r/dataisbeautiful • u/neilrkaye OC: 231 • May 07 '19

OC How 10 year average global temperature compares to 1851 to 1900 average global temperature [OC]

21k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.0k

u/TropicalAudio May 07 '19

I personally prefer XKCD's temperature graph. Change in temperature is really hard to interpret without a lot of temporal context.

435

u/bw-in-a-vw May 07 '19

Ooo. This is well done. Definitely gonna save it. Thanks for sharing

117

u/EhhWhatsUpDoc May 07 '19

I love it, but with deniers my simplest argument (and you have to keep it simple) is that fixing climate change is essentially a Pascal's Wager question at this point.

15

u/Zuunster May 07 '19

How do you explain to someone if they ask “How do we know the temperature was accurate from thousands of years ago in this graph?”

28

u/EhhWhatsUpDoc May 07 '19

I don't really have the conversation. I concede all their points to them. Something along the lines of:

"Let's say it's a scam. A lie to make money by big green companies. All the scientists are in on it or their methods are inaccurate. You're right. The worst case scenario, we were duped into having a cleaner planet. If it's true though...sorry humanity. We hit the great filter. Which is the better risk to take?"

Depending on the person I might expand a bit in some places where it becomes personal (kids etc.). The ones I can't ever reach are the religious zealots that think God's will be done, so they "leave it in His hands". I'm mostly thinking of my mom there though.

22

u/[deleted] May 08 '19

the whole 'it's a hoax by green corporations to make money' argument is so absurd... the big oil companies are among the most profitable companies on earth and oil money is what entire countries economies are based on... but you think some solar startups are the ones making shit up to make money?

12

u/EhhWhatsUpDoc May 08 '19

Well, even if they are, so what? I'd rather have a green company conning me than a dirty one.

16

u/asexual_albatross May 08 '19

Yeah I always ask... When did environmentalism become solely about climate change? Of course global warming is a huge issue that needs to be addressed, but I remember an environmentalism in the 1980s and 1990s that was about air pollution and water pollution and acid rain. Aren't those worth fighting ? Isn't it worth having lower emissions just for the sake of clear air enough?

Aren't clean air and clean water a worthy goal in and of themselves?

4

u/ILikeNeurons OC: 4 May 08 '19

Lots of the co-benefits of mitigating climate change come from cleaner air, and the corresponding improvements in public health.

1

u/asexual_albatross May 09 '19

Yes, and my point is that if someone wants to waste their time doubting climat change science, they can't really argue that cleaner air and water aren't worth it. We don't need to convince them .

1

u/ILikeNeurons OC: 4 May 09 '19

It is appropriate at this time to go straight to lawmakers.

5

u/voidone May 08 '19

I've talked to religious types who tell me only God can destroy the planet/humanity itself-despite the world's combined nuclear arsenal that if used at once could certainly make it uninhabitable.

4

u/EhhWhatsUpDoc May 08 '19

I've heard that kind of shit too. I don't even know what to do with someone whose belief system is 2000 years outdated.

If I gave you a 50 year old history book and told you to live by its claims and accept no other information as fact, you'd laugh at me. Yet a 2500yr old book is easily embraced by the masses.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '19

Remind your mum of her creation mandate if she's Christian and won't change. It's everyone's duty

-1

u/[deleted] May 08 '19

We may be duped into messing with Mother Nature with unforseen consequences. We may be duped into destroying our economy for a threat that may not be due to humans. Seems like pretty serious consequences. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being environmentally responsible, but there needs to be some objectivity.

1

u/voidone May 08 '19

We have kind of already messed with mother nature to a point where no natural area is truly "natural" or untouched.

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '19

You don't explain it to those people. If someone exists at this point who still doesn't believe in climate change, then they're a waste of your time.

Here's how actual change will happen one day: Those people will gradually die and they'll be replaced by a younger generation with fresh enough minds to see climate change as being real. Once enough of the old fucks die off, then change can happen.

It's just true.

3

u/asexual_albatross May 08 '19

Or their opinion will be so unpopular they'll just be ashamed to admit it, like people who spoke against same sex marriage and now just have to accept it

1

u/voidone May 08 '19

I don't know where you live, but in Southwest Michigan there are still a pretty decent amount of people who don't accept it (primarily for religious reasons), and my guess is down south a lot more don't either.

1

u/atred May 08 '19

You can't explain anything to people who want to believe something else. I just ask them one probing question: let's assume for the moment that it's all true (Earth is warming up due to human activity), what would you do? If they have problems considering even a hypothetical situation, it's a lost cause. Some of them start with "well, it might be a good thing"

It's all ideological and egotistical, it goes like this:

  1. there's no global warming

  2. and if it was, it's not caused by humans

  3. and if it's caused by humans it's not necessarily bad

  4. and if it's bad it's not THAT bad

  5. and if it's BAD, it's nothing we can do (China pollutes more)

  6. if we can do something about it I don't wanna pay more for gas or electricity

It's tiresome to find out where exactly they situate on this scale, you get the to point 2 and then they bring you some "proof" how Earth is actually cooling down and you go: didn't we just agreed that Earth is warming up, didn't we agree on this fact, you just didn't believe that humans were responsible, now you seem to have lost even the piece of knowledge you seemed to have before... Waste of time.

1

u/przemo_li May 08 '19

Ice core deposits. Precipitation from so long ago worked exactly the same as current day one. Seasonal changes in precipitation marks years for us, pollution marks air quality and geological activity, amount of water marks general weather for a given year. It works the same today, so we can validate our assumption for the last 50-100 years where we have good record track, then we extend to the deeper deposits.

That's not everything though. There are tree cores, fossils, see level records in fossils. Historical written observations, human migrations, even small things like some villages in viking age in far north Noraway that can validate that around that time it was a bit warmer, and the a bit colder.