Submitted by PieChartPirate t3_ziwu4m in dataisbeautiful
Comments
Master_of_Rodentia t1_izu1l5q wrote
Yeah. Since it was 12 I started out thinking these were months of select years.
Several_Donkey47 t1_izuc9xw wrote
Same it seems like average temps in the month that is selected but each subsequent block is the year afterwards
HippieInDisguise2_0 t1_izuq9qd wrote
Same I was like "why random years? It seems this could be cherry picked"
navicitizen t1_izw4onn wrote
It is a pretty conclusive graph. I am wondering if the 11 year scale would be better to align with solar cycles. This will show there is no correlation between cycles and temperatures.
iqumaster t1_izwli5l wrote
But then there is 100 000y orbit shape cycle and 41 000y tilt cycle and 26 000y wobble cycle. Although current understanding is that those are too long cycles to have this rapid warming effect
lololy87 t1_izua8uk wrote
Much easier to read
SecondAccount404 t1_iztfm4g wrote
I just want to say how nerdily cool it is that the UK has been consistently recording temperature measurements since the 1880s so we can have data like this.
DanoPinyon t1_iztlr0x wrote
Central England Temperature: centuries old.
Andradessssss t1_izuiwyq wrote
I'm impressed that the longest continuous record of temperatures started in England in the 1650's, while some form of thermometer has been around since 70 AD (according to Wikipedia)
miclugo t1_izxgqe2 wrote
That is seriously impressive. I found the paper where that time series is introduced and it sounds like they had to do a lot of work to build it because no individual station has reported over that whole time period.
PieChartPirate OP t1_izsnopl wrote
Data source: UK Met Office
Tools: Python, Seaborn, Jupyter Notebook
Data link and code: https://github.com/SjoerdTilmans/Data-Viz-Examples
FriendlyDisorder t1_iztrq2q wrote
Just curious, why rows of 12? Decades seem more natural.
monkey_brennan t1_izu66ap wrote
Because 12 is an over from each end. Need to know what conditions are like for each bowler
Kikimara99 t1_izvxt5b wrote
Ah...12 YEARS in a row. And here I am trying to understand how can January be warmer than July, staring at the damn chart for 5 mins.
[deleted] t1_izy1ymb wrote
[removed]
conzstevo t1_izt0gp5 wrote
What's the reasoning behind using Jupyter? Trying out code?
PieChartPirate OP t1_izt17t9 wrote
Just to make it easier to understand and to step through the code
Tough-Web6771 t1_iztikyw wrote
This would look cool as a spiral
DragoonXNucleon t1_izsq66a wrote
"Keep warming under 1.5c"...
Yea, we crossed that threshold already. Right now were on track for warming of 5c, and we refuse to endure any pain switching off fossil fuel.
That time long sailed. If we dealt with emissions are Al Gore showed us the hockey stick we coulda done this without pain.
Now, its too late. We have to drastically cut and that means giving things up. We need carbon taxes, gas taxes and extreme taxes on anything emission based.
Vex1om t1_izstf55 wrote
>We have to drastically cut and that means giving things up.
You're not wrong, but I'm not sure you understand how tightly society is tied to fossil fuels. Severe cuts that would actually move the needle wouldn't just be people putting on a sweater in winter and giving up air conditioning in the summer. It would literally mean that billions of people would have to give up eating as we try to grow crops without the use of fossil fuels-based fertilizers.
GMN123 t1_izt2xr4 wrote
Getting off fossil fuels is not going to happen because anyone chose to. It'll be because better, cheaper alternatives come along. Like with electric cars, they aren't a compromise, they're an improvement.
We might be a little way off those improvements in others areas, but they'll come. When we develop fusion or a cheap mass storage option for renewables we'll not burn gas or coal for power or heating much longer.
bitofrock t1_izt35ga wrote
We could stop using huge amounts of oil to create the huge amounts of food required to feed cattle that become our beef meat. And pets. Dear God, why are we buying carnivores as pets? We can do so much that would help and all we'll miss out on are cheap beef burgers. I can handle that.
Vex1om t1_j00blob wrote
>We could stop using huge amounts of oil to create the huge amounts of food required to feed cattle that become our beef meat.
