pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 7 replies \ @kepford 1 Apr freebie \ on: World Sea and Air Temperature (how is it going 2024) charts_and_numbers
Many many times I have heard how difficult it is to determine global temperatures today. But, it is possible and I can see how it is done. Now, I have a question. How is global temperature determined all the way back to pre-modern times. Let's say the 1500s? How about even the 1800s. How reliable is this old data vs what we have today? I understand that temps can be determined by things like tree rings but how accurate is this compared to modern methods?
A common flaw with charts is the data behind them. How much trust do we need to have in the data? What is the margin of error? If the old methods are equal in reliability why are we using new methods today. Seems impossible to me that the older data is as reliable.
These are questions I rarely see let alone responses. I'm not trying to pick any fights. I'm curious.
In the charts I posted, the data is just all modern data so it is all as precise it can be, but even then they describe how they analyze the data and the strengths and limitations they have, at the bottom in the Page Overview & Data Sources https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/sst-data-noaa-high-resolution-025x025-blended-analysis-daily-sst-and-ice-oisstv2
Scientists are very careful with the data as it is their main job, otherwise it would not make sense doing any of it. They collect as much as possible and then by statistics it generates an average final good data.
For me, it is frustrating when serious work for decades is ignored and ridiculed by some people that believe in conspiracy theories. I'm not saying you are one of them. I don't know you. You are asking questions and asking is good.
One way to determine the temperature many years ago I see they use the composition inside air bubbles that exists in the ice that has not been touched since then. It is generally considered to be one of the most accurate and reliable method. The Tree rings, can indicate warmer or colder years but I don't know how accurate it is. It all sums up I guess.
reply
Thanks @quark for your thoughtful response. When I see numbers from even the 40s I'm skeptical of the accuracy compared to today. I'm not saying that means everything is great and we can continue with no concerns. Just something I think about when I hear extreme predictions.
What makes me skeptical isn't scientists. Its incentives and blind spots. I don't claim to have answers to why climate is what it is or what to do about it. It bothers me that so many are so certain about things though. This goes for both sides. I think its just a human reaction to go from one extreme to another. One thing I do know. The answer to the problem of man's abuse of our planet is not more state control over everyone's lives. Science is largely funded by the state and the state tends to see every problem as a reason for more money and more control. These are not conspiracy theories. These are observations anyone could make. Now, you can come up with many theories based on these observations just as one can come up with theories about the future based on science.
I don't pretend to know if the planet is warming up dangerously fast or what is causing it if it is happening. I suspect it is warming. I'm not convinced it is mostly caused by human activity. I'm also not sure we can do anything about it even if it is. But, I do think humans create many outcomes that could be improved and there are many solvable problems that seem largely ignored. Anyway, I've learned a lot in the last few years about permaculture and how humans can built resilient systems that improve the environments and the lives of those that live there. To me, there are a lot of positive outcomes that can be created by communities and farmers learning about permaculture and putting it into practice.
Again, thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response.
reply
thank you too :)
The answer to the problem of man's abuse of our planet is not more state control over everyone's lives. Agree. And I think we are not going in the right direction with this. I don't like that climate crisis is being used for everything now like for example as an excuse to remove privacy and freedom. drives me nuts.
I'm skeptical too in many fields. I like proofs. The nice thing about the science method is that everyone can replicate the experiment and check the data. Like the bitcoin way: Do not trust, verify. Everyone, from other governments, or independent human, could go and start collecting temperature data. In fact, I've just remembered a guy in Spain, that has been collecting independent temperature of the sea as a hobby for many years and now he is convinced about global warming and the data agrees with the general scientific consensus. so great. this is an article I've been able to find, it is in spanish but you can translate it https://www.lavanguardia.com/natural/20140303/54401950762/josep-pascual-temperaturas-agua-mar-estartit.html
what worries me is that there are many scientists that say it is already too late to react, but I still think technology can save us. Some technology to capture CO2 at large scale that has not been invented yet, or new cheap energy sources, or fusion, who knows, something should save us in the future. I want to have hope.
I'm interested in permaculture too. It is a great and lucky way to live. And I think Bitcoin is very related to permaculture too ;)
reply
reply
"technology" to save us is like "government" to save us-- It might, or geoengineering could cause cataclysmic unforeseen and unintended consequences. Still might be worth the risk, but I trust the scientists, not the governments who will ultimately decide.
But at this point I'm kinda like "fuck it, let's roll the dice"
reply
What makes me skeptical isn't scientists. Its incentives and blind spots.
I agree, and have a meta-theory for things like this: I like to know what people, and what which people, would really like to believe, because believing something else would induce terrible dissonance.
There are so many things! Nearly infinite of them, but some of the historical examples are my favorite, because people can generally agree on how ludicrous those things were now.
-
Like when European colonial powers agreed that black people were beasts, and that enslaving them was a moral good, and biblically sanctioned. This was a very convenient thing to believe for obvious reasons; and there would be huge economic advantages to believing it, or (later) costs to not believing it. (Anything about the scramble for Africa makes good background reading. I can particularly recommend this book.)
-
The lack of harms around cigarette smoking was another good one. Not sure if anyone takes the other side of that anymore.
Anyway, just like measuring tree rings, the cui bono test is one source among many, but it's one of the strongest ones, and most reliable. Or Upton Sinclair's version:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
common flaw with charts is the data behind them. How much trust do we need to have in the data?
Everything is only as good as the data. It's hard to make a blanket statement, but a lot of this is really good, at least on a relatively coarse timescale over the last hundred years and change -- regular recordings from weather stations or the heartbeat of other institutional processes.
Longer timescales you get things like growth rings in trees, oxidation of different metals, and the artifacts of other physical processes. The difficulty there is other sources of variance, I believe, but taken in concert with other things, it's compelling data.
reply