6 ms·
You also need to ask what is the likelihood you get this move just by chance
by retube 2mo ago
You also need to ask what is the likelihood you get this move just by chance
- gpderetta 2mo agoAccording to https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real, this is a 1 in 7000 years event (i.e. 3.5 sigmas).
- noosphr 2mo agoI'm not sure how you can make that claim with only 29 years of data without making some pretty big assumptions about the underlying distribution.
- sph 2mo agoWe have ways to determine the past climate without having access to direct measurements.
- qsera 2mo agoBut there is no way to confirm that those methods are accurate...
- inigyou 2mo agoYes there are. Scientists compare the measurements from both methods in the time when there's data from both. For example ice cores formed last decade should match direct temperature measurements from last decade. It's the same way the oldest rings from living trees are matched against the newest rings from tree fossils, and radiocarbon dating is checked against all of that.
- qsera 2mo agoThat does not look very reliable to me, because that implies certain things are only affected by ambient temperature. Btw, Can you tell me how ancient temperature is measured from ice cores? My lookup only says we can detect atmospheric composition, and not temperatures from the ice cores.
- inigyou 2mo agoIt seems like you're on the trajectory to refuting all historical measurements altogether. In that case, I can't help you. Good luck. I suggest the philosophy of Last Tuesdayism, it may interest you.
- qsera 2mo agoNot really. I only reject using them for certain things that require vastly more reliable data. And I am not making the mistake of relying on unreliable data just because it is the best we can manage. Also why don't you answer my question about ice cores?
- inigyou 2mo agoI'm not an ice core scientist. I suggest you ask them for detailed specifications. But the way you have posed the question strongly suggests that you will not be satisfied with any possible answer. Anything short of your eyes laying upon a thermometer will always be "not reliable enough", and thermometers only record the current temperature.
- qsera 2mo agoIt is not really surprising that skeptics exist when the answers they get are of these sort...
- RetroTechie 2mo agoAir bubbles from ancient atmosphere caught in ice -> historic CO2 levels -> historic average global temps. This is fairly 1:1 linkage, and the Earth-heating effect of atmospheric CO2 was established in what, early 20th century or so?
- noosphr 2mo agoThis isn't climate, it's weather. There are no proxies that record monthly water temperature. Only second order effects that are at best weakly correlated with water temperature.
- mrkeen 2mo ago> I'm not sure how you can make that claim with only 29 years of data without making some pretty big assumptions about the underlying distribution. Under what circumstances would 29 years be an insufficient mean to compare to the last few years? Precisely those circumstances in which the climate had changed. > This isn't climate, it's weather.
- noosphr 2mo agoUnder any sane statistical model. If we assume that this is a naturally occurring once in century El Nino under an equal probability model we'd expect not to see it before we have 70 years of records.
- yorwba 2mo agoAssuming the measurements are independent samples from a normal distribution. Which they of course aren't, as measurements of adjacent days are obviously correlated (if they were independent, a 1-in-7000 event could be expected to happen on about 2 days within a 44-year span). Now the question is what the nature of the deviation is. - How independent are measurements of different years? - Has there been a systematic change in the distribution mean? - Has there been a systematic change in the distribution variance? - Was there a good reason to assume that the temperature distribution would be normally distributed to begin with? (Maybe there are strong non-additive effects.) In any case, it's clear that assuming the observed temperatures in the 1991-2020 range follow a normal distribution and temperatures outside that date range will follow the same distribution is a bad model of reality.
- Anon1096 2mo agoWithin the 1982-2026 span there is an equally negative 3.5 sigmas deviation somewhere (no year labels on the graph). The article doesn't touch on it at all so I have no context as to what it could be. But it definitely suggests 3.5 sigmas is not really 1 in 7000 years.