5 ms·

All recorded time. 200 years is a blink of an eye on planetary scale.

yequalsx 9y ago
Your comment would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that there is an abundance of evidence that the Earth is overall warming and that the climate is changing. EDIT: Do people think it's relevant to mention that recorded time is minute compared to the age of the Earth whenever a weather record is broken? Such sentiments are prevalent amongst global warming deniers.
- labster 9y ago
  GP doesn't imply anything about AGW. It's possible to have a long perspective while still recognizing that this temperature is extraordinary for the Holocene. SF probably had warmer days in the Cretaceous but there were significantly more dinosaurs. So "all time" is still wrong.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    True. But whenever things like glaciers melting, Arctic sea ice melting, etc. get brought up as evidence for global warming someone inevitably mentions that recorded time is quite small in relation to geologic time. It's a response that is useless and it's annoying to hear. It's the global warming equivalent of Godwin's Law.
    - averagewall 9y ago
      You might be seeing global warming deniers in every shadow. Sometimes people just mean what they say without a popular political motivation behind it. I agree with the GP and the title irked me too. "all-time" is OK for sports or other human inventions where we do have a record of all time, but for the Earth, it's just wrong to misuse it for sensationalism.
    - pizza 9y ago
      I think all that they are implying is that the recorded maximum of the short past is unlikely to place predictive limits on or reveal much about the potential enormity of that maximum's successor.
      - yequalsx 9y ago
        This is sufficiently well known that it doesn't need repeating every time a weather anomaly occurs. It seems to me that the post in question has come to be a rallying cry for climate change deniers. It has become coded language for a certain segment of the population.
  - vacri 9y ago
    > So "all time" is still wrong. If you're going to be that pedantic, then the full phrase is "all-time record". It's specifically referring to the record. If we don't have recorded temperatures from the cretaceous, then there's no record there to break. For more pedantry, it's also described as the record for the city of San Francisco, not the peninsula of. I'm fairly sure the city didn't exist in the cretaceous.
    - labster 9y ago
      You're not being pedantic enough. The peninsula wouldn't have been a peninsula then, if you play the San Andreas fault back far enough. But hey, the SF part of Laramidia also would have been under water.

Your comment would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that there is an abundance of evidence that the Earth is overall warming and that the climate is changing. EDIT: Do people think it's relevant to mention that recorded time is minute compared to the age of the Earth whenever a weather record is broken? Such sentiments are prevalent amongst global warming deniers.

labster 9y ago
GP doesn't imply anything about AGW. It's possible to have a long perspective while still recognizing that this temperature is extraordinary for the Holocene. SF probably had warmer days in the Cretaceous but there were significantly more dinosaurs. So "all time" is still wrong.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  True. But whenever things like glaciers melting, Arctic sea ice melting, etc. get brought up as evidence for global warming someone inevitably mentions that recorded time is quite small in relation to geologic time. It's a response that is useless and it's annoying to hear. It's the global warming equivalent of Godwin's Law.
  - averagewall 9y ago
    You might be seeing global warming deniers in every shadow. Sometimes people just mean what they say without a popular political motivation behind it. I agree with the GP and the title irked me too. "all-time" is OK for sports or other human inventions where we do have a record of all time, but for the Earth, it's just wrong to misuse it for sensationalism.
  - pizza 9y ago
    I think all that they are implying is that the recorded maximum of the short past is unlikely to place predictive limits on or reveal much about the potential enormity of that maximum's successor.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      This is sufficiently well known that it doesn't need repeating every time a weather anomaly occurs. It seems to me that the post in question has come to be a rallying cry for climate change deniers. It has become coded language for a certain segment of the population.
- vacri 9y ago
  > So "all time" is still wrong. If you're going to be that pedantic, then the full phrase is "all-time record". It's specifically referring to the record. If we don't have recorded temperatures from the cretaceous, then there's no record there to break. For more pedantry, it's also described as the record for the city of San Francisco, not the peninsula of. I'm fairly sure the city didn't exist in the cretaceous.
  - labster 9y ago
    You're not being pedantic enough. The peninsula wouldn't have been a peninsula then, if you play the San Andreas fault back far enough. But hey, the SF part of Laramidia also would have been under water.