Since spring of 2023, the world has been warmer than climate models anticipated | Hacker News Reader

Since spring of 2023, the world has been warmer than climate models anticipated

e360.yale.edu

68 pointsorcul113 comments

I opened this article hoping it would mention the point about the rules concerning reduced sulfur content of the fuel used in super tanker marine shipping, and it didn't disappoint:

"A lot of people have looked at the impact of the marine shipping regulation change. If you take that and you put it into some climate model and you estimate the temperature change, right now you’d expect about 0.05 of a degree, 0.08 of a degree [of warming per year], and then building over a decade to about 0.1 degree. So that seems like it helps, but it doesn’t seem like it’s sufficient."

There was a recent article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-c...

Seems like the models have quite a few holes. It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.

Do you mean "a full model so that you can analyze it with fluid dynamics, differential equations, and thermodynamics", or do you mean "a pre made Gish Gallop that you can rattle off without having to actually think about any of them"?

Don’t be anti-intellectual by default

The "models are wrong" climate change deniers basically mean that the prior likelihood of someone on the internet being genuinely interested in understanding and improving the models is below 1%.

Something in-between a macro-economic model and a physical simulation.

That doesn't surprise me. Yes, would be interesting to see those assumptions, but I guess the issue (as in most modelling of complex systems) is that as you relax the assumptions, the models become intractable.

There are families of models that focus on different things, each family with a number of members that have differing paremeter weightingss, etc.

Yes, there are big overviews of the models and how they differ - the IPCC look at the over|under predictions of all the models and look at the spread and assumptions to select a "most probable" middle ground prediction for climate going forward.

For example while the current year has been warmer than expected it's also been cooler than a number of worst case scenarios that assume faster methane releases and water vapor increases, etc.

I had a goto link for a good overview .. currently it's redirecting to:

    The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is working on our digital Special Collections and the connection with OSTI. This includes all LLNL produced Technical Reports, Theses & Dissertations, and eSholarship content. We are working at making these available through OSTI. We apologize for the interruption in service.

> It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.

Yes, they did, it's called an "ensemble model" when multiple models are collated to account for their different modelings.

A friend of mine did his physics PhD on cloud formation at a molecular level exactly to tackle the issue some models had to account for that over longer time scales, most of the holes you can think of from the top of your head have been considered, there are many thousands of very smart people working on these models for the past 30-40 years.

Worth remembering that even IPCC itself has models which predict way higher temperatures by 2100 than goes into IPCC reports. We have just decided to collectively ignore them.

We are collectively in full on denial about the consequences of climate change. Only directly accountable organizations like militaries and insurers are actually acting on the data. People are still buying cheap stuff from overseas, traveling and generally spending energy like there's no tomorrow. We will only see real changes in behavior and policy once coastal flooding in major metropolises becomes a reality a few decades down the line.

Why do people keep bringing up coastal flooding? Its one of the smallest and least concerning climate change effects.

The 10cm sea level rise over the next few decades isnt very relevant and the speculation about increased storms is highly location dependent and low confidence.

Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.

Its also very degrowth to conflate energy use with CO2 emissions. Many types of energy use are time flexible (or, like AC, focused on sunny days) and thus can use solar power.

> Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.

Temperature and co2 increases are beneficial to plant growth. What is the problematic aspect you are referring to?

Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.

I find it hard to reconcile that the entire world is going to be going through cycles of drought and flooding over and over due to a moderate increase in temperature and co2. Where in earth's history is the basis for this? We have had far higher temperature and co2 levels during periods of great animal and plant growth.

Previous temperature changes occurred over millennia, not a century and a half.

Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.

So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity?

> Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.

I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...

> So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity?

Not what I said. You argued it has been hotter before and it wasn't a problem. I had to explain to you that temperatures haven't changed this fast before, which is a strong argument for the antrhopogenic nature of the current change. It also illustrates the danger of the current phase, since the thriving ecosystems of millions of years ago didn't have to deal with such sudden change.

> I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...

