This graphic really works for me. The moving blossom.impacts far more than the bar graphs and x axis y axis curves. This is truly visceral and conveys the dynamism powerfully.
Fascinating, terrifying, tragic charts — and very useful in bringing home what we are doing to the planet. I wonder when scientists began to have an inkling of how bad this was going to be.
One question, though - I thought the baseline temperature was "pre-industrial", meaning perhaps 1870, and that we are only now approaching 1.5C of increase. Does this mean that your data shows essentially no increase from 1870 to 1950?
The mean temperature in the 1940s in this dataset is ~0.2C, reflecting the warming since preindustrial. It just looks small because its close to zero, and negative values are not displayed in this visualization.
Just before anything, I just want to say the wonders the internet can bring (althought I have quite mixed opinions on social media). I don't think general public access to scientific information would be so "easy". Let alone publishing papers and finding publishments to make citations. Not only this, but also other substacks from colleagues of yours would be quite hard to find had it not been the internet. I thank you for this.
Now, for my question, just a heads up that I might not be able to put all of my thoughts into it and there might be some errors in meaning since I am not a native English speaker.
So, Zeke and Andrew: I've seen quite mixed communications as in what is society's future regarding climate change and its effects. What I am going to ask you both is what is your opinion on this matter, as in the future developments of society (especially poverty, food/water security and life expectancy).
Brian O'Neill (who I think has a name because of his participation as an IPCC lead author for some ARs, but I could be wrong if he is actually a good source on this) had a commentary on Nature in 2023 that basically said that despite the people that will be put into poverty and hunger due to climate change, many others are supposed to come out of it due to factors like economic and technological development, but at least on twitter (by no means is it a good comparison, just where I found the most accessible reactions to it) it was quite badly received. I think you have seen this, but I could provide you the DOI if you'd like.
I've been trying to find opinions because of my plans for life, such as having kids, travelling and such and whether I should do it because of climate change, since I'm quite young, from a developing nation and the uncertainty that climate science has in it for sure can be damning on one's psyche. It would make me more calm if the consensus (not the right word, but the closest one to what I am thinking) is something in the lines of "there will be a lot of bad things happening, but progress will happen despite of it". Please don't think I am trying to underplay the dangers of a warming world because I am not. At least in my opinion, the both of you would be the perfect people to answer this since you are not just scientists, you are both parents as well.
I know it can be quite annoying being asked this not just by journalists, but also on the comments. Again, thank the both of you for what you do
I've long argued that climate change is better thought of as an existential thread multiplier, at least for human systems. If we do a bad job as dealing with all our other problems (poverty, inequality, war, etc.) we will be much more severely affected than if we live in a future that is more prosperous, equitable, and resilient.
Of course, the natural world largely lacks the adaptive capacity that human systems have...
Zeke, "existential thread modifier" is one way to put it. I know my personal existential thread has been modified! "Existential threat modifier" is perhaps more easily understood, however.
So, as in making current problems worse, rather then creating others? We are dependant in nature in many ways, with food security being the main one. It's hard to find nuance and actual good news in a narrative dominated by worst-case scenarios. We've made a lot of progress in lowering both poverty and hunger rates in the past 30 years and I would pretty much like that to continue and also if I have descendents, those to see it continue. One of the comments below say of extinction of mammals by 2050 which I at least think is just doomerism at its worse, I don't think It is actually a credible thing to say but still.
seems arbitrary. If one came into their career interest studying poverty, inequality, or war, then they would probably consider poverty, inequalitry or war as the existential threat multipliers, with climate categorized as "other problems".
No thanks, Zeke, I'll stick with the gold standard for climate change science info: C3S and their "Climate Pulse" page. Their data indicates a 0.2 degC annual GAST increase, so we may see 2 degC over the 1991-2020 baseline by 2027, a 3 degC increase by 2027, and the extinction level for mammals on earth's surface by 2047, the year that any child unfortunate enough to be among the 108,000 (net) born today turns 22. All the rest is just BS.
Odd thing: In your “slow” chart…right from the start the period Jan thru Feb shows a big jump out from “average”. Here in the northern hemisphere (Southern California) those are definitely “cold” months so an “above normal” measurement seems weird. Any thoughts on what happens then?
Its showing temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures, and we tend to have more variability in winter (NH) temperatures due to the larger land mass and reduced planck feedback constraint.
Ed Hawkins better watch out!
Ingenious illustration. It should be used in confirmation hearings and TV interviews of politicians. Thank you.
This graphic really works for me. The moving blossom.impacts far more than the bar graphs and x axis y axis curves. This is truly visceral and conveys the dynamism powerfully.
"you are going to need" ......a bigger graph
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs
brilliant .......love your work Zeke ......only 19 months (approximately) till the mid term elections......
