Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We are now at 415 consecutive months with global temperatures above the 20th century average. That's like flipping a coin 415 times and getting heads every time.



What about the, let's say past 4.5 Billion years? Is there a slight chance that this is a scam? Do elites and their governments throw bombs on innocent civilians? Is there a slight chance they could be lying about climate change? Do SO many climatologists really agree on man-made climate change? Many don't.

Still, we must protect our environment. Pollution is horrible and it needs to be addressed.


What is more likely? That some climate scientists are scamming the whole world and making enemies of the most powerful governments in North America, Europe, Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC + all the billionaires and corporations and investment funds invested in Coal&Oil&Gas&EnergyUtilities, and they have somehow maintained this lie for decades out in the open, somehow managing to fool everyone, and with convenient climate change all over the world to somehow coincide with their lies?

Or the other option, that your political understanding of the world is lacking?


> What about the, let's say past 4.5 Billion years?

That's not really relevant, is it? The issues with the climate change happening now is that it is man-made, and that we've built most of our civilization around the assumption that the climate was either not changing, or was changing very slowly.

If something was causing increase flooding in, say, Nebraska, would you bring up that Nebraska was hundreds of meters below water 100 million years ago? If an arsonist were setting wildfires in your your near inhabited areas, would you bring up that there have been wildfires for hundreds of thousands of years due to lighting?

And yes, we know that most of the present day climate change is man-made, because we know that most of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere during industrial times is man-made. We know that because CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels and plants has a different isotope makeup than CO2 that comes from other sources.


Yes, actually. 98% agree on man-made climate change. 2% (not many) don't.

The higher the expertise of the climatologist the more likely they are to agree as well. Or, only the incompetent ones disagree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151106083011/http://tigger.uic...

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse...


Not doubting the monthly stat, but I don't think it makes sense to use the coin flip analogy from a pure mathematics point of view.

Coin flips are independent events. Daily temperatures are not.


I was going to say something like, "Or, if <X> is right about climate change, it's like 415 consecutive coin flips that are all heads", where <X> was one of the politicians or parties that claims the climate isn't warming, but thought that might get too political, so decided to leave that part of it implicit.


I'd love to see a source for that.


Check out NASA's page on surface temperature analysis:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

Click the sub-heading for "Monthly Mean Global Surface Temperature", which will show the line graph/data for the temperature difference for a given month compared to the mean for 1951-1980.


Ya.. ok. but 1951-1980 isn't the 20'th century. It's 29 years.


Here you have the last 100 years, it's not better:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...



Sorry, I don't work at NASA nor am I a scientist in this field, but it should be obvious there's more to their data and analysis than just what's found on that URL. If you can click around their page and site, you can find a layperson FAQ where they give a broad explanation of their methodology (if you don't want to click through to the cited research papers). Here's the FAQ question relevant to why the 1951-1980 period is chosen:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/index.html#q102

> Q. Why does GISS stay with the 1951-1980 base period?

> A. The primary focus of the GISS analysis are long-term temperature changes over many decades and centuries, and a fixed base period yields anomalies that are consistent over time.


Any average temperature comparison that excludes the 1930's and the Medieval Warm Period is most likely being deliberately deceptive.


From the GISS FAQ:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/index.html#q202

> Q. Why does GISS show no data from before 1880?

> A. The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change like tree rings, ice core data, etc.


Sure - if you disregard the 50 billion months before you started counting your flips.


At one point it was difficult to flip because things were really cold.


What did life look like during these months?


Earth Temperature Timeline - https://xkcd.com/1732/


Doesn't it wave around a lot, and then the scary "current path" is basically a huge extrapolation?


The optimistic and best case scenarios are also scary.


Yes, and annoyingly it only goes back 20,000 years. Going back 400,000 years would tell a much more interesting story.


Extrapolation is when you have one wife on your wedding day and decide you will have thirty wives next month: https://xkcd.com/605/

What we have with climate is more like your neighbor appearing with two wives two months ago, with thirty wives one month ago, and today he has sixty wives and maybe a few husbands. Still waiting to verify if something is not right?


The "current path" is not "a huge extrapolation", it what is going to happen if we continue to do what we do (it includes our currently made and actually planned measures):

https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/

The current political "climate" makes very improbable that we'll achieve "only 2 deg in 2100" target that the politicians mention but don't do enough -- compare with how much easier were had we started in 2000:

http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: