We have data going back more than 130 years. We don't have detailed data going back farther than that. But even if you include things like ice core samples, carbon concentrations (the absorption of various chemicals differs based on temperature) and such, the headline would still be incorrect. There are certainly warmer times in the past. Amongst other things, I'm quite sure that it was warmer when the planet had not cooled down enough to really form rock and water.
That being said, it was just sloppy writing. "Last decade is warmest since record keeping began" would certainly be better. Solar minimalists be damned (I'm looking at you Robert), it was still hotter than the previous decade which was hotter than the decade before, etc. But yeah, not a good headline or introduction. Judah On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html > > How the last decade can be declared 'the warmest ever on Earth' when > we only have data dating back 130 years? > > This is the kind of bullshit hyperbole in the media that burns my ass. > I hate that shit. > > -- > Scott Stroz > --------------- > The DOM is retarded. > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:311042 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
