citation for claim that it's the longest-dated climate dataset?

Link to a source would be nice.
Seems interesting, but without a source it's just noise.

Looks like FT to me. Also there are citations in the fine prints.

Is there a difference in tone or meaning between accidentally and inadvertently? I feel like accidentally means they did something that was a bad thing.

Depends on who you ask.

Mr Bob Ross would like a word...
I agree with you on inadvertently, but accident, if I'm not mistaken would generally considered something where you do not inherently attribute blame. At least thats what I recall being justification for making the change in UK in calling traffic 'incidents' incidents instead of accidents several years back. Dunno if it stuck though.

So temperatures are going down soon, right? RIGHT?

You know, it's the weather. Temperature goes up. Temperature goes down. EZPZ

Just what I needed to hear. I would have rejected any other answer anyway. So I can happily go back to sleep now.

https://globalobserver.github.io/projects/cherry-blossom/index.html

John Bistline, whose name appears on the bottom right, posted this chart to Twitter.

There's a pretty similar data series charted at ourworldindata.

I agree, but I think here "accidentally" is used in an ironic manner because this is of course not actually a bad thing.

I agree it seems a strange choice of words.

Japanese monks and emperors kept meticulous records of cherry blossom festivals for 1,200 years. They accidentally In doing so they built the world's longest climate dataset

Something like that seems more straightforward.

I'm asking someone who has insight 😅

Interesting. Although I still maintain that accident bears a negative connotation, even though blame isn't necessarily a factor. As if the outcome was a negative thing, rather than a positive, as in this case.

I think “inadvertently” fits in that it isn’t what they were intending to do.

“Accidentally” feels sorta judgy.

Do you have a citation for a longer-dated climate dataset?

that's not how burden of proof works; it's not "my fantastic claim is true until you can prove it false"

EDIT: oof, blocked 👋

They accidentally became climate change wackos supporting a communist agenda to make everyone gay and push taxes supporting public transportation.

Yeah. “It was an accident” sounds like pleading, excusing. “I inadvertently…” sounds like an explanation of the facts. imo

If someone posts a record of climate data dating back to the year 812, and you demand a citation specifically for the claim that it's the longest-dated climate dataset, then yeah the burden of proof absolutely works the other way around.

It's a climate dataset, and it's freaking old. Unless you can point to one that's older, it's the oldest one.

EDIT: oof, blocked 👋

What, really? People do this?

And why, is it the comment chain where I was saying Adam Schiff has a more consistent track record than Chuck Schumer and other milquetoast establishment Dems, and therefore not the right target for ire? Or the one where I was arguing with someone who was being a bigot under a thin veneer of "feminism", who pretty consistently stated quite plainly that my feelings don't matter because I'm a guy and men's feelings don't matter so I should just suck it up and not be offended (which is literally toxic masculinity, not feminism)? Or did you scroll all the way down to where a mod called me sexist for responding to a post (that was literally asking why there aren't more media depictions of positive male role models) by saying that depictions of positive male role models get shunned and canceled because they don't conform to the narrative that all men are inherently toxic?

Either way, it seems like a silly thing to do, checking someone's mod history over a simple comment that you happen to disagree with. Especially when your own mod history includes posting unreliable sources to a news comm, being rude to someone for being a guy, getting banned from egg_irl for bioessentialist takes, and apparently... posting NSFW images of... checks notes... "applying lube like condiments on a hotdog"... in a SFW community...

So... you know what they say about glass houses and throwing rocks, right? ...

As soon as we reopen the strait.

Hmm not necessarily, accidentally has no negative implication unlike accident usually has. In this particular case the meaning of accidentally is synonym with unexpectedly or by chance.

"Kill them all. Steal their data." - MAGA

Yes and no. Just like the claim of God, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. If it exists, then you may be able to show it. If it doesn't exist then there's no way to show that. Proof, in this case, would be somehow showing that something doesn't exist. You can provide evidence, but not proof. You can provide proof against this, by just providing an older record though.

tbf it was played straight in Hot Fuzz, Sgt. Angel was right and there was somebody who caused it.

My question was a bit rhetorical. In my opinion there is a negative connotation to accidentally in this case as well. I would personally use a different word. 👍

you can prove some things do or don't exist, the problem with God is that the existence of God is proposed in a way that is non-falsifiable (not all existence claims are non-falsifiable even if some are)

But the burden of proof works the same with God as with other claims.

