Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth • Hacker News Board

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#11

Post by nollidge » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 6:39 PM UTC

azgolfer wrote: post #5

There were 877 new snowfall records set this week. That would be rather unlikely if we are experiencing catastrophic warming. Also there is this (from Watts Up With That) "Keep in mind, everyone sorta has to admit that CO2 by itself doesn’t do much. Even at current concentrations, it’s a teensy weensy bit of the atmosphere (.00038) that soaks up only a teensy weensy bit of the sun’s long-wave radiation at a particula…

This is apropos of nothing. ajross already pointed out the problem with the snowfall claim, and the article only talks about land surface warming, not CO2.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#12

Post by DougWebb » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 6:42 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #6

hendler wrote: post #3

There are debatable aspects of climate change - but I hope these clear, data-driven, illustrative works help convince the tech community that if you can trust the science in the papers provided, that the outcome is clear. I also like to mention the decision matrix - I forget the term in game-theory - but the possibility space is 2x2 - either global warming is man made or isn't on one axis, and on another axis is that…

Your analysis of the 2x2 possibility space is simplistic and wrong. I'll attempt to quickly illustrate this. We assume the desired goal of mitigating global warming is to save the lives of poor of those in poor countries. An argument can be made that the relatively rich will face changes, but will be able to adapt. So the do nothing and no global warming scenario, while on its surface may not seem to have any negativ…

I agree with everything you say, except for "Family Planning & Birth Control". The last thing we want is government enforcement of birth rates; prosperity takes care of that without taking away anyone's freedom. Most prosperous nations have lower-than-replacement birth rates among the wealthy citizens, and that's actually going to become a serious problem unless we can make more poor people wealthy.

By 'wealth', I don't mean just money, I mean everything that goes into a better quality of life: Freedom, food, water, housing, education, and energy. In my opinion the first and last are the keys: people must be free to pursue activities which will improve their lot in life, and energy must be abundant and inexpensive to enable people to act on their freedom. With plentiful energy, food can be produced with minimal labor, water can be cleaned, materials for housing can be produced cheaply, and all of the above can raise people up from struggling for subsistance so that they have the time to devote to education.

Finally, in a world full of industrious, well-educated, and free people who have plenty of energy at their disposal, the problems caused by global warming can be tackled and solved whatever they may be. Dikes can be built, farms can be moved, even whole populations can be relocated.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#13

Post by dantheman » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 7:21 PM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #12

dantheman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analysis of the 2x2 possibility space is simplistic and wrong. I'll attempt to quickly illustrate this. We assume the desired goal of mitigating global warming is to save the lives of poor of those in poor countries. An argument can be made that the relatively rich will face changes, but will be able to adapt. So the do nothing and no global warming scenario, while on its surface may not seem to have any negativ…

I agree with everything you say, except for "Family Planning & Birth Control". The last thing we want is government enforcement of birth rates; prosperity takes care of that without taking away anyone's freedom. Most prosperous nations have lower-than-replacement birth rates among the wealthy citizens, and that's actually going to become a serious problem unless we can make more poor people wealthy. By 'wealth', I do…

I completely agree with you that the government enforcement of birth rates is immoral and should not be attempted. When speaking of birth control, I'm talking about mitigating the population explosion that's happening in the third world by providing, making accessible for little or no money, modern birth control methods. Providing free or low cost birth control is relatively inexpensive and would have significant increases on quality of life and on the overall state of humanity in the world. Of course it should be optional, and it doesn't need government involvement -- this an issue non profits can successfully attack.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#14

Post by DougWebb » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 7:35 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #13

DougWebb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you say, except for "Family Planning & Birth Control". The last thing we want is government enforcement of birth rates; prosperity takes care of that without taking away anyone's freedom. Most prosperous nations have lower-than-replacement birth rates among the wealthy citizens, and that's actually going to become a serious problem unless we can make more poor people wealthy. By 'wealth', I do…

I completely agree with you that the government enforcement of birth rates is immoral and should not be attempted. When speaking of birth control, I'm talking about mitigating the population explosion that's happening in the third world by providing, making accessible for little or no money, modern birth control methods. Providing free or low cost birth control is relatively inexpensive and would have significant inc…

Modern birth control methods cost money; someone's got to pay for them if the third-world people you want to stop making babies aren't going to. I believe that money can be better spent on improving the lives of those people. Better food, water, and housing will help make those people healthier, which will improve the infant mortality rate, which will naturally lead to a reduction in the birth rate. One reason poor people make a lot of babies is because many of the babies don't survive and a higher birthrate is necessary to ensure the survival of the next generation. With a lower infant mortality rate, it becomes an economic burden to have too many babies, so most families cut back to just one or two children. This is a trend that can take a couple of generations to become widespread, but large changes like this should be slow so they're not disruptive.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#15

Post by azgolfer » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 7:37 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #10

azgolfer wrote: post #5

There were 877 new snowfall records set this week. That would be rather unlikely if we are experiencing catastrophic warming. Also there is this (from Watts Up With That) "Keep in mind, everyone sorta has to admit that CO2 by itself doesn’t do much. Even at current concentrations, it’s a teensy weensy bit of the atmosphere (.00038) that soaks up only a teensy weensy bit of the sun’s long-wave radiation at a particula…

Sigh. Snowfall tracks atmosphere water content, not temperature. In almost all climates, the "coldest winters" are uniformly the dryest. Oddly, it seems like the people who parade this canard (despite constant refutation by those who know what they're talking about) are also the least likely to be alarmed by heat waves...

