Climate Change

Send Around This XKCD Climate Change Web Cartoon, But Really Look at It First

You'll see the average global temperatures now are about where they were 9,000 years ago

|

XKCDclimateCartoon
Randall Munroe/Vox

XKCD has a web cartoon making the rounds that nicely summarizes 22,000 years of climate and human history. One important point: As the last ice age ended and temperatures heated up, humans did better and civilizations advanced. Vox invites readers to consider its implications and send it along to those folks who serenely opine, "The climate always changes." From Vox:

Randall Munroe, the author of the webcomic XKCD, has a habit of making wonderfully lucid infographics on otherwise difficult scientific topics. Everyone should check out today's edition on global warming. It's a stunning graphic showing Earth's recent climate history. Take some time with it. Stroll through the events like the domestication of dogs and the construction of Stonehenge. And then ponder the upshot here….

But Munroe's comic below hits at the "why worry." What's most relevant to us humans, living in the present day, is that the climate has been remarkably stable for the past 12,000 years. That period encompasses all of human civilization — from the pyramids to the Industrial Revolution to Facebook and beyond. We've benefited greatly from that stability. It's allowed us to build farms and coastal cities and thrive without worrying about overly wild fluctuations in the climate.

And now we're losing that stable climate.

During the last ice age global temperatures averaged about 4 to 5 degrees Celsius lower than the Holocene average. As one scrolls down the trendlines in the graphic, one notes that about 9,000 to 7,000 years ago global average temperatures were higher than currently. In the cartoon, Munroe says that temperatures "start to level out slightly above the 1961-1990 average" around 8,000 BCE.

Of course, determining what temperatures were thousands of years ago is a fraught exercise, but it is generally thought that during the Holocene Optimum global average temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius higher than they are now. (Yes, I know it's a link to Wikipedia, but I checked a bunch of different studies and it turns out that Wikipedia pretty much cited and linked to the most relevant of them, so click the links if you've got doubts.)

At the end of the XKCD cartoon, it shows current average temperature (which is around where it was 9,000 years ago), and then appends the steeply rising projections of various climate models. Since most doubters are contesting the model projections—not the actual temperature trends—I expect that sending the graphic along to them will do little to change their minds. It will, however, nicely feed into the confirmation biases of those who are fully on-board with those projections. I do note that the cartoon mentions that the Northwest Passage has recently opened. About 9,000 years ago, it was at least as warm in that region as it is now.

In any case, go check out the XKCD cartoon and learn some interesting history.

Just a reminder: I do think that man-made global warming could likely become a significant problem for humanity by the end of the century.

NEXT: Johnson/Weld to Debate Commission: Let Down Your 15% Threshold Just This Once

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And now we’re losing that stable climate.

    Quick! Throw some virgins in a volcano!

      1. This, too, has been foretold.

        1. Just like the gypsy woman said

            1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,.,.,.,

              ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

          1. You really need to stop going to her.

          2. Nice one! Seriously who are these idiots who will believe this stuff just because it’s been like the stable consensus scientists worldwide for about two decades now? Stable climate, I mean who cares??

            And people would seriously believe these packs of so called “scientists” over a publication named “Reason”?

            1. Seriously who are these idiots who will believe this stuff just because it’s been like the stable consensus scientists worldwide for about two decades now?

              I suspect it is people not unlike the same idiots that believed in Eugenics.

              1. Those darn scientists, so rarely right! What they need is a process.

                1. Those darn scientists, so rarely right! What they need is a process.

                  Could always fall back on the old standard.

                  Feynman on Scientific Method

                  Funny thing is it doesn’t use ‘consensus’ to determine if your wrong.

                2. Those darn scientists, so rarely right! What they need is a process.

                  You know, its funny, but those darn scientists? They really are so rarely right. Newton was proved wrong, Einstein has been proved wrong. Sodium doesn’t actually cause hypertension. Your diet shouldn’t be built on a base of carbohydrates. Marijuana is not a killer. Washing your hands before surgery is a really good idea.

                  So many consensuses, so many times the consensus was wrong.

                  1. Two points 1:consensae 2: you’re absolutely right, but they’re wrong (sometimes) in the same way most businesses fail, I think. They’re a lot closer to being true than prevailing ideas at the time, and they can be close enough for some purposes, and maybe even a necessary step to a better understanding in the future.

                  2. Totally agree today’s understanding of climate and warming gasses could prove to be way off — we could be completely underestimating or overestimating the warming risk. It’s a really super complicated system.

                    But here is thing: it is fucking crazy and shockingly morally appalling to just emit one trillion *tons* of warming gasses with nary a shrug when 1) we don’t really know what’s going to happen 2) we have a shit ton of data suggesting it could be really really fucking bad

                    Oh well, problem for the next generation, right?

                    1. we have a shit ton of data suggesting it could be really really fucking bad

                      No, we don’t. There is literally no data showing this. There is only deductive speculation, which actual science grew very skeptical of around 500 years ago, for various good reasons I encourage you to look into.

                    2. You’re right about one thing: temperature projections are *projections*. From baseball, to flood control, to the bond market, to shipping logistics: nearly every industry uses computer modelling and projection systems. If you look at MIT models (I use MIT as a familiar name with good science rep) projection outcomes for emitting a trillion tons of carbon range from pretty bad to apocalyptic. What reputable projections are you using to show everything is going to be okay? Oh that’s right, you aren’t using any because you’re saying because we can’t know the future for certain we can do anything we want without moral responsibility.

                    3. you’re saying because we can’t know the future for certain we can do anything we want without moral responsibility

                      You have no idea what I’m saying, but don’t let that stop you.

                      What I said was, “There is literally no data showing this. There is only deductive speculation.” Which you confirmed. No data. Models.

                      Yes, models can be useful. When they contradict the empirical evidence (which absolutely every climate model does), you go with the empirical evidence. That’s science.

                    4. If I got your position wrong please correct me. Do you think we should take some real action to reduce warming emissions? Be bold and just state your policy preference. If you think we should do nothing, be clear about it.

                      Projection models use millions and millions of data points and adjust as more data is collected. Can you name me any skeptic who published a climate projection 30 years ago that’s been more accurate than say James Hansen’s projections?

                      I hope it goes without saying that there is no observational evidence about things that will happen in the future but the consequences of today’s actions are nonetheless real. Emitting a trillion tons of warming gasses without some highly trustworthy projections showing it’s safe is reckless endangerment of our grandkids. And yet all the projections I’ve seen are really damn scary.

                    5. Do you think we should take some real action to reduce warming emissions? Be bold and just state your policy preference. If you think we should do nothing, be clear about it.

                      Not thinking the government should monopolize all activity regarding environmental concerns =/= “do nothing.” Actual environmental issues tend to be highly localized, and government-driven, global-level “solutions” overwhelmingly do more harm than good.

                      Projection models use millions and millions of data points and adjust as more data is collected.

                      That doesn’t make them empirical, and thus doesn’t make them science.

                      Can you name me any skeptic who published a climate projection 30 years ago that’s been more accurate than say James Hansen’s projections?

                      No. That doesn’t make Hansens’ projections accurate. And Hansen himself disagrees mightily with much of what you are shrieking about here. But don’t let the science stop your witch hunt for “science deniers.”

                      yet all the projections I’ve seen are really damn scary

                      Yes, but all of them have been falsified. Again, even Hansen has complained that the projections assume increasing GHG emissions that are counter-factual.

                      Please do some basic research before trying to bludgeon your enemies.

                    6. So your position is no policy action but also not to do nothing? What’s the not do nothing part?

                      Projections, being projections, are not right or wrong but simply align more closely or less closely with observed results (and if they aligned closely that still doesn’t tell you whether you were lucky or good). Climate deniers have been massively wrong — many many argued no warming trend — and Hansen was overall pretty close. Our best understanding of what Hansen got wrong was that he used too high of a climate sensitivity assumption and newer projections should account for that. *That’s* how science is done.

                      You don’t just say, oh sorry, science doesn’t apply to the future, only past events.

                      Also, love how you are trying to paint Hansen as some guy that’s blase about GHG emissions, the guy that wrote “Storms of my Grandchildren: The Coming Climate Catastrophe and our Last Chance to Save Humanity”

                    7. If only that were true of climate theologists who refuse to consider paleo records because “no one was around to measure then.”

                      Climate “science” is very much like Creationism. Short on facts, long on hyperbole, and vocally willing to burn the heretics.

                      Peddle your religion somewhere else.

                    8. ImanAzol, your dismissal of climate science is the very thing that makes your policy position so morally indefensible. If we’re going to emit a trillion tons of warming gasses we should be pretty sure it’s safe for our only planet. They only way to know it’s safe is having solid climate science.

                    9. Conversely, if we’re going to tax the people by $125 billion per year (or more–this is just what one environmental group called for in carbon taxes), we should be pretty sure the climate models are as close to 100% accurate predictively AND safe for our economy.

                    10. If 100% accuracy is too high a standard for $125 billion/year in taxes, I ask, WHAT standard of predictive accuracy is good enough?

                      10% accuracy to harm the American people by $125 billion/year? 20%? 30%?

                      Also, keep in mind that as a policy prescription, a $125 billion/year carbon tax has another factor we should consider: what is the probability that the policies paid for by the $125 billion/year will actually FIX the global warming?

                      Another consideration: what is the probability that politically-connected crony capitalists will squander all or nearly all of the $125 billion/year carbon tax?

                    11. Margin of error matters too. If I claimed I have 100% predictive accuracy that the temp. would rise 1 deg C by 2030 plus/minus 10 deg C, I’d be right, but everyone would also recognize me as a scammer.

                      Climate science is still dealing with very large margins of error. NASA admits this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..right.html

                      “Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree ? or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C ? several times as much.”

                      Five times as much. This error is just in MEASURING the temp. much less than PREDICTING the temp. Other hard sciences are used to margins of error smaller than the measurement being made.

                    12. What’s the not do nothing part?

                      Mainly, understand the problem better. Contra the hysterical political propaganda, we have time.

                      Personally, I’m a vegetarian, I drive a hybrid, and I use very little electric power. I monitor my usage and use less when I know a dirty power plant has just come on (they have apps for that).

                      What I don’t do is run around bludgeoning everyone else and shrieking about climate denial because I understand that we have a lot more to understand about this.

                      Also, love how you are trying to paint Hansen as some guy that’s blase about GHG emissions

                      I’m not. Hansen is a hysterical fanatic, and has shown signs of deep dishonesty and aggressive suppression of competing views. What I’m saying is even he is not as shriekingly hysterical about this as you are.

