Randomness thread, part two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

You're into physics, right? Do you understand how much energy exists on this planet just in the form of wind alone? Do you understand how hugely this dwarfs human consumption?

---

This is funny. Do you know how much the atmosphere dwarfs human emissions? Yet you're arguing, rightly so, that there are serious concerns about the impact on climate. Seemingly negligible effects add up over time.

If all human energy came from wind power, and we assume that energy demands increase over time, then yes I can see a world where this becomes a problem, disrupting established wind currents, resulting in man made regions of high atmospheric pressure where massive wind farms slow down air.

It's not quite on the scale of tidal energy, which takes energy from (mostly) the earth-moon system and results in a very very gradual slowing down of the earth's rotation. I think the sun goes supernova before we lose a minute in the day, or something absurd like that. But considering wind doesn't have an effect on the rotation of the earth, I think it's fair to say the earth's inertia is many many orders of magnitude more massive than the total wind energy in the system.

We naively thought we couldn't do any harm by burning coal. How can you be sure you're not making the same mistake here?

Quote:

---

Now taking energy out of the environment is ok. Glad you turned around on that.

---

You must be trolling me here. I can't believe you're not capable of understanding the difference.

If you're serious, it's your physics that's lacking.

Using sunlight is not the same as using wind, in terms of how the useful energy is taken, and then turned into useless energy.

With wind, you're taking kinetic energy out of the atmosphere and turning it into heat, well actually infra red light but same thing in this context. With sunlight you're taking solar energy directly from space and turning that into heat, which is radiating it back out into space.

The total amount of sunlight that arrives on earth is almost precisely equal to the amount of blackbody radiation the earth emits into space. It must be otherwise our climate problems would be a great deal more serious. Sunlight is low entropy useful energy. Blackbody radiation is high entropy useless energy, it's low frequency infra red light and is basically heat, in the context that heat is energy spreading out. You can take more energy out of it if you increase its wavelength further (spread the energy out further) but ultra-violet light (thank you the sun) has much lower entropy because it's much more useful, the energy is not nearly as spread out.

Solar energy is as good as it gets on paper. You're using energy that was coming anyway and was being radiated out anyway. All you're doing is changing the process without ever changing the balance of energy in the earth's system. Of course taking wind energy also doesn't change that overall balance, but none of the energy returned to the system is wind energy, it's heat. So slowing down wind warms the atmosphere slightly and reduces it's kinetic energy slightly. Using direct sunlight takes a photon of high frequency and returns it into space at a lower frequency, which is also heating up the atmosphere but only by as much as the ground absorbing it would have done. If we didn't take the wind out of the system, it would have remained wind until it hit a mountain or something. Those mountains aren't going anywhere, so we're just adding to that heat by using wind energy.

This added atmospheric warming caused by win will be tiny, gradual, but constant. It becomes a problem eventually, whether it's 100 years or a million.

btw the whole "greenhouse effect" propaganda isn't mentioned these days, largely because it doesn't stand up against basic science. The warmer the planet gets, the more it radiates heat into space. It's a self balancing process that can be disrupted (see Venus) but always finds an equilibrium. And the fact we aren't going full Venus is pretty strong evidence that there is no such greenhouse effect. We're at equilibrium, and any change in that will be very, very noticeable.

Another btw... you can feel the impact that slowing down wind does if you do the exact opposite. When you're hot, turn the fan on. You're creating wind and it cools you down. Magic. That's because moving air has a lower pressure than still air, which allows the gas to expand, which results in cooling. Also it replaces higher humidity air with lower humidity air, allowing for sweat to evaporate and cool you down, but that's a bonus. You can feel that, it's not negligible to you in your immediate vicinity. Now do the reverse, multiplied by all of human energy, and ask if that atmospheric warming is really all that negligible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

A bunch of nonsense showing no understanding of anything.

---

This is like arguing with a five year old.

The CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are a result of BURNING hydrocarbons. That is changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. We have burned billions of tons of hydrocarbons over the last two centuries. There's now literally 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 100 years ago, or has been in the last million years.

Taking some microscopic proportion of the total amount of energy in wind (which is already in the atmosphere) and returning it to the atmosphere in different ways would have a negligible effect on the atmosphere. Fundamentally zero.

There's currently 11,000 windmill turbines in the UK right now. Its supplying what, 20% of our energy, so 55,000 would supply 100%. Double that and it's 110,000 spread out over the UK and nearby oceans. Hell, let's make it 10 x even that just for fun, so 1 million windmills. That's more windmills than we would ever need. Let's also ignore offshore wind just to make the math easier.

The UK is 245,000 square km, so that's 4 windmills per square km, again ignoring offshore wind farms. And you're trying to say that would disrupt worldwide wind currents. lol, just lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So slowing down wind warms the atmosphere slightly and reduces it's kinetic energy slightly.

---

The word "slightly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It would not be enough to even be picked up on any instrument we have now, never mind make a difference to how the wind currents operate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

btw the whole "greenhouse effect" propaganda isn't mentioned these days, largely because it doesn't stand up against basic science. The warmer the planet gets, the more it radiates heat into space. It's a self balancing process that can be disrupted (see Venus) but always finds an equilibrium. And the fact we aren't going full Venus is pretty strong evidence that there is no such greenhouse effect.

---

The equilibrium point is determined by the amount of heat that is being trapped by greenhouse gases. Venus is in equilibrium, but only because it's so fucking hot now it can't hold any more heat.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/overview/

Quote:

---

Venus has a thick, toxic atmosphere filled with carbon dioxide and it’s perpetually shrouded in thick, yellowish clouds of sulfuric acid that trap heat, causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

We're at equilibrium, and any change in that will be very, very noticeable.

---

Does this look like equilibrium to you?

