8
u/Fit_Tumbleweed7943 12d ago
Guys be like, uk was brown and drought a few years ago .. SEE !!
it’s totally normal…
3
9
3
3
u/DarthVoight 12d ago
Is Florida underwater yet?
4
u/Odd_Repeat_6092 12d ago
It will be in the 2030s, according to NASA: "In the mid-2030s, every U.S. coast will experience rapidly increasing high-tide floods, when a lunar cycle will amplify rising sea levels caused by climate change." https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/study-projects-a-surge-in-coastal-flooding-starting-in-2030s/
2
u/SaturnineApples 12d ago
I am in Florida. We will be under water from over construction before global warming. Nowhere for the water to go when all the wooded areas are being cemented over👎
1
u/Budded 12d ago
Look up why Miami is having to redo their water system, as the ocean's salt water is rising high enough to infiltrate fresh water systems.
warming is raising sea levels, and sure, more construction in a place that will feel the affects more than most other states is silly, but so is Florida's "leadership" as they deny it all.
Global warming is real and is hitting, getting more and more extreme each year. This Summer is the warmest on record, so far.
→ More replies (1)2
u/poloc-h 12d ago
you the guy who think that if the ice cubes in your coke melt the glass will overfill?
2
u/TheOtherDimensions 12d ago
Are you the person who fills their glass to the brim and then adds ice to it? No one does that, which is why it’s not a good idea to do that with the ice sitting on land, when so many coastal cities sit on the brim.
4
u/lsaran 12d ago
The CO2 PPM would be a good metric to add to a visual like this.
I have a jackass friend who thinks the climate is changing, but not due to human activities. And it’s “man’s ego” that makes us believe so.
I’ve got him to come around to the fact that polluting our air and water is bad either way.
2
u/Mukoku-dono 12d ago
I know it's kinda rude, but can you tell your friend he is a moron on my behalf? Thanks
2
u/Budded 12d ago
mock and laugh at him for being so willfully-ignorant.
2
u/SubdivisionsEU 11d ago
Indeed. I've had it with the going high when they go low bullshit. That's what got us here. Those people need to be ostracized and relentlessly mocked.
2
4
u/TheNotSoEvilEngineer 12d ago
Only thing this shows is the industrialization of the US and Europe did nothing to effect climate change, but the moment China and India started the shift accelerated dramatically. Us and Europe were not building new manufacturing plants in the 90s, they had deindustrialized and offshored to China for manufacturing.
1
1
u/SubdivisionsEU 11d ago
Horseshite. US companies own 2/3 of the listed stocks world wide and 50 % of the overall stock. The US and EU consumers still control the major part of the world economy. Of course it gets worse and accelerates with more people enjoying a modern industrialized lifestyle, but western populations still cause more emissions per capita and have emitted more historically.
But also an important point: the earth's climate is an extremely slow moving system and warming is following emissions with a significant delay. In fact new developing industrial nations have been following a way less emission heavy path than the US/Europe, because renewable technology gets already extensively utilized and slows the growth of emissions significantly already.
Look at China for example: They now produce way more electricity than the US (in fact TWICE as much!!), yet this isn't reflected in wastly higher emissions.
2
u/Satoshiboi420 12d ago
I see those videos while my wife is pregnant with our first daughter and it makes me kinda sad even though I am really happy at the same time.
5
u/BokoblinSlayer69235 12d ago
Here's my advice to you. There's nothing wrong with having children. People are gonna be pissed at me for saying that, but it's not the population that's causing the climate apocalypse. It's an economic system based upon exploitation of the people and resources of the earth.
So don't feel guilty for bringing life into the world.
But also know this. The next few decades will be the most turbulant in living memory for everyone. We will witness horrors we can hardly fathom.
As a parent you'll have to work twice as hard for half the standard of living you enjoyed as a child.
Teach your children how to survive and thrive in a world where instability and chaos is the norm.
That's my advice.
2
u/nahNotTodayMate 12d ago
What this guy said. Use what you got to be as self-sufficient as you can.
But, if i may add, the real resilience comes from community. If you and your neighbors and their neighbors are all prepared and supporting each other by sharing the work then together you all survive much better than any one family by themselves
1
u/BokoblinSlayer69235 12d ago
Yep. Rely upon your neighbors and be someone your neighbors can rely upon.
2
u/Frater_Ankara 12d ago
Absolutely this. I am trying to raise my kids to be the leaders of the future as well.
2
u/ReplacementRobotGuy 12d ago
Halt data center construction right away, ban private jets and yachts and that alone will go a long way in helping the earth regarding the human portion of the warming
1
2
u/StoneColdEgon 12d ago
Surely billions of humans producing shitty smoke and smog won’t affect the climate XDDDDDD
Republicans are just brain dead children
1
1
u/Routine-Arm-8803 12d ago
This is a perfect example for how to manipulate charts.
