Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

View attachment 585541
Source

This doesn't exactly flatten out after 1998 (red dot is 2015). I think you are putting too much thought behind a comic. In any case, there are projections made by slightly more credible scientific institutions than XKCD that are pretty similar to that graph.

He covers at least half a degree from 2000 to 2016. Yours is flat compared to his unless you weight the hell out of 2015, which is probably what he did. Basically your chart looks very different from his.

 

[Barra333]

The one I posted is pretty flat from 2005-2010 using the 5 year rolling average, but jumps again after that (you can mouse over the individual data points if you go to my source link). Calling 2000-2015 flat is a bit of stretch.

 

[Danoff]

The one I posted is pretty flat from 2005-2010 using the 5 year rolling average, but jumps again after that (you can mouse over the individual data points if you go to my source link). Calling 2000-2015 flat is a bit of stretch.

From the perspective of a half degree shift, your chart does nothing from 1998 to 2014. His line should be effectively flat through that period (maybe a .1 or even on the outside .2 degree upward trend if you discount 1998 as an anomaly). If you lean on 2015 (like to the point of requiring it to be passed through) which is probably what he did, you can start to get there, especially if you then continue that to 2016. But it really hinges on one data point, 2015.

In other words, if you draw a straight line from 2000 to 2015 (ignoring everything in between, weighting only those two points), and continue on that slope one year forward, you get close to his 0.5+ degree trend.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

It doesn't show a 0.5+ rise from 2000-2016, it's about 0.35 (yeah, measured at pixel level - who needs proper sources like @Barra333 's when you can excessively scrutinise XKCD comics? )

 

[Barra333]

From the perspective of a half degree shift, your chart does nothing from 1998 to 2014. His line should be effectively flat through that period (maybe a .1 or even on the outside .2 degree upward trend if you discount 1998 as an anomaly). If you lean on 2015 (like to the point of requiring it to be passed through) which is probably what he did, you can start to get there, especially if you then continue that to 2016. But it really hinges on one data point, 2015.

In other words, if you draw a straight line from 2000 to 2015 (ignoring everything in between, weighting only those two points), and continue on that slope one year forward, you get close to his 0.5+ degree trend.

I'm not here to argue tenths of a degree with you. We can agree that XKCD is not an authoritative source. If you try and tell me that the planet isn't getting hotter, then we have a disagreement.

 

[niky]

So, let's trace the HadCRUT4 data over his...

I don't know what date he pulled the 2016 data from, as that's his end-point, so I referenced the latest HadCRUT4 chart I could find (February).

It should be noted that like 1998, mid-2015 to mid-2016 was an El Niño period, which is why you have that big uptick at the end of the graph. 2015 was supposedly the hottest year on record, and the first half of 2016 was hotter still... but the back half of 2016 will be cooler... so when all is said and done, the end of my trace (which is higher than xkcd's) will be slightly lower.

It seems probable that the xkcd graph is smoothing out both El Niño events. It traces a pretty middling line between colder years and hotter years.

Note that he helpfully says near the top of the graph that a single year or single decade spike could be smoothed out by the prehistoric data, but not a multi-decade trend (well... that's what it seems he's saying).

Warning. Long image.

Whoops... was that too late?

 

[Danoff]

So, let's trace the HadCRUT4 data over his...

I don't know what date he pulled the 2016 data from, as that's his end-point, so I referenced the latest HadCRUT4 chart I could find (February).

It should be noted that like 1998, mid-2015 to mid-2016 was an El Niño period, which is why you have that big uptick at the end of the graph. 2015 was supposedly the hottest year on record, and the first half of 2016 was hotter still... but the back half of 2016 will be cooler... so when all is said and done, the end of my trace (which is higher than xkcd's) will be slightly lower.

It seems probable that the xkcd graph is smoothing out both El Niño events. It traces a pretty middling line between colder years and hotter years.

Note that he helpfully says near the top of the graph that a single year or single decade spike could be smoothed out by the prehistoric data, but not a multi-decade trend (well... that's what it seems he's saying).

