Global Warming: The actual charts

[SecureBoot]

Here's the temperature change over the last 1000 years

Now look at the last 20 years or so. That's a pretty sharp increase isn't it. Look at the left side now. We are currently sitting at .6 degrees outside the "norm". That's only a fraction, not a whole lot. Of course, this is much sharper than the rest of the graph and if we keep this rate up, we have an issue right? Well look at this.

That's the last 800,000 years. It has fluctuated back and forth between -9 and +4 degrees. Those are whole numbers and there are some super sharp peaks and valleys all the way across.

Anyway, that's why I'm not super worried. I'm sure people will gladly point out why I'm not reading this right but hey, more power to you.

 

[osaka35]

Okay. take a look at the second image. It ends at year zero. Look at your first image. it starts at year zero. Combine the two and you have the complete image, which contradicts what you think it's saying.

Here's the original source that's been cherry picked a bit:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

the important bit is the cycle isn't magical. It happens for tangible reasons, reasons which can vary from cycle to cycle depending on the context and environment. Reasons which are not mysteries to us. We understand these reasons and know why it happens. We also know the same thing which caused the cycle before is not what's happening now. We dun messed up the cycle. We aren't on a cycle anymore. And we know exactly why.

 

[SecureBoot]

Okay. take a look at the second image. It ends at year zero. Look at your first image. it starts at year zero. Combine the two and you have the complete image, which contradicts what you think it's saying.

Here's the original source that's been cherry picked a bit:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

the important bit is the cycle isn't magical. It happens for tangible reasons. Reasons that are not a mystery to us. We understand these reasons and know why it happens. We also know the same thing which caused the cycle before is not what's happening now. We dun messed up the cycle. We aren't on a cycle anymore. And we know exactly why.

Not quite. The graphs are on two different scales. Taking the first on the end of the second would keep it at roughly the same place. Remember, we are currently 6 *tenths* of a degree above average.

 

[DBlaze]

What even are the sources for temperatures of the past 2000+ years, let alone the past 800000 years?

 

[SecureBoot]

What even are the sources for temperatures of the past 2000+ years, let alone the past 800000 years?

"For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature."

Thermometers have worked for the last couple centuries.

 

[osaka35]

Not quite. The graphs are on two different scales. Taking the first on the end of the second would keep it at roughly the same place. Remember, we are currently 6 *tenths* of a degree above average.

then let's find a graph that combines both this one just goes to 2000, but the temps have continued their course since then, and 20 years later is shows no sign of slowing down. Which if your assertion were true, we would start seeing signs of it slowing down. We see the opposite. I'm not sure about that percentage, but it is double what it was, and increasing. The increasing bit is the important part.

And we're talking averages. We're not talking about weather. some folks see numbers like that and think, oh it's going to be 94 this year instead of 93, what's the big deal. But what we're talking about are global averages. And small increases add up. With the ice-caps, the ocean, and everything else, it's more of a cumulative thing. It's difficult to phrase it in such a way that's easily understandable as most folks think in terms of weather. But with climate you have to understand things more in a big-picture sort of way.

What even are the sources for temperatures of the past 2000+ years, let alone the past 800000 years?

There are lots of different fields which overlap their findings and verify each other completely indepedently, though each one tends to be best for certain time periods. tree rings, ice cores, etc. If you're unsure of how safe it is to trust those sciences, they're fascinating to look into. It's pretty brilliant how they verify all that stuff to make super sure they're not making any leaps of faith when it comes to this stuff.

 

[SecureBoot]

then let's find a graph that combines both this one just goes to 2000, but the temps have continued their course since then, and 20 years later is shows no sign of slowing down. Which if your assertion were true, we would start seeing signs of it slowing down. We see the opposite. I'm not sure about that percentage, but it is double what it was, and increasing. The increasing bit is the important part.

And we're talking averages. We're not talking about weather. some folks see numbers like that and think, oh it's going to be 94 this year instead of 93, what's the big deal. But what we're talking about are global averages. And small increases add up. With the ice-caps, the ocean, and everything else, it's more of a cumulative thing. It's difficult to phrase it in such a way that's easily understandable as most folks think in terms of weather. But with climate you have to understand things more in a big-picture sort of way.


There are lots of different fields which overlap their findings and verify each other completely indepedently, though each one tends to be best for certain time periods. tree rings, ice cores, etc. If you're unsure of how safe it is to trust those sciences, they're fascinating to look into. It's pretty brilliant how they verify all that stuff to make super sure they're not making any leaps of faith when it comes to this stuff.

I have added year 0-2019 on this graph in blue (roughly) using Microsoft paint. See the rise in temperature at roughly -360,000 to -350,000. It took around 10,000 years to start cooling down on a grand scale again. 20 years does not concern me.