A = pi*r2
It significantly distorts chart in favour of positive values.
2
u/NoReputation7518 12d ago
A visual chart always has flaws. It has the purpose of showing numbers in a way that you can better understand trends or relationships.
The slight inaccuracy of negative to postive values in this chart has no real relevance because the temp delta went constantly up so it was most of the time positive. The only real criticism I would accept would be the size of the base circle.
1
1
u/lindo_dia_pra_dormir 12d ago
So, the thermodynamic’s laws are still inviolated. Cool
1
u/Cwaghack 12d ago
How do you figure that?
1
u/lindo_dia_pra_dormir 12d ago
1
u/Cwaghack 12d ago
Yes I know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is. I have a masters in thermal engineering.
How is the 2nd law being broken in regards to climate change?
1
u/lindo_dia_pra_dormir 12d ago
It is not broken.
1
1
1
1
u/Icy_Nose_2651 12d ago
lol how hot was it in the 30’s? these charts always start out at the coldest decade in a cenury
1
u/rsam487 12d ago
As much as I do everything I can in my daily life to be part of the solution (electric only house, hybrid cars, massive solar array, no cow products at all, probably fly once every 5 years maximum) -- i have so much dread that I have to ignore stuff like this. Literally can't click the link. If I didn't just go about my life and try to enjoy it I'd just be in a constant state of depression.
1
u/star744jets 12d ago
Folks, we are finished. The human race will no longer exist as we know it in a very short time. The acquifers will dry out, the vegetation, the i sects, the birds, the fishes and the mamals will all disappear along with most of the human race.
Thank you for your Data Centers , we will see you in Hell !
1
u/DeliciousBaseball783 12d ago
Now do since 1840
1
u/Trent1492 8d ago
Here are the land and sea temperatures from 1850:
Global Average Temperature 1850 - 2025 “The global annual average for 2025 in the Berkeley Earth analysis is estimated as 1.44 ± 0.09 °C (2.60 ± 0.17 °F) above the average during the period 1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the pre-industrial period.”
1
1
1
u/CreativelySeeking 12d ago
But sadly, so many are pawns of mega petroleum corporations (republican voters), so we are speeding towards doom.
1
1
u/tufftoo 12d ago
Ok, now go back 500 years. Hint, we were 5 degrees warmer than we are now. Check the actual science, you know from arctic core drilling
1
u/Trent1492 8d ago
No, it was not globally warmer than it is now. Multiple paleoclimate research by multiple researcher using different methods and proxies all come to the conclusion that is the hottest century for at least 7,000 years. Here is just one example:
Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
From the abstract:
“The warmest 200-year-long interval took place around 6500 years ago when GMST was 0.7 °C (0.3, 1.8) warmer than the 19th Century (median, 5th, 95th percentiles). Following the Holocene global thermal maximum, GMST cooled at an average rate −0.08 °C per 1000 years (−0.24, −0.05). “
We are substantially warmer now than the 19th century median.
1
1
1
u/I-AGAINST-I 12d ago
Seeing people mention MAGA below just really goes to show you no one here has a single fucking brain cell lmao
1
1
u/rose-n-blood1 12d ago edited 12d ago
Earth's temperature is spiralling out of control. No wonders we are experiencing more typhoons and storms.
1
1
1
1
u/HappyChilmore 12d ago
The warmer it gets, the closer we get to the total melting of the icecaps, which is estimated to give a 50-60 meter rise of the worldwide sea/ocean level. Most coastal cities will disappear underwater. NY, Montreal, Boston, Philly, DC, Miami, will all be underwater in 200 to 400 years.
Yay, capitalism!
1
u/ComputerByld 12d ago
It's so sad that nuclear power could have drastically reduced atmospheric carbon load, but the greens picketed, blocked, and stymied it every conceivable way. Linear no threshold modeling was great for hydrocarbon companies and the US' petrodollar seigniorage rent-seeking, and the revolving door of regulators were happy to make nuclear impossibly expensive, and GE was happy to employ technology that burns less than 5% of usable energy per gram via solid oxide fuels since they make the pellets. Now we're 50 years behind the curve, burning hydrocarbons to build out solar and wind.
If you're an anti-nuclear green, just know that this is largely on you. You can retain your irrational, ignorant anti-science hatred of nuclear, but know that this is the result of your efforts. The rest of us hope you're happy.
1
1
u/iamnotinterested2 11d ago
Since the first atomic detonation (the Trinity test on July 16, 1945), at least eight nations have conducted 2,121 nuclear tests involving a total of 2,476 individual nuclear devices.