Warning. Long image.

Whoops... was that too late?

Thanks for doing that. It's perfect. See how in the black line there is a trend from 2000 to 2016, and see how that trend is entirely based on the final data point? It should flatten like the yellow line does through that period. I'll draw something up to illustrate my point since you guys think I'm smoking crack.

Edit:

Alright here it is. You guys are making me go to ridiculous lengths to demonstrate something which ought to be easily observable by eye, but here you go. I'm on a weird old computer doing this with a tiny screen, and I had to install packages in linux to be able to edit it, but that's what I'm willing to do to answer the call. Since you guys obviously think I'm a moron, here's what I'm saying (as a disclaimer, I probably screwed something up, I'm doing this as fast as possible):

The red is the XKCD line based on pixel analysis of where his thick black smudge crosses 2000 and 2016. The black ticks I put in to represent 0.1 degree increments and where 2016 is. I put red error bars representing the outside of where his black line fades out in the image. His black line crosses between 0.29 and 0.42 degrees at 2000 and crosses between 0.64 and 0.83 degrees at 2016. If you go center-to center that's 0.355 to 0.735 for a difference of 0.38 (pretty close to what @TRGTspecialist said). If your eye goes outside to outside (which is undoubtedly what mine did) you get 0.54 degrees. So I'm not some lunatic. I was looking at blank space on one side of his line and blank space on the other side, which, admittedly, is not fair.

So he jumps 0.38 from 2000 to 2016 from center to center. He does so by starting below the data at 2000 and ending close to 2015 on the high end, but more like centered at 2014. The green line is where he should be, with a nearly flat (0.1 degree increase) over 14 years followed by a big jump in 2015. Now when you exaggerate the growth over 16 years by several times (and it helps to downplay the growth prior to 2000 in this case), you can draw a much more aggressive line when you extrapolate that out 80 years.

Bottom line, I'm right, XKCD overplayed. You guys must, at this point, very clearly see my point... which has now been beyond thoroughly beaten to death.

 

[Danoff]

I hate that these studies are so publically consumed and commented on. As I keep mentioning, this is a new area of research - in its infancy compared to so many others. This study shows an increase in ice in some areas that is outpacing the decrease in other areas. 50 years from now we'll have antacrtica's ice flow mapped 1000 different ways and complicated computer models that explain everything. Right now a lot of smart people are scratching their heads about many things when it comes to climate that in a few more decades will be taken for granted as common knowledge.

I still think we all need to just give them breathing room to work. This story is all over the news, and it really shouldn't be.

Along those lines, here are more scientists figuring out more secondary effects of rising CO2 values.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37909361

 

[Neddo]

I wondered for a long time, if humans would stop liking "unnecessary" stuff like luxurious houses, yachts, if they would lose enthusiasm for cars, mobile phones, fashion and so on, and just make things to be used and to find ratio for effectiveness and cleanness, how much would the earth be cleaner?

 

[Dotini]

I wondered for a long time, if humans would stop liking "unnecessary" stuff like luxurious houses, yachts, if they would lose enthusiasm for cars, mobile phones, fashion and so on, and just make things to be used and to find ratio for effectiveness and cleanness, how much would the earth be cleaner?

Probably just abandoning the airplane would make a very significant difference.

 

[Exorcet]

I wondered for a long time, if humans would stop liking "unnecessary" stuff like luxurious houses, yachts, if they would lose enthusiasm for cars, mobile phones, fashion and so on, and just make things to be used and to find ratio for effectiveness and cleanness, how much would the earth be cleaner?

The correct ratio can only be found on a per person basis. If you think you're contributing too much to global harm, then adjust your lifestyle. If you want, you can also share your reasoning with others. There is a good bit of info out there that can help you make at least basic decisions when it comes to being eco-friendly.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Probably just abandoning the airplane would make a very significant difference.

Human CO2 emissions would only drop by roughly 2% in the UK if you abandoned planes. (Based on a quick google)

 

[Dotini]

Human CO2 emissions would only drop by roughly 2% in the UK if you abandoned planes. (Based on a quick google)

Okay. But the place those emissions are deposited I think makes a difference.

