1379: "4.5 Degrees"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

maxwell_smart
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:31 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby maxwell_smart » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:07 pm UTC

As with some others here, I was disappointed in the accuracy here. There have been a couple of earlier ones on this topic (climate change) with which I disagreed, but this one went way too far in my estimation.

I am heartened to see that others had a similar reaction. In particular, I like synp's comment at 6:42 and zz1000zz at 2:34. I'd add a couple of notes about sea level rise: First, maximum sea level rise is around 80 m, not 200 m. Well, I can't really say that changes anything qualitatively; 80m would entail a huge change in coastline and our coastal cities. More importantly, though, is the time scale involved. From the strip, one could reasonably guess that if by 2100 we're at the +1 IAU, then by 2200 we'd be at +2 IAU with the "200 m" sea level rise. Even if temps went up as fast as feared -- and I don't think that the sensitivity evidence supports that -- reaching that full melt stage will take far longer. It's not at all clear to me that the higher altitudes of Antarctica and Greenland are in danger even under pretty severe warming. Again, one can argue that a significantly smaller change by (say) 2200 would be disruptive enough that we should avoid it.

My main complaint is that the strip argues, as many others have, that huge immediate changes are necessary. I'd tone this down; I think that sensitivity is such that there is more time in which to act. Over the time scale of a century or two, I suspect that the natural evolution of technology will lead us beyond fossil fuels and make this a non-problem. For those of you who think it's more urgent : (1) support nuclear energy -- I consider it the best of the current large-scale technologies. Prevail upon the administrations to re-visit the Yucca Mountain waste disposal decision; we should dump the waste which we've already generated in any case. (2) support technology research. I'm not high on fusion, it's been the "technology of the future" all my life, but maybe. Safer fission, perhaps molten salt reactors. Large-scale batteries which might make more intermittent energy sources (solar, wind) practical. Avoid the wasteful subsidization of deployment of present-day technology which isn't going to address the problem at scale, but will no doubt enrich certain politically-well-connected companies. [Not a dig specifically at any administration; they all act this way.] (3) Don't exaggerate the size/speed of the problem. It's only going to cause a loss of credibility when things go slower.

JPhi1618
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:32 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby JPhi1618 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:07 pm UTC

I gotta say that I don't follow all of the Global Warming news...

The main thing that no one has convinced me of is a point this comic clearly illustrates. So we had all that ice and cold 20,000 years ago, right? And we didn't have coal-fired power plants or cars or smog or anything? And somehow the Earth warmed up to where it is now right? So there must be some natural process for cooling and warming the Earth, and that's been happening for (b/m)illions(?) of years? But, now humans think that they have the power to warm and cool the Earth and that we're somehow responsible for the current state of affairs?

Let's be clear - I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't happening (I just don't have the data), I'm asking that if it is happening, and its happened before, what makes us so sure that humans are the most responsible for the current trend rather that some natural phenomenon? And please, don't slam me as some "denier" - I really would like some links or answers to have a better understanding of why we think human activity is doing this.

Also, bonus question - take a huge forest fire that consumes 1M acres of trees and grass. How do those "emissions" compare to industrial emissions output? Is that giant fire equal to a month of the US emissions? 2 months? 12? Or are they apples and oranges? What about a volcano? Of course, my point is that tons of carbon is released by natural processes, so how does that really compare with human output?

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby ctdonath » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:11 pm UTC

First it was "global cooling".
ImageImage

Then it was "global warming."

Now we're moving into "global climate change" (not committing to either, but whatever it is it's our fault and you & your kids & your grandkids have to pay for it).

I'm all for analyzing facts, but both sides seem keen on slathering the other in libelous accusations of heresy.

Tighe
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:07 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Tighe » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:11 pm UTC

From what I have read, if you melted all the water the rise would be 60 meters, not 200. This forum won't let me post a link to it though.

"What If All the Ice Melts?" Myths and Realities by Wm. Robert Johnston

AverageWriter
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:17 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby AverageWriter » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:16 pm UTC

I wonder, do you anti-science bigots have message board where you coordinate that kind of action? Is this some kind of paid campaign by lobbyists to make it look like climate change is not a near universally accepted fact?

And there we go again- calling someone who might disagree with you a "bigot".

There have always been things "universally" accepted at various points that turned out to be incredibly, laughably wrong. So far as I've seen, there hasn't been any "shouting" in this topic- just some name-calling and haughty "this is accepted by everyone, so shut up and go along with it" from certain people on the side.

But science is about questions, is it not? Everything is up for debate, argument and scrutiny.

