is going to react when inputs change. And it only takes one outlier to cause a lot of harm on a local human scale. This is why so much effort goes into computer modeling of the climate BTW. We know our emissions are changing the climate. But predicting local effects is damn hard.
• nekusar 3mo ago
  We know how to fix climate devastation. We migrate to renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, hydro) and less-polluting baseload (nuclear). We run desalination plants with the energy. We quit running farms in deserts (California almond farmers). We take energy load and run CO2 scrubbers with leftover energy. We put quotas on how much CO2 you can emit. None of this goofy selling CO2 credits. If you make more CO2, you buy local scrubbers and run them. The problems aren't climate healing rules. The problem is governments and incumbent companies, and the idea we can't change things rapidly. Or the fact that a company might lose money (or make, GASP, less profit)
• clcaev 3mo ago
  LLM or not, I absolutely hate the "not X but Y" writing pattern
  • chrisjj 3mo ago
    Blame the parrot feed.
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
• vivzkestrel 3mo ago
  - When I read an article that goes like "it is not A, it is B" i know for a fact that someone used an trash LLM to generate it
  • stymaar 3mo ago
    It's not even the worse part. Journalists have used the "it is not A, it is B" for a while and it never was as bad as AI doing it. The key problem is that AI have no “idea” of how to build an argument, so it just rephrases the same ideas over and over in different forms. There's no direction, no structure, it's just rambling.
• IshKebab 3mo ago
  It's going to have to be like 20C hotter before some people will accept that it isn't "just summer".
  • izzydata 3mo ago
    At that point it will be a self correcting issue when huge swaths of the human population dies from starvation due to not being able to produce enough food. It is preferable to do something prior to then.
    • IshKebab 3mo ago
      Unfortunately it's not going to selectively kill reality-deniers.
• latentframe 3mo ago
  [dead]
• justatdotin 3mo ago
  Tjanara Goreng Goreng did nothing rong. #LiarDreaming
• skybrian 3mo ago
  It will be front-page news if there are storms later this year. For now, ocean temperature readings far away are effectively a distant early warning of future weather. (Depending on your perspective about “distant” and “early.”)
• codeulike 3mo ago
  For those wondering, I found a post with a graph showing actual temperature rather than std dev from mean https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tompickerell_this-graph-should-raise-eyebrows-sea-surface-activity-7481648708355497985-LQqT/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tompickerell_this-graph-shoul...
  • ccvannorman 3mo ago
    This was very helpful. Thanks
• CurbStomper 3mo ago
  [dead]
• globalnode 3mo ago
  not really understanding why the SD graph for the year drops below zero at some points.
  • mrkeen 3mo ago
    It needs to by mathematical definition. Half of everything is below average. (Ignoring the complaints of others that they didn't calculate the mean from the whole graph).
    • globalnode 3mo ago
      bit of a late reply, but yeah it makes sense if its z scores and not standard deviations
• jaco6 3mo ago
  [dead]
• znpy 3mo ago
  there is another like that reaches similar deviation, but negative (~ -3.5 degree celsius). it doesn't say what year is that though.
• tancop 3mo ago
  the problem with this kind of article is half of them push a doom angle and the other half talk about carbon footprint. both of them have the same effect making people give up or do useless lifestyle changes that do nothing for the environment. we should be pushing for backend changes that are invisible but actually make things better. that means massive subsidies to build out clean power and electrify everything. politicians right now are either doing "think of the corporations we need to leave it up to the market" or insane degrowth proposals or straight climate denial. the only reason people hate some environmental policies is because they are the wrong ones. we need a wave of green populism thats been missing for decades to scrap unpopular things like ulez, combustion engine bans or individual carbon tax and focus on positive changes people want. that could be: give away solar panels and two way heat pumps to low-income families, tax the profits of oil and gas companies, enforce right to repair, remove tariffs on chinese car makers if they create jobs in europe, fund train networks to get tickets cheaper than flying, invest in renewable energy to make electricity cheap. theres a lot of options. all of them will lead to some inflation and public debt but there are easy ways to offload that to the rich. the point is changes that are good for the climate and good for (ordinary, working and middle class) people are better than changes that hurt or just appear to hurt people, even if they are a bit less effective.
