3 ms·
". . . in 137 years of recordkeeping."
by malchow 9y ago
". . . in 137 years of recordkeeping."
- jefurii 9y agoClimate information is also written in the rings of trees, which in the case of giant sequoias goes back several thousand years. It's also there in the geological record in the form of layers in sedimentary rocks.
- rednerrus 9y agoAre the records from trees included in this article?
- triangleman 9y ago1) It's not clear how to derive a signal from that evidence. Is a thicker tree ring evidence of a hotter, wetter climate, or a "happy medium" temperature? 2) Such a record of tree rings, if it could produce any temperature signal whatsoever, would be a relative signal: Each year would be calculated in relation to other years on the same timeline for the same tree. How you could map that signal to modern temperature observations in any meaningful way? Personally if you're talking about a global temperature estimate, I would only trust the gold standard: Satellite observations starting in 1978.
- Daishiman 9y agoIf you're going to say this idiotic line, at the very least take 5 minutes to read Wikipedia on the topic.
- malchow 9y agoNothing is "idiotic" about it. Any time a headline contains the word "record," it's probably nice to know which (among many) data series is being talked about.
- Daishiman 9y agoIt absolutely is. You're ignoring the dozens of other independent records of ice core data, tree rings, visual records of glaciation, and multiple independent data sets. Your pedantism is contributing nothing to this conversation.
- jjtheblunt 9y agototally apolitical here, I thought the same. Archaeologists are often studying bronze age and later sites off mediterranean shores in 10 meters of water...which used to be shoreline, so the sea has risen in a few thousand years more than current doomsayers are discussing. because, you know, yay politics, whatever the science and data happen to be.