I'm not saying burden of proof is a form of falsification (i.e. we can know something is false until proven true), you are right about that - just because it's a good practice to not treat as true or serious an extraordinary claim that has not been given sufficient evidence or proof to back it up doesn't mean that this practice somehow is the same as proving the negative. That is, if claims of God's existence are extraordinary and not sufficiently proven or evidenced, dismissing the claim under burden of proof practices is not the same thing as proving with certainty God doesn't exist. But I never made these claims, I just said you can't treat an extraordinary claim as true until I successfully prove it's false (because some extraordinary claims are non-falsifiable, like God's existence).

Proof, in this case, would be somehow showing that something doesn’t exist. You can provide evidence, but not proof. You can provide proof against this, by just providing an older record though.

it seemed like you just said you can't show proof, then demonstrated how you can provide proof? Maybe I miss your point here.

It's not the longest climate dataset, but it may be the longest directly recorded by humans. All of these types of data are climate proxies (alternate indicators we can use to gain information about historic climates), the longest of which are ice core measurements.

Well, glaciers keep the longest climate datasets, it's just in a format that takes some work to translate.

Incidentally would be more accurate perhaps.

Idk, egyptian priests kept records of the groundwater levels to predict the nile flood times to keep the peasants in check, and that could count as a climate dataset that far predates and is longer than this.

That all depends on where you live, and how ocean currents change. But perhaps actually. Not likely though. We had a super cold year here where I'm at, not as bad as in the 80s but we had like 4 polar inversions hit us, it got down to 33 degrees one morning in late august in a couple of weeks of cold weather, and we got a hard snowy cold winter. It's still fucking cold, but that is normal here.

But europe might get hosed if that ocean currents change, they are way far north, if not for the warm carribean waters circulating up there they could be like ice ageing it. There is no way to know obviously, except that it will happen faster than expected.

you can prove some things do or don't exist...

Yes, specific claims. Non-specific claims, like this one, can't. It could be that we just aren't aware of an older record, but that can't be proven. It's also really difficult to even prove it's the oldest that we know of. That'd take at least many hours of research, and that's if you're lucky and find a counter-example early. Most likely it'd be days/months.

But the burden of proof works the same with God as with other claims.

Yes. The burden of proof is the same. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you can take their word for it or not. Asking them to prove it is insane. This is a casual internet forum. No one is spending the time or effort to get anywhere near a proof for you. If you don't want to believe it then fine. Just don't. If you want to prove it yourself, you're welcome to do so, and I'm sure posting it would be appreciated. Asking others to is needlessly aggressive for a casual internet trivia post.

Proof, in this case, would be somehow showing that something doesn’t exist. You can provide evidence, but not proof. You can provide proof against this, by just providing an older record though.

it seemed like you just said you can't show proof, then demonstrated how you can provide proof? Maybe I miss your point here.

I demonstrated how you can prove it wrong, not right. There's no way to know what isn't known. Proving it true is effectively impossible. Proving that it's the oldest that we know of is still incredibly challenging.

for context I assumed the graph and headline were both pulled from a piece of journalism where the epistemic standards are higher than a casual internet forum; I don't intend to apply high epistemic standards in a context where it is inappropriate, I just want a link to the original source they got the claim and graph from so that I can explore from there.

Sorry it came across as aggressive, that wasn't my intent at all - I thought what I was asking was entirely reasonable.

Is that dataset up anywhere as a CSV?

I'd really love to build a lesson around it!

Doesn't look like much of a trend from the thumbnail. It's just noise. Cool dataset though.

incidentally feels better here than accidentally or inadvertantly

Do floods correlate well with the climate there, or are they affected by something else, too? If they are not much affected, then that could be a dataset indeed

I looked up the definitions of incidentally and inadvertently, and inadvertently is a better fit IMO.

Indeed they could, any core sample of the earth could, and long has, been a record of climatic conditions.

Accidents don’t have to be bad? Accident means just “not on purpose” it has no connotation either way

Right. When someone is accused of something, and they say "But it was an accident!", that's exactly what it means.

But if you shit yourself and say "I had an accident.", that's not what it means. Or you call your parents and say, "I was in an accident."

It has different connotations and in this case I'm conflicted, and therefore I would've chosen a different word.

Was going to say this myself and then saw your comment. Totally agree. 'Accidently' practically implies that the record keeping itself only happened because some pencils happened to fall on paper. They did exactly what they intended to and used it for their own purpose. It just turned out to have a different purpose, too.

I had an inadvertent!

That's an even better way of looking at it, to avoid "accidentally". Great point!

Same!

Aww, shit. Now there's record all over the floor... I'll go get the data bin...