81–90 of 125 posts
I think humans are generally bad at prevention of and good at reaction to catastrophes. The next 50 years are going to be interesting... let's hope we leave the world in a manageable state for future generations.
Looking at the raw data, I wonder how accurate it is for the early days? Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? I'm not questioning the data per se, as you can tell from looking at 2000 up to today that the median is rising. I'm just a bit surprised by the accuracy in the late 19th century. I expected less.
> Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? No, not even close. You were probably lucky to get one-degree accuracy, if that. This is one of the first red flags that I noted when I started paying closer attention to climate-related stuff about 15 or 20 years ago. I did a little digging, and it turns out that there is a mathematical theorem (I forget the name of it) that al…
Looking at the raw data, I wonder how accurate it is for the early days? Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? I'm not questioning the data per se, as you can tell from looking at 2000 up to today that the median is rising. I'm just a bit surprised by the accuracy in the late 19th century. I expected less.
> Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? No, not even close. You were probably lucky to get one-degree accuracy, if that. This is one of the first red flags that I noted when I started paying closer attention to climate-related stuff about 15 or 20 years ago. I did a little digging, and it turns out that there is a mathematical theorem (I forget the name of it) that al…
You're reducing multiple known sources of error to a single one for some reason, which doesn't help here. Here's an example: my car shows 4% higher speed than the real one due to difference in expected tire diameter. Additionally it has some small dynamic error of speed measurement. In this case I can "have it both ways". I can correct for the known difference and use multiple measurements to get a higher precision speed reading.
The same thing applies to old temperature measurements if you provide good explanation of the systematic error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is that the past doesn't matter. If the current warm up is aggravated [0] by human activity, and pretty much everyone agrees it is, we should do something about it. Saying "it was warmer/colder before" makes it sound as it is a non issue. And tbh even if, and that's a big "if", pollution isn't directly linked to climate change everything reducing the air/water/food poising we're inflicting to ourselves is g…
As far as I understand there is a very big difference between reducing carbon emissions and reducing air/water/food pollution/contamination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what they've been doing! Or, perhaps more correctly, they've let their "algorithms" run amok without doing any quality control on the final results, thereby turning modest warming into "scary" warming. Whether this was intentional or not is debatable (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor ), but it certainly looked that way to me at the time. About ten years ago, after some remarkably incorr…
There is also some conflict of interest. Academics studying climate change have a big incentive to show that ACC is real - it increases their importance, potential for funding, relevancy, political power, etc. At this point, the issue is also way too political. I would love to see a group of researchers, ideally originally from a different discipline (studying complex systems, so finance perhaps?), with pro-economic-…
According to the researchers here, during the past decades the problem has been being played down by science. Predictions of effects and outcomes and especially the chosen language in publications was rather conservative. This changed during the last couple of years.
I think humans are generally bad at prevention of and good at reaction to catastrophes. The next 50 years are going to be interesting... let's hope we leave the world in a manageable state for future generations.
Not sure anything will change. We are frogs in water over a flame it seems.
Looking at the raw data, I wonder how accurate it is for the early days? Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? I'm not questioning the data per se, as you can tell from looking at 2000 up to today that the median is rising. I'm just a bit surprised by the accuracy in the late 19th century. I expected less.
> Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? No, not even close. You were probably lucky to get one-degree accuracy, if that. This is one of the first red flags that I noted when I started paying closer attention to climate-related stuff about 15 or 20 years ago. I did a little digging, and it turns out that there is a mathematical theorem (I forget the name of it) that al…
Yeah man, it's all like this big global conspiracy to um, err, what? Get people to make the air cleaner for everyone? Fund big solar's evil ways?
Looking at the raw data, I wonder how accurate it is for the early days? Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? I'm not questioning the data per se, as you can tell from looking at 2000 up to today that the median is rising. I'm just a bit surprised by the accuracy in the late 19th century. I expected less.
> Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? No, not even close. You were probably lucky to get one-degree accuracy, if that. This is one of the first red flags that I noted when I started paying closer attention to climate-related stuff about 15 or 20 years ago. I did a little digging, and it turns out that there is a mathematical theorem (I forget the name of it) that al…
But the problem is many other measurements confirm the surface temperature results. Air temps agree with ocean temps, various proxies agree with those (ice extent and mass for example, are declining as would be expected with a warming trend)
Now, does 1800s temperature data have large errors? Yes, and those are reflected in surface temperature reconstructions by large error bars.
You are not the first person to be convinced that climate data is bad, some very smart people have felt that, and got funded by the koch brothers to do it right, and they did an excellent job, but got the same answers NASA, NOAA, and other groups did:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was it possible back in 1880, to measure temperature up to the third digit in accuracy? No, not even close. You were probably lucky to get one-degree accuracy, if that. This is one of the first red flags that I noted when I started paying closer attention to climate-related stuff about 15 or 20 years ago. I did a little digging, and it turns out that there is a mathematical theorem (I forget the name of it) that al…
You provided no evidence to support your claim. Why should one believe your claim that most/all climate research like this http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ has it wrong?
Any ideas of What, WE, the individuals can do to make politician and countries change?