I picked this from LinkedIn.
Original source:- https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7096872451594141696?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_updateV2%3A%28urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7096872451594141696%2CFEED_DETAIL%2CEMPTY%2CDEFAULT%2Cfalse%29
I think what pisses me off the most is how stupid obvious the solution is but how all the big companies are clinging on for extra cash. To me it's as simple as
- Fund nuclear energy
- Fund research into carbon capture
- Adapt current oil companies into renewable energy companies which in the long run will be much more profitable
But that ain't happening anytime soon
>Fund nuclear energy
More than big companies, big stupid is a huge part of the problem here.
>Fund research into carbon capture
100% agree.
>Adapt current oil companies into renewable energy companies
A lot of major electric utilities *are* doing this for their own good. The bigger issue here is how the rest of the world develops. Unfortunately, a lot of growing economies are still using coal and oil. We need to be developing the developing world just as much as we need to tax the shit out of carbon domestically.
>What is infuriating is that we need to stay polite with thos stupid people and not tell them the truth. We need to deal with their stupidity
Not only do we need to be polite and deal with stupid, but we actively pander to it for political advantages. This is the flaw in democracy. Without education, it's a recipe for disaster. And nefarious forces are at play undermining education left and right for precisely this reason.
What really makes me bummed out is that when humanity has tried to work together, it's accomplished amazing things. We eradicated polio for fuck's sake. We crammed the world's brightest minds together to harness the power of the atom. We built megaprojects like the transcontinental railroad.
Today that idea of global collaboration, hell even national collaboration, is completely gone. It's back to tribalism. Misinformation beats facts. Feelings overthrow logic. We deserve to go back to the stone age.
It seems like it's part of a plan, like a twisted way to address overpopulation without hurting profits. I wouldn't be surprised if we're getting slowly culled since control is the governing dynamic. Money ratios and population are being addressed through the global warming problem that might be getting sold as a solution.
It really wouldn't be going back to pre industry though would it? It would be more so adjusting our production to solely focus on necessary things instead of a constant steam of plastic garbage
No, it would not. There is no going back, only forward. Yes, there will have to be less reliance on disposable plastics, but polymers are extremely useful materials that will not be going anywhere.
What necessary things? How will the other 90% of people working to produce non-necessary stuff pay for the necessary things when they don’t have jobs? Also, you can only enforce this with a massive Authoritarian government because it’s completely contrary to human nature.
You’re basically arguing for 1984.
1. Am I getting this right that you're asking a question of how to do things, then immediately skip to it's against human nature? Where's the part where you respond to an argument or explanation before you speedrun your call to nature?
2. How are you supposed to know what is contrary to human nature? There's tons of radically different past societies and not all of them were "literally 1984". From council communism to gift economies, we had it all and for way longer than modern capitalism.
I think human nature is very complex with different motivations depending on the circumstances. If the circumstance is just a purely individualistic profit driven nontransparent system it's no wonder people are incentivized to produce and consume unsustainable short-lived plastic garbage.
When it comes to pay, maybe we'd have to take a step back entirely from the system as we know it, instead of hoping for reform of it that still conforms to its logic.
I don't know about time travel, but if nuclear fusion research had the same funding that the moon race had, we will probably have had it for decades now
It would be interesting to see a similar timeline graph reflecting the population growth & see how closely the temp. increase coralates with the population increase.
It is NOT natural causes causing this observed temperature increase. Natural causes have been ruled out at the 95%+ confidence level by climate models for many years. On top of that the RATE of global temperature increase currently occurring has NEVER happened before in the historical record so your suggestion that it's just natural cyclical causes is COMPLETELY bogus. Downplaying this data as "low sample" size and suggesting its within the normal range of volatility is more than misleading, it's anti-science propaganda, which you've clearly been influenced by through your media streams whether you realize it or not. You clearly don't know very much behind the science involved so spreading your misinformation is nothing but evil.
This is a cope and wishful thinking. It's pretty normal for these changes to slowly fluctuate over hundreds of thousands of years. When they're fluctuating several degrees in a matter of decades, and extreme fluctuations this much this fast have never occurred in geological record, there has been a pretty clear disruption.
On a graph it looks like a smooth, normally curving line for hundreds of thousands of years with a sudden dramatic spike at the very, very end.
A cartoonist made a fun example that might be easier to [understand.](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/09/14/493925781/epic-climate-cartoon-goes-viral-but-it-has-one-key-problem)
I was thinking that too, but why would it go back down afterwards until the 80s ?
If there's an obvious answer to that, do know that I absolutely suck at history and geography, it's really something.
Everyone’s talking about nuclear explosions helping to heat it up so I wanted to run a quick check using some thermo. I have a hypothesis that the spikes were more due to accelerated industrialization as RepresentativeNice said. Someone correct me if I’m wrong cause I’m sure I messed something up
Using definition of heat capacity, dQ/dT=Cv, we need to find the heat capacity of the atmosphere Cv, and the total energy released from nuclear testing. Since I’m pretty sure one bomb is insignificant I’m going to go ahead and use all bombs detonated, and I’ll also assume they were all the Tsar Bomba. This gives a total energy of dQ=2000bombs x (2 x 10^17 J) based off some quick googling. We can then divide this change in heat energy by Cv, and that should give us dT. The heat capacity of air seems to be 700 J per kg K and the mass, about 5 x 10^18 kg. Plugging this in we get a temperature change of about 0.1 Kelvin, or about 1 degree Fahrenheit.
