Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
NOAA Data Confirms July Was Hottest Month Ever Recorded (nytimes.com)
203 points by digital55 63 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 117 comments

There is a bipartisan carbon fee and dividend bill in the United States Congress right now with 59 sponsors[1], called The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 763)[2]. This bill puts a fee on fossil fuels that grows over time. The money collected (minus administrative costs) is paid back to every American to spend as they see fit.

Citizen's Climate Lobby is a bipartisan organization of regular people trying to get this bill passed. Please check out CCL and write your representative[3] to ask them to sponsor H.R. 763. It's our best shot at lowering green house gasses quickly.

[1] https://energyinnovationact.org/

[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763

[3] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-your-representative/#...

I am not familiar with US politics, but looking at your link, the bill is sponsored by 58 Democrats and 1 Republicans. Is it a usual practice to describe such bills as bipartisan?

The goal of the bill is bipartisan support. What makes the bill bipartisan is it does not attempt to grow government by creating new tax revenues, or regulations. Instead of increasing tax revenue the carbon fee is paid directly to the tax payer. Instead of additional regulations the gradually increasing fee incentivizes industry to reduce their use of fossil fuels.

The word you are looking for is non-partisan. Bi-partisan means it currently has broad support in both parties. You can't say a bill is bi-partisan if it doesn't actually have that support. Saying you have a goal of bi-partisan support doesn't make the bill bi-partisan. Otherwise, bill proponent could claim the goal of any bill is to be bi-partisan which makes every bill bi-partisan.

Call it what you’d like.

So your claim is that it is bipartisan ideologically, not procedurally, right?

But I don't think that Republicans actually follow their own ideology of minimal state.

Anyway, I think the bill is a good idea (not an American).

I'm not sure what you mean by "procedurally." Republicans can still vote in favor of this bill even if they do not cosponsor it. But the more Republicans cosponsor it the easier it will be politically for other Republicans to vote in favor of it.

What would a partisan bill look like?

Is the other party not allowed to vote for one such bill?

It seems it would have a better claim to being bipartisan if the higher taxes on carbon fuels came with a relaxation of efficiency regulations rather than just adding on top.

Good question. Republicans in particular need to worry about primary challenges in their science-illiterate districts, and many may be wary of attaching their name to this directly. But there are a good handful of deep red congresspeople who are happy to discuss policy details around carbon pricing, even if they can't politically afford cosponsorship [0]. I imagine that several of those may be willing to vote for such a bill. This is why it's particularly important to write to conservative lawmakers – most of them understand that this makes economic sense, but citizens have to demonstrate to them that they won't lose votes over this kind of legislation.

Also, consider that if Democrats gain control of the Senate in 2020, they can pass this easily, and once such a fee-and-dividend scheme is around for a few years, it will likely become very popular with citizens (because of the dividends [1]) and big business (because of the predictability, compared to regulations/bans/subsidies/political favoritism [2]), so it won't be easy to get rid of it again. Instead, the battleground will shift, as we currently see in Canada, to "how fast do we increase the price per ton?" and "which industries get special treatment?".

[0] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/

[1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impact-study/

[2] https://www.clcouncil.org/

> Also, consider that if Democrats gain control of the Senate in 2020, they can pass this easily

Yes, they can, which should really get people thinking if they don’t. Republicans don’t care about this stuff and readily admit it, but Democrats seem to only care a lot if they don’t have power to do anything. Once they are in control, this kind of heavy impact bills don’t get passed either, and best we get is something like plastic straw ban.

Republicans aren't science-illiterate. Spreading that myth is a great way to have people immediately tune out from listening to your remaining arguments.


The real question is why all government fines aren't structured this way.

You could restructure all externalities taxes to pay a dividend back out of what they raise, but you could instead skip a step and use the money to reduce the amount you need to raise via other taxes. Presumably your general-purpose tax is structured some way that's more efficient than having everyone to pay an equal share, so this is a more efficient option.

