"XKCD for Monday Sept 12" Topic

Yeah, log scales are for quitters (see xkcd.com/1162 )

Can you tell us more about the Pokemon extinction?

The CO2 increase 17.5 to 17.0 BCE – volcanic activity,
for the most part ?

Ok. So we're doomed.

Valar Morghulis.

YAWN…………Same old, same old.

Inside every progressive is a Totalitarian screaming to get out.

The CO2 increase 17.5 to 17.0 BCE – volcanic activity,
for the most part ?

Going from memory here, but I think it's the melting of the near-ice sheet permafrost releasing organic matter back into circulation.

Nope, every progressive is a person who wants the human condition to be better- that's what the word means.

Very sorry that we don't want to see mass extinctions and a threat to the food chain just because some people will be richer now.

Inside every progressive is a Totalitarian screaming to get out.

Someone's been reading Climate Depot.

either that or he has met a progressive.

obviously, that hit home!

Didn't hit home with me. It's called a strawman argument.

The initial premise at the top is the speaker is allowed to define what other people are saying instead of using their words or asking them.

It's also a really crappy graph for a number of reasons:
– The quality, source, and understanding of the data across the time scale isn't anything close to commensurate. It's intellectually dishonest to compare them like that without context.
- Some of the sources of the older points are estimates, various modeling predictions, and a hodge-podge of other things, with widely varying periodicity of source data and different error ranges.
- Along with that the granularity of the data is not commensurate and it doesn't match our current understanding. Our current understanding of everything before the last couple of hundred years is not nearly that smooth. The historical data contains numerous spikes of the type and character of the one at the end. The last bit doesn't look so out of place when you actually show those.
- A visual "looks like" is a really horrible way to analyze this data.

Well, you may be right. Since I've made planetary motion models, radiation models for the solar system, effects on the Earth, and atmospheric dispersion models, crap "science" does kind of tick me off and hit home.

It's meant to be evocative. Supposed to get some meaningful conversation going. He supposes that average temperatures will spike by about 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Man will survive but the world we live in will be "different."

It's supposed to evoke meaningful conversation not based in a well-defined understanding of climate change?

"Well-defined understanding of climate change". An entire oxymoronic sentence. Consider me "evoked". I especially feel "evoked" by the "IMMEDIATE MASSIVE ACTIONS TO LIMIT EMISSIONS" part. That is where the "Totalitarians" take over. Oh, Totalitarians are also fanatic Statists. I don't care how "progressive" they assert themselves to be. Their price is not worth their asserted version of the world….

You've yet to give a good answer for which one of the following is wrong.

• The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without it.
  
• The principle components to the warming effect (AKA. Greenhouse Gases) are CO2, CH4 and H2O.
  
• The ability of the above gases are empirically proven to contribute to the greenhouse effect in the laboratory, in a manner that is consistent with the predictions of particle physics. (See John Tyndall who was the first to measure the infra-red absorption of gases in 1860 when working off of Fourier's [Yes, that guy from Math and Physics] first notions about the greenhouse effect way back in the 1820s)
  
• The quantity of these gases in the atmosphere has grown sharply since the start of the industrial revolution
  
• We know that the increase is principally due to human action via isotope ratios. As predicted by particle physics and verified by empirical research, Carbon14 is created by the high energy bombardment of Nitrogen13. However the half-life of Carbon14 is short on a geological timescale and would be non-existent for all practical purposes in fossil fuels, and thus if the fossil fuel produced carbon is added to the atmosphere, the C14 share of atmospheric CO2 should decrease over time… and it has.
  
• The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has shown a trend consistent with an increasing temperature and continues to increase.
  
• This increase in temperature significantly correlates with greenhouse gas increases on a multi-year scale. Unfortunately the temperature data is too noisy for year to year correlations due to outside effects such as air pollution and ocean currents to name 2.

  
  The above is agreed by virtually scientist, however it's the next logical conclusion that attracts the ire of so called "skeptics"

• The observed heating has been caused by increased greenhouse gases.

I understand that you might not like the political implications (they are orthogonal to your ethos), but since when have feeling bent the laws of physics as we understand them?

