> Randall chose one of the lowest point every in the history of earth as the "baseline".

Randall's graph starts at a little over 4C lower than current temperatures. The most recent minimum on your first graph is 7C below current temperatures.

Your 2nd graph couldn't be shown in Randall's format because it would either take too long to scroll, or it wouldn't have the resolution needed to show the dramatically higher rate of change.

> The recent rise of temperature is significant, but not unprecedented.

The rate of change is unprecedented.

> Before we reach a point that one could qualify as a "hot earth", we would need to warm up by an additional 10 to 15 C°

Billions will die before that.

>> Before we reach a point that one could qualify as a "hot earth", we would need to warm up by an additional 10 to 15 C°

> Billions will die before that.

Yeah that's the true point of people who are concerned (like yours truly): the planet will do just fine. Humanity simply won't be around to see it.

The problem is not the absolute temperature change, but the rate of change.

And the impact of the change to our costly and slow to build infrastructure.

The xkcd chart starts at 20,000 BC, not 2,000. Well before permanent settlements, agriculture, trade, etc. that our current civilization relies upon.