Global Temperatures Over Last 24,000 Years Show Today's Warming 'Unprecedented' (phys.org) 155
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: A University of Arizona-led effort to reconstruct Earth's climate since the last ice age, about 24,000 years ago, highlights the main drivers of climate change and how far out of bounds human activity has pushed the climate system. The study, published this week in Nature, had three main findings:
1.) It verified that the main drivers of climate change since the last ice age are rising greenhouse gas concentrations and the retreat of the ice sheets.
2.) It suggests a general warming trend over the last 10,000 years, settling a decade-long debate about whether this period trended warmer or cooler in the paleoclimatology community.
3.) The magnitude and rate warming over the last 150 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes over the last 24,000 years.
There are different methods for reconstructing past temperatures. The team combined two independent datasets -- temperature data from marine sediments and computer simulations of climate -- to create a more complete picture of the past. The researchers looked at the chemical signatures of marine sediments to get information about past temperatures. Because temperature changes over time can affect the chemistry of a long-dead animal's shell, paleoclimatologists can use those measurements to estimate temperature in an area. It's not a perfect thermometer, but it's a starting point. Computer-simulated climate models, on the other hand, provide temperature information based on scientists' best understanding of the physics of the climate system, which also isn't perfect. The team decided to combine the methods to harness the strengths of each. This is called data assimilation and is also commonly used in weather forecasting. [...] Now, the team is working on using their method to investigate climate changes even farther in the past.
1.) It verified that the main drivers of climate change since the last ice age are rising greenhouse gas concentrations and the retreat of the ice sheets.
2.) It suggests a general warming trend over the last 10,000 years, settling a decade-long debate about whether this period trended warmer or cooler in the paleoclimatology community.
3.) The magnitude and rate warming over the last 150 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes over the last 24,000 years.
There are different methods for reconstructing past temperatures. The team combined two independent datasets -- temperature data from marine sediments and computer simulations of climate -- to create a more complete picture of the past. The researchers looked at the chemical signatures of marine sediments to get information about past temperatures. Because temperature changes over time can affect the chemistry of a long-dead animal's shell, paleoclimatologists can use those measurements to estimate temperature in an area. It's not a perfect thermometer, but it's a starting point. Computer-simulated climate models, on the other hand, provide temperature information based on scientists' best understanding of the physics of the climate system, which also isn't perfect. The team decided to combine the methods to harness the strengths of each. This is called data assimilation and is also commonly used in weather forecasting. [...] Now, the team is working on using their method to investigate climate changes even farther in the past.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:5, Informative)
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Obligatory XKCD (Score:5, Funny)
Umm, that chart only goes back 22,000 years. This is a full 2,000 more years longer. It's clear this this extra data is going to convince even the staunches deniers because the Pokemon extinction dates are properly aligned now! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It's really hard to believe the claim that marine sediment core + computer simulation is more accurate. Computer simulations are known to have problems, and Ice core temperatures look different [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed you conveniently ignored the pokemon extinction date issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I guess we'd better hurry up and go fully nuclear.
Those two things are literally mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory XKCD (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I guess we'd better hurry up and go fully nuclear.
yes
Nah, instead let's just preen, pat ourselves on the back, seek political and social advantage, call people "deniers"
If you hate being called denialist or denial apologist, either grow a fucking thicker skin or stop being an idiot denier.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Battery backup, Flywheels... They are a lot of clean alternatives to Nuclear, which doesn't need a mega government to manage, because it will need to be managed for centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Battery backup, Flywheels... They are a lot of clean alternatives to Nuclear, which doesn't need a mega government to manage, because it will need to be managed for centuries.
"Battery backup" and "flywheels" aren't power-generation technologies. They are power storage.
Hydro is great, but its reservoirs can do huge environmental damage, and it can be negatively affected by climate change. The dramatically lowered water levels at the Hoover Dam mean power output may soon be c
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear is very dirty on the long run, very expensive, slow, and very risky.
it's also economically obsolete, because it costs 2-4 times more than renewables (and that is when you don't count the obvious unsolved externalities)
Re: (Score:2)
"Battery backup" and "flywheels" aren't power-generation technologies. They are power storage.