Technically, this would improve food yields relative to fertilizer utilization, but it does nothing to deal with fossil fuels for farm equipment, transport, processing, refrigeration, etc - and you would STILL need massive amounts of fertilizer to feed the existing population. The carrying capacity of the earth without advanced fertilizers is probably in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 billion people.
It's also politically untenable, of course. I think that you will find that the majority of the population is simply not willing to give up meat in their diets. A solution that nobody is able to implement isn't really much of a solution.
SansSanctity t1_izsrvg5 wrote
Policy proposals like this would harm the poorest in our society and likely kill millions of people if implemented globally.
Taalnazi t1_izssv8z wrote
And doing nothing would harm poor, middle, and rich, and kill millions upon millions more.
SansSanctity t1_izst6q6 wrote
That's not true, the USA has had drastic decreases in carbon emissions over the last two decades in spite of not having these kinds of policies that would specifically harm the poorest in our society. How is someone supposed to warm their home in the winter or fill their car with gas for work when you've taxed energy so drastically?
I am sick and tired of the unscientific catastrophizing around this topic.
MrScaryEgg t1_izsx83b wrote
> How is someone supposed to warm their home in the winter or fill their car with gas for work when you've taxed energy so drastically?
This question seems to be based on the misconception that energy = fossil fuels. The point such a tax would be to account for the true cost of using fossil fuels, rather than renewables, for energy.
Taalnazi t1_izsxi6f wrote
Exactly, thank you!
DanoPinyon t1_iztmh6l wrote
...we've merely shifted our manufacturing pollution to Asia.
SansSanctity t1_iztmrno wrote
No we haven’t, the USA is one of the least involved developed economies in terms of its trade with the rest of the world. Much of our reductions come from the phasing out of coal fired plants and the increase in the use of much cleaner (albeit it not entirely emissions free) natural gas.
DanoPinyon t1_iztnfhy wrote
You could strengthen your assertion by showing a chart over time of manufacturing output in USA.
[deleted] t1_izsyx5h wrote
[removed]
Taalnazi t1_izsw942 wrote
Well, for that you have to thank politicians who were deeeeep in the oil and gas pockets. They did nothing to construct clean energy stuff.
So now we are paying the price for that. No one of us wanted this, except for the greedy companies and some politicians.
You can wear thermo clothing. You can drive an electric car or bicycle and demand better infrastructure and public transport. Plenty of opportunities.
Not doing anything and crying about not having enough gas, which itself harms the climate, is not the solution.
The US has decreased some emissions, but far too few and little. It needs to go to zero.
Individual_Ad2579 t1_izsww76 wrote
I just don’t think you understand the impact on the economy it would be to go to zero
Taalnazi t1_izsxdfy wrote
The impact would be larger if we did nothing. Have you got any better ideas?
Individual_Ad2579 t1_izysmxf wrote
Have a good economy so we can better fund actual policies instead of ramping up spending to where we inflate the currency so much we can’t afford to put in policies that will actually effect climate change
SansSanctity t1_izswma2 wrote
Did you just say oil and gas interests are responsible for the drastic decrease in USA's emissions?
"You can drive an electric car"
"Emissions need to go to zero."
You don't know how electric cars are made, do you?
Taalnazi t1_izsx1re wrote
I see talking with you is talking on deaf ears... You are not actually willing to learn. I have constructively answered you, and you keep returning with personal attacks. You know that you can be better than this.
Bless your heart. I disengage.
EclecticKant t1_izsy5cy wrote
Drastically? The CO2 emissions per Capita have been reduced by less than a quarter in the last 30 years. And the total emissions are almost at an all time high.
A few developed countries have reduced significantly their emissions, mostly the Eu, but the USA is not one of them, the only reductions are caused by an increased efficiency in the technology used, definitely not because of efficient climate policies or a shift in the public opinion on the matter.
The USA is the richest country on earth by far, and it's doing nothing, and the problem is not that people wouldn't be able to heat their homes or fuel their cars, there is plenty of wealth to spare, but people just don't care enough, even though doing something is in their best interest, but it doesn't benefit them in the short term
SansSanctity t1_izsygg6 wrote
I was talking about total emissions, which are down, not at an all-time high.
EclecticKant t1_izt064x wrote
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/
We are 20% down from the all time high. Basically the same level of the eighties. Is this what you would describe as "drastically reduced"?
SansSanctity t1_izt0fyt wrote
Why did you describe a 20% reduction from the ATH in the 1980s as " the total emissions are almost at an all-time high."?
EclecticKant t1_izt1l7x wrote
Mostly because they have started to increase again. My point still stands, emissions aren't being reduced, not nearly enough to have any meaningful impact on our effect of climate change.
What about your point? How can you describe people's opinions as "unscientific catastrophizing" when your opinion is based on wrong facts
SansSanctity t1_izt1sim wrote
I stated that we are trending down over the last 20 years. You’re the one with “wrong facts” who said we are at an all time high.
EclecticKant t1_izt7fda wrote
"ALMOST at an all time high" seems more fitting than "drastically reduced" when referring to a 20% reduction.
Your initial argument is that the USA "drastically" reduced emissions without harming the poorest part of the population, and my point is that it is simply not true. The USA produces the same emissions that it did 50 years ago, does it seem enough to you? The USA hasn't suffered from climate change policies because it has not put in place any meaningful climate policy.
fjccommish t1_iztbmts wrote
Reduced is reduced.
EclecticKant t1_iztgl78 wrote
And drastically means Nothing.
Praising the US policis for such a small reduction is ridiculous and pointless.
fjccommish t1_izvamly wrote
Turn off your computer. Stop driving. Turn off your electric appliances. Show us the way.
EclecticKant t1_izw7j6c wrote
The only options are a 20% reduction or returning to the bronze age?
Following the same path of the EU would be more than enough, and probably more than anyone expects or asks from the USA, the EU produces roughly half the tons of Co2 both per Capita and per dollar of value produced compared to the US. And the US is probably richer than the average European country, so the lack of money is probably not the problem.
fjccommish t1_izy6rvt wrote
I agree. You first.
EclecticKant t1_izy75bn wrote
I'm European. I already went first.
fjccommish t1_izyjszh wrote
What have YOU done that you are demanding Americans do to stop fake global warming?
EclecticKant t1_j014bwk wrote
Pollute less?
fjccommish t1_j03020n wrote
What have I polluted?
EclecticKant t1_j030qka wrote
16 tons of co2 each year, on average.
fjccommish t1_j0369fq wrote
CO2 isn't a pollutant. Plants need it to grow and thrive.
You've measured the CO2 I put out?
EclecticKant t1_j03ahed wrote
Co2 is an infrared absorber, that's the problem.
And yes, people measured, the fact that co2 absorbs infrared makes it easy to measure its quantity. People measured how much the USA releases, then they divided it by the population to get an average.
fjccommish t1_j03as1x wrote
I asked what am I polluting.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
EclecticKant t1_j03eghx wrote
From Wikipedia
A pollutant or novel entity[1] is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
Co2 has the unwanted and negative effect of absorbing infrared emissions of the earth surface, so it is a pollutant. I'm really curious as to why co2 is not a pollutant according to you, because plants use it?
fjccommish t1_j04eraf wrote
From scientists:
"A new study published recently by three veteran researchers reveals that "EPA's basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false.""
"The authors - Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D'Aleo - stated there is "very, very little doubt but that EPA's claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world.""
Maxathron t1_izt1krf wrote
Tell China to stop.
[deleted] t1_izuzgoy wrote
[deleted]
amanamongbotss t1_izsv4hc wrote
That seems like a short-sighted rebuttal when the alternative is we all die and we kill nearly everything else and also suffer way more.
SansSanctity t1_izsvg8u wrote
As I say below the comment you're replying to, your response is unscientific catastrophizing that needs data to back it up. We've already seen massive carbon reductions in the USA without taxing energy prices such that they would harm or kill poor people.
[deleted] t1_izswd91 wrote
[removed]
Maxathron t1_izt41vp wrote
Almost every single process in the modern US requires some form of hydrocarbon pulled out of the ground to function. Are you willing to go back to the days when you need to ride into town on a horse? Is your entire city willing to do that? No Amazon, no internet, no Reddit, no A/C, no Walmart, no skyscrapers, you don't even get to insulate your house, tap water is out too, and on and on and on. You don't even get to use solar panels or modern wind turbines. At best you get some old fashioned wooden windmills and small hydroelectric dams.
