Mars melt and Global Warming

[Schneibster]

Unto the seventh differential; at some point you'll find a rate of increase that's on a downward trend.

They DO say liars figure. And that you can prove anything with statistics, often misquoted as you can prove anything with science.

 

[CapelDodger]

Emissions per year should be plotted on a linear scale, yes, since the ratio is built-in to the numbers. But this graph was the overall concentration, which is (partly) the effect of the emissions reductions. That graph would answer the question, what effect is it really having? Which, I think, is important. And that graph should be plotted on a ratio scale.



No, it wouldn't; it would continue to rise, and there would be no visual clue that the rate of the increase was lower than it was before.

The visual clue is the downward curve of the graph. That conveys very clearly that emissions are falling, that the problem is getting worse at a slower rate, which is a start, and at some point might even improve (the visual clue there being a downward slope or "negative gradient").

 

[CapelDodger]

They DO say liars figure. And that you can prove anything with statistics, often misquoted as you can prove anything with science.

My Inner Accountant bridles at this - and I do have a scary Inner Accountant that I would rather not have disturbed. It took many years and lots of drugs to get the bastard caged. I'm still the sort of guy that gets on with actuaries.

That said, there's a lot of tricks you can play with a graph. Especially these days of PowerPoint. I read a book called How to Lie With Statistics decades ago when I were but a lad, and it was one of the most valuable reads I've ever had.

 

[lenny]

no, if the emissions were reduced, the slope of the curve on the linear scale would decrease.

No, it wouldn't; it would continue to rise, and there would be no visual clue that the rate of the increase was lower than it was before.

the curve would continue to rise, but the slope would decrease, this is clear "visual clue", no?

plot a line segment from 0,0 to 10,10, then continue it from 10,10 to 20,11; the curve "continues to rise" by the change in the slope is pretty clear, no?

 

[Schneibster]

My Inner Accountant bridles at this - and I do have a scary Inner Accountant that I would rather not have disturbed. It took many years and lots of drugs to get the bastard caged. I'm still the sort of guy that gets on with actuaries.

Well, to be entirely accurate, I never said it was true- just that a lot of people seem to say it a lot. OTOH, it seems to me I've also heard a quote about liars, damned liars, and statisticians. Lotta smoke over there for no fire.

Seriously, though, IMHO, it's more about how you can fool someone who doesn't know much about statistics by the "baffle 'em with BS" strategy than about any actual defect in statistics themselves.

That said, there's a lot of tricks you can play with a graph. Especially these days of PowerPoint. I read a book called How to Lie With Statistics decades ago when I were but a lad, and it was one of the most valuable reads I've ever had.

Yeah, I think that was what I was talking about.

 

[shanek]

CO2 charts show the CO2 content of the atmosphere, not the rate of chang. The rate of change can be inferred from the gradient of the graph.

Only if it's on a logarithmic scale! Otherwise, you'll have two parts of the graph where it's changing at the same rate, yet one looks bigger than the other!

If the rate of increase is stable - not getting worse or better - the gradient remains the same and the line straight.

Again, only if it's logarithmic. That's the whole purpose of the ratio scale! And it's exactly why economists insist that it's the only proper way to show such data. The same thing applies here.

 

[shanek]

The ratio has already been accounted for in the calculation of real values.

No, it hasn't! Adjusting for inflation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the rate of growth! It's just stabilizing the dollar amounts so that they mean the same thing from year to year.

A logarithmic scale would not only be redundant but incorrect.

Did you look at the link I provided? At this point it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about, and you're not willing to admit it.

 

[shanek]

The visual clue is the downward curve of the graph. That conveys very clearly that emissions are falling, that the problem is getting worse at a slower rate,

Getting worse at a slower rate WOULD NOT RESULT IN A DOWNWARD CURVE UNLESS YOU USE A LOGARITHMIC SCALE!!! It would still be curving upward if you use a linear scale!

Admit that this is something you don't know about, READ the links I provided, and LEARN.

 

[shanek]

the curve would continue to rise, but the slope would decrease, this is clear "visual clue", no?

But that's hard to see visually without a protractor. With the logarithmic scale, you can tell it just by looking.

 

[lenny]

Getting worse at a slower rate WOULD NOT RESULT IN A DOWNWARD CURVE UNLESS YOU USE A LOGARITHMIC SCALE!!!

Admit that this is something you don't know about, READ the links I provided, and LEARN.

respectfully: note that a monotonically increasing function is increasing when plotted on either a linear scale or on a log scale.

your claims are false, and either you are confused or you are using mathematical words in a non-standard way. i have looked at the links you offered.

 

[CapelDodger]

I already linked to an explanation of one 'tweak', the amount of CO2 the oceans can absorb. That is unknown, clearly. But it can be measured, and from the measurement, and past climate behaviour, estimates made of what the future ability to absorb will be. One thing you can be sure of, the estimates can't be too far out, because the oceans will not suddenly cease to absorb CO2, or suddenly absorb much more CO2. The tweaks will need to be done, but the they will be pretty close to what will happen.