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...al-temperature

https://www.climate.gov/sites/defaul...?itok=JBME0itq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Another btw... you can feel the impact that slowing down wind does if you do the exact opposite. When you're hot, turn the fan on. You're creating wind and it cools you down. Magic. That's because moving air has a lower pressure than still air, which allows the gas to expand, which results in cooling. Also it replaces higher humidity air with lower humidity air, allowing for sweat to evaporate and cool you down, but that's a bonus. You can feel that, it's not negligible to you in your immediate vicinity. Now do the reverse, multiplied by all of human energy, and ask if that atmospheric warming is really all that negligible.

---

You're making up science here.

A fan works by moving the hot air near the surface of your skin away from you and replacing it with cooler air, which allows you to lose more heat. It has nothing to do with low pressure/high pressure. Moving air doesn't cool it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Taking some microscopic proportion of the total amount of energy in wind (which is already in the atmosphere) and returning it to the atmosphere in different ways would have a negligible effect on the atmosphere. Fundamentally zero.

---

This is loaded with assumptions, which makes your argument precisely as strong as mine. This isn't a scientific debate is it? It's philosophy and politics.

How much is our current global energy consumption per year? How much do we anticipate that will increase over time? How long before these microscopic proportions add up to something that isn't negligible? It's not fundamentally zero. That's a huge assumption and equally as naive as someone burning a tyre saying they're doing no individual harm.

Show me the study that has taken into account the reduction of kinetic energy in the atmosphere and the increase in heat, that has given numbers that indicate it is fundamentally zero.

Quote:

---

Let's also ignore offshore wind just to make the math easier.

---

Yeah let's ignore the largest farms that will be integral to future wind exploration and situated over sea, which has less natural impact on wind than land.

Offshore wind farms will be where the problem will be. That's where the stubborn man made regions of high pressure will be. Consider the warming and cooling of the Pacific that causes El Nino and La Nina cycles. The atmosphere is a fluid in a state kinetic equilibrium. If you disrupt that fluid's kinetic energy, a new equilibrium is found. It doesn't have to be gargantuan amounts of energy to do this. Consider that you can disrupt the flow of water just by sticking your finger in it. That can cause eddies that weren't there before. It's really very easy to disrupt a fluid.

And your numbers are making one large assumption - that energy demands remain static over time. They don't. History shows us a rapidly increasing demand for energy as technology and populations develop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

more shit.

---

The fascinating thing about your arguments is they have a shred of prima facie plausibility, which shows you're intelligent enough to string words together to make sentences that might sound reasonable to a person who doesn't know anything about anything.

You also manage to project the same amount of confidence when you're talking complete bollocks as when you're stating a simple truth. Its quite impressive in a way.

Turns out there's actual scientific study relating to this very matter.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...4243511830446X

Happy reading.

Here's a teaser...

Quote:

---

Summary
We find that generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24°C.

---

One more...

Quote:

---

Observations show that wind turbines alter local climate,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and models show local- to global-scale climate changes from the large-scale extraction of wind power.11, 12, 13, 14, 15

---

Those numbers are links to sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Does this look like equilibrium to you?

---

Yes, it's very very close to equilibrium. That's a 1.5 degree fluctuation you're getting all moist over.

Yeah the 1.5C only means more frequent extreme heat waves, droughts, storms, flooding, sea level rise of a couple meters in the next couple hundred years. Ocean acidity will rise so byebye 70-90% of the rest of the coral reefs. Those are hardly anything to get moist over. 2C will be a lot worse, and we're heading towards 2.5'ish at the minimum right now unless things change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Yes, it's very very close to equilibrium. That's a 1.5 degree fluctuation you're getting all moist over.

---

Quote:

---

Summary
We find that generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24°C.

---

0.24 is a big problem but 1.5 is a minor fluctuation.

I'm suprised and stand corrected that there's no impact from wind farms on temperature.

At the same time, I notice that from the article you cherry-picked your points for maximum effect, doing the very same thing you accuse the "other" side of doing.

An important summary of their research is this:

Quote:

---

Wind beats fossil fuels under any reasonable measure of long-term environmental impacts per unit of energy generated.

---

True, solar is even better. But that's not a reason in an of itself to not replace fossil fuels with wind, where solar is not practical for whatever reasons.

Also worth noting that the increase in temperature from wind farms is due to a convection effect where the warmer air is circulated back towards the ground, mostly at night. Certainly that would affect things on the ground, where most living things are, but it's a one-off increase that doesn't have the runaway feedback loop effect that burning fossil fuels does.

It's not that they're generating heat that will make the atmosphere as a whole hotter over time, it's that they're moving heat from an upper air level to the surface. So you would want to be careful not to put wind farms in places where this would cause a problem, like the antarctic for example.

Glad you finally looked at some real science though Ong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Yeah the 1.5C only means more frequent extreme heat waves, droughts, storms, flooding, sea level rise of a couple meters in the next couple hundred years. Ocean acidity will rise so byebye 70-90% of the rest of the coral reefs. Those are hardly anything to get moist over. 2C will be a lot worse, and we're heading towards 2.5'ish at the minimum right now unless things change.

---

Well done for chiming in with irrelevance. The point of poop showing that was an attempt to demonstrate we're going full Venus by suggesting what we have is not thermal equilibrium.

Poop showed evidence of man made climate change, not man made or natural planetary runaway greenhouse effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

0.24 is a big problem but 1.5 is a minor fluctuation.

---

You really do give the impression sometimes that you have no interest in actually thinking about what we're talking about and instead just reply with something like this.

I never said it was a "big problem", I'm suggesting it's something we have to think about, which you've then run away and assumed I'm shitting my pants over it.

1.5 degrees is a lot when it comes to the natural climate balance, and so is 0.24 degrees. It's next to nothing when we talk about a disrupted thermal equilibrium such as Venus. You're deliberately conflating the two different scenarios just so you can mock my argument, which turns out to have merit, rather than having a discussion about something that's actually quite interesting, at least to me.

