XKCD takes on global warming

[MillCreek]

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Scroll to the end.

[zxcvbob]

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Scroll to the end.

I thought they were smarter than to try extrapolating from just a few data points.

[Andiron]

I thought they were smarter than to try extrapolating from just a few data points.

I thought they were smarter than stepping right on that politically charged dog turd.

Stick with actual science,  jackass.

[seeker_two]

Yeah.....because past patterns are no indication of future behavior.....

[zahc]

XKCD sucks ever since a couple years ago when he started trying to be "relevant", and lost his unique flavor. It's still not the worst comic in the world, but now it's just one of many.

[brimic]

A hockey stick turned on its side- how clever!

[cordex]

The interesting thing to me are the temperature proxies used in the underlying studies.  This comic was heavily dependent on Shakun 2012 whose data can be downloaded here.  Fun to play with, but there is far less precision than is implied.

[MechAg94]

The interesting thing to me are the temperature proxies used in the underlying studies.  This comic was heavily dependent on Shakun 2012 whose data can be downloaded here.  Fun to play with, but there is far less precision than is implied.

What I noticed was he put some mention about averaging of the data higher up in the graph but there doesn't seem to be as much averaging at the bottom.  I didn't see any mention of the ranges of the max and mins throughout which might add some perspective.

[De Selby]

Science denialism is hilarious.  Every expert in the field tells us the globe is warming, CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas and there's more of it in the air than ever, and still we write it off mainly at the instigation of political movements.

Someday students will read about these beliefs in a textbook that has them appended to a chapter on phrenology.

[Jamisjockey]

Science denialism is hilarious.  Every expert in the field tells us the globe is warming, CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas and there's more of it in the air than ever, and still we write it off mainly at the instigation of political movements.

Someday students will read about these beliefs in a textbook that has them appended to a chapter on phrenology.

Of course we're causing it
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/18/haarp-chemtrails-weather-modification-true-source-climate-change/

[De Selby]

Of course we're causing it
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/18/haarp-chemtrails-weather-modification-true-source-climate-change/

Some quacks argue global warming is human caused, alongside most actual scientists in the field.

Some scientists argue against it, alongside an army of quacks and a host of politically motivated commentators.

[Jamisjockey]

Some quacks argue global warming is human caused, alongside most actual scientists in the field.

Some scientists argue against it, alongside an army of quacks and a host of politically motivated commentators.

You haven't proven that the argument for isn't based on politics (IE, the watermelon model), alongside money motivations for those doing the research.
Both sides are muddy waters.

[De Selby]

You haven't proven that the argument for isn't based on politics (IE, the watermelon model), alongside money motivations for those doing the research.
Both sides are muddy waters.

A conspiracy of scientists is alleged by political hacks.  There is no evidence for it whatsoever.  It is precisely the "oh it's hard to tell all around" argument that is made possible by the pseudoscience that's out there.

[KD5NRH]

I'm going with the most reliable scientific method; believe the opposite of De Selby's position.

[Jamisjockey]

A conspiracy of scientists is alleged by political hacks.  There is no evidence for it whatsoever.  It is precisely the "oh it's hard to tell all around" argument that is made possible by the pseudoscience that's out there.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

But I guess until I post a huffpo article, watermelons like you won't understand that it's not "settled science" and the "consensus" on the causation of climate change isn't a consensus at all.

 

[KD5NRH]

Meh.  Since 1959, our average temps have dropped two degrees here.  I'll just have to find the border between our ice age and everybody else's thermal extinction, and I'll be set.

[MechAg94]

Science denialism is hilarious.  Every expert in the field tells us the globe is warming, CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas and there's more of it in the air than ever, and still we write it off mainly at the instigation of political movements.

Someday students will read about these beliefs in a textbook that has them appended to a chapter on phrenology.

I find it interesting that our posts were all talking about the data and potential problems with it and what it shows and doesn't show.  De Selby's post jumped straight to denialism.  I think I know who has the denial problem and thy name is De Selby.

