-
@Hooroo said in Climate Change Thread #3:
I liked the effect of that but the only question i have is how do they know there wasn't any spikes like we are having now? It seems to be in 500 year lots rahter than 5 year lots showing our current spike
And that is where the side against climate change pitch their tent - it is really difficult to get 100% accurate temperature records before thermometers were invented
Same way they say "WHY DID NOAA / NASA ADJUST THAT DATA! MUST ALL BE FAKED!" and there are several articles covering why that is. Basically if you want consistent temperature readings, you need to create consistent conditions. If the conditions surrounding a given weather station change, you have to account for that and look to recalibrate or relocate the weather station (e.g. it is in a rural area that gets urbanised).
Back to the historical data: They use various processes - tree rings, geological samples, historical events (where noted), and try to tie it all together. That's why you can't go year-to-year and need to put it down to millennia/centuries.
As with climate science itself, it comes down to lots of scientists agreeing with each other, which doesn't often happen if the science is dodgy.
-
I've never really got involved in the other threads, but why did everything go wrong so they had to be shut down? It's basically a debate of scientists vs semi-scientists isn't it?
Above graph is interesting, agree with @hooroo that it needs to be reduced in scope so can see intra-500 year movements.
-
> I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.
The graphic notes that itself at 16000 BCE.
-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change Thread #3:
I've never really got involved in the other threads, but why did everything go wrong so they had to be shut down? It's basically a debate of scientists vs semi-scientists isn't it?
Well, it depends how you'd define "scientist". Or "semi"
But yes.
-
@Chris-B. said in Climate Change Thread #3:
> I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.
The graphic notes that itself at 16000 BCE.
Nice! Was just fast scrolling to watch the line move
-
-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change Thread #3:
I've never really got involved in the other threads, but why did everything go wrong so they had to be shut down? It's basically a debate of scientists vs semi-scientists isn't it?
Not really. Climate change is a debate is typically (as on here) between literally every scientist on the planet who is remotely qualified saying its happening & we are the cause, and web mongs who have "read the data" saying its a lie. No one with any shred of credability is in the denial group. Literally no one. Post a denier (as Winger did repeatedly) and I can pull his credability apart with about 5 minutes on google.
In the US the same guys who say its not happening are saying the earth is 6000 years old.
Thats what happens here too. You get people posting researched articles & then a couple of posters posting a blog to refute.
Same with any conspiarcy theory - moon landings, 9/11, elivis lives
And then there is the idea that everyones ideas are equally valid. Even when they are wrong. I think its a bit of bleed from Sports. If I say Cane is far better than Savea, thats really just my (and Hansens) opinion. So saying "thats wrong! my opinion is equally valid! Ardie rules!" is indeed equally valid. But thats not the case on shit like this, but people think it is. Its an issue from society too, where we learn everyones opinion is equally valid, even when they are retards. Once again, thank you South Park for fighting that
@Chris-B. said in Climate Change Thread #3:
> I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.
The graphic notes that itself at 16000 BCE.
Yep - the key bit is "they get smootheed - but only if they are small enough or brief enough"
-
@Chris-B. said in Climate Change Thread #3:
> I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.
The graphic notes that itself at 16000 BCE.
Yep, noted, with references, showing what is possible and what is unlikely. Decent scientific rigor for a web comic!
-
@nzzp said in Climate Change Thread #3:
@TeWaio XKCD are bloody good at staying pretty rigorous.
For kids, check out the book 'thing explainer'. Uses only the 1000 most used words to explain complicated things for kids. Great fun
https://www.amazon.com/Thing-Explainer-Complicated-Stuff-Simple/dp/0544668251
link ... it's also available in nZ
-
-
@booboo said in Climate Change Thread #3:
I interesting listen. It reinforces a lot of what the other video says though. There clearly is not a consensus on the level of mans effect on climate change.
-
comments are always amusing
I know this is a couple of years old....
-
@taniwharugby While on the Antarctic - there is some good news (and we may need a bit less sunblock in NZ).
It shows that human activity does have an impact on things and that we can change our ways to help the planet (and ourselves).
-
Yeah I remember ozone layer and CFCs being the thing when I was a kid. Scientists said "Hey this shit is bad" and people said "alright we'll stop it" and now we have an outcome.
Big difference between then and now - that was a few chemicals we had to find alternatives for, that we'd not really been using for a long period of time.
Climate change is an energy system we have to remake, that we've been using for centuries.
-
@NTA Strangely the increased number / violence of storms around the world will be generating more ozone, I would assume anyway. I'm no expert. So you lose one, you win one, maybe?
Could always tell when flying around thunderstorms that there was lightning about ( the distinct smell of ozone).
Climate Change