If you can think up of a mechanism that explains the observed heating, without invoking greenhouse gas – or even better, explains why the observed ghgs appear to explain the heating, but are not actually since your mechanism X really is- I'm all ears, since huzzah, the crisis is averted. (But as a favour, please have your Mechanism X obey the laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy. Friends don't let friends violate those law )

Cheers,
Martin from Canada

obviously, that hit home!

I guess the AGW equals totalitarianism argument is part of the "meaningful conversation" that etotheipi is going on about. In this respect, TMP never fails to fail.

Didn't hit home with me. It's called a strawman argument.

Really? You must not be following the Science board as much as I do. That is an extremely common comment, both here and elsewhere. Less of a Strawman and more of a FAQ.

Speaking of Strawmen, I guess the "poisoning of the well" comments above went right by you without as much as a glance.

I understand that you might not like the political implications

Yes, I am against sharply curtailing the industrial base and killing lots of poor people.

•The principle components to the warming effect (AKA. Greenhouse Gases) are CO2, CH4 and H2O.

This is not demonstrated. Atmospheric dispersion modeling cannot accurately establish the major effects on the current warming trend.

Since you are asking for arguments, identify the specific planetary motion and solar radiation models you are using, and specifically their limits (like the fact that the only people on Earth to ever send anything to another planet don't trust their predictions of planetary motion more than ten to fifteen years in the future or fifty (though a few upwards of one hundred) years in the past).

I have written a number of those, some of which are used by climatologists and would love to have an actual discussion about which of them are appropriate for modeling what.

Of course, in pretty much all these threads, I have asked for this and received crickets.

•The ability of the above gases are empirically proven to contribute to the greenhouse effect in the laboratory

And not empirically proven in the real world.

The quantity of these gases in the atmosphere has grown sharply since the start of the industrial revolution

And is much lower than it has been in the past, before human beings. Or mammals.

However the half-life of Carbon14 is short on a geological timescale and would be non-existent for all practical purposes in fossil fuels, and thus if the fossil fuel produced carbon is added to the atmosphere, the C14 share of atmospheric CO2 should decrease over time… and it has.

This assumes that absolutely nothing else is going on in the atmosphere.

This increase in temperature significantly correlates with greenhouse gas increases on a multi-year scale.

No, because the data are heterogeneous, so specific types of statistical correlation are not appropriate.

Also, shoe size correlates with academic performance for middle schoolers. It is basic statistics that correlation does not imply causation.

The above is agreed by virtually scientist,

You mean "virtually every scientist"? So … lots of people who don't study these things have firm scientific opinions on them?

If you can think up of a mechanism

Does anybody here not understand the logical fallacy of what immediately follows this type of statement?

I guess the AGW equals totalitarianism argument is part of the "meaningful conversation" that etotheipi is going on about.

Much like the top of the cartoon, making up things and attributing it to others makes is much easier to attack them.

Would you please link to posts where I have advocated the position that AGW is totalitarianism? … or are facts not required for your to criticize others? They don't seem to be necessary for what you call "science".

……and killing lots of poor people.

Hyperbole.

Would you please link to posts where I have advocated the position that AGW is totalitarianism?

It's not all about you . A quick glance at the thread will indicate whom I'm addressing. They are not contributing to the "meaningful conversation".

…..or are facts not required for your to criticize others?

Pretty harsh comments for something you misread or misinterpreted.

I don't think there has been a day on Earth in which the climate was not changing.

……and killing lots of poor people.

Hyperbole.

How much time have you spent doing charity work in the third world?

If you would like to provide empirical evidence that the survival of the poorest of the poor in the third world is not intrinsically dependent on the excesses of first world industry, I would like to see them. I would be happy to shift the contribution the ~25% or my income and my ~10% volunteer time to something else that could have an actual beneficial outcome.

It's not all about you wink. A quick glance at the thread will indicate whom I'm addressing. They are not contributing to the "meaningful conversation".

While I agree that equating AGW to totalitarianism is not contributing to a meaningful conversation, my quick glance at your post indicates that my handle is the only on you referenced.

Pretty harsh comments for something you misread or misinterpreted.

So since my handle was the only one called out explicitly and the derogatory remark was made quoting a specific phrase from my post, I am out of line as interpreting what you said as directed specifically at my post and me?

