Yes, that’s correct. We have not had the technology to accurately track this kind of data until 1982. Essentially the ~30 years of data from 1982-2011 is being used as a baseline. The past ~12 years or so have seen increasing levels of warmth compared to this baseline, and 6 standard deviations in statistics is usually “where did I fuck up my calculations” levels of absurdity. I think it is something like 1 in 500 million odds? I may be wrong, but it happening twice is not a miscalculation.
We could chalk it up to this being a natural phenomenon, but it’s more likely that we have reached tipping points in the climate that are now being seen in the data.
Which is what we “knew” in the 70s. Yay we’re more accurate in counting, but the solutions are exactly the same now as they have always been. Renewables, less poison, better infrastructure. All of which are violently opposed by one of the political parties.
Yes, that’s correct. We have not had the technology to accurately track this kind of data until 1982. Essentially the ~30 years of data from 1982-2011 is being used as a baseline. The past ~12 years or so have seen increasing levels of warmth compared to this baseline, and 6 standard deviations in statistics is usually “where did I fuck up my calculations” levels of absurdity. I think it is something like 1 in 500 million odds? I may be wrong, but it happening twice is not a miscalculation.
We could chalk it up to this being a natural phenomenon, but it’s more likely that we have reached tipping points in the climate that are now being seen in the data.
And while we don’t have the data it is very reasonable to assume that if we did have data going back 150 years the results would be stunningly worse.
Which is what we “knew” in the 70s. Yay we’re more accurate in counting, but the solutions are exactly the same now as they have always been. Renewables, less poison, better infrastructure. All of which are violently opposed by one of the political parties.