9 ms·
Earth entering ‘uncharted territory’ as heat records quickly shatter
- Workaccount2 3y agoSo how long until we start spraying the atmosphere?
- boultonmark 3y agostart?
- somewhat_drunk 3y agoI've been saying for a long time that we'll resort to geoengineering to finagle our way out of climate change. Unfortunately I think that prediction is still spot-on.
- Workaccount2 3y agoWe're clearly not going to get our shit together, things are going to start getting obviously out of control (i.e. impossible for even the most ardent coal eater to brush off as "The weather fluctuates sometimes") and governments will reach for the most knee-jerk fix available. Then we'll really do ourselves in when suddenly we have a "fix" for CO2 emissions and we can all go back to burning oil.
- somewhat_drunk 3y agoI doubt we're going back to burning oil, at least not as we have been doing. But I also doubt we're going to transition away fast enough, and once we have the "fix," the transition away from it will slow. We have exactly one place to live in the entire known universe, and we're such a shitshow that we can't help but to gamble on destroying it.
- jansan 3y agoNot the atmosphere, the stratosphere. But if that cannot be undone and temps are going down more than expected, we will be in real trouble.
- Lorin 3y agoSo long and thanks for all the fish.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago425.01 ppm on 28 April 2023. Biotech people: How much time, expertise, and money would it take to genetically modify an organism capable of growing significantly faster and/or requiring less trace micronutrients to grow in robotic ocean farms for purposes of maximum, permanent carbon capture and sequestration? We're not going to remediate climate change effectively through planting trees, fractional distillation of air, waiting for industry, small-scale projects, solar shades, SO2, or ignoring it.
- epistasis 3y agoThis is an open scientific question, not an engineering problem, so there isn't a knowable answer right now on how long and what resources this might take. I have a feeling that time would be the bottleneck. We also have several other routes for capturing and storing carbon from the atmosphere or ocean, other than by life forms, and it's likely that we would prefer those methods for all sorts of reasons. Ultimately, any sequestration is going to be far more expensive than just not emitting the carbon in the first place. And today, we have the technology to interchange 95% of our economy to be carbon free, without any reduction in standard of living, and in fact we would have a better standard of living because energy would be cheaper and we would have less disease from pollution. It's politics that is now the rate limiting step, not the tech. By the time we get that 95% of known solutions implemented, we will have lots of options for the remaining 5% And sequestration of carbon will certainly be required, starting around the 2050 era (according to an IPCC special report), but we should let that tech bake for 30 years before we start massive deployment so we can get the best options without too much lock in. Hopefully in 2030s there will be a robust carbon trading network which will cause larger scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration, then we deploy gigaton scale in the 2050s
- jmopp 3y agoRight now, trace micronutrients are the bottleneck - hence propsals to seed the ocean with iron to encourage algal blooms.
- magic_hamster 3y ago> We're not going to remediate climate change effectively through planting trees, fractional distillation of air, waiting for industry, small-scale projects, solar shades, SO2, or ignoring it. We're not going to remediate climate change, full stop. If there was a time to do anything for climate change to change course it was probably 40 years ago. Climate change is here and the cascade of events has been in motion for a while. The next couple of decades will see an exponential acceleration of ice melting, marine ecosystems going bust, and of course a slew of effects on land, from wild fires to floods. It's here, it's happening and we have to adapt. Hopefully we'll be able to keep a certain way of life of abundance similar to what we're used to. But we might be forced to change some things or do without others. Time will tell.
- ydnaclementine 3y agoUncharted for humans. But the dinosaurs will remember these warmer temps
- cornfutes 3y agoAnd where are they now ?
- antisthenes 3y agoSome are in my fridge, under a Costco rotisserie label.
- signa11 3y agoin your car more likely, and liquified at that.
- vuln 3y agoNope, that’s just a meme. https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does-not-come-dinosaurs https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does...
- vlovich123 3y agoThose are ancient dinosaur corpses. He’s talking about ones that are fresher. Interestingly, I couldn’t find any data on how long it takes for a chicken to get from a farm to the grocery store.
- Cerium 3y agoFrom birth: Six to twelve weeks depending on breed. From death: one or two days. "Retail products are usually delivered to a retailer’s warehouse the day after leaving the production plant. Most often, chicken products get placed into company grocery stores the same day of delivery." [1] [1] see step 10, https://www.chickencheck.in/faq/how-chickens-slaughtered-processed/ https://www.chickencheck.in/faq/how-chickens-slaughtered-pro...
- tristanj 3y ago[flagged]
- pkos98 3y agoBut how did Earth look back then at these conditions? It certainly is uncharted territory for our current vegetation.
- cs702 3y agoIt is uncharted in the history of human civilization -- say, since the advent of agriculture 12K to 14K years ago.
- piva00 3y agoIf we are focusing on GP's pedantry, it's uncharted because charts are a human invention.
- ajross 3y agoIt's so weird to see this argument retreat to rhetoric that basically reduces to "What's your problem? It's not like the planet will become a lifeless wasteland. Something is going to survive!" The median scenario we're looking at now (polar ice melting, large scale extinctions, universal ecosystem disruption, all over a few-hundred-year scale) is exactly the kind of "doomsday scenario" that all you people spent the past three decades denying was possible.
- sdflhasjd 3y agoThat's what uncharted means though. Uncharted territory still existed.
- kadoban 3y agoThat's very reassuring nuance for any several-million-year-old societies hanging around. Doesn't do much for us though.
- John23832 3y agoThe funny thing is that no other life on Earth builds charts, humans do. So, no offense, but the pedantry is incorrect.
- masto 3y agoWhat else did I see in the news? People are angry they can't buy incandescent light bulbs any more.
- Syonyk 3y agoYes. I'd say I'm probably one of those sort, though I'm well enough stocked that it's of no matter to me at this point. I use them in the evenings, on deep dimmers, because I've given up trying to find LED bulbs that aren't "substantially blue" in the evenings - I've reviewed quite a few (https://www.sevarg.net/tag/spectrometer/ https://www.sevarg.net/tag/spectrometer/), and having run out of the cheaper ones, I don't feel like spending $30-$40/bulb for testing the higher end ones that actually come with spectrum data showing there's still a substantial blue spike in the "messes with human sleep" chunk of spectrum. Their CRI is high, but they don't dim to a nice dull red, and that's what matters - at least for my sleep. Though admittedly I also enjoy curling up with a good bit of fiction (on paper) and a kerosene lantern - especially in the winter, when the heat is welcome. I built my own solar (large ground mount), I run around most of the miles in a PHEV, I'm all for reduced carbon impact. Where it matters. What I'm not for is senselessly pissing people off to "make a good point" or whatever, and the actual incandescent ban seems exactly like that. I guarantee people I can see at night wouldn't run hundreds of watts of LEDs, were they to be lighting the outside of their house with incandescents. And we see this in the light pollution metrics over time - LEDs are more efficient in lumens out per watts in, but they tend to get used to just add more light, run them longer instead of turning them off, etc. And that's not just using more energy, it really screws with a wide range of nocturnal animals.
- luxuryballs 3y agoanyone who has seen a temperature record going back more than a couple hundred years will tell you that this is hardly uncharted, there is strong evidence that it’s been way way hotter and way way colder before, and that at scale the global climate is oscillating back and forth between ice ages, if you look at the zoomed out view you would conclude that we are heading towards another ice age, and perhaps it seems unintuitive at first, but it’s theorized that extreme weather and fires, earthquakes and volcanoes are part of what brings about an ice age as the sun is blocked by particles in the sky… I get they are talking “modern times” and specific types of recording history, however given what we know on a large scale it makes these kind of articles seem short sighted and uninformed at best, especially when they try to sound so scientific, and at worst, perhaps intentionally misleading FUD after thinking about it perhaps too deeply the cynic in me sighs thinking maybe modern web analytics has taught the industry that FUD is simply what gets the most likes and shares
- hnfong 3y agoDo you have links to the charts you're referring to?
- luxuryballs 3y agoonce I am not on mobile I can do better than Wikipedia but at first glance this might be a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Pleistocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Pl...
- wcoenen 3y agoThe article states that Monday was the hottest day in at least 125,000 years.
- epistasis 3y ago[flagged]
- hammock 3y ago
- austinheap 3y agohttps://archive.is/890FP https://archive.is/890FP
- kfrzcode 3y ago[flagged]
- epistasis 3y agoThe earth will be fine. I'm more worried about the people.
- mcpackieh 3y agoI think you've both got it backwards. The ecosphere in general is gravely threatened. Humans specifically though? We have engineering on our side. We can air-condition our buildings; coral reefs cannot. We can rapidly adapt to changing circumstances using technology and ingenuity, while most other life cannot adapt except through evolution (which will prove too slow to keep up.)