I know that chaos, anarchy and general nastiness may be the norm for the internet, but does it have to be the norm here?

I was about to post a certain relevant XKCD strip here, but for some reason it kept getting flagged as spam?

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Whizbang » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:19 pm UTC

AverageWriter wrote:I was about to post a certain relevant XKCD strip here, but for some reason it kept getting flagged as spam?


Yeah, we don't like people who post XKCD comics on this forum. Too incestuous. See the forum rules for details.
Last edited by Whizbang on Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:20 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:PostScript: I would like to point out, purely as an exercise, that we could increase personal energy consumption while simultaneously dropping CO2 emissions to a pittance by simply reducing the world's population to something reasonable like 700 million.


Or by removing the most wasteful 700 million.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

AverageWriter
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:17 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby AverageWriter » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:26 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
AverageWriter wrote:I was about to post a certain relevant XKCD strip here, but for some reason it kept getting flagged as spam?


Yeah, we don't like people who post XKCD comics on this forum. Too incestuous. See the forum rules for details.


The only thing I found in the rules was the mention of not being allowed to post links until the fifth post (to prevent spam)...

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:30 pm UTC

Sheesh. Did someone get up early to link this comic at a denier site?

arto7
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby arto7 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:33 pm UTC

Interesting on the parks but now do the same thing with cities. I put in Chicago, New York, London, Moscow, Los Angeles. Put in cities on your own and tell me the trend that you find.

Not sure why the discrepancy. Wolfram did not have data for the couple of African National Parks I entered as my first thought was to see if the trend you showed was global. Makes me question where the data is coming from, but, time to work now so sources will have to be looked for later.

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Ugh. So much wrong with this. Just saying, "the last ice age" calls his knowledge about anything related to climate into question.

Protip: We are currently in an ice age. Having polar ice caps is not a normal thing for the planet. Since the Triassic, 1% of the Earth's history has involved polar ice caps.

Try this, though: Find a list of large US National Parks. It could be the top 10 visited, 10 prettiest, whatever. Go to Wolfram Alpha and plug in the name of the park and "temperature," for example, "Yellowstone temperature" (without the quotes... which I really shouldn't need to say by now). Go to the temperature readout and select "all."

Do this for every park on whatever list you find. You might need to reword things a bit to get just the park (make sure it's the park and not an airport 50 miles away or something, as often happened when I tried it with UK parks).

Tell me the trend that you find.

synp
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby synp » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:34 pm UTC

JPhi1618 wrote:Let's be clear - I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't happening (I just don't have the data), I'm asking that if it is happening, and its happened before, what makes us so sure that humans are the most responsible for the current trend rather that some natural phenomenon? And please, don't slam me as some "denier" - I really would like some links or answers to have a better understanding of why we think human activity is doing this.

The main argument is that the change in temperature seems to be rather abrupt, regardless of whether the "pause since 1997" is real or not. Climatologists assumed in the past that changes in temperature were gradual and took hundreds of years. The changes in the last century have been much quicker. They also coincided with more human activity in general, and specifically a rise in CO2 levels.

Fossil evidence shows a positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. While somebody will undoubtedly be quick to point out that correlation is not causation, it can be a basis for a hypothesis. So we have an actual abrupt rise in CO2 levels, and a probable abrupt rise in surface temperature, plus a historical correlation. Putting these together naturally leads to a theory about anthropogenic global warming.

This is why we (or at least some of us) think human activity is doing this.

arto7
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby arto7 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:35 pm UTC

There was some sensationalism about someone's theory of global cooling back in the 70's. However, it did not have the consensus or support of much of the scientific community, particularly climatologists. So, yes someone said that, no that does not make the current science false. It does point out the need for rigorous testing of claims.

ctdonath wrote:First it was "global cooling".
ImageImage

Then it was "global warming."

Now we're moving into "global climate change" (not committing to either, but whatever it is it's our fault and you & your kids & your grandkids have to pay for it).

I'm all for analyzing facts, but both sides seem keen on slathering the other in libelous accusations of heresy.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby PeteP » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:40 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:First it was "global cooling".


Then it was "global warming."

Now we're moving into "global climate change" (not committing to either, but whatever it is it's our fault and you & your kids & your grandkids have to pay for it).

I'm all for analyzing facts, but both sides seem keen on slathering the other in libelous accusations of heresy.

