But what happened before 1850? A THREADhttps://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/1217476539664814080?s=20 …
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Hi Ed, I don't want to nitpick, but shouldn't the decade from 536-545 show up as the coldest on record - far exceeding the "small ice age" of the early modern times?https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive …
Certainly shows up as a cold period, especially compared to nearby years, but it may not have been globally coherent? Article talks a lot about a northern eruption which is unlikely to have affected the southern hemisphere.
Hi Ed. Am I right in thinking the colour scheme is different for the longer version?
Yes, it needs to be because of the wider range in temperatures. The boundary between red and blue is the average of 1901-2000 from the PAGES2k data.
Hi Ed, this is really neat to see. I was typing with the idea of doing something similar for my N&V article but didn't end up having enough juice to make it happen.
Because Raphi's NG reconstruction deliberately emphases decadal and multidecadal variability, their reconstruction in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2 …) might be more suited to make comparisons across the entire Common Era.
As I was asked if I did a mistake here -> it's the same data, But Ed's colorscale is about 6 times as precise as mine, so you can see the cooler periods clearer. This is because by expanding to 1AD-2200AD and including worst-case, the possible temp. range is that much larger.pic.twitter.com/GvcMQBFlgp
Of course this only holds true for positive temperature changes, but I didn't want to oversell differences in the colder than average years, so it is the same luminosity gradient in each direction. Attached are both scales (Ed's may be different here, it's for #showyourstripes)pic.twitter.com/TNPJWV0nOu
and if you use EPICA temperatures then we can go back 135,000 years.pic.twitter.com/lLOBE8eaOF
This is a fantastic resource (whilst at the same time, terrifying for what it illustrates). I'll be using it in the intro to a new course this Thurs. Thanks Ed
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.