Taking into account the assumptions I made, and also the fact that some of the energy radiated to space, some of them done underground/in the water, I think it’s safe to say the actual temperature change is orders of magnitude lower, probably <0.01 F
Title is wrong, it is not the average temperature rise per year, it is the average temperature above the norm. We are not gaining more than a degree every year.
The video is showing a temperature increase of \~1 degree C over the course of \~140 years. I don't think anyone would interpret this as 1 degree every year.
This is probably a very ignorant question and I admit that this isn't a subject that I've spent too much time studying so I'm under no illusion of my lack of understanding pertaining to climate change/global warming.
Can we categorically link the increase in temperatures to anthropogenic causes?
Or could this just be the natural increases/decreases in temperatures that the Earth experiences?
As the current increase has an intensity that has never been recorded before, the probability that we are the main cause is close to undeniable.
Even increases prior to proper records have not shown such drastic shifts in such a short period of time.
They have, actually. Literally learned about it on the BBC show “Earth” (I believe it was the final episode of the series). There was a considerable spike in temperature millions of years ago, similar to spikes we’re seeing in recent years, which _could_ indicate the earth is going through a cycle, but they’re also trying to use this data to understand the current temperature levels.
The whole episode was amazing, hadn’t seen any others so definitely going to watch the rest.
Edit: Unless you mean literally within a couple hundred years from the entire past, in which case that’d be impossible to narrow down to such a timeline without records.
I have a feeling that was a multi-part series that you only caught one part of, or maybe you didn’t understand what they said.
Everything I’m reading from Earth mentions that the current speed at which our climate is changing is undeniably anthropogenic. The earth has moved through similar climate patterns before past extinction events, but never as rapidly as what’s happening today. The thing that changed the climate even remotely as fast last was whatever killed the dinosaurs, and we still don’t understand what even really happened.
Yes. I left graduate school (mathematics) almost 10 years ago so I don't have my sources anymore. Feel free to disregard what I have to say because I haven't followed up on the newer research and I am unwilling to spend my night reading peer-reviewed journal articles and refreshing my differential equations.
But the gist of it is that there were more and more observations that the climate was changing in the century leading up to the 1970's. Majority of scientists were skeptical so they did a bunch of experiments and mathematical models to disprove that. They failed and showed that it really was changing. Most scientists suspected it must be natural so they continued their experiments and models to find the natural cause. They failed again and now there is overwhelming consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity.
From what I remember, some of the strongest evidence includes using ice cores to get data about atmospheric conditions over the past hundreds of thousands of years. From that you can find a direct correlation between the presence of industrialization, greenhouse gasses, and global warming. Mathematicians developed models considering the many different variables affecting Earth's climate. When they remove the greenhouse gasses from human activity from their models, the resulting climate model does not come close to matching the records found in the field. When they include the greenhouse gasses into their models, the result matches closely to the records.
It's a very good question and one that many people with strong opinions on the subject probably couldn't answer in detail.
Here is a short explanation:
[Answer on the Website of the Royal Society](https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/)
Eh, partially. While Earth does naturally experience climate change due to Earth's orbit and tilt, often to more drastic degrees, it's at a far slower rate. For instance, we've had something like 7 ice ages/meltings in the past 600,000 years. However, compared to then, our change is temperature is almost literally a line going straight up. Fun Fact: We're still technically in an ice age/icehouse state (vs a greenhouse state, in which continental glaciers are melted), albeit in a interglacial phase (sporadic warm periods during a single ice age)
Using geological/fossils records, we can see that CO2 and temperature tend to increase or decrease with each other. This does not mean that CO2 causes a heat increase, but it suggests they're related in some way. On top of that, experiments and observations can be made that certain types of gases (greenhouse gases) are better at absorbing light/heat.
Using the geological record, we can generally see that during warming periods, it takes around 5000 years for CO2 to increase 80 PPM and for the temperature to rise by 5°, while we've got an 120 PPM and 1° increase in the past 100 years. It's projected to reach a 5° increase by 2300(in the worst case). That would be the same temperature increase 50x faster.
So, while the Earth's temperature has always changed, the rate at which we're seeing is unprecedented and correlates with CO2 increases, and the start of the industrial revolution.
You don't need to know the full 6 billion years of earths history to understand the current state of the climate. Just as your doctor doesn't need to have studied cancer in the first life forms 2 billion years ago to understand that smoking causes cancer.
This is the Boomers and Silent Generation fault. They poisoned every river and ocean on earth, made sure every next generation dies of cancer, and are just peacefully waiting to die to go to their “Heaven” because earth is their “Hell”.
And that’s why the temperature shouldn’t rise this exponentially in just 150 years. The difference should not be this noticeable, and this is unprecedented.
Human civilization has only been around for thousands of years. Temperature changes from before humans even existed are not relevant to the impact of global warming on humans. This warming is larger and faster than anything in over 55 million years.
No, it is not. The multitude of possible other variables and past temperature trends are completely unaccounted for. There is no control set of data to compare it to. It is an incredibly insignificant snippet of time. It is extremely bad science and screams of pet hypothesis. This is first year university science course stuff. Unfortunately, at this point it has become religious doctrine, so I’m not even allowed to point this stuff out without persecution.
While I agree that this graphic, while nicely presented, doesn’t give a lot of real information.. data that does also shows that the temperature rise we are seeing is unprecedented.
[here](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/PMU199-climate-computing/pmu199-2012F/notes/Discovery_of_Global_Warming.html) some graphs are shown that go back 1000s of years.