Don't conflate narrow global conditions with narrow set of landscapes. The holocene has been remarkably stable in terms of climate and civilization thrived due to this stability.

You're clearly arguing in bad faith and I feel no need to engage further

> So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity?

Only in the sense that it's not the fall that kills you, it's the rapid deceleration at the end.

Evolutionary time (for us and our crops) is much longer than the "approximately one human lifetime" in which it will have become necessary to have adapted substantially. Genetic modification for humans and crops might work if you don't care about the entire rest of the ecosystem.

Ice core measurements go back 800,000 years, which is longer than humans have been human (about 300k). In all that time, up to the industrial revolution, CO2 only varied been about 170 and 300 ppm, its now about 420 ppm and rising so fast it's a vertical line on any graph that shows all the ice core data and is less than 8000 pixels wide.

Figure 5, primary production spacial map and graph of temperature and precipitation vs output.

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2725/2020/

"Where you can physically reside" != "the foundational input into your civilisation".

You may think your food comes from the supermarket, but that's just a convenient abstraction because the foundation has not been broken.

> So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity?

Pretty much. If it was happening over a 100k year timescale nobody would care except the geologists.

Well with more CO2 you have more convection, the higher atmosphere is actually cooling because of the nice CO2 blanket that keeps heat trapped lower. (Which by the way prooves that it's not the sun's natural variability that's the cause, otherwise the higher atmosphere would also get warmer) This temperature differential between low and high atmosphere then means more convection, more evaporation, more movement of air and water. Look just read up on this ok, it's not that hard.

Extreme rain, extreme drought. And that degree rise is on average it's going to be much worse in some place.

Just look at the production if coffee recently, its a catastrophe.

Sure there will be localized events, but on average, rising temperature and co2 will improve farming world-wide. Hence:

For the 2024-25 financial year, India has exported 2.2 lakh tonnes of coffee, up from 1.91 lakh tonnes in the same period last year, showcasing a 15 percent increase.

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/money/indian-coffee-exp...

What so you got one data point, this is your model? Just please read the IPCC reports, you will find nice maps.

Have a link?

https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/

I find quite interesting the consequence this failing coffee crops reality brought to us: the rise in aromated coffees. Caramel coffee, tiramisu coffee, dark chocolate with cherries coffee, anything works if it can salvage an otherwise bad crop.

PS coffee like many other plants can't be farmed "just 100km higher up" or something. There may be easier solutions for some crops, but the reality is, the climate is not simply shifting a few kilometers up, but just changes completely so finding another suitable spot - geographically politically and all, is a real challenge.

...that is not how any of that works, to the point that it's literally a coal-mining company talking point I remember from like, the 2000s (from a video made in the 90s).

Which should be trivially resolved by examining whether a temperate region undergoing a drought is "benefiting from increased temperatures".

Because it will remove plenty of land https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z and displace plenty of people

Building dams and dykes is not new engineering. Maybe the scale of covering enough of the shore lines with them will be challenging, but it will probably be less disruptive than having to displace the 190M people the abstract cites.

Don't forget food.

Eating so much meat, especially beef is devastating on the environment.

A single hamburger pollutes like driving an SUV for 50 miles.

For some reason the food industry catches very little attention despite the gigantic impact.

Not collectively ignore them but there was an assumption that "hot models" were more wrong a priori, evidence is emerging that perhaps hot models weren't so wrong after all but we collectively don't know yet.

Climate scientists also try to paddle a bit the doomerism because the worst predictions make normal laypeople tune off (as is evident on a lot of comments on HN about it), ignoring those hot models was also a PR move to not make the general public become disinterested or detached since the outcomes might be much worse than they heard before.

I have quite a few friends doing their PhD in different areas of climate science here in Stockholm, all of them are much more pessimistic than the general public, they also think that bringing this sentiment out will make things worse, in their opinion it's good to give people hope.

Not only the climate is warmer than models anticipated, we're doing worse to prevent it than pessimistic expectations.

Not only that, we're approaching a massive tipping point in just a couple of weeks. Some of the "poser pontificators" claim to be concerned about the climate, yet they're not even sure they will vote.

