It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
First, xkcd has repeatedly demonstrated that often there is just no good substitute for drawing something to scale, even if that means it won't fit on the confines of an ordinary sized comic, or an ordinary sized piece of paper or book.
Second, while the comic is largely spot on when it comes to historical dates, the smoothing in the temperature diagram (which the author, in fairness, acknowledges is present in the comic) comes at the cost of a pretty important feature of the data from the period of about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, which is that the temperature was wildly unstable and oscillated dramatically over much of that time frame, which is one important reason that farming had trouble establishing itself. It is hard to establish agriculture when one generation one set of crops work, and two generations later, an entirely different climate prevails.
originally posted by: 727Sky
I would expect things to warm up if you are coming out of an ice age... The time frame for the warm up is a serious question and where the peak will be before the oscillation starts over again for another freeze that is an appropriate question IMO..?
originally posted by: Aldakoopa
originally posted by: 727Sky
I would expect things to warm up if you are coming out of an ice age... The time frame for the warm up is a serious question and where the peak will be before the oscillation starts over again for another freeze that is an appropriate question IMO..?
And then, who was recording the temperature back then. In Celsius, even.
originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: 727Sky
I just find it hillarious to take a snippet out of the end of the iceage and try to correlate that model to trends over 4 billion years.
I just find it hillarious to take a snippet out of the end of the iceage and try to correlate that model to trends over 4 billion years.
Human civilization should have no relevance when debating Earth climate models, to get a correct picture of the cycle of the planets climate (not our climate, it's Earths climate) you need to go far back.
Some people think that means we don't know anything.
We simply don't have the data available to say what is cyclical and what is not, if science teaches us anything, it teaches us how very little we actually know about life and the universe.
originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Byrd
Sigh.
Getting facts from "comics"....liberals....
Try real data and some perspective:
You can clearly see humans have had minimal impact. The lion's share of the rise ( that continues to this day) is what you can naturally expect coming out of an ice age.... and,no, prehistoric humans living in caves can no more affect temperature than they can influence volcanos...
Deny ignorance....