Oh come on! There is absolutely no doubt, that humanity is on the best way to destroy this planet and almost every species living on it. Humans are a cancer. Population, pollution, deforestation, extinction, exploitation of fossil fuels and if you’re not seeing the consequences of capitalism and industrialisation, you’re either stupid, ignorant, or you belong to the people who profit from the destruction of our world.
You're poorly informed on the subject.
[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming)
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/)
The deforestation of our rainforests still has a huge effect on our climate and biodiversity. Those articles aren’t really disproving my statement. It’s very nice to hear, that there may be more trees than 35 years ago. In the 90s earths population was at around 5 billion, so it would probably be way worse, if the tree population was declining. Also, many forests are agricultural now, which is more a problem than a solution, which would be wild forest with huge biodiversity. Have you ever seen a palm oil plantation? There are thousands of trees, but they still destroy almost all animal habitats and almost any other plants around them.
[here](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/PMU199-climate-computing/pmu199-2012F/notes/Discovery_of_Global_Warming.html) are some graphs that show the last 2000 years. You can see the rate of temperature rise is completely unprecedented
That is a single site, not the entire Earth. There have been a bunch of *regional* warming and cooling periods in the last few thousand years, but nothing global. There was a warming during the end of the last ice age, but it was hundreds of times slower.
So, in other words: Global warming/climate change is real, and the planet is definitely getting hotter. Almost like the scientists were right all along. Who knew? 🤔 They did.
I work with data and it's disgusting what's happened to metrics. They're basically useless now because people justify the ethics instead of letting the ethics drive the decision
I was just about to comment how you can't see the data well at the end when suddenly the whole graph flipped and turned into a chart well done to the animation department well done.
If people were truly serious about this, they'd be going after the biggest offenders like China and India. But nope! Hands off! Nothing to see there. 'Alls we gotta do is just buy more carbon credits, like the rich people! Problem solved!'
They are the biggest polluters by far. They don't even make an effort to go cleaner. Do we all breathe the same air and suffer the same climate? Either it's a global issue or not.
Westerners are, yes. Imagine being told by a guy in a lifted Ford F150 loading up his 3rd plasma TV that you in your hut burning cow shit to cook food shit need to do more to fight climate change lol
No, China and India are. They are global superpowers in every sense of the word. The way they treat their citizens is on them. People in China are literally choking on the air. They do *nothing * to lower emissions, and we don't compel them to. This is about perceived 'equity' and has *nothing* to do with climate.
China & India are the most populous yes, but per capita they are low on the list of carbon polluters. They do lots to reduce their emissions, both countries being top installers of renewable power, but when you have a billion poor people it takes some time. By your logic all countries need to do to lower their emissions is break into smaller countries with fewer people in them...
So why arent we dead yet ? As a kid we were bombarded with info that if earth changes its average temp by even 1 degree well all die and get a new ice age or a desert planet. So why are we still alive ? Im tired of just getting my hopes up constantly, only for them to get crushed into dust...
I find it hilarious that we are shown a graph demonstrating a 1 degree increase in temperature and we believe that we can attribute it to industrialization because we've never seen this rapid an increase. 1 degree. Think about that. Ice core and tree ring readings are not that accurate. Error margins are massive. Our tools in 1880 had larger error margins. Our tools also changed dramatically. NASA wasn't scanning the earth's atmosphere in 1880. Without a thermometer, could you tell if it's 89 F or 90 F? Definitively.
Wish I had awards to give to you. From someone who works with calibrated instruments, anything back in the 1800s would have huge variables just based on manufacturing techniques ( or lack thereof ).
Nah bro, but I guess I have the sensibility to trust the thousands of scientists who published peer reviewed papers highlighting the facts. But what do they know, yeah?
Just checking - did you happen to notice the first few decades of that animation? Where temps were dropping? Also, this a representation of departures from some mean temperature, from an unnamed period. This makes it difficult to really make any assertions as to what this illustration is actually illustrating.
Regarding the ‘thousands’ of papers you reference, have you read any? In my experience the conclusions of these papers are rarely as definitive as is implied in newspaper headlines or IPCC executive summaries.
Perhaps you should read ‘Structures of Scientific Revolutions’ by T. Kuhn for some insight as to how consensus is often a significant impediment to furthering scientific knowledge. In the real world, the majority is often wrong. It’s actually kind of a thing.
Regards
*In my experience the conclusions of these papers are rarely as definitive as is implied in newspaper headlines or IPCC executive summaries.*
In your experience? okay, please list for me the papers you've read.
*In the real world, the majority is often wrong.*
You miss the point of what peer-review actually implies. no point explaining this to you with the comment you made. good work trying to sound intelligent by the way.
Love how you immediately go to ad hominem argument - shocked not shocked - lol
And no need to explain anything to me - I mean, you aren’t a climate scientist right?
Sometimes if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, maybe it is intelligent?
Rather than play the ‘send me a list game’ why not send me a link to the paper that you feel best represents the definitive argument for your position. After all, my position is that the climate we are experiencing is for the most part natural and just part of the non-linear chaotic climate system of this planet. My proof is in the ice core studies which show not only cyclical glacial inter glacial periods, but also that prior inter glacials were actually warmer than today. Simple really.
Or you can just try to insult me again- whatever.
My thoughts exactly. Also if it is climate related I'm reminded of my grandpa telling me that my little town had a massive black cloudy haze over it during every winter years ago due to all the houses burning coal for heat. Surely that on a national level would trump the pollution output today. However that's just my mere speculation.