The estimates will indeed be close to the outcome because they stem from well-established, if hard to calculate precisely, physical principles. The solubility of CO2 is a well-researched subject in laboratory conditions. Natural conditions are a different matter (I doubt any soft-drinks company ever considered promoting fizzy sea-water) but the base data will remain the same.

If they are out, (and they will be out, by some extent), that won't mean that suddenly the earth will start cooling by some miracle.

A new equilibrium will be established, we can be confident of that. Within two centuries - I'll stake my reputation on it.

I find it worrying that there are two determinants of oceanic CO2 capacity (temperature and CO2 over-pressure) that are not linearly connected. Over-pressure is dominant at the moment, forcing CO2 into the oceans, but the over-pressure is warming things up in an entirely unrelated manner. There's no reason to assume that the oceanic warming effect won't become dominant and CO2 starts belching out. With all the positive feedback that implies.

(There's no shortage of water in Old South Wales, you really should consider getting yourself and your family out of what is a frankly precarious situation.)

It seems that criticism of climate models has moved on to their not predicting some warming that has so rudely ocurred. It's another straw in the wind. The ground is being laid for blaming all the unpleasantness to come on scientists "not telling us what was going to happen!"

 

[CapelDodger]

respectfully: note that a monotonically increasing function is increasing when plotted on either a linear scale or on a log scale.

your claims are false, and either you are confused or you are using mathematical words in a non-standard way. i have looked at the links you offered.

How can I respond to this guy? I have been as plain as I can in explaining things and it just bounces off. I've always been aware of the fact that I make a terrible teacher. But I've tried. And sho'nuff, I failed.

 

[shanek]

respectfully: note that a monotonically increasing function is increasing when plotted on either a linear scale or on a log scale.

It's increasing, yes, but it's the rate at which it's increasing that's important!

 

[Schneibster]

How can I respond to this guy? I have been as plain as I can in explaining things and it just bounces off. I've always been aware of the fact that I make a terrible teacher. But I've tried. And sho'nuff, I failed.

Hmmmm. Walks like a woo, talks like a woo, flies like a woo, smells like a woo...

 

[rockoon]

in your post 112


you assign quotes to me that i never posted (as following the links you offer to my original posts prove).

please edit that post: i never said such things.

thx

You are right .. must have had your quote pramble in my cut and paste by accident. My appologies. Will try to edit it.

(Edit: I am unable to edit that post .. extremely sorry)

 

[rockoon]

Some of the parameters tweaked between a climate model run:

Planetary Albedo, Planetary Albedo Near Infra-Red, Surface Albedo Visual, Surface Albedo Near Infra Red, Evaporative Heat Flux, Precipiation Heat Flux, Net Heat, Heat River Discharge, Heat Runoff, Net Heat Ground Conversion, Water Runoff, Heat Discharge, H20 by CH4, Salt Melt, Rich Number, Ross Number, Snow Depth, Snow Cover, .... the list goes on and on.

These parameters are tweaked from run to run until the desired results are obtained. In the model run I am currently looking at, they have the planet's albedo set to .29709 which is significantly different from the measured value.

 

[Gbob]

I know that in most "debates" on the internet your chances of persuading people of your viewpoints are pretty much nil, but in this case I can tell you that there is at least one reader of this thread who is looking at the information both sides have presented. Not being an expert, or even a qualified layperson, in the field of climatology, I've been pretty content to defer to authority on the topic. I'm not sure if I'm persuaded by the "no man-made warming" crowd, but at least I've learned enough in this thread to understand that there is more than one side.

I want to thank everyone for the links and discussions on the topic. It's defiantly added to my reading list.

 

[a_unique_person]

Try reading "The Weathermakers" by Tim Flannery. Very useful for the layperson.

 

[a_unique_person]

Some of the parameters tweaked between a climate model run:

Planetary Albedo, Planetary Albedo Near Infra-Red, Surface Albedo Visual, Surface Albedo Near Infra Red, Evaporative Heat Flux, Precipiation Heat Flux, Net Heat, Heat River Discharge, Heat Runoff, Net Heat Ground Conversion, Water Runoff, Heat Discharge, H20 by CH4, Salt Melt, Rich Number, Ross Number, Snow Depth, Snow Cover, .... the list goes on and on.

These parameters are tweaked from run to run until the desired results are obtained. In the model run I am currently looking at, they have the planet's albedo set to .29709 which is significantly different from the measured value.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16905

It's reducing, which may explain their value. The current melting up the glaciers and arctic is happening faster than expected.

 

[CapelDodger]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16905

It's reducing, which may explain their value. The current melting up the glaciers and arctic is happening faster than expected.

There'll be no set value for albedo throughout a run since the model is intended to calculate and assimilate changes in albedo. The .29709 figure that rockoon finds so wildly astray sorry, significantly different - from the currently measured .30 may well be the predicted albedo in 20 years time.