91–100 of 469 posts
The mean is created using 29 years of data. Why those particular 29 years? IDK. But I tend to dismiss findings like this that don't explain why they chose a very specific dates as the baseline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That's a lot of assumptions about me based on "the important figure should be at the top of the page, not the bottom". Joe Average isn't going to want to read 14 paragraphs before getting to the actual graph the title mentions
Improving the design of that article will do absolutely nothing for its public reception.
Voicing reasonable reactions to the salient content actually helps furthering the discussion. Nitpicking does the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article is vastly superior and is the one that should be being discussed, not this.
> Turn the volume on the typical El Niño impacts up to eleven, then watch the collective infrastructure of modern industrial civilization crumble. Watch as flooding storms wash away roads and cities. Watch as trailing storms create new inland lakes, swamping farmland. Watch as fires raze forests and grasslands. Watch as heatwaves turn temperate regions into unsurvivable hellscapes. Watch as crops fail and dams burst.…
This website is making heavy use of IP range blocking. Here's an uncensored link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260713092155/https://www.lyreb... Alternatively, since the link that was posted is just an AI copyright theft site, use the original instead: https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890533
[flagged]
The result of such a collapse is a complete upheaval of global climate patterns, destroying agricultural production on a civilization-ending scale.
Generally, the actual seriousness of these things is so out of proportions for normal people, they have great difficulty appreciating it properly. Taking their hunches from public postures and stances assumed by "authority" figures on the matter doesn't help.
The mean is created using 29 years of data. Why those particular 29 years? IDK. But I tend to dismiss findings like this that don't explain why they chose a very specific dates as the baseline.
https://www.whoi.edu/science/B/people/kamaral/1982-1983ElNin...
So maybe the data starts there in order to distort it, or to balance it, or maybe we started recording data properly in that year because El Niño got alarming. Seems relevant somehow anyway.
Tend to follow climate-related news closely. But even then: eyebrows raised. Heh.. Maybe in future we'll see wars being fought not over access to fossil fuels, but over attempts to stop other countries from pumping more fossils out of the ground. "What the planet is going to experience over the next 12 months is just a preview of the movie that’s coming. Godzilla is going to return, and return, and return and return…
War is one of the biggest emitter of co2 though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes there are. Scientists compare the measurements from both methods in the time when there's data from both. For example ice cores formed last decade should match direct temperature measurements from last decade. It's the same way the oldest rings from living trees are matched against the newest rings from tree fossils, and radiocarbon dating is checked against all of that.
That does not look very reliable to me, because that implies certain things are only affected by ambient temperature. Btw, Can you tell me how ancient temperature is measured from ice cores? My lookup only says we can detect atmospheric composition, and not temperatures from the ice cores.
This is fairly 1:1 linkage, and the Earth-heating effect of atmospheric CO2 was established in what, early 20th century or so?
This website is making heavy use of IP range blocking. Here's an uncensored link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260713092155/https://www.lyreb... Alternatively, since the link that was posted is just an AI copyright theft site, use the original instead: https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890533
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of assumptions about me based on "the important figure should be at the top of the page, not the bottom". Joe Average isn't going to want to read 14 paragraphs before getting to the actual graph the title mentions
The point isn't whether it's true about you in particular, it's about the actual effect it has on the general audience. Improving the design of that article will do absolutely nothing for its public reception. Voicing reasonable reactions to the salient content actually helps furthering the discussion. Nitpicking does the opposite.