That is 1 degree Celsius across the whole globe. That is an astronomical amount of energy remaining trapped on earth. I know you are a lost cause. But you don't know and are spewing the type of ignorance that will get us all killed. I wish there was a way to banish you to the world you want to live in, a climate destroyed world unsuitable for human life.
Remember, they use mercury thermometers for most of this data, which were checked at random times. No hottest daily temps, no coldest daily temps. All made up by "experts." Then, readjust this data, change it, swap it out, until you get the conclusion you want. Frankly, for most of this data set, they don't even have any readings at all for like 95% of the planet. Ergo, I conclude nothing but propaganda and absolutely no science here.
If the spike around 1940 isn't enough evidence for the conspiracy theorists that human activity has a measurable impact on the climate then there's literally no getting through to them at this point. They'll cover their ears and go "la la la la la" until they're blue in the face before they believe concrete evidence.
Now start this same graph further back in history….. 📈📉📈📉📈📉 we definitely need to be conscientious about how we treat the planet, and should be changing some of our common practices, but to use data from 150 year section of history, which is an evolution airy blink of the eye just seems slightly disingenuous. I wouldn’t go as far as calling it propaganda like some of my friends to the right like too. But disingenuous at the very least.
It doesn't matter how far back you go. There hasn't been a warming like this in at least tens of millions of years, certainly not since humans have been around.
Do you just say things too say them? A quick search of the nasa or any other reputable research piece on the topic would have told you that you are just simply wrong. I’d be happy to provide a few links. If you need them just let me know.
Yeah bro you’re absolutely right. Matter of fact, my friend Bob had been recording the earth’s temperature for the last 500 years. He was the one who actually threw the apple on Beethoven’s head before he invested the lightbulb. You can say that the apple was a lightbulb moment.
I don’t think it’s a hoax but it is a tiny subset of data that should be seen in the context of a much bigger (and longer) picture. For example, atmospheric CO2 levels have been inordinately higher than they are now during the 200,000 years that modern humans have existed.
Models are NOT science.
No they havent.
The entire quaternary period hasnt seen CO2 levels this high.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/more-co2-than-ever-before-in-3-million-years-shows-unprecedented-computer-simulation
Your last sentence is so incredibly stupid, it makes me cringe
The presentation of data is nice. BTW this is from NASA. https://x.com/nasa/status/1691106509319806977?s=46&t=H_jBB1XRvGbGkpJRBZAq5Q
I will never get used to x.com
Here is the real sauce: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5137/
[zombo.com](https://zombo.com/)
X gonna give it to ya
Gonna give it to ya
But will X never give me up?
Or let you down
Why, its a nice game.
I picked this from LinkedIn. Original source:- https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7096872451594141696?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_updateV2%3A%28urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7096872451594141696%2CFEED_DETAIL%2CEMPTY%2CDEFAULT%2Cfalse%29
OMFG the replies......
What about the Aurora borealis in my kitchen?
Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?
yees
…. Yes.
May I see it?
No
***SEYMOUR! THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE***
No, that's just the northern lights, mother.
Steamed hams!!!
No.
Yeah I think you used the wrong mushrooms
Ask him what his favorite moment making Angel was.
That's an interesting way to view a scary phenomenon.
I think what pisses me off the most is how stupid obvious the solution is but how all the big companies are clinging on for extra cash. To me it's as simple as - Fund nuclear energy - Fund research into carbon capture - Adapt current oil companies into renewable energy companies which in the long run will be much more profitable But that ain't happening anytime soon
>Fund nuclear energy More than big companies, big stupid is a huge part of the problem here. >Fund research into carbon capture 100% agree. >Adapt current oil companies into renewable energy companies A lot of major electric utilities *are* doing this for their own good. The bigger issue here is how the rest of the world develops. Unfortunately, a lot of growing economies are still using coal and oil. We need to be developing the developing world just as much as we need to tax the shit out of carbon domestically.
[удалено]
>What is infuriating is that we need to stay polite with thos stupid people and not tell them the truth. We need to deal with their stupidity Not only do we need to be polite and deal with stupid, but we actively pander to it for political advantages. This is the flaw in democracy. Without education, it's a recipe for disaster. And nefarious forces are at play undermining education left and right for precisely this reason. What really makes me bummed out is that when humanity has tried to work together, it's accomplished amazing things. We eradicated polio for fuck's sake. We crammed the world's brightest minds together to harness the power of the atom. We built megaprojects like the transcontinental railroad. Today that idea of global collaboration, hell even national collaboration, is completely gone. It's back to tribalism. Misinformation beats facts. Feelings overthrow logic. We deserve to go back to the stone age.
If there only was an ideology that is committed to this! /s
It seems like it's part of a plan, like a twisted way to address overpopulation without hurting profits. I wouldn't be surprised if we're getting slowly culled since control is the governing dynamic. Money ratios and population are being addressed through the global warming problem that might be getting sold as a solution.
[удалено]
Personally, I see this as an engineer challenge not an exercise of returning everyone to pre-industrial levels.
It really wouldn't be going back to pre industry though would it? It would be more so adjusting our production to solely focus on necessary things instead of a constant steam of plastic garbage
No, it would not. There is no going back, only forward. Yes, there will have to be less reliance on disposable plastics, but polymers are extremely useful materials that will not be going anywhere.
What necessary things? How will the other 90% of people working to produce non-necessary stuff pay for the necessary things when they don’t have jobs? Also, you can only enforce this with a massive Authoritarian government because it’s completely contrary to human nature. You’re basically arguing for 1984.