 

[Neddo]

It's obvious that cars like CX75, P1, FXX K, Rimac came out of extremly big enthusiasm and knowledge. But still, sport cars are mostly focused on beauty and driving quality instead of being eco friendly. At least in last 10 years, last aspect is gaining a lot of relevance.

For many moments I feel that liking sport cars or any enthusiastic stuff, isn't eco-tasteful. I feel if people really want to "save the Earth", is to go back to lifestyle of Middle ages. Or even stone ages. But sometimes I feel that making human impact smaller is way better.

Let's just face that being eco-friendly should be the main priority of all companies and individuals, but that doesn't cancel out the right for uniqueness. Also anything that is made to be fun to be pretty and fun, should be made just as eco-friendly.

Also recreational use of things isn't eco-tasteful, because it's not necessary for survival. Anything should be eco-friendly as it should be and at least useful in some ways.

I also think that other characterisics such as practicality, performance, longetivity, reliability and so on are very important and should be very high priorities.

Hmm I wonder if I wrote this on ecological forums, what response would I get...

 

[Exorcet]

I feel if people really want to "save the Earth", is to go back to lifestyle of Middle ages. Or even stone ages.

I feel that going forward in technology is better. If people really are capable of drastically altering the planet in short time scales, that can be used to our advantage. Don't forget that natural contributes to climate change, and it has no one's interests at heart.

Let's just face that being eco-friendly should be the main priority of all companies and individuals.

Why is that?

Also recreational use of things isn't eco-tasteful, because it's not necessary for survival. Anything should be eco-friendly as it should be and at least useful in some ways.

Survival itself is unnecessary. I don't find anything noble about just existing.

 

[Neddo]

I feel that going forward in technology is better. If people really are capable of drastically altering the planet in short time scales, that can be used to our advantage. Don't forget that natural contributes to climate change, and it has no one's interests at heart.

There is a general scepticism that global warming is caused by non-human activity in any way, I agree. But generally, humans are connected to environment and they shouldn't care for themselves only.

Why is that?

Why not? A great income of reputation and money can come from making cleaner stuff. It's not that unprofitable. But after thinking, I think that overall quality is just as important.

 

[BobK]

I feel if people really want to "save the Earth", is to go back to lifestyle of Middle ages.

To do that we would need to reduce the population by an order of magnitude or two, maybe three. Any volunteers? Are you volunteering?

There is a general scepticism that global warming is caused by non-human activity in any way, I agree.

On, indubitably. After all, the earth's temperature was static, constant, steady state, until humans evolved, right? I mean, the only possible way for the earth to warm is by humans producing CO2 after all, right?

 

[Neddo]

On, indubitably. After all, the earth's temperature was static, constant, steady state, until humans evolved, right? I mean, the only possible way for the earth to warm is by humans producing CO2 after all, right?

But not too much CO2, obviously.

 

[TenEightyOne]

After all, the earth's temperature was static, constant, steady state, until humans evolved, right?

No, no and yes.

I mean, the only possible way for the earth to warm is by humans producing CO2 after all, right?

Who says it is? The problem is the rate of warming right now.

 

[Dotini]

We have had a metronomic pattern of ice ages for the last million years. And there is no good explanation. The Milankovitch cycles don't explain it. There is nothing known about the Earth itself that accounts for the cycles of ice and flood. There is something external to the Earth involved, and maybe it is not the Sun. Planet Nine?

 

[Exorcet]

Why not? A great income of reputation and money can come from making cleaner stuff. It's not that unprofitable. But after thinking, I think that overall quality is just as important.

There are incentives to advance understanding of human impact on the environment, but I don't see why it has to be a priority for everyone.

For that matter, whatever the impact we may have on the environment, it shouldn't actually take the cooperation of every single person to make a change. More people working towards a goal will accelerate progress, but if there is no reason to pick an extreme solution, why not be a little more moderate?

 

[BobK]

Just think of how much less CO2 would be getting dumped into the atmosphere if we all scrapped our automobiles and walked instead!