If you have relatives in college in MI, WI, PA, NC, GA, NV or AZ who are concerned about the climate, get them to shake off the stupor.

I mean, I'm not even sure which way I'd vote for climate. Here's one take: "Things are clearly out of control. We need climate mitigations that can be done unilaterally. One promising and surprisingly-feasible approach is a sun-synchronous solar-shade swarm.[1] That needs very cheap and frequent launches to be feasible. The only option is SpaceX/Starship. Politically, to get that going as soon as possible, it may be beneficial to have a weaker FAA. Hence probably Trump."

If you think the "business-as-usual" climate mitigations will be insufficient, it may be worthwhile to go for high-variance approaches that leave humanity better able to react relatively quickly to unexpectedly large warming.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_sol...

That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax. Why not just steer an asteroid onto Earth. The sooner it gets obliterated, the sooner life can reemerge. /s

> That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax.

The thing is, I agree with you, but I don't think that's actually that convincing an argument. Trump isn't going to personally reverse the ongoing exit from fossil fuels. Green energy might go faster or slower, but that doesn't necessarily matter in terms of preventing very bad outcomes. I think the high-concept paths to mitigation are a lot easier to delay than the "business as usual" eco trend.

> Trump isn't going to personally reverse the ongoing exit from fossil fuels.

No, he actually would [1][2][3][4]. And that's without even counting Putin. When they tell you who they are, believe them.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/trump-paris-climate...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/uaw-chief-slams-trump-over-...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-07-19/trump-pledg...

[4] https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-r...

I think the primary trend isn't based on the agreement but on the economic reality that solar panels are cheap and still getting cheaper. You can speed it up or slow it down, but it's not reversible at this point. You might have four years of slowboating, but that only matters if we're on the edge of disaster. If we're already committed to disaster, to the extent that we need radical interventions to plausibly achieve success, whether you slowboat the trend doesn't matter.

You continue to claim that not voting or that voting for Hannibal Lecter is OK in that it's really some sort of a moonshot. After all you agree with me, right?

You do realize of course that if someone just wanted to get Hannibal Lecter elected, they would be making claims like these to suppress his opponent's vote?

I think there's a positive argument for voting for Hannibal Lecter. I don't think there's ever a non-lazy argument for not voting.

Either one candidate is better or the other. Make up your mind and do your duty.

And yeah, sure. I'm not sure why that's relevant though. The argument either holds or it doesn't.

Of course it doesn't. The point is whether it's enough to sway any voters anyway. To keep them from helping the planet by preventing the biggest preventable catastrophe this century, in a couple of weeks.

Or otherwise to damn humanity to millions of deaths that would have been preventable.

SpaceX doesn’t need a weaker FAA to keep launching very frequently, they’re already doing that.

A bit faster approvals for Starship, sure. They’re getting it done.

Unfortunately the passage of time has shown that lesser-evils "vote blue no matter hoo" is not even close to sufficient in addressing this crisis. Capital interests are to blame, and in the US, we have two political parties entirely controlled by capital. Other countries aren't much different.

https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to...

You do realize of course that this is exactly the claim that someone who wanted to get the worst candidate in the history of the presidency (by a few orders of magnitude) elected would make?

Dems propped up Trump using their Pied Piper strategy coupled with Hillary's lousy campaigning "efforts." They dug their own grave, and it doesn't matter to the revolving doors of the machine in the grand scheme, since back to my original point, we have two parties of capital. Democracy is illusory.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-h...

OK tovarich, my regards to Vladimir.

Laughs in Chinese

You do realize that this is exactly the kind of feedback that people who are tired of the 'vote blue no matter who' refrain have been giving for years, that has been ignored.

Like the people who are getting voted for need to actually turn around and justify the vote we're making for them. And they've been failing to do that, and pointing to the thing that is clearly worse as a reason why they don't have to do better.

Like I said for the other message, this just reads like a cheap trick to suppress the vote that can help address climate change.