                    13. Oh – and I’m a big advocate for nuclear energy.

                      If you “believe” in CAGW but you’re against fracking and nuclear energy, then you’re a fucking moron.

                      “Environmentalists” are forcing us to burn more fossil fuels as they shut down nuclear plants.

                      Lastly, building coal, oil and NG plants in Africa and SE Asia to get them to stop relying on wood burning. After that, help them to transition to nuclear.

                      Final caveat: governments need have no role in this. There are plenty of private organizations trying to bring about these goals.

                    14. We do agree on a bunch of stuff: I don’t worry about fracking and agree it’s beneficial in the short run. (Side note: also don’t worry about GMO.) I’m okay with nuclear — the emissions benefits outweigh the risks in the short term. It’s not that cheap, but there’s no reason to kill existing plants. Also agree: let’s go after the low hanging fruit of wood fires.

                      Regarding time on hand:
                      -We’ve been studying for 30+ years already
                      -We’ve gone from ~40% scientific agreement to ~97% in that time
                      -Models certainly don’t suggest we have time to spare — they range from a tiny cushion to we’re already past the point of no return
                      -The most important basic fact: there is no second chance if we screw this up

                    15. Regarding government role:
                      -There’s no such thing as a source-neutral energy policy. Governments must decide: build highways or trains, price to mine coal on public lands, allowable levels of heavy metal emissions, rules governing public utilities, etc. Policy almost always favors established players who will fight to stop cleaner and ultimately cheaper options.

                      -All these little things people voluntarily do generally add up to very little — Americans buy *by far* the most ‘green’ products, but we are still one of the worst carbon emitters because our policies generally favor carbon fuels

                      -It’s a lot simpler and cheaper to reduce carbon at the source than have consumers try to figure out the carbon footprint of their purchase through an opaque, complex global pipeline

                      -When pollution hurts everyone, everyone should be expected to reduce it by the same principle that it shouldn’t be legal to throw your trash in the ditch. I believe in democratic government; I vote for trash-free ditches and protecting climate stability. I don’t think that’s tyranny of the majority.

                    16. Glaciation[]
                      []Ice ages may occur because of changes in ocean circulation and continentality induced by plate tectonics.[]Milankovitch theory predicts that glacial periods occur during ice ages because of astronomical factors in combination with climate feedback mechanisms. The primary astronomical drivers are higher than normal orbital eccentricity, a low axial tilt[]and the alignment of summer solstice with the aphelion[]

                      The Earth is [in] an ice age known as the quaternary glaciation and is presently in the Holocene interglacial period. This period would normally be expected to end in about 25,000 years. However, the increased rate of CO2 release[]may delay the onset of the next glacial period until[]50,000?130,000 years from now. [OTOH], a global warming period of finite duration (based on the assumption that fossil fuel use will cease by the year 2200) will probably only impact the glacial period for about 5,000 years.[]global warming induced through a few centuries[]of greenhouse gas emission would only have a limited impact in the long term.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Future_of_Earth#Glaciation
                      ~~

                      Horrors, no! That damned CO2 is preventing us from having a natural ice age!

                      But wait:

                      http://i55.tinypic.com/11awzg8.jpg

                      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia /commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

                      This is why real scientists (geologists, physicists, astronomers) who think in millions of years think climate “scientists” are clucking idiots for worrying about decades.

                    17. Complete false: overwhelming majority of scientists, even those only tangentially related to climate study, believe humans are warming the planet. There are some people who are deeply emotionally committed to not believing this and yet never produce a study showing otherwise.

                    18. Complete false: overwhelming majority of scientists, even those only tangentially related to climate study, believe humans are warming the planet.

                      You’re moving the goalposts, which is not surprising, and you have yet to cite any source for this claim whatsoever.

                      What is under discussion is catastrophic warming, which you are implying only government action can fix. Now you’re saying “any scientist that says ‘yes perhaps some warming’ supports my theory of immediately catastrophic warming.” That’s not the same.

                      As I said below, but you seem to have missed in your multiple corpse-fucking passes:

                      The “consensus” percentages you are consistently mischaracterizing here are from the IPCC’s climate report. People like you seem to think this was a poll of scientists. If you actually read the fucking thing you’ll discover that it was a meta-survey of studies to decide whether the studies could be said to support specific statements. It’s not a percentage of scientists who hold particular opinions, it’s a survey of climate studies to see if they support specific statements.

                      The 97% consensus is that human activities contribute to climate change in some way. CO2, urban heat islands, deforestation, etc.

                      93% agree that if the world were to warm really rapidly, that would be bad.

                      54% agree that the world is unlikely to warm rapidly enough to be a problem.

                    19. If the West cut its emissions in half, it would reduce the temp in 2100 by some tiny fraction of a degree, because China, India, etc. Will more than make up for it.
                      Humanity’s emissions are only a tiny fraction of nature’s emissions, BTW.

                    20. As the worlds largest consumer nation we have more leverage to affect climate change than any other country, yet our policies lag behind most other developed nations. China is the world’s largest investor in renewable energy despite being much poorer on a per capita basis. Let’s take the bull by the horns and not play innocent victim here.

                  3. But many ARE right but the technology to create the experiment(s) to determine the veracity of their ‘guesses,’ as Feinman puts it, are not achievable at the time the guesses are made.

                    Prime example: Einstein’s prediction of gravitational bending of light, as well as many other postulates and theories from others.

                    They’re “wrong” until an experiment can PROVE them ‘right’ OR ‘wrong.’

          3. Love it. Hit these scientists guys right where it hurts: their love of superstition!

            1. I see Jackass called for backup.

              Hey Stan, 97% is a bullshit number. Not that consensus is part of the scientific method anyways.

              1. Really if just 20% of respected scientists thought we were endangering the livability of our only planet, that’s enough risk to take serious action. If 20% of doctors thought eating dairy would kill me in the next few years I’d go ahead and not eat it. Its fucking morally repugnant to think the science should be settled (whatever that means) to do something about our only planet. Show me any study that shows more than 5% of respected scientists that climate change is nothing to worry about.

                1. Really if just 20% of respected scientists thought we were endangering the livability of our only planet, that’s enough risk to take serious action.

                  This kind of thinking really worked out well with Eugenics didn’t it?

                  1. Seriously, what’s with the Eugenics argument?

                    “Well, after that whole Eugenics thing, I just had enough with those science guys. That was the last straw!”

                    1. Seriously, what’s with the Eugenics argument?

                      Consensus is how Eugenics managed to stick around for decades. Climate change is essentially a repeat of Eugenics. The real world has not been cooperating with the climate scientist beliefs. If you managed to watch Feynman on Scientific Method you will have noticed there was no mention of ‘consensus’ to determine if a ‘guess’ was correct. The fact is climate science has failed on their guesses. If your guesses fail then your theory is wrong. That is how science is done.

                    2. Wow, if only scientists could see this description of the scientific method, that would sure clear up a lot of confusion. To think of all these thousands of studies looking at coral reefs, ice cores, tree rings, migration patterns, fossil records, glacier movements, thickness of mussel shells where these guys just forgot how to do science, when Greg F could have told them. “Guys, I saw this exact same thing when Eugenics was the hot topic. Won’t be fooled again.”

                      Last year was the hottest year on record, BTW.

                    3. Poor Stan still doesn’t get it. When a hypothesis fails to be supported by the real world data it’s wrong. He appears to think that climate doesn’t change unless it is the fault of humans despite geological evidence to the contrary. He also appears to oblivious to the history of science where scientist have apparently “forgot how to do science” on such a regular basis that Max Plank said “science advances one funeral at a time”. In his smug stupidity he concludes with “the hottest year on record”, which was due to a rather large El Nino (a natural part of the climate not in the computer models) while at the same time ignoring the 18 plus years with no warming contrary to the theory.

                    4. Y’all were plenty happy to use the El Nino surge 18 years ago to argue warming had stopped. Remember the last 10 years of right wing blogs on climate?

                    5. Y’all were plenty happy to use the El Nino surge 18 years ago to argue warming had stopped.

                      For someone who argues 1000’s of papers you are pretty ignorant of what has been going on. The IPCC acknowledged the “hiatus” in their last report. There have been numerous peer reviewed papers trying to explain the pause and why the climate models failed. Even Phil Jones admitted the pause was real.

                      13 February 2010
                      Phil Jones: “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently ? and then barely at all.”

                      BBC: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

                      Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just.”

                      You are free to continue demonstrating your ignorance.

                    6. Greg, neutral Phil Jones quote from 2010, that’s your argument? That’s some weak sauce fella. You’re telling our grandkids, hey don’t worry, a trillion tons of warming emissions is no risk to you. Can you give me any evidence that even a quarter of scientists, or even 5% of scientists, agree with this? Not anecdotes, not some tiresome BS red herring from wattsupwiththat, but an actual study?

                    7. Stan doubles down to further demonstrate his ignorance.

                      Greg, neutral Phil Jones quote from 2010, that’s your argument?

                      So you don’t know who Phil Jones is? He is the director of the CRU (Climate Research Unit) in the UK. He was also a prominent participant in the Climate Gate emails and author of ‘hide the decline’. Neutral you say? LMAO. The guy deleted data that didn’t follow the narrative and got caught. The email is Here:

                      http://www.justfacts.com/globa……asp#_ftn6

                      Perhaps you should also read this interview with Dr. Jones:

                      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci…..511670.stm

                      Can you give me any evidence that even a quarter of scientists, or even 5% of scientists, agree with this?

                      Back to the consensus argument, poor Stan is incapable of learning.

                      Not anecdotes, not some tiresome BS red herring from wattsupwiththat, but an actual study?

                      So Stan doesn’t even know what the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is. From The Physical Science Basis Working GroupI to the Fifth Assessment Report chapter 10, page 10:

                      The observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998?2012 as compared to the trend during 1951?2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reducedtrend in external forcing (expert judgement, medium confidence).

                    8. “Can you give me any evidence that even a quarter of scientists, or even 5% of scientists, agree with this?”

                      short answer: no

                    9. “Can you give me any evidence that even a quarter of scientists, or even 5% of scientists, agree with this?”

                      Still stuck on the non-scientific consensus argument. The short answer is you have no clue how the scientific method works and how stupid you look.

                    10. Greg, are you arguing prevailing scientific opinion is irrelevant?

                    11. Let’s cut to the chase Greg F. How much warming do you think one trillion tons of carbon emissions will create? What’s your projection based on and how confident are you in it? Is it based on minority or majority scientific opinion?

