Off Topic Climate change/ pollution

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The planet earth is about 4.5 billion years old, trying to formulate changing weather patterns when we only have the last 150 ish years of accurate messuring is like trying to diagnose and predict the health and life span of a human because he or she has just coughed once.

I should add that it goes without saying that we need to look after the place.
 
All that 'warmest on record' stuff is very debatable to say the least. It doesn't take much to see it's more a consequence of how the data is gathered and used than it is about the change in the weather, which leaves things far more open to question than they need to be.

It's something that really lends itself to tabloid sensationalism. Obviously there are several different ways to measure the "warmest" or "driest" month, day or season. You could look at total rainfall or you could look at amount of days it's rained or whatever measure you choose. With enough possible methodologies, enough arbitrary time periods to choose from and enough places to measure it at, you can find a hottest, coldest, wettest or driest period fairly regularly if you're inclined to do so, and since every time they report on one it gets clicks and shares, that's what the tabloids do. Given the alignment of many of the tabloids, it's framed as evidence of the climate not actually getting hotter as often as it is the other way around. Generally people don't take in the detail, they usually just remember the accumulation of headlines, and then sometimes that gets used as ammunition to accuse the authorities of fearmongering, even if it wasn't actually them that said it.