So why are we to draw any conclusions one way or the other based off a data set that's statistically insignificant compared to the age of the earth?
If you got a fever tomorrow, would that be statistically insignificant?
Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
51–60 of 79 posts
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#52Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?
I am a bit upset about all the downvotes,i know it's bad etiquette to complain about that but I just wanted to say how questions of curiosity shouldn't be looked down upon. This isn't my field but climate change is concerning, so I simply wanted to know why certain solutions (however naive) were not being pursued.
Cheers.
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#53So why are we to draw any conclusions one way or the other based off a data set that's statistically insignificant compared to the age of the earth?
Does the dataset before the dawn of agriculture and permanent settlements matter that much?
The conversation largely revolves around flooding and food production.
The earth will be fine, itll bounce back. Billions of people however, could be displaced from their homes as their land floods, or starve if food production and distribution is destroyed. The Earth had maybe 1 billion people 200 years ago. Now its at 7.5. Unprecedented doesnt begin to describe the migration that would occur if the Earth lost its coastal cities.
What I dont like about this animation is that giant land masses like the USA and Russia get the same treatment as tiny countries. The average temperature of the USA is a lot less useful than if it were broken down by region.
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#54Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?
That would be a heat pump and say it worked at a COP of 3 which is typical you would need 1 watt of power to move 3 watts of heat to somewhere, probably deep underground. Nuclear power is what maybe 40% efficient so 60% of the nuclear energy is waste heat, so for every watt of energy 1.5 watts of heat released. So now your only netting 1.5 watts for every watt. To make a difference the numbers would be staggering as…
Thank you for the detailed explanation. Would the logistics still be the same if you're talking about cooling spcific subsets of the polar regions? For example, the "rim" of the arctic?
Perhaps the excess heat from nuclear can be used to clean up CO2, I remember reading a few articles that suggest CO2 cleaning plants are actually practical
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am curious but I have pointed out similar discrepancies quite a few times but never received a satisfactory response. Now a days, I am pretty much afraid to even point out such discrepancies in other data too. I can share another example if anyone's curious.
are you familiar with the blog made by tony heller (also on youtube) ? He regularely points out those exact same remark. I am very careful to wait until other people confirms that there is indeed a methodological problem before jumping to conclusion, but it really sounds very interesting.
Tony Heller is a well credentialed denier[1], been in the game since at least 2008, and is at least good friends with the deniers that get oil money to keep going [2]. I estimate his honesty as comparable to that of Giuliani post 2017.
[1] https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
[2] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12032015/leaked-email-rev...
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't answer the sudden change from 15C claims to 14C for the 1950-1980 period. For example, in the following data, for 2016, they say the average global temperature as 14.8C: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613 If the average global temp used to be claimed to be 15C but since 2000, they claim it was 14C, then somebody is making false claims about the avg temp.
> If the average global temp used to be claimed to be 15C but since 2000, they claim it was 14C, then somebody is making false claims about the avg temp. You get different baseline body temperatures depending on whether you use an oral thermometer or one of those infrared thermometers you put in the ear, but you'll both be able to detect a fever -- it's higher than it would normally be with that thermometer. There ar…
Your analogy with the thermometer does not work. If you use rectal or oral measurement you will be able to detect fever, because temperature fluctuation at these locations is low if the person is healthy. With global temperatures this is different. Fluctuation is very high (for example there was snow in Cairo in 2013, but we did not have an ice age then).
Therefore you need to cover many locations, and that's the problem. Global temperature data is not very good for the first half of the 20th century.
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#57Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?
Some companies are working on carbon scrubbing tech that removes CO2 from the atmosphere and converts into something else — a liquid fuel in one case, if I remember correctly. These processes, I believe, are energy intensive — so using something like nuclear to power them would make a lot of sense, if you can find a way to install new plants with less money, and less regulatory hurdles than today. (Bill Gates is funding a nuclear plant design that seems promising in this regard — Terra Nova, I think it’s called.)
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#58Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?
I am a bit upset about all the downvotes,i know it's bad etiquette to complain about that but I just wanted to say how questions of curiosity shouldn't be looked down upon. This isn't my field but climate change is concerning, so I simply wanted to know why certain solutions (however naive) were not being pursued. Cheers.
Don't let it worry you. Downvoting is essentially a thoughtless act so you can pretty much ignore them. It just means some people dislike what you wrote without considering the substance of it.
In reality it's a good question and it prompted some good answers.
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read Heller's blog. I've also done a bit of double checking of his work because indeed, what he keeps uncovering is extremely interesting and should I feel really have been discussed in popular journalism about climate before now. I want to check more of his claims in future. But for now, I only checked how many data points in the NOAA US temperature dataset are now the output of model simulations and not actual me…
I really thank you for your comment, and the time you took to honestly assess the current situation. The one thing that i still have a hard time accepting is that a whole community of scientist accepts doing science on such a fragile basis (such as the fact that more than three quarter of the world wasn't recording temperature until 50 years ago). It seems impossible that so many people keep doing their work on fragi…
It seems impossible that so many people keep doing their work on fragile data (and code, apparently), while at the same time seeing their work used by politicians all over the world to advocate massive policy changes.
Mmmm. Surely it's the other way around, this is the expected and indeed only possible outcome.
I was in a different HN thread this week where I pointed out that there are some conclusions that might be right but which some sections of academia institutionally cannot reach, conclusions like:
1. We don't know enough to make predictions in this field.
2. Our datasets are inadequate for use.
3. Our research is unimportant and doesn't need to be done.
Note that commercial research can easily reach any of these conclusions; that's the function of senior management who are motivated by some fundamental ground truth goal rather than research for the sake of it.
Climatology is almost entirely driven by academia and other government institutions. They cannot reach a conclusion like, "old temperature datasets are of too low quality to derive models from" because then they'd invalidate the basis of their own careers. My impression is that climatologists have few transferable skills. Perhaps it's just small sample sizes, but it seems like their maths skills aren't really "hard" enough to outcompete physicists, mathmos or CS profs for jobs in finance or other exit routes.
Given that climatology has a single main theory (global warming), and that theory is based primarily on a single dataset (temperature), problems with that dataset have to be addressed by adjusting the data. Otherwise what's left for the field to do?
Re: Animation shows the temperature change by country from year 1880 to 2019
#60So why are we to draw any conclusions one way or the other based off a data set that's statistically insignificant compared to the age of the earth?
How do you compare a statistical significance to an age?
Like how does p<0.01 compare to my age (38 years)?