Yearly. They look at slices generated by compressed layers of snowfall. Thick layer = cold year. They look at more stuff but that’s roughly how it works.
edit: not sure why you’re downvoted. It’s a good question.
I don’t mean to disagree or argue, but I still think this is a delicate point.
We are moving Earth out of the climate in which humanity emerged, survived, lived and prospered.
Some point out how terrible it would be to stop using oil and coal. Which it would. But on the other hand - we survived 200’000 years without oil and coal, but we never had to endure the climate in which we are speeding right now.
I think we mostly have the same point. I just find it worth noting the climate has not been this hot ever in the whole of mankinds existence.
The original toot clarified that they were talking about direct measurements only (but evidence exists that this is the warmest period in the last 125,000 years).
Ah yes, approximation is not a record therefore we cannot consider it a factor at all, regardless of it being our best estimate given our current data. You’re right, let’s throw it all out and opt for ignorance. 🙄
i suggested no such thing, you made that last part up for yourself.
i am just highlighting that comparing data from different sources/methods of collection is not proper apples to apples comparison. but sure have a melt down over it lol
No you’re acting like we can’t use this as a data point when it’s the data we have. It may not align apples to apples, but we have a recognizable trend that aligns with/exceeds predictions. I don’t see the point in doubting the data we have.
I don’t mean digital. Just daily readings with a thermometer across the globe v 1cm or whatever per year of a core reading for that location or a few of them.
This Wikipedia page honestly has some of the best climate change graphics I’ve seen anywhere. They’re simple, fact-based, concise and paint a pretty obvious and telling picture.
to be fair records only go back like 200 years tho but it is still telling about the direction
TBF you can also pretty know the temperature from thousands of years ago somehow accurately by analysing ice from the polar caps
Yeah but the original toot is only taking about measured temps, not proxy temps.
they have daily readings from cores?
Yearly. They look at slices generated by compressed layers of snowfall. Thick layer = cold year. They look at more stuff but that’s roughly how it works.
edit: not sure why you’re downvoted. It’s a good question.
Also the composition of captured gasses dissolved in the ice help us see what the atmosphere was like back then
It’s a really cool field to look into NGL
The herd acts in mysterious ways… one would have thought we left those practices in the R-site…
deleted by creator
I don’t mean to disagree or argue, but I still think this is a delicate point.
We are moving Earth out of the climate in which humanity emerged, survived, lived and prospered.
Some point out how terrible it would be to stop using oil and coal. Which it would. But on the other hand - we survived 200’000 years without oil and coal, but we never had to endure the climate in which we are speeding right now.
I think we mostly have the same point. I just find it worth noting the climate has not been this hot ever in the whole of mankinds existence.
Yes… that is how records work lol…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record
Yes, proxy measurements are a thing lol.
Human’s are pretty damn great at predicting issues and surmising evidence of the future and past based on current findings.
We don’t call our current epoch the Anthropocene for no reason.
The original toot clarified that they were talking about direct measurements only (but evidence exists that this is the warmest period in the last 125,000 years).
approximation is not a record tho
Ah yes, approximation is not a record therefore we cannot consider it a factor at all, regardless of it being our best estimate given our current data. You’re right, let’s throw it all out and opt for ignorance. 🙄
i suggested no such thing, you made that last part up for yourself.
i am just highlighting that comparing data from different sources/methods of collection is not proper apples to apples comparison. but sure have a melt down over it lol
No you’re acting like we can’t use this as a data point when it’s the data we have. It may not align apples to apples, but we have a recognizable trend that aligns with/exceeds predictions. I don’t see the point in doubting the data we have.
I’m sure we would take ice samples from the modern era, ya know if any new ice was being deposited. Other systems are pretty easy to correlate 1:1.
Just because something isn’t digital doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or we can’t take observations from it.
I don’t mean digital. Just daily readings with a thermometer across the globe v 1cm or whatever per year of a core reading for that location or a few of them.
This Wikipedia page honestly has some of the best climate change graphics I’ve seen anywhere. They’re simple, fact-based, concise and paint a pretty obvious and telling picture.
Geology disagrees
deleted by creator