Interesting graphs and charts department

[Undertoad]

It has to the "best" if it's the "only"

xkcd relies heavily on one particular study of temps (Marcott et al, 2013).

Marcott was the first attempt to reconstruct the temps of the last 11000 years. I think it's still the only one. Science depends on replication of findings, and one single study is not science yet. It's scientific, but it is not "the science".

The study has been criticized. There are plenty of climate scientists who believe the earth has been warmer than it is today. Particularly during the Late Glacial Interstitial, in which Europe and N. America unquestionably saw a period of a lot of warming. That period is not noticed on the xkcd graph, presumably because smoothing? Whatevs, it's one single study and so it gets a big "mmmmmmaybe".

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Particularly during the Late Glacial Interstitial, in which Europe and N. America unquestionably saw a period of a lot of warming. That period is not noticed on the xkcd graph, presumably because smoothing? Whatevs, it's one single study and so it gets a big "mmmmmmaybe".

Originally Posted by wiki

Late Glacial (13,000–10,000 years ago).

That period is indeed noticed on the xkcd chart. There's a noticeable hump. At 13000BC warming accelerates noticeably, then levels and falls back a bit by 10500BC, whereupon it resumes warming.

Relevant events on the graph:
- Glacial dams burst in Washington State
- Ice sheets withdraw from Chicago
- Floods of meltwater in the Atlantic cool Northern Hemisphere (Younger Dryas, as mentioned in the wiki page you provided)




ETA: Apologies; missed mention of Late Glacial Interstadial c.14,670 to c.12,890 in the wiki page. There is no hump there. I find it difficult to parse whathe wiki is trying to say about it, though - it says it is "the first pronounced warming since the end of the LGM", but the "LGM" ends at 13000BC. The previous uptick in temperature in xkcd before 13000 is a bit before 15000.

[Undertoad]

Interstadial, interstitial, these are hard words

I found an alternate to Marcott, a suggested timeline based on a number of different sources, so Marcott is no longer the only one. Some of this is based largely off an older study so take it with the appropriate grains.

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/cl...t-18000-years/

The point is, all these proxies are not great measurements and so we are left with huge uncertainty. The uncertainty/error bars are left off the cartoon version... and also, left off every media report about this, ever.

[Happy Monkey]

Didn't mean to highlight your typo; that bolding was from the cut&paste.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Both of these studies can be nit-picked ad infinitum but they agree that there have been humongous changes on earth with a temperature swing of less than 15, maybe 20 degrees.

[Pete Zicato]

There's a cartoon out on the internet somewhere. Something along the line of:

"Gosh what if global warming has nothing to do with mankind? Then we'd be cleaning up all this pollution and saving energy for nothing."

[xoxoxoBruce]

The internet is a very busy place...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Where have all the old farts gone...

[thomaslopez]

Thanks for the report! Clicking on that button is safe, right?

[xoxoxoBruce]

8.8 million lightning strikes...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Organic food business...

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The internet is a very busy place...

I call complete and utter bullshit on that chart.

Porn is not even mentioned.

Pfft.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced For Every One Man

If you read the article you will find that they have theories about why this is so, but nobody really knows!! All they know is that it's the first marker that human culture affected evolution.

Well, that took a month.

ScienceAlert: "Something Weird Happened to Men 7,000 Years Ago, And We Finally Know Why"

... within a clan, women could have married into new clans, while men stayed with their own clans their entire lives. This would mean that, within the clan, Y chromosome variation is limited.

However, it doesn't explain why there was so little variation between different clans. However, if skirmishes wiped out entire clans, that could have wiped out many male lineages - diminishing Y chromosome variance.

Computer modelling have verified the plausibility of this scenario. Simulations showed that wars between patrilineal clans, where women moved around but men stayed in their own clans, had a drastic effect on Y chromosome diversity over time.

It also showed that a social structure that allowed both men and women to move between clans would not have this effect on Y chromosome diversity, even if there was conflict between them.

This means that warring patrilineal clans are the most likely explanation, the researchers said.

Wall of nerd shit! Break it down:

Only sons of Anthony are allowed in clan A
Only sons of Barry are allowed in clan B
Women can go between clans (because they are whores property not warriors)
Clan A wipes out entire clan B
Now there is genetic diversity of women but not of men

It happens at the development of agriculture, because that is the point where clans/tribes stabilize and become much larger, and longer-lived.

[Undertoad]

Behaviors that we evolved to deal with the world of 20,000 B.C. were still applied to this new world of 6,000 B.C... and broke it.

Now in our 2,000 A.D. world, these behaviors are still inside us.

Built very deeply into every single one of us is a sexist tribalism that causes us to go to war with the "other" -- literally, anyone not of our own family -- and to fight until the other side is entirely wiped out.

Well! Good luck to us all.

[Griff]

It does explain our assholey nature. One of my podcasts just covered a Roman town sack, men killed and women / children into bondage. That's kind of how we build great culture. When our own military goes off the rails it would seem to be genetics over-whelming system discipline, one more reason to oppose the use of mercenaries.