2 ms·
I said that 100 years of data is nothing in the context of billions of years - which is obviously true. You are conflating this with rate of change which is not
by osigurdson 3y ago
I said that 100 years of data is nothing in the context of billions of years - which is obviously true. You are conflating this with rate of change which is not the same thing.
- jncfhnb 3y agoHow you can say that while also saying > Because 100 years is nothing in geological time obviously. The only reason not to do it is to choose to not understand the problem as completely as possible. Which is it? Are you concerned with geologic time scale changes? Or are you just saying it would be nice to have more datapoints in which case the reference to geologic time is irrelevant. The ice levels “billions of years” ago are utterly irrelevant.
- osigurdson 3y agoIf we had daily, high fidelity data from billions of years ago until today, would this be useful in your estimation or not?