Tip: If you try to convince anyone who doesn't already follow your way of thinking try to come up with other arguments. Some arguments which don't display complete ignorance would be a good idea.
Based on what you are saying I would assume that you don't know what you are talking about or are deceitful. For instance, you either don't know that global cooling didn't was mostly a media phenomenon (and not something with support by a majority of climate researchers) or are actively misleading.
And much worse you talk about "global climate change" like it means either global warming or cooling because they are hedging their bets. So either you are being deceitful again or you talk about a topic you don't know anything about. Either option isn't that good.

AverageWriter
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:17 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby AverageWriter » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:42 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:
ctdonath wrote:First it was "global cooling".


Then it was "global warming."

Now we're moving into "global climate change" (not committing to either, but whatever it is it's our fault and you & your kids & your grandkids have to pay for it).

I'm all for analyzing facts, but both sides seem keen on slathering the other in libelous accusations of heresy.

Tip: If you try to convince anyone who doesn't already follow your way of thinking try to come up with other arguments. Some arguments which don't display complete ignorance would be a good idea.
Based on what you are saying I would assume that you don't know what you are talking about or are deceitful. For instance, you either don't know that global cooling didn't was mostly a media phenomenon (and not something with support by a majority of climate researchers) or are actively misleading.
And much worse you talk about "global climate change" like it means either global warming or cooling because they are hedging their bets. So either you are being deceitful again or you talk about a topic you don't know anything about. Either option isn't that good.


I feel like I've beaten this horse to death already vis a vis the disrespectful attitude being shown, so I'll exit the thread now with this.

Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:48 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:First it was "global cooling".
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/02/comi ... lobal.html

Then it was "global warming."

Now we're moving into "global climate change" (not committing to either, but whatever it is it's our fault and you & your kids & your grandkids have to pay for it).

As far as scientific consensus is concerned, it was never "global cooling", occasional sensationalistic stories in the popular press notwithstanding.

And the change from "global warming" to "global climate change" was due to a successful Bush-era (i.e. denialist) official, who thought changing the name would convince people to be less worried about it.

The scientific community has actually been on board with the name change, though, because it means it's harder to point to a few areas that actually get colder on average as disproof of the theory, because variations like that are entirely to be expected even in a world that is overall getting warmer on average.
Last edited by gmalivuk on Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Diadem » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:48 pm UTC

AverageWriter wrote:
I wonder, do you anti-science bigots have message board where you coordinate that kind of action? Is this some kind of paid campaign by lobbyists to make it look like climate change is not a near universally accepted fact?

And there we go again- calling someone who might disagree with you a "bigot".

No, people who disagree with me are merely people who disagree with me. But someone who is actively trying to bring about global devastation on a scale equivalent to a major asteroid strike, only for the sake of their ego, is ... well, actually bigot is much too tame a word.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby ctdonath » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:02 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:Tip: If you try to convince anyone who doesn't already follow your way of thinking try to come up with other arguments.

Tip: when a thread is still pretty short (2-3 pages), check to see what else someone has posted before deriding everything they've posted based on one very brief comment.

As I posted prior (let me spell that one out for you), we're at a natural high point in the long-term global temperature cycle, and are facing a natural long cooling period.

And you haven't addressed the recurring concern about "AGW" research garnering far more funding than dissenting conclusions. We don't see much about how much of the alleged warming is natural.

synp
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby synp » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:08 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
AverageWriter wrote:
I wonder, do you anti-science bigots have message board where you coordinate that kind of action? Is this some kind of paid campaign by lobbyists to make it look like climate change is not a near universally accepted fact?

And there we go again- calling someone who might disagree with you a "bigot".

No, people who disagree with me are merely people who disagree with me.

Oh, I thought people who disagreed with you were "actively trying to bring about global devastation on a scale equivalent to a major asteroid strike, only for the sake of their ego."

Talk about hyperbole.

mel_env_eng
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:59 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby mel_env_eng » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:12 pm UTC

Thanks, maxwell_smart, for commenting on the 200m predicted maximum sea level rise due to glacier and ice-cap melt. According to the USGS and NSDIC, this actually should be about 70-80 meters. Since I teach this figure in an undergraduate environmental engineering course, I'm curious about Randall's source for the larger number. I know this is an unlikely request, but it would be great if he (or anyone else in the forum who is familiar with it) could post the data source for this larger number. Maybe it includes the addition of a thermal expansion factor due to rising temperatures, but I haven't seen it anywhere else.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Red Hal » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:14 pm UTC

CigarDoug wrote:Children graduating high school this year have never seen global warming. For all the scare-mongering I have had to listen to for the last twenty years, NOTHING that Al Gore predicted would have happened by now has happened. At what point do all rational people begin to question these hysterical predictions?