And you're even presenting my argument as though I'm trying to say wind is as bad as oil. Obviously it's not. I really shouldn't need to say "oh they do point out that wind is still pretty clean" which I never once disputed, because it's obvious and I never disputed it.

I might as well just wall quote the entire article right so I'm not cherry picking?

You're incredibly insincere when you want to be.

Quote:

---

True, solar is even better. But that's not a reason in an of itself to not replace fossil fuels with wind, where solar is not practical for whatever reasons.

---

You're changing my argument to something you want to argue against.

I started off suggesting that using wind for our entire energy needs might have a climatic impact, which you roundly mocked for a few days until I showed that it's actual science, and now you're trying to argue that I was suggesting we shouldn't use wind. Insincere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Also worth noting that the increase in temperature from wind farms is due to a convection effect where the warmer air is circulated back towards the ground, mostly at night. Certainly that would affect things on the ground, where most living things are, but it's a one-off increase that doesn't have the runaway feedback loop effect that burning fossil fuels does.

It's not that they're generating heat that will make the atmosphere as a whole hotter over time, it's that they're moving heat from an upper air level to the surface. So you would want to be careful not to put wind farms in places where this would cause a problem, like the antarctic for example.

Glad you finally looked at some real science though Ong.

---

I can assure you that slowing down wind increases the pressure, and therefore temperature, of the air mass. I'm really not sure how much of a problem this is, all I ever tried to do was talk about it. Wind farms most certainly generate heat, if they didn't they would be 100% efficient and we wouldn't really have a problem with fossil fuel dependency. And wind farms generate direct heat by slowing down air. If you compress air, you warm it up. Slowing down wind is to compress it.

It should be obvious that wind farms generate heat. They work by taking advantage of the collisions between air molecules and turbine blades. The air collides with the blade, and imparts energy onto the blade, causing it to move. Due to the geometry of the blades, this motion is nearly all rotational, and the turbine rotates. Magic.

You can warm up an object by dropping it, picking it up, and doing this over and over again. ActionLab did exactly this. It's the impact with the ground that does it. That's what's happening to literally every single molecule that slams into the turbine blades.

The very reason compressed air heats up is because you increase the number of collisions between molecules. What's happening is that you had two particles that were moving at x and y velocity, and after the collision the difference between x and y is less than it was. The average velocity of them both remains constant, but the difference does not, it is less. That's heat. No energy is lost, it's just transferred in such a way as to make it harder to transfer more energy. It's spreading out, seeking the average. More collisions in an air mass means a greater tendency to thermal average.

So yes, slowing down wind warms up the air mass. Of course it does. Thermodynamics insists it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I can assure you that slowing down wind increases the pressure, and therefore temperature, of the air mass. I'm really not sure how much of a problem this is, all I ever tried to do was talk about it. Wind farms most certainly generate heat, if they didn't they would be 100% efficient and we wouldn't really have a problem with fossil fuel dependency. And wind farms generate direct heat by slowing down air. If you compress air, you warm it up. Slowing down wind is to compress it.

---

I got that convection thing from the paper you quoted. I guess you didn't actually read it except to look for a couple of gotcha quotes. Figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You really do give the impression sometimes that you have no interest in actually thinking about what we're talking about

---

Pot kettle black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I never said it was a "big problem", I'm suggesting it's something we have to think about, which you've then run away and assumed I'm shitting my pants over it.

---

Point is you dismissed a 1.5C change as a fluctuation but went to the trouble of pointing out a (hypothetical, based on mathematical models) 0.24C change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

1.5 degrees is a lot when it comes to the natural climate balance, and so is 0.24 degrees. It's next to nothing when we talk about a disrupted thermal equilibrium such as Venus. You're deliberately conflating the two different scenarios just so you can mock my argument, which turns out to have merit, rather than having a discussion about something that's actually quite interesting, at least to me.

---

Bringing up Venus is a sign you're just waffling here. Venus is hot and has a lot of greenhouse gases. We are increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Venus is an example of what can happen over eons. It's not the same as saying it will happen to us in 10 years if we don't build more wind farms. ffs, what's your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And you're even presenting my argument as though I'm trying to say wind is as bad as oil. Obviously it's not. I really shouldn't need to say "oh they do point out that wind is still pretty clean" which I never once disputed, because it's obvious and I never disputed it.

---

No I was presenting it in the context of your other argument that 1.5C is no big deal. Do you see the contradiction there?

I mean, ok, fine, wind farms slightly raise the temperature of the ground beneath them. It's nothing compared to what burning hydrocarbons is doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're incredibly insincere when you want to be.

---

Are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're changing my argument to something you want to argue against.

---

I'm not, I'm pointing out why it doesn't matter in the larger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I started off suggesting that using wind for our entire energy needs might have a climatic impact, which you roundly mocked for a few days until I showed that it's actual science, and now you're trying to argue that I was suggesting we shouldn't use wind. Insincere.

---

The first part is correct, you should have stopped there. I never said you argued that we shouldn't use wind. I even agreed with you that solar is better.

But, the topic is climate change, not the physics of wind farms (which you still don't understand btw because you didn't actually read the paper you quoted from). Like I said, you just picked the bit that would help you win a side-argument about the effects of wind farms.

You still haven't explained your skepticism that climate change isn't real, which as you'll recall is where this conversation started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It should be obvious that wind farms generate heat. They work by taking advantage of the collisions between air molecules and turbine blades. The air collides with the blade, and imparts energy onto the blade, causing it to move. Due to the geometry of the blades, this motion is nearly all rotational, and the turbine rotates. Magic.

You can warm up an object by dropping it, picking it up, and doing this over and over again. ActionLab did exactly this. It's the impact with the ground that does it. That's what's happening to literally every single molecule that slams into the turbine blades.

