14 ms·

"Warmest on record" seems like a pretty accurate way to put it, especially with the quotes. What do you want them to write? "This decade 'warmest on record' bu

by swombat 17y ago

"Warmest on record" seems like a pretty accurate way to put it, especially with the quotes. What do you want them to write? "This decade 'warmest on record' but actually don't worry, because some people think that doesn't mean anything, so actually maybe we shouldn't publish this article at all, after all it may rub some nay-sayers the wrong way, and what kind of news organisation would we be if we ever published news that not everyone agrees with 100%"?

ErrantX 17y ago
"160 years" tells you a lot more than the current title: for example it tells us that the data is probably a bit useless for making any kind of prophecy about how bad the climate is :) 160 years isn't even a 10th of the time humanity has hung around for (in a "civilised" form). It doesn't even register beyond that :) I know it is an accurate statement and for people like us who know the limitations it's not too bad. The problem is titles like this are deliberately used to try and cover up the limitations of the data. It's an interim step for some official to claim "this is the warmest decade since records began, panic everyone". Joe public has no idea of why the limitations are important and how this then forms a small part of the larger puzzle.
- skorgu 17y ago
  The problem is titles like this are deliberately used to try and cover up the limitations of the data. Please try to assume incompetence before malice. Headline writers optimize for punch not completeness.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Sorry the emphasis was wrong: I don't mean the headline writer (though potentially it was written to sell the story ;)) but others who pick up the story.
- mdemare 17y ago
  Agreed, there are only 16 decades on record, so even if the average global temperature variation was random, there would be a 6.25% chance that the current decade is the warmest one.
  - jaiwithani 17y ago
    Yes, but - http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46880000/gif/_46880316_glob_ave_temp2_466gr.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46880000/gif/_46880316... We're warmer by a good margin, and the variation shows an extremely strong chronological correlation. Also note that the last few decades have been so warm (and affected the mean so much) that every decade prior to 1980 is now considered "below average". Decade-by-decade shows a clear trend, although the skeptical may not be satisfied with AGW as an explanation. Regardless, random variance isn't sufficient explanation.
  - swombat 17y ago
    Here's some further data, based on indirect evidence rather than recording: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temper... As you can see on the graphs, the last decade is still the hottest.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      without wanting to labor a point (and that does cover a big portion of human civilisation, I agree) that is still far short of anything I would call "long scale". I do think we need more work to push it back at least to 10,000 years if possible (particularly because it is important to see the effect of NO organised civilization in comparison)
      - swombat 17y ago
        Truth (or at least data) comes to those who seek. A short google later: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palae... It's worth pointing out that if you go too far back in the past, the data is actually meaningless. 5 billion years ago, when it was still being formed, I'm sure the Earth was a lot hotter than it is now - but that doesn't mean we wanna go back there. The real questions are: 1) Is the climate changing? (very probably) 2) Could the changes cause great disruption, war, famine, loss of life, etc? (probably) 3) Is that climate change induced by us? (maybe, or "probably" depending on who you listen to) 4) Can we do something about it?
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
The actual article is pretty good. I just think the title in particular, probably due to headline length restrictions, draws a fairly arbitrary line between on record and not. We know what the temperature was like before 160 years ago from lots of different sources. Indeed that's a big bit of climate science right there. To act as if there's a big discontinuity between those and recorded temps is a bit simplistic. After all those man-made measurements can be off for a million different reasons too, so you still need to do some science to e.g. average them and throw out crazy outliers because of malfunctions.

by swombat 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

"160 years" tells you a lot more than the current title: for example it tells us that the data is probably a bit useless for making any kind of prophecy about how bad the climate is :) 160 years isn't even a 10th of the time humanity has hung around for (in a "civilised" form). It doesn't even register beyond that :) I know it is an accurate statement and for people like us who know the limitations it's not too bad. The problem is titles like this are deliberately used to try and cover up the limitations of the data. It's an interim step for some official to claim "this is the warmest decade since records began, panic everyone". Joe public has no idea of why the limitations are important and how this then forms a small part of the larger puzzle.

skorgu 17y ago
The problem is titles like this are deliberately used to try and cover up the limitations of the data. Please try to assume incompetence before malice. Headline writers optimize for punch not completeness.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Sorry the emphasis was wrong: I don't mean the headline writer (though potentially it was written to sell the story ;)) but others who pick up the story.
mdemare 17y ago
Agreed, there are only 16 decades on record, so even if the average global temperature variation was random, there would be a 6.25% chance that the current decade is the warmest one.
- jaiwithani 17y ago
  Yes, but - http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46880000/gif/_46880316_glob_ave_temp2_466gr.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46880000/gif/_46880316... We're warmer by a good margin, and the variation shows an extremely strong chronological correlation. Also note that the last few decades have been so warm (and affected the mean so much) that every decade prior to 1980 is now considered "below average". Decade-by-decade shows a clear trend, although the skeptical may not be satisfied with AGW as an explanation. Regardless, random variance isn't sufficient explanation.
- swombat 17y ago
  Here's some further data, based on indirect evidence rather than recording: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temper... As you can see on the graphs, the last decade is still the hottest.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    without wanting to labor a point (and that does cover a big portion of human civilisation, I agree) that is still far short of anything I would call "long scale". I do think we need more work to push it back at least to 10,000 years if possible (particularly because it is important to see the effect of NO organised civilization in comparison)
    - swombat 17y ago
      Truth (or at least data) comes to those who seek. A short google later: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palae... It's worth pointing out that if you go too far back in the past, the data is actually meaningless. 5 billion years ago, when it was still being formed, I'm sure the Earth was a lot hotter than it is now - but that doesn't mean we wanna go back there. The real questions are: 1) Is the climate changing? (very probably) 2) Could the changes cause great disruption, war, famine, loss of life, etc? (probably) 3) Is that climate change induced by us? (maybe, or "probably" depending on who you listen to) 4) Can we do something about it?

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

The actual article is pretty good. I just think the title in particular, probably due to headline length restrictions, draws a fairly arbitrary line between on record and not. We know what the temperature was like before 160 years ago from lots of different sources. Indeed that's a big bit of climate science right there. To act as if there's a big discontinuity between those and recorded temps is a bit simplistic. After all those man-made measurements can be off for a million different reasons too, so you still need to do some science to e.g. average them and throw out crazy outliers because of malfunctions.