  • runeks 3mo ago
    > enforce right to repair How much would this change Niño surface temperatures, you reckon?
  • imperio59 3mo ago
    The word you're looking for is nuclear. Everywhere.
    • childintime 3mo ago
      The word is solar. Instant reduction in CO2 emissions, won't be a decade late, and won't be obsolete by the time it's finally ready. Nuclear is a politician's vanity project. And politicians do have a knack for choosing the wrong thing at the wrong time, by ignoring the market. Just let the engineers make the call.
• 19f191ty 3mo ago
  The right comparison is previous El Nino?
• recitedropper 3mo ago
  Don't worry, just a few more months until we get AGI and all of our problems magically disappear as the singularity changes everything forever. Why care for current iterations of nature, when we will all get to experience infinite varities of it as immortal digital consciousnesses?
  • defterGoose 3mo ago
    Forgot the /s tag
    • recitedropper 3mo ago
      There is a very real contingent of people driving AI who genuinely believe this. And it is this belief that allows them to avoid their cognitive dissonance around the negative externalities of their work. For the environment, and really for the future of humanity too. The /s tag weakens the post. Glad to see I got downvotes--hopefully a few of these incredibly wealthy people in positions of power had to, for even a brief moment, consider their beliefs.
• pdonis 3mo ago
  "Earth is moving beyond the range within which modern human civilisation developed." Way, way, way, way overstated. The graph shows a comparison to an average over a few decades. Human civilization is thousands of years old. Does anyone have a graph of what all the El Ninos since the last Ice Age ended have looked like? Of course not. Nobody has that kind of temperature data.
  • quickthrowman 3mo ago
    There is not a graph of prehistoric ocean surface temperatures (doesn’t seem possible to obtain this data other than collecting it as it happens as far as I can tell) but there is global historical temperature data. Here is an XKCD comic, scroll to the bottom and pay attention to the rate of change since 1850 vs the prior 20,000 years: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ This Wikipedia article has a graph of the last 2000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature And yes, I am aware that earth has possibly been covered in ice/slush and also that the avg global temp has been 10C (or more) higher than it is now, but humans were not around for either scenario.
    • krupan 3mo ago
      How does the global temperature relate to El Nino temperature? Do we know without having El Nino data?
    • pdonis 3mo ago
      > there is global historical temperature data Reconstructed from proxies. Not all experts in the field agree on how reliable the proxies actually are, especially over such long time periods.
  • jbxntuehineoh 3mo ago
    so do you not know what the word "modern" means? or did you just choose to ignore it?
    • danielmarkbruce 3mo ago
• chrsw 3mo ago
  Climate change is a political problem, not an informational problem.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• deadbabe 3mo ago
  > The question is whether we're willing to pay attention and act before the changes become too large, too rapid and too interconnected for us to manage. Stopped asking this question a long time ago. It’s over.
• nojvek 3mo ago
  The message of article was great, but I wish it was written by a human. Yeah we are on track to get to a point where Earth heating up is irreversible before Artificial super intelligence can come to aid to solve it. In fact, our datacenter buildout using gas and coal as primary energy makes this worse. I think about Fermi Paradox a lot. The tragedy of commons when it comes to capitalism may very well one of the reasons why Dinosaurs may have a longer species lifespan than Homosapiens. The change happens too slowly, but reversal takes global coordination which humans as a species aren't great at. Especially when anyone not coordinating may be economically advantaged.
• ecshafer 3mo ago
  The same graph also shows a corresponding -3.5 STDEV below the mean temperature as well. It actually seems rather balanced. This year is hot, but we see similar abnormal jumps in other directions.
  • mrkeen 3mo ago
    Graphs centred around the mean do tend to look pretty balanced.
• tsss 3mo ago
  Now write a blog post about that line at the bottom with comparable magnitude in the other direction.
