xkcd : Earth Temperature Timeline
xkcd : Earth Temperature Timeline
Because I can already hear the anti-man-made-climate-change crowd shrieking... how do we go about determining global temperatures thousands of years ago?
Edit: Stopped being lazy and googled it: https://gizmodo.com/how-do-scientists-know-what-the-temperature-was-thousan-1714597561
75Very informative but you see, science doesn't convince the anti-science crowd, pretty much by definition.
50Yup, but if I'm talking to someone who doesn't believe in man-made climate change and I show them the xkcd and answer their obvious follow-up question about how we know past temperature, and they STILL don't want to listen to me... well then I know I can never talk to that person again. :)
15anti-science crowd
Too bad the anti-science crowd are our elected officials. ༎ຶ‿༎ຶ
6
I can already hear the anti-man-made-climate-change crowd shrieking…
Generally a good source for this use case. You can sort by popular arguments or arguments by type, and for many answers choose from different detail levels, sometimes even languages.
I didn't find your specific question in their catalogue of answers, but they have a blog post about that topic: https://skepticalscience.com/two-centuries-climate-science-3.html
10There is also that group that says it will get warmer naturally, by whatever solar flare etc bullshit ever. So business as usual, can't change the course anyway so I will buy a second SUV
6It's good to ask the question.
The problem is when they refuse to accept the answer.
5
One slight correction: evidence indicates that the americas were colonized before the ice age corridor opened. It is now thought that the americas were colonized via short excursions near shore via boats resulting in the coastal areas being inhabitated in only ~500 years from alaska all the way down to the tip of south america. This is thought to be the same way that australia was inhabited 60,000 years ago. The oldest settlement sites are now underwater.
41Isn't that more of a recent discovery though? I only mention it cos this comic is from 2016, which, as much as I don't want to acknowledge the passing of time, is 7yrs ago.
17It was understood by the early 2010s that the timeline was off. Scientific American ran an article about it at the end of 2012 but it does not surprise me that Monroe would still go by the old timeline in 2016. I only knew about it years ago because I was an undergrad and one of my professors worked extensively in Alaska and neighboring areas during his PhD.
8
Direct image link for those who can't see it well: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png
28Well that certainly puts things into a horrifying perspective!
27I will continue doing what I can to help. But it’s over.
15It's really not. It's just getting started. The worst predictions, of 4-6 degrees of warming, are more or less off the table. Current trajectory is ~3 degrees of warming which... is civilisationally devastating admittedly, but we have pathways to reduce that. Even the 1.5c target isn't over yet.
There is a broad range of potential future climates, and this generation decides which one we end up with. It's not over by a long shot.
12I appreciate the optimism, I really do. I hope things basically work out for my kid’s sake.
But even this summer was seemingly hotter than it should have been. I think the cascading issues are here.
I’ll continue voting and doing small peasant actions but unless governments actually treat it like it’s a global emergency, then there’s no chance.
2I'm glad you're optimistic but warming has a roughly 40 year delayed effect and we're already seeing changes. Even if by some magic we halted all emissions, and I mean ALL, we'd still be warming into the 2060s.
The only way to make the 1.5c target would be a massive investment in carbon capture and huge reduction in carbon emissions.
I just don't see it happening. I don't see the world even trying until it's too late.
Some of this delayed effect has been debated, but we ought to consider the cascading effects as well.
1
It's been nice knowing you guys. If we get through this I hope the scientist say to every one of the nay stays I told you so!. they should write it on 100ft high obelisk in marble and granite.
14I've always liked this plot. Quick note: at least for me, the embedded image isn't readable due to low resolution.
10Looks fine for me in Lemmy Connect. How are you using Lemmy? App? Website?
4I'm using Eternity. When I clicked to open the image by itself the resolution looks fine - it's just the preview that's low res. Probably a client issue.
1
I had to open it in a new tab to see it anyways, looks fine there
3That's a shame. I just noticed it on my phone as well.
2I opened it on Sync for Lemmy, my experience has been superb. It opened the full res img in an image viewer, zoomed in to the width of the image and I just casually had to continuously scroll down.
2
This is from 2016. Randall should do a new one. I wonder how bad it is now...
8Likely exactly the same, considering a seven year difference would be barely noticeable on it.
8We were discussing similar in 1998, 'warmest year for a millenia', detail has improved but implication already clear then. Quarter century later, curves start to bend, still trying. Plan how your life can help, don't panic then burn out.
1
Randal never struck me as a young earth creationist, but there you go!
6Permanently Deleted
4Reaching all those low-IQ climate deniers that read xkcd should really help.
1Time for geo engineering, people are stupid.
Edit. Most people have an IQ range of 85-115, add the below 85 = the majority of people. Democracy is decided by the majority.
-2People are stupid. Let’s keep our hands off geo engineering.
19I wrote a similar conclusion back in 1996, not so much changed in that discussion, it's a distraction.
1
IQ tests are designed relative to the population so the median is always (or should always be) 100. The point is that is measures people against one another in the present. If we all got 10% smarter, our individual IQ scores would stay the same.
9
This timeline starts at about the coldest point in the last 66 million years. Definitely not biased.
-44The point of the graph isn't to show the warming amount its to show how much faster the rate of warming is now compared to previous warming events.
37What conclusion would change if the graph started at an earlier, warmer period?
As far as I know, three crucial things would still hold true:
- Earth has not been as warm as today since humans existed, in the past 200'000 years. We don't know if we can thrive in these conditions. Chances are, we can't. We're optimized for another climate. We have no precedent wether future Earth is habitable for us.
- Earth has never warmed this rapidly, never. Speed matters a lot, as lack of time makes the difference between adaption and extinction.
- Whatever the cause, and however normal it may be, the current development, and rate thereof, causes substantial issues on many fronts.
16I don't see how this is biased. Showing that the Earth did warm up over time before major human climate change started would be, very weakly, supporting that climate change isn't real. If they wanted to be biased they would start at a warm point, and when the Earth is cooling down they'd be like "see! Earth cools naturally, so it must get warm because of climate change!"
To make my stance crystal clear, I believe in and am deeply concerned by climate change
15"My bank funds history chart starts at the lowest point my funds have been since opening the account. Definitely not biased."
Tell me you're a blithering idiot without telling me.
11
