Remote View
xkcd : Earth Temperature Timeline
xkcd : Earth Temperature Timeline
71 comments
-
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
-
Very informative but you see, science doesn't convince the anti-science crowd, pretty much by definition.
-
Yup, 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. :)
-
anti-science crowd
Too bad the anti-science crowd are our elected officials. ༎ຶ‿༎ຶ
-
-
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
-
There 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
-
It's good to ask the question.
The problem is when they refuse to accept the answer.
-
Centuries of applied critical thinking.
-
-
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.
-
Isn'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.
-
It 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.
-
-
-
Direct image link for those who can't see it well: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png
-
Well that certainly puts things into a horrifying perspective!
-
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.
-
I will continue doing what I can to help. But it’s over.
-
It'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.
-
I 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.
-
I'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.
-
-
-
This is from 2016. Randall should do a new one. I wonder how bad it is now...
-
Likely exactly the same, considering a seven year difference would be barely noticeable on it.
-
We 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.
-
-
I've always liked this plot. Quick note: at least for me, the embedded image isn't readable due to low resolution.
-
Looks fine for me in Lemmy Connect. How are you using Lemmy? App? Website?
-
I'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.
-
-
I had to open it in a new tab to see it anyways, looks fine there
-
I 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.
-
That's a shame. I just noticed it on my phone as well.
-
-
Randal never struck me as a young earth creationist, but there you go!
-
Fun fact: We're doing even worse than this 7-year-old graph's "CURRENT PATH".
We've hit +1.4°C about 10 years earlier.
-
Reaching all those low-IQ climate deniers that read xkcd should really help.
-
Time 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.
-
People are stupid. Let’s keep our hands off geo engineering.
-
I wrote a similar conclusion back in 1996, not so much changed in that discussion, it's a distraction.
-
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.
-
71 comments