If you would like to actually provide actual facts about the actual science of (1) planetary motion models, (2) solar radiation models, and (3) atmospheric dispersion models used to justify specific recommendations, I am listening. I have been doing so for years on these boards and don't hear anything but the repetition of high-level generalizations that are not even correct at their level of granularity, which is insufficient to justify the recommendations.

Since you are asking for arguments, identify the specific planetary motion and solar radiation models you are using, and specifically their limits (like the fact that the only people on Earth to ever send anything to another planet don't trust their predictions of planetary motion more than ten to fifteen years in the future or fifty (though a few upwards of one hundred) years in the past).

Although I do have some academic training in climate modeling, my PhD is in Financial Geography. However, I am humble enough to follow the academic concensus on climate change. The change in effective orbital forcing (total energy is the same, but the change in location and intensity is linked to glaciation) is by and large due to procession, as identified in Milankovitch cycles.

From what I understand about that subject is that glaciations are have a periodicity, and a fourier transform of the periods link up to eccentricty, axial tilt and procession.

link

That last bit about planetary motion and only projecting out a few decades, that's a red hearing. What's the objective difference if the procession cycle is 22.99ky vs 23.01ky? It's not like we're trying to achieve rendez-vous with a space snowball or set up multiple orbital slingshots using N-body gravity.

he ability of the above gases are empirically proven to contribute to the greenhouse effect in the laboratory

And not empirically proven in the real world.

Tke a peak at chapter 8 of WG1 of the 5th AR of the IPCC (I also suggest readings from chapter 5 to 10, but I know that's a big ask).

And here's the requisite pretty graph with two sigma error bars.

No, because the data are heterogeneous, so specific types of statistical correlation are not appropriate.

Also, shoe size correlates with academic performance for middle schoolers. It is basic statistics that correlation does not imply causation.

1) That's wrong, since there are ways to turn discrete data into interpolated fields. One of my favorite papers on that is Cotwan and Way 2014, and their use of Krieging to account for coverage bias in the climate record. link That paper is open access, so it should be easy to look up.

Does anybody here not understand the logical fallacy of what immediately follows this type of statement?

I guess the AGW equals totalitarianism argument is part of the "meaningful conversation" that etotheipi is going on about.

Sure, but that's a fallacy fallacy. Just because person A used a fallacy when arguing, it does not mean that the are necessarily wrong. Furthermore, that just my internal excrement of Bos Tauros meter. For me to spend precious brain processing time consider an alternative to the scientific consensus on anthopogenic climate change, it has to find a way to replicate the warming that has been liked to greenhouse gases, without violating basic laws of thermodynamics. To consider otherwise would be horror beyond comprehension.

A few corrections:
1) I'm still a PhD Candidate since I'm still working on my thesis. I should be defending next year.

2) I apologies for the typos.

From what I understand about that subject is that glaciations are have a periodicity, and a fourier transform of the periods link up to eccentricty, axial tilt and procession.

So what you're saying is that the models are not accurate, because neither the orbits of the planets (and everything else in the neighbourhood) nor their precessions are periodic. A fourier series is an inherently flawed model that introduces and compounds models.

It's not like we're trying to achieve rendez-vous with a space snowball or set up multiple orbital slingshots using N-body gravity.

No, you're trying to predict and apply solar radiation effects, which is inherently driven by the orbits, precession, and tesserial interactions.

That's wrong, since there are ways to turn discrete data into interpolated fields

Which is very nice, however you are aggregating data across time that are not compatible.

And again, with kriging (which is a much older technique and more appropriate for things like emag fields which exist in a fairly uniform space rather than atmospherics that are dependent on the non-uniform surface they abut and their non-uniform composition.

But if we ignore that, kriging gives you error with four degrees of freedom. When you integrate that into a seventeen dimensional solar radiation model (a modest one), your error is raised to a power greater than sixty.

Since you're using a harmonic model of planetary motion (easy to use, Ptolemy figured that out a long time ago without the help of calculus), I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the number of additional degrees of freedom you are adding to your error.

Just because person A used a fallacy when arguing, it does not mean that the are necessarily wrong.

I didn't say you were wrong, I said your argument was fallacious. Which it is.

To consider otherwise would be horror beyond comprehension.

Well, if to use a reasonably accurate model of planetary motion, atmospheric dispersion, and solar radiation when you calculate global warming is a horror, then I guess I will just have to go around scaring people.