3 ms·

If the reliable granular data is 100 years or so, and the core samples are known to be lacking granular indication… how a you prove that the spikes and dips are

If the reliable granular data is 100 years or so, and the core samples are known to be lacking granular indication… how a you prove that the spikes and dips are atypical?

lesuorac 2y ago
Eh, try like 300 years at least; you can get data from 1662 to now easy from NOAA. Governments love to collect data about mundane things; you could probably get a larger archive from a country that existed prior to 1781. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  Yea, I’m not sure we can rely on 1 degree of reliable resolution for when people believe in unicorns, dragons, a geocentric universe theory, and when the Celsius scale was not when water freezes at zero and boils at 100.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    So you don't trust data from 2024; got it.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    I don’t doubt that those records lacked quality due to inconsistent measuring equipment, standards, and practices. It has nothing to do with the beliefs of people at the time, though. This was a time period in which scientists actually improved these technologies and practices, and we stand on the shoulders of that progress. They were doing the best they could with what they had. Geocentrism was also well on the way out 300 years ago. My point is mostly that people in the past did some great work, and having weird beliefs didn’t diminish that. People in the future will think we were similarly clueless for all kinds of reasons. You just do the best you can with the information and environment you’ve got.
    - anonymousiam 2y ago
      One could use the same argument to include forest fire data prior to 1960, or to include heat/drought data prior to 1979, but climate alarmists do not want to do that because it destroys their narrative.
      - steve_adams_86 2y ago
        If you read what I said again, you should notice that I’m not saying the data from 300 years ago should necessarily be used. I’m saying that the reason not to use it has nothing to do with people believing in dragons or unicorns. The part about measurements is fair (they weren’t standardized at the time), but the rest is irrelevant. The decision of whether or not to use data should be on the basis of its scientific rigour and veracity, not the scientist’s beliefs.
bee_rider 2y ago
I don’t really care to prove it, I was going off that Texan’s report of their personal experiences.
Repulsion9513 2y ago
If they look atypical for the last 100 years or so, and also look atypical from the less "granular", even-longer-term samples... then how do you prove that they're typical?
itishappy 2y ago
Does it matter if they're typical or not when plants no longer grow where they use to?

If the reliable granular data is 100 years or so, and the core samples are known to be lacking granular indication… how a you prove that the spikes and dips are atypical?

lesuorac 2y ago

Eh, try like 300 years at least; you can get data from 1662 to now easy from NOAA. Governments love to collect data about mundane things; you could probably get a larger archive from a country that existed prior to 1781. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Yea, I’m not sure we can rely on 1 degree of reliable resolution for when people believe in unicorns, dragons, a geocentric universe theory, and when the Celsius scale was not when water freezes at zero and boils at 100.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  So you don't trust data from 2024; got it.
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  I don’t doubt that those records lacked quality due to inconsistent measuring equipment, standards, and practices. It has nothing to do with the beliefs of people at the time, though. This was a time period in which scientists actually improved these technologies and practices, and we stand on the shoulders of that progress. They were doing the best they could with what they had. Geocentrism was also well on the way out 300 years ago. My point is mostly that people in the past did some great work, and having weird beliefs didn’t diminish that. People in the future will think we were similarly clueless for all kinds of reasons. You just do the best you can with the information and environment you’ve got.
  - anonymousiam 2y ago
    One could use the same argument to include forest fire data prior to 1960, or to include heat/drought data prior to 1979, but climate alarmists do not want to do that because it destroys their narrative.
    - steve_adams_86 2y ago
      If you read what I said again, you should notice that I’m not saying the data from 300 years ago should necessarily be used. I’m saying that the reason not to use it has nothing to do with people believing in dragons or unicorns. The part about measurements is fair (they weren’t standardized at the time), but the rest is irrelevant. The decision of whether or not to use data should be on the basis of its scientific rigour and veracity, not the scientist’s beliefs.

bee_rider 2y ago

I don’t really care to prove it, I was going off that Texan’s report of their personal experiences.

Repulsion9513 2y ago

If they look atypical for the last 100 years or so, and also look atypical from the less "granular", even-longer-term samples... then how do you prove that they're typical?

itishappy 2y ago

Does it matter if they're typical or not when plants no longer grow where they use to?