3 ms·

https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

linuxftw 6y ago
Looks like the current temperature is close to 5k BC. The 45 degree trend line towards the end is also comparing a 50 year period to 500 year periods in history. So, these 'spikes' could be totally normal, but you won't see them because the graph is not honest. Here's what we do know: The earth has historically been much hotter with more CO2 in the atmosphere (much more) than it is today. There's also some evidence that historic rises in CO2 lagged temperature rather than the reverse.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  Please note that the last part of the graph have stippled lines that's because they are comparing year of year with averages over 300 years or so. Anything you average over 300 years will tend to flatten. If you averaged the last 100 years over the last 300 years it would not look as dramatic too. So the graph is manipulative to say they least.
  - snickms 6y ago
    The data points at the top are at 16.6 year intervals. Recent data is represented by a line. The punch line is not the absolute temperature (as this wanders around a fair bit), but the gradient at the end. Because the recent data is over a period of 166 years, you can turn the line into 10 dots which represent each 16.6 year 'line' average. I think you should try this yourself. You will find that the averaging only smooths out brief transients between your new dots. In the case of the comic, it has no effect on the gradient at 2016. Having more data doesn't change the average slope - it simply allows you to measure average slope over shorter distances. So unless you think the joke was "haha we've been at this temperature before", I suggest it is you who is being ... what you said.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      Having more data opens up for spikes to be shown more clearly, the more you average the more it flattens. So try and put it into a 300 year or higher average span and you will see it flattening. But don't take my word for it. https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64670/epic-climate-cartoon-goes-viral-but-it-has-one-key/ https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64670/epic-climate-cart...
      - snickms 6y ago
        Congratulations! You've just shown us all that the gradient started to shift upwards less than 300 years ago. Seriously, look at some basic calculus. Try to understand what you are doing. I look forward to your further efforts in debunking climate data misinformation.
        ThomPete 6y ago
        Nice strawman.
- aquaticsunset 6y ago
  Sure, that's fine. But Earth with humans living on it, providing a hospitable climate for us, has been cooler. Just because something happened in Earth's past doesn't mean it's a good thing for us, nor is it a good idea for us to slingshot our way very quickly toward that balmy future.
- imtringued 6y ago
  >There's also some evidence that historic rises in CO2 lagged temperature rather than the reverse. That's only true in some cases with strong emphasis on "some". If you want to know how much of that is true and how much is wrong just watch this video https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=703 https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=703 I don't think I can do it justice with a butchered summary on HN but I'll keep it long enough to get you hooked. There are two phases during a deglaciation and CO2 lags in the first one and leads in the second one. We have basically skipped the first phase by emitting CO2 directly. If anything, this should worry us even more because there is evidence that increased temperatures drive CO2 emissions as well. So we haven't skipped the first phase at all, it's going to happen in the future. Feedback loops have been predicted by many scientists. What could happen is this: "man-made CO2 -> higher temperatures -> more CO2 -> even higher temperatures". I recommend you to watch the entire video. Not just the segment I linked. That same content creator also made a whole playlist concerning climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8e...
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    > There are two phases during a deglaciation and CO2 lags in the first one and leads in the second one. This is evidence that CO2 is not causative of warming. You can wrap this in whatever additional logic you like, but nobody's buying it. In any case, if there was an increasing feedback loop, then we'd see that with the #1 greenhouse gas, water. We're not, so we're not in a feedback loop.

Looks like the current temperature is close to 5k BC. The 45 degree trend line towards the end is also comparing a 50 year period to 500 year periods in history. So, these 'spikes' could be totally normal, but you won't see them because the graph is not honest. Here's what we do know: The earth has historically been much hotter with more CO2 in the atmosphere (much more) than it is today. There's also some evidence that historic rises in CO2 lagged temperature rather than the reverse.

ThomPete 6y ago
Please note that the last part of the graph have stippled lines that's because they are comparing year of year with averages over 300 years or so. Anything you average over 300 years will tend to flatten. If you averaged the last 100 years over the last 300 years it would not look as dramatic too. So the graph is manipulative to say they least.
- snickms 6y ago
  The data points at the top are at 16.6 year intervals. Recent data is represented by a line. The punch line is not the absolute temperature (as this wanders around a fair bit), but the gradient at the end. Because the recent data is over a period of 166 years, you can turn the line into 10 dots which represent each 16.6 year 'line' average. I think you should try this yourself. You will find that the averaging only smooths out brief transients between your new dots. In the case of the comic, it has no effect on the gradient at 2016. Having more data doesn't change the average slope - it simply allows you to measure average slope over shorter distances. So unless you think the joke was "haha we've been at this temperature before", I suggest it is you who is being ... what you said.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    Having more data opens up for spikes to be shown more clearly, the more you average the more it flattens. So try and put it into a 300 year or higher average span and you will see it flattening. But don't take my word for it. https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64670/epic-climate-cartoon-goes-viral-but-it-has-one-key/ https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64670/epic-climate-cart...
    - snickms 6y ago
      Congratulations! You've just shown us all that the gradient started to shift upwards less than 300 years ago. Seriously, look at some basic calculus. Try to understand what you are doing. I look forward to your further efforts in debunking climate data misinformation.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        Nice strawman.
aquaticsunset 6y ago
Sure, that's fine. But Earth with humans living on it, providing a hospitable climate for us, has been cooler. Just because something happened in Earth's past doesn't mean it's a good thing for us, nor is it a good idea for us to slingshot our way very quickly toward that balmy future.
imtringued 6y ago
>There's also some evidence that historic rises in CO2 lagged temperature rather than the reverse. That's only true in some cases with strong emphasis on "some". If you want to know how much of that is true and how much is wrong just watch this video https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=703 https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=703 I don't think I can do it justice with a butchered summary on HN but I'll keep it long enough to get you hooked. There are two phases during a deglaciation and CO2 lags in the first one and leads in the second one. We have basically skipped the first phase by emitting CO2 directly. If anything, this should worry us even more because there is evidence that increased temperatures drive CO2 emissions as well. So we haven't skipped the first phase at all, it's going to happen in the future. Feedback loops have been predicted by many scientists. What could happen is this: "man-made CO2 -> higher temperatures -> more CO2 -> even higher temperatures". I recommend you to watch the entire video. Not just the segment I linked. That same content creator also made a whole playlist concerning climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8e...
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > There are two phases during a deglaciation and CO2 lags in the first one and leads in the second one. This is evidence that CO2 is not causative of warming. You can wrap this in whatever additional logic you like, but nobody's buying it. In any case, if there was an increasing feedback loop, then we'd see that with the #1 greenhouse gas, water. We're not, so we're not in a feedback loop.