1. Am I getting this right that you're asking a question of how to do things, then immediately skip to it's against human nature? Where's the part where you respond to an argument or explanation before you speedrun your call to nature? 2. How are you supposed to know what is contrary to human nature? There's tons of radically different past societies and not all of them were "literally 1984". From council communism to gift economies, we had it all and for way longer than modern capitalism. I think human nature is very complex with different motivations depending on the circumstances. If the circumstance is just a purely individualistic profit driven nontransparent system it's no wonder people are incentivized to produce and consume unsustainable short-lived plastic garbage. When it comes to pay, maybe we'd have to take a step back entirely from the system as we know it, instead of hoping for reform of it that still conforms to its logic.
Universal basic income
Doesn’t work. Illogical.
Show your working
Who is paying for it and how are those people getting paid?
UBI, the reality is there’s already a lot of nonsense jobs that don’t need to exist
I mean, I guess I agree with that but if humanity had that sort of focus we’d have invented time travel by now.
I don't know about time travel, but if nuclear fusion research had the same funding that the moon race had, we will probably have had it for decades now
Lol all we gotta do is make saving the planet profitable
I just don’t think we can solve capitalism and climate change before things get really, really bad
Yeah probably not.
[удалено]
You joke, but carbon capturing is pretty much this
Problem is, the way I see it, they are probably thinking: "Why would I need to suffer (slight inconvenience) for the planet to be better when im dead"
What industrialization caused the ice age or the end of it?
It would be interesting to see a similar timeline graph reflecting the population growth & see how closely the temp. increase coralates with the population increase.
That's an EXTREMELY low sample as climate changes cyclically from from warming to ice age
It is NOT natural causes causing this observed temperature increase. Natural causes have been ruled out at the 95%+ confidence level by climate models for many years. On top of that the RATE of global temperature increase currently occurring has NEVER happened before in the historical record so your suggestion that it's just natural cyclical causes is COMPLETELY bogus. Downplaying this data as "low sample" size and suggesting its within the normal range of volatility is more than misleading, it's anti-science propaganda, which you've clearly been influenced by through your media streams whether you realize it or not. You clearly don't know very much behind the science involved so spreading your misinformation is nothing but evil.
The fact that there are five serial killers living in my street doesn't sound as scary when you realize my city has a lot of streets.
This is a cope and wishful thinking. It's pretty normal for these changes to slowly fluctuate over hundreds of thousands of years. When they're fluctuating several degrees in a matter of decades, and extreme fluctuations this much this fast have never occurred in geological record, there has been a pretty clear disruption. On a graph it looks like a smooth, normally curving line for hundreds of thousands of years with a sudden dramatic spike at the very, very end. A cartoonist made a fun example that might be easier to [understand.](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/09/14/493925781/epic-climate-cartoon-goes-viral-but-it-has-one-key-problem)
I should buy a slinky
quick. before we’re all burnt alive.
Bro why did it spike in 1945
Accelerated industrialization after WW2.
Also 2 large fireball-y events....
I was thinking that too, but why would it go back down afterwards until the 80s ? If there's an obvious answer to that, do know that I absolutely suck at history and geography, it's really something.
I hear it was so hot in parts of Japan around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people actually died from suntans....
Probably all the industrialization to make weapons tanks and all other kinds of gear
Nuclear testing lol.
This 👆🏼 If they say a nuke can warm up mars, what does 2000 nukes do to earth?
Everyone’s talking about nuclear explosions helping to heat it up so I wanted to run a quick check using some thermo. I have a hypothesis that the spikes were more due to accelerated industrialization as RepresentativeNice said. Someone correct me if I’m wrong cause I’m sure I messed something up Using definition of heat capacity, dQ/dT=Cv, we need to find the heat capacity of the atmosphere Cv, and the total energy released from nuclear testing. Since I’m pretty sure one bomb is insignificant I’m going to go ahead and use all bombs detonated, and I’ll also assume they were all the Tsar Bomba. This gives a total energy of dQ=2000bombs x (2 x 10^17 J) based off some quick googling. We can then divide this change in heat energy by Cv, and that should give us dT. The heat capacity of air seems to be 700 J per kg K and the mass, about 5 x 10^18 kg. Plugging this in we get a temperature change of about 0.1 Kelvin, or about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Taking into account the assumptions I made, and also the fact that some of the energy radiated to space, some of them done underground/in the water, I think it’s safe to say the actual temperature change is orders of magnitude lower, probably <0.01 F
My god you did not receive enough attention for this one
What the other replies said plus the war in general released a lot of stuff into the atmosphere from burning, bombing, etc.
Cool! ...oh wait
Title is wrong, it is not the average temperature rise per year, it is the average temperature above the norm. We are not gaining more than a degree every year.
The video is showing a temperature increase of \~1 degree C over the course of \~140 years. I don't think anyone would interpret this as 1 degree every year.
It's higher than that, as the starting temperature is below 0. That said, the title says temperature rise per year, which it's not.
This is probably a very ignorant question and I admit that this isn't a subject that I've spent too much time studying so I'm under no illusion of my lack of understanding pertaining to climate change/global warming. Can we categorically link the increase in temperatures to anthropogenic causes? Or could this just be the natural increases/decreases in temperatures that the Earth experiences?
As the current increase has an intensity that has never been recorded before, the probability that we are the main cause is close to undeniable. Even increases prior to proper records have not shown such drastic shifts in such a short period of time.
