Talk:1379: 4.5 Degrees - Revision history

177.12.8.172 at 13:00, 5 October 2025

2025-10-05T13:00:58Z

172.69.214.220 at 17:56, 2 April 2025

2025-04-02T17:56:32Z

Mathmannix at 14:39, 16 August 2018

2018-08-16T14:39:07Z

162.158.146.28: comment about cm and m

2017-11-20T23:48:13Z

comment about cm and m

Jubal Harshaw at 03:35, 14 August 2016

2016-08-14T03:35:52Z

108.162.241.127 at 00:06, 9 December 2015

2015-12-09T00:06:17Z

162.158.255.52 at 22:01, 24 September 2015

2015-09-24T22:01:30Z

Seebert at 14:32, 22 April 2015

2015-04-22T14:32:03Z

199.27.128.232: That nytimes.com link is a review of a TV show from 1983.

2015-02-23T18:53:58Z

That nytimes.com link is a review of a TV show from 1983.

141.101.98.251 at 19:04, 1 November 2014

2014-11-01T19:04:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 5 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Scary thoughts there... [[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)		Scary thoughts there... [[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	: Hello from 11 years into the future. We're [https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before]. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.8.172\|177.12.8.172]] 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

	I imagine the Earth's axial tilt wouldn't change even if the temperature changed by +2 IAU. So, would palm trees survive the extreme day/night lengths at the poles? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239\|103.22.201.239]] 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Also, wouldn't the North Pole be underwater, so incapable of supporting palm trees?		I imagine the Earth's axial tilt wouldn't change even if the temperature changed by +2 IAU. So, would palm trees survive the extreme day/night lengths at the poles? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239\|103.22.201.239]] 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Also, wouldn't the North Pole be underwater, so incapable of supporting palm trees?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:56, 2 April 2025
Line 73:		Line 73:

	"Sea level was higher during most of the Cretaceous than at any other time in Earth history, and it was a major factor influencing the paleogeography of the period. In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) higher in the Early Cretaceous and roughly 200 to 250 metres (660 to 820 feet) higher in the Late Cretaceous than at present. The high Cretaceous sea level is thought to have been primarily the result of water in the ocean basins being displaced by the enlargement of midoceanic ridges." https://www.britannica.com/science/Cretaceous-Period [[User:Jubal Harshaw\|Jubal Harshaw]] ([[User talk:Jubal Harshaw\|talk]]) 03:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)		"Sea level was higher during most of the Cretaceous than at any other time in Earth history, and it was a major factor influencing the paleogeography of the period. In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) higher in the Early Cretaceous and roughly 200 to 250 metres (660 to 820 feet) higher in the Late Cretaceous than at present. The high Cretaceous sea level is thought to have been primarily the result of water in the ocean basins being displaced by the enlargement of midoceanic ridges." https://www.britannica.com/science/Cretaceous-Period [[User:Jubal Harshaw\|Jubal Harshaw]] ([[User talk:Jubal Harshaw\|talk]]) 03:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	To give you an idea of how bogus these model projections are, those "radiative forcings" that the RCP projections use aren't real physics. No one can measure them. They're hallucinations. It's sad that Randall, with his physics background, has never bothered to look into this in any detail. But then again his grasp of radiative optics is a bit flimsy, hence the errors in "Fire from Moonlight", so maybe he wouldn't be able to spot it...[[Special:Contributions/172.69.214.220\|172.69.214.220]] 17:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :::No, it's not hyperbole at all, actually there were tropical-climate trees in polar latitudes in the northern hemisphere during parts of the Cretaceous. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.237|108.162.250.237]] 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 ::::Citation please- everything I could find was Temperate Rain Forests (kind of like still exist in Washington State and British Columbia).[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 12:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 Independent of everything else, I'm having a tough time reconciling the fact that sea level was apparently 6m or more higher during the Roman era. E.g. the roman settlements and their harbors in places like Caister and Burgh Castle in Norfolk, England? I'm not aware that England has risen 6m. Seems to me that if see levels were to rise as much as 6m we'd just be back to where things were 1600-1700 years ago. {{unsigned ip|103.22.201.239}}