If it was 2008 or 2012, maybe. It would have been stupid just the same, but McCain or Romney might not have been a death spell.

This time around, 95% of messages like this are from Trump/Putin/whatever trolls trying to get their guy in, to hell with the climate. If that's not you, apologies, but good luck convincing people you're just being misguided rather than disingenuous.

Except this has been the rhetoric of the Democratic party since 2008. And people are tired of it.

This is not 'gaslighting from a republican troll'. This is legitimate criticism from someone who has been holding their nose and 'voting blue no matter who', for the past 4 election cycles, and wants the Democratic party to wake up and not take their voters for granted. Cause every single time they do this, they have been alienating their voters, and making races that should be slam dunks into 'close calls'.

DJT shouldn't have 'toss up' odds, but Democrats won't grow a pair and deal with him like the felon he is. Instead they keep putting it back to the voters and doing the bare minimum to try and make themselves "slightly better than the worst people on earth"

I want real options, but that doesn't happen until democrats can actually make the legitimate policy changes they've been half-assing for the last 30 years.

You're basically saying "there must be a third button here somewhere." The third button is in the primaries.

Right now you're just courting the self-destruction button. You're doing so on behalf of the self-destruction team, whether you're aware of it or not.

Misguided and disingenuous look the same and have the same effect.

The argument, is that sometimes you need things to break before you can build something new in their place. I have considered it, and determined I don't want things to break that badly.

And again, I'm not courting the self-destruction button. I'm giving you feedback on why this message is losing its efficacy, and you're ignoring that feedback. This is your wake up call that people are tired of the race to the bottom. Give me a convincing reason to vote for you. Not just a convincing reason to vote against the other side.

Democratic primaries are hella corrupt. Which is why they're not a valid 3rd button. See Pelosi pushing against people getting primaried, only to primary the more progressive wing of the party.

The other people on the boat don't have a duty to cater to you. You can't just threaten to sink it if the primaries don't go your way. If you fail to find allies and fix the primaries, you still have a duty to keep the boat (ie. planet Earth) afloat.

Making sinking threats is just what the Martians want. And you still haven't even proven you're not just a Martian in disguise.

You're a needy crewmate. If I didn't think you were too sincere to be believed as anything else I'd guess you'd found the most effective way to scare people off from voting for Democrats. How do I know you're not a troll? I don't care if you think I'm a troll. I'm definitely just like 10x further to the left than you, and you're so bought into the party line, that you think I both "HAVE TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC" and I can't want things from my elected representatives.

I'm sure you're converting hundreds and thousands with your philosophy of "you have to vote my way or the world will end" and "don't complain about the things you don't like to the elected officials or we might not win."

If Democrats want to have a guaranteed progressive vote, they should make good on some of their promises to the progressive wing of the party. Progressives are more reliably democratic than anyone else, and yet we take the most shit from assholes like you who think that criticism == voting for the other party.

There will be two events than may sway the skeptics. The first one will be an extended heat wave exceeding heat index temperatures of 55C (35C at 80% humidity) resulting in massive casualties, probably somewhere in a humid climate with an overloaded electrical grid and/or poor access to AC. The second one will be when the skeptics themselves die.

Needless to say, I am not very optimistic about getting climate change under control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_index#Table_of_values

We all live in the same planet, the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share. For far to long certain countries have taken up much more of their share. To such a point that our whole carbon budget has been used in a single or two generations. Now is the time for those better of to contribute their fair share in solving this mess.

yeah well.. the world will literally burn before that

"the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share"

That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

How do you to find equal?

Who implements the counting and penalties for someone taking more or less than their Fair share?

Is there anybody who is going to be left out of "we"?

I could go on...

What do you think sounds reasonable?

With the vast amount of money and power involved with any approach, I don't think there is a reasonable solution that is feasible.

which countries? china, the west?

more importantly, we should stop pointing fingers and act within our reach!

    > the most reasonable way to
    > share this is that we get an
    > equal share. For far to long
    > certain countries have taken
    > up much more of their share.

