3 ms·
[answer to a flagged comment] Not really, I think the unfortunately monickered mr assblaster makes a valid point free of bias. We are in an era of unprecedented
by olivermarks 8y ago
[answer to a flagged comment] Not really, I think the unfortunately monickered mr assblaster makes a valid point free of bias. We are in an era of unprecedented imagery and data access for the first time. We don't know if the last few years when this technology evolution happened overlaps with outlier weather events. There may well be effects from tripling the atmospheric carbon too.
- throwaway5752 8y agoThat ignores the entire body of climate researches over many decades and probably millenia of person-years of research, ice cores, glacial/polar ice cap melt, etc. It seems like a valid point, but it really isn't. edit: it really isn't. We know the current warming is without precedent in rate, and has an upper limit around the PETM (about 50 Ma). It's like someone who had never seen a car before presuming it was powered by ghosts. It maybe reasonable within their frame of reference, but it is their frame of reference that is flawed in an objective context.
- assblaster 8y agoRemember that the resolution of the data increases with time: ice cores, etc, give a resolution much less than second-by-second temperature data today. Comparing rate change from millions of years ago to today over days/weeks/months/years is impossible.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]