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full#!

I'll say it again, slowly: There hasn't been any global warming since 1997. That means children graduating high school this year have never seen global warming. The trouble with hysterical predictions about the future based on pseudo-science is, eventually the future gets here and we can see that you were just making it up.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/climate-change/report-no-statistical-global-warming-in-17-years/

Should we pursue alternative sources of energy? Absolutely. Build a solar-powered mousetrap and we'll beat a path to your door. But does that mean we stop using fossil fuels in the meantime? Of course not, that is ridiculous. But let the free market take it's natural course. Can you use massive amounts of tax payer dollars to FORCE alternative energy to come into existence overnight? You tell me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra


Let's take them one by one shall we? But first I'd appreciate it if you didn't equate being female with being unable to engage in rational thought.

OK. Gore's so-called predictions:

"Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years." - Gore's Nobel Acceptance Speech, Paragraph 13

Hardly a prediction, more a summary of possible future outcomes as indicated by studies.

"...the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.” Gore, Today Show May 24 2006"

Given in response to the question: "What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?" Which would be right ... if nothing had changed.

I'm happy to discuss his other ones with you. Which ones did you have in mind? Additionally, rational people question predictions all the time, not just when they seem unreasonable. The rational mind asks about the facts and reasoning behind the prediction, questions assumptions, analyses the logic but, most of all, the rational mind is prepared to accept that a prediction is reasonable if the supporting argument is also reasonable. A rational mind does not decide before hand then only consider evidence in support of that decision.

-o-

Next, let's talk about those Scientific reasons posited on the article in the townhall website.

1) No change in temperature since 1997
- http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/ ... #more-7206
Take a 95% confidence level on those figures and the trend could be anywhere between -32F/100 Years and +20F/100 Years.
Alternatively, have a quick gander at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... d-by-half/ which shows exactly why the link you uncritically posted is wrong.

2) There is no scientific consensus on global warming.
- well if you define consensus as 100% of those polled then fair enough, but 98% in favour vs 2% against is a pretty damn strong consensus by any realistic definition of the word.

3) Arctic Ice is up 50% since 2012
- I call bullshit. Arctic sea ice this year is already below both the 2013 and 2012 curves and is significantly below the 1981-2010 average. Source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

4) Climate models have been shown to be wrong over and over.
- Yup you're right on that one, at least at face value, but let's dive deeper. Some of those models predict changes that are less than observations have shown. All this shows is that modelling is not yet at the stage where it can make more than tentative qualitative predictions about future trends. This shows that climate models need to improve, it does not show that global warming isn't happening.

Try this one on: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ediate.htm

5) Predictions have been wrong.
- Again, some have, which is why the rational mind places only as much confidence in the predictions as it has in the underlying reasoning. This is hardly scientific.

I'll type it once. I'll even type it slowly, though as this will all appear when I hit submit, this is of little utility. Right, I'm two minutes into this paragraph, so I'd better get on with it. There *has* been global warming in the period from 1997 to the present day. The apparent pause is a red herring caused by gaps in the data as per the link to RealClimate above.

On to the right wing news website (good scientific name that. It really gives me hope that the arguments presented will be rational and well-supported). Oh. Am I doing this back to front? Are you making a point *then* posting the link? No matter. That's just another one-year old claim that there's been no global warming in 17 years. Done that one.

You agree we should research alternative forms of energy, I absolutely agree with you. This is one of the most important things we should be doing in this sector right now, and deserves large amounts of public funding so that the resultant technologies do not become mired in patent-hell and innovation stifled like it would if we left the free market to come up with solutions. Oh. You want the free market to come up with solutions. I guess we don't agree as much as I thought. You do have a point though; we need to keep using fossil fuels until we have an alternative, but there's nothing to stop us trying to make those fuels less polluting in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Lastly you linked to Solyndra. You're not winning me over to the free market solution here.

Post-preview edit: Wow this one has moved on. I don't think this post is relevant any more, but I may as well chuck it out into the void since I devoted most of my lunch break to it.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Geekoid
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Geekoid » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:24 pm UTC

So many posts factually wrong, and ignorant. From people who clearly don't understand the IPCC report, to people who thing the models aren't right even though they have made major prediction of events we didn't know about, to people posting media hypes about 'global cooling' form the 70s. Those people are acting particularly stupid.
Near as I can tell most of you have no clue what global warming is. OR global cooling for that matter. protip: The science behind both is good and accurate.
Let us begin.
Global cooling in a nut shell:
Particulate matter blocks light form the lower atmosphere thus causing a cooling.
This is accurate, BUT it's effect is removed due to global warming. As an example look at the temp rise when all the planes were grounded.
NOTE: that people posting in this thread are posting stuff from nearly 40 years ago. Stuff I read when it came out, BTW. Science marches on, and new data is collected.

