180
Ancient sea sponges at centre of controversial claim world has already warmed by 1.7C
(www.theguardian.com)
Arguing over deck chair placement on the titanic.
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
180 points (97.4% liked)
science
14352 readers
260 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 31 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
This is interesting, I'd love to see some follow-up papers and more investigation.
until someone finds a reason why this method might be unreliable, it isn't controversial.. it's a scientific fact with implications..
Different parts of the world are warming at different rates. So while it might be true that a part of the Caribbean warmed by 1.7 degrees, that doesn't tell us much about the Earth as a whole.
To anyone reading this comment thinking it makes a kind of sense on the surface (I'm no scientist) - keep reading. This comment is clearly meant to be just a bit of shit stirring
Hey, have you noticed how everyone is saying you're wrong and nobody is upvoting your replies? Maybe take a moment to reflect on why that might be.
there are a lot of trolls, and they like to congregate.. they hope that by bullying someone they can make bad facts disappear..
but it's pretty obvious none of them have even made a serious trip to a university library
these new numbers clearly are now the best estimate we have
You really need to calm down and reflect.
I have a PhD and a dozen of published and recognized papers.
You are misusing the term "fact". Just because you think something is fact, does not make it so.
lol so funny people can't read a paper and reactively downvote anyone who contradicts what they feel reality should be. You're correct until we find a way to disprove this (eg somebody repeats it and finds it flawed) obviously robust study we need treat it as fact.
You really think everyone else here is a troll?
That is absolutely antithetical to the scientific process. Nothing is considered 'fact' until rigorously proven. This is interesting evidence that absolutely warrants criticism.
the scientific process is demonstrated in their paper.. if you can find fault in their methods, then there is controversy, otherwise their findings are fact.. "criticism" in science is done with research, not comments on the internet or to news outlets..
The scientific process requires repetition, ie "rigorous proving". One paper =\= "fact", even if no obvious fault can be found in the surface. And to be clear, the lack of repetition doesn't mean they're wrong, just that there's more to be done.
you're just making shit up, you have no idea what you're talking about
We did it. We found the clearly non-scientist. I wouldn't claim a certainty 100 % on the papers I've published myself. There's always new research and one paper could only be looking at one very specific thing.
But overall: there is a climate crisis, there is no doubting that.
Holy fuck what a stupid response.
Here's some recommended reading, hope it helps: https://kids.kiddle.co/Hypothesis
Ahh yes, the very scientific Ad Hominem method...
i didn't say you were naturally stupid, just that you are using a stupid argument.. it's just a fact.. if you don't want me to point out the stupidity of your arguments, you shouldn't use stupid argumentation..
maybe you're a little defensive because you're full of shit
We‘re checking the idea of detecting llm usage on lemmy since the number of trolls seems to be steadily increasing. In case anyone with coding/dev experience is interested, lmk.
you go ahead and do your checking, little fella.. be sure and let me know what your code has to say..
Yea, why is it "one scientist said so despite their claim disputing the current standard! Fact now". This paper needs independent verification and follow up studies to confirm they didn't just massively fuck up their numbers or something else
you've obviously never read a scientific paper.. if you understood anything about science, you would see that this method of determining sea temperature changes produces a dataset that is much more reliable than the data we have been referring to..
One published paper is never sufficient to claim anything as fact. To suggest otherwise is purely ignorance.
that's exactly how science comes into existence.. one study and paper at a time.. whoever taught you otherwise was lying or stupid..
No is arguing otherwise.
One paper does not make a "fact". Years of established research and widespread consensus barely justifies labeling a subject as a "fact".
Have you already forgotten the room temperature superconductor claims from last year?
Let me be absolutely clear. I am in no way trying to discredit this paper. I see no reason to question their findings, it's good science and absolutely should be followed up on. However, I take strong exception to people jumping on any half decent study and treating it as gospel.