6 ms·
There were no precise instruments 120k years ago. The historical record used is a hodge podge of proxy data. Much modern temperature data was US centric. Also,
by briantakita 3y ago
There were no precise instruments 120k years ago. The historical record used is a hodge podge of proxy data. Much modern temperature data was US centric. Also, there is controversy over the placement of temperature stations (e.g. on an urban heat island, next to an airport, near exhaust vents). Factors were added to temperature modesl (there were higher apples to apples temperature readings in the 1930s). Many regions have record cold temperatures as well.
I have doubts over the OP claim. It sounds like sensationalism. Review & time will be needed to verify the claim.
- russdill 3y agoScientists and researchers in this area work very hard to not just account for heat island effect, but also a myriad of other effects. https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-r...
- explaininjs 3y ago“Scientists” aren’t a single unit. Some of them are responsible in their methodology, others get endless news coverage for their alarmism.
- polrb 3y ago[dead]
- russdill 3y agoIn this case, it's large groups of independent scientists all coming to the same conclusion on global average temperature.
- t0bia_s 3y agoMight be. But cause of rising average temperature is just hypothesis and vary among them.
- flangola7 3y agoScientists are pressured to neuter their reports, they're not being alarmist, it's the opposite.
- polrb 3y ago[dead]
- ajkjk 3y agoYou must be aware that dismissing very-overtly-obvious climate claims out of hand makes you sound very dubious, right? Super "merchants-of-doubt"y. The only way to deliver this opinion in a non-suspect way would be something like: "I'm aware that all metrics show it's the hottest month on record, and everyone is experiencing that everywhere, but <a detailed reason why for some reason your model of the world invalidates that experience that doesn't just wave your hands and dismiss all the evidence>". Like, it is obvious in the last fifty years. Your argument is "well maybe 200 years ago was hotter and we forgot". Who cares? People are worried about this because it is bad for humans, now.
- briantakita 3y agoThe climate always changes. Always has & always will. No political movement, economic paradigm, or technology will make the climate static. The geomagnetic field fluctuations, Sun, the solar system's current cosmological coordinates, cosmological effects are too big of a driver of the climate. Geologically speaking, we have just left a mini-ice age. Our efforts are better invested in adjusting to these inevitable changes.
- ajkjk 3y agoWho cares? if everyone dies and you say "well it always changes" the answer is still "...and we could have done something about it and we didn't do enough." It has no bearing if it changed in the past if we can do something about it not killing most (non-rich) people in the future. Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now. So if your goal is "definitely let's make sure we don't handle this well", then at least, if you're right, you can justify that. Pretty pointless, though, unless your goal is destruction.
- briantakita 3y ago> Who cares? if everyone dies and you say "well it always changes" the answer is still "...and we could have done something about it and we didn't do enough." I don't take a nihlist approach. I take a realistic approach. The changes will occur. What will we do about it? Go into a delusion that we can stop the change or take steps to prepare? > Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying it IS HAPPENING & nothing we do will stop it. So what are we going to do? Sacrifice to the gods to stop the inevitable? Good luck with that... I would prefer to mitigate these changes by hardening our infrastructure, utilize tech & social systems to improve quality of life, and address pollution like the toxic sludge byproduct to mine materials for your "renewable" equipment.
- esalman 3y agoScientists use tree rings, coral reefs and deep sea sediment cores to measure historical temperature from a long time ago. These methods are based on the principle that the growth and chemistry of these natural archives reflect the environmental conditions that they experienced. Tree rings show the annual variations in temperature and precipitation on land. Coral reefs show the sea surface temperature and salinity in tropical and subtropical regions. Deep sea sediment cores show the ocean circulation, productivity, and climate over millions of years. These methods are not perfect, and they have some limitations and uncertainties. Therefore, scientists need to use multiple methods and sources of data to cross-check and validate their results.
- briantakita 3y agoExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mathematical models with curated inputs & ever changing factors are not extraordinary evidence.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jhedwards 3y agoWhat I find extraordinary is that you can in good faith (which seems a little questionable tbh) say that the absolutely incredible amount of sophisticated evidence that scientists have developed in the last 100 years to repeatedly affirm that humans are dramatically altering the climate with fossil fuel use is NOT extraordinary. The technology and mathematics behind climate science are absolutely incredible and you must be numb to the world if you think otherwise.
- gigel82 3y agoWe're out of time, bud...
- anigbrowl 3y agoGish gallops are the sign of intellectual failure.