Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulodeon | Hacker News Reader

I think the point is that this is simply the best dataset out there, it hasn't been cherry-picked.

The only problem with this article is that there is no mention of how the gulfstream could have had a stabilising effect.

The 30 year periods aren't cherry-picked either, they are picked because they were the ones with the greatest increase in temperature.

View on HN

It seems to be one data set from one location. How can this be "the best data set" out there? I don't think looking at one location is sufficient at all.

If you are going to measure a dataset by its completeness and its length you are going to find it's the best based on that scale. However, if you want to define some other scale which cares less about those factors and more about geographic coverage feel free, but don't try to mix there definition with yours because your "best" will be less compleat or cover a shorter period.

PS: If you feel some other dataset would be a better proxy feel free to argue the point on its own merits. But be careful when you start to redefine the terms someone else is using, it has little to do with their argument and is not useful.

I have nothing against the data set as such - I think it is great if such a complete data set exists. All I am saying is that a data set from one location is not sufficient to calculate the climate of the whole planet. It is one data set among many, which happens to be especially complete.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com