Correct.
And you are such an idiot that you think your parent does not know that.
Nuclear is zero-carbon and has none of these issues.
As you have outed yourself as an complete idiot already, who do you think is believing such a nonsense claim?
Where does the fuel come from? Strip mine in Australia. How much CO2 does that produce? Left as an exercise for the reader.
What happens with the fuel? Needs to be refined. Depen
Re: (Score:2)
There are reasonable objections to fission fuels, but you aren't listing them. Nuclear *can* be negative on carbon, and it doesn't have the particular detrimental feature implied by the GP. It's got others. They are, in principle, manageable. We need to learn how to manage them.
In particular, the wasts from the fission plants need to be reprocessed into things that are useful rather than just stored on-site until there's an accident. The easiest would be to melt them into glass bricks and use them for
Re: (Score:2)
So we should leave the free market decide for which energy to use ?
Guess which energy will prevail ? That's right, fossil.
Government intervention is needed if we\re about to do something about climate change and nuclear energy is part of the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
The free market would decide to go with green/nuke energy, if the negative externalities of fossil fuels were taken into account. That is, fossil fuels are only cheap because there isn't a price associated with the pollution they cause (not only CO2, b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it they're generating such massive tax revenue why do they need subsidies?
Re: (Score:3)
You are aware of the massive tax revenues that are generated by fossil fuels, specifically gasoline, right?
They are infinitesimal compared to the subsidy represented by being permitted to ignore externalities. We literally cannot currently clean up the mess, and it is ushering in the destruction of our life support system (the biosphere) so the cost is arguably infinite by any reasonable measurement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well lets see
Direct subsidies
Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction
Percentage Depletion
Credit for Clean Coal Investment
Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit
Re: (Score:2)
Goddam it slashdot. Give us an edit button.
Sure, I'll bite. (Score:3)
are they unique to fossil fuels or common across all businesses?
"Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction"
IDCs are the costs related to developing a well that are not part of the final operating well. They don't generate an asset with salvageable value. They are purely expenditures. This type of deduction is extremely common across many industries, and is not specific to the fossil fuels industry.
"Percentage Depletion"
Applied to many industries involved in resource extraction, including all sorts of non-fossil
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not aware of these 'subsidies' - are they unique to fossil fuels or common across all businesses? Please briefly enumerate a few of the major subsidies unique to fossil fuels.
You are aware of the massive tax revenues that are generated by fossil fuels, specifically gasoline, right?
Congratulations. Now you're aware [eesi.org] of the subsidies fossil fuel companies receive [forbes.com]. And more is on the way [theintercept.com].
As to your question whether this is common across all businesses, yes, many private industries receive massive taxpayer funded subsidies to stay in business. If they had to compete in the free market their businesses wouldn't survive. A few examples would be Domino Sugar, J.P. Morgan, and Comcast.
However, unlike all those other industries, subsidies for renewable energy such as solar and wind generall
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Then I guess we'd better hurry up and go fully nuclear.
Nah, instead let's just preen, pat ourselves on the back, seek political and social advantage, call people "deniers" (that's when we're being polite), and try to pass the next "infrastructure" bill.
As long as you don't subside it with taxpayer money, find free market investor willing to finance it, pay for the cleanup out of your own pocket every time one of the damn things melts down or has a catastrophic accident and volunteer to live on top of the radioactive waste dump, knock yourself out.
All I did was suggest a clear and obvious path for Nuclear to take over the energy business that is compatible with the best traditions of capitalism. Trust in the infallible invisible hand of the free market to provide private investment based on the obviously superior business case for Nuclear energy. After all Nuclear energy is clearly the cheapest option on the energy market by far, no government interference at all, a path complete with Nuclear advocates living on top of the radioactive nuclear waste d
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear industry uses Inconel for anything containing radioactive steam or fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
The steel she tested (or failed to test) was used for the hull of submarines, not reactor cores.
It's a good thing that we found the only person in the whole world who could pull off such an 'elaborate scheme'...
Re: (Score:3)
Finland's Olkiluoto 3 faced multiple delays and increasing costs during construction as the wrong concrete was poured. The welders were not trained to perform the right kinds of welds. Supply issues on spares.
