HN Explorer

12 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 56.4 ms ] thread
radford-neal
An quote from the article:

    This event, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 
    saw temperatures up to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) 
    above modern levels
I think one cannot assume that anything in this article is correct.
fallingfrog
The original paper presumably does not have such errors; these most likely come from the journalist trying to be helpful and translate celsius into fahrenheit. An increase of 16 degrees C is of course 28.8 degrees fahrenheit.
rosstex
I'm confused, why is this the case?
netsharc
Because they don't have the same zero point. 16 deg Celsius on the thermometer is 60.8 deg Fahrenheit, but if you're measuring difference, you have to do 16 - 0 C = 60.8 - 32 F = 28.8 F. Or to make it clear, 16 going to 32 C is 60.8 F going to 89.6 F, also a difference of 28.8 F.

Or just do 16/5*9 without adding 32, so you'd get 28.8 F.

throw_away
Differences in temperatures should be referred to as "$UNIT degrees", while specific temperatures are referred to as "degrees $UNIT".
netsharc
Geez, on a website which URL has the word "science" in it, by a senior writer. Quite pathetic.
fallingfrog
It’s kind of dismaying, it’s no wonder that the public is confused about climate change when even educated people make silly math errors- imagine how much less educated the average person is than that? Education in the sciences is what I would normally recommend but it’s a bit late in the game for that with regard to climate policy.
netsharc
I wonder if the conversions have been done by an automated script...

FWIW, it's been corrected now.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
ocbyc
The sky is falling soon...promise.