3 ms·
This visualization is really cool, but data covers only 150 years. I wouldnt really stress because of this.
by patrulek 3y ago
This visualization is really cool, but data covers only 150 years. I wouldnt really stress because of this.
- callalex 3y agoHow long have humans been burning fossil fuels at scale for?
- steve_adams_86 3y agoThis seems like a very strange sentiment to me. Can you explain your thinking here? Do you think that, hypothetically, the climate fluctuated in similar ways with some frequency over the last 2000 years? Or even 10,000? The only evidence I can find suggests that fluctuations like this have occurred, but never (as far as we can tell) over this short of a time span. Here is a paper which shows that the climate appeared relatively stable over the last 2000 years: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/JonesMannROG04.pdf http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/article... I'm interested in what information you have that suggests we shouldn't be concerned.
- sazz 3y agoIt's not a fluctuation. If you look at the data from NASA, you will see a trend, not an hysterical up and down.
- steve_adams_86 3y agoGood point. This is actually why it’s so concerning; it’s clearly a trend, which by some measurements appears to be exploding at this point. Kind of brings me back to people totally misunderstanding why covid infection rate graphs were concerning. You know, 10 people in your city, then 30, then 100, 500, 2000, 7500, and for the first lower numbers people are like “what’s the big deal? 30 people? Out of 2 million? Big deal”. The risk of spread doesn’t apply to climate change of course. It’s just a seriously alarming trend line that not enough people recognize as concerning.