                    12. Let’s cut to the chase Greg F.

                      You can start by explaining how the greenhouse effect works, what is the major greenhouse gas, and explain the theory of how the enhanced greenhouse effect is suppose to work.

                    13. Greg, I ask you this because I think this whole discussion gets treated like a big game of “gotcha”. I don’t care what names you know or how many facts about the medieval warming period you can throw out.

                      I’m just trying to get an honest answer of what outcomes you really, honestly think are most likely and why. Here’s my complete basic position in a nutshell.

                      1) I don’t pretend to do climate science and I find it absurd and tedious when people try in comment sections
                      2) I think the evidence is clear that an overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced we are warming the planet
                      3) Who knows what will happen this is a complex system but forcing functions could cause this to go in a very bad way
                      4) We have a very clear moral duty to error on the side of caution here

                2. So what exactly should we do?

                  Put solar panels on the roof? Never mind the toxic pollution created by the manufacture of such panels. and they have a much shorter than advertised life span.

                  Wind power? expensive and the generators are proving to be at best 50% as reliable as was predicted.

                  Biofuels? they spend more energy than they produce to make them. I wont even go into my more than a decade of experience with such fuels and the less than stellar results they produce. Not to mention they hurt the poorest nations by driving up the cost of basic feed stock.

                  I have an idea, we hold summits and debate taxing the wealthy nations to subsidize the poorer nations and we fly around burning massive amounts of fuel while doing it. And when someone questions the carbon output we will just remind them that we are smarter than the lowly plebes and they just do not understand such a complicated subject.

                  Somehow it just smells a bit too fishy to me. I will however wait for the next Global Climate scare chain mail to arrive in my in box.

                  1. What can we do? There is literally something not perfect about each energy source. Only one logical conclusion: let’s not give a fuck and burn this thing down for our grandkids.

                  2. You left out the Sawney Bean option.

                    Which I find infinitely more acceptable than ceding greater power to government.

                3. Stan, who’s a respected scientist? What metric do you use to measure that? It wouldn’t happen to be ‘they signed a specific piece of paper urging action on climate change’ would it? Or is it ‘scientists *I* personally couldn’t name, but say that AGCC is real’?

                4. Nobody (here) disputes your right to make your own decisions about what to put in your body, or acceptable levels of risk. What you don’t have is a right to dictate the same to other people. I don’t understand what’s so difficult about that idea…

                5. Show me any study that shows more than 5% of respected scientists that climate change is nothing to worry about

                  Here’s several.

                  54% of climate science studies support the notion that climate change is nothing to worry about.

                  Do you guys even read this shit before running around “quoting” it?

                  1. Not seeing you “quote” anything. Clicked on the latest report and here’s the first sentence of the summary:

                    “Human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems (Figure SPM.1).”

                    The very first sentence of the very first report I clicked on. I mean, seriously, this is your evidence that there is nothing to worry about?

                    1. this is your evidence that there is nothing to worry about?

                      Let me walk you through this more slowly.

                      The “consensus” percentages you are consistently mischaracterizing here are from the IPCC’s climate report. People like you seem to think this was a poll of scientists. If you actually read the fucking thing you’ll discover that it was a meta-survey of studies to decide whether the studies could be said to support specific statements. It’s not a percentage of scientists who hold particular opinions, it’s a survey of climate studies to see if they support specific statements.

                      The 97% consensus is that human activities contribute to climate change in some way. CO2, urban heat islands, deforestation, etc.

                      93% agree that if the world were to warm really rapidly, that would be bad.

                      54% agree that the world is unlikely to warm rapidly enough to be a problem.

                      Where in fuck does your “95% think the world is ending right now” come from?

                      Again, please do the basic research before embarking on your witch hunt.

                6. 20% of scientists think pot and guns should be banned, and free speech is bad for public safety.

            2. Shouldn’t you be writing another letter to Eminem?

              1. Don’t get this. ‘Cause Eminem did an climate action thing? If it’s a good joke, I want to get it.

                  1. Thanks for the link. Not bad. I’m kinda clueless about these internet meme things.

              2. Dido’s getting oooold

        2. At least I’ve got that going for me.

    1. Whoa there cuck. I have it good authority that the MRA/PUA of the alt-right is composed of supreme Alpha motherfuckers who have unlocked the female mind and squash so much pussy that they barely have time to spend every waking moment on the internet bragging about it.

      1. I haven’t read today’s Robbytarian thread, but I thank you for summarizing the comments and saving me time.

          1. Based on his post timing, it’s more like “the unemployed and retirees.”

            Say what you want, the man does know his audience.

          2. I read it for the alt text.

        1. The missing prepositions are what really make it authentic.

      2. I read that as “wanking moment” and determined that my instinctive interpretation was correct.

    2. We’re a little short on virgins right now, will a Kardashian work?

      1. I believe in the value of empirical observation. Toss one in and see what happens.

        1. Admittedly, I’m a little afraid that the resulting explosion of silicone might trigger a pyroclastic flow.

          1. Why only one?

            What did the volcano ever do to you?

    3. Has there ever been a study proving that doesn’t work? Let’s try it!

    4. Some people are getting a head start. Virgins can’t be far behind.
      http://www.foxnews.com/world/2…..blood.html

    5. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $14000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week… Go to this website and click tech tab for more info..This Web? http://goo.gl/n5WfgS

  2. Wait, in 15500 BCE, humans were painting Nine Inch Nails graffiti on cave walls?

    1. Also, 14400 BCE, some native american tribes dispute this. Some claim “they were always here”.

      1. Without a written language, they know as much about their ancestors of 16,000 years ago as I do about what my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather had for breakfast on April 12, 1713.

        1. Howard Zinn will refer you to a little thing called the “oral tradition”. Fact.

          1. It’s almost as reliable as the Bible!

      2. Yeah, and some think they grew out of corn plants or were made out of clay.

        I think a good definition of “indigenous” is “people who have lived in a place for so long that they have no idea how they got there”.

        1. Think “Staten Island”.

      3. 51,400 BC, the last remnants of the Neanderthals cried out for Congress to save them from the genocidal rape of the racist bigot monster Homo Sapiens. But do nothing Congress did nothing, as usual.

        As a person who has neanderthal genes, I demand reparations. Ta Nehisi Coates, you don’t got nothin on me, beeotch.

        1. Bah, the Neanderthals didn’t die out, they just became the French.

  3. The “steeply rising” temperatures in the chart aren’t just projections. The start of that steeply rising line reflects actual temperatures. And the point, which you neglect to mention, that in the past it took a few thousand years to effect that much change.

    We’ve accomplished it in a court hundred years.

    1. That’s another kilogram of wood. It’s a bit chilly tonight. My daughter and I will have fun roasting marshmallows.

      1. Shit in the river and call it freedom. Pretty heroic.

        1. May I point out that you are still exhailing carbon and mention grandchildren a lot. You seem to be the problem only you can fix.

    2. *couple hundred

        1. We usually have fires just to clear some loose brush or just for fun.

    3. You still haven’t said what drastic measures you’ve taken at home to eliminate your emissions. And no, investing in Al Gore industries doesn’t count.

      1. No air conditioning, no meat, electric vehicle, ride bike for local trips, plus a few more.

        Even with that, trust me, my carbon footprint is probably worse than yours.

          1. I’ll show you 2 kilograms of wood.

          2. What’s this all about?

        1. Does anyone know where batteries come from?

          1. The fair trade store?

            1. Exactly! People who claim to dislike pollution obviously just want to look holy and righteous. They should be ashamed for pretending to dislike it. Like a little lead and mercury is going to hurt us, right?

              1. Actually, if you really understood science, you would know that quantity maters. Trace amounts are often unavoidable, and of no or little consequence. A little lead or mercury, unless it is of enough quantity, will not hurt us. Just like a little radiation or a little arsenic will do nothing of importance either. Quantity maters. A little water hurts no one. But too much of it, and you die.

                The problem today is people that lack real scientific knowledge or a background into the scientific process thinking they know shit. The scientific method works well. If you make a claim,(hypothesis) prove it with facts. If nobody can show that your facts are wrong or find an instance where your claim falls apart, then you have something going for you. If none of your claims pan out and your models can’t get it right, you don’t accuse people that point out you need to go back to the drawing board of being ludites and heretics if you want to claim science (and no consensus is not science of any kind) is on your side.

                1. I do actually like the comparison that the push for green industry has actually resulted in more real trace pollution than before. For instance, every florescent lightbulb has trace amounts of mercury in them, and this is the main type of legal lightbulb these days (as mandated by the Fed). What is better, tungsten or mercury?

                  Extrapolate that out to include lithium ion batteries in newer vehicles and the slurry inside the average solar panel and you realize that real trace pollution is increasing exponentially at the order of the central government.

                  But the real danger is of course CO2 which is a lesser greenhouse gas than the true devil of H2O. Of course, when you tell your average AGW believer they’ll point out that we need water and we can’t control the water cycle, but then they turn around and seem to believe we can do that with CO2 emissions while completely ignoring massive and persistent naturally occurring CO2 generators that far outpace manmade sources. (While also ignoring historical CO2 trends, of course!)

                  It’s the perfect storm of people with zero knowledge of science, scientific principles, or logic deciding what is and what isn’t valid based on some amorphous popularity contest.

              2. Like a little lead and mercury is going to hurt us, right?

                If you’re concerned about lead and mercury and other toxic chemicals, why do you want to fill the world with batteries and fluorescent lights? Seems counter-productive, doesn’t it?

                Oh wait – I keep forgetting – all things are climate change and climate change is all things.

                That’s Environmentalism!

          2. And he probably lives where most of his electricity comes from coal.

            1. He probably throws secret coal burning parties with his so called “concerned about the earth’s future” friends! Hypocrite!

            2. The thing I have always found funny is how AGW cultists are also anti-nuclear. The one source of energy that is 100% carbon free…

              1. ^ This x 1000

            3. Yeah, but they burn the coal a hundred miles away where only poor, white, rural people live so it’s okay.

          3. “Does anyone know where batteries come from?”

            Bats. Or more correctly batts.

        2. electric vehicle

          Your dealer ran out of the cars that run on smug?

        3. Bragging about how your life sucks isn’t going to convince ANYONE.

        4. electric vehicle

          Well, you fucked up right there.

        5. “No air conditioning”

          You live up north joe. Turn off your heat or stfu. Not to mention your work is non essential city planner. Turn off yourself and get back to us.

      2. My drastic measures are to burn an old tire filled with used motor oil.

        …we are talking about *accelerating* global warming, right?

        1. I’m rolling coal right now.

          1. +1 overly lifted dodge.
            +2 towing mirrors.

        2. Sounds like Aleppo.

      3. I’ll buy this line of argument (“you can only argue for climate action once you’ve eliminated your carbon footprint”) as soon as anti-tax folks universally quit using public roads, 911, etc.

        1. Let?s see here…

          Person A — I speak against taxes, but I use the roads, because I paid for them.
          Person B — I speak against wrecking the climate, but I do it anyway, because… reasons.

          Person A — I speak against taxes, but I take welfare, as a way of hastening system collapse.
          Person B — I speak against wrecking the climate, but I do it anyway, because… reasons.

          Person A — I do not object to paying for roads, I object forcing others to do so.
          Person B — I support reducing carbon usage, but only if others are also forced to do so.

          Yep, totally equivalent.

          1. 0x90, have the guts to defend your own position of not giving a crap about carbon emissions, without some absurd requirement of purity that caring about climate requires you to live like a 12th century hermit. It’s such an obvious and pathetic dodge from taking responsibility for one’s own position.

            1. Stan, you introduced the “purity” condition by inaccurately comparing hypocrisy on the part of greens demanding that others eliminate their “carbon footprint” without doing so themselves to people arguing against taxation using public goods they’ve already paid for through taxes.

            2. Next time, try addressing the point.

          2. Particularly love this one: “I speak against taxes, but I take welfare, as a way of hastening system collapse”

            Well that’s a pretty darn convenient way of fighting for one’s beliefs.

            1. Curious, how seem determined to avoid the topic. Well, not really…

          3. Person A — I speak against taxes, but I take welfare, as a way of hastening system collapse
            Person B — Cool. What did you do with this cash you got fighting for freedom?

            Person A — Got the new World of Warcraft game. And some socks.
            Person B — Sweet. Self sacrifice never tasted so good.

            Person A — Well that’s they great thing about my political beliefs: there’s literally nothing required of me to show I care. I can just sit back and accuse others of hypocrisy.
            Person B — Like those climate guys!

            Person A — Dude claims to hate climate change but drives a electric car. Doesn’t he know batteries are toxic? Obviously doesn’t care!
            Person B — Totally. What would it take to convince you he actually cared?

            Person A — Not sure really. Hard to say. But it better be good! Maybe live off air or something.
            Person B — Yeah, try that climate guy. What a hypocrite.

            1. Here’s what you’re missing:

              Your attempts to demonstrate that “you care” don’t mean anything. The effects of your actions mean something.

              Even James Hansen says CO2 impacts have been overemphasized and that our focus should be on non-CO2 GHGs.

              Your electric car is not doing as much good as you think it is, and your batteries are doing more harm than you think they are.

              It’s not about whether or not you are effectively “demonstrating that you care” through the proper social signals. It’s about your ignorance of the actual science causing you to do things that are counter-productive to your own stated goals because the only thing you actually seem to care about is showing that you care.

              1. I love that y’all spend 30 comments jumping on Jack for being hypocritical for not being carbon zero enough and now it’s all “your attempts to demonstrate you care don’t mean anything”.

                And please, don’t tell me combustion engines are better for the environment than electric. Just have some self pride and don’t go there.

            2. Hint: the topic is the false equivalence you attempted to put forth. Everything else is just the voices in your head.

              1. 0x90, you got me you clever devil. How do you come up with these great jujitsu tactics?

        2. Stan, get back to me when the pro tax people start paying taxes

    4. That graph does what all hockey stick graphs try to do, which is to stick recent instrumental data (highly manipulated I might add) on the end of “reconstructed” data, which is usually not much better than made up bullshit. The result is garbage.

      1. Thank you Juice. That sums it up nicely.

      2. The old-time temps are smoothed so their spikes, which likely exceed our modern spike, don’show up. Result: an alarming graph.

    5. The “steeply rising” temperatures in the chart aren’t just projections.

      Correct, they are thermometer data splice onto much lower time resolution proxies. Splicing two different types of data is bad science. That jackass doesn’t understand why is no surprise.

      And the point, which you neglect to mention, that in the past it took a few thousand years to effect that much change.

      The point jackass is no doubt ignorant of is faster rise times require higher time resolution. Since the proxy data lacks this resolution (IOW, higher sample rate – see Nyquist criteria and Shannon’s sampling theorem) it is not possible to support the assertion. IOW, the proxy data is effectively low pass filtered which means any fast rising changes are effectively filtered out.

      And anybody that calls a less than 1 degree C change over a century “steeply rising” is a moron. Perhaps jackass could tell us what the ‘ideal’ global temperature should be.

      1. It’s all a hoax!

        1. It’s not all a hoax. Just the parts infested with left-wing politics, grant seeking, and the general foibles of human nature.

          There is real research to be done. It doesn’t have to be (nor necessarily should it) be paid for by Exxon or whatever other boogeymen you can drag up, but it damn well has to be honest.

          1. Just because the Left sees this as a wonderful opportunity to grab more power doesn’t mean it’s not real.

            1. No, it looks like it is not real because the predictions don’t bear out.

        2. It’s all a hoax!

          IOW’s jackass has no substantive response.

      2. Good info! Once again, I look to the comments section to get the information that SHOULD have been in the article itself. I’m starting to see a pattern here…

    6. We’ve accomplished it in a couple hundred years.

      That’s how industrious we are.

    7. That is not true.

      There is no direct temperature measurement from a few thousand years ago. There is only extrapolation and indirect correlations. Those extrapolations and correlations are skewed by biases of the scientists doing them. When you have “consensus” in science, it causes the worst aspects of malpractice to rise to the forefront. We see that clearly in the manipulations that NOAA is doing on the historic record….lowering temperature in the past to make the present look relatively hotter. This has been widely reported.

      Additionally, the current “steeply rising” temperatures are highly questionable. Much of the data is very poorly collected, relying on surface temperature recording devices that have become overrun by urban/suburban heat island effects, skewing the results from where they were just 20, 30 years ago. This is why atmospheric measurements, ocean measurements, and satellite measurement routinely and significantly differ than land measurements. But, of course, land measurements are what the hype is based on.

      1. don’t forget to mention in the last few years the scientist quit using thousands of rural temperature readings which creates a higher average temperature overall since it eliminates more of lower rural temperatures that are not affected by the heat island effects. BTW they also quite using both Russian and chines temperature sets

  4. This explains why scientifically illiterate FB friends who never comment/like other xkcd comics I post were flooding my feed with this one: Vox told them to do it.

  5. So the Hockey Stick and the chicken little extrapolations therefrom are valid because a cartoonist rotates them a quarter turn?

    1. No, it’s because people who believe they’re smart are regurgitating third-hand information that confirms their biases. Then they’re calling it “science” because “opinion based on something someone I respect said” lacks gravitas.

  6. Of course the warming looks scary at the end, they compress the scale from thousands of years to a decade. Short term trends become more pronounced.

    1. Woah, woah, woah. First the 2 link barrier was broken, and now the hanzi barrier?

      Is this Hit ‘n Run’s mensis mirabilis?

      1. Those aren’t kanji? 😉

        (Yes, I know it’s possible that one of those isn’t among the ~2K kanji. And they could be simplified, although the second one doesn’t look it.)

        1. They are kanji. I dunno if the hanji are the same.

        2. Wiktionary tells me that ? is shinjitai. The traditional form is ?, and the simplified one is ?.

          1. I went with the Japanese forms/readings. Those are hard enough to remember.

    2. In fairness, it doesn’t look as if the comic does that. 500 year increments stay the same throughout the image.

      1. Agreed, the timeline remains the same. Each horizontal line represents 100 years. They only approximate 2016 from 2000.

        1. You are both correct. I pooped out that comment without thinking too much. This is why I stay off social media.

          1. You sound like the perfect candidate for social media.

            *snare hit*cymbal crash*

            But seriously, there’s a tangent to your point that is worth nothing: the granularity of the data. Everything prior to the industrial age has huge gaps, averaging of averages and smoothing because temperature has to be ‘inferred’ with various proxy measurements that obviously can’t pinpoint a day, week month, or probably even year (if you go back far enough). Now the data is coming in by the hour. I’m guessing we’re very likely zeroing in on a more ‘correct’ temperature and obviously can spot shifting trends from month to month. When you tack a graph with that kind of granularity on the end of one that went by the century, I’ll bet your ass you’re going to have some anomalies.

            1. the granularity of the data. Everything prior to the industrial age has huge gaps, averaging of averages and smoothing because temperature has to be ‘inferred’ with various proxy measurements that obviously can’t pinpoint a day, week month, or probably even year (if you go back far enough).

              Smoothing is just low pass filtering. The proxy data lacks the sampling rate to reproduce any ‘fast’ changes. Shannon’s sampling theorem puts a limit on the highest frequency that can be captured at a given sampling rate (1/2 the sampling rate) which is directly related to how fast a signal can change. For example, if the samples were spaced 10 years apart the shortest period you could capture is 20 years.

              1. I’m glad someone else noticed this and commented on it before I could. The entire graph is an exercise in lying with statistics.

                1. Which is itself a time honored tradition among statisticians.

      2. The dishonest part of it is the dots being shown at a steady rate throughout the entire chart. This makes it look like there is a steady stream of data for the whole time period.

    3. As other people have noted, there’s nothing wrong the scale.

      However, if you chop off the bullshit future “estimates” and correct the 2000-2016 timeframe to what was actually measured, the whole thing doesn’t look quite so drastic, either.

      1. Look at my links below.

        When you’re in the middle of a ‘trend’, a common parlour trick is to extend the projected trend infinitely by taking the current line and drawing it off the page.

        Again, as noted, even using historical temperature trends (fully studied, peer reviewed and shit) there are moments where the trend was doing something crazy… going up or going down. If you were in the middle of that trend, yes, you’d probably be thinking the end of the world is nigh and put on your sandwich board like Joe has.

        1. Like saying the temperature has been increasing since the sun came up this morning and we’ll all be dead in few days at this rate?

            1. So how do we know if those temperatures from thousands of years ago were during the day or the night? 🙂

          1. Just did a quick calculation… if we don’t act now, the temperature outside will 111 degrees by 3am tomorrow.

            1. Quick! Elect Hillary Clinton! It’s our only chance!

        2. They claim they’re not using that parlor trick and instead are basing their estimates off of models which account for the various factors affecting global temperature.

