|
|
|
|
|
by civilian
2957 days ago
|
|
Yeah, I was thinking it was that or my probably-unneccessary flippant attitude. (And btw, I truly do appreciate HN's habit of trying to explain downvotes.) I just get triggered at low-effort skepticism. Tomsaga read the word "stable" and assumed it meant "absolutely stable", and didn't ask himself "huh, I wonder if the pop-sci article is masking a more complicated concept with an easy-to-digest concept". To get more into the climate stability: What they're doing is measuring the difference in temperature and precipitation between the Last Glacial Max and the Last Interglacial. And the maps don't even have `0` in their range, they have a small number but not zero. So yes, climate wasn't stable, but they were able to measure "how stable" it was. (Pages 1-3 in the paper.) |
|