As someone from a country where people commonly lived in mud huts well into the 20th century, and which wasn't considered developed until 1975:

Yes, we sure got the raw end of that deal by having more developed countries spearhead technological development.

I'd much rather be doing sustainance farming today, rather than taking my chances with the IPCC's estimate of climate change depressing world GDP by 2-10% in 2100.

Yes, developed countries should be leading the way to becoming carbon neutral or negative, e.g. with nuclear, solar, etc.

But let's not make this into some mischaracterization of early industrialized countries taking something away from the rest of us. That's bullshit.

To quote Reagan:

> The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.

We need to embrace carbon-free electricity (whether its nuclear or solar or whatever) and electrify as many things as possible.

Degrowth isn't a humane solution, and it would first require the destruction of democracy as no electorate would endure it for long.

We have a finite amount of carbon left. Each year we are already exceeding our share. This in itself means that future generations have less. At the same time, some people use more than others. It's not a matter if degrowth but about sharing ressources fairly.

> We need to embrace carbon-free electricity (whether its nuclear or solar or whatever) and electrify as many things as possible.

We need to do that (and even that is proving very hard, looking at the issues building out electrified ground transport and electrifying heating) and it will help a lot, but it won't be enough.

We have quite a few sectors where (economic or even feasible) non-carbon solutions aren't very forthcoming: Especially in (animal-based) food and aviation, but also manufacturing of e.g. new steel or concrete. These account for a huge chunk of emissions and reducing their emissions close to 0 in the next 20 years doesn't seem very likely. Looking at other technologies that are currently economically viable, such as solar, wind, electric cars or LED lighting, 20 years for nearly full adoption is very optimistic.

Reducing emissions there will mean also reducing consumption (and thus production, or the other way around) of those products. If we only accept superior technology as a means to "solve" climate change, we won't.

That'll very likely not mean degrowth as a whole as many sectors of the economy, especially the growing ones, are very compatible with an "electrify-everything" approach.

> But the big uncertainty that determines whether 2100 is a happy place or a less happy place is our decisions on what we do with emissions. And they dwarf the uncertainties that we’re talking about here. We’re talking 0.1, 0.2 degrees. Well, the difference emissions make is 1 degree, 2 degrees, 3 degrees. So it’s an order of magnitude larger. And given the non-linearity of impacts, that’s a much, much larger amount of impact that we would see.

What’s staggering to me is that the climb towards 1.5 C is of course not evenly distributed across the globe. But what it does result in is some places going up as much as 15 F+ above average since 1970.

The explanation more than a single factor could be all over the place, positive feedback loops are adding their own weight to emissions and direct warming. Less ice and permafrost, more forest fires, warming waters and so on may be having by now a noticeable enough impact to explain that divergence.

Does being in an El Niño period affect the average world temperature?

Likewise, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption resulted in a large amount of water into the stratosphere. Water is far more an effective heat trap than co2. We do not know exactly how long the effects of this eruption will last.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga–Hunga_Haʻap...

It was a weaker El Niño than I.e. 2016 one. And it ended, by May, but still temperatures are far higher than what they should be. There are still record breaking months or only surpassed by 2023 ones.

It's still going to get worse, until we find a fix, a ultimate fix, but as far as i know, we haven't found it yet. It's like in the movies, until it becomes a global crisis and disaster, nobody pays attention, just scientists.

Capitalism is now trying to avoid doing the absolute minimum that we would need to do if the climate catastrophe shall be avoided. In fact I am convinced that if you had to invent a system that that optimized a societies reaction to climate annihilation in such a way that it does the bare minimum as predicted to be needed by climate models it would probably look a lot like what we have today.

The inly issue with that kind of optimization is, just like with all optimization, that by cutting out too much slack from the system you — well —don't have any slack in the system. Slack that would save the day if models are wrong or unpredicted things happen.

Governments still don't take it seriously though.

Here in Spain, we still plan to shut down our nuclear reactors (while many other countries are restarting their nuclear programmes) and at the same time the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs so the transition to electric vehicles remains unaffordable for most people.