But if externalities taxes + dividends are politically expedient then so be it. It sure beats never regulating externalities.

No, it's not. In fact, bills which actually want to be bipartisan often go out of their way to make around half of the original, top-line sponsors from each party.

Where we are at in the US is that TODAY dozens of right-wing, White-supremacist supporters of the president have traveled to a town they believe is not supportive enough of his politics and have openly declared that they are going to assault people on the streets, and the President has responded by offering an oblique blessing. There’s no such thing as bipartisan.

Reality, meet thy opposite.

This will never pass. This is not simply me being pessimistic. US current government doesn't believe in climate change, and doing everything in its power to roll back whatever progress was made in the last decade or so. The current senate majority is a puppet of the government and will not pass anything Trump doesnt want. And even in the extreme unlikely scenario of it getting passed. It will get vetoed.

Since getting downvoted, maybe people don't know Trump's relationship with climate change:




Wow, I just briefly looked over that linked wikipedia page, about a wide range of environmental stuff, not 'just' global warming. Absolutely horrifying and unbelievable! (For personal reasons I've been largely out of the news loop this decade, am not in USA.) How is it that all that has been allowed to happen? People in the USA (a majority, or close to it) wanted all those changes?!

Edit: I am getting downvoted for saying that...and really don't know why. If downvoters could explain, I'll be much obliged. Thanks.

Most people have the view that the USA is a democracy. The USA is not and has not been a democracy for a long time. Majority votes do not elect a president, electoral votes do. So you can, in theory, have millions of fewer votes and still get elected. As is the case with the current president and some past presidents.

The idea of 3 branches of government, supposed to put checks and balances on the democratic system is also a ruse. The President has the executive power to do almost whatever he wants. Never in the history of USA, any president has ever been criminally prosecuted, despite a long laundry list of atrocities conducted, nationally and internationally - since its existence. Congress will often blindly side with their party's elected President to pass or block any legislation, Even if overwhelmingly majority of the people of the country wants legislation it will either not get passed - or get heavily diluted by lobbying. The revolving door between private industry and government is a huge deal and perfectly legal which results in absurd things like Oil industry executives being in charge of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA).

The Judiciary Branch is also heavily politicized and partisan. Which is truer now than at any time in its history and will often side alone party line and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

This is, of course, an overly simplified version of reality. But don't call USA Democracy, its anything but.

IMO Corporatocracy is the closes type of US political system. This has been the case for a very very long time.

Some links:







Elected by Electoral votes rather than majority votes:

Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Harrison, R.B. Hayes, and J.Q. Adams.

Adams was elected by the House after an electoral tie.

I didn't say it happens all the time.

I wrote:

> As is the case with the current president and some past presidents.

I am not sure why the downvotes. Your comment seems to simply state facts.

Check out www.writegreen.org to help find and write a letter to your elected officials.

Any time you spend money , you generate green house gases so I fail too see how this bill can mitigate green house gas production.

As much as I want to believe climate change can mitigated by individuals making conscientious decisions, it seems as naive as telling someone in 1970 that if they care about the smog then they can just buy a catalytic converter for their own car.

Climate change progress, like the catalytic converter, will be 1% innovation and 99% legislation. If you care about this problem please vote. Voting is arguably the most important action you can take.

No, voting is passive. Be politically active: talk to your neighbors, at your local sports club, at work and at local events on climate change. Contact your local legislators. Give options to local polluters by researching options for subsidies. Write to your congressmen and ask for the most pressing local actions.

Democracy does not start with a vote. That’s just a step in a large process.

Voting is the victory lap. Organize.

Any ideas for organizing at scale?

Read No Shortcuts [1]. But in summary, determine the group of people you want to organize (a bounded group, not "everyone"), reach out to people (face to face conversations), identify community leaders who are on board, try doing a small bit of activism, and see what percent of your target group showed up. Identify leaders who got people to show up, and look for different leaders where they didn't work. Repeat, using any success as incentive to get more people interested in participating next time.