- epistasis 3y agoI usually count the "Earth" as separate from the ecosystem. And certainly there is going to be a massive reduction in biodiversity, with a lot of the species we value a lot going extinct, but overall the ecosystem will not go kaput. Humans will have to drastically restructure their land use, for example a lot of Midwestern farmers are going to go broke as they adjust to a new climate. Some cities and states like Florida will be in dire straights with 10 feet of sea level rise, which will be a nearly unimaginable expense to relocate. And then all throughout the world we will have absolutely massive migrations of people, along with draught, crop failures, etc. This will result in wars and massive social disruption. Europe can barely deal with a very small number of refugees as it is. Once a country like India becomes unlivable in large areas, there's little telling how countries will react.
- jmopp 3y ago> We can air-condition our buildings Can we do this equitably on a global scale, or poor people die of heatstroke whenever there is a wet-bulb event?
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
- kfrzcode 3y ago[flagged]
- tinyplanet-o 3y ago[dead]
- mbb70 3y agoDon't think of it as the hottest summer of your life, it's the coldest summer of the rest of your life!
- ChatGTP 3y agoIt's a silly quote IMO, you have no idea what technology could turn the tide by then.
- jmclnx 3y agoThere really is no quick/easy technological solution at this point. At this point, except for the ultra rich, living standards will fall quite a bit for developed countries. I think the largest fear is mass migration and war breaking out in areas below about 40 degrees latitude. This will spread north as southern regions start to get too hot for people to live. And it is all because in the 1970s, developed nations did not want to listen to scientists and take bribes from the Oil Industry. Back then plenty could have been started, especially with the oil embargoes occurring back then.
- dwags 3y agoexactly, when we finally make that black hole we get to go right back to absolute zero
- Balgair 3y agoAside: Do you really just use ChatGPT to comment, or is it just a username? Like, what's the deal here?
- ChatGTP 3y agoDo we have any plan collectively to do something urgently about this, or do we just die?
- scottLobster 3y agoNeither
- digitalsushi 3y agowell, 'just die' implies some sudden event. I think that the first deaths caused by global warming have already happened but are not easy to definitively measure. given another generation of time, it will perhaps be easier to measure it, and eventually there will be a 50th percentile consensus that it's happening. I think around the time half of people publicly agree it's happening, there will be strong support to do something reactive, and do something. My hope is that this interim time between now and then, the people who should be deciding if and how to do such a thing, are making good progress for why or why not, and how or how not to execute on it. The other thing that keeps me up at night is that one single billionaire might try to just 'fix it' on a secret mission, botch it, and now we're all in on one person's decision. But we're already in bag on so many other topics - the next pandemic being just as existentially scary to me. I put a lot of energy into trying to accept that I can do a little but I can't do a lot. Life is short, and maybe 6 generations of invention and progress and explosive population growth and technology have cost is some more of that limited shortness. It should be ok to have faith in technology but I sure wouldn't use it as a coping mechanism. This topic can be all-consuming; terminal patients can still live their life and find beauty in the world.
- myshpa 3y agoJudging by the amount of ignorance in this comment section ... we die. And even if we do something about it, it will be too little, too late, and too wrong.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- somewhat_drunk 3y agoI've been saying for a long time that we'll eventually have to geoengineer our way out of climate change. Sadly, I still think that's the case.
- basch 3y agoFirst we need fiction to inspire or convince us. A James Cameron or Roland Emmerich movie.
- sazz 3y agoOk, so you say the climate is not allowed to change anymore?
- somewhat_drunk 3y agoAre your shoes tied?
- sazz 3y agoThat is indeed a serious question. Because if you argue that we have to influence climate change through geoengineering, then there are obviously limits that humans put on the climate, within which limits it is allowed to change. Who defines these limits? Is it allowed to get warmer? Is it allowed to get cooler? If so, how fast? Are the changes defined in a democratic decision-making process? So please - what is your strategy then?
- mcpackieh 3y agoGive people a thermostat to play with and there will be fights.
- asah 3y agoyes! Here's my reasoning: - conservation doesn't work in the developed world: there's simply too much sacrifice required, too quickly. - conservation doesn't work in the developing world: no way will people agree to freeze development while watching rich people in the developed world. - decarbonization/etc are cute but even if we did EVERYTHING and ASAP, it still wouldn't be close to enough. I'll know we're serious about climate change when we invest $trillions into R&D and seriously consider large scale geoengineering, no idea too weird. We're getting there: consider this $52B proposal ($100+B with the usual overruns) to temporarily protect NYC/NJ from sealevel rise: https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+sea+level+rise+protection+plan&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+sea+level+rise+protectio... - now multiply to Miami, Jakarta and dozens of other cities.