I am well aware we're talking averages. I haven't even talked about the people freaking out because their region was 5 degrees hotter. This is all on a global scale

 

[Xzi]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if the ocean temperature increases by just 2° Celsius, everything in the ocean dies. Additionally, increasing carbon dioxide levels in the ocean could cause such a mass extinction regardless of temperature changes. Increased carbon levels in the soil have already begun to reduce the amount of nutrients in rice and other foods.

 

[SecureBoot]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if the ocean temperature increases by just 2° Celsius, everything in the ocean dies. Additionally, increasing carbon dioxide levels in the ocean could cause such a mass extinction regardless of temperature changes. Increased carbon levels in the soil have already begun to reduce the amount of nutrients in rice and other foods.

Well i can't find anything about the 2 degrees thing but feel free to post it if you find it. Even then, talking about the ocean is region specific. The carbon stuff could very well be true. I don't know enough about it to make a statement. That's why I made a specifically warming blog instead of climate change.

 

[osaka35]

View attachment 173220
I have added year 0-2019 on this graph in blue (roughly) using Microsoft paint. See the rise in temperature at roughly -360,000 to -350,000. It took around 10,000 years to start cooling down on a grand scale again. 20 years does not concern me.

I am well aware we're talking averages. I haven't even talked about the people freaking out because their region was 5 degrees hotter. This is all on a global scale

... that's most definitely not where temps are in 2019. You should definitely check into some official sources and update your information. I feel like I'm just going to be repeating myself a lot in this conversation...

Okay, again. We know why these increases happened in the past. We know why they're happening now. We know what reversed them in the past. We know why that won't happen this time. The rate of increase given the time scale is the worrying part. And we are mainly concerned with surviving as a species and preserving our ecosystem. That's the frame of reference for the conversation, not a fun conversation about how boiling hot and absolutely frozen we've been in the past.

 

[notimp]

That's only a fraction, not a whole lot.

No one is saying that the earth is going to be inhabitable for developed nations, anytime soon. There are several issues, though aside from that.

First - you look at a trend, and try to predict if its holding/increasing, or not - everything that scientists tell us is, that its holding and increasing. The thing with having a 2°C increase from the former 'pre industrial times' average temperature is, that it means a whole bunch of things - if you get above those levels.

Before getting into those, the 2°C is an increase of average tempertature, which means that the extreme spikes can be much higher. For the capital of my country up to 6°C higher temperatures on certain days in summer are predicted by 2050.

The most problematic thing thats going to happen according to models, are chain reactions, when certain frozen regions start to thaw, or certain icefields melt down. Those are called "tipping points" which have to do with ocean temperature, and a hopefully calculable amount of additional climate relevant gasses getting released, if a certain threshhold is reached. So this basically means, that the spike up should remain pretty steep and that it would be very hard, to stop or reverse the trend at that point. The best thing that humans have come up with for pushing that point a little into the future (if the paris climate goals arent kept in line with (currently 5 (smaller) countries in the world are on track with it, go 5 countries... )), is planting trees, and then not harvesting them for energy (burning them again).

So - we mostly try to prevent that (rise more than 2°C) as humanity.

Even 2°C means, that afair around 60% of all inverterbrate life on earth basically dies out - please look up the actual value..

Now - what happens in addition to that, is the following. 2°C is an average, meaning - that in certain regions, higher average temperatures, become a real problem. You are basically talking lost yields from harvests, increased drinkable water issues, increased political pressures, and more people that are expected to flee the regions where they are from.

More political instability means increased resource prices, means - more competition preassure, means everything might get more expensive, and maybe increased chances of conflicts.

So if you want to look at that on the most baseline level - looking at charts - take your temperature graphs, but also look at predicted deplacement of populations.

Here is a short primer: https://www.un.org/en/development/d...ocuments/250416_COLUMBIA_UNI_Susana_Adamo.pdf

Look at this for more context, but afair - no migration models.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org...egrees/?utm_source=web&utm_campaign=Redirect#

Here a rough summery on the forecast migration pressures.
https://www.iom.int/migration-and-climate-change-0


There is also an issue if - f.e. a larger part of your countries economy is tourism related, and f.e. that tourism might be winter tourism, and the snow isnt sticking around. All kinds of effects like that.

Short summery is - its always less costly to try to stabilize the temperature increase earlier - but it is costly already, so nobody wants to do it. And in addition to that, the people who arent doing it - are at an economic advantage short term, which means - its more probable to work if "everyone has to do it" according to international agreements.

The problem is global, the effects will vary from region to region. The solutions arent pretty. And the prettiest ones revolve around - having yet another recession, basically.

That said peak oil is predicted to happen at around 2030, so something has to happen in terms of switching energy sources, and moving towards probably more energy efficient economies anyhow.

But - the timetables matter - in regards to the likely outcome.

