Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate Spiral [video]

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#71

Post by a-dub »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #52
a-dub wrote: post #14

so here's a fun question: it's become quite trendy in policy circles in california to incentivize the removal of lawns and gardens as part of water conservation efforts. doesn't removal of fertile topsoil and replacement of it with rocks and cacti at scale actually reduce carbon sequestration and heat absorption capacity?

[EDIT: Below I have demonstrated a slow brain rot that has robbed me of my ability to do basic dimensional analysis. My lecturers are spinning in their graves, least of all because I forgot that the kilogram is between the gram and the tonne. Luckily I was off by 3 orders of magnitude in both directions so I guess it sort of balances out?] The heat absorption is a good point, I don't know what native foliage is like…

[3] seems like a bit of a stretch to me. we know for a fact that different communities have different energy needs for moving water around based on simple geography. we also know that different communities have different electricity sources providing municipal power. (the bay area's primary water system makes use of hydroelectric power, for example). finally, i'm not convinced that the marginal cost per gallon makes up the total cost of moving water around. much of the costs are fixed infrastructure costs that don't necessarily move with utilization.

here's a thought experiment: assume infinite clean electricity and desalination capacity in the face of an overcarbonated atmosphere and climate change. do you install and irrigate as much vegetation as you can or do you rip it all out and put in rocks?

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#72

Post by mrow84 »

veltas wrote: post #69
mrow84 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way are you trying to interpret the area, or indeed the velocity (indeed the angular velocity is constant)? As I understand it, the intent of the visualisation is simply to make clear the temperature (anomaly) trend, which is encoded in the radius - that is all you need to consider to understand what is being shown. Also, the fact that it uses anomalies isn't of much consequence, given that there is widesprea…

Angular velocity is not velocity, the velocity increases because the angular velocity was remaining constant as the radius increased. It's encoded in the radius, but the area is visually more impactful - to me anyway - until the end when it's shown from the side, which was good. The point about comparing up to 1945 is that since the scale is arbitrary I can have it end at the same radius.

I didn't suggest that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, I asked how you were interpreting the area and velocity, and parenthetically observed that the angular velocity was constant. You say that the area is impactful - what do you understand it as meaning?

The scale is not arbitrary, it covers the range of anomalies over the chosen period, in units of temperature change in degrees Celsius, and is labelled as such, with the anomaly reference period described in the text. If you were to use absolute values then the scale would similarly cover the range of absolute values over the chosen period - there is no "unbiased" choice of data range, except perhaps that which covers all of the data in question, which this does.

As I noted, the impact of the anomalies is with reference to "normal" temperatures - it is relatively easy for anyone to see that 1 C (/K) is quite a large temperature increase, relative to "normal" temperatures. Surely you can agree that if the largest anomaly shown was 0.01 C then the graph would have far less impact, and if it was 100 C then the graph would have far more impact?

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#73

Post by veltas »

mrow84 wrote: post #72
veltas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Angular velocity is not velocity, the velocity increases because the angular velocity was remaining constant as the radius increased. It's encoded in the radius, but the area is visually more impactful - to me anyway - until the end when it's shown from the side, which was good. The point about comparing up to 1945 is that since the scale is arbitrary I can have it end at the same radius.

I didn't suggest that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, I asked how you were interpreting the area and velocity, and parenthetically observed that the angular velocity was constant. You say that the area is impactful - what do you understand it as meaning? The scale is not arbitrary, it covers the range of anomalies over the chosen period, in units of temperature change in degrees Celsius, and is label…

>I didn't suggest that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, I asked how you were interpreting the area and velocity, and parenthetically observed that the angular velocity was constant.

If you make tangential observations the conversation may move tangentially.

>You say that the area is impactful - what do you understand it as meaning?

It's a visualisation, i.e. the visuals are meant to contain the meaning, and said visuals are important and need to be carefully considered. Areas of 2D shapes tend to represent some kind of quantity, where the area is proportional to the quantity (and if the area was quadratically related to the quantity that would be misleading or inaccurate).

>Surely you can agree that if the largest anomaly shown was 0.01 C then the graph would have far less impact, and if it was 100 C then the graph would have far more impact?

The point is about the meaning of the choice of visualisation and the choice of data and context provided. That's why I compare with 0.01C, because to the layman 2C and 0.01C are both not significant, but the actual environmental impact of the 2C could be very much more significant with more context. You don't need to be very informed to know 100C is significant.