[1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/no-shortcuts-9780190...

If you want to be active, I just formed a non profit to fund litigation initiatives for kids and young adults to sue the government and corporate interests that are responsible for restoring their constitutional right to a freaking future. Consider donating to fund similar litigation.

I think your suggestions are exactly right for individuals. If someone's reaction is "What can/should I do?", what's the best response? Serious question. What are the more reputable resources for providing these answers?

Montreal Protocol was a success. We already have a legislative framework, starting with Kyoto Protocol. What is needed is technical alternatives that made Montreal Protocol a success, i.e. innovation.

Innovation takes time. We have little time.

Do not underrate the power off setting an example.

Setting an example is great and doing what you personally can to reduce your footprint is certainly not wrong but it’s completely and utterly wrong to focus on that and talk about it. That’s just the wrong approach.

Deniers and their ilk will talk about nothing but personal failings, not systematic approaches. That’s a rhetorical strategy they are comfortable with and where they will always be able to win (since society is currently structured in a way that makes it very hard to reduce your footprint).

People might think that them personally doing something might solve the problem, which couldn’t be further from the truth. People might think that since they did something they don’t have to do anything more.

Focusing on personal responsibility is the completely wrong approach. This needs taxes, this needs bans, this needs huge political changes. There is no alternative. There is nothing you can personally do to solve this when those things don’t happen.

Political incorrectness will follow.

Being a loser with no money and/or friends, possessions, status, whatever, will affect your ability to influence greatly.

I find a lot of activist types are afraid of wealth or status, which usually translates to them having none. Unwashed, bearded folks are an anti-example. We need well-adjusted, respectable, active, socially able members of society setting an example.

Once the cool kids go green, everyone will. Make it cool, make it have status, make it hip. Think Tesla.

The cost to mitigate global warming is much less than the cost that humanity will bear if it isn't mitigated. This is often argued as binary: 0) doing something will destroy the economy, 1) doing nothing will destroy the world. But in reality, there is quite a bit that can be done that doesn't cost that much. The innovators require the price signal. Externalities need to be internalized before the market can solve the problem at the least-cost.

For starters, lets feed the cows some seaweed.

IMO technology is very rapidly evolving which will drastically reduce emissions with very little negative trade-offs, and in fact, do so in an economically competitive fashion.

The EV cars don’t just emit nothing, they are also better cars in almost every respect. The seaweed cows don’t just not fart methane, they grow fatter for less feed. The solar power isn’t just green, it’s cheaper and safer per GWh, and makes good use of fallow land while promoting biodiversity,... etc.

Also, quality Veggie burgers have been a thing for almost a decade now. With major fast-food chain and grocery stores are offering them.

There are so many way to handle global warming issue, and yes individual contribution does matter, but the only way to move the needle in any meaningful way has to come from the top of the government and real actual meaningful policy and its implementation in a reasonable time.

That is going to be very tough to do in the majority of the world government.

Perhaps we should reduce government subsidies to beef producers and start giving them to lab meat and veggie burger producers? My biggest problem with plant-based meat & cheese analogs at this point is that they cost more. It shouldn't take too much tweaking to at least bring them to parity.

We can't, only government can and they won't Meet/farming industry is quite big and employs a lot of people not to mention the industry lobbying is strong. Going against them is political suicide.

The problem of global warming is not a technical problem or a problem that is not solvable or daunting. It's a Human problem, a combination of greed, complacency, and the daunting task of making massive lifestyle and business change all across the world to come into agreement and work together and make massive compromise.

The chances of this happening is zero.

There will be changes, and people should be lauded for their effort, but its too little too late.