Global Warming, in a nut shell:
1) Visible light strike the earth. Falsifiable and has been tested.
2) Visible light string an object, IR is created. Falsifiable and has been tested.
3) CO2 does no absorb anything from visible light(porting of the EM spectrum) Falsifiable and has been tested.
4) CO2 does absorb energy from IR. Falsifiable and has been tested.
5) CO2 is being emitted into the atmosphere at a rate far above absorption rate. Falsifiable and has been tested.
6) Climate change is the impact of global warming on the climate. Falsifiable and has been tested.

Don't believe in Climate change? Then the onerous is on you to explain where the energy is going.

If you can't answer the following question, then you are not knowledgeable to talk about AGW, and you sound like an idiot:
1) Why are plants Carbon neutral? Yes, they are.
2) Why are the most upper parts of the atmosphere not warming.
3) Name an event the Climate model predict, and happened, that human were unaware of prior to the models. There are 2 major ones, and several minor one. Just pick one.
BTW, that is how you know a model(and model) is really, really good. Not that it just predicts what you see happening, but it predicts things that happen later.
The IPCC has been overly conservative in it's papers in many regards.

As a final note, the comic has a visual end at 4.5, but that's not an actual end if we don't make changes. what happens at 6.5? 8.5? 11.5?
Last edited by Geekoid on Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:24 pm UTC

arto7 wrote:Interesting on the parks but now do the same thing with cities. I put in Chicago, New York, London, Moscow, Los Angeles. Put in cities on your own and tell me the trend that you find.

Not sure why the discrepancy. Wolfram did not have data for the couple of African National Parks I entered as my first thought was to see if the trend you showed was global. Makes me question where the data is coming from, but, time to work now so sources will have to be looked for later.


Ah, but I do know! The problem with city stations is that city regional temperature trends are affected by population, electricity usage, asphalt coverage, air conditioning/heating usage, etc. To make matters worse, a number of these stations are located either right next to things that will obviously skew the results:

Spoiler:
Image

Image

FYI, I found those while looking for a particular USHCN site that I knew had bad data. Couldn't find a picture of the one for which I was looking, though.


Or else are in places where changing conditions nearby could skew the results. Note the position of the Baltimore USHCN station and the changing conditions of time:

Spoiler:
Image

Image


This is why I said to go with national parks. Weather stations in national parks are free of these factors that can skew the results and are the most readily recognizable sources of good data out there. There are some cities where weather stations are well-located, but you can't know which ones are good or not just by inputting the city, and even then, the surrounding city might affect the results.

This issue is likely one of the reason why all the "underwater by 2010" predictions just didn't happen. The majority of stations, whose data was skewed in a way not adjusted by the official reports, are showing trends that correspond more with increase in population, electricity usage, air conditioning/heating usage, local effects of automobile usage, etc. Interestingly enough, all of these correlate closely with fossil fuel usage (and thus CO2 emissions).

Now, just because the majority of city stations are bad, you shouldn't discount all of them. There is a paper that discusses the differences between good sites (CRN 1 & 2... though i'd prefer just CRN 1 myself) and bad sites as well as trends over time. Linear trends... I don't like so much, TBH. Too easy to skew data by starting in a relatively cool period or a relatively warm period. Figure 8 of that paper, though, is quite interesting and revealing, in my view, as far as the differences between trends measured by good stations and bad.

CPADave71
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:51 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CPADave71 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:27 pm UTC

Red Hal,

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/11209 ... -2013.html

And here's a link showing why your realclimate link is wrong. A debunking of the debunking, as it were. This study showed Arctic cooling from 1998-2011. Cowton and Way depended upon dramatic Arctic warming in that period that was overlooked by HADCRUT 4 but that they extrapolated from satellite data.

I'm sure that this will be followed by a debunking of the debunking of the debunking. And the cosmic dance goes on...

rob
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

Not a denier, but wants more proof that calamity awaits

Postby rob » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:32 pm UTC

I am not a denier that man is having an impact on this planet. while I am bothered by the s-h-r-i-l-l insistence that we have to do something now, due to heading to some sort of future calamity. (not sure what is going on, my word choice keeps getting modified in the post)

If climate change is occurring, why have the climatologists not been able to predict the global temperature change for the last 18 years? Is there some sort of correct prediction that was actually made 10 years ago and can now be used to predict the next ten years?
Global temperature has remained static for the last 18 years, who predicted that?

