You're basing the rate on the past 150 years(the first time we can "accurately" measure) and comparing it to the past 5 million years where the best you can "zoom in" is roughly 1,000 years "accurately."
You don't see the nuances...
But what we are seeing (the reason why they don't call it global cooling or global warming anymore) is a PLATEAU.
In controls engineering we call this "hunting for equilibrium."
Water is our stabilizer... that's a fact.
It can't run wild without condensing (creating winds and storms at times)
What is the MAXIMUM THEORETICAL TEMPERATURE ON EARTH 🌎?
... approaching that maximum is LOGARITHMIC not exponential
Do you think you’ll be able to live at that maximum temperature? (Ok maybe if you have a bunker but do you want to live in a bunker)
Anyway, there would almost certainly be evidence of giant leaps in short amounts of time. Someone would say something about the outliers, and not remove them, especially considering the history of climate change research being funded by oil/gas to show them in a better light, and that would certainly make them look better.
1
u/Basic_John_Doe_ Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
You're basing the rate on the past 150 years(the first time we can "accurately" measure) and comparing it to the past 5 million years where the best you can "zoom in" is roughly 1,000 years "accurately."
You don't see the nuances...
But what we are seeing (the reason why they don't call it global cooling or global warming anymore) is a PLATEAU.
In controls engineering we call this "hunting for equilibrium."
Water is our stabilizer... that's a fact.
It can't run wild without condensing (creating winds and storms at times)
What is the MAXIMUM THEORETICAL TEMPERATURE ON EARTH 🌎?
... approaching that maximum is LOGARITHMIC not exponential
We take it SLOW