Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

So apparently some scientists have found a direct (albeit weak) correlation between having specific genes and higher intelligence.

There's no way this could go wrong.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Correlation and successful selection aren't synonymous, as the whole of psychology demonstrates, so I'm not panicking yet.

[Starver]

Correlation and successful selection aren't synonymous, as the whole of psychology demonstrates, so I'm not panicking yet.

That's not what your gene sequence suggests. The copy I have here suggests you should have high susceptibility to QJC¹ at the merest mention of PGC²...

¹ Quivering like a Jelly in the Corner
² Pseudoscientific Genetics Claptrap

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Ah, anthropogenic, yes.

So the simple version of AGW is that CO2 absorbs some energy, and some of that is radiated back to Earth, which leads to a greater temperature, right?

And how good are our margins of error for temperature?

[Arx]

Energy arrives as short wave radiation, bypassing most of the atmosphere. Earth re-emits it as long wave radiation by black body radiation, which is absorbed to a much greater degree by carbon dioxide and methane, amongst other things. Adding more of them obviously then causes more long wave radiation to be absorbed, so more energy is trapped.

That's the very short and simple. There's a lot more to it, including feedback factor shenanigans and albedo and stuff.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Especially feedback and albedo. These two are the especially dangerous elements, as they permit runaway events by drastically accelerating warming beyond human action.

[TheDarkStar]

Ah, anthropogenic, yes.

So the simple version of AGW is that CO2 absorbs some energy, and some of that is radiated back to Earth, which leads to a greater temperature, right?

And how good are our margins of error for temperature?

There are a number of chemicals emitted by people (CO2 from cars, methane/other stuff from factories and farming, etc) that are implicated in global warming. But the main reason we think it's happening is because there's a global temperature change between ~1850 (when the industrial revolution was just starting) and now that's much larger than any change in known geological history. Ice cores show that the temperature hasn't changed this dramatically for the last several tens of thousands of years and rock samples show that this change has probably not occurred in more distant history either. Basically, since the beginning of the industrial revolution the Earth has been heating up at an unprecedented rate.

PPE: Re: Runaway effects: Yeah, that's what people are really worried about. If a feedback loop starts, stopping the Earth from warming by several degrees will be really really hard. For example, it's theorized that there are significant amounts of frozen methane (which is 10-100 times more effective at absorbing sunlight than CO2 iirc) under permafrost and at the bottom of the ocean. If that starts to unfreeze, then the resulting warming will 1. lead the the rest quickly unfreezing and 2. outstrip human warming iirc.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Okay, thanks. I already knew half that stuff, but it's reassuring to hear it from Bay12ers. I mean, you can't be part of the huge conspiracy, right? Right? (Mostly kidding, although I did get swept up in a conspiracy theory for a few weeks. That's where I've been, btw, trying to refute it and starting to half-believe it.)

I have an idea! It is an anti-AGW-conspiracy vaccination! How would you guys respond to:

1. The assertion that since observatories are sparse and geographically biased, we can't take any information from them
2. The assertion that the increased "jaggedness" of our temperature compared to previous centuries is only due to the increased accuracy of our measurements now vs indirect measurements of then
3. The assertion that Planck's Law/Stefan-Boltzmann/the 1st Law of Thermodynamics/the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are violated by GW
4. The assertion that climate is not a thing, and thus cannot change
5. The assertion that AGW is made up by the government to further its power-grabbing

If I can answer these, I won't be as vulnerable to stupidity and really good talk-people. Which is a good thing, because I don't want to be convinced of every conspiracy theory. They tend to be wrong.

Also, !!science!! is process, not only a result, right? And supporting observation is important to verify a theory?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

1. The assertion that since observatories are sparse and geographically biased, we can't take any information from them

CO2 ppm air content is globally consistent, observation points are also not meaningfully biased. We even take information from Antarctica.

2. The assertion that the increased "jaggedness" of our temperature compared to previous centuries is only due to the increased accuracy of our measurements now vs indirect measurements of then

"Jaggedness" is not a quality of measurement, this question is nonsensical. In addition, matching of indirect measurement done during direct measurement periods proves it is as reliable.

3. The assertion that Planck's Law/Stefan-Boltzmann/the 1st Law of Thermodynamics/the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are violated by GW

Frothing at the mouth and resisting the urge to internalize desiring the death of all humanity.

4. The assertion that climate is not a thing, and thus cannot change

This is probably the stupidest one I've really seen someone argue in good faith about climate change, but it's purified ignorance like with presuppositionalism and cannot be solved by arguing unless the holder recognizes how badly they've chosen to wrap themselves in lies.