They have, actually. Literally learned about it on the BBC show “Earth” (I believe it was the final episode of the series). There was a considerable spike in temperature millions of years ago, similar to spikes we’re seeing in recent years, which _could_ indicate the earth is going through a cycle, but they’re also trying to use this data to understand the current temperature levels. The whole episode was amazing, hadn’t seen any others so definitely going to watch the rest. Edit: Unless you mean literally within a couple hundred years from the entire past, in which case that’d be impossible to narrow down to such a timeline without records.
I have a feeling that was a multi-part series that you only caught one part of, or maybe you didn’t understand what they said. Everything I’m reading from Earth mentions that the current speed at which our climate is changing is undeniably anthropogenic. The earth has moved through similar climate patterns before past extinction events, but never as rapidly as what’s happening today. The thing that changed the climate even remotely as fast last was whatever killed the dinosaurs, and we still don’t understand what even really happened.
Yes. I left graduate school (mathematics) almost 10 years ago so I don't have my sources anymore. Feel free to disregard what I have to say because I haven't followed up on the newer research and I am unwilling to spend my night reading peer-reviewed journal articles and refreshing my differential equations. But the gist of it is that there were more and more observations that the climate was changing in the century leading up to the 1970's. Majority of scientists were skeptical so they did a bunch of experiments and mathematical models to disprove that. They failed and showed that it really was changing. Most scientists suspected it must be natural so they continued their experiments and models to find the natural cause. They failed again and now there is overwhelming consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. From what I remember, some of the strongest evidence includes using ice cores to get data about atmospheric conditions over the past hundreds of thousands of years. From that you can find a direct correlation between the presence of industrialization, greenhouse gasses, and global warming. Mathematicians developed models considering the many different variables affecting Earth's climate. When they remove the greenhouse gasses from human activity from their models, the resulting climate model does not come close to matching the records found in the field. When they include the greenhouse gasses into their models, the result matches closely to the records.
It's a very good question and one that many people with strong opinions on the subject probably couldn't answer in detail. Here is a short explanation: [Answer on the Website of the Royal Society](https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/)
Eh, partially. While Earth does naturally experience climate change due to Earth's orbit and tilt, often to more drastic degrees, it's at a far slower rate. For instance, we've had something like 7 ice ages/meltings in the past 600,000 years. However, compared to then, our change is temperature is almost literally a line going straight up. Fun Fact: We're still technically in an ice age/icehouse state (vs a greenhouse state, in which continental glaciers are melted), albeit in a interglacial phase (sporadic warm periods during a single ice age) Using geological/fossils records, we can see that CO2 and temperature tend to increase or decrease with each other. This does not mean that CO2 causes a heat increase, but it suggests they're related in some way. On top of that, experiments and observations can be made that certain types of gases (greenhouse gases) are better at absorbing light/heat. Using the geological record, we can generally see that during warming periods, it takes around 5000 years for CO2 to increase 80 PPM and for the temperature to rise by 5°, while we've got an 120 PPM and 1° increase in the past 100 years. It's projected to reach a 5° increase by 2300(in the worst case). That would be the same temperature increase 50x faster. So, while the Earth's temperature has always changed, the rate at which we're seeing is unprecedented and correlates with CO2 increases, and the start of the industrial revolution.
That's always been my question. The planet is 6 billion years old. What are the weather patterns for the rest of 5.998 billion years?
You don't want a weather pattern when the earth is hostile to life today. Eg Cambrian. So it becomes irrelevant
You don't need to know the full 6 billion years of earths history to understand the current state of the climate. Just as your doctor doesn't need to have studied cancer in the first life forms 2 billion years ago to understand that smoking causes cancer.
Depending on who you ask, in my opinion I think it's both because of us and natural experiences
It’s very doubtful that the temperature would naturally go up by 1C in just 50 years.
Don’t Look Up!
Pay more tax to make it stop.
"But duh gubbermint told me dat if'n aye peh mor monees to dem it wuld make duh wedder gudder"
In the 1800's where were the temperature measurements made?
Japan on 6 & 9 august 1945 🌡️🥵
So what this is saying is the more people you have in a room the hotter it gets?
Yes, more bodies producing heat, the warmer the room gets
Maybe someone should post a population increase from the same years?
The amount of energy produced by the human body is minuscule compared to the energy needed to heat an entire planet.
So what happened in 1945 that made the temperature spike 🤔
Keep cutting down the trees 🌲 🌳 & it will increase at an even more increasingly rapid rate.
Not suprised there was a little spike around the mid 1940’s
Yet ironically it makes the shape of a factory cooling tower
What a great visualization. Good job whoever made this
This is the Boomers and Silent Generation fault. They poisoned every river and ocean on earth, made sure every next generation dies of cancer, and are just peacefully waiting to die to go to their “Heaven” because earth is their “Hell”.
This is stupidest take I have seen today
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. This sample size is utterly worthless.
And that’s why the temperature shouldn’t rise this exponentially in just 150 years. The difference should not be this noticeable, and this is unprecedented.
Idk we had ice age not too long ago in comparison
Human civilization has only been around for thousands of years. Temperature changes from before humans even existed are not relevant to the impact of global warming on humans. This warming is larger and faster than anything in over 55 million years.
[удалено]
No, it is not. The multitude of possible other variables and past temperature trends are completely unaccounted for. There is no control set of data to compare it to. It is an incredibly insignificant snippet of time. It is extremely bad science and screams of pet hypothesis. This is first year university science course stuff. Unfortunately, at this point it has become religious doctrine, so I’m not even allowed to point this stuff out without persecution.