When appeasing an ideological voter base or German shareholders remains more important than lowering emissions, we don't have much hope of making further progress.

> the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs

That was my "OK, so you're completely unserious about this" moment. Governments have been subsidizing EVs, now they're cheap enough to not require subsidy, and you're cutting them off to appease the VW liars?

VW is against import tariffs on Chinese cars as they fear repercussions (and China is an important export market to them). There are other car manufacturers in the EU which depend much more on domestic sales.

The climate emergency is just a way to make you pay more taxes and accept a worse life for you and your children than what your parents had. It shames you into accepting we are using up too much, but a select few can still eat meat and fly private jets since they can pay for all the extra taxes, meanwhile you should accept your life of sacrifice for the planet.

If we actually are in trouble the people in power can easily geo-engineer cooling the whole planet. Countries have done cloud seeding for decades, we can cool the planet if we want.

I think it’s important to point out that German car manufacturers and the German government opposed import tariffs on Chinese cars.

Fair enough, but in the end we still got the tariffs.

To think things get done in the EU without Germany's approval is a bit past naivety. Germany publicly voted no to try and delay a Chinese reprisal too fast in counter tariffs, but that's just for optics, otherwise they wouldn't have been approved.

It's incredible how one can see what happens in practice but believe what people say rather than what people do.

That’s just a conspiracy theory. You overestimate Germanys power in the EU by far, it is not 2009 anymore.

Also, German car manufacturers will not profit from these tariffs.

The biggest economy in the block votes on tariffs for foreign competitors in their largest exporting industry and surprise surprise, adding tariffs is approved, and somehow your conclusion is that they are unhappy about it.

Wasn't this a result of removing sulfur from Ocean going vessel fuels?

No.

Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either.

Both are addressed in the article along with other possibilities.

> Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either.

The article referred to the "first study" but did not mention which study that was. According to the Wikipedia article, initial thoughts were that cooling would happen, but a later study disagrees. Trust the science you agree with.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL09...

There are two components, 'regular' SO2 and HCl and 'unusual' high magnitude H2O (water vapor):

From the NASA interview linked here:

     And the first paper that came out about the volcano, they said, no, no, the normal cooling volcanic pollution is still bigger than the warming water vapor component.

From the wikipedia article you didn't link:

    One study { of this specif eruption ) estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years, although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk.

    Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres.

    More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga...

Which is contrary to the time sequence you claim.

FWiW the AGU Letter you did link was an early one (published less than six months after the event, sumitted earlier) and it's inconclusive talking about possibilities such as:

    Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor.

'may not' and 'could potentially'

Either way, according to the NASA interview neither marine fuel change, the El Nino event, nor the eruption combined are sufficient (as modelled, given their error bars) to explain the global increase observed.

According to the NASA interview linked here there are still other factors at play.

Spring time and it’s 7 degrees. Usually higher this time of year.

Weather is not climate...

It's crazy that there are still people who don't get this. "It's cold here, so there's no such thing as global warming." They forget that the other hemisphere is on fire.

What’s amazing is despite flawed science people keep believing it and insulting anyone who questions it.

Who claims that climate science is flawed? The deniers? All science has degrees of uncertainty, look at physics, biology, medicine. But even so, they provide robust results, unlike creationism, flat-earthers, etc.

All you have to do is come up with a better model. How flawed the best model is is irrelevant. We use the best model.

“What’s Causing the Recent Spike in Global Temperatures?”

They're not talking about local weather, they're talking about longer timeframe lager region moving averages.

Eg: three month moving average for a north american climatic cell rather than a local daily spring tempreture.

Autumn time and it's 15C here, it's usually getting to sub-10C to sub-5C by mid-October where I live.

Weather != climate.

Which means that in another parts of the world are warmer than it should be, not your current location, or bubble. These are global averages.

The skeptical view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

Post a couple of videos about ancient aliens inventing civilization and time travel while you're at it

You mean the deniers' view.

There may have been skeptics 20 years ago, but now no one seriously doubts it.