---

That may all be true, but that's not the main mechanism that causes windfarms to generate heat at ground level, which is convection (at least according to the paper you quoted).

That's why the temperature rise during the day is minimal (because convection is happening naturally) but greater at night (because daytime convection is replaced by windmill-driven convection).

btw, it's hilarious that you're pontificating about thermodynamics and trying to apply it to windfarms, when you don't even understand how a fucking fan cools you off.

There are collisions and skin friction in turbines between the air molecules and the turbine molecules, but that's not the main transfer of energy. It's easier to talk about the momentum transfer than the energy transfer, but these are both conserved quantities so little understanding is lost in either description.

To make this as short as possible, the main method of energy transfer is due to something called the Coanda effect. The shape of the turbine wing is curved in such a way as to redirect the streamlines of air flow across it. This redirection causes pressure changes. Move some air a little to the left, and the other air to the left gets compressed a little and the other air to the right gets decompressed a little. This pressure difference is source of the energy exchange. Pressure exerted over a moving area is energy. The turbine wing is moving, and voila, energy is transferred.


Now... there are 2 kinds of wings. Those that work by collisions and those that work by pressure differences. A water wheel in a river is technically the same physics as a propeller, just working with more dense working fluid at slower speeds. If you look closely at an airplane propeller, you can see the transition from 1 type to the other as you look from the center of the prop (slow moving) to the tip of the prop (fast moving). The inner part of the propeller works by collisions and the outer part by pressure. The entire prop technically uses both, but is optimized for different speeds at different radii.

Pretty cool, right?

If you're interested in the science of global warming, I can recommend Simon Clark's YouTube channel.

I've learned a lot from the few videos of his I've watched. The content is not all based around global climate change.

Meh, it didn't break the record where I live ergo it's all a big lie.

https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/st...27804110905344

Climate change broke my computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Meh, it didn't break the record where I live ergo it's all a big lie.

https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/st...27804110905344

---

I mean this perfectly illustrates my point about how people think they can readily compare conditions today, where we have accurate measuring devices, to 100k years ago, where we were in an ice age and rely on geological records and things like that to determine how warm it was, which isn't as accurate as thermally expanding mercury.

Chances are, it's been warmer and we just didn't record it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroe...h=477a541967dd

Quote:

---

The exact modeling system used to estimate Tuesday’s temperature has only been used since 1979, but scientists are able to estimate average temperatures going back tens of thousands of years by using instrument-based global temperature records, tree rings and ice cores, climate scientist Paulo Ceppi told the Washington Post.

---

Yeah so basically the warmest daily average since 1979 at least, and certainly warmer than the last ice age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I mean this perfectly illustrates my point about how people think they can readily compare conditions today, where we have accurate measuring devices, to 100k years ago, where we were in an ice age and rely on geological records and things like that to determine how warm it was, which isn't as accurate as thermally expanding mercury.

Chances are, it's been warmer and we just didn't record it.

---

We use modern instruments on geological data to suss these things out. We don't rely on historical records, though when the source is reliable, we can verify that and extrapolate from their writings some things that we cannot directly observe today.

Using the geological record, we can't pinpoint the exact temperatures at a location like we can with mercury or alcohol thermometers. We can put good boundaries on global averages, though. As well as a host of other data like atmospheric contents of CO2 and O2 among other things. That helps us build a predictive model of how atmospheric conditions relate to average global temperatures.

You're right that we get better data from live lab readings today than looking at the geological record, but I think you're selling short just how much can be gleened from the geological record when modern scientific methods and instruments and minds are on the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

We use modern instruments on geological data to suss these things out. We don't rely on historical records, though when the source is reliable, we can verify that and extrapolate from their writings some things that we cannot directly observe today.

Using the geological record, we can't pinpoint the exact temperatures at a location like we can with mercury or alcohol thermometers. We can put good boundaries on global averages, though. As well as a host of other data like atmospheric contents of CO2 and O2 among other things. That helps us build a predictive model of how atmospheric conditions relate to average global temperatures.

You're right that we get better data from live lab readings today than looking at the geological record, but I think you're selling short just how much can be gleened from the geological record when modern scientific methods and instruments and minds are on the case.

---

I thought cavemen used primitive thermometers like whether Ug's big toe was aching, then carved the temperature into rock, and that's how we guessed what temperatures were like 100k years ago.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that so-called modern science is superior to ancient cave-man frat bro wisdom.

Ug was renown for his amazing weather predictions. The loss of Ug's big toe was the biggest setback in meteorological predictions in the history of the human species.

Surely those ancient frat bros had their fingers on the pulse of divine mysticism that our modern science makes our conscious minds ignore the real underlying truth. It's metachlorians all the way down. Ancient aliens. Primal mysticism. Flat Earth. Paleo diet. The path to real wisdom was known to our ancient ancestors and we squander it away for crap like longer life-span, better health and wellness, more economic opportunities, mass communication, entertainment and HVAC.

Truly we would all be happier if we died by the age of 35 to myriad diseases or wolf attacks while sweating our balls off all summer and suffering from malnutrition treated by leeches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

We use modern instruments on geological data...

---

I don't doubt it but do such methods give 0.1 degree accuracy? Do they even give 1 degree accuracy? I'm sure some techniques give excellent estimates in some locations but applied globally over millennia?

How can these indirect methods be anywhere near as accurate as a direct measurement now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I thought cavemen used primitive thermometers like whether Ug's big toe was aching, then carved the temperature into rock, and that's how we guessed what temperatures were like 100k years ago.

---

No. we dig up cores from mud, and ice, and look at geological records and such. There's tons of methods we use to make estimates. Key word - estimates. What we have when we measure the temperature today with modern equipment is also technically an estimate, just a really fucking good one, far superior to geological records, which certainly don't tell us the average temperature over day or a week.

