3 ms·
"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 h
by 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 agoThe 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 agoSorry 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 agoAgreed, 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 agoYes, 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 agoHere'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 agowithout 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 agoTruth (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?