• _alternator_ 3mo ago
  With a headline like that the graph should be at the beginning. Usually you'd put it up front and then talk about the graph, not put it at the bottom and talk about how people aren't talking about it. Anyway, I scrolled down to the graph and skipped the text. We are currently 4 std deviations above the mean with respect to El Niño temperature. But there's also a historical line -4 std deviations from the mean. Was that an eventful year too? I can't tell and the graph is at such low resolution that the source URL isn't visible. If the graph and data is so important, shouldn't we care more about presentation? This is either super sloppy or deliberate obfuscation. Look, I'm all for good reporting on climate. This just doesn't feel like it.
  • smallerize 3mo ago
    I didn't find the source URL unreadable. It's here: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4 The lowest ones were 1988 and 1989.
    • _alternator_ 3mo ago
      Fair, I had to click into the full size (I pinch zoomed on my phone). But now the fact that 1988/1989 are outliers raise a few more questions about the variance calculation. In particular, the title suggests that those weren't included in the variance calculation. A 3.5-sigma event is a 1-in-1000 chance. Yet we have 2 of them in our data set that goes back only 40ish years? Something is suspect. Maybe I'm not accounting for the likelihood of a random walk excursion probability, but if a 3.5 sigma event isn't a 1-in-1000 event I have difficulty interpreting.
      • lejalv 3mo ago
        Why are you assuming gaussianity?
        • _alternator_ 3mo ago
          The tails could be heavy, it's true. This could make my usual 1-in-1000 heuristic overly conservative. Let's go with that, heavy tails. The data shows we are at something between a 1-in40 and 1-in-20 deviation. Normally (pun intended) that's ~2-sigma deviation. So... I guess it doesn't really seem like an epoch defining El Niño.
• mvdtnz 3mo ago
  Yeah NZ national news has been going on about this for a couple of weeks. They're trying to scare everyone by saying what an extreme El Nino we're in for this summer with such devastating consequences as (let's see here) warm dry summer days. It's going to be a good summer, I can't wait.
• colechristensen 3mo ago
  The now retired meteorologist at Iowa State, Elwin Taylor had been predicting for decades a dust-bowl level event to happen in 2025 as a result of an 89-ish year cycle. It didn't happen last year but this is a pretty clear signal for this year. It takes the form of a super El Nino the likes of what is happening right now. https://www.agriculture.com/weather/news/dust-bowl-coming-in-2025-climatologist-sees-trends-with-1930s https://www.agriculture.com/weather/news/dust-bowl-coming-in...
• aliasxneo 3mo ago
  Do we have reliable data that goes back a lot farther? I'm wondering what the graph would look like as extrapolated between ices ages / other large climate changes across Earth's history.
  • krupan 3mo ago
    We don't, sadly
• exiguus 3mo ago
  Maybe it becomes headline when the Gulf Stream collapses; but until then: Climate Change does not exist. And actually I read about it a while ago.
• etc-hosts 3mo ago
  Observations like this is why the Trump administration is dismantling instruments that can observe the effects. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/climate/ocean-observatories-initiative.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/climate/ocean-observatori...
• IAmGraydon 3mo ago
  Here's a related chart with a bit more context. Check out the different ocean regions as well as the air temp anomoly charts: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4
• thelastgallon 3mo ago
  > What is developing is so far beyond any global climate event that has impacted modern industrial civilization that predicting much of what’s coming is educated guesswork. Turn the volume on the typical El Niño impacts up to eleven, then watch the collective infrastructure of modern industrial civilization crumble. Watch as flooding storms wash away roads and cities. Watch as trailing storms create new inland lakes, swamping farmland. Watch as fires raze forests and grasslands. Watch as heatwaves turn temperate regions into unsurvivable hellscapes. Watch as crops fail and dams burst. Watch as the shelves of your local grocery store gradually, then suddenly, go empty. From: https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real
• insane_dreamer 3mo ago
  Haven't you heard -- it's all about building bigger and better AI now. Nobody GAF about warming temps anymore. And the band played on.
