3 ms·

The chart in the article makes recent man made global warming look insignificant compared to recent changes. Much different than the often sited xkcd, https://

The chart in the article makes recent man made global warming look insignificant compared to recent changes. Much different than the often sited xkcd, https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/, which shows the same time period as basically a flat line. Who is right?

fhars 7y ago
Both, one is a single data point at a single location, the other is global trend. The medieval warm period wasn‘t warmer than the average on average either, it was just a local fluctuation.
guelo 7y ago
According to this[1] that graph is frequently used by climate skeptics but it is outdated and incorrect. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cor...
monort 7y ago
Chart in xkcd is for global and smoothed temperature (proxy measurements with 200 years resolution), so it downplays abrupt and regional temperature changes like in Greenland or Younger Dryas https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9103/how-do-the-known-abrupt-climate-change-events-fit-into-the-xkcd-earth-temperatur https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9103/how-do...
ffellow 7y ago
All the events in the wikipedia articles are localized, whereas the current global warming is a a global event, which is what is referenced by xkcd. What this means is that the frequency and/or the intensity of these local outlier events can increase significantly. This is what man-made climate change means and we can still avoid most of the negative effects if we want to. Often these local climate change events are taken as proof that 'climate has always changed'. Well, yes of course - but not on a global scale during human civilization as we know it. Personally, imagining these events occuring during our lifetime, maybe several at once or just a couple of decades apart scares the crap out of me.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "we can still avoid most of the negative effects if we want to" There is (possibly a minority) view that no, we can't, and things are far, far worse than people think. That contrary to the idea that people exaggerate the threat, in fact it's been minimized to the point where we are about as prepared for it as we would be for a large asteroid strike.

fhars 7y ago

Both, one is a single data point at a single location, the other is global trend. The medieval warm period wasn‘t warmer than the average on average either, it was just a local fluctuation.

guelo 7y ago

According to this[1] that graph is frequently used by climate skeptics but it is outdated and incorrect. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cor...

monort 7y ago

Chart in xkcd is for global and smoothed temperature (proxy measurements with 200 years resolution), so it downplays abrupt and regional temperature changes like in Greenland or Younger Dryas https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9103/how-do-the-known-abrupt-climate-change-events-fit-into-the-xkcd-earth-temperatur https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9103/how-do...

ffellow 7y ago

All the events in the wikipedia articles are localized, whereas the current global warming is a a global event, which is what is referenced by xkcd. What this means is that the frequency and/or the intensity of these local outlier events can increase significantly. This is what man-made climate change means and we can still avoid most of the negative effects if we want to. Often these local climate change events are taken as proof that 'climate has always changed'. Well, yes of course - but not on a global scale during human civilization as we know it. Personally, imagining these events occuring during our lifetime, maybe several at once or just a couple of decades apart scares the crap out of me.

perl4ever 7y ago
"we can still avoid most of the negative effects if we want to" There is (possibly a minority) view that no, we can't, and things are far, far worse than people think. That contrary to the idea that people exaggerate the threat, in fact it's been minimized to the point where we are about as prepared for it as we would be for a large asteroid strike.