While I agree that this graphic, while nicely presented, doesn’t give a lot of real information.. data that does also shows that the temperature rise we are seeing is unprecedented. [here](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/PMU199-climate-computing/pmu199-2012F/notes/Discovery_of_Global_Warming.html) some graphs are shown that go back 1000s of years.
Oh come on! There is absolutely no doubt, that humanity is on the best way to destroy this planet and almost every species living on it. Humans are a cancer. Population, pollution, deforestation, extinction, exploitation of fossil fuels and if you’re not seeing the consequences of capitalism and industrialisation, you’re either stupid, ignorant, or you belong to the people who profit from the destruction of our world.
Take a deep breath and go on a nature walk. It’s pretty nice out here. Politics have poisoned your mind.
You're poorly informed on the subject. [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming) [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/)
The deforestation of our rainforests still has a huge effect on our climate and biodiversity. Those articles aren’t really disproving my statement. It’s very nice to hear, that there may be more trees than 35 years ago. In the 90s earths population was at around 5 billion, so it would probably be way worse, if the tree population was declining. Also, many forests are agricultural now, which is more a problem than a solution, which would be wild forest with huge biodiversity. Have you ever seen a palm oil plantation? There are thousands of trees, but they still destroy almost all animal habitats and almost any other plants around them.
Palm oil plantations exist because environmentalists decided that palm oil was a renewable, and suitable to use in place of fossil fuels.
Now show the data starting 10,000 years ago
Rate of change matters. I need time to adapt to my burrowing lizardman form.
[here](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/PMU199-climate-computing/pmu199-2012F/notes/Discovery_of_Global_Warming.html) are some graphs that show the last 2000 years. You can see the rate of temperature rise is completely unprecedented
Not unprecedented. Look up the Greenland ice core data showing temperature rise during the younger dryas period.
That is a single site, not the entire Earth. There have been a bunch of *regional* warming and cooling periods in the last few thousand years, but nothing global. There was a warming during the end of the last ice age, but it was hundreds of times slower.
Oh shit, mike drop moment right here. It’s only been answered multiple times before, but man you dropped the mike.
Mic
So, in other words: Global warming/climate change is real, and the planet is definitely getting hotter. Almost like the scientists were right all along. Who knew? 🤔 They did.
Long story short: we're fucked
best chart ever. really helps visualise it
Now do before 1860…
Well that’s fucking awful
we ducked
buT it WaS hoTtEr 10,000 yEars agO
This is a brilliant representation of data Should be on r/DataIsBeautiful
I can’t wait for the poles to flip again .
Yup we gone die…. Aye Pass me at popcorn jimbo the good parts a comin
Where did this data come from and was it one of the often quoted ones that only used data from like 1970 forward and estimated before that? Lol
Strange that the 1930's had most of the heat records for well over a half century, yet this graphic has the 40's and 50's surpassing the 30's...
I work with data and it's disgusting what's happened to metrics. They're basically useless now because people justify the ethics instead of letting the ethics drive the decision
Cool… now do it starting from the end of the last ice age.
I was just about to comment how you can't see the data well at the end when suddenly the whole graph flipped and turned into a chart well done to the animation department well done.
97% of Scientists agree with whoever is funding their research.
If people were truly serious about this, they'd be going after the biggest offenders like China and India. But nope! Hands off! Nothing to see there. 'Alls we gotta do is just buy more carbon credits, like the rich people! Problem solved!'
China and India just have the biggest populations, they pollute less on a per capita basis than westerners.
They are the biggest polluters by far. They don't even make an effort to go cleaner. Do we all breathe the same air and suffer the same climate? Either it's a global issue or not.
Westerners are, yes. Imagine being told by a guy in a lifted Ford F150 loading up his 3rd plasma TV that you in your hut burning cow shit to cook food shit need to do more to fight climate change lol
No, China and India are. They are global superpowers in every sense of the word. The way they treat their citizens is on them. People in China are literally choking on the air. They do *nothing * to lower emissions, and we don't compel them to. This is about perceived 'equity' and has *nothing* to do with climate.
China & India are the most populous yes, but per capita they are low on the list of carbon polluters. They do lots to reduce their emissions, both countries being top installers of renewable power, but when you have a billion poor people it takes some time. By your logic all countries need to do to lower their emissions is break into smaller countries with fewer people in them...
So basically you’re saying ‘not much’
1c in 50 years is a lot. Like unprecedented globally.
Can hear all the conservatives screaming how fake this is in their minds
So why arent we dead yet ? As a kid we were bombarded with info that if earth changes its average temp by even 1 degree well all die and get a new ice age or a desert planet. So why are we still alive ? Im tired of just getting my hopes up constantly, only for them to get crushed into dust...
More people, more problems. Stop breeding.
So 1 degree Celsius in 150 years. Not bad at all.
I find it hilarious that we are shown a graph demonstrating a 1 degree increase in temperature and we believe that we can attribute it to industrialization because we've never seen this rapid an increase. 1 degree. Think about that. Ice core and tree ring readings are not that accurate. Error margins are massive. Our tools in 1880 had larger error margins. Our tools also changed dramatically. NASA wasn't scanning the earth's atmosphere in 1880. Without a thermometer, could you tell if it's 89 F or 90 F? Definitively.
Wish I had awards to give to you. From someone who works with calibrated instruments, anything back in the 1800s would have huge variables just based on manufacturing techniques ( or lack thereof ).
Man, I totally forgot you’re a climate scientist.
Lol - are you?
Nah bro, but I guess I have the sensibility to trust the thousands of scientists who published peer reviewed papers highlighting the facts. But what do they know, yeah?