Talking about 95% Confidence Intervals, here:

Current measures of global average temperature tend to have uncertainty less than +/- 0.1 C.

Going back to ~1880, the +/- increases gradually up to about 0.25 C

Going back to the BCE/CE change (year 1), the uncertainty goes up to ~0.3 - 0.4 C.

At this point I'm bored of google searches for "uncertainty in global temperature measurements" and "uncertainty in historical global temperature measurements" and "uncertainty in ancient global temperature measurements."


Of course modern measurements have less uncertainty, but the uncertainty in our historical data is still low enough that talking about a 2 degree rise in temp is not ambiguous or misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Talking about 95% Confidence Intervals, here:

Current measures of global average temperature tend to have uncertainty less than +/- 0.1 C.

Going back to ~1880, the +/- increases gradually up to about 0.25 C

Going back to the BCE/CE change (year 1), the uncertainty goes up to ~0.3 - 0.4 C.

At this point I'm bored of google searches for "uncertainty in global temperature measurements" and "uncertainty in historical global temperature measurements" and "uncertainty in ancient global temperature measurements."


Of course modern measurements have less uncertainty, but the uncertainty in our historical data is still low enough that talking about a 2 degree rise in temp is not ambiguous or misleading.

---

Wow, I didn't realise the intervals were THAT tight.

So the z-score for a change from 1880 to now that is actually 0C instead of 1C is z=7.84. IOW, the probability that it's just measurement error is essentially naught point naught naught and about a hundred more naughts before you get to a value greater than naught.

IOW, more naughts than can fit in this probability calculator app thingy.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/stati...0000000,z:7.84

(or at least that's what Big Solar told me to say. Big Wind was telling me the same thing but I told them to gft with their nighttime convection shit ruining the planet).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No. we dig up cores from mud, and ice, and look at geological records and such. There's tons of methods we use to make estimates. Key word - estimates. What we have when we measure the temperature today with modern equipment is also technically an estimate, just a really fucking good one, far superior to geological records, which certainly don't tell us the average temperature over day or a week.

---

I'd say being within 0.4C 95% of the time is pretty good accuracy for 2000 year old data.

Of course you'd prefer to be an agnostic skeptic than take a few minutes to look up the answer to the thing your questioning. You so funny.

My favourite part of this whole discussion is how Ong seems happy to entertain a scenario that requires the vast majority of climate scientists to just be happy to make strong claims based on statistically unreliable data. Like they don't care about their scientific integrity, or like they all missed the first day of Science School where they warn you over and over not to do that.

My favourite part is the bit where you utterly fail to understand the distinction between science and politics.

The politics is real.

Politicians make it sound like, "Yeah, it's getting a bit warmer, but we'll fix it in like 10 years, and then it'll be back to normal."

Spoilers: It's not going back to "normal." Not in our or our children's lifetimes.

Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions, the planet's warming is on a rise... the rate of rise will start decreasing, but the rise itself is still rising. It will continue to rise more and more slowly until it peaks and starts to come back down, but the continued rise in temperatures is unavoidable at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

My favourite part is the bit where you utterly fail to understand the distinction between science and politics.

---

First you dispute GW based on not believing the evidence. Now that we've shown you the evidence is overwhelming, you want to claim that your skepticism on GW is actually about politics.

Ok, go on then. What is it that politicians are doing/saying that makes you not believe the scientific evidence?

Honest question ong, what would convince you to believe in GW?

Of all places you'd think on a gambling forum people, and by people I mean Ong, would understand probability. Climate prediction models have a lot of data points and a lot of different ways to predict outcomes. Even if many models are inaccurate or have varying degrees of uncertainty, the overwhelming consensus is that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to an increase in global temperatures.

We are currently engaging in a worldwide scientific experiment where we inject 25 gigatons of CO2 into our planets atmosphere each year to see what happens. Since the 60's the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by 30% and we increase the amount we put into the atmosphere each year still. The overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in figuring out what this does agree that this has a 1-10% chance of basically ending all life on the planet within 100-500 years, and a very high chance of various other catastrophic outcomes.

This is where radical climate terrorists are saying: maybe we should just not!
You wouldn't take a 10% ROR gamble with your retirement fund. Why is this considered an ok gamble with the continued existence of life on this planet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

First you dispute GW based on not believing the evidence. Now that we've shown you the evidence is overwhelming, you want to claim that your skepticism on GW is actually about politics.

---

I mean this is like the 5th time I've pointed out that my problem is with the politics not the science but you just pretend I didn't say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Honest question ong, what would convince you to believe in GW?

---

You ask that question like I don't believe in it, like it's a binary yes/no matter. That's the problem with divisive politics in today's world. People can't wrap their heads around middle ground.

It makes logical sense that humans have influenced the climate with emissions. I already believe it could very well be happening, at the alarming rate we're being told. Emphasis on the word "could".

It's also a very big world and nature is far more powerful than we are, so it's also quite possible that the effect we're having is close to negligible and climate change is being exaggerated and exploited for political purposes. What those purposes are, I can't tell you that because I can't put myself in the shoes of psychopathic corrupt politicians and businessmen.

The way climate change is presented in the media is a massive appeal to authority, and if you even question it then you're assumed to be a science denier and basically should be cast to the fringes of society. Maybe it's all nothing more than a means of social control, like a cult.

To be sceptical is to question the motives of those who control our countries and the world, and that scepticism is very much justified and healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Of all places you'd think on a gambling forum people, and by people I mean Ong, would understand probability.

---

Yeah and the media moguls, politicians and mega rich businessmen are probably not being honest with us.

If anything, the media massively underplays what is at stake. Almost no politicians advocate for what is truly necessary to reduce CO2 emissions to a level where CO2 levels can go in remission. Even the most radical parties push for what is essentially just damage reduction.