99% of your clothes are out because it takes power and infrastructure made out of or requiring the use of those hydrocarbons to make your cotton and wool clothes. Ceramic dishes are out because they need the power to light their kilns on the scale to give you a set. Lightbulbs are made from plastic and metal heated using burning hydrocarbons. That computer or phone you're on absolutely requires hydrocarbons to make. Toss your new iPhone 15 in the garbage if you want cLiMaTe ChAnGe to be addressed.
In order to get the desired outcome you seek, EvErYoNe will need to go back to the early 1800s US society. That's also likely to take Feminism, LGBT, and Civil Rights along with it. And you have no idea if other states or countries will agree or not. China can just say No and what are you going to do? Line up muskets to fight tanks and nuclear weapons?
People aren't going to agree to cut back on anything and at best will pass the blame to a scapegoat. The standards of living drop will be catastrophic. No one will agree to going back to what amounts to be the stone age just to save the planet. Sad, but true. But the planet will survive. Did you know that when the Siberian Traps were formed, Earth became Venus for a few million years. Did most life perish? Yes. Did the Earth survive? Also yes.
If you really want to live a life where everything is green and no pollution is there, go on a one-way trip to Mars and homestead it.
wyrn t1_izy3ndk wrote
> the alternative is we all die
That's not how it works chief
heyitsmetheguy t1_izst6lx wrote
Your clearly not thinking of the effect of not doing it are you
RyoxAkira t1_izsuhw8 wrote
More like 3,5C. You forget a lot of important pledges like China 's sudden 2060 pledge. But yes, much more has to be done to reach 1,5 or 2. We're on 1.2-1.3C rn.
DigNitty t1_izt43h2 wrote
Even if we somehow cut emissions across the board Today, the train is moving. We'll continue to see negative climate effects worsen for the next few decades, before they get better. That, of course, is if we had everything fixed today.
aminbae t1_izz1j8z wrote
we dealt?
only way to deal with emissions long term is tech transfer to 3rd world countries
hellwisp t1_izswi60 wrote
I can't imagine taxes doing much. The price of fuel increased by 100% and I don't see anyone driving any less than they did.
There needs to be a drastic shift to other sources of energy.. a forced change that corporations can't avoid. The capitalist megacorps are responsible for all the environmental negligence humanity has done in the past two centuries.
Thenerdy9 t1_izt3m8f wrote
actually yeah, price of fuel went up, but demand for gas is inelastic so demand wasn't affected too much - but prices have started going back down, an actual sign of falling demand, not increasing supply. so we shall see.
Alternatives are on the horizon. they need massive investment in scale-up and innovation.
Diesel may be hydrogen-paired to almost eliminate emissions. Electric cars may be scaled up if we can get the balance and equity of mining and recycling lithium and cobalt right...
hellwisp t1_izt5y6y wrote
Yeah.. the processes involved in lithium battery manufacturing.. not great.
What if all countries went full France and invested heavily into nuclear?
Thenerdy9 t1_izx3tfj wrote
definitely an important player in the interim.
it is very political... but, from what I've heard at least in the US, nuclear facilities have encountered so much pushback about nuclear waste storage that they've pretty much given up and now store and manage it all on site. 🤷 and isn't that what we wanted all along...
matmoe1 t1_izsxl8s wrote
100%? That's crazy.. here it's only been like 25-35% i defo couldnt afford 100%
hellwisp t1_izsxt1n wrote
Yeah. It went from 0.9€/l to 2.05€ at it's peak. It's dropping now thankfully.
Thenerdy9 t1_izt34y7 wrote
carbon taxes that accelerate climate solutions - not vengeful to benefit citizens who cannot change the system except by their demand for the choices that are already out there.
chemistry_teacher t1_izt777w wrote
And that’s only part of the problem. We need water taxes especially where lands are drier.
hectorjm94 t1_izsr3xc wrote
Climate Change is working out great for you guys! Keep it up.
[deleted] t1_izt5l12 wrote
[deleted]
hectorjm94 t1_iztei32 wrote
People will adapt.
no_buses t1_iztln7y wrote
If I chop off all your limbs you’ll adapt, doesn’t mean it’ll be a good experience.