          The wrinkle is that those models have sensitivity parameters. The values they’re choosing for those parameters are mostly arbitrary. If I give you a linear equation y = mx + b and tell you I have a realistic estimate for the future value of x and so therefore whatever I say about the future value of y must be valid too, you should stop me and ask how I got m, and to a lesser extent, b (probably not a bad idea to look closer at how I’m estimating x, too). If I don’t have a good answer, then you should discount my predictions for y unless and until I’ve made them consistently and correctly for at least some nontrivial period of time.

          Now, when you factor in how many people are also manipulating the measurements, then you’ve got a whole different problem going on, too.

          1. Now, when you factor in how many people are also manipulating the measurements, then you’ve got a whole different problem going on, too.

            I wrote this gem in honor of Thomas Friedman, with input from Yogi Berra.

        3. For some people, it’s a hobby.

          1. Those are great. Can you comb through the myriad of shitty comics he has done to find others we might find entertaining?

  7. Speaking of temperature, specifically things that are cold, here is another Jewett Williams update

    Originally he was going to be buried in Togus National Cemetery in Maine, but now the burial, at the request of relatives, has been rescheduled for Hodgdon, Maine, where the relatives live and his parents are buried. veterans affairs bureaucrats side with the relatives, but many of the motorcyclists who brought him across the country from Oregon are disappointed he won’t be buried in Togus.

    “”It’s unfortunate there’s this concept that a burial in Hodgdon is less honorable than a burial at Togus,” Adria Horn, director of the Maine Bureau of Veterans Services, said Friday. “There are more Civil War brothers in arms in the Hodgdon Cemetery than there actually are in the Togus cemetery.”…

    “”He was not a family man. He was a veteran. He was a soldier who honorably served,” [Christabell] Rose [motorcade participant and member of the Maine Living History Association] said of Williams. “He was an honorable soldier, and he should be at Togus.”…

    “”It’s kind of The County way that you take care of your own,” [Tanya] Pasquarelli [who represents the relatives] said. “I’m aware that this decision is not popular with everyone. We’re doing everything we can to give him the most honorable ceremony possible.””

    1. I know your name. You’re Lachance. I know all you guys and all your fathers are gonna get a call from me. Except for the looney up in Togus.

      1. What’s with the Stephen King references? Just because it’s in Maine?

        Anyway, from the article:

        “There are more than 150 members of a Facebook group called ” Stand up for Private Williams,” where members are encouraged to contact Gov. Paul LePage and express their views on “Maine’s broken promise to bury Private Williams at Togus National Cemetery.”

        Hmmm…the same governor who acts like he was pulled out of the pages of one of King’s novels…well, that doesn’t prove anything.

  8. Now track the average quality of life and poverty levels for humans along the same timeline.

  9. Just a reminder: I do think that man-made global warming could likely become a significant problem for humanity by the end of the century.

    Why can’t we just refer to ourselves as “Climate Keynesians”

    In the long term, we’re all dead.

    1. So your saying we should print more CO2?

      1. I’m saying we shouldn’t care about the CO2 we’re already printing.

        1. Fight climate austerity!

    2. I like it.

      End of the century? Not my problem.

      Sufficient unto the day is the evil of the day itself. I may not have got it perfect, but that’s the best part of the Bible.

  10. Interesting.

    Now do the same charts showing (a) population, (b) life expectancy, and (c) wealth.

    It looks a lot like allowing earth to warm has almost incomprehensibly beneficial results from the perspective of anyone who cares about human well-being.

    1. You’ve got it backwards. Human well being has warmed the earth. Therefore the only rational solution to warming is reducing human well being.

      It just so happens that we have the perfect method for reducing human well being, socialism.

      1. It is more accurate to say that human well being and global warming are both caused by the use of carbon-based fuels.

        But the rest is correct. You cannot reduce warming — at least with the current decade’s technology — without reducing human well being. The costs of doing so are clearly laid out in every IPCC publication that compares high growth and environmentally aware future scenarios.

    2. Moreover, in the really long term, it looks like it’s not just humans who benefit from a warming Earth, but the rest of life as well. Over the course of millions of years, biodiversity seems to be strongly correlated with global mean surface temperature. Just look at the mid Cretaceous Period. Temperature was through the roof and so was every measure of how well life on Earth was doing. Even now, the biomes that have the most biodiversity, rainforests, exist only in warmest regions. Perhaps those individuals who are concerned about the environmental impact of human action should be applauding climate change, rather than fear-mongering.

      1. For some reason, my comment seems to have been posted three times. How odd…

      2. For some reason, my comment seems to have been posted three times. How odd…

    3. Moreover, in the really long term, it looks like it’s not just humans who benefit from a warming Earth, but the rest of life as well. Over the course of millions of years, biodiversity seems to be strongly correlated with global mean surface temperature. Just look at the mid Cretaceous Period. Temperature was through the roof and so was every measure of how well life on Earth was doing. Even now, the biomes that have the most biodiversity, rainforests, exist only in warmest regions. Perhaps those individuals who are concerned about the environmental impact of human action should be applauding climate change, rather than fear-mongering.

    4. Moreover, in the really long term, it looks like it’s not just humans who benefit from a warming Earth, but the rest of life as well. Over the course of millions of years, biodiversity seems to be strongly correlated with global mean surface temperature. Just look at the mid Cretaceous Period. Temperature was through the roof and so was every measure of how well life on Earth was doing. Even now, the biomes that have the most biodiversity, rainforests, exist only in warmest regions. Perhaps those individuals who are concerned about the environmental impact of human action should be applauding climate change, rather than fear-mongering.

  11. Also, if you look at the long-term graph trend, what seems obvious is that we may have shut down an ice age.

    Wealthy progressives in blue coastal areas are bitching about their property values for their beachfront homes. Imagine the whining if a massive glacier were bearing down on them.

    1. Also, if you look at the long-term graph trend, what seems obvious is that we may have shut down an ice age.

      Completely this. “Fallen Angels” was hamfisted, but its descriptions of what The Ice would look like if it were to come back, were absolutely terrifying. Chilling even. We Do Not want a mile of ice to return to the northern states. You thought overpopulation and resource wars were a problem before…

      And the ice comes back fast, if previous glacier studies are correct. Something like a century from normal temps to being under several hundred feet of ice, IIRC.

      1. Dude, I saw the Day After Tomorrow. It’s even faster than that.

    2. So? More ski lodges, then.

  12. I must say, Ronald, this is the statement that makes me laugh.

    “Just a reminder: I do think that man-made global warming could likely become a significant problem for humanity by the end of the century”

    Nearly every article referring to scientific studies you mention here throws cold water on that statement. I could probably count on one finger the ones that you posted that suggest there may be something to be concerned about. Or if you posted them, you suggested they are probably wrong.

    I remember once you posted that one sentence before, and the first comment made by one of your skeptical readers was “citation please!”

    You know why? You never make an attempt to show your readers why you believe that. In fact, you suggest why they shouldn’t.

    1. That’s 6 pounds of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere that wouldn’t have been their as a consequence of your posting.

      If you are unable to swallow your own pride in order to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, then why should we take anything you write seriously? You’re a hypocrite who is personally responsible for a total of 12 pounds of carbon dioxide, and counting, in the atmosphere. You know that every time you post that I shall either burn a kilogram of wood or let my car idle for 5 minutes with the engine on. If the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were as urgent as you say, why would you continue along this path just to concern troll?

      Answering this question is not free and will cost you another kilogram of wood.

    2. Have you shut off your AC, stopped driving, and shut off all your electronic devices yet? I mean, that would be very minor stuff, right? If you’re really serious, have you shut off your electric and stopped buying any products made by modern industry that use fossil fuels at any step in the process? Do you buy any food from a modern grocery market instead of harvesting all your sustenance off the land without increasing your carbon footprint?

      If your answer to any of the above is no, shut the fuck up you self righteous hypocrite.

      1. Joe claims he has. He’s all electric car (charged with what, I don’t know. Maybe joe puts his political-opposition-arresting money where his mouth is and has a big windmill in front of his house) and biking. The ‘no meat’ thing means jack and shit to me so that’s not impressive.

        1. It’s one thing to shut off your A/C if you live somewhere that averages no more than 85 degrees and 50% humidity and you have no outdoor allergies. Open the windows, turn on a fan, and enjoy.

          It’s another thing if you live somewhere that’s 90-95+ degrees at 80%+ humidity for a solid swath of summer and/or you have seasonal allergies.

          1. I live in southern California, so of course I have no problem mandating that no one should have air conditioning.

        2. This is how he recharges the car. It’s not really electric, but it keeps him busy.

              1. Yeah, sorry, I guess some people are still at work.

                1. That’s not the reason you should be sorry for that link!

                  F**k! It can’t be unseen…

              2. more like NSFL

      2. Of course he hasn’t. He, like most alarmists, won’t do a damn thing unless governments force everyone to. His contribution won’t make a difference, and besides it isn’t fair that he limit his lifestyle while others do not. It’s gotta be done fairly, and by force. Because force is good and fair.

    3. Ron believes in scientific method, i.e, The process of blackballing, suing and siccing the government on those who disagree with the “consensus”.

    4. J: The link is there to show why I believe that – click on it and read.

      I do, however, note interesting new peer-reviewed studies that suggest that the “science” may not be as “settled” as many assert – that’s news after all. More generally, with regard to climate as a topic, I mostly report on why various policies that purport to address climate change will fail or point to their ignored deleterious consequences.

      1. I had read it, and I said I could count them on one finger. Maybe one or two more. In the meantime, whenever you speak about climate sensitivity, models, costs, really even those scientists who are warning us (like IPCC), it’s a constant question as to why anyone would believe what you apparently believe.

        Now, I could take that as just demonstrating skepticism. But you don’t do that with any other issue. GMOs, vaccines, whatever. You have your beliefs, and you’re never reticent to speak about studies that would convince others of the same. On those issues, you tell others why they should believe the same.

        But you don’t do that on climate.

      2. I will give you one example. On climate change costs. You did an extensive piece about that and you say this.

        “In other words, doing nothing about climate change will cost future generations roughly the same as doing something.”

        Now how does that reconcile with your statement that we very well could be experiencing significant problems by 2100? Or do you believe on any other science issue that we should just whistle past the graveyard? Someone has to do something, even if it’s not government, don’t they?