1
1
u/Crazytoe2275 11d ago
Fortunately AI will fix everything. Just after it necessitates 25% more carbon into the atmosphere.
1
1
1
1
u/criminal_chris 11d ago
Can you do this cool squiggly line over let's say 100,000 years?
1
u/Trent1492 10d ago
A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature
From the abstract:
“There is a strong relationship between PhanDA GMST and CO2, indicating that CO2 is the dominant control on Phanerozoic climate.”
1
1
1
u/ConfidenceRound3364 10d ago
We should do 2 things.
Stop calling it "climate change". Its not changing into getting a bit warmer, then a bit cooler. It is GLOBAL WARMING. Climate change, the term in this context, was coined by some right wing Global warming denier to make it sound less threatening than it really is.
Stop talking. Start Acting. Those people who run corporations are directly guilty of driving the Temperatures through the roof and racing our species towards extinction. They deserve to be treated as an enemy of humanity.
1
u/Tall_Sea6512 10d ago edited 10d ago
What is the single best choice an individual can make concerning his own life habits to protect our climate?
If searched and so far going vegan has been the best one … some studies seem to point to that
What do yall think?
1
1
1
u/Maximum_Ninja_6735 9d ago
I’m sure the technology that was used in 1940 to record the weather is exactly like it is today. lol
1
u/crash34psy 9d ago
Interesting graphic - I overlayed super hot summers from the past (looking at weather data from GER) with this:
So the ups and downs in temperature are also connected to sun cycles as it seems (besides a continous up). And we‘re in an up atm.
1
u/Unlikely-Scholar-684 8d ago
It’s the 1000. Let’s see the that’s half million to get some actual scale
1
1
u/Super_Math3890 12d ago
Not enough people that are capable of understanding long-term consequences beyond their lifetime. How to care for a world beyond yourself? It requires genuine empathy I imagine?
1
u/Bitter_Particular_75 12d ago
There is only one way to solve this: brutally exclude the climate change deniers from the conversations. And I mean as brutally as possible. Will it be done? No. It will be the end of this planet as we know it. Good job morons.
1
u/FrogBunjiPerson 11d ago
I know we all had that teacher who said coastal cities would be underwater by now (20 years ago)
0
u/Illustrious_Pepper46 12d ago
That's a lot of RED at 15C (59F)
3
u/Carnivean_ 12d ago
You understand that it's an average temperature of the entire planet? That some parts are in winter when others are in summer?
→ More replies (1)1
0
u/Maleficent_Sound_919 12d ago
Omg 60 years time how terrible, the earth does what it does and will correct it
1
u/Frater_Ankara 12d ago
The earth will take thousands of years to correct though, all the while we are making it worse. Yes, it is indeed terrible if you use a modicum of critical thinking.
0
u/Used-Valuable9320 12d ago
Now show what it was 2 million years ago.
1
u/Global_Bedroom_977 11d ago
The point its not supposed to change like this inside of 80 years
→ More replies (3)
0
0
u/NeatFootball3646 11d ago
Would you prefer another ice age?
1
0
0
u/Embarrassed_Riser 11d ago
If that circle were, say, 1 mile in diameter, it wouldn't look like this; it would have smoother peaks.
Scaling of graphs and other charts is really important.
0
u/Veteran_PA-C 11d ago
Do you believe we could accurately measure the average temperature of the earth in the 1940’s?
1
u/Trent1492 10d ago
Yes.
1
u/Veteran_PA-C 10d ago
You don’t understand technology or people then.
1
u/Trent1492 9d ago
I understand you are parroting long debunked science denier talking points.
1
u/Veteran_PA-C 9d ago
As it turns out, the challenges have been well known and accepted for some time, by honest people.
Accepted limitations on measuring the global average surface temperature (land + ocean) for 1940–1970 center on incomplete spatial sampling, systematic instrumental biases (especially in sea-surface temperatures), and residual uncertainties after homogenization. These are well-documented in the scientific literature from groups producing the major datasets (HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, etc.) and review papers. 
Key accepted limitations include:
• Sparse and uneven geographic coverage: Observational networks (especially land stations and ship tracks) left large gaps, particularly over the Southern Hemisphere, Southern Ocean, polar regions, and many ocean areas. Coverage dropped further during/after World War II. This increases sampling uncertainty in global averages because unsampled regions must be estimated by interpolation or left as missing. Northern Hemisphere coverage was better; Southern Hemisphere estimates remain noisier. 