Why does it seem like every time a major storm has occurred, that a politician or televison weatherman jumps on the idea that stuff like this would not be happening except for climate change?

When are we going to run out of oil? In the 70s, I heard that we would run out of oil in 40 years. As oil gets more expensive to extract, is that not driving an incentive to develop other forms of energy?

Hearing that the Marshall islands are only 2 meters above sea level, and that the dead are washing out to sea as proof of sea level rise, reminds me of New Orleans and the fact that the dead are not interned in the ground but rather that they get interned in mausoleums; that New Orleans is built ontop of low laying ground that was deposited by the Mississippi. New Orleans has been interning the dead this way since the city was settled. The Netherlands have been building dikes since about the ninth century to take land from the sea. It seems to me that building close to the sea and then being impacted by changes in sea level has not only been occurring for over a thousand years, that the problems amounts to people wanting to have the tide swept back where this particular folly was pointed out by King Canute in the 12th century.

I think a lot of the people wanting to do something RIGHT NOW, are motivated by the idea that natural is good, that man is bad, and the idea of Earth mother. Instead of looking at technology as a solution, they want to focus on the idea that man should stop society, that man should stop using energy. Finding sources of energy that are as cheap if not cheaper than oil/gas is a good thing, while ignoring the increased economic costs of alternative energy like wind/solar is a mistake.

Why do we have people who say that the CO2 was 180ppm while pointing to a source that includes a chart showing that has been above 275 since the beginning of the chart (800AD)? Why does Randell labels something as 200 meters instead of 200 feet (sea level rise)? Why is the idea that pointing out flaws in a statement is denying the over all statement, when it is just saying that things are being exaggerated. Yeah sea levels will rise when the temperature goes up, yeah, co2 levels have gone up since 800AD, but since there is dissent on the impact and magnitude of these things, one side is labeled as deniers.

I am not denying that man has impacted the planet. I am saying that before making radical changes due to some sort of pending calamity, that we should have some belief that our society will engineer and develop ways of making our environment work for man and that it is a mistake to make radical changes before having some sort of confirmed predictions on the impact of rising CO2. Correlation does not imply causation.
Last edited by rob on Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:41 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

AverageWriter
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:17 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby AverageWriter » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:38 pm UTC

If I do recall, Dave, a group of folks wanted to debunk the debunk the debunking and provide photographic firsthand evidence of the melting ice... but then got stuck in the rapidly expanding ice, and then the group of bold rescuers sent to rescue them got stuck, too...

CPADave71
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:51 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CPADave71 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:41 pm UTC

Geekoid,

"Onus," not "onerous."

You say that plants are carbon neutral. Does that mean that additional plant growth does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Or just that it doesn't do so as quickly as we emit it?

In your step-by-step analysis of Global Warming (which really shouldn't include #6 - that's just a definition of terms), it seems like something is missing after #5. There's more CO2, and it absorbs energy. Therefore, more energy in the system. Your contention is that this increased energy manifests itself in atmospheric heat. The question is how much this additional energy impacts the system. As I understand it, there is a "forcing" number that estimates the atmosphere's sensitivity to this increase in energy. This number, which seems to be the "plug" to make the models agree with prior observed results, is at the heart of the controversy (to the extent that it exists). If the number is too high, then the hysteria is for naught. If it's too low, then we should all move to higher ground. How do we know that we have the right "forcing" number?

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:42 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:2) There is no scientific consensus on global warming.
- well if you define consensus as 100% of those polled then fair enough, but 98% in favour vs 2% against is a pretty damn strong consensus by any realistic definition of the word.


Honestly, any time anyone brings up "scientific consensus," I know for a fact that that person has never had to deal with grant applications, especially not government grants. The government, unfortunately, creates scientific consensus by way of not funding studies that they think are a waste of time. Since the official government stance is that global warming is real and man-made, the only studies that get funded are ones whose applications indicate that they're going to prove that. And sometimes, it's even worse than that. Just look at what happened to the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Science after they published a paper that disagreed with the official government food recommendations. The USDA leaked that their funding came from food industry sources in a blatant attempt to discredit them (which worked, by the way, pgs 2539-2540). And, of course, the only other source of funding for climate science in the US seems to be either NPOs that have the same funding practices as the US Government currently does or else from fossil fuel companies. Not much chance of a lack of bias from those sources.