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#74

Post by mrow84 »

veltas wrote: post #73
mrow84 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't suggest that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, I asked how you were interpreting the area and velocity, and parenthetically observed that the angular velocity was constant. You say that the area is impactful - what do you understand it as meaning? The scale is not arbitrary, it covers the range of anomalies over the chosen period, in units of temperature change in degrees Celsius, and is label…

>I didn't suggest that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, I asked how you were interpreting the area and velocity, and parenthetically observed that the angular velocity was constant. If you make tangential observations the conversation may move tangentially. >You say that the area is impactful - what do you understand it as meaning? It's a visualisation, i.e. the visuals are meant to contain the meanin…

> If you make tangential observations the conversation may move tangentially.

You (presumably) have agency, and could have chosen to answer the main question rather than labouring your misconstrual of the parenthetical.

> Areas of 2D shapes tend to represent some kind of quantity ...

They sometimes represent some kind of quantity, but here they don't, and despite my repeatedly asking you have been unable to provide any interpretation of what that quantity might mean. Lots of other people seem to be able to understand the graph just fine - perhaps you simply dislike the popularly stated inferences and are looking for holes to pick?

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#75

Post by moistly »

TSiege wrote: post #9
MrsPeaches wrote: post #6

I really like this one as well: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4978

Wow. Really doesn’t paint a happy picture for the northern hemisphere

Industrialization happened first and most in the northern hemisphere, so it makes sense that there’s a larger co2 warming effect.

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#76

Post by ianai »

titzer wrote: post #56
a-dub wrote: post #14

so here's a fun question: it's become quite trendy in policy circles in california to incentivize the removal of lawns and gardens as part of water conservation efforts. doesn't removal of fertile topsoil and replacement of it with rocks and cacti at scale actually reduce carbon sequestration and heat absorption capacity?

Most of LA would be a rocky semi-desert without irrigation. If you want to sequester carbon, maybe do it someplace that does have rainfall to support an effective carbon-sink ecosystem and doesn't require huge amounts of energy input?

I wonder if there’s some vegetation that could be watered with seawater and take the place of grass? Places like LA have plenty of that, seemingly.

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#77

Post by netsharc »

LoveGracePeace wrote: post #39
netsharc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably what sibling comment said, and the economic boom after WW2. This op-ed[1][2] says: > For a few years, I’ve startled people by pointing out that over half of all of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that have ever been produced in the history of humanity have been produced in the past 30 years — since Al Gore published his first book on warming; since the U.N. established its climate-change body,…

Quoted post unavailable.

Wowwwww, you found an article attacking him so now you feel justified to ignore anything he says about the environment... Here's a rebuttal for you to dismiss: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-gores-energy-use/

Good luck with dying on the overheated planet, even if you think it's all a hoax, it's still real.

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#78

Post by EForEndeavour »

Geee wrote: post #70
EForEndeavour wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "tropical paradise" at the poles, with uninhabitable equatorial regions, and untold disruption to human civilization as we know it. The transition to that global configuration is unlikely to look paradisal.

That's not likely going to happen. There are many periods in Earth history where co2 levels were way higher than now, and no large-scale desertification events are known. Periods of very high co2 and higher temperatures are known for hosting more life.[0][1] Plants and animals thrive in high co2. Less co2 has caused glacification events and loss of life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora [1] https://en.w…

I didn't mention desertification, but habitability - I meant to imply "inhabitable by unprotected humans."

The Eocene saw a thermal maximum in which global mean temperature increased by about 6 ºC, and a much wetter climate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Therm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature:

> The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3:

> Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will prevent most of the tropics from reaching a TW of 35 °C, the limit of human adaptation.

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#79

Post by Geee »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #78
Geee wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not likely going to happen. There are many periods in Earth history where co2 levels were way higher than now, and no large-scale desertification events are known. Periods of very high co2 and higher temperatures are known for hosting more life.[0][1] Plants and animals thrive in high co2. Less co2 has caused glacification events and loss of life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora [1] https://en.w…

I didn't mention desertification, but habitability - I meant to imply "inhabitable by unprotected humans." The Eocene saw a thermal maximum in which global mean temperature increased by about 6 ºC, and a much wetter climate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Therm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature : > The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the sha…

Fair point. How about animals? It seems that many modern mammals, including primates, evolved and thrived during the Eocene. Most of the world today is too cold for humans living without protection, so I'm not completely buying that it would be worse than today. It might require moving around a bit, but not a total catastrophe.

Re: Climate Spiral [video]

#80

Post by lobocinza »

a-dub wrote: post #14

so here's a fun question: it's become quite trendy in policy circles in california to incentivize the removal of lawns and gardens as part of water conservation efforts. doesn't removal of fertile topsoil and replacement of it with rocks and cacti at scale actually reduce carbon sequestration and heat absorption capacity?

Lawn is net zero if you ignore all secondary emissions because the grass will be cut and decompose into methane. When the many secondary emissions are considered it's certainly emitting more carbon than it capture. But it improve the micro-climate of the city and possibly reduce AC usage.
Post reply on HN