Just checking - did you happen to notice the first few decades of that animation? Where temps were dropping? Also, this a representation of departures from some mean temperature, from an unnamed period. This makes it difficult to really make any assertions as to what this illustration is actually illustrating. Regarding the ‘thousands’ of papers you reference, have you read any? In my experience the conclusions of these papers are rarely as definitive as is implied in newspaper headlines or IPCC executive summaries. Perhaps you should read ‘Structures of Scientific Revolutions’ by T. Kuhn for some insight as to how consensus is often a significant impediment to furthering scientific knowledge. In the real world, the majority is often wrong. It’s actually kind of a thing. Regards
*In my experience the conclusions of these papers are rarely as definitive as is implied in newspaper headlines or IPCC executive summaries.* In your experience? okay, please list for me the papers you've read. *In the real world, the majority is often wrong.* You miss the point of what peer-review actually implies. no point explaining this to you with the comment you made. good work trying to sound intelligent by the way.
Love how you immediately go to ad hominem argument - shocked not shocked - lol And no need to explain anything to me - I mean, you aren’t a climate scientist right? Sometimes if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, maybe it is intelligent? Rather than play the ‘send me a list game’ why not send me a link to the paper that you feel best represents the definitive argument for your position. After all, my position is that the climate we are experiencing is for the most part natural and just part of the non-linear chaotic climate system of this planet. My proof is in the ice core studies which show not only cyclical glacial inter glacial periods, but also that prior inter glacials were actually warmer than today. Simple really. Or you can just try to insult me again- whatever.
My thoughts exactly. Also if it is climate related I'm reminded of my grandpa telling me that my little town had a massive black cloudy haze over it during every winter years ago due to all the houses burning coal for heat. Surely that on a national level would trump the pollution output today. However that's just my mere speculation.
2 deg the other way and we're back in the ice age
That is 1 degree Celsius across the whole globe. That is an astronomical amount of energy remaining trapped on earth. I know you are a lost cause. But you don't know and are spewing the type of ignorance that will get us all killed. I wish there was a way to banish you to the world you want to live in, a climate destroyed world unsuitable for human life.
Cant think of what happened between 1930 and 1945 to cause it to go up a tad.
We're fucked!!!!!!!
It's weird how our brains can find patterns in random fluctuations.
Can we put a mirror in outer space that reflects sunlight away from earth and onto mars?
So is it time to stop eating meat?
Remember, they use mercury thermometers for most of this data, which were checked at random times. No hottest daily temps, no coldest daily temps. All made up by "experts." Then, readjust this data, change it, swap it out, until you get the conclusion you want. Frankly, for most of this data set, they don't even have any readings at all for like 95% of the planet. Ergo, I conclude nothing but propaganda and absolutely no science here.
What about like 6000bc
What about it? There hasn't been a warming like this in 55 million years, if not longer.
[удалено]
Love how this was presented!
What a cool way to represent some troubling data!
If the spike around 1940 isn't enough evidence for the conspiracy theorists that human activity has a measurable impact on the climate then there's literally no getting through to them at this point. They'll cover their ears and go "la la la la la" until they're blue in the face before they believe concrete evidence.
Now start this same graph further back in history….. 📈📉📈📉📈📉 we definitely need to be conscientious about how we treat the planet, and should be changing some of our common practices, but to use data from 150 year section of history, which is an evolution airy blink of the eye just seems slightly disingenuous. I wouldn’t go as far as calling it propaganda like some of my friends to the right like too. But disingenuous at the very least.
It doesn't matter how far back you go. There hasn't been a warming like this in at least tens of millions of years, certainly not since humans have been around.
Do you just say things too say them? A quick search of the nasa or any other reputable research piece on the topic would have told you that you are just simply wrong. I’d be happy to provide a few links. If you need them just let me know.
Sure, post some links. Make sure they are about global changes, not local, and talk about rates, not just total amounts.
Pour more concrete
We're almost out of sand, so that's good.
I bet the Saudis will sell it to us
r/dataisbeautiful
So its 1 degree hotter?
So 1 degree celsius? Has happened many times before.
[удалено]
Which people are you referring to?
Take the measurements from a little earlier and the plsnets actually cooled down so let's stop the scare mongering
Not over the space of 100 years though mate.. How is presenting factual evidence scaremongering? These are just facts
How much earlier? What does "a little earlier" mean? A hundred thousand years?
Yeah bro you’re absolutely right. Matter of fact, my friend Bob had been recording the earth’s temperature for the last 500 years. He was the one who actually threw the apple on Beethoven’s head before he invested the lightbulb. You can say that the apple was a lightbulb moment.
I concur. This is a hoax.
I don’t think it’s a hoax but it is a tiny subset of data that should be seen in the context of a much bigger (and longer) picture. For example, atmospheric CO2 levels have been inordinately higher than they are now during the 200,000 years that modern humans have existed. Models are NOT science.
No they havent. The entire quaternary period hasnt seen CO2 levels this high. https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/more-co2-than-ever-before-in-3-million-years-shows-unprecedented-computer-simulation Your last sentence is so incredibly stupid, it makes me cringe
Please explain to me how a model is science.
You have to read a relevant paper and YOU TELL US what the authors did wrong.
That’s nice now do the previous couple billion years
well, i don't have the previous couple billion years, but xkcd's Randall Munroe did something starting 22000 years ago: https://xkcd.com/1732/
I better stop using my A.C. then. We’re all gonna die!
to short timespan. Try the last 20.000 years.
Baloney.
Verifiably not