5. The assertion that AGW is made up by the government to further its power-grabbing

The real conspiracy is the rejection of 98% of climatologists worldwide, and ideas such as this are very convenient to powerful people who want to perpetuate actual and realistic conspiracies against the vast majority of humanity every day. Induced warfare, industrial-state collusion, ideological indoctrination; all of this is very real and not even secret, but rather normalized so far that nobody cares to examine it in a meaningful way.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

1. The assertion that since observatories are sparse and geographically biased, we can't take any information from them

CO2 ppm air content is globally consistent, observation points are also not meaningfully biased. We even take information from Antarctica.

Should've been clearer - the assertion that since temperature data is biased, we can't use it.

2. The assertion that the increased "jaggedness" of our temperature compared to previous centuries is only due to the increased accuracy of our measurements now vs indirect measurements of then

"Jaggedness" is not a quality of measurement, this question is nonsensical. In addition, matching of indirect measurement done during direct measurement periods proves it is as reliable.

Maybe the author will be able to explain his position better than I can.

Now look at the end of xkcd's plot, where more errors are found. Start around Anno Domini 1900. By that time, thermometers are on the scene, meaning that new kinds of models to form global averages are being used. These also require uncertainty bounds, which aren't shown. Anyway, xkcd, like climatologists, stitches all these disparate data sources and models together as if the series is homogeneous through time, which it isn't.

Here's point (3): Because we can measure temperature in known years now (and not then), and we need not rely on proxies, the recent line looks sharper and thus tends to appear to bounce around more. It still requires fuzz, some idea of uncertainty, which isn't present, but this fuzz is much less than for times historical.

The effect is like looking at foot tracks on a beach. Close by, the steps appear to be wandering vividly this way or that, but if you peer at them into the distance they appear to straighten into a line. Yet if you were to go to the distant spot, you'd notice the path was just as jagged. Call our misperceptions of time series on which xkcd relies for his joke statistical foreshortening. This is an enormous and almost always unrecognized problem in judging uncertainty.

3. The assertion that Planck's Law/Stefan-Boltzmann/the 1st Law of Thermodynamics/the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are violated by GW

Frothing at the mouth and resisting the urge to internalize desiring the death of all humanity.

You and me both, MSH.

4. The assertion that climate is not a thing, and thus cannot change

This is probably the stupidest one I've really seen someone argue in good faith about climate change, but it's purified ignorance like with presuppositionalism and cannot be solved by arguing unless the holder recognizes how badly they've chosen to wrap themselves in lies.

And besides, if Ice Ages exist, then climate is a thing!

5. The assertion that AGW is made up by the government to further its power-grabbing

The real conspiracy is the rejection of 98% of climatologists worldwide, and ideas such as this are very convenient to powerful people who want to perpetuate actual and realistic conspiracies against the vast majority of humanity every day. Induced warfare, industrial-state collusion, ideological indoctrination; all of this is very real and not even secret, but rather normalized so far that nobody cares to examine it in a meaningful way.

To quote the person I argued against, "Appeal to authority! Invalid! Climate change is just your WACKY religion! You have no data! You have no Climate Equation or AGW Constant! RELIGIOOOOOON"

I'm beginning to think that the warning signs should have gone off in my head the moment I saw his first post.

Edit: Is there any way to explain Venus's temperature without the GH effect?

[Dutrius]

Relevant.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Relevant as in "this is the xkcd the guy was talking about", or relevant as in "related to the topic of discussion"? Because both are true.

[Dutrius]

Relevant as in "this is the xkcd the guy was talking about", or relevant as in "related to the topic of discussion"? Because both are true.

Yes.

Edit: Is there any way to explain Venus's temperature without the GH effect?

Short answer: No.

Less short answer: Considering that Venus is hotter than Mercury¹, despite being further than the sun², and that Venus's atmosphere has a significant CO₂ component³, the answer is No.

Joke answer: Yes. The Venusians left a billion electric heaters on before they left.


¹ Mercury: between 80 Kelvin and 700 Kelvin vs Venus: 737 Kelvin
² Mercury: 0.4 AU vs Venus: 0.7 AU
³ Approximately 96.5%

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

But what about albedo and emissivity and absorptivity? Could those account for it? (I'm leaning toward no.)

[TheDarkStar]

But what about albedo and emissivity and absorptivity? Could those account for it? (I'm leaning toward no.)

A quick google search tells me that Venus has an albedo of .9 (=90% of all incoming light is reflected) while Mercury has an albedo of only .068 (=6.8% of all incoming light is reflected). So no.