US is an island continent. So migration pressure is moderate in comparison to some other countries. Direct effects in the US are higher than in Europe though.

That said, most impactful direct effects of climate change (meaning excluding migration pressures) in our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children - in the developed world - would be to probably move a few cities because of sea level rise and extreme weather effects. Costly, but can be done. (The thing is, that most of the human population is actually situated around coastlines, or big water streams, so...), the issue in those two generations - is much more 'what happens to the people that cant buy themselves out of this, as societies'.

But also - everyone (apart from Alaska economically, but not environmentally ) would be better off, if increases were kept low.

The problem is, that this is a world scale problem, with a very high cost long term, and a configuration - that the last mover suffers least, short term. And with different risks in different regions.

With this, nobody just looks at one chart and says "well I guess we are fine then..".

 

[H1B1Esquire]

Increased carbon levels in the soil have already

It's also fucking up trees, which is going to be a really uncool double-whammy when those trees get processed into firewood.

"The study also is providing insights into the role forests may play in global climate change."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/uow-rsh061202.php
(it's from 2002)

 

[SecureBoot]

... that's most definitely not where temps are in 2019. You should definitely check into some official sources and update your information. I feel like I'm just going to be repeating myself a lot in this conversation...

Okay, again. We know why these increases happened in the past. We know why they're happening now. We know what reversed them in the past. We know why that won't happen this time. The rate of increase given the time scale is the worrying part. And we are mainly concerned with surviving as a species and preserving our ecosystem. That's the frame of reference for the conversation, not a fun conversation about how boiling hot and absolutely frozen we've been in the past.

I really don't know what to tell you. Go Google the charts yourself. We are hovering at roughly .6 degrees higher than the norm.

No one is saying that the earth is going to be inhabitable for developed nations, anytime soon. There are several issues, though aside from that.

First - you look at a trend, and try to predict if its holding/increasing, or not - everything that scientists tell us is, that its holding and increasing. The thing with having a 2°C increase from the former 'pre industrial times' average temperature is, that it means a whole bunch of things - if you get above those levels.

Before getting into those, the 2°C is an increase of average tempertature, which means that the extreme spikes can be much higher. For the capital of my country up to 6°C higher temperatures on certain days in summer are predicted by 2050.

The most problematic thing thats going to happen according to models, are chain reactions, when certain frozen regions start to thaw, or certain icefields melt down. Those are called "tipping points" which have to do with ocean temperature, and a hopefully calculable amount of additional climate relevant gasses getting released, if a certain threshhold is reached. So this basically means, that the spike up should remain pretty steep and that it would be very hard, to stop or reverse the trend at that point. The best thing that humans have come up with for pushing that point a little into the future (if the paris climate goals arent kept in line with (currently 5 (smaller) countries in the world are on track with it, go 5 countries... )), is planting trees, and then not harvesting them for energy (burning them again).

So - we mostly try to prevent that (rise more than 2°C) as humanity.

Even 2°C means, that afair around 60% of all inverterbrate life on earth basically dies out - please look up the actual value..

Now - what happens in addition to that, is the following. 2°C is an average, meaning - that in certain regions, higher average temperatures, become a real problem. You are basically talking lost yields from harvests, increased drinkable water issues, increased political pressures, and more people that are expected to flee the regions where they are from.

More political instability means increased resource prices, means - more competition preassure, means everything might get more expensive, and maybe increased chances of conflicts.

So if you want to look at that on the most baseline level - looking at charts - take your temperature graphs, but also look at predicted deplacement of populations.

Here is a short primer: https://www.un.org/en/development/d...ocuments/250416_COLUMBIA_UNI_Susana_Adamo.pdf

Look at this for more context, but afair - no migration models.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org...egrees/?utm_source=web&utm_campaign=Redirect#

Here a rough summery on the forecast migration pressures.
https://www.iom.int/migration-and-climate-change-0


There is also an issue if - f.e. a larger part of your countries economy is tourism related, and f.e. that tourism might be winter tourism, and the snow isnt sticking around. All kinds of effects like that.

Short summery is - its always less costly to try to stabilize the temperature increase earlier - but it is costly already, so nobody wants to do it. And in addition to that, the people who arent doing it - are at an economic advantage short term, which means - its more probable to work if "everyone has to do it" according to international agreements.

The problem is global, the effects will vary from region to region. The solutions arent pretty. And the prettiest ones revolve around - having yet another recession, basically.

That said peak oil is predicted to happen at around 2030, so something has to happen in terms of switching energy sources, and moving towards probably more energy efficient economies anyhow.

But - the timetables matter - in regards to the likely outcome.

US is an island continent. So migration pressure is moderate in comparison to some other countries. Direct effects in the US are higher than in Europe though.