I guess the difference between me and the rest of you guys is that I believe the politicians and other powerful wankers of the world are more influential than scientists, that is that the powerful can decide what science is taught and what is thrown into the bin, which scientists get to be famous and which ones get to be fringe, and most important what is consumed by the masses and what is not.

Politics is bigger than science in today's world. If science was bigger, this would be a different conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

If anything, the media massively underplays what is at stake. Almost no politicians advocate for what is truly necessary to reduce CO2 emissions to a level where CO2 levels can go in remission. Even the most radical parties push for what is essentially just damage reduction.

---

Maybe they straight up don't have any good decisions. If we can't replace the fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, then what? Cut down our energy use significantly? That potentially results in a global breakdown in civilisation that might have more disastrous consequence than current climate change trends. Imagine if we didn't have the energy to keep our nuclear power plants safe.

Have fun balancing those interests while trying to win votes.

In other words: we can't afford not to destroy the planet we live on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

In other words: we can't afford not to destroy the planet we live on.

---

Well you're talking about 1-10% probabilities and shitting yourself over that, but what if nearly all scientists agreed that devolving back into the middle ages would result in a 50% chance of a mass extinction event happening?

Maybe the status quo is the lesser risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I guess the difference between me and the rest of you guys is that I believe the politicians and other powerful wankers of the world are more influential than scientists, that is that the powerful can decide what science is taught and what is thrown into the bin, which scientists get to be famous and which ones get to be fringe, and most important what is consumed by the masses and what is not.

Politics is bigger than science in today's world. If science was bigger, this would be a different conversation.

---

What do they have to gain?
First of all I have no fucking idea how politicians would bribe an entire field of scientists to make erroneous claims on climate prediction models. I don't know why they would be so cheap to buy because obviously they're not living the big life, at least not according to my sources. And then they would just not act on those prediction.
This is all very confusing.

And then you'd also have easily verifiable real life data that just happens to line up almost exactly with models we've had for decades.

Also you're talking about change like we can actually make it happen. The Western world can do all it wants to fight climate change but without India and China on board we're just fucking up our own economies while they become global superpowers, all the time still taking on board the climate risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

First of all I have no fucking idea how politicians would bribe an entire field of scientists to make erroneous claims on climate prediction models.

---

Who said anything about bribes? It's about control of information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well you're talking about 1-10% probabilities and shitting yourself over that, but what if nearly all scientists agreed that devolving back into the middle ages would result in a 50% chance of a mass extinction event happening?

Maybe the status quo is the lesser risk.

---

I do not agree that those are in any way realistic outcomes, equally likely to happen. I think technologically we are very capable of just stopping the production of new combustion engines, not building new coal and natural gas power plants and instead moving to wind, solar and nuclear. All technologies that are very well tested. We're not banging rocks together, we are very capable of doing one instead of the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Who said anything about bribes? It's about control of information.

---

Is this supposed to sound less confusing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

What do they have to gain?

---

I don't know. Money, power, control. That's what motivates the kind of people we're talking about.

It's funny really because you anti-government, anti police, basically a borderline anti establishment anarchist, yet you don't seem to have a problem accepting whatever agenda the establishment want to push. You trust the people you reject, on the mistaken basis that it's scientists you're putting your trust in.

Scientists don't run the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Also you're talking about change like we can actually make it happen. The Western world can do all it wants to fight climate change but without India and China on board we're just fucking up our own economies while they become global superpowers, all the time still taking on board the climate risks.

---

Nobody can compete with china already. We slap them with tariffs to stay competitive. We can just slap them with even more tariffs. This is not an unresolvable situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't know. Money, power, control. That's what motivates the kind of people we're talking about.

It's funny really because you anti-government, anti police, basically a borderline anti establishment anarchist, yet you don't seem to have a problem accepting whatever agenda the establishment want to push. You trust the people you reject, on the mistaken basis that it's scientists you're putting your trust in.

Scientists don't run the world.

---

This is sock-gnome logic to the extreme. What specifically do they have to gain? Are they in the cahoots with the global wind turbine cartel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

not building new coal and natural gas power plants and instead moving to wind, solar and nuclear.

---

See you're just moving to nuclear here like it's a clean solution. It's not. You have to mine plutonium and uranium, you have to dispose of nasty waste, and you have to manage these sites for many decades without a natural disaster or war chancing on them.

Nuclear is just creating a different problem and possibly more catastrophic because war is a likely event in some places where nuclear reactors are situated, for example Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

This is sock-gnome logic to the extreme. What specifically do they have to gain? Are they in the cahoots with the global wind turbine cartel?

---

Why do I need to figure out their motives to question them?

btw, it might be funny to talk of the wind turbine cartel but maybe it really is that simple, maybe the people who have the most invested in wind power also happen to have significant influence when it comes to political agenda. If you owned a wind turbine company and you also were the editor for a journal, you'd probably publish articles that were promoting wind energy, and climate alarmist stuff. Obviously that's massively simplified, but it's one form of corruption that is certainly common.

A solution doesn't have to be perfect to be viable. Nuclear isn't great, but if we're looking for a solution for reducing CO2 production, nuclear is producing the least CO2 per kwh of any energy source by a mile. The countries that probably shouldn't have nuclear reactors already have nuclear reactors and won't stop using them either.

Nuclear energy is adding heat into the system. When compared to fossil fuels, it's probably better, but compared to solar (inc wind and hydro) it is definitely not. So if we're talking about reducing our footprint in the near future, then ok, but if we're talking about balancing our footprint in the longer term, then it's not a solution, and if that's our ultimate goal, then we basically find ourselves in a position where cleaning up decommissioned plants can take much longer than the plant was even useful for.

All the evidence points towards politicians doing their best to deny what the scientists are saying about climate change, or at least downplay its significance, or at least pretend it's not urgent. They're still letting companies drill new oil wells, dig coal, build petrol cars, etc., etc.. They're setting targets for emissions that aren't sufficient to address the problem the scientists are arguing exists.