 

[Imari]

Just think of how much less CO2 would be getting dumped into the atmosphere if we all scrapped our automobiles and walked instead!

Just think about how impossible a modern society is without the combustion engine or something like it.

 

[Barra333]

Just think of how much less CO2 would be getting dumped into the atmosphere if we all scrapped our automobiles and walked instead!

I think food production is a bigger greenhouse gas emitter than cars.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think food production is a bigger greenhouse gas emitter than cars.

Beef production without treated feed certainly is. A cow can produce something like 500 litres of methane a day. That's a big trump.

 

[Dotini]

Beef production without treated feed certainly is. A cow can produce something like 500 litres of methane a day. That's a big trump.

Many people around the world have the funny idea they want to eat beef now, do they?

 

[Rallywagon]

There are incentives to advance understanding of human impact on the environment, but I don't see why it has to be a priority for everyone.

For that matter, whatever the impact we may have on the environment, it shouldn't actually take the cooperation of every single person to make a change. More people working towards a goal will accelerate progress, but if there is no reason to pick an extreme solution, why not be a little more moderate?

Let's just take the global warming spin off it for a moment
A clean and sustainable environment should be a priority for everyone. Even CEOs of fortune 500 companies need clean water and breathable air. Since industrial works are amongst the biggest environmental polluters, either by dumping waste or creating trash items like Kuerig cups or cellophane wrapping, etc. It would make sense to incentivise cleaner practices and cleaner products. This generally cost most in r&d, design, manufacturing and waste management. Which is why we need to incentivise it, other wise it's just the fastest, cheapest method possible.

Idk about you, but I'd rather not live down river from this

Or this

Or worry about this in one of the great lakes again.

If that means we need to change the way modern life operates, so be it. Better to change and live, than continue as we are until we kill ourselves.

 

[Exorcet]

Let's just take the global warming spin off it for a moment
A clean and sustainable environment should be a priority for everyone.

I think there are stages in your life where you should be concerned with other things. For example, someone just starting to work. Their top goal should be to become financially stable, including having some sort of savings built up. Let them get to that point first, and then they can worry about their environmental footprint.

Better to change and live, than continue as we are until we kill ourselves.

I'm not arguing for pollution and I don't want to see more of any of the things you put up images of. I'm just pointing out that an effort made by part of the global population can have an effect. It's not like nothing will change unless everyone contributes. Also, as you and I seem to show, there are people with innate environmental concerns. I assume you didn't start caring just because of anti-pollution laws. I know I didn't.

As for whether it's better to change lifestyles or not, I can't really say that there is a definite correct answer to that. Personally I am concerned with the environment, but that is just a selfish viewpoint I happen to hold. It's exactly as selfish as someone wanting to own a giant black smoke coughing truck. I'm not going to make other people comply with my wishes, though I may try to spread word about what I perceive as benefits.

 

[Imari]

Idk about you, but I'd rather not live down river from this

Depends. Is it just stormwater runoff or is it actually contaminated with something bad? It's not unusual for turbulent water to be brown and nasty looking, it doesn't automatically mean that it's polluted.

Or this

Or worry about this in one of the great lakes again.

If that means we need to change the way modern life operates, so be it. Better to change and live, than continue as we are until we kill ourselves.

Oil spills are unfortunate, and much effort should (and does) go into preventing them and cleaning up after them. Possibly not enough, but it is what it is. But even if you do away with oil tankers, coal fired power plants, diesel trucks, and children who stamp on toads, there will always be things that can have big effects on the environment when they go wrong. That's kind of the definition of going wrong.

If you're talking about intentional pollution, then sure. Those guys can go to hell. But the companies I've worked for are generally fairly responsible about pollution, even if only for the reason that if they don't the EPA will throw the book at them.

 

[BobK]

Just think about how impossible a modern society is without the combustion engine or something like it.

Of course. But @Neddo did say that the way to save the Earth was to go back to the lifestyle of the Middle Ages. However, he appears to have redacted that statement.