I don't understand how technology people make decisions to deny a problem even if there is no 100% certainty. In my company, even if there is less than a 1% chance of something going wrong, we have to think of ways to mitigate it.

Anthropogenic global warming has been proposed and modeled since the late XVIII century. The window to reasonably doubt it has been closed since at least the 1980s when Exxon put it on paper they knew about it and wanted to suppress awareness about it.

I have zero fear of global warming.

BUT if I did, the only real way to reduce energy usage is to reduce the population of earth drastically. People cannot be made to live in squalor willingly.

From the Georgia Guide stones: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

For those who are keen on math, that means we need to eliminate 7.6 billion people to return to "balance".

I mean this genuinely: why do you choose to quote and trust some unreferenced and completely arbitrary 500 million population number that some bizarre unidentified group of people with zero accountability carved into a random stone monument 45 years ago, but "have zero fear of global warming" despite the alarm bells rung by modern, rigorously studied, data- and evidence-informed scientific discourse? Why should readers of this comment give any credence whatsoever to the Georgia Guidestones?

Because the World Economic Forum has presenters like this:

WEF Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5U7R73_9xQ

You might not agree with the Guidelines but are you going to disagree with the entire World Economic Forum?

It's even in the popular zeitgeist. Like this example where Bill Maher is advocating for population collapse:

New Rule: Let the Population Collapse | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc

Thank you for sharing some sources. To refute your first one:

- Jane Goodall in this 36-second clip does NOT advocate reducing the global population down to 450 million

- Jane Goodall speaking at a 2020 WEF panel does NOT imply that the WEF endorses any part of her comments

Your comment falsely distorts her words, and falsely equates her with the entire WEF.

More details: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-jane-goodall-populatio...

First here are a few direct quotes from the UN's Agenda 21 (granted it's not the WEF but its all the same people at the top).

"Policies should be designed to address the consequences of population growth built into population momentum, while at the same time incorporating measures to bring about demographic transition."

"5.31. National population policy goals and programmes that are consistent with national environment and development plans for sustainability and in keeping with the freedom, dignity and personally held values of individuals should be established and implemented."

Second, I take some issue with the APNews article because they gloss over the main point... Jane Goodall herself does believe in population reduction. This is nothing new, she has been saying this for decades. For example she is a member of the Population Matters Group in the UK (formerly Optimum Population Trust). This group and many like it are actively advocating for governments to implement policies that will put earth's human population into decline for the express purpose of climate change. So I will defend my use of that clip because it makes the point I was trying to make. Important people in power desire to reduce the population to reduce carbon emissions.

To expand my point here are other Jane Goodall quotes from the Population Matters website:

“Educating and empowering women and girls and providing family planning information enables more people to choose the size of their families. These are the kind of positive actions governments can take, and must take if we’re to address the biodiversity loss we’re facing.”

“It’s our population growth that underlies just about every single one of the problems that we’ve inflicted on the planet. If there were just a few of us, then the nasty things we do wouldn’t really matter and Mother Nature would take care of it — but there are so many of us.”

“This organisation, Population Matters, is so very important, because this is one of the most important issues that we face today. We can’t go on like this, we can’t push human population growth under the carpet. It’s been shown all around the world that as women’s education improves, family size tends to drop. I would encourage every single conservation organisation, every single government organisation, to consider the absurdity of unlimited economic development on a planet with finite natural resources.”

“The climate crisis that now threatens life on Earth as we know it results from a combination of different human activities, including the pollution of land, air and water, our reckless burning of fossil fuels, the destruction of forests, extreme poverty, and the unsustainable life styles of so many of us. And all of this is impacted by the relentless growth of human populations and their livestock. Educating and empowering women and girls and providing family planning information enables more people to choose the size of their families. And choosing to have fewer children is one of the most important choices we can make.”

As you can see she is quite outspoken on this topic and has been for a long time. Long enough for the people at the WEF to invite her her to speak knowing her position.

Links: https://news.mongabay.com/2010/12/jane-goodall-and-david-att... https://populationmatters.org/quotes/ https://populationmatters.org/solutions/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com