Warmest March in Global Recordkeeping

Re:Warmest March in Global Recordkeeping by James001 on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @04:28PM (#11530069)

Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it true. You should reply with a citation proving that the rate of temperature rise is an anomaly. Cause right now you're ironically "making shit up and pretending it was truth", in your own words.

Also, noting the fact that the record only goes back 130 years is merely pointing out how little statistical significance climate models based on "the record" have.

Your post is rank with hypocrisy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Warmest March in Global Recordkeeping by soundwave106 on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @05:24PM (#11530569)

Longer sets of data exist that are not global in scale. The longest is the Central England Temperature set, going back to 1659.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature

Beyond that, people have attempted reconstruction from other evidence. For instance I found an attempt at a 2000 year reconstruction using tree ring data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.ht...

Assuming this reconstruction and others is sound, it is apparent that there definitely is a fair bit of natural temperature variability. But the recent temperature rise in the last 50 years certainly seem like aberration, in terms of rate of change.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Warmest March in Global Recordkeeping by dang on Thursday April 21, 2016 @12:27PM (#11543354)

> Your post is rank with hypocrisy.

This violates the HN guidelines, which we warned you about once already. We ban accounts that do this, so please stop doing it.

[ Parent | on HN ]