Expect most western nations to face similar problem that Finland has hit. Expertise in building and starting a nuclear reactor is in short supply. The most recent operational reactor in the US was built 40 years ago (1978 Shearon Harris 1).
And the current political climate and policy makers preferring
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have the wind farm in Cape Cod than California farmland. It means that people of consequence can't escape the notion their consumption habits are a bit, shall we say, problematic. The American tendency to make someone else bear the consequences of their actions is why we have a climate crisis in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
might I propose a few "art installations" of windmill-powered guillotines?
Re: (Score:2)
The steel she tested (or failed to test) was used for the hull of submarines, not reactor cores.
How are submarines powered these days?
Problem with science (Score:3)
Science deniers will not be convinced with more science.
Science supporters already knew and agreed about what this "new" science confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. The interesting question, probably the species-survival critical question, is what do we do to get the reality-deniers under control? Because clearly no amount of hard evidence will do it.
Re: (Score:2)
We remove them from any positions that allows them to take decisions that go against our own extinction. By force, if necessary. Crime against humanity, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this have been going well so far...
Re: (Score:3)
We remove them from any positions that allows them to take decisions that go against our own extinction.
Why do so many people intentionally make such erroneously dramatic statements like this? No one of any credibility is saying that climate change will cause the extinction of the human race.
When humans were essentially cavemen they didn't go extinct when the climate significantly changed during the last ice age.
Humans, still stone-age cavemen, didn't go extinct when the climate significantly changed when
Re: (Score:2)
We remove them from any positions that allows them to take decisions that go against our own extinction.
Why do so many people intentionally make such erroneously dramatic statements like this? No one of any credibility is saying that climate change will cause the extinction of the human race.
No, but it will definitely come close somewhere around 4C or so (yes, that is clear) and do you really want to risk it getting more than close?
Also, "little bump"? Are you on drugs?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they would be 100% dependent on performing that kind of accounting not on a centuries-by-centuries basis like with CO2 on earth, but on a literally daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
If humans are so stupid we can't realize that it's necessary to fully account for the externalities of industrial operations in the price of conducting them, do you really think any of the hydraulic societies we would create in space would survive?
Because they would be 100% dependent on performing that kind of accounting not on a centuries-by-centuries basis like with CO2 on earth, but on a literally daily basis.
Indeed. Humans are very far away from being able to survive without a basically (still) self-regulating environment that provides most of the basic necessities. In particular, we need to get all the idiots contained before we can even get close to that. Available evidence strongly indicates we are very far removed from that goal at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
We get the reality deniers under control when they die with the rest of us. We're certainly not going to make any of the big changes necessary fast enough to stop this train from running across that bridge that's out ahead of us. It's not profitable enough for the big earners to do so. And profit is more important than life by far to those that make bank.
Re: (Score:2)
We get the reality deniers under control when they die with the rest of us. We're certainly not going to make any of the big changes necessary fast enough to stop this train from running across that bridge that's out ahead of us. It's not profitable enough for the big earners to do so. And profit is more important than life by far to those that make bank.
Yes, probably.
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt that this is a species level threat. It may well be a civilization ending threat, though. And the collapse would be a lot more rugged than anyone is expecting, because we've *far* overstepped the natuaral carrying capacity. I'd be surprised if 1% of the population survived the first decade, and expect the population to continue to decrease for the next few centuries. But the species would survive, and possibly even remain dominant, though bears would make a real come-back. Not so sure ab
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt that this is a species level threat.
That is because you have not looked into the relevant scientific literature.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't have the entire world's economy built on consumerism in all its shapes and forms, but then also suddenly decide to flip the switch.
Everyone agrees that shit's fucked. The problem is WHAT to do about it. If the solution amounts to people losing their jobs and making the little pleasures they can barely afford even costlier, good luck finding a politician who will sell that idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Think how popular and wealthy a Scientist would be if they could find real evidence that can go under the Scientific process and Peer Review that Global Warming isn't human caused. Gas and Oil companies, Automotive, Governments who's economy is closely tied to Fossil fuel and Industrial production would make this guy a hero, as they don't need to change, and they are not the bad guy.