Reminds me of one of my favorite scene from "The Newsroom" TV Series. Maybe a bit too drammatic, but the gist is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyULP9rk-iM

The reduction of emissions due to efficiency does not counterbalance the increase of emissions. I'll take cars as an example: today's engines are really more efficient than engines in the 60s but cars are bigger, there are more cars per persons, there are more people. EV are a solution, but their are not 0 emissions, the construction of course emit some carbon, the delivery of cars around the world too. If they are used in china they probably will be using coal electricity. Building, delivering and powering a EV for everyone that use thermal vehicle and an increasing number of people that buy a first car won't reduce the carbon footprint. The reduction of emissions won't happen without scaling back the economy and/or the population.

The logistics of feeding cows seaweed are challenging and I wonder who would pick up the tab and be willing to take on the risk. Much of the grazing areas and feed lots are between north part of Texas and Nebraska. Who collects the seaweed? Who brings it from the coast to the feed lots? How is it stored? Will veterinarians be willing to treat (and know how) cattle being fed seaweed?

Some people say they can taste the difference in beef between grass fed and corn fed. What about seaweed fed? If the beef is not as palatable, steak houses won't want to buy it.

I'm not saying that it's not something worth pursuing, but it's not a quick, simple, risk-free, or inexpensive conversion.

(edit: clarify that my response is addressing the seaweed part of parent's post)

The grandparent's post might be referring to an article¹ recently featured on HN which stated that complementing cow feed with less than 2% of a specific dried seaweed, called Asparagopsis, might decrease their methane production by 99%.

[¹] : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498

Or follow Mumbai and ban eating cows (or make it really expensive). Seriously, pivoting to chicken at scale is more straightforward and has more predictable outcomes.

Or substituting beef with pork. As pork is so much better than beef CO2-wise, I find it strange why people advocate vegetarianism or meat substitute instead of advocating beef/pork substitution.

Well, for one thing, it is much easier to get a message across if people don't mistake your actions as taking sides in someone else's major and ongoing religious conflict.

We can all do our part! Even though it is hard to actively contribute to fighting climate change every day, by becoming carbon neutral, we can grow a community to make a difference!

The average American has a carbon footprint that can be offset with a $20 per month subscription. We need more money to flow into fighting climate change!

I personally use Project Wren to offset my carbon footprint specifically through a tree planting projects!


Does ESO own any stock in this company?

>The average American has a carbon footprint that can be offset with a $20 per month subscription

You have a source on that?

The average American has a 20-ton / year carbon footprint. Offsetting 20 tons per year has a cost that ranges depending on what service you use. I've seen estimates of $6-10/ton - $20/month is $12/ton.

Edit: for the average american footprint, you can easily find the stat that the US emitted 5.268 GtCO2 in 2018. There are 327.16 million people in the US. From that I get more like 16 tons/year per person, so 20 is out of date. Of course, we have to get to zero with sequestration on top of that.

If we were thinking big picture, would this mean that the US gov't could basically spend $72 billion a year to zero out the carbon contribution of America?

Cheaper than the Iraq war....

Not really, because there's an implied capacity for offsetting carbon. That's what it costs now, but as more people participate, the cost will undoubtedly go up.

I don't think it's that straightforward. Stuff like planting trees should have the cost/ton go down over time due to scale (there's a land question but there's a _lot_ of federally owned land). A lot of other stuff could work similarly.

Mass production is a thing that brings costs down, so some of the carbon offset programs could take advantage of similar effects.

You're definitely right that some of these projects aren't infinitely scalable though. There are only so many gas stoves used in northern Uganda to be replaced..

The costs may go up as tree planting is more limited, but the more money in the ecosystem will allow new innovations to be discovered!

Offsetting carbon is not removing carbon.

For example, you could "offset" the effect of buying a daily latte on your household budget by just continuing to buy them while your partner promises to skip their own daily latte. Despite the offset, your bank balance would be lower than if you had just stopped buying them.

There is no known way to remove carbon at a scale that would make a difference and a cost people would accept. As almost all carbon from extracted fossil fuels is now in the atmosphere and ocean, it would amount to running our fossil fuel extraction in reverse.