• femto 3mo ago
  Where I live, it was front page news four weeks ago. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-16/nsw-bureau-of-meterology-declares-el-nino-weather/106776598 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-16/nsw-bureau-of-meterol... Not that it lead to any particular action or recognition.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• thelastgallon 3mo ago
  tldr: Deploy a TON of solar. Use the excess production to charge batteries (EVs, BESS), chemical storage (Ammonia), green hydrogen for industrial uses, heat pump for HVAC, CO2 as refrigerant. Deploy solar everywhere. On roofs (inefficient), plug in solar, vertical solar, solar on reservoirs, highways. Everywhere. Use excess production! Phase 1 1) Buy only EVs[1] 2) Use EVs as energy storage. Pay the EV owners because power price goes negative (or worst case charge at no cost). 3) This will immediately capture clean energy that is being curtailed (~20% or more) 4) Without 3 in place, we can't accelerate clean energy, because curtailment will increase, making it unproductive. 5) Pay the EV owners to supply power back to the grid. They now replace peaker plants, which is the most expensive part of electricity bills. 6) EV storage becomes the new grid, creating a gigantic energy reservoir. Extremely resilient energy storage. (think just like the kube/containers, cattle/pets, etc) With the scale of EV car adoption, we'll get better and better at batteries, making them significantly cheaper. This will allow us to build battery swapping infrastructure for big vehicles. Most likely, this will be sodium or solid state. Phase 2: All big vehicles (trucks/buses) can use battery swapping stations spread out everywhere. The battery swapping stations serve multiple functions, they are an essential part of the short term battery storage (multi-day), a layer above the EV storage. And they also provide the battery swap infrastructure. They get paid for being charged (negative price) and then again for the trucks using them. We shouln't build charging infrastructure for big vehicles, it is capital intensive, requires a lot of expensive machinery, real-time transmission capacity, real estate, wasted time, etc. Long term/seasonal: Build Ammonia --> electricity emergency plants. We need ammonia at a massive scale anyways for fertilizer. The best outcome would be green ammonia (green hydrogen), using excess power from clean energy. Industrial uses (heat): Green hydrogen on demand, freshly produced from solar. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule, explosive and corrosive, won't work with any storage. All heating and cooling: Use heat pumps. Use CO2 as refrigerant and ban everything else. We are going to see 100x deployment of ACs everywhere, all of the third world will buy AC as their incomes increase. [1] Govts could ban all ICE vehicles, but they wont. Fossil fuel lobby wont let them. For the fossil fuel shills who are invitably going to comment that EV doesn't work for them, please continue using your EV for your daily commute from Alberta to San Diego. There will be enough used ICE cars for the next 20 years.
• d_theorist 3mo ago
  The last 40 years is not "the range within which modern human civilisation developed". It's a very thin slice of time even on human scales. Let's try not to vastly overstate the data.
• marsxr360 3mo ago
  Sanction Reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F--SWFQ6M9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F--SWFQ6M9c [instrumental intro] [bridge] [VERSE 1: judges] Sanction the judges War crimes didn’t happen That’s all you need to know In this controversial matter. Sanction the judges War crimes disappear Livestreamed in 4K Still don't see clear [bridge] [instrumental] [REFRAIN] That was a verse Now this is refrain Follow the narrative From truth refrain. [bridge] [instrumental] [VERSE 2: reality] Sanction reality It’s easier that way Moral clarity Concerns go away Sanction reality Money will follow Don’t follow the money Morality hollow [bridge] [instrumental] [REFRAIN] That was a verse Now this is refrain Follow the narrative From truth refrain. [bridge] [instrumental] [VERSE 3: Albanese] Sanction Albanese Her weapon is a pen Research and legalese Her reports contain Sanction Albanese Political tool Rubio by Chinese He is sanctioned too [bridge] [instrumental] [REFRAIN] That was a verse Now this is refrain Follow the narrative From truth refrain. [bridge] [instrumental] [VERSE 4: Climate] Sanction the climate But climate doesn’t care No speech, no objections It just comes in waves Sanction the climate NASA is wrong Moon sixty nine Now facts are gone [bridge] [instrumental] [REFRAIN] That was a verse Now this is refrain Follow the narrative From truth refrain. [bridge] [instrumental] [Final verse] The system was broke Sanctions were a joke Reality arrives Humanity thrives Your heart knows the truth It's beyond the proof [bridge] [instrumental] Your heart knows the truth It's beyond the proof [bridge] [instrumental] [instrumental drum and bass] [outro]