3 ms·

The range between the min and max temps for the last 100 years is under 1°C globally. For the last 1,000 years it's just over 1°C (from wolfram alpha at least)

The range between the min and max temps for the last 100 years is under 1°C globally. For the last 1,000 years it's just over 1°C (from wolfram alpha at least). It's clear that temps are slowly rising, but the constant reports of extreme weather seem at odds with the data to me. Is 1°C over 1,000 years really doing all this? When I read articles about the weather I have to remind myself what the data says. If I didn't check occasionally I'd think we'd increased by 10°C in the last 5 years. For the record, I drive an electric car and my house is supplied by a purely renewable provider here in the UK. I hate the thought of polluting the planet and I do what I can to live a green life. I really love science and study as much as I can, but reading about global warming is very different to reading about quantum electrodynamics or special relativity. I'll happily watch the oil companies go under and I think dumping tons of crap in to the atmosphere is clearly terrible and shouldn't go unpunished, I just wish I had some better data to back this all up. Source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature Has anyone got good sea level rise data for the last 1,000 years? Again, when I read any article I feel like the sea must have risen by a few meters already as everything is so dramatic, but I can't find a decent dataset that sets out what has actually happened.

Diederich 7y ago
I understand where you're coming from. I think that the most immediate risks associated with climate change is not sea level rise, but it's extreme weather. We're seeing this in spades already. It intuitively makes sense at some level: adding more energy to a somewhat chaotic/somewhat stable system (weather over the past 1000 years) will increase the chaos and lessen the stability. To me, this article about heat moving toward Greenland is less of a cause/risk and more of a symptom. The fucked up jetstreams, caused by a relatively small global increase in temperature, is allowing this heat to move somewhere it would almost never be able to move previously.
Oletros 7y ago
Slowly rising? Have you seen the 100yr graph?
- benjamoon 7y ago
  Yeah, it looks bad, but the y axis on the chart only represents 1 degree. This is kind of my point, it’s so easy to show a chart with a big uptick and if you don’t dig deeper you come away thinking we’re about to catch fire.
  - Oletros 7y ago
    Because 1dgree is a lot, and the rate of change is the scary thing

Diederich 7y ago

I understand where you're coming from. I think that the most immediate risks associated with climate change is not sea level rise, but it's extreme weather. We're seeing this in spades already. It intuitively makes sense at some level: adding more energy to a somewhat chaotic/somewhat stable system (weather over the past 1000 years) will increase the chaos and lessen the stability. To me, this article about heat moving toward Greenland is less of a cause/risk and more of a symptom. The fucked up jetstreams, caused by a relatively small global increase in temperature, is allowing this heat to move somewhere it would almost never be able to move previously.

Oletros 7y ago

Slowly rising? Have you seen the 100yr graph?

benjamoon 7y ago
Yeah, it looks bad, but the y axis on the chart only represents 1 degree. This is kind of my point, it’s so easy to show a chart with a big uptick and if you don’t dig deeper you come away thinking we’re about to catch fire.
- Oletros 7y ago
  Because 1dgree is a lot, and the rate of change is the scary thing