11–20 of 223 posts
What is magical about 1880-1910 as the implied "normal" average baseline? Why not 1600? 1400? 2500 BC?
You shouldn't care about what reference is taken. The point is that compared to any reference, the curve is increasing .
What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…
You want to read about global warming from climate scientists, as your questions are easily answered. Peer reviewers are as vicious as in any other science: the concerns you raise here would be the least of their ammunition.
What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…
You're right. However, it's hard to argue with the speed at which this warming occurs. It's never seen before if you look at all the records we have. That's what's worrying.
What is magical about 1880-1910 as the implied "normal" average baseline? Why not 1600? 1400? 2500 BC?
You shouldn't care about what reference is taken. The point is that compared to any reference, the curve is increasing .
What is magical about 1880-1910 as the implied "normal" average baseline? Why not 1600? 1400? 2500 BC?
But the other comment is right too, which baseline doesn't matter so much, so long as the choice is reasonable, and used consistently. This is because, in the end, absolute values aren't meaningful on their own, only differences between them (similar to how one always reads about global temperature anomalies, rather than global temperature).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You shouldn't care about what reference is taken. The point is that compared to any reference, the curve is increasing .
That doesn't make sense. What if the reference is 5 minutes ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You shouldn't care about what reference is taken. The point is that compared to any reference, the curve is increasing .
That doesn't make sense. What if the reference is 5 minutes ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right. However, it's hard to argue with the speed at which this warming occurs. It's never seen before if you look at all the records we have. That's what's worrying.
The sample size of our records is incredibly small when stacked against the history of the earth and all the records we're missing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right. However, it's hard to argue with the speed at which this warming occurs. It's never seen before if you look at all the records we have. That's what's worrying.
The sample size of our records is incredibly small when stacked against the history of the earth and all the records we're missing.