4 ms·
Here is the counter evidence: count the number of record high days and the number of record low days. For the past few decades, and increasingly so, the number
by tasty_freeze 5y ago
Here is the counter evidence: count the number of record high days and the number of record low days. For the past few decades, and increasingly so, the number of high days far outpaces the number of record low days, something your example doesn't exhibit.
- georgeplusplus 5y agoI would then say your counter evidence could be flawed if the period you chose was not sufficiently long enough. If your decades period is biased towards record high then the original evidence stands.
- alpaca128 5y agoThe temperature change in the last 100 years was larger than in the 5000 years before that. You can cherry-pick time periods however you like, you won't find another with such a drastic change in such a short timeframe.
- georgeplusplus 5y agoThe OP is about the flaw of using record highs or lows to show a rising/falling trend. Not temperature changes in general. You can indeed cherry pick decades long periods of both cooling and warming which would show a biased in the last 100 years. In the 80s, scientists thought there was Global Cooling. There was also an Ice age that shows temperatures were indeed cooler. At least understand what is being discussed before you make a response and downvote.