Treykays t1_iztx6zk wrote
If you did that, I would eat a bunch of fentanyl.
I would ensure you ate some too.
clumsy__jedi t1_iztht04 wrote
A lot of people will die or become homeless.
GoldenWizard t1_izuo3m1 wrote
How? From rising water? It’s not like a tsunami is coming and we won’t know about it. Read a little about coastal engineering.
clumsy__jedi t1_izuoljq wrote
Dude I am a professional STEM writer
[deleted] t1_izv4mrl wrote
[deleted]
GoldenWizard t1_izxvm0d wrote
Congrats, I’m an engineer. I’ll be fixing problems while you and others just complain about them.
clumsy__jedi t1_izyxh38 wrote
lol sure you are. Meanwhile people are literally already dying from climate change. Maybe you should do a little reading and listen to some scientists.
[deleted] t1_izuszhj wrote
[deleted]
JackIsBackWithCrack t1_izv4ojx wrote
Settle down
[deleted] t1_izw3ief wrote
[removed]
TOPOFDETABLE t1_izwv7u3 wrote
Aren't large areas of the UK reasonably well insulated against climate change?
clumsy__jedi t1_izyxngv wrote
I don’t know about rising water issues in the UK but heat related deaths have been rising already.
Edit for clarity
[deleted] t1_iztn17y wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iztnrdt wrote
[deleted]
Maxathron t1_izt0u7m wrote
It's not climate change. All the cities are way hotter than the surrounding forests because they're made from steel, glass, concrete, and asphalt, which soak up ambient heat like a sponge and slowly release it over the day. Additionally, the lack of plant life to help cool the air by respiring water brought up from underground means the temperature goes up and up and up. Not all the heat manages to escape which increases the average temperature. Repeat this process over the years and it looks like it's way hotter than it should be. Go to some national park in France and surprise! the climate history suggests no climate change is happening at all.
You can test this by sitting on some hot asphalt road and compare it to sitting in the field of grass and then comparing that to sitting in a forest. Guarantee you'll be sweating on that road in a few minutes.
In the UK, it just so happens that they cut down the majority of their forests, urbanized the place, and people just keep wanting to immigrate there. This ain't the middle of the Rockies where no one lives.
bitofrock t1_izt2rug wrote
We cut the forests down in Britain a looong time ago and have been growing more in recent years. Urbanisation in the UK has barely changed in the last fifty years, so the correlation is poor.
Of course, if you can suggest that we're taking more measurents in cities than in rural spaces than we did them you might have a point. Are we?
Thenerdy9 t1_izt2ls8 wrote
You're describing Heat Islands. And it's not mutually exclusive to climate change. Just a fact that works against resiliency to climate change.
Fun fact: More trees helps combat both.
[deleted] t1_izt5enu wrote
[deleted]
Maxathron t1_iztajc4 wrote
You guys cannot actually argue against the industrialization and urbanization of the UK and the rest of the world as NOT the source of the temperature increase.
​
And stop gaslighting me and others into thinking your 'climate change' is anything but it. Worse than the CC naysayers omg.
[deleted] t1_iztmoxs wrote
[deleted]
DanoPinyon t1_iztm0h7 wrote
Poor attempt at disinformation. Why bother?
tommytornado t1_izsvyam wrote
Although the data is to do with heat I feel a heatmap is not the best choice. A bar or line would have conveyed this data a lot better.
sprcpr t1_izt85gz wrote
I don't think so. I've never seen this done with climate data like this. I'm not sure I like the 12 year long structure, it made it.easy to confuse with months. I would like to see the same data with 10 year averages for each month now.
_skjold_ t1_iztqpsp wrote
Exactly this plus with only showing years and temperature you're forcing a 2 variable data set onto a heatmap which is best for 3 variable data. Showing months as the third variable would be much more intuitive and could show interesting trends like more/variation between months and stuff.
h8t3m3 t1_iztes8o wrote
Heat map...for warming.... perfect
dillrepair t1_izsukyw wrote
What happens if the Gulf Stream shuts down
amanamongbotss t1_izsvbn4 wrote
I think the UK gets a lot colder, and then probably a million other things- mass extinction of gulf-stream flora/fauna and such?
