Forums >Off the Beaten Path>I love infographics
not bad for mile 25
The novel is shorter; may as well read that.
Feeling the growl again
Longest cut-and-paste ever. TL;DR.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Killed the internet at my office.
Get off my porch
WTF was that?
Please, dear god, no one quote that post.
6/9/24 Cinderella Trail Run 50k, Berkeley, CA
7/20/24 Tahoe Rim Trail 56 miler, NV
9/21/24 Mountain Lakes 100, OR
Break on through
If you scroll down quickly, it's like a flip book.
"Not to touch the Earth, not to see the Sun, nothing left to do but run, run, run..."
Good Bad & The Monkey
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
pfft, other was far more entertaining.
I still like it, even with this added bit of info.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/09/14/493925781/epic-climate-cartoon-goes-viral-but-it-has-one-key-problem?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160914
A list of my PRs in a misguided attempt to impress people that do not care.
Interval Junkie --Nobby
'"One to 2 degrees Celsius sounds really small when you hear scientists talk about it," she says. "But it's a big deal when it comes to the climate of the Earth. And it means really enormous changes for coastlines around the world."'
I think that was the second most stunning thing about the graph. When I hear "global temps increase 2C!" I think, "hmm, okay, what's that 5F?" So it's 95F this summer instead of 90F? Or -4C, i think "Oh well, instead of -4F this winter, -14F." Meh. But seeing the -4C basically means ICE AGE! is shocking.
Given a choice, I'd rather have global freezing, personally.
Glad I'll be dead by the time any of this gets really serious.
2021 Goals: 50mpw 'cause there's nothing else to do
It is already getting serious.
Yes, I more than understand that future people are already screwed. But I only plan to be around for 50 more years or so.
I still like it, even with this added bit of info. http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/09/14/493925781/epic-climate-cartoon-goes-viral-but-it-has-one-key-problem?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160914
Well, this is kind of disappointing. I think if you use bad or misleading data to make your point, your case loses credibility, and it gives more ammunition to the other side. Granted in this case the other side generally can't make heads nor tails of data anyway, but still, if you're going to take the side of science and reason, you should be held to a higher standard.
Dave
No, I mean today. Not the future. Today.
The quote in the article is: "On the y-axis, we've got time. The whole cartoon, which starts at the end of the last ice age, represents about 22,000 years. People have been around for about 200,000 years. The dinosaurs were around about 65 million years ago. And Earth is 4.5 billion years old. So the graph is only a teeny-tiny period of Earth's lifetime."
There is nothing in this that indicates that what is presented is misleading. If the author indicated that there were large temperature changes in the prior 178,000 years, then there would be a point. But the author does not say that. So the infographic is reasonable.
The quote in the article is: "On the y-axis, we've got time. The whole cartoon, which starts at the end of the last ice age, represents about 22,000 years. People have been around for about 200,000 years. The dinosaurs were around about 65 million years ago. And Earth is 4.5 billion years old. So the graph is only a teeny-tiny period of Earth's lifetime." There is nothing in this that indicates that what is presented is misleading. If the author indicated that there were large temperature changes in the prior 178,000 years, then there would be a point. But the author does not say that. So the infographic is reasonable.
I was not referring to that section. I was referring to the section below the graphic. It notes that the data changes from a dotted line over the major portion of history, which is based on computer modeling, to a solid line in the very recent past which is based on actual measured temps, including the dramatic increase. And it explains that the computer modeling would not show any brief spikes, but smooths out the data. So if there have been spikes at other points in history, we would not necessarily see them in this data. And if the computer model was used for the recent history, it would not look as dramatic.