[AJ Dual]

My root problem with MMGW is this: For the sake of argument, lets accept that human industry and agriculture/livestock is causing it.

What is the believer side doing about it? Carbon credit scams? Taxes? Simply killing off industries or capping what they're allowed to produce? Wind and solar projects that are questionable at best in net energy gain, that is when other greens aren't trying to block those too in internecine legal battles?

Until the nominal MMGW/Leftist side of things accepts that humanity needs the energy, needs the industry, and is simply not going to "make do with less"... ever, and starts coming up with practical solutions that just don't seek to use MMGW as a billy club for collectivist/statist social engineering and political gain for their ideology, they're every bit as much to blame as the deniers.

So right now, maybe never, there is no compelling reason to acquiesce to the demands of the MMGW side. In my mind, still assuming MMGW is real and a threat, we're just as likely to solve MMGW through continued industrialization/capitalism and the increase in global wealth and technology and the new inventions it will bring, or simply that our energy demands become so great fossil fuels can't meet them.

As long as the collectivist Left keeps using MMGW as a wedge issue for ideological purposes, and their "solutions" are a merely a constant stream of anti-capitalist authoritarian regulations, if we keep assuming they're right about MMGW, they are actually worse than deniers, because if they are armed with the truth, and aren't actively promoting real solutions and alternatives they are even more morally bankrupt than the deniers.

[RevDisk]

At least the guy does show correctly that temperatures are roughly similar to now from 7500 BCE to 3000 BCE, dropped until 1700 and started rebounding.

Unlike a lot of folks here and more in line with general consensus, I do suspect humans have impacted our global climate. To how what extent, what impact it is having, how we should resolve any issues, etc is where I differ from a lot of the green folk and professional climate change crowd. I'd like to know the real measurable impact without 'corrected' data (raw only please), quality measurements on the measuring stations, etc. Then as good of a survey as we can on the current impact. Then a list of the possible solutions with associated costs.

Chlorofluorocarbon were pretty straightforwardly proven to cause issues with the Ozone layer. They are the example I most often use of actually doing environmentalism correctly. The problem was identified. We worked out accurate scientific data of what CFCs in what amounts do. We worked out acceptably economic alternatives. Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland were the most famous scientists involved, and won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Realistic treaties were written, with realistic deadlines. There was no guesswork, complete reliance on theoretical models, interpreted data, etc. Actual consequences were accurately assessed. There was hysterical shrieking, but mostly from the usual suspects and generally not from the scientists involved. In other words, how it should be handled. Perfect, fair from that. But it went mostly smoothly and was validated every step along the way. The ozone layer these days is on the mend, which is nice.

I tell the hippies that I and plenty of others are willing to do environmentally friendly stuff. Provided it can be logically and economically presented. If CFC alternatives are 10% less efficient (ie need 10% more power for same cooling), I'm willing to pay that if it can be reasonably proven that skin cancer, cataract surgery, crop damage, etc will outweigh that cost by a significant percentage. "Go live in a yurt, you evil polluter!" is not a reasonably proven economic solution.

[TommyGunn]

Science denialism is hilarious.  Every expert in the field tells us the globe is warming, CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas and there's more of it in the air than ever, and still we write it off mainly at the instigation of political movements.

Someday students will read about these beliefs in a textbook that has them appended to a chapter on phrenology.

Are people who disagree with man-made global warming REALLY "science deniers,"  or do they really just disagree with one scientific theory?
The global temperature has remained constant for the last 15 years, which is not what computer predictions for global warming predicted.  
As to CO2 being a "greenhouse gas,"  while that has generally been believed, there are now scientists that are questioning it.  They essentially ask, "does it get warmer when the CO2 levels go up,  or do increased temperatures (for other reasosn) have the effect of raising CO2 levels?"
Calling people who disagree with man-caused global warming "science deniers" is simply a way of impugning and belittling them without actually dealing with the argument.
Someone who purports to be a lawyer really ought to leave that **** to the policritters and remain above it......but then perhaps I expect too much from the legal profesion these days.