But in Ongworld, politicians are actually trying to push the ideas of climate change and green power on us because of some vague entity like a Big Wind Globalist Conspiracy that's pulling their strings.

Meanwhile, the scientists, a group of nerds leaning to the right of the autism spectrum, who are about as uninterested in wealth and power as any group of people in society can be (if they were there's plenty of ways to get rich and powerful with an IQ>120, as opposed to having a middle-class income as a scientist), have been corrupted into going along with it and, since the "real" data show there's no such thing as global warming, have collectively decided to abandon their religion and fudge the data to suggest there is. At least that explains all those climate scientists living in country mansions and driving ferraris.

Seriously, I think you misunderstand what motivates someone to be a scientist. It's prestige, not money. They want the respect and admiration of their colleagues. They want to be invited to give talks. They are unusually interested and curious about the world. They enjoy learning. They get hardons over numbers and data. Are there a few who are dishonest and corrupt sociopaths? Sure, a few are. But the idea that 99% of them are in on a conspiracy to lie about GW is not plausible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You ask that question like I don't believe in it, like it's a binary yes/no matter. That's the problem with divisive politics in today's world. People can't wrap their heads around middle ground.

It makes logical sense that humans have influenced the climate with emissions. I already believe it could very well be happening, at the alarming rate we're being told. Emphasis on the word "could".

It's also a very big world and nature is far more powerful than we are, so it's also quite possible that the effect we're having is close to negligible and climate change is being exaggerated and exploited for political purposes. What those purposes are, I can't tell you that because I can't put myself in the shoes of psychopathic corrupt politicians and businessmen.

The way climate change is presented in the media is a massive appeal to authority, and if you even question it then you're assumed to be a science denier and basically should be cast to the fringes of society. Maybe it's all nothing more than a means of social control, like a cult.

To be sceptical is to question the motives of those who control our countries and the world, and that scepticism is very much justified and healthy.

---

So instead of trusting the science and scientists, you believe the political explanation that it's a hoax?

Edit: well, what poopie said. If you ask the people who actually study this crap, 97+ per cent pf scientists agree it's happening. That's a big number considering there's thousands and thousands of climate scientists. They're not somehow free of loonies, just as every other walk of life, so some conflicting views are to be expected.

If all else fails, just follow the money. Sure, there are some genius suggestions that it's just researchers faking shit for grant money, where we're talking about thousands of euros per scientist per year, requiring thousands of scientists to be in on it globally in a concerted effort to fool the public. The other option is that the petroleum industry and other carbon emitters, who have tens or hundreds of billions on the line are muddying the waters. I wonder which one's more likely.

There's a difference between skepticism and paranoia. Skepticism involves reasoning, paranoia ignores it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If you owned a wind turbine company and you also were the editor for a journal, you'd probably publish articles that were promoting wind energy, and climate alarmist stuff. Obviously that's massively simplified, but it's one form of corruption that is certainly common.

---

When you say things like this, sorry, but you come across as paranoid, not skeptical. What evidence is there that it's "common" for the editors of sceintific journals to have financial incentives that pose a conflict of interest? Do you know of even one who's been exposed?

In fact, do you even know where scientific journals get their editors from? The scientific community. Editors get the job because they have a long track record of publishing quality scientific papers themselves. They're respected enough in their field to be offered a prestigious position that allows them to influence what does and doesn't get published, because their track record suggests they have a lot of skill as a scientist and so would be a good judge of what is and isn't quality work. Editors continue to do their own research while they edit the journal, and they generally don't get paid for editing (at least in my field). Often they get a reduction in teaching/admin from their dept. because having an editor of a journal on their staff gives the College a boost in prestige, especially if it's a big, well-respected journal.

Is it possible an unscrupulous scientist could use their position as editor to propogate a false narrative about some area of science, for their own financial gain, while behaving as if no such conflict of interest is present like in your Windmill shares owner/ editor example? Sure, anything is "possible." Is it reasonable to believe it's "common" for this to happen? No, not even close.

Even if we generously interpret your statement as non-specific (i.e., just a hypothetical example of how corruption might arise in science, rather than an evidence-based one), we're still left with the same problem - you have no evidence for your claim that the corruption of science (in whatever form) is common, and are strictly relying on hypotheticals. There's no reasoning going on here, just speculation.

It's like how you started this whole debate by saying something like "I don't believe in GW because it's been cool this week," as if that somehow counted as good evidence against GW.

Then when that idea got shot down, you started talking about measurement error, and how you didn't believe measurements from long ago could be accurate enough to support GW. Again, no evidence, just speculation.

Then when that got shot down, you went off on a different tack about corrupt editors of journals.

How about you just stop arguing until you actually have some facts to support one of your arguments? I know you don't trust facts, but they do tend to give more credence to an argument than just making a bunch of unsupported claims.

Quote:

---

But in Ongworld, politicians are actually trying to push the ideas of climate change and green power on us because of some vague entity like a Big Wind Globalist Conspiracy that's pulling their strings.

---

No, in Ongworld, what politicians say is not the same as what politicians do. What they're saying is "we need to reduce our carbon footprint" but they're not coming up with solutions, instead they just scream, along with the media, that we're all fucked if we don't do something about it, as though it's on us, the consumers, to just stop consuming, while the economy keeps on shitting out things for us to consume.

So why is that?

Possibly corruption, possibly because they know that actually doing something means fucking over the economy while China and India do nothing, meaning we're still fucked, or maybe it's because it's all just a load of shite designed to control people by means of fear, a modern kind of religion if you like, only instead of God's wrath causing the inevitable apocalypse it's stupid humans. The end result is the same... people live in a sense of impending doom while looking to the authorities for answers. It helps to create a world where people are even more dependent on authoritative rule. In the case of religion, that authority is God and the church, with climate change it's science/nature and government. And the government play the role of the church, turning something pure into something corrupted.