However the real problem isn't with the Science deniers, it is just the people who don't understand science, and try to weig
Re: Problem with science (Score:2, Insightful)
As a thought experiment, read this paragraph from the position of someone honestly looking for a definitive answer:
There are different methods for reconstructing past temperatures. The team combined two independent datasets -- temperature data from marine sediments and computer simulations of climate -- to create a more complete picture of the past.
Uh-oh, they are combining two methods? Why?
The researchers looked at the chemical signatures of marine sediments to get information about past temperatures. Because temperature changes over time can affect the chemistry of a long-dead animal's shell, paleoclimatologists can use those measurements to estimate temperature in an area. It's not a perfect thermometer, but it's a starting point.
"can affect"? " estimate"? "It's not perfect"?
Computer-simulated climate models, on the other hand, provide temperature information based on scientists' best understanding of the physics of the climate system, which also isn't perfect.
"best understanding"?
The team decided to combine the methods to harness the strengths of each.
So they combined two imperfect systems of estimating historical temperatures to somehow generate more accurate information? The best you can get by combining two imperfect estimation processes is a third imperfect estimation, not a more perfect estimation.
Re: (Score:2)
The best you can get by combining two imperfect estimation processes is a third imperfect estimation, not a more perfect estimation.
Unless the imperfections cancel each other out.
Which is the point in this case.
Instead of ranting bullshit, you simply could read the article. I would enlighten you. If I had not read it last week in German already, and I'm too lazy to think up the english translations.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a clue:
Nothing that people know is perfectly true.
So when someone claims that something is infallibly correct, they're either lying or they don't know what they're talking about.
There are some potential exceptions to this that I've identified. But it's complicated. E.g. the speed of light is not a constant. That's known. But possibly the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Except it depends on how you measure it. Or possibly how you define speed. Because an exploding star can appear in d
Re: (Score:2)
The likelihood of error in this study is a lot higher than for error in the speed of light.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're angry that climate change is real and nearly everyone agrees. Except maybe that one NASA dickhead who gets into creationism.
But wait, it's worse.. (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you look at our current energy supply distribution it's pretty clear we're not going "net zero" any time soon. https://twitter.com/Lacertko/s... [twitter.com]
We had a good run.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Although, looking at human history, I would not call this run "good".
Re: (Score:3)
I guess we peaked between the 1950's and 2000's. Too much ignorance before and after that.
The rise of the Internet allowed smart people to collaborate and expand their knowledge, but soon after it also gave a powerful voice for all the loud idiots out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like it, yes.
Unfortunately, the problem is not lack of information, the problem is people that refuse to use information. "Education for everybody" clearly does fix the problem because too people cannot be reached by it.
Re: (Score:2)
That should have been "...does not fix the problem...". My apologies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also assuming it should have been "...too many people cannot be reached...".
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming is NOT local warming. Global warming decreases the difference in tempratures between the equator and the poles, which leads to a decrease in the strength of the jet stream. This make it much more common for both hot and cold periods to lengthen. It also makes it easier for polar air masses to intrude further south. So freezing winters in Europe are more frequently to be expected with increased global warming. And cold snaps are likely to be more prolonged. Also hot snaps. And periods o
from ignorant to less ignorant (Score:2)
separating the natural geological cycles of cooling/warming from the effects of man is where I find this most interesting
as a layman, I know humans are having an impact but it's hard to get a feel for the 'how much' part; in typical human fashion, there are folks braying their own viewpoint but don't really add much except confusion
culling the opportunists who are only looking for social/political gain can be quite a trick when the topic is outside of one's purview and there is money and power to be gained
Re: (Score:2)
as a layman, I know humans are having an impact but it's hard to get a feel for the 'how much' part; in typical human fashion, there are folks braying their own viewpoint but don't really add much except confusion.
By "their own viewpoint", you can click on the article and see the data. It is not their opinion. There is data. Last 9850 years: +/- fractions of a degree. Last 150 years : +1 degree.