        It seems to me that if you really believe we will be facing some possible serious problems, there must be serious costs. If doing nothing is the best solution, well, it can’t be much of a problem.

        Guess I’ll wait for your article on what casts are concerning you on climate.

          1. Re: Jackass Ass,

            “In other words, doing nothing about climate change will cost future generations roughly the same as doing something.”

            Only YOU could be so incredibly ignorant as to accept such absurdity. A COST is next best option forgone. How in God’s green earth can you KNOw or even guess what choices people will face in the future?

            Imbecile.

        1. Do you not get that Ron is saying that he’s a ‘believer’–but he can see the holes in the theory that ‘deniers’ keep driving trucks through?

          That he’s telling AGW advocates that they’re not actually making the case? That the methods they’re using are actually undermining them?

      3. I see way more politics, handwaving, data torture, professional intimidation, government meddling and propaganda than I see anything resembling science.

  13. I wonder if climate change caused this?

    Price of eggs in Venezuela

    Maybe global warming, communism doesn’t have many excuses left.

    1. Making those omelets is going to be a little more expensive.

    2. Venezuela is just trying to incentivize innovation so that we will finally be able to make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

      1. The problem in Venezuela is making an omelet without having chickens.

  14. n any case, go check out the XKCD cartoon

    I will as soon as there’s a Non-Vox link to it.

    1. C’mon, it’s not like it’s Buzzfeed.

  15. @ the 16,00 to 15,500 era Randy has a ‘limit of this data’ inset, and it looks to me like the current up swing fits in his probable zone of smoothed out data. If so the – OMG We’ve never seen this rapid warming before – looks a tad hysterical.

    1. Also, if you look at these graphs, it looks like the world has been in a general long term warming trend (note the lack of dramatic uptick at the end) for a good long while, with a cooling trend at the end.

      One issue is that all we’ve got are highly general temperature readings when we’re looking 10,000 back. But with modern technology, we can now pinpoint temperature on a daily basis and put it into a graph- which has much greater granularity than any time in the last 18,000 years.

      One example I like to think about is my network loss and latency trends. It’s amazing how different the graphs look if I look at my appliances with a granularity of “Day”, “Hour or “Minute”. Imagine if I could do what we’re essentially doing with graphs for global warming. We’ve got a graph granularity of something on the order of ‘decade’ up until the late industrial age and then suddenly the data is coming in by the hour.

      1. The data is, of course, the real issue. Manipulation and cherry picking have been going on for years. So much so that the entire field is suspect.

        The sad part of it all is that if warming is real and as terrible as forecasted, then the field of climatology (and their political masters) is to blame for the public’s disbelief.

      2. Note ‘current path’ thinking if you had been on the earth at 9000 bc. Halfway through that uptick, you could make a cool XKCD cartoon showing “where we’re going” of course, with no end in sight. It would be generally alarming. Luckily, there weren’t any diaper-filling legislators around to use the warming crisis in 9000 BCE to remake the world’s economy in their vision– with them in control, natch.

  16. The first link should be to XKCD, not Vox.

  17. Would you give up the Internet for $1 million?

    “. . . debunking the myth of middle-class stagnation.”

    http://cafehayek.com/2016/09/41388.html

    1. That’s funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

      1. Please, tell us more about marginal yield and why Fort McMurray didn’t turn out the way people expected:

    2. Mimes are not law, thank you very much.

  18. It really does boggle the mind.

    You are one of 7 billion people alive on the planet. You are one of 5 billion people alive on the planet who has enough to eat, a place to stay, who doesn’t have to worry about losing a child to easily avoided disease, and who has access to a computer or phone where you can see a clever graph of the temperature over the last 22,000 years.

    …and your view of your incredibly fortunate place in the history of humanity is to worry that it’s getting warmer than it was 9,000 years ago? How unbelievably parochial! Look at the long game in this graph. Look at the billions of people who lived in the last twenty millennia who had lives so much worse than yours.

    Realize that what is causing the warming in that graph is what has made it so you can sit in front of a computer and worry your little first-world head that inexpensive energy enabling fantastic growth in wealth and well being may in fact have some downside. Oh noes. I assure you that the people who have yet to be lifted from grinding poverty would rather you not rip that rug of inexpensive energy out from under them and would be quite happy to deal with the downside as it comes.

    1. By the way, that’s addressed to the progressive “you”, not to the author.

    2. They claim to be doing this on behalf of poor people in Bangladesh and wherever who will be inundated by the greedy capitalist flood waters. So we have to impoverish ourselves so that the world’s more impoverished peoples won’t be killed, or forced to move, or get their toes wet.

      Don’t ask, “why don’t we just help the people in Bangladesh and elsewhere to improve their lives and build wealth so they too can weather whatever changes may come?”

      1. “why don’t we just help the people in Bangladesh and elsewhere to improve their lives and build wealth so they too can weather whatever changes may come?”

        That would make to much sense, and we can’t have that.

    3. True. We made it back to the Garden of Eden and now it’s like all we want to do is kick ourselves out again. I mean, can’t we ever learn something from history?

      1. That must be some good shit you’ve got hold of recently, shreek. The crash is going to be hell, I assume.

        1. Good post. But you’re wasting your time. Give it up, it’s not worth it.

          1. Well, I guess I overestimated how good that shit is.

    4. Good post. But you’re wasting your time. Just try to explain to your typical proglodyte about how the avg lower middle class US citizen of today is wealthier than the wealthiest king of a few thousand years ago and watch them go into mental contortions and gymnastics to try to dispute that statement. ‘But that doesn’t count! All that matters is that they were richer than the poor of that day! Inequality!’. You can’t win with these idiots and it’s a waste of time to try. You’re trying to impart reason upon luddites, the perpetually aggrieved and envious, and fatalistic Malthusians. Give it up, it’s not worth it.

      1. the avg lower middle class US citizen of today is wealthier than the wealthiest king of a few thousand years ago

        I guess it depends on how you measure wealth. Sure we have technology and comfort that those kings couldn’t even dream of, but you or I don’t have huge hoards of gold and jewels. We certainly don’t have a harem or hoards of slaves.

        1. In the case of slaves, I think horde is more appropriate than hoard.

        2. Huge hoards of gold wouldn’t do you much good when a bacterial infection could kill you. Sorry, but I’ll take my intertoobz, car, internet, washer/dryer, AC, and many other modern conveniences over all the piles of useless metals and shiny rocks you can pile up.

  19. The last time I saw one of these they created the hockey stick by using measured data stitched to proxy data which is most likely what they’ve done.

    It’s like using your cars odometer as a proxy for its average speed per month and saying it went about 2mph every month for ten years.

    Then coming in and looking at the speedometer for one hour and saying OMG it’s going 35MPH, it’s never gone that fast!

    If you use ice cores or another proxy for the historical data then that data gets smoothed naturally so you must use it now too not a thermometer. From what I’ve seen those proxies show nothing remarkable happening today. It’s all an artifact of poor technique.

    1. I’m very suspicious of the numbers from 2000 to 2016 in xkcd’s graph. There was a noticeable flattening of the average global temperature during much of that time period which doesn’t show up in that graphic.

      1. Good point

      2. He has it as about 0.5 degrees, when it’s been at most 0.1 degrees.

        Which of course makes the whole “Current Path” line complete garbage.

      3. Re: kbolino,

        There was a noticeable flattening of the average global temperature during much of that time period which doesn’t show up in that graphic.

        That’s because that flattening was put there by God to fool the unbelieving. We holders of the True Faith are not so easily swayed.

    2. I noted the exact same thing above. I’m going to give real scientists credit and assume they’re correcting for this in some way, however, I just don’t trust their method is accurate. Again, to correct, you start playing with data in dangerous ways– averaging averages, making arbitrary assumptions and using models of dubious reliability– all to compare a proxy temperature you estimated from 10,000 years ago, to predict what’s going to happen in 2025.

    3. Yes! You’ve nailed the problem with hockey stick graphs succinctly.

  20. So we can’t accurately measure the temperature 9000 years ago (or even 1000 years ago for that matter), our modeling of future trends so far have been not even close to accurate, and Holocene Optimum global average temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius higher than they are now.

    Am I missing something?

    1. Are you panicking yet?

      If yes, then you’ve made the “correct” response.

      If no, then you’re a tool of the oil companies.

  21. I have no dog in this fight.

  22. The fact that they include the reconstruction from Marcott tells you all you need to know. That paper has been thoroughly debunked. It’s a worthless pile of shit. There’s much more to the debunking.

    Shakun is in the same boat.

    1. It’s a goddam conspiracy, I tell ya!

  23. The only way we can possibility save the planet:

    1. Extreme restrictions on reproduction. Mandate birth control or possibly just sterilize 50-70% of the male population. One Child Policy required, and mandatory abortions to go with it. Any self identified environmentalist should be willing to give up their children for a late, late term abortion, as children are pretty much the biggest carbon footprint you could possibly leave. Drop the population of North America to say, 40 million and we’re good.
    2. Seal the borders, refuse to allow immigrants in as their relative improvement of lifestyle in Western countries adversely affects the environment. Cripple their economies in any way possible and enforce a lower standard of living by gradually degrading their societies until they’re borderline Stone Age.
    3. By now the world population should be around 1 billion, with only about a third of those actually having anything close to the standard of living today, being powered by somewhat unreliable technologies and the gaps being filled in with occasional uses of coal plants, which are ritualistically activated and require human sacrifices to appease the Earth Mother.

    Or, you know, you could invest taxpayer dollars in crony companies and ride a bike once a week to pretend you care about the environment.

    1. Alternately,

      1. Abandon socialism as a failed attempt to build social equality at the expense of human well-being and accept that the survival of the species is more important than damn near all other considerations, up to and including the hypothetical well being of this one planet. Mindless conservation is actually worse than mindless consumption. The latter can at least be routed around.

    2. Bagger. The only way is a 95% tax rate, military police state, and force all peasants into mega cities confined to a few undesirable portions of the planet. Let the TOP.MEN and experts be wise stewards of Gaia. It is the way.

      Democrat voters approve of this message.

    3. Can we strip mine the Moon for helium-3 like in that Sam Rockwell movie?

      1. If you even mention that, proglodytes will shit their collective pants in global unison. Why? They don’t know, but it must be backed by the Koch brothers and… oh yeah, raping Luna, heh.