Just looking at one of their sample projects "Clean cooking fuel for refugees"

It says

> Briquettes replace wood burning, a heavy polluting fuel source

> This initative is projected to provide 4,000 refugee households with clean briquettes, saving over 16,000 tons of emissions annually.

Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculation. 16K ton per 4K refugees means 4t per person per year. I couldn't find data on briquettes efficiency vs wood but let's be generous and say it's twice as efficient. Then the emission before the reduction would be 8t per person per year.

So they are telling me that an average Uganda refugee, from cooking alone, emits almost as much as an average Brit [0]

edit: what am I missing?


I doubt you're missing anything. "Offsetting" projects are based on hypothetical calculations of how much would be emitted without the project. This is the easiest part to fudge. And if they didn't fudge it, then people would pick cheaper projects or just not buy them at all.

What happens, for example, if refugees decide to keep using wood as well as the free briquettes? It could result in higher emissions (Jevons paradox).

Here's a comparison project by Cooling Effect, which was recommended to me by reasonable skeptical, saavy people at my work: https://www.cooleffect.org/content/project/affordable-cookst...

My guess is this is still highly optimistic, but the project claims are 50% emissions reduction from cooking, which is at least possible.

Wood is considered heavily polluting because the smoke is harmful and it’s generally undergoing incomplete combustion. It’s CO2 footprint is as you guessed a non issue.


Fund on going litigation to fight climate change and the damage it is and will do to our economy, free market, and future. There are several nonprofits leading this. One is youCAN. That’s youth climate action now. I am starting a non profit to expand on that idea and fund as much litigation and legislation as possible. Voting isn’t the only venue for citizens to protest and protect their rights.

More info? What’s your role in it?

Prediction: we'll break that record again in the next few years, then again, and again.

...and then shortly after that we may stop breaking it due to a lack of anyone to record it.


Would you please stop posting flamebait and unsubstantive comments? We've had to ask you this multiple times before.


... by 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit. I wonder what the error bars are on that number.

That’s the increase in the global average, over just three years ago!

It’s still a fair point to wonder whether that’s +0.05F +/- 0.001F or +/-0.07F

I suspect it’s more like the former, but I also wonder.

If the records were rising by 1 degree per year we would already be toast. That the increases are so small means that we'll only be toast in a century or two instead if nothing changes. modulo tipping points.

That’s not at all what I asked.

Likely the same or better than the other predictions?

And yet the highest commented post on this site as of this comment is about some schmuck who invented a "marijuana breathalyzer". The reason this shit is getting worse is we're all collectively trying to make a buck without giving a shit that the world is on fire all around us. Humanity is going to perish purely out of our own stupidity.

Can we start publicly shaming the people who are standing in the way of preserving the species? It is a matter of the long term survival of civilization. Their feelings do not matter anymore.

Shame is an unpredictable and often counterproductive motivator. Much more reliable in shaping human behavior are greed and terror. Make of that what you will.

What percentage of the earth's temperature history have we recorded?

Third paragraph:

"The findings are in line with those of European scientists at the Copernicus Climate Change Service, who said earlier this month that July was 0.07 degree Fahrenheit higher than three years ago. Copernicus, NOAA and other agencies around the world use different sets of temperature data in their calculations. NOAA’s dates to 1880."

All of it. At various granularities of measurement.

For what we would consider modern, direct methodologies, about 150 years. Think mid- to late 1800's.

So, are you saying this is the hottest July in 4.5 billion years, or that this is the hottest July in 150 years, which is 0.00003% of the earth's history? Two fairly different claims.

Not especially. A bunch of data and theories with very loose granularity. Plus, it seems temperatures were hotter today than in the past. Does this cause problems for the current claim? Why, why not?

Drill in to the links instead of dismissing them with a handwave, and you'll find what you're looking for.

For example, here's a list of known climatic forcing events:


They help us verify models, and see what sort changes one can expect when disruptions to the system happen.