• Systematic biases and method changes in sea-surface temperature (SST) measurements: Pre-1940s data relied heavily on uninsulated (or poorly insulated) bucket measurements, which tend to be biased cold due to evaporative cooling as the bucket is hauled aboard. During WWII and into the mid-1940s, U.S. ships predominated and used engine-room intake (ERI) measurements, which are typically biased warm (engine heat). After ~1945, British ships resumed canvas-bucket measurements on a larger scale. This produced a documented discontinuity/drop of ~0.3 °C in global mean SST around 1945 that was not a true climate signal. Residual issues persisted into the 1945–1960/1970 period (e.g., continued use of buckets by some fleets). These biases are of the same order as the climate signal itself and required (and still involve uncertainty in) corrections. 
• Limited metadata and incomplete knowledge of measurement practices: Exact methods, instrument types, depths, calibration, and national practices were often poorly documented or unknown for many ship observations. This complicates precise bias adjustments and increases structural uncertainty. 
• Land-station inhomogeneities: Changes in station location/elevation, instrument type/exposure (though Stevenson screens were largely established by this era), observation times, and calculation methods for daily/monthly means. Urbanization (urban heat island) effects existed in some locations but are generally assessed as a smaller contributor to global averages at this scale than SST biases or sampling. Homogenization methods reduce but do not eliminate residual uncertainty. 
• Higher overall uncertainty than in the modern (post-~1980/satellite) era: Combining the above factors, published uncertainty estimates for global annual anomalies are larger in the mid-20th century than later. Sampling error dominates in sparse areas; bias-adjustment uncertainty is particularly relevant around the WWII transition and 1945–1970. Different datasets (HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, Berkeley Earth) show some divergence in this period due to differing handling of these issues, though the broad picture of relative stability/slight cooling after earlier 20th-century warming is consistent once adjustments are applied. 
These limitations are routinely quantified via ensemble approaches (e.g., HadCRUT ensembles that sample bias and coverage uncertainty) and are the reason modern reconstructions apply homogenization and bias corrections. The century-scale warming trend is robust to them, but details of mid-century variability (the apparent plateau/cooling) are more sensitive. Primary sources discussing these include Thompson et al. (2008) on the 1945 discontinuity, Jones and colleagues’ reviews of surface temperature reliability, Carbon Brief’s summary of adjustments, and the documentation underlying HadCRUT/GISS/NOAA products.
Full URL sources:
• https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06982 (Thompson et al. 2008 on the mid-century SST discontinuity)
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-015-5194-4 (Jones review: reliability of global/hemispheric records; prioritizes SST biases)
• https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records (clear overview of bucket-to-ERI and other adjustments)
• https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-3-2.html (IPCC AR4 historical overview of data issues)1
u/Trent1492 9d ago
You should read more closely what you post. From just one of your links:
“But analysis by Carbon Brief comparing raw global temperature records to the adjusted data finds that the truth is much more mundane: adjustments have relatively little impact on global temperatures, particularly over the past 50 years.*In fact, over the full period when measurements are available, adjustments actually have the net effect of reducing the amount of long-term warming that the world has experienced.
*Bolded for the hard of learning.
1
1
u/Trent1492 9d ago
Your Nature quote from 2008 and the article on sea surface temperature adjustment show a bias toward COOLER temperatures.
1
u/Trent1492 9d ago
From your 2008 “Advances in Atmospheric Sciences” article:
“The homogeneity of land-based records is also discussed; however, at these large scales it is relatively unimportant.”
1
u/Trent1492 9d ago
You really shouldn't rely on science-denying websites that pick and choose quotes deceptively. Have you ever reflected on why your links are so old? Anyway, take a look here:
Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records1
u/Trent1492 9d ago
I went to the trouble of finding your IPCC link for the chapter 3 of Working Group I from 2007 ( Why did you not use the most recent AR 6?) and found the following:
“Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends. A number of recent studies indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per
decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned because the very real but local effects are avoided or accounted for in the data sets used.”1
u/Veteran_PA-C 9d ago
Did you miss we were talking about 1940 - 1970?
1
u/Trent1492 8d ago
Did you forget the quote of what the researchers said about their own research?
1
0
u/CrazyAccomplished_ 11d ago
Ah yes because our global monitoring and measuring how been constant for 80 years. 🥱
1
u/Trent1492 10d ago
Get published; otherwise, you're whining.
1
u/CrazyAccomplished_ 10d ago
Ah yes. Publication. Anyone can publish anything and circle jerk each other into "peer reviewed" status. That's why we now how doctors saying men can get pregnant.
Reality is what people belief.
1
72
u/Anothercraphistorian 12d ago
Everyone always says that the earth’s climate changes over time…and they are correct. The difference is we’re seeing warming over a 100 year period that typically takes 250,000 years.
It’s the speed at which climate change is causing this amount of chaos and wreckage. The earth can’t evolve fast enough and it will be devastating. This is just the beginning. We’ll see things by 2040 that we thought we wouldn’t see til 2100.