This, by the way, is aside from the issue of polling bias in these "consensus" polls. I believe the link I just provided also includes a note about the "consensus" on nutrition way back when.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Red Hal » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:50 pm UTC

@Geekoid you got me at predictions made by climate models. I remember seeing in New Scientist last year that one of the models is lining up nicely with figures, but I am unaware of predictions made by a model that we were previously unaware of coming true. If this is the case it is a serious gap in my knowledge of the subject. Could you point me in the direction of a link for me to evaluate please (my google-fu has failed)?

@CocoaNutCakery: I reject your assertion as it applies to the U.K. government. I do not have sufficient knowledge to comment on the U.S. government, though I found the following link interesting: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/ ... e-is-done/
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Doom Shepherd
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:46 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Doom Shepherd » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:50 pm UTC

Nitrous oxide is 300 times more warming per unit than CO2, and is also a byproduct of gas engines, agriculture, and other activities. The US emits 400 million metric tons of it per year, compared to 5,000 million metric tons of CO2. 400x300 means the equivalent of 120,000 million tons of CO2 My math tells me that if we were to reduce NO2 emissions by 1/24 (a bit over 4%), it would be the un-warming equivalent of cutting US CO2 emissions to ZERO. Anybody available to check my numbers?

Manmade global warming: real. Drastic CO2 emission cutting as the only solution? I haz a dubious.

Also, if I am correctly informed, NO2 emissions are expected to increase by 5% by 2025... Which would by far obliterate any gains made by the most recent projects to cut CO2 emissions.

What am I missing that makes it more important/feasible/rational to cut CO2 emissions by 30% than cut NO2 emissions by 4%?

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Red Hal » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:57 pm UTC

Doom Shepherd, that 400 million metric tonnes figure is a "CO2-equivalent" figure, the multiplication has already been done.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Doom Shepherd
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:46 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Doom Shepherd » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:00 pm UTC

Oh, damn, I missed the very small print on the graphic I was looking at. Thanks.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10324
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby addams » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:22 pm UTC

The comic has a Question Mark.
I have an Answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFkRkB568FA

Spoiler:
See?
That's what happens when you Fuck with Mother Nature.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Jackpot777 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:31 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:Historical cyclical temperature change (per Antarctic core samples, with modern sensors filling in at the end):

Image


I looked for a cited source, because your graph doesn't match data from the British Antarctic Survey...

Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2). Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years.


Image

Image

...but the only thing is the URL of the image to your own site.

So I tried to gauge how scientific that source is, and it would seem your source is you. What I found: you're in Georgia in the Southern USA, written pieces regarding gun use on a Second Amendment forum with ads compelling gun owners to contact members of Congress, your Twitter name, image, and content confirms this is you.

If you don't mind, we're trying to have a proper science discussion here. The Earth's climate doesn't care what political party in your corner of the world you follow.

EDIT - see you went with air temperature, and used 5 degree increments on the graph (flattening it out). This source has both temperature and percentage of ice layer melt...

Image

...cherry picking is called a logical fallacy, and there's a reason it's called a fallacy.
Last edited by Jackpot777 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:44 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:35 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:@CocoaNutCakery: I reject your assertion as it applies to the U.K. government. I do not have sufficient knowledge to comment on the U.S. government, though I found the following link interesting: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/ ... e-is-done/


The problem is that that link just... doesn't fly, frankly. Surveying stations to find CRN ratings, for example. That was a public funding endeavor and a public undertaking, none of said public funds or efforts coming from the government. To take it out of the realm of climate science and into science as a whole, Kilmer McCully is a classic example often used in nutrition to indicate funding bias. We're talking about actual evidence of not only funding bias, but active attempts at discrediting dissenting views. Compared to that evidence, that link might as well say, "Nuh-uh!" In order to discredit the idea that funding bias happens, there needs to be some recognition of the evidence for it and maybe a bit of explanation on it. There is none of that. And, while the links he provides look like good evidence, they're not. They don't cover the full scope of grant applications in comparison to which applications are actually accepted.

The "ignorance of how science is done" is on the part of people that think that funding isn't a political endeavor. This is especially apparent to those that have ever been dissenters.

See, the peer-review process involved in scientific funding is a double-edged sword. While it serves to avoid funding lines of study that are outright bunk (such as, say, homeopathic medicine), it also has the disadvantage of squashing any dissenting views that may ultimately be correct. Because the US government decides who is allowed on the peer-review board, they are the ones that ultimately determine the official scientific stance on what is or isn't bunk. Even if, say, 5% of scientists hold a particular viewpoint, appointing only those that fit into the 5% to the board means that the funding (and therefore the studies published) go the way of the 5%. That 5% increases, not as a function of the funding itself, but rather as the published material goes towards the way of the funding.