So blizzards have nothing to do with cold temperatures ? The week of December 15th - 815 new snowfall records, 304 new cold records, and 403 lowest maximum temperature records. Seems like they go together to me.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#16

Post by handelaar » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 7:43 PM UTC

jrmurad wrote: post #8

hendler wrote: post #3

There are debatable aspects of climate change - but I hope these clear, data-driven, illustrative works help convince the tech community that if you can trust the science in the papers provided, that the outcome is clear. I also like to mention the decision matrix - I forget the term in game-theory - but the possibility space is 2x2 - either global warming is man made or isn't on one axis, and on another axis is that…

> In the case that there is no man made global warming and we act, then the outcome is still good This is the kind of statement that fuels skeptics. If the cost of "we act" exceeds the benefit, it is not "good." Skeptics are suspicious that some are using global warming to advance unrelated causes which (conveniently) require the same actions; namely, higher taxes, more regulation, bigger government. They might furth…

> If the cost of "we act" exceeds the benefit, it is not "good."

I think the point is that of the four possible outcomes (in order of costs: no action and no climate change, action and climate change is real, action but no climate change, climate change is real but no action), this is the second worst outcome.

All other things being equal it really comes down to a risk assessment. Yes - this, the third option, would be seriously painful from an economic point of view. But the fourth, which is what the overwhelming majority of climate science tells me you're proposing, would be an unmitigated catastrophe.

We're being asked to make a bet. My bet goes on spending the money for the same reason I have life and income protection insurance. I don't think it's a waste of money if I fail to die prematurely or incur serious injury. Plus, in real terms, the cost is similar.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#17

Post by jrockway » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 8:13 PM UTC

azgolfer wrote: post #15

ajross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. Snowfall tracks atmosphere water content, not temperature. In almost all climates, the "coldest winters" are uniformly the dryest. Oddly, it seems like the people who parade this canard (despite constant refutation by those who know what they're talking about) are also the least likely to be alarmed by heat waves...

So blizzards have nothing to do with cold temperatures ? The week of December 15th - 815 new snowfall records, 304 new cold records, and 403 lowest maximum temperature records. Seems like they go together to me.

Seems like they go together to me.

Why yes, it seems like the climate is changing.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#18

Post by motters » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 8:15 PM UTC

Comparing to the average temperature between 1961 and 1990 seems spurious. If this window of time were changed you would probably get substantially different anomaly results.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#19

Post by whatusername » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 9:28 PM UTC

azgolfer wrote: post #5

There were 877 new snowfall records set this week. That would be rather unlikely if we are experiencing catastrophic warming. Also there is this (from Watts Up With That) "Keep in mind, everyone sorta has to admit that CO2 by itself doesn’t do much. Even at current concentrations, it’s a teensy weensy bit of the atmosphere (.00038) that soaks up only a teensy weensy bit of the sun’s long-wave radiation at a particula…

The "global" in global warming implies more than the "world" in world series baseball. When you had those storms, it was pretty hot over here.

Re: Decoding Climate Change with Perl, gnuplot and Google Earth

#20

Post by sethg » Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 9:31 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #6

hendler wrote: post #3

There are debatable aspects of climate change - but I hope these clear, data-driven, illustrative works help convince the tech community that if you can trust the science in the papers provided, that the outcome is clear. I also like to mention the decision matrix - I forget the term in game-theory - but the possibility space is 2x2 - either global warming is man made or isn't on one axis, and on another axis is that…

Your analysis of the 2x2 possibility space is simplistic and wrong. I'll attempt to quickly illustrate this. We assume the desired goal of mitigating global warming is to save the lives of poor of those in poor countries. An argument can be made that the relatively rich will face changes, but will be able to adapt. So the do nothing and no global warming scenario, while on its surface may not seem to have any negativ…

According to an editorial in The Lancet¹, there are 200 million women worldwide who want contraception but don’t have access to it. Simply providing family-planning services is five times cheaper than other carbon-emission-mitigation technologies.

I submit this as an excellent example of a policy measure that would help prevent global warming if the scientific consensus is right, and provide a genuine social good even if the consensus turns out to be wrong.

¹cited by the AP, here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/18/tech/main5319878.s...