        1. Apparently, you can kill a planet that’s already dead. Who knew?

          1. Yes, I know the moon is not a planet. Sue me, IAU.

  24. The stable climate is something devised one hundred years ago by white male slaveowners to keep their chattels from dropping dead in the fields and costing them money. We now have a living climate, and climate conservatives need to give up and embrace progress.

    1. A variable climate is the only way to multiclimatism. Some climates are inherently racist. Like the temperate climates of Europe and white Murika. Climatism must be stopped! No more white climate supremism!

  25. More useful:

    “Did the 2014 solar peak trigger strong 2015/16 El Ni?o warming?
    Wen-Juan Huo and Zi-Niu Xiao, two physicists at the Chinese Academy of Science, have published new research today suggesting that the strong 2015/16 El Ni?o event occurred right after the 2014 solar peak and may be directly linked to strong solar activity. The Chinese scientists found a significant positive correlation between sunspot numbers and the El Ni?o Modoki index, with a lag of two years.

    Moreover, strong El Ni?o events were found within 1?3 years following each solar peak year during the past 126 years, suggesting that anomalously strong solar activity during solar peak periods may be the key trigger of such El Ni?o events.”

    http://www.thegwpf.com/201516-…..tists-say/

    1. You’re not allowed to point out that the day-star gives off heat BigT. Not. Allowed.

      If you point out that temperatures during the day are consistently warmer than the temperatures at night you’re a racist.

  26. I need help here. I’ve stopped eating meat, stopped driving, started lubricating my bike’s gears with canola oil, started shopping for hemp-soled shoes at Amazon (but only when the windmill is turning fast enough to allow internet access). Am I doing enough? Is gluten-intolerance carbon-negative? Can I fake that to achieve sainthood in Algore’s utopia?

    1. No. It isn’t. We need socialism. Haven’t you read anything from the Jackass?

      1. What can possibly be wrong with socialism? People like being social with one another! Ever been to a picnic? Duh.

    2. If your carbon footprint is under 1 Gore you are good.

    1. The article says nothing about the arsonist being a Trump supporter, idiot. Not that it matters anyway, candidates are not responsible for the actions of some nut who wants to vote for them.

  27. So what they’re saying is that after 1000s of years, they think they’ve suddenly developed the ability to project changes in the next “half-inch” or so, and those projections are wildly inconsistent with anything in earth’s history.

    And this is supposed to convince us of something?

  28. One more thing about this comment of yours, Ronald:

    “Just a reminder: I do think that man-made global warming could likely become a significant problem for humanity by the end of the century.”

    Well. You must then believe in the projections of some climate models, as they say the same.

    And you say this about the models:

    “It (the graph I assume you are referring to) will, however, nicely feed into the confirmation biases of those who are fully on-board with those projections.”

    Hmmm. Sounds like you’re on board with those projections. Was YOUR confirmation bias confirmed?

    1. Poor Jack!
      Lying and propagandizing day and night, and not ONE convert to the religion!

    2. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Well. You must then believe in the projections of some climate models, as they say the same.

      Someone modeled the climate? Indeed?

      1. He can see lightning on his screensaver.

    3. I really feel sorry for people that are obsessed with climate change. It really is like a mental illness. I see it in some of the circles where I hang out, where it is brought up at every opportunity.

      1. By and large, people obsessed with climate change are that way because they have an inferiority complex around science and technology. The same types of people that use a smart phone and computer, but their knowledge of how it works goes about as far as the on/off button. The same types of people who simply can’t fathom that the lifetime energy cost of a Prius is actually higher than an SUV because their only understanding of ‘energy’ involves the gas pump and electrical outlet.

        Yes, it is a mental illness.

  29. Where the hell is talk about the new DNC leaks? And hillary’s 20 questions to trump? How those got approved i have no idea

    Come on Reason better be tomorrow

  30. Wake me when we can make public policy from a Friday Funnies. (Bok, of course, not Payne.)

    1. Picture it, if you will: Al Gore is standing on a podium holding a digital outdoor thermometer in his outstretched arm. Where the temperature normally appears, the letters OMG appear instead. Hillary Clinton is sitting on the steps of Chelsea’s apartment, smoke pouring out of her ears, her shirt soaked with sweat, while Huma Abedin, dutifully kneeling at Hillary’s side, fans her frantically. Bill Clinton is crouched behind Huma, ostensibly tying his shoe but surreptitiously trying to cop a feel on Huma. On the right side of the frame, Donald Trump is holding a hand-held fan up to his face – it’s labelled “Alt-Right” – smiling triumphantly while wearing a hat that reads, “MAKE HILLARY HEAT AGAIN”.

  31. You’ll see the average global temperatures now are about where they were 9,000 years ago

    DENIER! UNBELIEVER! HERETIC! BLASPHEMER!

  32. Giving this the benefit of the doubt, instead of wailing about impending disaster if we don’t start living in caves again, we should focus on finding technologies to help adapt to the changing climate. Having the government take over is a sure recipe for stagnation where actions will be for the benefit of political cronies. Nothing that really matters will get done.

    1. Can I steal that for my facederp post?

  33. “And now we’re losing that stable climate”

    “Any time now. Trust me. Aaany time now…”

    [Looks at watch]

  34. OT: Nice example of how spending other people’s money on shit you want leads to gross incompetence. The govt wanted Tsukiji fish market moved to build a highway for the Tokyo Olympics. And they screwed the pooch.

    Many wholesale businesses were opposed to the relocation plan, arguing that some of the toxic chemicals left there could eventually seep up to ground level over the long term, endangering the safety of the workers and their produce.

  35. I like XKCD. I think it’s funny and often pretty informative. I thought this was pretty magnificently put together, but it completely killed any real credibility as a “think piece” by ending with a big projection to make the current-day slope look as alarming as possible.

    Take away that prediction at the end, and you have a fairly normal looking graph that just happens to have the steepest derivative at present day. Which, sure, let’s talk about that, but let’s not talk about an imaginary version of it.

  36. The XKCD cartoon is quite selective. If you want to know how the climate really behaves, you have to look at the entire temperature graph during the period since the rise of mammals, about 60 million years. Looking at the last 20000 years gives a very biased view.

    http://tinyurl.com/z8flnsq

    As you can see, for the past several million years, the earth has been in an ice age, with massive, regular temperature swings and deepening minimal temperatures. Pre-ice-age, the climate was generally warmer, milder, and wetter, altogether better for land animals. If climate change takes us back to that kind of climate, it’s probably a good thing.

    1. “The XKCD cartoon is quite selective”

      The XKCD cartoon is also chocked full of conjecture presented as fact.

    2. Agreed. I entertain myself when presented with Climate Believers by suggesting that we take the temperatures back even further and examining them from that perspective. They’ll readily admit that those temperature readings are imprecise, but then turn around and claim that one’s that are just as extrapolated (but more recent) are somehow more valid simply because those measurements fit into their narrative more easily. (They don’t want to acknowledge that global atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been as high as 3,000-4,000PPM during ice ages, as opposed to our current ~400PPM)

      People want to believe that science knows the answers to these questions, and they literally can not comprehend how anything is unknowable to those wise and all knowing men in white lab coats. The fact that most of them are completely ignorant of anything even resembling science themselves means that they’re impossible to have conversations with. They are literally operating on blind faith based on websites like ‘I Fucking Love Science’ and even XKCD.

      What it comes down to is they are allowed to have opinions with no knowledge what-so-ever of the topic being discussed, but you are not allowed to have an opinion unless you are a ‘climate scientist’. That amuses me, because ‘Climate Science’ wasn’t even a thing when I was born. It’s not even an actual discipline, it’s an amalgam of several other fields of actual study claiming to be a scientific specialization.

      1. Also, “average global temperature” is really not a useful measure in terms of impact; people regularly portray the consequences as if temperatures rise uniformly, when, in fact, temperatures mostly rise in the high latitudes and stay the same in the low latitudes (with a generally wetter climate). Based on everything we know, that’s generally a good thing.

        The only long term negative impact from climate change is a modest degree of sea level rise, but that’s so slow and gradual that humanity will have no problems adapting. Basic physics implies that the polar ice cap and Greenland will take probably about 1000-2000 years to melt. Furthermore, sea level rise does not automatically translate into flooding of low-lying areas.

  37. “Just a reminder: I do think that man-made global warming could likely become a significant problem for humanity by the end of the century.”

    Really? How? Mostly, climate change will mean an increase in precipitation, and increase in atmospheric CO2, and an increase in temperatures at higher latitudes. All of those are desirable changes. Sea level rise is necessarily limited, and there is little evidence of other negative consequences.

  38. Randall Munroe may be the only person talking on this subject that I actually believe. The problem is that I don’t believe any of the data from the 1800s on.

  39. Hey look, Mann’s hockey stick is oriented properly for play.

    1. Not if you are an enforcer.

  40. Did this analysis undergo the scientific method of Democratic attorney generals issuing subpoenas to silence dissent?

    Science!

  41. just as Patrick answered I am inspired that you can earn $5103 in 1 month on the internet . see this website

    ?????? http://www.businessbay4.com/

  42. …about 9,000 to 7,000 years ago global average temperatures were higher than currently.

    Never studied calculus, I see. Remember algebra? The concept of slope? y=mx+b? At a few interesting-looking points, find m.

  43. You know what would be really funny, in addition to the three hypothetical for the future, add in the famous past predictions for where people have claimed we should be at today.

  44. D. Friedman seems to have some arguments as to why global warming – which he accepts as likely – is not clearly a bad thing and might instead be a good thing. He has a few video lectures on the topic and here is one of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NgWIsr-TMU

  45. They’re sending high-tech thermometers back in time to get a precise measurement of temperatures 10,000 years ago?

    Science is amazing!

  46. The treatment of the Medieval Warm Period in this diagram is really slanted. Temperature stays perfectly flat and there is just a short note mentioning “The Medieval Warm Period was not global.” There are tons of studies indicating the MWP was indeed global – many are summarized here: http://kaltesonne.de/mapping-t…..m-period/. Some will say that even the massive number of local proxy studies does not prove a global MWP, since the dates could be staggered enough that the world was never very hot all at once. At least one major recent study in 2013 synthesizes data globally and so is not subject to this objection. The main argument in favor of the local MWP argument is a study by Michael Mann. Now, I leave it to people who understand the debate to decide how much faith they want to put in the work of the kind of all alarmists, who had more to gain than just about anyone by dismissing MWP.

    Google for yourselves, look at the data, and decide whether you think MWP was global. Remember, this was not even up for debate til around 25 years ago, when alarmists held a massive meeting whose primary purpose was casting doubt on MWP. Once that was done, nothing stood in the way of claiming current warming is unprecedented, and their story was complete.