PM_Orion_Slave_Tits t1_izt191h wrote
Mass hysteria due to food shortages, riots and the eventual collapse of society. I'm personally looking forward to The Purge meets Mad Max, I've got some Tories to hunt down.
NeliGalactic t1_izu4bp6 wrote
Dibs on Hancock, Johnson, Anderson and (if I can get to him) Rees-Mogg
420BigDawg_ t1_iztmio3 wrote
Don’t forget fascism, both of the left and the right because the left will say I told you so and the right will say no to abrupt change in government policies
alliusis t1_izvwme9 wrote
A lot of people freeze to death because of no insulation, a grid that might not be able to keep up with the demand for heating has severe problems, buildings and infrastructure that wasn’t built with the frost line in mind get wrecked by frost heaves?
[deleted] t1_iztibry wrote
[removed]
GovernmentNo2538 t1_izto8re wrote
We'd probably freeze
AtrainUnjustlyBanned t1_izsuy1e wrote
we would save about 402.30 gallons of fuel per hour
Peelboy t1_izsqbly wrote
Weren't we exiting the mini ice age at that time?
marriedacarrot t1_izss6jo wrote
Yes, but that only accounts for a tiny amount of the actual warming observed. It usually takes thousands of tens of thousands of years to experience the rate of warming we've seen in the last century.
Peelboy t1_izssv0u wrote
I'm not disputing that. Just the start of this was at the end of an unusual 500-year period.
dawglet t1_izsxm4m wrote
"the start" was some time in the 18th century when the industrial age kicked off. Scientists had already identified CO2 as a threat to the atmosphere in the 1890s.
WildIcePick t1_izszp70 wrote
Is this graph sampling enough of a timeline to give good enough context for this topic?
Edit - You don't need to downvote? you are allowed to just answer/ask more questions instead of presuming something about me?
dawglet t1_izt1nlp wrote
This is rhetorical right?
Edit - You're right, i don't need to down vote, but they are easily altered so i can change them if i want. Your comment just reeked of bad faith dialogue so i had to ask. But your follow up does appear to be genuine...
WildIcePick t1_izt2klv wrote
No not at all. I'll be the first to admit I haven't actually done any real research into climate change (unless you count reading reddit and listening to the news)
So genuine question, when we are talking about the world changing, is this sample size large enough? -
Also, considering the temperature during these years at its hottest (summer) gets to around 20 degrees - and coldest gets to around 0. When we say the "Average" (which is actually "Mean" in this data set) what does that mean for interpreting the data? (Obviously seeing it go from Cold-Blue to Hot-Red tries to infer how we should interpret).
Edit: To be VERY CLEAR - Humans are absolutely contributing to the climate changing - like 97% of scientists are agreed on that. (and I agree with them) but... in this post we are talking about "how much" its changed because of us... so my question is, "is this data set large enough"?
dawglet t1_izt5ubk wrote
The data set in question is the one that is historically chronologically complete, in the sense that there are daily records from one location that can be compiled together. Before the 1880s no one was keeping regular temperature data so everything before that has to be inferred with other scientific techniques like ice core samples.
So, the answer to your first question is realistically and statistically, no. It is not a large enough data set to draw conclusions from, since this a sample from one place for 140ish years and climate happens all over the globe from the present all the way back to you know the foundation of the planet. Trouble is, this graph can be drawn from location points all over the world with similar windows of time. This is just the longest one with this type of granularity, so it gets used all the time.
I don't know how the average/mean temperature for a day is calculated, if 24 points were measured every hour and averaged out for a day or what. I'm sure you could find out this info with some google fu.
I'd recommend the XKCD comic on earth temperature. It gives you a long enough time line to understand the enormity of the change we're experiencing right now.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your question. Have an up vote :P
[deleted] t1_izthryx wrote
[deleted]
NeliGalactic t1_izu4ir6 wrote
Ha, try a 4L Range Rover with a boat attached to the back. AAHHH THE LAKES.
[deleted] t1_izuft9d wrote
[deleted]
NeliGalactic t1_izuguid wrote
No I totally agree. What I'm saying is try living in Rural northern England. There's genuinely still not much need for 4x4s even here. I cut about in a 1L fiesta just as well as any Land Rover and its hilly as hell round here.
