And then there was and is now earth. With the blue and green planet surviving billions of years through dozens of geographic eras, the seemingly limitless amount of data accrued is simply dauntingly unfathomable in recreating even the grainiest of histories with apologies to allowable fault.
Conjecture is often pawned off as fact for the lowest common denominator of logic.
In the latest incident of climatologists adapting to a changing political environment in the US and facing the reality of staring directly into the double- barreled possibility of grants forever lost, the latest “study” has appeared and supposedly damns the human race as the chief culprit in, global warming, climate change, or the aptly named new trend, climate pause. Over the last decade and a half, a sect of researchers have concluded that ocean temperatures have seemingly stabilized, beginning in 1998. As the secret label for “green research money” has taken on innumerable name changes over the last forty years, the underlying concept remains the same in adapting to evolving technology debunking the results of research-formulate a solid approximation and fill-in the blanks with educated assumptions of if one dares, prayer.
The BBC News reports the forever volatile “name that climate game” will continue at least for the short-term, as researchers have apparently unveiled through complex methodology, that climate pause does not live up to the current labeling requirements and more importantly, funding detriments.
This notion of skepticism, facilitated by academic panic, relies on the presumed accuracy of world ocean temperature measuring devices. According to the NOAA study, previous models was a patchwork of readings compiled from different devices performing with an implied margin for error. To account for recently discovered flaws in the data, scientists used separate overlays in readings taken over prolonged periods and plotted the results.
Allegedly, that study highlights that previous number crunching efforts of ocean temperatures produced a “cold bias”, thus underestimating the direct influence of humankind on the environment. Scientists surmise that the recalibrated figures hint at an overall rise in the readings over the last 15 years, rather than a pause in climate change, which translates to a clear pipeline of available grant money.
One of the most obviously overlooked aspects to modern scientific and research efforts and interpretation is the exponential increase in the innovation of instruments and tools as well as the raw number of functioning mechanisms. At one point does certain data become obsolete and unusable, due to the poor quality, archaic design, and technological limitations of the measuring device? With a seemingly limitless magnitude of specific variables required to build an accurate climate model based on billions of years of data, how do assumptions derived from a mere boulder compared to a mountain range of information, garner any credibility?
There is no debating that the climate of the earth experiences periodic changes, however how or why climate cycles occur is a cottage industry for the modern researcher.
Read the full BBC News Article here.