4 ms·

No this is 'calibrated' against other research like fossils (indicating which species were living where & when) & probably more. It's called science for a reas

No this is 'calibrated' against other research like fossils (indicating which species were living where & when) & probably more. It's called science for a reason... (not back-of-a-napkin stuff)

qsera 3mo ago
But those are unreliable as well... See, since it seems that you are convinced yourselves, can you tell me how accurately the past temperature can be assessed by using this method? I mean +/- how many degrees?
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Can you tell me any answer you'd accept?
  - qsera 3mo ago
    Accept? Why should any one "accept" anything without good reason?
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      It sounds like you wouldn't accept any answer. Why ask the question, then?
      - qsera 3mo ago
        > without good reason
        inigyou 3mo ago
        What would a good reason look like to you?
        qsera 3mo ago
        One that makes sense.
- RetroTechie 3mo ago
  > But those are unreliable as well... Can you tell me how many research papers on this specific subject you have read, before coming to that conclusion? Hint: chances are you're correct (!). Size of the error bars, timeframe(s) talked about, how data was gathered, how results were processed etc, that is what such papers are about. Educate yourself! (Wikipedia is usually a good start)
  - qsera 3mo ago
    None. It goes against my common sense. That is why I am asking what accuracy can this method give. I am asking that to people who are already seemingly convinced that the methods listed (fossil records, ice-cores) can be accurate..
    - RetroTechie 3mo ago
      Common sense?!? That applies to things you're experiencing on a daily basis. That you're intimately familiar with. Not to things occurring when your great-great-great-great... (repeat a couple 1000x) ...great-great-great-grandparents were around. Maybe you'd be so kind & at least check part of a Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructin... 10min to go from clueless to "I've read something about how this knowledge came about".
      - qsera 3mo ago
        > That applies to things you're experiencing on a daily basis. That we cannot accurately look into the past unless we explicitly record it, is something that I experience on a daily basis. Seriously, if you are so convinced, then why don't you just give me an accuracy measure and reasons to support it? I am not interested in anymore articles that does not contain an explicit accuracy claims and reasons to support the same. So please understand this. It is not that I am questioning the existence of such techniques. I am questioning their accuracy/reliability..
        3mo ago

No this is 'calibrated' against other research like fossils (indicating which species were living where & when) & probably more. It's called science for a reason... (not back-of-a-napkin stuff)

qsera 3mo ago

But those are unreliable as well... See, since it seems that you are convinced yourselves, can you tell me how accurately the past temperature can be assessed by using this method? I mean +/- how many degrees?

inigyou 3mo ago
Can you tell me any answer you'd accept?
- qsera 3mo ago
  Accept? Why should any one "accept" anything without good reason?
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    It sounds like you wouldn't accept any answer. Why ask the question, then?
    - qsera 3mo ago
      > without good reason
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        What would a good reason look like to you?
        qsera 3mo ago
        One that makes sense.
RetroTechie 3mo ago
> But those are unreliable as well... Can you tell me how many research papers on this specific subject you have read, before coming to that conclusion? Hint: chances are you're correct (!). Size of the error bars, timeframe(s) talked about, how data was gathered, how results were processed etc, that is what such papers are about. Educate yourself! (Wikipedia is usually a good start)
- qsera 3mo ago
  None. It goes against my common sense. That is why I am asking what accuracy can this method give. I am asking that to people who are already seemingly convinced that the methods listed (fossil records, ice-cores) can be accurate..
  - RetroTechie 3mo ago
    Common sense?!? That applies to things you're experiencing on a daily basis. That you're intimately familiar with. Not to things occurring when your great-great-great-great... (repeat a couple 1000x) ...great-great-great-grandparents were around. Maybe you'd be so kind & at least check part of a Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructin... 10min to go from clueless to "I've read something about how this knowledge came about".
    - qsera 3mo ago
      > That applies to things you're experiencing on a daily basis. That we cannot accurately look into the past unless we explicitly record it, is something that I experience on a daily basis. Seriously, if you are so convinced, then why don't you just give me an accuracy measure and reasons to support it? I am not interested in anymore articles that does not contain an explicit accuracy claims and reasons to support the same. So please understand this. It is not that I am questioning the existence of such techniques. I am questioning their accuracy/reliability..
      - 3mo ago