Absolute wank shafts up here tho with their incredibly wide 4x4s on a country road with a boat on the back just nipping out for some milk and they think "well there's less pollution here it'll be fine". Idiots.
D_1390 t1_izsymr8 wrote
Horrible and unclear graph, needs more labeling
bobvonbob t1_izt25m0 wrote
Idk, I figured out what it meant immediately
D_1390 t1_izt2oyf wrote
No, you’re just assuming what the data means then
bobvonbob t1_iztizgh wrote
It's a graph of yearly temperature relative to some baseline that you read left-to-right, top-to-bottom like a book. Temperature has been 1-2 degrees higher recently than it was 25 years ago.
It doesn't have statistics or data attached, but that's not necessary to do tell that there's a trend which deserves further investigation.
DanoPinyon t1_iztlu2w wrote
Share your brilliant corrections.
chief-ares t1_izur313 wrote
Can you show these as deviations from the average temperature?
Dmytro_North t1_izsxq4m wrote
Nice!
I would explain it stating something like every 12th year 1884-2016. Those are individual years right? Not 12 year averages?
I would add x axis. I assume it goes jan-dec, but would like to confirm and it would be easier to pinpoint individual months.
BenTeHen t1_izswu4j wrote
Wow it is sure to either A) get colder or B) level out. But definitely not C) get hotter
This is a joke, it’s actually the end of complex society.
[deleted] t1_izswzgv wrote
[deleted]
shewantsthegandhi t1_izsxsg2 wrote
I think you might have misunderstood! I believe that each block is a year — I get how it’s confusing, I don’t love the year tick marks on the Y-axis. But yeah, each cube is a year, the cube furthest to the left is labeled on the Y-axis.
[deleted] t1_izsycdh wrote
[deleted]
zkentvt t1_iztd72y wrote
Someone needs to defrag their hard drive
[deleted] t1_izsnrwr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izsoluc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izswku8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izsxj54 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izt2blx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izt4um2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iztmd5d wrote
[removed]
LegsNoGo420 t1_iztp90c wrote
We are primed and ready for another ice age, I can feel it
Andrxia t1_iztw9gw wrote
Does anyone know where to find one of these for Ireland? (If it exists at all)
Piranhaswarm t1_iztyx6f wrote
GOP REPUBLICANS- “There’s No global warming!” DRILL BABY DRILL!!
Yellowbellys-finest t1_izu0ujd wrote
We getting a blue box this year for sure!
[deleted] t1_izu2io3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izu5exp wrote
[removed]
cuteman t1_izu7vfo wrote
I realize people think this shows a lot of data but 137 years is nothing in geologic time.
[deleted] t1_izuc980 wrote
[removed]
meteorchopin t1_izui4hj wrote
Interesting way to show the positive trend. You also capture year to year variability well. Thumbs up from a climate scientist.
[deleted] t1_izuof0b wrote
[removed]
Mushybasha t1_izv5vm5 wrote
Beautiful seeing the UK starting to get a tea growing climate.
vasquca1 t1_izvav73 wrote
Climate deniers: move along nothing to see here. "Hunter Biden" 🤡
wyrn t1_izvdwaf wrote
Yet another "should've been a line graph".
darthsnick t1_izveq95 wrote
I keep saying the earth is cooling. The increase of volcanic activity. Sun storms etc. we are just in the time between ice ages. Pray that we and are children and there children live are lives before the ice comes yet again. When it does come, and it always is inevitable, people will suffer like modern history has not seen!
DanteJazz t1_izvolor wrote
Uh oh. That's not good. 30 years of higher temperatures.
nitrohigito t1_izw5h4j wrote
Disingenuous coloring, as always. It's for a good reason, but still.
xFurashux t1_izw95o5 wrote
So UK has only 1 season whole year? I thought it's just a joke.
madeInSwamp t1_izweawd wrote
What is the x-axis? I am assuming that are the months just because there are twelve different cells... Just write the axis guys
Toxiko8 t1_izwicar wrote
They're years, 12 years between each number on the left.. But yeah, not clear at all!
dml997 t1_izwy3yg wrote
Gratuitous use of 2D when it is a 1D function and a simple line chart would show everything more clearly. This https://imgur.com/vEyJyrX contains all the information in a simpler form and the trend is clearer.
glitchinnf t1_j014bz5 wrote
And people will still say that global warming isn't real.
