Hacker News Reader

Comment by take_a_breath | Hacker News Reader

==I find it far easier to believe that the consistent global drop in insect populations has far more to do with deforestation and chemical disbursement rather than fractions of degrees of warming that we've seen so far.==

They did add "large-scale biodiversity losses" as part of the climate change threat. Either way, what are your personal qualifications on the subject? It shouldn't be about what's "easiest to believe", but what the data shows us. Here's some data that just came out [1]: 2019 was the second-hottest year on record, continuing a global warming trend, researchers say.

"Six of the warmest years on record occurred during the past decade"

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/15/2019-was-the-second-hottest-...

View on HN

Sure 2019 was hot. But isn’t the parent questioning whether this causes a loss in biodiversity?

> "Six of the warmest years on record occurred during the past decade"

This data is completely relative. In the midwest, the last several years have been some of the coldest on record. So while the West Coast had some of the driest and warmest weather, the midwest has seen some of the coldest:

The climate statistics are in from the National Weather Service and winter 2013-2014 will go down as one of the coldest on record in both Missouri and Illinois.

State wide temperature data showed Missouri finished the December 2013 to February 2014 period 4.6°F below normal, which is the tenth coldest on record, and coldest since 1979. Illinois saw its 9th coldest winter on record, also the coldest since 1979, with an average winter temperature 6.3° below normal. Climate records date back to 1895.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/weather/2013-14-winter-ranks-in...

> This data is completely relative.

No, it's not. These are global temperatures. 2019 was the second-hottest year on record, looked at globally.

Furthermore, locally larger weather shifts (and even unseasonably cold areas) are completely consistent with, in fact expected, for increased global temperatures. That energy has to go somewhere.

Australia had the hottest year on record in 2019 as well as breaking the hottest day on record multiple times in the same week

And it was only not the hottest because of a neutral ENSO. ENSO (the El Nino - La Nina cycle) puts a wobble on the trend. A strong El Nino year will bust the current 2016 record.

The UK Met easily predicted this year's temps to be second-highest.

This is a fallacy. "It's cold where I am" is not disproof of climate change. You can have locally-cold temperatures while global-average temperatures continue to rise.

In fact, "extreme weather patterns" are predicted by climate change scientists. Some areas will get really cold while other areas get really hot. Temperatures fluctuating wildly should be cause for concern.

> This is a fallacy. "It's cold where I am" is not disproof of climate change.

Agreed! It’s just unfortunate people just as often use “it’s hot where I am” to prove climate change. But they get a pass because they’re on the correct side.

>people

Which "people"? This is a strawman.

>they get a pass because they’re on the correct side.

You know what, if you read an Addition Table, and memorize that 2+2=4, but you don't know how to reason it out from the base principals, field and ring theory, geometry, etc? Sure you get a pass. The experts have done the math many times, and you can trust them.

If you want to tell me 2+2=5 because you found an table from an Addition Denier online? Then yeah, you're going to be ridiculed.

Not exactly "relative". The statement that 2019 was the second-hottest on record refers to global temperatures. The midwest being colder is completely worthless as a counterargument. It's like pointing out that I'm shorter than my father in response to the claim that my generation was taller than the previous generation. Sure, my statement is true, and it's superficially about the same thing. It's worthless as an actual rebuttal, though.

Though "earth's temperature" is indeed a spoken term that hides lots of complexity, let me assure you that under no scientific discussion it is understood to be "the midwest temperature".

(hopefully this will not shock my American friends)

That's not relative, that's local and non-linear. Do pay attention.

What are your personal qualifications on the subject?

I parrot the parent post's question and nobody likes it.

If you think GW is a man made disaster, then you need no qualifications.

If you don't, there aren't enough qualifications on earth for your opinion to matter.

The people quoted in the article are named and have their titles presented. We are able to research their history and expertise if we desire. An anonymous poster on the internet has neither name or qualifications. When the anonymous poster posts "they find it far easier to believe" a theory counter to an article, knowing their qualifications helps level the playing field.

If you had to choose between investing advice from a named financial expert or from me, an anonymous internet poster, you would be wise to either go with the named expert (who you could research their qualifications) or ask me for information on my expertise.

We must have read different articles.

This article has no climate scientist mentioned.

These are business people who are talking more about legislative risk and consumer trends than loss from GW related events.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com