
Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year - uptown
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html
======
harwoodleon
At the time I write this post :"What I Wish I'd Known About Equity Before
Joining a Unicorn" has over 220 comments and 509 points. This post has 80
points and 81 comments.

I know there is not much to say in response to this fact really - and HN is a
tech news resource, but it saddens me that this topic garners less interest
than making money. Like money will save us from the effects of this?

"...as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade
in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics."

According to Lovelock, this is just the start of a 100,000 year journey into
the unknown for the planet. Just the start.

Based on the current data, I think the predictions James Lovelock made 11
years ago were quite modest.

[http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html](http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html)

~~~
robotjosh
Humanity causing its own end is a heavy topic. And it is a hopeless topic
considering the new leadership in america.

------
unabridged
The temperature has been increasing for the last 130 years. But what does the
average 130 period look like? What is the average variance for 130 year
periods over the last 100k years?

Imagine looking at the daily closes of a stock price, then trying to judge if
the tick data from the last 5 minutes constitutes a meaningful trend.

We just don't have the data to prove it yet. With that said:

Should we stop polluting? Yes

Should we research renewable energy sources? Yes

Should we try to save energy and get more efficient where possible? Yes

Should we aim to reduce energy usage per person over time? Absolutely not

Energy use per capita is effectively our standard of living. Sure we might be
able to keep making CPUs use less energy, but there will probably never be a
way to make heating/cooling a house or manufacturing physical products a
magnitude more efficient. Our only solution to make the world better is to
increase energy production.

~~~
yongjik
Imagine somebody a hundred years ago saying:

"Should we aim to reduce calorie intake per person over time? Absolutely not.
Calorie intake per capita is effectively our standard of living."

...well yes it was, until some day it wasn't any more.

Energy per capita is only a proxy for standard of living. You can build a
well-insulated modern house that needs a fraction of the energy required to
heat a 1930's house with similar size, but nobody will say the person living
in the modern house is poorer for that.

Compared globally, access to technologies that allow the same convenience with
less energy is a better indicator for our standard of living.

------
codeddesign
Here are the graphs to the actual data:
[https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)

I never understand why these article don't just provide you with the sources
where this data was captured...let alone the actual data used. I guess we are
just suppose to "believe" them?

~~~
r_smart
Thanks for tracking this down. It would be one thing if journalists on the
science beat were generally accurate and reliable, but they get so much stuff
wrong all the time.

edit: Do you (or anyone else) know why they choose their zero point the way
they do? If the graph is going back to 1880, why not just call that the zero?
The closest year I could find that was at 0 was 1972 at +0.01C. Is it supposed
to be based around when the satellites started taking measurements or
something?

~~~
roter
Zero represents the 30-year mean of the years 1951-1980, i.e. some
representation of a recent baseline climatology. Choosing 1880, or any other
year, might skew perception positively or negatively.

From the Earth Observatory [0]:

> The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather
> Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average
> temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the
> most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s
> adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.

[0]
[http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/deca...](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php)

------
tabeth
I find it very unlikely that we'll "solve" this problem. At best we'll just
deal with the effects and survive accordingly.

1\. The majority of the world isn't even on par with say, France, in terms of
their contribution to this problem. It's only going to get worse as they
develop (finally).

2\. Those living in the countries that contribute the most aren't going to pay
the price, figuratively or literally. Would you take an 80% paycut to
eradicate this problem? Probably not. Would you not have children (who will
comparatively consume, and therefore contribute far more than 3rd world
children)? Probably not. This line of thinking is obviously a part of the
problem.

~~~
api
There's a third reason that I've thought about for a while. I call it "it's
better to reign in hell."

Extreme poverty is worse than most natural disasters. I wouldn't be surprised
if infant mortality is substantially lower in a developed nation _during a
category five hurricane_ than it is in a poor nation during calm weather. It's
better to reign in hell.

The benefits of development may actually outweigh the cost of, say, losing
one's coastal cities.

~~~
mrfusion
You're going against the narrative there ... no amount of progress is worth
sea level rise.

~~~
api
I wasn't saying it's a good thing, just that it's a fact. Wealth brings the
luxury of caring about the environment. Poverty is absolute desperation. If
you are dirt poor the only thing that matters is not being dirt poor.

This is also why what I call "abstinence based" solutions to environmental
problems are doomed. This refers to the use of shame and ideology to convince
people to accept a lower standard of living. Telling people to forego the
benefits of energy consumption is going to work about as well as telling them
not to have sex.

The only solution to climate change is large scale renewable and/or nuclear
energy sufficient to economically replace fossil fuels. All else is futile.

~~~
nikdaheratik
I kind of agree, in that it's not an individual action problem but a
collective action problem. You want to reduce emissions in the aggregate, you
need something like a carbon tax which encourages people and companies at the
margin into making the choice that emits less carbon.

------
nine_k
A link with nice plots:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-
year-on-record.html)

In short, the temperature record of 2015 is beaten last Wednesday; the record
of 2014 was beaten in 2015. So, we've had three record years in a row.