To answer your specific question:


It's the rate of change that's the problem. What used to take thousands of years is now taking decades. If that doesn't seem like a big deal, think of the difference between stopping a car with normal braking action vs. crashing in to a brick wall. In both cases, the car changes its velocity by the same amount. It's the rate of change that causes the difference in trauma levels.

I thought there were events in the past like comets striking the earth that disrupted the global climate in days or perhaps even hours. Obviously, earth has more than recovered from a comet strike. It's hard to believe that what we are doing could be worse.

Of course, I'm not saying I want to be here for a comet strike! But, we shouldn't pretend it's the earth's health we are concerned about, since the earth apparently can weather much, much worse than anything we can throw at it. It is our own human civilization we are worried about. And according to the climate models I see thrown around we have a century or so of slowly creeping sea levels to avoid. That seems pretty doable given all the things we humans have done in the past couple decades alone.

>Obviously, earth has more than recovered from a comet strike. It's hard to believe that what we are doing could be worse.

Earth did, after millions of years and a mass extinction. I'd rather not have that happen to the biosphere if it is something we can control.

Some food for thought: Earth is already well on the backside of how much longer it will be able to support life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth for more details) Stopping damage now is the better option that thinking "Eh, things will recover in geologic time." Geologic time is running out.

tl;dr- Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. Solar output increases by ~1% every 110 million years. There are ~500 million years left before long-term processes make Earth a hostile place for life.

Right, so it's not earth we are concerned about, b/c earth is doomed anyways. It's human welfare we are concerned about, and that should be how the debate is framed. In what way does climate change possibly impact human welfare and what is the most practical way to address those impacts? Not a blanket 'climate change is bad so stop all CO2 production!'

The IPCC report goes in to what the actionable items are in great depth. If you're interested in what we know, and what the best steps are to do, it should be your starting point.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_s... will get you started.

Probably the hottest July since it started being called July.

I'd also be interested in having this clarified. Seem a fairly obvious thing to ask.

Does anyone have any references to philosophical discussions about whether or not global warming should be stopped?

Check out the references part of this article:


Hottest probably where they measured. This year (2019) was one with the most rain and coldest spring and summer in many years where I live.

We started joking that "winter wants to spend summer holiday with us". Romania

This is global average, not "where they measured". In particular, this is not US average.

sure it is

I live in Central Arkansas, which normally has hot summers.

It looks like July was actually a little cooler for us this year.



Yeah, Dallas has been cooler this year than pasts. But we're just two data points in the world average.

Weather is not climate. Climate change will trigger some places to be colder (at times) while overall hotter (on average). If you want to learn more, look into ocean currents, acidification and how fresh meltwater has an impact on currents / weather patterns.

Here is a good Youtube channel for reference: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtZdUYUZr493AUh_EInBYxQ

Yeah, I get that.

I was kind of hoping others might look, report how their July was. (I expect some hot European temperatures, not sure about the rest of the world.)

Wasn't that sudden low the remnants of Barry passing through? Setting that aside, the rest of the first 20 days of the month are pretty much on target for the averages. Not sure if there are any weather events that coincide with the second cooling.

These sorts of comments show just how hard understanding complex systems is.

We have to make it easy to grasp so we come up with things like “Global warming” or “climate change” for the general public. Which maybe indicates that the change is in a particular direction.

But the climate is a system that can be influenced by many factors. I think what you should be worried about is repeated unseasonal weather. Too cool may be just as bad as too hot.

The change is in a particular direction. The general public is not mistaken about that.

Somewhere in Chile someone is yelling How can it be the hottest world month ever, it’s snowing outside!

You have a sphere. How do you distribute sensors over the surface of the sphere so you can accurate measure the true average temperature of the sphere?

If you have one sensor, you can't measure an average. Add a sensor on the other size and you have a better chance of measuring an average but still a lot of room for error.

Now add 100 more. If they are evenly distribute over the surface of the sphere you're likely to get a reasonable approximation of average.

If, however, all those sensors are cluster around a single pole, then you effectively get accurate of measurement comparable to when you only had a single sensor.