Re: (Score:2)
slow down and re-read
'folks braying their own viewpoint' is not a specific reference to the authors of the research, but to the general din surrounding any topic that inspires passion
this lesson in English brought to you by somebody better at it than you
and I'm better at condescension than you, too
Re: (Score:2)
'folks braying their own viewpoint' is not a specific reference to the authors of the research, but to the general din surrounding any topic that inspires passion
Again the authors provided the data. No "viewpoint" is needed.
this lesson in English brought to you by somebody better at it than you
And this is based on what data? You don't know if I have a master's in English or never completed grade school.
and I'm better at condescension than you, too
That is something you seem to be very proud in acknowledging.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, study the XKCD link carefully. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
It's an excellent non-technical summary.
Re: TLDR (Score:2)
Re: TLDR (Score:4, Informative)
And the temperature just so happened to start increasing rapidly when the industrial revolution started because æ why exactly?
Because of... [checks list]... liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
You're still doing this manually or do you already have the Excuse Rolodex App?
Re: (Score:2)
You're still doing this manually or do you already have the Excuse Rolodex App?
I tried to install it on my freedom phone then the whole thing stopped working.
Re: TLDR (Score:2)
Because the remaining ice at the poles and in glaciers tends to moderate temperature rise. It takes much more heat to melt 1 kg of ice than it does to raise the temperature of water 1ÂC. Once the ice is gone, the temperature rise will accelerate. The industrial revolution is just a coincidence.
Re: TLDR (Score:2)
What are the odds are of that?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Once the ice is gone, the temperature rise will accelerate. The industrial revolution is just a coincidence. :P
According to your logic: that does not make sense.
As there is still lots of ice
Once the ice is gone, the temperature rise will accelerate.
Yeah, but not "because the ice is gone", but because the albedo has changed.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
but because the albedo has changed
Most of the remaining ice is at higher latitudes which receive much less incident sunlight. And albedo is a much smaller factor overall. That's the way 'climate scientists' have modeled it. You can go ahead and argue with them. And I'll break out the popcorn.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
We are still in an ice age, and have been for about the last 2.5 million years. Global warming threatens to change that.
Re: (Score:2)
You drive from Maine to Florida, you car starts shooting steam from the radiator, your floor is hot to the touch, and you see flames from your behind. Not to worry, it is just hotter down south.
Re: (Score:3)
Duh everyone knows men were protecting women from dinosaurs 6000 years ago. https://i.redd.it/ei5svh8apmy7... [i.redd.it]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure: brave men did!!!
I was not that brave. Like Noah I just hid in the shed, until the meteor storm was over.
Oh, you meant that other dinosaurs ... never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda doubt it would change for the better to dig into the past ice ages. It sure doesn't get warmer...
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it got warmer, and it got colder. However it took many thousands or millions of years to get to those points, not just a century.
The problem isn't that the earth is getting warmer, it is just getting warmer too fast for our biosphere to adapt to it.
Re: (Score:2)
We get year-on-year updates from tree rings and ice cores, so for the most part we have roughly 1 year resolution for periods well into the past... at least back through the last ice age
Re: (Score:2)
I think for some periods we have "year on year" estimates a lot longer ago that that. The problem is that no one site is continueous, so there are blind spots. I wouldn't be surprised if we have some "year or year" estimates back before the dinosaurs, though it wouldn't be tree rings, but something like "depositions of algae", or "compacted leaf litter". But we won't know quite so precisely when those measurements are from.
Even with tree rings we don't have a continuous record at any one site for more th
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a really cool graph [wikipedia.org] and summary of the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, which means we're in real trouble.
Re: "unprecedented" = media's favorite word? (Score:2)
Or journalists have a limited vocabulary.
Re: (Score:3)
It gives an unbiased tone, to a bias statement.
Global temperatures over the last 24000 years show today warming to be worse than it ever has been.
Global temperatures over the last 24000 years show today warming is creating a new record of warm days.
Unless you are a stupid then what the heck are you doing on a Science and Technology themed website, Global Climate Change is a real thing, and it is caused in the most part by human pollution of CO2. However it can still lead to a lot of bias ideas.
You have the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I just don't know how to read a graph, but it actually looks like there WAS precedent around 12000 years ago. (The slope of the recent increase does look a little higher. Not by much though.) This was honestly news to me.