- efitz 3y agoI am tired of the “end of the word is nigh” headlines about climate change. I stopped going to church regularly in my late teens because I got tired of the “Armageddon could happen anytime” messaging in protestant Christianity. Feels the same to me with climate change alarmists. Is the earth warming? Yes. Is it net bad for people? I’m not convinced. I’m not convinced that oceans rising an inch in the next century is going to doom humanity. More people die of cold every year than of heat. We have dikes. When something becomes a visible problem we usually either address it or find a workaround.
- basisword 3y ago>> Is the earth warming? Yes. Is it net bad for people? I’m not convinced Even if it is, why do we need to keep hearing about it? Oh yeah, this kind of news drives clicks. It creates fear and “climate anxiety” which drives more clicks. As citizens there is little we can or will do to fix this. It’s down to politicians agreeing on a strategy globally. With high inflation, and the rising cost of living, citizens have plenty of more pressing things to worry about without the media piling on more misery.
- foobiekr 3y agoWe need to keep hearing about it because more than half the global population is in denial about it and we are not doing much to prevent it while preventable catastrophe looms.
- scottLobster 3y agoYes, I'm sure all the Climate Change deniers both read and respect the Washington Post.
- efitz 3y ago"In denial" and "catastrophe looms" are exactly what I was talking about in my original post. Evangelical protestants will be happy to tell you why you need to change your ways today or else you'll go to hell along with every other non-believer, and that Christ is going to return anytime now and then it will be too late. It sounds very similar to me. Doomsaying just tunes me out, and I suspect that's a widespread pov that's not widely spoken because who wants to engage with doomsayers.
- wiradikusuma 3y agoI'm curious what the naysayers of global warming (especially the big oil?) are saying now, who kept saying all good? What's their excuse now? "Bye I'm going to bunker that I built using $$$ from making earth hotter"?
- rtkwe 3y agoPrivately there's a lot of the rich doing just that but they're still pushing the do nothing response to climate change politically to continue making money in existing carbon heavy industries; see Florida rejecting solar subsidies and groups trying to force "remove the free electric chargers or put in free gas pumps" through at various local levels. There's still a huge faction of "we can't change this/it'd cost too much money to even try" out there.
- quacked 3y agoI am continually frustrated by climate doomerism by people who aren't willing to make the lifestyle changes that would be requiring to stop using so much oil. We don't have enough raw materials in the world to replace the current oil grid with wind and solar, and nuclear requires a top-tier industrial society operating at peace for thousands of years to ensure there's no risk of catastrophic failure or radiation leakage. Instead activists like to blame the usual suspects (Exxon, BP, etc.) without asking themselves what all of this oil is getting used for. International shipping, plastic, jet fuel, auto fuel, industrial lubricant, diesel for agriculture. I know people who will go to a climate protest on Thursday and get on a plane to visit Costa Rica for fun on Friday. Climate activism at the popular level is a virtue-signalling game. If we want to stop emissions we need to turn the global economy and its consumer activity into a smoking hole and keep it that way for centuries. And concurrently we need to transition to wind, solar, and nuclear.
- zorrolovsky 3y agoI have the opposite view. No matter what individuals do, they won't turn the system around. Furthermore, a good % of consumption is B2B. There has to be a systemic ban on producing products that threaten the existence of life. Winning money is not an excuse to destroy the planet. Yes, I know it's utopic, hard to regulate, implement and will never happen. But drastic decisions need to be made. People think we need cars so it's fine to destroy life to use cars. Well, humans lived a good bunch of years without cars, and humans won't be able to live when cars destroy the planet. So stop producing cars, stop producing fuel, and people will struggle but survive. Continue producing cars and fuel, and we'll all perish to greed and stupidity.
- quacked 3y ago> I have the opposite view. No matter what individuals do, they won't turn the system around I don't think we have opposite views; I don't think individuals will willingly stop consuming sources of emissions. "Systemic ban on producing products that threaten the existence of life" is what I mean by "turn the global economy into a smoking hole".