Fascinating, terrifying, tragic charts — and very useful in bringing home what we are doing to the planet. I wonder when scientists began to have an inkling of how bad this was going to be.
Thank you for creating this - and wow! 2023 is literally "off the charts" - incredibly sad.
An excellent visual. You should mail a link to every member of Congress.
A really col way to help explain it to the idiotized non-believers.
Really nice visualization. Thank you for creating this.
I don't think a large proportion of humans in the world believe life was better in the 1940s so it's a tough sell.
That's a very dramatic graphic.
One question, though - I thought the baseline temperature was "pre-industrial", meaning perhaps 1870, and that we are only now approaching 1.5C of increase. Does this mean that your data shows essentially no increase from 1870 to 1950?
The mean temperature in the 1940s in this dataset is ~0.2C, reflecting the warming since preindustrial. It just looks small because its close to zero, and negative values are not displayed in this visualization.
Preindustrial here is 1850-1900.
Really cool visualization!
Just before anything, I just want to say the wonders the internet can bring (althought I have quite mixed opinions on social media). I don't think general public access to scientific information would be so "easy". Let alone publishing papers and finding publishments to make citations. Not only this, but also other substacks from colleagues of yours would be quite hard to find had it not been the internet. I thank you for this.
Now, for my question, just a heads up that I might not be able to put all of my thoughts into it and there might be some errors in meaning since I am not a native English speaker.
So, Zeke and Andrew: I've seen quite mixed communications as in what is society's future regarding climate change and its effects. What I am going to ask you both is what is your opinion on this matter, as in the future developments of society (especially poverty, food/water security and life expectancy).
Brian O'Neill (who I think has a name because of his participation as an IPCC lead author for some ARs, but I could be wrong if he is actually a good source on this) had a commentary on Nature in 2023 that basically said that despite the people that will be put into poverty and hunger due to climate change, many others are supposed to come out of it due to factors like economic and technological development, but at least on twitter (by no means is it a good comparison, just where I found the most accessible reactions to it) it was quite badly received. I think you have seen this, but I could provide you the DOI if you'd like.
I've been trying to find opinions because of my plans for life, such as having kids, travelling and such and whether I should do it because of climate change, since I'm quite young, from a developing nation and the uncertainty that climate science has in it for sure can be damning on one's psyche. It would make me more calm if the consensus (not the right word, but the closest one to what I am thinking) is something in the lines of "there will be a lot of bad things happening, but progress will happen despite of it". Please don't think I am trying to underplay the dangers of a warming world because I am not. At least in my opinion, the both of you would be the perfect people to answer this since you are not just scientists, you are both parents as well.
I know it can be quite annoying being asked this not just by journalists, but also on the comments. Again, thank the both of you for what you do
I've long argued that climate change is better thought of as an existential thread multiplier, at least for human systems. If we do a bad job as dealing with all our other problems (poverty, inequality, war, etc.) we will be much more severely affected than if we live in a future that is more prosperous, equitable, and resilient.
Of course, the natural world largely lacks the adaptive capacity that human systems have...
You might find this podcast interview of interest: https://www.aei.org/multimedia/faster-please-the-podcast-35-the-emerging-space-economy/
Zeke, "existential thread modifier" is one way to put it. I know my personal existential thread has been modified! "Existential threat modifier" is perhaps more easily understood, however.
So, as in making current problems worse, rather then creating others? We are dependant in nature in many ways, with food security being the main one. It's hard to find nuance and actual good news in a narrative dominated by worst-case scenarios. We've made a lot of progress in lowering both poverty and hunger rates in the past 30 years and I would pretty much like that to continue and also if I have descendents, those to see it continue. One of the comments below say of extinction of mammals by 2050 which I at least think is just doomerism at its worse, I don't think It is actually a credible thing to say but still.
seems arbitrary. If one came into their career interest studying poverty, inequality, or war, then they would probably consider poverty, inequalitry or war as the existential threat multipliers, with climate categorized as "other problems".
No thanks, Zeke, I'll stick with the gold standard for climate change science info: C3S and their "Climate Pulse" page. Their data indicates a 0.2 degC annual GAST increase, so we may see 2 degC over the 1991-2020 baseline by 2027, a 3 degC increase by 2027, and the extinction level for mammals on earth's surface by 2047, the year that any child unfortunate enough to be among the 108,000 (net) born today turns 22. All the rest is just BS.
Odd thing: In your “slow” chart…right from the start the period Jan thru Feb shows a big jump out from “average”. Here in the northern hemisphere (Southern California) those are definitely “cold” months so an “above normal” measurement seems weird. Any thoughts on what happens then?
Its showing temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures, and we tend to have more variability in winter (NH) temperatures due to the larger land mass and reduced planck feedback constraint.