I still have every reason to believe the recent spike was due to human activity, but sensationalism just erodes public trust.
Re:"unprecedented" = media's favorite word? (Score:5, Funny)
(Upon further examination, I in fact did not know how to read the graph. I only just noticed that the x-axis scale changes, so the two slopes I mentioned are actually extremely different. This is in fact very unprecedented.)
Re: "unprecedented" = media's favorite word? (Score:4, Informative)
Good for you for continuing to question after posting - and taking the time to correct/amend your comment.
We could use a bit more of that here.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's also a badly drawn graph. The expansion appears to be around 6-fold? I don't see any justification for the extra detail in the last bit.
However, if I were doing it, then I think I'd have included a little delta-based graph at the bottom. The first derivative is what actually counts here. Not only do we have to eyeball it from the graph, but the slope appears reduced where the x-axis was exploded.
Re: (Score:2)
but sensationalism just erodes public trust.
What actually is "sensationalism" about publishing a simple research result?
Re: (Score:3)
It's also an artifact of the fuzzy data source they used. If they had used ice cores, the graph would have looked different [wikipedia.org].
Re:More modeling, just be aware of it (Score:5, Informative)
You really should read the link in the first comment.
Re: (Score:3)
My problem with claiming that the last hundred+ years exhibits a trend in the RATE of a change is simply that the time period is far too small to call it a trend.
What the data shows is that there was no period of 200 years where the global temperature changed as much as in the last 200 years. There are no similar sudden jumps in the historical record. As a matter of statistics, you could say that one sample point is not enough to indicate a trend, but I think we would be far too late to make a decision if we wait another 1000 years to get more definite data.
Re:More modeling, just be aware of it (Score:4, Insightful)
A 10,000 year-long warming trend aligns with the geologic record.
Except that is not true. From 9000BC until the 1800s, there was actually cooling. The last few hundred years have shown more warming than the last 10,000 years. If you bothered to read the summary, you would know that. This is simply a false statement.
My problem with claiming that the last hundred+ years exhibits a trend in the RATE of a change is simply that the time period is far too small to call it a trend. In a time series extending 24, 000 years you measure 240 years -- just 1% -- and claim you have a trend? Well, maybe yes, maybe no.
Math is math. Data is data. Let me state this in another way: I can say without doubt that more people have been killed by guns in the last 150 years than the previous 20,000 years. Are you going to argue that the last 150 years is less than 1% of the time so it is questionable?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to argue that the last 150 years is less than 1% of the time so it is questionable? /sarcasm
But it is questionable because you do not show reference data from 10,000 years ago.
Did gun violence increase more at that time? Or less? What actually was the base level, I mean, something like 1 gun crime per year? Is that statistically relevant? What is the Sigma?
I forgot to mention that I actually did not ask for a rough estimate around 10,000 years ago, but the concrete date: 27th of December 8888
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can say without doubt that more people have been killed by guns in the last 150 years than the previous 20,000 years.
What if you adjust for population?
Re: (Score:2)
GP is arguing that *mathmatically* dT/dt cannot be compared based on the limited resolution of the geological data relative to the high resolution of “recent” data. Likewise, I presume [s]he is arguing that the standard deviation of temperatures over a ~100 year window is not necessarily possible to divine from available information; this is a less reasonable assumption, as it is likely there are thousands of data points rather than just hundreds.
I’m pretty convinced that global warming i
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could simply read the article, to realize that you are wrong.
But you got told that already hundreds of times during your lifetime.
So, troll, what is your agenda? Why writing bullshit?
Re: (Score:3)
Why did they look at only 24K years?
Because this is the extent of their data. In other words, the researchers are not omnipotent.
Actual temperature curves are fairly flat.
Not according to the scientists and their hundreds, thousands of studied. I would call your statement as false.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a real problem, and that's that actual temperatures seem to be chaotic. But they aren't random, and some attractors can be defined. One clear attractor has to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are others.
Somone who claims that they are flat either has never looked at a weather curve, even for a single day, or is just lying. But if you take a short enough interval, and scale the vertical axis appropriately, you *can* make them look flat. So maybe they've only seen maliciously m
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I were surprised.