------
smrtinsert
This issue solves itself once South Eastern US states are submerged due to
global flooding and thus lose the electoral votes.

~~~
Diederich
I think that there will be a lot more carnage (and I don't use that word
lightly) associated with climate change via extreme weather well before
there's really substantial sea level rise.

Specifically, I think there's a chance that, worldwide, it will get more
difficult to find places that basic food crops can be grown with sufficient
reliability, due to extremes in heat, cold, storms, drought and flooding.

According to the data I've seen, on a worldwide average, this hasn't started
happening yet, but it already happening in some regions.

~~~
howlin
The Russian and Canadian permafrost tundras will be incredibly productive
farmland once they thaw. The main food problems will come near the equator,
where people tend to be poorer. They'll lose farm land as well as fish stock
in the oceans.

~~~
Diederich
Indeed. That's been the traditional wisdom, which I was also on board with for
a long time.

What I'm concerned about is 'weather weirding'. On average, everything gets
warmer, but because there's a lot more overall energy, the highs get higher,
and the lows get lower, along with more extreme rain/flooding, along with more
extreme drought. And, of course, a lot more intense storms.

I hope I am wrong, and it seems like the analysis of this line of thought is
just starting to ramp up.

Anecdotally, it's why, for example, we got something like 10 or 12 '100 year'
and '500 year' weather events in the US in 2016.

------
DoodleBuggy
But it's cold outside, and the politicians keep telling me it's not true!

~~~
throwaway2016a
We just had a 60 degree F day in mid January in Northern New England. While I
like being able to go outside with no coat and I like that the snow melts
faster, that is dang warm for my part of the world in January.

My favorite is trying to explain to people how climate change can produce more
snow not less and that doesn't mean it is not getting warmer... it means that
the air is warmer and because of that can hold more moisture and thus larger
more severe precipitation events.

So I've read, I'm not a climate scientist.

Actual quote I hear multiple times per winter: "Look at all that snow! Global
warming my ass!"

------
edwinksl
Somewhat dated (2015) but useful visualization for factors driving climate
change and global warming: [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-
warming-the-wo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-
world/)

~~~
b_emery
The money quote from that site: "Atmospheric CO2 levels are 40% higher than
they were in 1750".

------
bryanmgreen
I think it's a shame that legislation on climate change seems to be the
expediting/forcing factor behind getting companies to improve their products
and services.

It seems to me that Fortune 500 businesses have been especially slow taking
advantage of computing developments over the last 10-15 years. I feel like
there is so much potential for them to be better for the environment by more
efficiently creating better products - and I can't understand how they would
pass up on such opportunities. It's better for them because these improvements
could lead to better product (competitive advantage) and marketing superiority
(earth friendly!).

Maybe I'm naive or maybe Jevon's Paradox makes it all useless.

------
woodandsteel
Obama on the clean energy revolution

[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/scien...](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/science.aam6284.full)

------
tn13
How many years in one year, this sort of news comes every few months.

~~~
umanwizard
Got links to back that up? I suspect you're confusing "hottest year on record"
news with stuff like "hottest April on record".

~~~
tn13
Just check the following Google news results and scroll back to see how
frequently this sort of news is being churned out
[https://www.google.com/search?q=hottest+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf...](https://www.google.com/search?q=hottest+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=hottest+year&tbs=qdr:m,sbd:1&tbm=nws&start=160)

~~~
Oletros
It seems that all the results about 2016 are from yesterday. Can you provide
examples of this is the hottest year not in January, the month the data is
presented?

------
pdx
This youtube channel has a lot of videos by scientists regarding global
warming.

[https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly/videos?sort=p&shelf_...](https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly/videos?sort=p&shelf_id=2&view=0)

One video that HN readers may enjoy, given it's mathematical nature is a talk
given by Dr. Murry Salby
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM)

I hope you'll actually at least watch the one by Dr. Salby to perhaps see why
some of us are not as convinced as the rest of us about this issue.

~~~
deadcast
Please keep your conspiracy theory propaganda off of HN. You're a danger to
the world we live in. Ty.

~~~
pdx
Why don't you want HN readers to watch the video at
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM)

This is a scientific lecture, given by a professor. I found it very
interesting. Why does it threaten you so much?

~~~
polotics
Hello pdx.

You wrote: "Why does it threaten you so much?"

This is a classic aggressive move, no-one has claimed being threatened, they
have instead pointed out useful information about this obvious fraud.

As you have been on HN indeed a while, may I ask you that you justify this
"Why does it threaten you so much?", or go away?

Thank You

~~~
pdx
You don't need to say "I feel threatened". Who the hell says "I feel
threatened"? The fact that there is so much anger and gnashing of teeth is
evidence that a worldview that does not include AGW must be viciously and
immediately attacked. I find that fascinating.

~~~
plus
By "I find that fascinating," do you mean "I interpret that as meaning people
who believe in anthropogenic global climate change are closed minded and
unwilling to entertain opposing viewpoints"? Because if so, that's not at all
what's happening here. What's happening is that people are unwilling to devote
an hour of their time to an untrustworthy actor peddling a viewpoint that is
heavily pushed by those who have the most to lose from a global switch away
from fossil fuels. There are so many reasons _not_ to bother watching this
video, and the best reason you can come up with is "it's interesting".