    1. If the MWP is claimed to have been local, they why are the extremely local tree-rings that Mann used in his farcical study considered to be suitable to extrapolate globally?

      The entire alarmist community has become a joke. Ask any hard-science person (physics, chemistry, engineering) to look at the data analysis in climate science and you’ll get a mix of belly laughs, grimaces, and groans.

  47. This chart is bullshit for a number of reasons, the first and foremost being that XKCD is comparing theoretical global averages to actual data point measurements. He has no idea how quickly on a day-to-day or year-to-year basis those changes in the past occurred. For all he knows, or really anyone knows, they changed just as dramatically as they did today.

    Either way, it’s bullshit to compare a theoretical average with data points that are likely hundreds or thousands of years apart to ‘hard’ temperature data in the now. That being said, even the ‘hard’ data is in dispute since they aren’t actually measuring the temperature. They measure it, then they ‘adjust’ those measurements for a number of good & bad reasons.

    Also, who really gives a shit about just 20,000 years of history when ice ages lasted for longer than 20,000 years just by themselves? Why not go even further back if you want to prove your point? Also, is it a problem for the ‘AGW’ crowd that CO2 levels have been as high as 2,000PPM during an actual ice age instead of our modern 400PPM? Or how about the fact that even XKCD notes that changes in Earth’s orbit or solar output cycles are beyond mankinds ability to mitigate?

    But nah, lets cripple our energy production and live like luddites in the 1500’s. Only our masters need little things like modern surgery or electricity, the rest of us should be out in the fields harvesting mud.

    1. The charts are faked using thermometers that began measurements in fields 50 years ago and now sit in asphalt parking lots with hot exhaust blowing on them. Look for Steve Goddard and you’ll find centuries of climate hysteria and data fraud exposed. Petr Beckmann did the same thing with the antinuclear nazis and Surrender First crowd while he was on the Reason editorial board. It’s another social pressure meme disease that attracts cynical parasites.

      1. “social pressure meme disease”

        yup.

        I just want to know why it was introduced and advanced throughout western society. The Asians and Russians think we are all nuts.

  48. [After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car’s temperature has changed before.

    First, it’s *our* car and if you think yanking all the technology that’s been put into it in the last 50 yrs. will fix it, have at it. Just don’t expect me to help.

  49. And I saw an awesome comment about the cartoon on Reddit;

    When you realize that phytoplankton stop producing oxygen when the ocean warms by 6C, and that they are our largest source of oxygen, you start to see how mass extinctions can occur. We would slowly suffocate to death.

    I understand Ron’s stance on AGW and his assertion that it could be a problem. Considering it’s Reddit and there’s more than one post about oxygen I’m fairly confident useful idiots are just as much, if not more of a short term issue.

  50. That sartoonist also thinks in stick-figures, as in his Atlas Shrugged cartoon. That graph is actually population, not temperature. Realclimatescience dotcom shows how the parasites produce whatever charts the politicians pitch them pelf to produce.

  51. except there has been no warming for the last 16 years when his graft goes hockey stick

  52. What is this shit? next time, can we please just link to the actual xkcd comic, instead of a fucking Vox article about the comic?

    Thanks

  53. Mr. Bailey writes:
    /As one scrolls down the trendlines in the graphic, one notes that about 9,000 to 7,000 years ago global average temperatures were higher than currently./

    But in reality the graphic shows no such thing. What it does show is a slowly varying GATA (globally averaged temperature anomaly) with an overall maximum at about 5000 BCE (i.e., about 7000 years ago) that is about a tenth of a degree Celsius below the current GATA (i.e., for 2016).

  54. Mr. Bailey writes:
    /As one scrolls down the trendlines in the graphic, one notes that about 9,000 to 7,000 years ago global average temperatures were higher than currently./

    But in reality the graphic shows no such thing. What it does show is a slowly varying GATA (globally averaged temperature anomaly) with an overall maximum at about 5000 BCE (i.e., about 7000 years ago) that is about a tenth of a degree Celsius below the current GATA (i.e., for 2016).

    1. you do understand that this is a cartoon, right? That the graphic is hand drawn, right?

  55. Mr. Bailey also writes:
    /… it is generally thought that during the Holocene Optimum global average temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius higher than they are now./

    As evidence in support of this claim, he cites the Wikipedia article ‘Holocene climatic optimum.’ But once again the Wikipedia article actually contradicts it:
    /In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day…/

  56. In the title to his article, Mr. Bailey admonishes us in respect of the graphic to “Really Look at It First.” He should have followed his own advice. Apart from getting the absolute values wrong (as explained above), there is another issue.

    As an economist, Mr. Bailey will have been trained in mathematics. One thing that mathematics teaches us in looking at a curve is to look not only at the absolute values, but to look also at the slope (i.e., the first derivative).

    Mr. Bailey singled out two time periods within the timeline of the graphic for special consideration. The first is the period from 9000-7000 BP. The second period starts with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and ends with today (2016). If we examine the slopes for these two periods, over the first we see a slowly varying curve, whereas toward the end of the latter we see rapid acceleration, in fact much more rapid than on any other part of the curve—that is what is so scary.

    In short, Mr. Bailey’s article is little more than a failed attempt at trivializing the very serious message contained the graphic.

    1. In short, Mx. Holloway has given us a failed attempt at trying to spin an obviously flawed graphic, while clinging to its “serious message” for the sake of the Death Cult of Mother Gaia.

    2. “the very serious message”

      Muahahahha. Now that is funny.

      #1 it’s a cartoon that is attempting to be witty
      #2 It’s a cartoon based on made-up data (you do realize that, right? that no one actually had thermometers 9000 years ago, right? that scientists are guessing at temperatures based on highly questionable extrapolations from other data. That those extrapolations have a high inherent error on the order of multiple degrees plus or minus. that those high error extrapolations are presented without error bars and charted with modern data that is accurate to the tenths of degrees. you understand all this, right? And that its a cartoon?

  57. One thing that mathematics teaches us in looking at a curve is to look not only at the absolute values, but to look also at the slope (i.e., the first derivative).

    You can look at the slope but if you don’t account for the fact that the sampling rate of the different data sets is significantly different you’re ignorantly comparing apples to oranges.

    The first is the period from 9000-7000 BP. The second period starts with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and ends with today (2016).

    Now limit the bandwidth of the more recent data to that of 9000 to 7000 years BP and tell me what happens to the slope.

  58. If you look at the whole cartoon, you’ll notice the note around 16,000 BC that mentions the potential for “smoothing of spikes”. I wonder what this graphic would look like if we had the same level of detailed temperature data available for all 22,000 years that we do for the last 100 years? I bet there might be be a few “spikes”. And if we looked at the increase over the last few decades against all the historical spikes, maybe it wouldn’t be very interesting.

  59. The models would be more credible if:
    (i) the putative solution was NOT always “more government,”
    (ii) no one had “adjusted” data and then “lost” the original (I’m looking at you, East Anglia),
    (iii) modelers had addressed serious omissions such as chaotic systems; in lay terms the presence of sudden reversals, and
    (iv) modelers had addressed the likely fatal omission of limits on computational power; see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY beginning at 0:50:00 for the heart of that issue.

    Those concerns, most especially the intrusions of the dirigistes, are a high hurdle for the true scientists to overcome.

  60. Why does a magazine called “Reason” publish catastrophic AGW eco-hysteria pieces?

  61. Good old Ron Bailey, the lukewarmist. With friends like him, who needs enemies? He obviously drank the warmist kool-ade. He is obviously trying out to be one of the next big statists.

    Nature converts CO2 to limestone. Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is for sure NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely causes are well documented elsewhere.

    Here’s why. fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to limestone and other carbonates. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. An equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The oceans convert CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. Everything else is sophistry or mass hysteria.

    A modern coal power plant emits few pollutants except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy.

  62. Why does the author state for 12K years ‘we’ve had stable..’, is he saying that the drying up of the middle east is ‘stable’? Or the expansion of the African deserts in North Africa.. is a ‘Stable’?
    Mini Ice age was ‘stable’?

    Whatever you believe about mankind’s influence on the climate, the only solutions put forth so far are intended to raise costs to the base, citizens, about a hundred trillion over the next 100 years. And it actually is only a start, as current agreements make the increase of manmade C02 inevitable.

    If wanting a “SOLUTION”, then Energy Providers have to be forced into, not subsidized out of, a solution..
    and for 100 trillion, the world literally could have most any real solution it wished.. completed for the overwhelming amount of ManMade Co2.
    But that requires leadership of, not accommodation to, the corporations.

  63. I came here for the first time today through a link to another article. I see the name of the site is “reason.com” and think to myself, hmmm. I like reason. I like logic. This could potentially be a site I’d like to read on a semi-regular basis.

    So I scan the headlines, and one of the first articles I come across appears to be… no, wait. That can’t be right. Can it?

    Is that an article actually *denying* climate change? Based on the fact that today’s “average global temperatures” (and shouldn’t that be singular? Is there more than one average global temperature? How does that work, exactly?) “are about where they were 9,000 years ago”?

    In retrospect, I suppose the fact that an online cartoon was the inspiration for the author’s amazing flash of insight should have been a dead giveaway.

    Sigh. Oh well. Live and learn (or not, as the case may be).

    1. Most rational people deny AGW, or refrain from expressing an opinion because they are not adequately versed in the science.
      Irrational people latch onto the AGW farce because they either gain grants/employment/acceptance from that position, or have a need for an outlet to feel superior to the rest of humanity.

      It is a sickness, a mental deficiency, to treat a poorly understood complex system like a religion, holding up highly questionable premises and extrapolations as some sort of gospel from on high preached with irrational fervor.

  64. Its just hubris that makes people want to think they’re the ultimate generation. Seeing as how at least a hundred percent of past apocalyptic predictions have been wrong, I’m not gonna waste any time worrying about it. If you like worrying about things you can’t possibly affect, I guess global warming is as good as any, but stop pretending it has anything to do with science.

  65. What I fail to understand is that people who talk about climate change including people like The Science Guy almost invariably want to increase government powers, control other people’s choices and prescribe solutions that have no basis in science what so ever.

    It requires scientific training and competence to talk about how matter behaves at sub zero temperature or how electrons move at speed of light. But when it comes to climate change everyone has an opinion pretty much like politics, religion and economics.

    This makes even reasonably open minded people be confused about what is the truth.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.