INSIJS t1_izui0gn wrote
Lol at a 140 year timeline to support the Climate Crisis Hoax. https://i.imgur.com/cDxruMV.jpg We’re in a cooling period.
Plexiglasssmartphone t1_izv0jsc wrote
I’m with you. Ice age incoming. 12kyr magnetic excursion
inblue01 t1_izx48d6 wrote
"Yes, but it's -40°C in my shitty northern canadian town, take that climate change"
Vpleaseg t1_izsyo1q wrote
GLOBAL WARMING! We’re all gonna die tomorrow. Data is sofa king gorgeous.
Thenerdy9 t1_izt2byd wrote
Within 100 years if business remains as usual.
Good analysis of an academic paper by the channel Economics Explained. https://youtu.be/kVOTPAxrrP4
Medcait t1_izucqv2 wrote
This is a terrible graph. Is that supposed to be months??
iFoegot t1_izukms2 wrote
So every year has 12 smaller sections, I assume you mean monthly?
malkebulan t1_izv4rc9 wrote
Each square represents a different year, not a month
Acrobatic_Worry_2334 t1_iztmnzl wrote
We are actually in a cooler period than previous.
sexylegs0123456789 t1_iztj0kn wrote
I know it’s not good to say this but in a way, for the UK this is kind of a win. It won’t be elsewhere in the world, but warmer isn’t bad. Can start growing grapes again!
ogromnyy-konchil t1_izsnuuu wrote
In the last 130 years it has gotten warmer in the United Kingdom. It was colder there when they had colonies.
decideye t1_izsqu12 wrote
This december is freezing cold
DanoPinyon t1_iztm4ot wrote
...and I just ate, so global hunger doesn't exist.
decideye t1_izug0y3 wrote
I find it funny everyone thinks I'm saying climate change doesn't exist. I was just giving my thoughts on this month so far which compared to last 2 months, is super cold. But I guess I get where you all are coming from, I didn't give it much context.
Shoopdawoop993 t1_izsql6d wrote
Idk man, honeslty looks likebthere is a warming trend over the whole graph. Human emissions really didnt kick off until the 1950s. Id say this support the hypothosis that the warm period were in isnt entirely manmade.
marriedacarrot t1_izssmrf wrote
Shoopdawoop993 t1_izswfgk wrote
So yes, the earth was already warming before co2 concentrations rose? Looks like youre agreeing with me.
And what makes 320 the dividing line in that graph beyond looking nice
marriedacarrot t1_iztvr5p wrote
Look at the graph again. CO2 (thick black line) is rising from the start of the graph.
320 ppm is used because that was the concentration in 1965 when scientists began reporting on this phenomenon more formally.
Quid_Pro-Bro t1_izsrze1 wrote
That’s also my take. I think man made pollution is harming the climate. But the Earth goes in natural cycles of warming and cooling. It’s really hard to distinguish what amount is human caused or natural with the little data we have.
kadarch t1_izsuu7d wrote
It's actually not difficult to differentiate, it is just a rather long and boring explanation. If you really are interested in the topic I can only recommend 'Climate Change is a Nightmare' by UpIsNotJump. It is not highly scientific and does a good job at explaining the topic in a rather short, easy to access format. It also debunks statements like 'we are just in a warmer part of the cycle' etc.
Quid_Pro-Bro t1_izt2o23 wrote
Thanks for the video. It was interesting. The carbon and temperature correlation is quite strong. From the same video though, the Earth tilts between 22-24 degrees. 24 being when the earth is warming and has the most CO2 and 22 when it’s the coldest and least CO2. If the Earth is currently at 23.5 degrees, doesn’t that mean the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle as well? Again I’m not arguing that global warming isn’t real. I am saying this is a combination of natural and manmade processes.
kadarch t1_izt7nyr wrote
It has been a bit since I watched the video, but I think it stated our 23.5 degress were decreasing in the sense that we have reached the 24 some time ago and it is now decreasing again which would mean we would naturally begin cooling again.
supermopman t1_iztblth wrote
This would be better with 10 columns and the y-axis could start with decades, ex. 1970, 1980, etc.