Quote:

---

Seriously, I think you misunderstand what motivates someone to be a scientist. It's prestige, not money.

---

I really don't know how much more you can bang on about this, it's once again an appeal to the authority of science, where my problem is politics. I haven't once suggested that scientists are on the take or otherwise acting immorally. Not once. This is an assumption you've made because I'm sadly unable to detail the hows and whys of such a conspiracy. But let me be as clear as I can be... even if such a conspiracy exists, I do not believe scientists are "in on it".

Quote:

---

When you say things like this, sorry, but you come across as paranoid, not skeptical.

---

I mean if I actually thought that was what was happening with absolutely no evidence then sure, that's paranoia, but when I'm literally using it as a simplified example of corruption, and even said as much, then I have to question your ability to understand context.

Replace wind turbine with anything you might want to sell, and editor of journal with anyone who is in a position to influence potential consumers, and ask yourself if it's paranoia or just likely that people put their own self interests ahead of those of others. That's what I mean by "common", people with a vested interest in something attempting to manipulate relevant public opinion.

And you know it happens because presumably you think oil companies that deny climate change, active denial like commissioning anti climate change research, are doing exactly this. They are attempting to covertly manipulate public opinion so they can make money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

So instead of trusting the science and scientists, you believe the political explanation that it's a hoax?

---

No, I believe it's plausible that climate change is being exaggerated and manipulated by those in power (without scientists being "in on it"), while also accepting the logic of climate change theory. My problem isn't the logic, my problem is the politics, the way it's presented in MSM, the way it's used as a divisive tool in politics, and how it's used by policy makers and lobby groups and any other unscrupulous fucker who has a vested interest.

Again, it's binary to you, you still don't seem able to understand that someone can think it might or might not be happening as we're told. And again, a massive appeal to the authority of science.

It's not that I don't trust science, it's that a) science can be wrong, and b) I don't believe science is what matters here, politics is.

Or, you can just keep talking Tinfoil Hat Theory in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Ok, fill your boots mate.

One side has overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus, the other has "muh probably corrupt". It's ok to entertain both sides as possibilities, but to side with the deniers or even consider the stances are on equal footing is straight up silly. Yeah science can be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's 50-50. You know how we know science can be wrong? Thanks to science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

...but to side with the deniers or even consider the stances are on equal footing is straight up silly.

---

At least your assumption has evolved from binary to three possibilities (50-50 being the 3rd) but I never even said anything about equal footing.

I don't trust politics and media. And I believe they have more influence in the modern world than science. Thus, this isn't a simple case of "overwhelming evidence" and "universal consensus" because these things are subject to the way such information is gathered and presented to the masses.

I mean, "almost all scientists agree" is misleading as fuck, because "almost all scientists" are not climatologists. In the late 90s, 50 of the 60 top climatologists in USA wrote a letter complaining about the politicisation of climate science, it would be interesting to see what these same people think today. But at least in the early days, there wasn't a universal consensus.

Ok, since then we've had 25 years of apparently record breaking conditions, and I don't doubt that it is warmer now than it has been for most of human history (if not all), but we don't understand the longer climate and solar cycles, we don't understand what causes and ends ice ages, we don't understand fluid dynamics on the scale of planet atmospheres, yet we're talking with authority about climate change.

Science is to theorise, to test, to experiment. Science is not taking information and telling people what it means while shouting down opposing views. That's politics. And we're having a conversation about politics, not science, no matter how hard you guys try to make this about science. Climate change is more politics than science, that's my view.

The consensus is exactly within "climate scientists", the people who study exactly this for a living. If you include meteorologists, petroleum geologists and others that have no more idea than me really what's being discussed, that"s when other views start appearing.

It's great to be skeptical, but let that skepticism motivate you to do some research and educate yourself so you're not taking any appeals to any authority based on their job title.

There are authorities worth appealing to. There are good sources. You just have to investigate those people's methods and history to find reliable sources. No source is perfectly reliable, but when someone puts their career credentials on the line to make a bold statement, that does add some weight to their claims.

Yes, there are bogus scientists out there. Yes, there are charlatan scientists out there. Those guys are easy to spot because they have a history. They keep making bad claims, using bad data or simply making shit up and talking to reporters who don't know the science well enough to refute the claims. Then a day passes and everyone with actual knowledge of the subject is poking holes in it to death. That happens whether or not the claims are bad.

That's how science rolls. We don't trust each other, we trust ourselves, and our knowledge and the data we have access to. When someone makes a bold claim, we can investigate if that is contradictory to what we already have observed in our own expertise. If dozens of scientists are saying the same thing and there aren't hundreds of scientists calling BS on it, then that's a pretty good indicator that there is some merit to the claim. It's not proof. Proof is actually pretty hard to come by in science.

You don't need to resort to an appeal to authority to believe in the scientific method. The scientific method is not an authority, it is a system for rooting out bad statements. There are good scientists. There are authorities to whom appeal is not scandalous. That appeal should not be the nail in the coffin to convince you of anything, but it should be strong enough to ping your self-skepticism that maybe you have something to investigate and learn more on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

We don't trust each other, we trust ourselves, and our knowledge and the data we have access to.

---

Important part of this is "and the data". You're trusting the authority of the information. And in this case, a large amount of the data is historical, it's geological, or based on less reliable record keeping and measurements. And yet you trust it like you trust data you can confirm yourself.

That seems like misguided trust to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

The consensus is exactly within "climate scientists", the people who study exactly this for a living. If you include meteorologists, petroleum geologists and others that have no more idea than me really what's being discussed, that"s when other views start appearing.

---

Well that wasn't the case in 1998, like I say I'd rather like to see what these guys would say today.