[AJ Dual]

I tell the hippies that I and plenty of others are willing to do environmentally friendly stuff. Provided it can be logically and economically presented. If CFC alternatives are 10% less efficient (ie need 10% more power for same cooling), I'm willing to pay that if it can be reasonably proven that skin cancer, cataract surgery, crop damage, etc will outweigh that cost by a significant percentage. "Go live in a yurt, you evil polluter! While I and other wealthy Leftist elites can our keep limousines and private jets because we can afford the extra taxes..." is not a reasonably proven economic solution.

There. At the risk of being arrogant, I fixed that for you.

And to further add that to my point that accepting MMGW is real for the sake of argument, and that the Left is as much, if not more culpable to blame in preventing action on MMGW. If they really believed their children were going to grow up in a world of famine and rising sea levels, I'd think they'd be  interested in real solutions, such as a wholesale resurgence in 5th gen "walk-away-safe" nuclear power etc.

And in the same way, if they were really concerned about overpopulation, global poverty etc. they would advocate the one proven thing that's reduced or even caused birth rates to fall below replacement levels. Which is to strive as hard as we can to provide everyone on Earth everywhere a First World standard of living.

[RevDisk]

Basically what AJ said.

We're definitely impacting the environment. We can and should argue over how much. But at the end of the day, we need practical solutions. Living in a yurt, eating dirt or soy, is not a valid solution. If it's problem to be a problem, we need actually realistic solutions. They do exist, btw.

- Switching to nuclear power. France did it, and has a far superior nuclear program to our own. 75% of their electricity is generated by 59 fission-electric power stations. The US has a measly 19%, and tiny 60 plants with 100 nuclear reactors. That's right.
Cost? Hundreds of billions, but we get additional benefits well above and beyond reducing CO2 emissions. Security, reliability, cost, etc.

- Stratospheric sulfate aerosols. Economic choice. We have very good science already from naturally occurring global cooling from sulfate aerosols put into the stratosphere by volcanos. We can do with existing tech, though some more engineering is needed. Bonus points? It may cause slightly more colorful sunsets, slight reduction in solar radiation.
Cost? Cheap. $2-$8 billion (annually, tho) would be enough to resolve the issue. Less if warming isn't as expected and we sort out the logistics. We can also stop at any point if it becomes problematic. Also, because I'm an squishy environmentalist Democrat, as y'all know, I point out that the most non-polluting method of delivery is railgun artillery. Could double as ICBM shield or defense against ET's. How's that for reduce/reuse/recycle, eh?

[AJ Dual]

And that's not even getting into all the other problems nuclear can solve.

Mass seawater desalinization for the dry parts of the world. We could recycle most anything that was too energy intensive until now. Lower the environmental impact of dozens, if not hundreds of other industrial or resource extraction endeavors. Thermal depolymerize almost any carbon-rich waste stream into new petrochemicals.

Like birdman has mentioned, we could make methanol fuels for anything that's inconvenient to power with electricity directly from atmospheric CO2 and water should fission electrical power become cheap and plentiful.

[Nick1911]

AJ and Rev nailed it.

Are humans impacting the atmosphere?  Almost certainly.  To what extent?  Debatable.

But, the proposed solutions have been boondoggles.  They aren't real solutions for an energy hungry world.

The best solution right now is nuclear.  Come up with a good design pattern, and build it many times over.

Investigate thorium cycle reactors.  Thorium reactors have many benefits, but we have historically been less interested in them specifically because of their limited military applicability.

Martin explains that Weinberg's unwillingness to sacrifice potentially safe nuclear power for the benefit of military uses forced him to retire:

Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. . . . his team built a working reactor . . . . and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.[10]

more: https://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

[230RN]

I just love extrapolating from the last two data points.