Keep in mind when I say this that this is the process by which the above examples happen. I'm not talking about some theoretical possible bias here. I explained examples of where it happened and now I'm endeavoring to explain why.

That paper I linked is a perfect example. How many papers have been written on data that comes from CRN 3+ stations? It's astounding. Only a single paper pointing out that they're bad data is also astounding. Are we to believe that only a seven scientists visited these stations and recognized that the surrounding environment was affecting the results?

Rejecting it for the UK is fine, but can you actually show me evidence of the UK government doesn't engage in these practices? Given that the peer-review process is introducing this problem (keep in mind that I'm not bashing the peer-review process, as it's important and necessary), it's not absurd to say that the peer-review process for research funding in the UK could be causing these problems as well.
Last edited by CocoaNutCakery on Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:44 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:If you don't mind, we're trying to have a proper science discussion here. The Earth's climate doesn't care what political party in your corner of the world you follow.


If you want a source for that data, I can provide one. The real problem is that ice core measurements are flimsy at best. Surface station measurements are better.

cwDeici
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:52 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
As for "geo-engineering" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales. We're fucked: stare that in the face for a while until the urge to spout stupid happy-talk goes away.


We're doing geo-engineering right now as a side effect... You're basically saying that changing the Earth is a fairy tale, that sounds a lot like the people who say AGW is a myth.

Also, someone said the Earth will have 15 billion people in 30 years from now, that is 2044. That's as insane as the 200m sea level rise claim, we're looking at topping out at between 8.7 to right under 10 billion sometime between 2055 and 2100: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection ... ion_growth
Last edited by cwDeici on Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:59 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.

maxwell_smart
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:31 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby maxwell_smart » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:53 pm UTC

mel_env_eng:
I'm curious about Randall's source for [200m sea level rise].
For the record, the 80m sea level rise which I mentioned is from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ , where this is given as the result of complete melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. I've seen other estimates closer to the 70m which you mention, but the 80m came up first on google, not that I'm lazy or anything. ;-) I don't think that adding in the thermal expansion of the ocean could reach anywhere near the 200m figure, even under a +9 K increase in average temperatures (the +2 IAU of the strip). [And that temperature rise seems quite implausible, and even positing that rise, complete melting of the ice sheets also seems quite implausible.]

I can only speculate that Randall made a units mistake [200 ft = 60 m erroneously written as 200 m], or compared the sea level at the last glacial maximum (LGM) with that which would occur if all the ice melted. [LGM sea level was approximately 120m below current level.] For no particular reason, I prefer the latter guess.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:05 pm UTC

maxwell_smart wrote:mel_env_eng:
I'm curious about Randall's source for [200m sea level rise].
For the record, the 80m sea level rise which I mentioned is from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ , where this is given as the result of complete melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. I've seen other estimates closer to the 70m which you mention, but the 80m came up first on google, not that I'm lazy or anything. ;-) I don't think that adding in the thermal expansion of the ocean could reach anywhere near the 200m figure, even under a +9 K increase in average temperatures (the +2 IAU of the strip). [And that temperature rise seems quite implausible, and even positing that rise, complete melting of the ice sheets also seems quite implausible.]

I can only speculate that Randall made a units mistake [200 ft = 60 m erroneously written as 200 m], or compared the sea level at the last glacial maximum (LGM) with that which would occur if all the ice melted. [LGM sea level was approximately 120m below current level.] For no particular reason, I prefer the latter guess.


Honestly, while the Arctic is near-completely landlocked and there's a continent on the South Pole, the complete melting of the poles is, frankly, an absurd notion in the first place. Even if temperatures around the Equator rise 4.5 C, that hotter air actually can't circulate well to the poles. This is the reason why we have polar ice caps in the first place.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:05 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:If you want a source for that data, I can provide one.


That is a valid source for your first graph, and for none of your zooms.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:13 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:If you want a source for that data, I can provide one.


That is a valid source for your first graph, and for none of your zooms.


1. They aren't my graphs
2. Go to the "digital data" section. You can actually make graphs yourself, if you didn't know. Granted, this doesn't cover the 10 years or 100 years graphs, but they can cover the 1,000 and 10,000 year graphs. I could find a different source for the past 10/100 years data, but as I said before, ice core data is flimsy at best.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acunning40, Google Feedfetcher, hetas and 49 guests