3 ms·
Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it true. You should reply with a citation proving that the rate of temperature rise is
by James001 10y ago
Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it true. You should reply with a citation proving that the rate of temperature rise is an anomaly. Cause right now you're ironically "making shit up and pretending it was truth", in your own words.
Also, noting the fact that the record only goes back 130 years is merely pointing out how little statistical significance climate models based on "the record" have.
Your post is rank with hypocrisy.
- soundwave106 10y agoLonger sets of data exist that are not global in scale. The longest is the Central England Temperature set, going back to 1659. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature Beyond that, people have attempted reconstruction from other evidence. For instance I found an attempt at a 2000 year reconstruction using tree ring data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.ht... Assuming this reconstruction and others is sound, it is apparent that there definitely is a fair bit of natural temperature variability. But the recent temperature rise in the last 50 years certainly seem like aberration, in terms of rate of change.
- dang 10y ago> Your post is rank with hypocrisy. This violates the HN guidelines, which we warned you about once already. We ban accounts that do this, so please stop doing it.