3 ms·

They didn't get it wrong. They did the best they could with the data they had, which they knew was sparse. "However, these estimates all use the same imperfec

They didn't get it wrong. They did the best they could with the data they had, which they knew was sparse. "However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007" You'll note here the methodology isn't the issue, but rather the dataset. They've improved the dataset. > why should I trust anything else Well, technically, you shouldn't. You can look at the data and review it yourself. The problem is, you aren't probably an expert in the field. Which means at some level, you've already put your trust in the experts at some level. Furthermore, to double down on the "they didn't get it wrong" comment: "Our result - which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 1991 - suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates." You'll note here that this they concluded the actual warming was still within the previous estimates. And considering estimates are just that, this further backs up their claim.

monochromatic 8y ago
Ok, let’s even stipulate that it’s a failure of data rather than methodology. The computerized climate models have very sensitive dependence on this kind of poorly measured data. Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined?
- jasonlotito 8y ago
  > Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined? You are begging the question here. Simply put, "that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined", isn't reflected in the article. It's something you are making up. Again, the data was within the estimation previously made. They've refined that data. A wild swing would in fact go from showing one thing to showing another thing entirely. That's how a swing works. What really happened is the predication was correct. We are now getting to see more precisely how correct. Regardless, I honestly don't believe you are being honest here, since you are asking the same question and not putting any effort into this. You are trolling. If you aren't, put forth some effort. You think you are being "smart," but the truth is, you aren't.

monochromatic 8y ago

Ok, let’s even stipulate that it’s a failure of data rather than methodology. The computerized climate models have very sensitive dependence on this kind of poorly measured data. Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined?

jasonlotito 8y ago
> Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined? You are begging the question here. Simply put, "that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined", isn't reflected in the article. It's something you are making up. Again, the data was within the estimation previously made. They've refined that data. A wild swing would in fact go from showing one thing to showing another thing entirely. That's how a swing works. What really happened is the predication was correct. We are now getting to see more precisely how correct. Regardless, I honestly don't believe you are being honest here, since you are asking the same question and not putting any effort into this. You are trolling. If you aren't, put forth some effort. You think you are being "smart," but the truth is, you aren't.