- 3y ago
- Dig1t 3y agoWe have the technology to solve global warming right now. We have basically unlimited clean energy in the form of nuclear fission. There’s enough fissile material to last humanity for hundreds of years and even more untapped in the oceans. If we were actually doomed by climate change, we could and would fix this problem. For now, most of the doom/anxiety posting seems like political tactics to me. I’m on board with switching to renewables and investing in new technologies like EV’s. Which is happening in the private sector regardless of politicians. But I will never support using climate anxiety to restrict freedoms. (I see restricting meat consumption, changing speed limits like on the autobahn, etc as restricting freedoms)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- myshpa 3y agoWe have to stop fossil fuels ASAP. Then we could start another Little Ice Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) by reforesting/afforesting and restoring wildlife populations. Agricultural land use, particularly for animal feed, poses the biggest obstacle to ecosystem restoration and carbon sequestration, hindering climate efforts. The potential for carbon sequestration is vast, with enough capacity to meet the entire 1.5°C carbon budget. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4. Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... We have enough space to reforest / afforest an area bigger than Africa right now If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. The expansion of land for agriculture is the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets The restoration and conservation of wild animals and their ecosystem is a key component that can enhance the ability to prevent climate warming beyond 1.5 °C. https://www.oneearth.org/how-restoring-key-wildlife-species-can-be-a-game-changing-climate-solution/ https://www.oneearth.org/how-restoring-key-wildlife-species-... Trophic rewilding can expand natural climate solutions https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01631-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01631-6 And it all comes down to agriculture and our diets. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Better farming techniques across the world could lead to storage of 31 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/improving-farming-soil-carbon-store-global-heating-target https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/improvin... Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agriculture_production_as_a_major_driver_of_the_Earth_system_exceeding_planetary_boundaries https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu... If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares, and return 35% of habitable earth to wildlife and nature https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets The animal agriculture industry is the leading cause of most environmental degradation that is currently occurring. https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomfortable-we-need-talk-about-it-animal-agriculture-industry-and-zero-waste https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomf... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...
- _8j50 3y agoWe should build underground cities like the movie "city of ember" and adapt. We can become mole people. When you dig hard enough and become an subterranean billonaire, then you can afford a house above ground. Otherwise, your social karama score will determine your above ground privileges. The robots will farm above ground and care for the planet as we use geothermal energy and nuclear power to burrow out new homes. Don't worry, we can still have meaningless corporate meetings underground to remind ourselves of who we truly are.
- alienicecream 3y agoThe people most scared about climate change are the kinds of people who tend not to have children anyway, so what are they so worried about? Are you trying to keep the earth habitable for the religious?
- hotpotamus 3y ago> what are they so worried about? Dying of heat exhaustion if caught out in a wet-bulb event? It's pretty hard on the elderly you know. Or how about getting killed so the climate refugees can loot your air conditioner? Starving to death in a drought-induced famine? My suspicion is that people who don't have kids is that they're not much of a fan of dying regardless. Source: I don't have kids and don't want to die in any of the above ways.
- alienicecream 3y agoHigher CO2, longer growing seasons and hotter temperatures are good for crops. "Climate change" will tend to increase rainfall as well. There are technical solutions for the other issues. An air conditioner is a $200 one time purchase, we subsidize much more expensive things. Elderly people tend to stay inside. I think you can relax.
- jmopp 3y ago> "Climate change" will tend to increase rainfall as well Yes, through flash-floods and mega-droughts. A bit hard to grow crops when you get your annual rainfall in one go during hurricane week.
- alienicecream 3y agoAlarmist nonsense. The idea that we just happen to live in the ideal climate for everything and any deviation would be catastrophic is ridiculous. Life has survived on this planet for 4 billion years through much more drastic changes. With the advantage of technology we are way ahead of any foreseeable climate change issue. Humans live in areas of the world we would have no ability to live in if we didn't have technology on our side. The whole reaction to climate change is a melodramatic overreaction driven by partisan politics and group think.
- BasedAnon 3y agohttps://www.fasterthanexpected.com/ https://www.fasterthanexpected.com/
- irthomasthomas 3y agoUncharted Territory only if you start your charts in the mid 19th century, at the end of the Little Ice Age. If you look at the full history, the Medieval Warm Period[0] was hotter than our current forecasts, and things got better. It ushered in global golden age for man. Go back further and you can also include the Roman Warm Period, and the Late Bronze Warm Period. It's cyclical glacial/inter-glacial periods. Right now, we are in an inter-glacial period of an ice age. Overall, I'm enjoying the temperate weather, the longer growing seasons, and global-greening. [0] https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=15.562898525710124%2C25.80380556269847&z=2 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrI...
- rich_sasha 3y agoI'd like it to be true, but is it? Wikipedia and XKCD disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/med... https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- irthomasthomas 3y agoOk, you got me. Thousands of peer reviewed papers Vs Wikipedia and xkcd.
- rich_sasha 3y agoXkcd was actually a joke. The wikipedia plot is based on data from the following Nature paper, from 2020: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0 , you can see that by following the reference in the link to the plot. I haven't read it but I'm assuming it's not total BS. Could you provide some reference for your proposal? It would be very reassuring if it's true.
- simonblack 3y agoYep. Looks like our two weeks of Winter is already over. I was actually enjoying the cool mornings: 16C.