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :::::Having just re-read the explanation after posting my comment, I can see that the article attempts to do just that.  But the link provided says 110 to 770 <b>mm</b>.  Isn't the millimeters?  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 15:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 :::::But the sea level ''would'' rise more than 60m if the expansion of the sea is taken into account. If the earth became as hot as the graph indicates, then logically the seas would expand considerably. [[User:Calebxy|Calebxy]] ([[User talk:Calebxy|talk]]) 16:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 :Cretaceous sea levels seem to have been that high, but this tends to be attributed to the shape of the ocean basins, in particular the mid-ocean ridges, rather than to the temperature. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.35|108.162.219.35]] 17:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:35, 14 August 2016
Line 69:		Line 69:
	Not too sure what any teachers will think of that.		Not too sure what any teachers will think of that.
	([[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.127\|108.162.241.127]] 00:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC))		([[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.127\|108.162.241.127]] 00:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC))
		+
		+	"Sea level was higher during most of the Cretaceous than at any other time in Earth history, and it was a major factor influencing the paleogeography of the period. In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) higher in the Early Cretaceous and roughly 200 to 250 metres (660 to 820 feet) higher in the Late Cretaceous than at present. The high Cretaceous sea level is thought to have been primarily the result of water in the ocean basins being displaced by the enlargement of midoceanic ridges." https://www.britannica.com/science/Cretaceous-Period [[User:Jubal Harshaw\|Jubal Harshaw]] ([[User talk:Jubal Harshaw\|talk]]) 03:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 9 December 2015
Line 62:		Line 62:

	:All the angry people who like to shout "AGW has been debunked! The models aren't exact! I have a fantasy that because I'm the smartest person in the world I will be rich by 30 and therefore I hate anything related to taxes! I've been trained to growl at liberals!" What do they want to do? Even if they're right that the changes would have happened even without humanity and that the effects will be more chaotic and less straightforward and that the 25-year projection will really take 45 years and so on... Does that mean we should just gleefully accept all the changes? I realize that San Francisco; New York, Brussels, Amsterdam, and Stockholm all being underwater sounds like fun to a right-wing partisan--no more hippies, no more "liberal media", no more UN and EU, no more wildly successfully social democracies that disprove all of their economic theories, etc.--don't they care that most of the world's financial and knowledge industries, every conservative think-tank, and most of Rupert Murdoch's houses will also be gone? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52\|162.158.255.52]] 22:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)		:All the angry people who like to shout "AGW has been debunked! The models aren't exact! I have a fantasy that because I'm the smartest person in the world I will be rich by 30 and therefore I hate anything related to taxes! I've been trained to growl at liberals!" What do they want to do? Even if they're right that the changes would have happened even without humanity and that the effects will be more chaotic and less straightforward and that the 25-year projection will really take 45 years and so on... Does that mean we should just gleefully accept all the changes? I realize that San Francisco; New York, Brussels, Amsterdam, and Stockholm all being underwater sounds like fun to a right-wing partisan--no more hippies, no more "liberal media", no more UN and EU, no more wildly successfully social democracies that disprove all of their economic theories, etc.--don't they care that most of the world's financial and knowledge industries, every conservative think-tank, and most of Rupert Murdoch's houses will also be gone? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52\|162.158.255.52]] 22:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	This image is fun to cite!
		+
		+	Munroe, Randall. The Good News Is That According to the Latest IPCC Report, If We Enact Aggressive Emissions Limits Now, We Could Hold the Warming to 2°C. That's Only HALF an Ice Age Unit, Which Is Probably No Big Deal. Digital image. Xkcd.com. Xkcd, 9 June 2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. <http://xkcd.com/1379/>.
		+
		+	Not too sure what any teachers will think of that.
		+	([[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.127\|108.162.241.127]] 00:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC))

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 24 September 2015
Line 60:		Line 60:

	Since I used to live next to Burgh Castle, can I point out that the castle is indeed now c6m higher than the current estuary level. The nearby town of Great Yarmouth is built on land that first appeared above the waves around 1100AD. In Roman times it was possible to sail from Burgh Castle to the castle at Caistor - that's why they were built, to defend the mouth of the estuary between them.If you look at [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Acle,+Norwich,+Norfolk+NR13/@52.6213598,1.6099949,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d9ff1ac61e4df5:0x957c4241ca1f0de3 map] very roughly all the green was under water circa 300AD --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.251\|141.101.98.251]] 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)		Since I used to live next to Burgh Castle, can I point out that the castle is indeed now c6m higher than the current estuary level. The nearby town of Great Yarmouth is built on land that first appeared above the waves around 1100AD. In Roman times it was possible to sail from Burgh Castle to the castle at Caistor - that's why they were built, to defend the mouth of the estuary between them.If you look at [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Acle,+Norwich,+Norfolk+NR13/@52.6213598,1.6099949,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d9ff1ac61e4df5:0x957c4241ca1f0de3 map] very roughly all the green was under water circa 300AD --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.251\|141.101.98.251]] 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:All the angry people who like to shout "AGW has been debunked! The models aren't exact! I have a fantasy that because I'm the smartest person in the world I will be rich by 30 and therefore I hate anything related to taxes! I've been trained to growl at liberals!" What do they want to do? Even if they're right that the changes would have happened even without humanity and that the effects will be more chaotic and less straightforward and that the 25-year projection will really take 45 years and so on... Does that mean we should just gleefully accept all the changes? I realize that San Francisco; New York, Brussels, Amsterdam, and Stockholm all being underwater sounds like fun to a right-wing partisan--no more hippies, no more "liberal media", no more UN and EU, no more wildly successfully social democracies that disprove all of their economic theories, etc.--don't they care that most of the world's financial and knowledge industries, every conservative think-tank, and most of Rupert Murdoch's houses will also be gone? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52\|162.158.255.52]] 22:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 :Randall is a scientist.  He follows scientific consensus.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 20:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 ::Randall is a comic artist.  While he's a really smart guy, he popularizes science, he doesn't do the experiments himself.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 :::No snark intended here, and I am a non-scientist, so I do not speak from a position of authority. However, I thought (one of the) the point(s) of science was that you don't ''have'' to do the science yourself in order to understand and interpret the results. In fact, you can read the reports and conclusions of others in order to draw your own. In law, for example, we follow the cases that have been established in similar situations so that we can advise our clients on the ''best'' course (and by best, I mean the course that won't land you in court paying outrageous fees) of action. We don't have to experience it ourselves in order to reach the desired outcome. We can draw analogies from similar fact patterns. Right? [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 09:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::There is nothing scientific about following consensus. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.86}}
 :::Of course there is... When 99% of climatologists are reasonably certain (which means "very very sure" for non-scientists) that there is Global Warning and that the primary cause is us (humanity greenhouse gas emissions), I wouldn't say that AGW has been "debunked" and that there is nothing scientific in following this consensus (after having made sure of its existence by reading diverse peer-reviewed studies of the field) ! You may have an agenda to defend but could you at least try to make some sense, please. Note that this doesn't mean that the current political propositions are the right way to go about it and that this comic doesn't say anything about that. [[User:Jedaï|Jedaï]] ([[User talk:Jedaï|talk]]) 21:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 23 February 2015
Line 56:		Line 56:

	According to the Scientific Forecasts from 1986, this should have had already happened by the year 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/movies/earth-s-climatic-crisis-examined-by-nova.html [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217\|108.162.246.217]] 01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)		According to the Scientific Forecasts from 1986, this should have had already happened by the year 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/movies/earth-s-climatic-crisis-examined-by-nova.html [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217\|108.162.246.217]] 01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
		+	:That link is basically a TV Guide listing for a rerun of a NOVA program which was filmed in 1983. The listing was written by a movie critic who presumably watched the program but may not have quoted it correctly. Anyway, that's popular media, not real science. If you want real science, look at peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the 30+ years since that program was filmed, we have gathered a LOT more data. It's not surprising that our understanding of what's going on is more complete now than it was in 1983. That's how science works. The more data you gather, the more accurate your predictions become (hence older predictions were generally less accurate).[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.232\|199.27.128.232]] 18:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

	Since I used to live next to Burgh Castle, can I point out that the castle is indeed now c6m higher than the current estuary level. The nearby town of Great Yarmouth is built on land that first appeared above the waves around 1100AD. In Roman times it was possible to sail from Burgh Castle to the castle at Caistor - that's why they were built, to defend the mouth of the estuary between them.If you look at [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Acle,+Norwich,+Norfolk+NR13/@52.6213598,1.6099949,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d9ff1ac61e4df5:0x957c4241ca1f0de3 map] very roughly all the green was under water circa 300AD --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.251\|141.101.98.251]] 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)		Since I used to live next to Burgh Castle, can I point out that the castle is indeed now c6m higher than the current estuary level. The nearby town of Great Yarmouth is built on land that first appeared above the waves around 1100AD. In Roman times it was possible to sail from Burgh Castle to the castle at Caistor - that's why they were built, to defend the mouth of the estuary between them.If you look at [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Acle,+Norwich,+Norfolk+NR13/@52.6213598,1.6099949,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d9ff1ac61e4df5:0x957c4241ca1f0de3 map] very roughly all the green was under water circa 300AD --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.251\|141.101.98.251]] 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 1 November 2014
Line 56:		Line 56:

	According to the Scientific Forecasts from 1986, this should have had already happened by the year 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/movies/earth-s-climatic-crisis-examined-by-nova.html [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217\|108.162.246.217]] 01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)		According to the Scientific Forecasts from 1986, this should have had already happened by the year 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/movies/earth-s-climatic-crisis-examined-by-nova.html [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217\|108.162.246.217]] 01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	Since I used to live next to Burgh Castle, can I point out that the castle is indeed now c6m higher than the current estuary level. The nearby town of Great Yarmouth is built on land that first appeared above the waves around 1100AD. In Roman times it was possible to sail from Burgh Castle to the castle at Caistor - that's why they were built, to defend the mouth of the estuary between them.If you look at [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Acle,+Norwich,+Norfolk+NR13/@52.6213598,1.6099949,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d9ff1ac61e4df5:0x957c4241ca1f0de3 map] very roughly all the green was under water circa 300AD --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.251\|141.101.98.251]] 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)