
Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013 - osivertsson
http://warmingworld.newscientistapps.com/
======
gavanwoolery
[http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI](http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI)

Look at the Dow Jones index. If you look at it today, it looks like a dramatic
drop. If you look at it in the span of several years, that drop looks somewhat
trivial.

Same thing goes for climate change. Go back 1 billion years, and you will find
that the earth has warmed and cooled far more dramatically than in the last
100 years. I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that
correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

(And for the record, I'm not pushing one political agenda or the other, I'm
just trying to look at a given data set rationally).

Edit: either way, I encourage the pursuit of clean energy and reusable
resources.

~~~
Loughla
Okay? Why even bring this up unless trying to cast a disparaging light onto
global warming? You are, in fact, denying human caused global warming in your
last comment, "I'm just saying that correlation does not equal causation."
Every time I see this argument it's usually the first statement in the
'human's aren't really causing global warming, so we shouldn't try to fix it'
circle-jerk.

What is the worst thing that happens if we try to address global warming,
human caused or not? We get to keep the beneficial conditions that we've had
since the beginning of humanity as we know it? Our children get to inherit a
functioning and healthy planet? Society can continue on the way it has for
many, many generations without plague or famine?

Stop it.

~~~
ars
It's horrible how climate change is now a religion not a science.

"Deniers and believers".

~~~
protomyth
I'm a little confused about the anti-GMO folks who believe in climate change
since the science argument applies to both but they only believe it in one
case.

// I'm in the only way to stop current energy generation techniques is to
invent something cheaper than gas and coal. Anything else won't stop the
upcoming economies (e.g. China) from using gas and coal no matter how they
pollute.

~~~
aestra
Some people don't resort to pseudoscience when making arguments againsts GMOs.

~~~
protomyth
I find most people resort to pseudoscience and ignorance of the history of
what they are currently eating when speaking against GMOs.

~~~
aestra
Your comment is both ignorant and false.

~~~
protomyth
Same response to all those global warming deniers - the studies and science
show GMOs are not harmful.

------
Jehar
This doesn't seem to have a lot of granularity in color around the 0 mark.
Above 0 we have a warm color, below 0 we have a cold color. Would it paint a
more informative picture to give +/-(relevant fraction) a distinct color?

------
caiob
My city wasn't founded until 1934, how does NASA have stats from 1894?

~~~
fleitz
Stop questioning, start panicking. If you want to make a difference start
recycling, buy some solar panels, and think about how amazing it is to be poor
in exchange for saving the planet.

If more people gave 10% of their income we can stave off the apocalypse, end
of humanity, rapture, end times, whatever you want to call it. The rich will
never inherit the kingdom of Mother Earth.

~~~
ars
If you recycle anything except metal you are making the problem worse not
better.

Solar panels are a poor choice, they help somewhat but they are far too
expensive for what they provide.

If you actually want to make a difference then agitate for more nuclear power.
There is absolutely nothing else that will help.

~~~
aestra
I frigging hate this "nuclear power is the answer to everything" meme that
gets repeated on HN.

Nuclear power requires a huge amount of fossil fuels in its life cycle. From
building the plant to mining the uranium then decommissioning it. All energy
extensive.

[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-
low-...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-low-carbon-
source-of-energy.html)

[http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/11/07/myths-
and...](http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/11/07/myths-and-facts-
about-nuclear-power/196793)

Right now nuclear compares to other renewables

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-
cycle_green...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-
cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions)

however it is though if it is widely adopted, uranium will become more energy
intensive to mine uranium and convert it to fuel.

~~~
ars
> Nuclear power requires a huge amount of fossil fuels in its life cycle. From
> building the plant to mining the uranium then decommissioning it. All energy
> extensive.

And renewables are MUCH worse. You don't need much uranium to make energy, but
you need a TON of metal to capture wind or sun energy.

> however it is though if it is widely adopted, uranium will become more
> energy intensive to mine uranium and convert it to fuel.

And again, renewables are worse in that regard. They do well now only because
they aren't used a lot.

But use them a lot and the price (due to rarity) will go up, meaning the
resources needed will go up.

There is no perfect energy source. It's just a matter of relative harm.

------
polemic
Very informative, and scary.

I'm pretty sure there should be an OSM attribution on this map.

[https://www.mapbox.com/help/attribution/](https://www.mapbox.com/help/attribution/)

------
hamax
I haven't realized how anti science HN is. Scary.

------
RivieraKid
I think that global warming is a positive phenomenon and we should try to
accelerate it. Most people would prefer a to live in slightly warmer climate
than they do now.

~~~
Eupolemos
It doesn't work like that. It is not a nice, evenly spread warm breeze. It is
rising oceans and extreme weather.

Don't think of it as an increase in warmth, think of it as increased pressure
in a closed system.

~~~
RivieraKid
> and extreme weather

Sounds like fun to me.

------
graycat
It's cold and snowing outside, and the 'climate change' alarmists are still
going and going and going.

I was assuming that the climate change scam would go away with today's
headlines, but maybe it will be like the Loch Ness monster -- forever some
people still think it might be real.

~~~
jgamman
so if i point out that it's really #@#!@# hot all over Australia at the
moment, you'll concede that it's true? FFS the weather responds to the energy
balance, it's not a nice +2 deg added to everyone's location.

~~~
graycat
Good! Now we agree: Anecdotal evidence is junk! I mentioned the snow as a
parody, giving back in kind to a lot of such evidence from the global warming
alarmists, e.g., their pictures of polar bears, remarks on Arctic sea ice in
the summers (blown around in unpredictable ways by winds and currents), snows
on Mt. Kilimanjaro, video clips of glaciers calving, etc.

"Energy balance"? Sure, but that's close to just a tautology. The 'rub' is
working effectively with the collection of all the fine details that determine
energy balance.

For how to predict the weather 50 years from now, when we can't predict it
five days from now, is a bit much to swallow.

Actually, the global warming alarmists are no closer to good science and have
nothing better than the Lock Ness Monster devotees.

Maybe 50 years from now the temperature of the earth will be higher, lower, or
just the same as now, and no one knows the answer, no matter what within the
realm of reason we assume about CO2, methane, water vapor, sun spots,
volcanoes, ocean currents, snow cover, deforestation, etc. E.g., the IPCC's
Ramaswamy's 'radiative forcing' fills a much need gap in the literature and
would be illuminating if ignited.

There has been a big crowd of global warming alarmists: Some see global
warming as not a problem but a way to talk the public into other things that
they like such as 'renewable' energy. Some are using global warming alarms as
a way to raise money, get government funding, sell books, do venture capital
deals, get attention, get a professorship, etc. Some people want to get some
new taxes they can use for whatever. Some want to 'stick it' to the oil
companies or whomever would get hurt by attempts to respond to global warming.
Some people want subsidies for high speed trains, wind farms, solar panels,
biofuels, high 'feed in tariffs', etc. The list of reasons some people find to
go alone with the alarms is endless and with next to nothing actually to do
with science. So, the whole thing is looking like, say, the people who stand
to make money off the Lock Ness Monster. That was my main point -- global
warming alarms will continue for much the same reason as the Lock Ness
Monster.

