Its part of science. Error propagates through models. Every measurement has an error. You can’t be 100% accurate. ESPECIALLY when looking at ice cores to look back in time.
You are also missing the point. The error designates a worst and best case within reasonable probability. In both cases, there is still a huge increase in temperature anomaly. That’s what the uncertainty is for. We are about 99% sure its in that area.
Dunno. The original graphs from the article (looking at it now) don’t have such big error bars. This picture is a reproduction I grabbed for convenience.
You hit the nail on the head here. With one exception. It shows how stable our environment was.
1 Degree is a lot more than you think in Celsius. The whole idea of global warming isn’t that we are going to warm our planet up to cause all these issues. Under much of Canada and Russia is a layer of permafrost. Frozen matter rich in methane which has been frozen for thousands and in some cases millions of years. Methane is also a greenhouse gas and it captures so much more heat than CO2. That is the runaway greenhouse gas. If that is released, it will lead to more warming, which will release more and so on and so on.
To put it in perspective, the Paris accords said 2 degrees is the max we can hit before that begins.
This graph is a perfect example of how they fool the layman. You’ll notice the graph line is in the middle of the error bars until they get to the modern data, and then the line goes to the top of the error bars. Very sneaky. If the modern data line was in the middle of the error bars it would be lower than the MWP…
also the old and modern lines of data are taken with different methods. . They should use the same method to collect data for it to be valid…
Yes… as many of us learned in 7th grade.
Why does the modern data line go to the top of the error bars and the rest is in the middle…?
Also they change they why take the modern data, from the rest of the graph another trick to fool you…
See my explanation of how that graph completely fooled you…
Because modern data has less uncertainty due to less factors that can alter the result over time?
If it had less uncertainty the error bars would be smaller not larger.
And also it’s not going to the top of the error bars, the temperature data is spiking and the uncertainty is decreasing.
Yes, it is… It should be in the middle, and they should not be using two different methods of data collection for the blue and red…
Man you don’t understand error bars. That’s not how they work. The error isn’t spiking. That’s a whole new set of data. The error is decreasing. The uncertainty for a set of data is reflective by the width, or thickness from the line. The thicker the colored area around the line the more uncertain we are. so the data spike recently and the incertainty of that is very VERY small
One is ice cores and another is modern methods. How are you supposed to measure back in time using modern methods? The only way is an alternative method
The error bars for the modern data cover almost the entire span of the y axis. What are you looking at?
Then they should have used ice cores or tree rings for modern data…
I actually know why, ice cores work by trapping air and sut from that time period. The closer we get to modern time the uncertainty actually increases as we can’t gaurantee that info want contaminated by modern conditions
So magically they get more accurate over time? The problem with gas in ice cores is gas diffusion…
What? Sorry how could tree rings tell me the temperature for current time periods
Did trees produce a ring last year? Why would those rings be different than older rings
That’s science. There are sources of error. Just because the uncertainty spiked doesn’t mean the data can’t be trusted. As a scientist myself it’s good to criticize results but you must understand some basic principles for your argument to be taken seriously.