Hacker News Reader

Comment by mckirk | Hacker News Reader

Along these lines: I really like the 'Climate Reanalyzer' project by the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine [1]. There's so much good stuff there if you click around a bit; you can create custom plots for the surface temperature of different regions for example[2], which quickly shows you that Western Europe has actually warmed a lot more than the global average, and we're closer to +2°C already in that region.

[1]: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2 [2]: https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries...

View on HN

https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries...

What changed in 1979?

Probably just an El Nino / La Nina oscillation. Looks similar to the changes leading up to 1998 (another big El Nino), 2016 (same), and 2024.

More glibly: "the temperature"

Haha, actually the long term trend changed abruptly

I don't know but it cooencideds with the start of satellite monitoring.

Half a century of satellite remote sensing of sea-surface temperature (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003442571...

I haven't looked but there will probably be references somewhere explaining the dat sources.

> https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries...

It can also be clearly seen that the 2020 limit on the sulphur content in the fuel oil used on board ships [1] had quite the negative effects when it comes to surface sea temperatures, but I haven't that many climate (and not only) scientists taking responsibility of that act (even though related warnings had been made, I remember reading one just before the measure went in effect).

[1] https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2...

Cutting sulphur content wasn't about climate. Why would climate scientists be taking responsibility?

Blasting pollution into the air is generally a bad idea. If it becomes necessary in order to fight warming, it should be done deliberately and with due consideration, not by having a bunch of ships burning dirty fuel.

So, who decides what? What's worst? Dirtier air or a hotter climate? Who makes those decisions? On what considerations?

Those questions sum up one of the great problems of our time.

What should they say? “Turns out there’s a side effect we should put the sulfur back in diesel”?

Something like: What we scientifically thought was going to improve things has made them worst.

It didn't make them worse. It solved one problem. That made the extent of the other existing problem more apparent.

That was known and expected. We could not continue to put sulfur in the air; it causes acid rain.

The fact that we also cannot afford to put CO2 into the air is a separate problem. That goes beyond temperature: even if additional sulfur would mitigate the temperature increase, it would also make ocean acidification worse.

Scientists are saying that tho. We’re talking about those findings rn. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Scientists don’t own their mistakes?

"those three ants there ruined my picnic" ?

In general I think the sea warms slower than land, so you'd expect land everywhere to warm faster than the global average.

This March (2026) in Norway was nearly 4 K warmer than the preceding thirty year average for March, and 0.6 K warmer than the previous record set about 10 years ago.

So I could easily believe that we are already at +2 K for the year as whole.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com