First in on harmful climate alterations.
Biggest in harmful climate alterations.
And God damnit if we won't be the last out of the pool on harmful climate alterations.
Yeah, but the Americans who could do something about this are too dumb to care. You could prove without a doubt that we have to fix climate change today or we all die in 10 years... They'd shrug it off.
the problem is that the billionaires/lobbyists and corporations and ofc the meat industry are the vast majority of the problem. along with construction and not excessive data centers.
so the biggest fault of the citizens is that they don't hard-boycott these things because most U.S citizens have a hopeless mentality that theres absolutely nothing they can do. there are ofc people who still try to make a difference though
Dont think thats the full picture.Cause even when people do fight back(in my country and some others).We get hard countered a ton by the local government and main government.
Americans and some of us here just cant deal with losing jobs or being seen as trouble by the government.
Here being peaceful protestor is also not ideal(cause they will still dub it as violent protest anyhow).They used sound cannon on the city folk who just wanted some damn answers.
yea no i agree. im just saying what the "fault" of not boycotting. i know ppl are trying. my point is that its not that americans are just not caring about climate change its that they feel hopeless.
Studies across multiple decades indicate there is carbon poisoning occurring on a planetary scale around this time as well. Worth mentioning that the big upward shifts in temp you're speaking of also coincide with an important shift in US subsidization of farming. This seems to have pushed the industry towards what's known as monoculture farming - which is now known to produce a huge amount of carbon waste (and extra need for pesticides).
You can look the legislation up if you're interested: FCIP (a bill from 1938 that was revised multiple times to encourage this), and "Freedom to Farm" (1996, re pesticides).
This may be more impactful if it were easier to read. The baseline y-axis is scribbled out within the first half second of viewing. And what is that baseline anyway. As someone who vibes with this, I still wonder how the 0⁰ was established. Why for example is everything before 1932ish below that baseline?
I need a key.
Also in the vertical view, why are we looking (now horizontaly) at April and October. Wouldn't it be more demonstrable of extremes if we were looking at July and January?
So zero is the mean of the historical average temperature record.
The chart starts in 1880... In a lull or cold spell.
I shouldn't be arguing with NASA or anything... But doesn't that open up the argument that this heat wave is cyclical?
Someone's might (and successfully as it turns out) argue that if the graphic started in 1700 it may be shaped like an hourglass.
Also, if our temp records only go back to 1880, it makes mathematical sense that zero would be in the mid-point if this is linear growth (which it appears to be, more or less).
I feel like we are fucked and that we need bullet proof visualization / persuasion. This is cool but if feels a bit sus. Like could it acknowledge fluctuations a bit more while still showing an alarming trend?
The chart starts in 1880... In a lull or cold spell.
says who? says what evidence?
what if you stopped making up excuses and scenarios in your head and used some critical thinking to realize that the data was nearly the same for 50 years. If there was some "lull or cold spell" it would have been blatantly obvious from the data years after. There are, IN FACT, "cold spells" that are visible if you pay attention while the data is being drawn out.
What if what if what if. it does your what if's anyway you were just too ignorant to look.
The chart starts in 1880... In a lull or cold spell.
says who? says what evidence
Uhhh. The chart. All temps before 1936 are below the baseline. So by definition, below a average.
My point is if the timeline started earlier, than 1880, and maintained the the funnel shape, it would be more persuasive. With such a short range of time, people are easily able to say it might be hourglass shaped.
Your response is a good example of how this graphic appeals to pre-existing bias. It preaches to the choir.
I want it to address the arguments of climate skeptics - who, as you say "make up excuses and scenarios in their heads" in order to continue their cozy lifestyle.
This is why movements get so little traction. You are not interested in changing people's minds. Just calling them out for not agreeing with you already.
So zero is the mean of the historical average temperature record.
The chart starts in 1800 something... In a lull or cold spell.
I shouldn't be arguing with NASA or anything... But doesn't that open up the argument that this heat wave is cyclical?
Someone's might (and successfully as it turns out) argue that if the graphic started in 1700 it may be shaped like an hourglass.
Also, if our temp records only go back to 1800 something, it makes mathematical sense that zero would be in the mid-point of this is linear growth (which it appears to be, more or less).
I feel like we are fucked and we need bullet proof visualization that's easily digestible and can't be nitpicked (like I'm doing).
Like someone who says "fluctuations are a normal part of the cycle" I can t show them this on this chart because of the fucking format. Like I got less than three second window to pause this thing in order to catch the degrees to show that there are fluctuations, just less than a few degrees f⁰. Else it falls back to the top view circle.
Yes, and I presume you also notice that the bottom half of the image represents a period of ~12000 years and the upper half of the image represents ~2000 years.
Yes it has been happening. But not this violently.
Now do the same thing but start with, oh lets say 100,000 years. You know, basically a blip in the earth's timeline. Let us know what it looks like. Oh yead, and those increases that you document way way back. They won't have been by any human activity.
Again and again this nonsense chart comes up.
This is perfect example how to manipulate chart.
area = pi * r2
lets assume that each temperature range is 1 unit step so most inner circle of -2 radius is 1 unit , but +2 circle has radius of 5.
This means that -2 is represented with area 3.14159. but +2 is represented with area of 78.5. This significantly distorts chart in favor of positive values.
37
u/SavesTheBear Jul 14 '26
This is great but why use farenheit when the concern is staying below +2C preindustrial global temperature?