With this all in mind how are the world's sensors whose data is the basis of this article arranged on Planet Earth and do we know how much that deviates from actual average temperature?

The reason I pose this because the majority of people live in places with temperatures agreeable to the human body and many of the humanities sensors will be measuring these places but won't include what's happening in all the other areas of the world that are generally outside that livable range.

Just something to think about when we talk about global averages.

This is an important point which I think should not be downvoted. You can review locations of the world's sensors using World Meteorological Organization's OSCAR system here: https://oscar.wmo.int/surface/

Note that "surface" is both land and ocean. It is used as opposed to satellite.

On the other hand, while you were thinking about global averages, how come you didn't discover WMO's database? I think it is relatively easy to discover if you try just a bit.

Odd. But NOAA's own data also confirms this July was the 65th coldest on record? [1]

Hard to make sense of what's coming out of NOAA these days...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMldKLR0Vwc

Hmm, who shall I believe the official publication from NOAA [1] that states in the title July was the hottest month? Or a reintrepretation of their data posted on YouTube by a notorious and discredited climate denier [2].

[1] https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2019-was-hottest-month-on-rec...

[2] https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/

> [2] https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/

So website that is an vitriol-ridden ad hominem attack discredits his usage of source news articles, data analysis, graphs, & logic? None of his arguments are addressed...

The first half of the video is about the US, which is completely irrelevant. After that, he points out cold areas in a map, but does no calculations. The announcement was about a global average. Then, he clips off the ocean in the land-ocean dataset, comparing it to the land dataset. They are different datasets with different methodologies which he doesn't understand or go in to. Any difference must be intentional.

Then, he goes to lower troposphere temperatures, but again this varies from the surface temperature for well known reasons.

In conclusion, he didn't make any actual "arguments" at all.

> None of his arguments are addressed...

It is so much easier to make up lies than it is to disprove them that at some point, yes, you do have to rely on people's reputation before you start investing huge effort into disproving their statements.

So yes, if you can easily show someone is a crackpot, liar or heavily motivated by a bias that is likely to make them unreliable, prove that and move on.

July is hotter than January, even though the planet is closer to the sun in January, because there is more land in the northern hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere.

There was a submission ~3 months ago regarding this phenomenon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012565

I’m certain there’s a submarine agenda behind most of these “hottest month EVAR” stories. /methinks it’d be much more productive to focus on making human society more resilient, than to focus on a single variable (“carbon”).

I followed /u/RickJWagner’s comment’s link to accuweather, and saw a story expressing concern about this year’s coming harvest [0].

Instead of focusing on immediate problems, the NY Times and others fixate on the one variable the experts have been collecting data for, and say “see this confirms the one-variable model is right!”

>> [...] Noam Chomsky has a characteristically dry and precise version of the story: “Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that’s where the light is. It has no other choice.”

>> So historians, mystics, scientists and drunks have something in common: they all tend to seek the truth where the process of seeking is easy, rather than where truth is.

- https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2016/03/the-street...

The problems of a fragile climate are always with us.

[0] https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/why-there-is-shock...

Do you have a link to a study that has better science in it than the IPCC report? Is there a such a study?

If not, maybe, just maybe, the climate scientist are right and the ever increasing CO2 is the culprit. Maybe.

Roy Spenser is funded by the Marshal Foundation which is funded by Exxon. Do you really think you're going to get credible information from an energy company, one of the biggest polluters in the world? C'mon... this is HN, not Yahoo News.

So one guy? An Intelligent Design proponent whose work is partly funded by the coal industry? Yeah, that puts a little damper on anything he's writing, doesn't it?

And this isn't even getting close to the IPCC report. It's not even in the same league. I'm not sure you even know what the IPCC is, who is involved and what its results are, am I right?

I'm beginning to see HN's gimmick of greying things out as childish and annoying. Show some simple and visible unpopularity flag and leave the text alone.


What point are you trying to make?

He thinks we only started recording temperatures in January, I guess

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