That said, most impactful direct effects of climate change (meaning excluding migration pressures) in our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children - in the developed world - would be to probably move a few cities because of sea level rise and extreme weather effects. Costly, but can be done. (The thing is, that most of the human population is actually situated around coastlines, or big water streams, so...), the issue in those two generations - is much more 'what happens to the people that cant buy themselves out of this, as societies'.

But also - everyone (apart from Alaska economically, but not environmentally ) would be better off, if increases were kept low.

The problem is, that this is a world scale problem, with a very high cost long term, and a configuration - that the last mover suffers least, short term. And with different risks in different regions.

With this, nobody just looks at one chart and says "well I guess we are fine then..".

With all this 2° talk I'm getting confused. The charts shows several peaks way above 2° and life is still here. How come this time 2° is gonna mess everyone up?

My full issue is insufficient data. People are looking at the charts where we actually could measure temperatures and extrapolating trends in what it will look like in the future. I honestly don't think we have enough data to reliably do that. Maybe in another 50 or so years but as it stands, there are too many variables that we can't predict

 

[Nightwish]

Ok, fine, there was still life after previous heating, and there will still be life after the human created peak, sure. But were there 8 billion interdependent sapient entities with civilizations levels that require a lot of resources 200000 years ago, to make the comparison adequate? What happened when their crops failed due to lack of water or dying bees or thousands of other insects that make farming possible? What happened to those with no access to water anymore? How did they deal with increasing health costs?
Because those would be nice to know, since no one has any clue about how to deal with it. Even if the graph were correct, it has no bearing on whether, at the very least, modern society can continue to exist, and that's after being willing to accept the death toll of a lot of people who are already dealing with the effects.
But yes, life will proliferate after a while, especially after humanity loses the capability to pollute everything in it's wake.

 

[leon315]

gUYS, renewable energy is THE FUTERE, yo murican go vote The Orange man who thinks global warming is a Hoax and he will bring Steel, Coal back!

 

[H1B1Esquire]

How come this time 2° is gonna mess everyone up?

My dude, how much energy does it take to heat a pot (small cooking pot holding 16 oz) of water on a stove? How about a bathtub? You can't be so kindergarten that you can't see where I'm going with this.

What you might be omitting or may not know:
some (and most) aquatic life are very susceptible to changes in temperature. I killed a few fish by not acclimating their water while changing the tank. I didn't boil them; the water felt the same, but it was probably no less than five degrees and it was enough to kill them.

If I have to go in-depth to correlate the size of the oceans/seas to rising temperatures, how fish work, and why sea life is very important, I'm going to let you simmer in stupid stew.


---------

he will bring Steel, Coal back!

Nah, that shit's going to the moon for Space Farce Force.


------

How did they deal with increasing health costs?

Welcome to Earth.

 

[lolboy]

"...last 1000 years". Real data or just assumptions?

btw; I have no opinion when it comes to global warming. I do believe that we need to take care of our planet.

 

[ChaosEternal]

We're all fucked anyway so there's no reason to be scared.

 

[spotanjo3]

Here's the temperature change over the last 1000 years

Now look at the last 20 years or so. That's a pretty sharp increase isn't it. Look at the left side now. We are currently sitting at .6 degrees outside the "norm". That's only a fraction, not a whole lot. Of course, this is much sharper than the rest of the graph and if we keep this rate up, we have an issue right? Well look at this.

That's the last 800,000 years. It has fluctuated back and forth between -9 and +4 degrees. Those are whole numbers and there are some super sharp peaks and valleys all the way across.

Anyway, that's why I'm not super worried. I'm sure people will gladly point out why I'm not reading this right but hey, more power to you.

Seriously? Obviously, you are ignorant just like Trump. Ok, suit yourself. Wait until you are worried one day. Keep your eyes on the sign of this Earth. This chart is not accurate anyway.

 

[notimp]

With all this 2° talk I'm getting confused. The charts shows several peaks way above 2° and life is still here. How come this time 2° is gonna mess everyone up?

Food production, flooding and extreme weather phenomenons, certain diseases. Increased pressures on resources (drinkable water, as probably one of the more important ones).

I'm not sure if you've realized it yet - but this:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

We are pretty much producing at high capacity already (mostly thanks to oil) - so any substantial impact on production conditions will cause issues.

Also - sea level rising is an issue, that will cause some parts of even US metropoles to be 'relocated'. (You do this, by first not granting any new building licenses, and then... so ideally gradually.) Sometimes its enough to produce (not so) natural barriers, but then it depends on where sea level ends up at. Relocating major cities, is very, very costly.

But mostly economic issues, more conflict potential, stuff like that.

You can read the second link in the previous posting I provided, it has data visualisations for three scenarios. And they put in many more angles. I only listed the "important" ones.

edit: Also - are you sure, that your second graph is "mean world temperature" during those years? Could be max world temperature extremes, no? src?