Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Ok, so why not just be specific? “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago.

And have you looked into the records? satellite surface temps and high resolution recording have not been around for very long. 1880 methods were very crude and narrowly scoped.





> “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago.

I'm a journalist who has published "highest/lowest on record" statistics tens, if not hundreds of times, and I've never heard of anyone thinking it means "since Herodotus" or anything like that.


How would readers know the reference point unless you inform them. Of course they will defer to colloquialisms . In some cases 5000 years , some 1000 years . With something as broad and impactful as this, they certainly assume more than 150 years .

They would know by reading beyond the headline. I am not aware of the colloquialism as you describe it.

You both have a point, reading further provides context as to which record is being talked about.

There are, of course, many records - newspaper records, human logged records of conditions that day, and human created records of proxy data - ice cores, dendrochronology, cosmic ray induced crystal formation in beach sand, etc.


This is disingenuous given your training in journalism , writing & linguistics.

You need to stop being intentionally obtuse, nobody's buying it.

and scientists edit the historical temperatures because of, and i hope you can see my eyeroll here "anomalous readings" - but they're overwhelmingly erroneous in only one direction. that's strange.

Given the amount of noise and normalization , I would like to see that claim better qualified.

That’s what I’m calling attention to. Being more formal with the claims , and transparent about the records origins


i'm literally in the middle of trying to parse a couple of papers that examine the methodology of at least the NOAA homogenization model.

did you know there's only eight sensors, globally, that we have data for >95% of the last 100 years, that are labelled as "fully rural"? so this means that 99.9% of the stations must therefore be, at least, more likely to be adjusted, doesn't it? The entire premise that UHI is irrelevant because they "normalized" the 99.9% and it showed it was irrelevant is... i don't know, it's something, though.


I agree it's suspicious. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'm trying to understand the e2e process. i.e. divide 1880-present into Epochs and understand what %-age of coverage, resolution & how precise were the instruments



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: