Temperature Anomalies by Country 1880-2017(flickr.com)
flickr.com
Temperature Anomalies by Country 1880-2017
https://www.flickr.com/photos/150411108@N06/30562013098/in/photostream/
97 comments
> The historical temperature data sets were not generated by a well designed sampling scheme.
I'm curious where this opinion comes from? my understanding is the sampling takes a lot into account including the heat island effects. Your blanket claim does not come with any proof, so I'm curious where it comes from.
I'm curious where this opinion comes from? my understanding is the sampling takes a lot into account including the heat island effects. Your blanket claim does not come with any proof, so I'm curious where it comes from.
>> The historical temperature data sets were not generated by a well designed sampling scheme.
> I'm curious where this opinion comes from? ... my understanding is the sampling takes a lot into account
There is no sampling. We have an incomplete census of measured temperatures. Where humans decided to measure and record temperatures and which records survived were not determined by a sampling scheme.
Even if the record were complete, it would be subject to selection biases.
Just looking at the locations of temperature measurements in the definitive historical data set should drive this point home. Two, three, four hundred years ago, humans did not say "let's figure out a representative sampling scheme for accurately measuring global climate change." The current record is a function of where humans chose to live, work, produce, and travel.
> I'm curious where this opinion comes from? ... my understanding is the sampling takes a lot into account
There is no sampling. We have an incomplete census of measured temperatures. Where humans decided to measure and record temperatures and which records survived were not determined by a sampling scheme.
Even if the record were complete, it would be subject to selection biases.
Just looking at the locations of temperature measurements in the definitive historical data set should drive this point home. Two, three, four hundred years ago, humans did not say "let's figure out a representative sampling scheme for accurately measuring global climate change." The current record is a function of where humans chose to live, work, produce, and travel.
> When you are watching the animation, note when specific regions of the world make an appearance in the data set and the relative importance of measurements from specific countries.
Also when reigons decrease in data. After the end of the cold war russia looses 3/4ths of their datapoints, and then half a year later china looses about the same.
Also when reigons decrease in data. After the end of the cold war russia looses 3/4ths of their datapoints, and then half a year later china looses about the same.
There are a lot of interesting things. For example, have you noticed when the Sahara makes an appearance? How many of those stations remain in the data set later on? Given that so-called "anomalies" are deviations from averages over 1951-1980, could the absence of measurements from the Sahara have an effect?
And, what happened to Australia?
And, what happened to Australia?
In 20 years the changes are huge.
Seeing the data in this perspective is really scary, I don't understand how can there be countries ignoring this.
It is really a shame that nuclear power was demonized so early in its technological development by the same people and groups that are now advocating drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption. It's not like global warming was not understood in 1980. If society had another 40 years of nuclear tech advancement under its belt, I'm sure China and India would be installing massive nuclear power infrastructure instead of a coal burning power plant a week (and India is just getting started).
I used to think the same thing, that it was supposedly environmental groups that stopped nuclear.
However, after investigating the history more closely, it appears that nuclear construction projects were boondoggles even before Three Mile Island. Economics, not activism, is what killed nuclear in the US.
Nuclear has always been marketed under a lie, that its cheap, and perhaps too cheap to meter. In reality, well engineered projects are insanely complex, requiring huge material and labor costs during construction. And then there's maintenance.
People always talk about regulations driving up costs for nuclear, but they never talk about inappropriate regulations that drive up costs, meaning that the high costs are necessary.
And when you think about the design of the things, there's no reason to think it should be cheap: the nuclear is merely a heat source, which still requires the massive amount of machinery needed for steam turbines. The only part of the thing that's potentially cheaper is fuel, but to handle that fuel you've got to have massively engineering and equipment efforts.
This history of nuclear is always glossed over by its boosters. It's really expensive, and if we didn't have better options now, we should build it anyway. And we should have built a lot during the 80s like France did.
But today, grid storage is far cheaper than nuclear, and it makes no sense at all to ever build a new nuclear plant. Let's keep existing ones running until they're replaced with other carbon free sources, but for new investment, current nuclear tech is dead. New SMR, maybe maybe some day if it's cheap, but we shall see in a few decades, it's not available today like storage, wind, water, and solar are.
However, after investigating the history more closely, it appears that nuclear construction projects were boondoggles even before Three Mile Island. Economics, not activism, is what killed nuclear in the US.
Nuclear has always been marketed under a lie, that its cheap, and perhaps too cheap to meter. In reality, well engineered projects are insanely complex, requiring huge material and labor costs during construction. And then there's maintenance.
People always talk about regulations driving up costs for nuclear, but they never talk about inappropriate regulations that drive up costs, meaning that the high costs are necessary.
And when you think about the design of the things, there's no reason to think it should be cheap: the nuclear is merely a heat source, which still requires the massive amount of machinery needed for steam turbines. The only part of the thing that's potentially cheaper is fuel, but to handle that fuel you've got to have massively engineering and equipment efforts.
This history of nuclear is always glossed over by its boosters. It's really expensive, and if we didn't have better options now, we should build it anyway. And we should have built a lot during the 80s like France did.
But today, grid storage is far cheaper than nuclear, and it makes no sense at all to ever build a new nuclear plant. Let's keep existing ones running until they're replaced with other carbon free sources, but for new investment, current nuclear tech is dead. New SMR, maybe maybe some day if it's cheap, but we shall see in a few decades, it's not available today like storage, wind, water, and solar are.
I would like to read a good book on this issue. Any recommendations? Preferably a book written by an historian.
My current understanding is that the economics did not work out because: power company borrows x billion in capital to build a nuclear power plant, interest rates in the 80's are in the double digits, activists tie up the startup of the power plant for 5-10 years doubling the cost due to interest, power company finally drops starting the plant altogether and the public eats the loss.
Of course there are all sorts of complications to what really happened, like power consumption rates going up like crazy while AC is adopted and power companies thinking that the trend would continue forever, which didn't happen.
Have something you want to believe and you can find a narrative to fit it. This is a really hard trap to avoid and I'm sure I fall in it often.
My current understanding is that the economics did not work out because: power company borrows x billion in capital to build a nuclear power plant, interest rates in the 80's are in the double digits, activists tie up the startup of the power plant for 5-10 years doubling the cost due to interest, power company finally drops starting the plant altogether and the public eats the loss.
Of course there are all sorts of complications to what really happened, like power consumption rates going up like crazy while AC is adopted and power companies thinking that the trend would continue forever, which didn't happen.
Have something you want to believe and you can find a narrative to fit it. This is a really hard trap to avoid and I'm sure I fall in it often.
I don't think you've fallen into any narrative trap, unless you're in the industry! And I'm sure I'm more susceptible to them than you are, based on your comment.
While regulation certainly didn't make anything easier, and can probably be blamed for some percentage of the failures, there's a loooot more to the story. As you point out, incorrect demand predictions, and long term planning set during a time of plenty can require cancellations too.
I wish I had a more authoritative book from a disinterested historian, but the best I've found as a summary is the classic 1985 Forbes article[1], which I found through Wikipedia's list [2] of cancelled projects, the list that initially made me think, "huh, TMI can't be blamed for that one, or that one..."
[1] reprint on a blog, with some weird commentary about Gore on top which can be ignored: http://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-r...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_re...
Love to hear of any sources you might have too!
While regulation certainly didn't make anything easier, and can probably be blamed for some percentage of the failures, there's a loooot more to the story. As you point out, incorrect demand predictions, and long term planning set during a time of plenty can require cancellations too.
I wish I had a more authoritative book from a disinterested historian, but the best I've found as a summary is the classic 1985 Forbes article[1], which I found through Wikipedia's list [2] of cancelled projects, the list that initially made me think, "huh, TMI can't be blamed for that one, or that one..."
[1] reprint on a blog, with some weird commentary about Gore on top which can be ignored: http://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-r...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_re...
Love to hear of any sources you might have too!
Case in point - the bankruptcy of Westinghouse. Caused by economics not environmentalists.
> Nuclear has always been marketed under a lie, that its cheap, and perhaps too cheap to meter. In reality, well engineered projects are insanely complex, requiring huge material and labor costs during construction. And then there's maintenance.
... and fuel-cycle then decommission -related costs.
About those last ones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17844976
... and fuel-cycle then decommission -related costs.
About those last ones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17844976
It would be nice to have an improving nuclear power industry(fusion ultimately) for those locations that don't have good solar, wind, and water power sources. That is almost everywhere in the universe. Maybe humanity will just have to wait for a Martian or Asteroid economy before the best minds start working on nuclear power again.
[deleted]
It would seem to me that the groups "advocating drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption" are perhaps "everyone sane." That is especially that wind and solar are quite economically viable. I'm not sure if all them were worried about nukes in the 80s.
The thing with nuclear power (or solar now) is that just having a viable alternative isn't enough. Because so much of the costs of oil is discovery and infrastructure, its price per barrel can go incredibly low when a competitor arises - much of the oil that's in ground has bought by someone already and they want to sell it for something.
With a situation like this, the only way to stop carbon emissions is regulation. The only way to stop carbon emissions is regulation (in case anyone missed that). Even if nuke were a significant power sources from the 1980s, we would be facing a climate problem if hydrocarbons were not regulated.
The thing with nuclear power (or solar now) is that just having a viable alternative isn't enough. Because so much of the costs of oil is discovery and infrastructure, its price per barrel can go incredibly low when a competitor arises - much of the oil that's in ground has bought by someone already and they want to sell it for something.
With a situation like this, the only way to stop carbon emissions is regulation. The only way to stop carbon emissions is regulation (in case anyone missed that). Even if nuke were a significant power sources from the 1980s, we would be facing a climate problem if hydrocarbons were not regulated.
It's even worse that, long after nuclear power has lost on economic terms, the tech community still can't get over their infatuation with it.
Yes, people sometimes had irrational fears. Yes, probabilities are unfortunately difficult to intuitively grasp.
But it's not safety that doomed nuclear power, quite obviously: countries such as Russia and (to a lesser degree) China care little about environmental concerns. Nuclear power is simply too expensive.
It's also surprising that the incredible improvements wind, and especially solar power have seen over the last decade or so are largely not the result of far-sighted technologists, but of the universally-despised political class: subsidising solar power production in Germany, as one example, must be among the most efficient government programs in history.
Yes, people sometimes had irrational fears. Yes, probabilities are unfortunately difficult to intuitively grasp.
But it's not safety that doomed nuclear power, quite obviously: countries such as Russia and (to a lesser degree) China care little about environmental concerns. Nuclear power is simply too expensive.
It's also surprising that the incredible improvements wind, and especially solar power have seen over the last decade or so are largely not the result of far-sighted technologists, but of the universally-despised political class: subsidising solar power production in Germany, as one example, must be among the most efficient government programs in history.
Nobody prices in global warming into their coal plants, that's why they're cheap.
All of the pollutants for nuclear power is right there on site. Its great. Coal emissions are various and many very toxic. Most are scrubbed out now in the US but not elsewhere. Fish high on the food chain in the oceans are dangerous to eat regularly due to high mercury content from coal burning. People that protest nuclear power while coal is still being burned are just anti-industry. Reading some history about the misery of life without industrial levels of power might give some perspective.
I believe your information regarding China and India installing a coal power plant each week is out of date.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-capacity-idUS...
and
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/1563453...
An incredibly small number of incredibly wealthy individuals buy the compliance of our government through the legalized bribery of political contributions.
The near-term interests of those individuals are not aligned with the long-term interests of the rest of humankind.
The near-term interests of those individuals are not aligned with the long-term interests of the rest of humankind.
It's pretty clear to many that this is the problem. What can we do about it?
We need to build the moral and intellectual case for diminishing inequality until its momentum is irresistible. Perhaps there's an analogue in the abolitionist movement of the nineteenth century?
Showing the connection between global warming and unlimited political donations post-Citizens-United is part of that.
Showing the connection between global warming and unlimited political donations post-Citizens-United is part of that.
I wonder if there's some way clearly and simply visualize the connection between global warming and actions of elite power brokers. This would be easy to share and quickly grasp on social media.
We have concentrated economic and political power. I think we need to be distributing power and I think Cooperatives are a practical way to accomplish this.
How do you go about dissolving the leverage of current power brokers and distributing it? They aren't going to give up their power so easily.
> An incredibly small number of incredibly wealthy individuals buy the compliance of our government...
Conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy theory.
Do you accept the reality of global warming? If not, we have nothing to talk about. Flat earthers and Galileans are irreconcilable.
But if you accept global warming, what other explanation can you present for the continued inaction of our government?
But if you accept global warming, what other explanation can you present for the continued inaction of our government?
Not OP, but I think people in general are predisposed to:
1. Not believe in things they can’t see
2. Especially when it is convenient not to.
The reasoning goes “if global warming were true, we’d have to change a lot of things. I don’t want to change things. It can’t be true”.
There’s also a tendency to believe that slow moving things can’t possibly cause big changes. The reasoning goes: “The earth has always seemed basically similar, so why would it change”
This reasonong doesn’t happen at a conscious level, it’s more of an impulse that guides what beliefs people let in, and don’t. What rationalizations they use, etc.
If it were a conspiracy of elites, you’d see mass support for things like carbon taxes. Instead, they’re unpopular.
Now, you could argue that some rich elites have used propaganda campaigns to convince people global warming is false. I think this is correct, but I also think these propaganda campaigns were aided by what people want to believe.
As for governments: they can’t undertake politically unpopular actions. They’ll get voted out.
1. Not believe in things they can’t see
2. Especially when it is convenient not to.
The reasoning goes “if global warming were true, we’d have to change a lot of things. I don’t want to change things. It can’t be true”.
There’s also a tendency to believe that slow moving things can’t possibly cause big changes. The reasoning goes: “The earth has always seemed basically similar, so why would it change”
This reasonong doesn’t happen at a conscious level, it’s more of an impulse that guides what beliefs people let in, and don’t. What rationalizations they use, etc.
If it were a conspiracy of elites, you’d see mass support for things like carbon taxes. Instead, they’re unpopular.
Now, you could argue that some rich elites have used propaganda campaigns to convince people global warming is false. I think this is correct, but I also think these propaganda campaigns were aided by what people want to believe.
As for governments: they can’t undertake politically unpopular actions. They’ll get voted out.
So, we're in agreement about the two most important points.
1. Global warming is real. (Duh.)
2. Political contributions from the fabulously wealthy are buying government inaction.
Now, it may be that, like many on HN, you value inequality and adamantly support the "free speech" rights of the fabulously wealthy few to dominate the U.S. political system through unlimited political contributions. But global warming becomes harder and harder to deny with each passing year. Maybe it will take the loss of the entire Florida peninsula, but eventually all but the most hardcore will have to face reality.
Even if you're not reachable, eventually enough others will be reachable.
1. Global warming is real. (Duh.)
2. Political contributions from the fabulously wealthy are buying government inaction.
Now, it may be that, like many on HN, you value inequality and adamantly support the "free speech" rights of the fabulously wealthy few to dominate the U.S. political system through unlimited political contributions. But global warming becomes harder and harder to deny with each passing year. Maybe it will take the loss of the entire Florida peninsula, but eventually all but the most hardcore will have to face reality.
Even if you're not reachable, eventually enough others will be reachable.
You didn't address my argument at all: that a bunch of regular people will resisit practical measures to stop global warming because those measures are painful and the reality of the long harm from climate change seems inconceivable.
You seem to be viewing this as only propaganda driven.
You seem to be viewing this as only propaganda driven.
While unpleasant truths require thoughtful presentation (like any argument), I am not so filled with contempt for the opposition that I believe 100% of them are are 100% irrational and 100% unreachable. Especially not when billions are being lost through inundated real estate.
I don't think you're being disingenuous, but your argument is essentially "concern trolling": you agree with the substance but express concern that others may not. It is folly to be paralyzed in the face of such an argument: that's abandoning a won position to your interlocutor.
I don't think you're being disingenuous, but your argument is essentially "concern trolling": you agree with the substance but express concern that others may not. It is folly to be paralyzed in the face of such an argument: that's abandoning a won position to your interlocutor.
No, that's not what I said at all. My argument was more along the lines of "it's hard to get a man to understand what his salary requires him not to understand".
I'm saying that even though climate change is disastrous collectively, it's currently generally in an individual's interest to burn carbon. And so a fair chunk of people will have great difficulty even understanding that this burning is terribly bad for the planet and for us collectively.
Even absent propaganda we would have this problem. Now, if society were all united in sending a message I'm sure more people would be in favour of emissions reduction. But you're treating the issue as only caused by propaganda.
I'm saying that even though climate change is disastrous collectively, it's currently generally in an individual's interest to burn carbon. And so a fair chunk of people will have great difficulty even understanding that this burning is terribly bad for the planet and for us collectively.
Even absent propaganda we would have this problem. Now, if society were all united in sending a message I'm sure more people would be in favour of emissions reduction. But you're treating the issue as only caused by propaganda.
[deleted]
I think about this every day. It's terrifying. Especially in that it will get hotter going forward. We can only hope that visualisations like this and increasing heatwaves and wildfires will stir world governments into faster, more drastic action. We might still be able to reverse the trend, by cutting CO2 back to pre-1990 levels or further, by finding ways to extract actively extract carbon, and if necessary, by deflecting more solar radiation. I don't want to think about what will happen if we fail.
In fairness, part of the sudden increase comes from the choice of a reference period ending in 1980, if you had chosen the preceding century the red would show up earlier and more gradually.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I don't understand how can there be countries ignoring this.
Any preventable scenario requires people ignoring it to happen. Which I guess in itself isn't very helpful. It is just that people tend to assume that dysfunction isn't normal when it is usually the opposite. That anything functional often requires long deliberate and concerted efforts. There are for instance still plenty of people dying in traffic.
Any preventable scenario requires people ignoring it to happen. Which I guess in itself isn't very helpful. It is just that people tend to assume that dysfunction isn't normal when it is usually the opposite. That anything functional often requires long deliberate and concerted efforts. There are for instance still plenty of people dying in traffic.
Dysfunction largely isn't normal. The universe of things that are going well is far greater than that of issues that threaten us.
It's just that we really don't pay attention to the earth not being destroyed by a meteor today.
It's just that we really don't pay attention to the earth not being destroyed by a meteor today.
I don't think "going well" is the same as not being dysfunctional. That someone can e.g. have decent life as a upper middle class American doesn't take away from the fact that the systems themselves are dysfunctional. There are millions and millions of people who lack de facto good access to health care, education, housing, transportation and other things that should be a basic in a modern society.
In most of the rest of the world it might be even worse. Especially if you also consider the size of countries like India and China. Most countries have only had peace for less than a century. New technologies end up abusing, if not killing, hundreds of thousands of people. The global economy seem to experience one large crash every decade. A lot of things are getting better, but I certainly wouldn't say the are getting more functional. I would even say that a lot of development is more unsustainable today than ever.
When a million people don't die in traffic every year I will get more hopeful about humanities ability to handle existential threats. Until then let's hope for a something smaller event first (I don't really know the distribution of something like a meteor).
In most of the rest of the world it might be even worse. Especially if you also consider the size of countries like India and China. Most countries have only had peace for less than a century. New technologies end up abusing, if not killing, hundreds of thousands of people. The global economy seem to experience one large crash every decade. A lot of things are getting better, but I certainly wouldn't say the are getting more functional. I would even say that a lot of development is more unsustainable today than ever.
When a million people don't die in traffic every year I will get more hopeful about humanities ability to handle existential threats. Until then let's hope for a something smaller event first (I don't really know the distribution of something like a meteor).
The only country actively ignoring this is the US, as the only (only!) country in the world not signed up to the Paris climate accords. However, that's not to say the citizens, industries and local governments are aligned with this insane stance
The other countries are signed up for the Paris accords, but just don't do anything. Global CO2 production is still climbing.
FYI, the US has made the largest reduction in amount of CO2 emissions of any country in the world. Per capital CO2 usage in the US has gone down 19-20%, starting while W Bush was president.
I did not know that and I'm glad to hear it
Even though I was expecting the increase at the end, the severity and suddenness of the 2000s is shocking.
It wasn't clear in legend, what is the "normal", average of 1880-2017?
We don't really know what the "normal" temperature is, the climate is a very dynamic system without any obvious fixpoint.
Here they've chosen to take the average over 1951-1980 and use that as the reference.
Here they've chosen to take the average over 1951-1980 and use that as the reference.
What exactly was the rationale behind picking this period?
The middle of that period represents "the good old days" for old farts like me, I'd suppose.
There was also a sizeable cold anomaly during war2, or it might simply be that the data-set gets spottier the further back you go.
[deleted]
Scary. I assume these cannot be attributed to some weather cycle the Earth goes through.
I'm wondering though, would it be possible to correlate these anomalies with some other metrics? Say for example human produced CO2?
I'm wondering though, would it be possible to correlate these anomalies with some other metrics? Say for example human produced CO2?
If anyone is staring at this wondering what it is, it's a video, there's a play button in the middle of the page.
What is the color and size scale here? It could be deeply misleading, for example if it’s a linear scale counting number of anomalies in a bucket (like number of +2.0 anomaly measurements in a given country).
From the upper right, it seems like it’s I guess the average per year per country, placed in bins for -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ... except how were the bins constructed? In reference to global temperature in some specific year? Country-average in some specific year? Very hard to read or know the significance of it.
I hate visualizations like this for exactly this reason. The video hits me in the gut and makes me want to believe the final two decades of data are alarming, but it’s not clear at all what statistical claim is being measured, and how unlikely that specific claim would be under some counterfactual distribution.
I’m not denying (or confirming!) the implication of the data. Just pointing out that this is sort of like “ooh shiny” shallow attention grabbing, which IMO does more harm than good.
Statistical visualizations should not feel like they have an agenda in the idiosyncratic choice of axes, scale, colorbar, etc. It’s just not clear to me here that it’s not got one.
From the upper right, it seems like it’s I guess the average per year per country, placed in bins for -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ... except how were the bins constructed? In reference to global temperature in some specific year? Country-average in some specific year? Very hard to read or know the significance of it.
I hate visualizations like this for exactly this reason. The video hits me in the gut and makes me want to believe the final two decades of data are alarming, but it’s not clear at all what statistical claim is being measured, and how unlikely that specific claim would be under some counterfactual distribution.
I’m not denying (or confirming!) the implication of the data. Just pointing out that this is sort of like “ooh shiny” shallow attention grabbing, which IMO does more harm than good.
Statistical visualizations should not feel like they have an agenda in the idiosyncratic choice of axes, scale, colorbar, etc. It’s just not clear to me here that it’s not got one.
The intent of this visualization is to hit you in the gut. If you want something more concrete, there’s plenty of it out there. We can have both kinds of things.
Manipulating data to "hit you in the gut" amounts to propaganda, of which people can be (rightly) wary, regardless of the veracity of the ultimate message.
Who says it’s manipulated? The complaint was that there wasn’t sufficient detail. Are we just assuming that any chart that doesn’t live up to the standards of a scientific paper must be manipulated?
Omitting sufficient detail to understand the scale and significance of a result is one of the most common types of manipulation in statistical data presentation. Not saying that this post was specifically trying to be manipulative, but it is very reasonable to presume the goal is manipulation and work back from there, since it is so, so common in published academic literature, newspaper infographics, etc.
So, you’re not saying it’s manipulative, but it’s reasonable to assume it is? That seems contradictory.
Why is it contradictory? I don’t have special knowledge to confirm if this was manipulative. But since manipulating the presentation of data is so common in academic papers, newspaper infographics, etc., it’s a reasonable prior belief. Generally being skeptical of data presentations is reasonable.
A lot of things are propaganda. Showing a crying immigrant child is propaganda. Showing a picture of mourning fireman on the day of 9/11/2001 is propaganda. In each case we may want to debate what the picture is trying to say and whether it is appealing more to the emotions than rational debate. Or not. It depends.
On the other hand, when someone sees the firefighter and says "What a propaganda. These pictures never bother to present a concrete evidence that two planes hit WTC," then we kind of know rational discourse is over, which is what's happening with climate denialism.
On the other hand, when someone sees the firefighter and says "What a propaganda. These pictures never bother to present a concrete evidence that two planes hit WTC," then we kind of know rational discourse is over, which is what's happening with climate denialism.
> “On the other hand, when someone sees the firefighter and says "What a propaganda. These pictures never bother to present a concrete evidence that two planes hit WTC," then we kind of know rational discourse is over, which is what's happening with climate denialism.”
Let me state first that I do believe climate change is real and urgently needs to be given increased attention to find a solution.
But, secondly, your comment falls completely flat, and in my personal view, you are espousing something that is truly far, far more dangerous than even climate denial.
You’re attempting to say that a rational analysis of entire patterns of propaganda is equivalent to no longer participating in the rational debate. You’re trying to say that anyone who does not agree there is intrinsic credibility to the data-eliding emotional appeals must themselves no longer have credibility in the discussion.
This essentially lobotomizes our best and only chance to solve problems like climate change long-term, which is to use science as a constraint on political gamesmanship.
When you say, “... then we know rational discourse is over” you’re just falling right into politicians’ hands, who want to continue politicizing the issue while not actually doing anything about it that doesn’t happen to also serve their short-term profit interests, and figuring that if younger generations have to inherit a wasteland and figure out how to live in it, that’s not their problem, and they’ll happily consume now, while the getting is good.
Your type of meta-comment is the most frustrating to me in this whole debate, because you seem self-aware enough to know better.
Let me state first that I do believe climate change is real and urgently needs to be given increased attention to find a solution.
But, secondly, your comment falls completely flat, and in my personal view, you are espousing something that is truly far, far more dangerous than even climate denial.
You’re attempting to say that a rational analysis of entire patterns of propaganda is equivalent to no longer participating in the rational debate. You’re trying to say that anyone who does not agree there is intrinsic credibility to the data-eliding emotional appeals must themselves no longer have credibility in the discussion.
This essentially lobotomizes our best and only chance to solve problems like climate change long-term, which is to use science as a constraint on political gamesmanship.
When you say, “... then we know rational discourse is over” you’re just falling right into politicians’ hands, who want to continue politicizing the issue while not actually doing anything about it that doesn’t happen to also serve their short-term profit interests, and figuring that if younger generations have to inherit a wasteland and figure out how to live in it, that’s not their problem, and they’ll happily consume now, while the getting is good.
Your type of meta-comment is the most frustrating to me in this whole debate, because you seem self-aware enough to know better.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Manipulating presentation of data to create an emotional reaction so that policy decisions are made emotionally is not ok.
If a presentation of the data that conforms to standard techniques for an unbiased representation would not result in “hitting you in the gut” then that has to be accepted, and worked with, not sacrificing intellectual integrity to elide the data and change things for an agenda.
If a presentation of the data that conforms to standard techniques for an unbiased representation would not result in “hitting you in the gut” then that has to be accepted, and worked with, not sacrificing intellectual integrity to elide the data and change things for an agenda.
This is a fine sentiment (double entendre intended), but some people, enough to sway public policy, cannot be reached by a simple presentation of facts. If these people control policy, and one party to the debate has no qualms about controlling them through appeals to their gut, what should one do? If in 100 years humanity is reduced to an impoverished remnant living in the ruins of its greatness, will they be grateful that we kept our rhetoric pure? (Note, I'm not talking about lying, only about presenting information in a way designed to appeal to the audience's emotions.)
But this is just different sentiment. Personally, I think that people are very skilled at identifying when they are being spoken to unhonestly or dismissively.
> But this is just different sentiment.
My point precisely.
> Personally, I think that people are very skilled at identifying when they are being spoken to unhonestly or dismissively.
How? By consulting their gut? Why do certain people lie so frequently if lying doesn't work?
Besides, we aren't talking about lying here, only presenting true data such that it has a particular emotional appeal. The goal is not to produce any false belief or any action contrary to the audience's interest. It is only to get the audience to register the information with the organ they use to process such information effectively: their gut.
My point precisely.
> Personally, I think that people are very skilled at identifying when they are being spoken to unhonestly or dismissively.
How? By consulting their gut? Why do certain people lie so frequently if lying doesn't work?
Besides, we aren't talking about lying here, only presenting true data such that it has a particular emotional appeal. The goal is not to produce any false belief or any action contrary to the audience's interest. It is only to get the audience to register the information with the organ they use to process such information effectively: their gut.
Why do people lie? Maybe people are prone to exaggeration when its an idea they like or it's somehow attached to a position or stake they have taken (of)themselves.
But really the point I was trying to make by saying it's just another sentiment: perhaps the number of people put off by incomplete statistics is more than the people swayed by the dramatic results
But really the point I was trying to make by saying it's just another sentiment: perhaps the number of people put off by incomplete statistics is more than the people swayed by the dramatic results
I wouldn't say they are skilled, given the enormous false positive rate.
I'm trying to get you to invest in my fund. I give you a set of cherry picked graphs that indicate I'm earning an unbelievable amount of money with minimal to no variance. Then somebody else shows you a complete graph showing my longterm profits (which are rather different than what I lead you to believe) and other data indicating that I was being somewhat less than completely honest with you.
What's going to be your opinion of the value of my fund? Of me? Did I do anything wrong, or can I just claim I was only trying to "appeal to the audience's emotion"? Myopic thinking and Machiavellian logic are a great combination to undermine the very ends you aim to achieve.
What's going to be your opinion of the value of my fund? Of me? Did I do anything wrong, or can I just claim I was only trying to "appeal to the audience's emotion"? Myopic thinking and Machiavellian logic are a great combination to undermine the very ends you aim to achieve.
In your example you are attempting to deceive. That is the immorality. Not the appeal to emotions.
What if he really believes in the potential of his fund, and simply choses the graph that better conveys his belief- even if someone else might object that it's not the complete or most neutral representation?
If he isn't deliberately omitting information that would lead to a different conclusion -- deceit -- or using emotional manipulation to imply facts not in evidence -- also deceit -- then he's simply wrong.
In the case we're talking about, the emotional impact intended is simply that the information is alarming. You can drily say "the house is on fire", or with flushed face and wide eyes exclaim "the house is on fire!" The latter involves emotional information in addition to the relevant facts. If the house is not on fire, both statements have the same problem: they are false. If the house is on fire, the second is more likely to prompt action. The absence of emotional cues in the first statement will itself be taken as an emotional cue by an ordinary audience. "The house can't be on fire in the way I would normally interpret 'the house is on fire' because that would cause panic, and the speaker isn't panicking. Ho, hum. Are there any sports on?" In fact, the dryness of the presentation is frequently presented as evidence that climate change is a fraud. Denialists say "if you really believed this is true, you'd be doing X, and you aren't, so ha!" The beauty of this gambit is that the goal posts are so mobile. If you do X, they pull secret expected behavior Y out of their pocket and repeat the argument. These measures of sincere affect are like sharks teeth. There is always another if you pull out the one you see. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. So, setting aside these particular denialists as insincere, one's best bet is to try to indicate your affect in your presentation, because this is a heuristic ordinary people use to gauge the honesty of their interlocutors: does the implied urgency of their argument match their tone.
In the case we're talking about, the emotional impact intended is simply that the information is alarming. You can drily say "the house is on fire", or with flushed face and wide eyes exclaim "the house is on fire!" The latter involves emotional information in addition to the relevant facts. If the house is not on fire, both statements have the same problem: they are false. If the house is on fire, the second is more likely to prompt action. The absence of emotional cues in the first statement will itself be taken as an emotional cue by an ordinary audience. "The house can't be on fire in the way I would normally interpret 'the house is on fire' because that would cause panic, and the speaker isn't panicking. Ho, hum. Are there any sports on?" In fact, the dryness of the presentation is frequently presented as evidence that climate change is a fraud. Denialists say "if you really believed this is true, you'd be doing X, and you aren't, so ha!" The beauty of this gambit is that the goal posts are so mobile. If you do X, they pull secret expected behavior Y out of their pocket and repeat the argument. These measures of sincere affect are like sharks teeth. There is always another if you pull out the one you see. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. So, setting aside these particular denialists as insincere, one's best bet is to try to indicate your affect in your presentation, because this is a heuristic ordinary people use to gauge the honesty of their interlocutors: does the implied urgency of their argument match their tone.
Take the presentation data and contrast it against the longterm patterns seen in temperature [1]. This presentation absolutely omits information and relies on emotional manipulation to imply facts that are not in evidence -- in particular that the change in temperature is unprecedented and practically linear. This is literally selective sampling to present a misleading picture -- the identical behavior in our little metaphor.
If you genuinely think you're right, you don't suddenly turn to something very much bordering on falsehoods to make a point. In any discussion the strength of an argument is generally going to be measured based on the strength of its weakest point. And arguments, such as this article presents, are incredibly weak as they appear to be deeply misleading when one is presented with big picture data. And suddenly everything you've ever said becomes tainted, even if the other 99% of it was completely and wholly accurate.
[1] - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Global_te...
If you genuinely think you're right, you don't suddenly turn to something very much bordering on falsehoods to make a point. In any discussion the strength of an argument is generally going to be measured based on the strength of its weakest point. And arguments, such as this article presents, are incredibly weak as they appear to be deeply misleading when one is presented with big picture data. And suddenly everything you've ever said becomes tainted, even if the other 99% of it was completely and wholly accurate.
[1] - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Global_te...
.png){kind=link}
Ironic to complain about misleading visualizations and then link to a graph covering the last 800,000 years to imply that the recent change is just business as usual.
Do you not see the extremely recurrent pattern? One that has been occurring since before humanity even existed? This is really what makes things so incredibly challenging, and also why articles like this are presenting data in a less than honest fashion. We are undoubtedly going through a cyclical upswing as part of a regular cycle of climatic activity, but at the same time we're also adding a significant amount of additional CO2 to the cycle. The point is that it would be negligent for people to not consider human activity as a contributing factor, but it is no less negligent for people to not understand that we're also going through an ongoing warming phase that would have happened even if we were a 0 carbon output species. What would change is not the warming, but the magnitude.
Instead, like on so many topics in the social media era, people 'pick sides' and radicalize on these issues. And media like this is published to help further the radicalization. All the while in this process people on both 'sides' ends up voluntarily retarding their own logic and reasoning by working backwards from a predetermined conclusion instead of working from the breadth of data towards whichever conclusion (or lack thereof) that they find the most logical position.
Instead, like on so many topics in the social media era, people 'pick sides' and radicalize on these issues. And media like this is published to help further the radicalization. All the while in this process people on both 'sides' ends up voluntarily retarding their own logic and reasoning by working backwards from a predetermined conclusion instead of working from the breadth of data towards whichever conclusion (or lack thereof) that they find the most logical position.
The scale is visible in the right top corner (literally in every frame of the video). Did you just happen to overlook it or are you asking something else?
I meant that the scale in the upper right is uninformative.
If the circles’ sizes and colors were based on country-specific average anomaly divided by country-specific standard deviation of anomaly, based on a post-industrial reference year, say in the 50s-80s, then the colorization and size changes would possibly be useful.
Basically bucketing Wald statistics instead of temperature anomaly, and ensuring it’s all always country-specific.
If the circles’ sizes and colors were based on country-specific average anomaly divided by country-specific standard deviation of anomaly, based on a post-industrial reference year, say in the 50s-80s, then the colorization and size changes would possibly be useful.
Basically bucketing Wald statistics instead of temperature anomaly, and ensuring it’s all always country-specific.
What surprised me was that ironically reduction of acid rain aerosol particles is actually accelerating the effect of global warming [1], [2].
As a result, there are some who are arguing about the use of it for climate engineering [3].
I would be against climate engineering, but in the case of aerosol, given the history of volcano eruptions of the past and that we are facing an irreversible trend, this is something we need to seriously consider before it's too late.
[1] (scroll to the Aerosol graph) https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
[2] https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_aerosols....
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...
As a result, there are some who are arguing about the use of it for climate engineering [3].
I would be against climate engineering, but in the case of aerosol, given the history of volcano eruptions of the past and that we are facing an irreversible trend, this is something we need to seriously consider before it's too late.
[1] (scroll to the Aerosol graph) https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
[2] https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_aerosols....
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...
There was a recent study that concluded that the loss of sunlight under such a scheme would have a large effect on agricultural yields: even if it succeeds to stop the rise in temperature, it would be net-negative at least in regards to food production.
Other visualizations of change in atmospheric temperature:
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/spirals/
and
https://xkcd.com/1732/
I find data that chooses 1880 to be extremely counter productive. This [1] is an image of longterm temperature estimations from NASA. When somebody sees this they're inclined to ask themselves why exactly do these sort of data start at 1880? It misses the critical cyclical pattern of temperature changes and starts at the lowest low possible to present a misleading picture indicating complete clarity of a linear pattern. To be clear I think we're almost certainly playing a significant role in the current rate of temperature changes, but presenting misleading data completely removed from context is a really great way to completely undermine faith in everything you say.
[1] - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Global_te...
[1] - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Global_te...
You think there is a conspiracy to supress detailed global temperature measurements that were taken before 1880? It's interesting that we have ways to estimate global temperature before 1880, but that marks the start of modern record keeping.
It also has the advantage of showing the blip of very high US temperatures in the 1930s. People also complain about bias if those extremes are left out.
It also has the advantage of showing the blip of very high US temperatures in the 1930s. People also complain about bias if those extremes are left out.
I'm not sure my personal opinion is relevant, but the answer to your question is no. But understanding the typical patterns of climatic change is absolutely critical for making an informed opinion. These sort of presentations prevent a misleading snippet of climatic activity that is taken out of the critical context of typical patterns. Consequently it seems intentionally geared towards trying to provoke people into responding in an ill informed fashion.
And while I suspect this is well intentioned, I also think it's more likely to backfire than to help produce positive change. Poisoning the well [1] is very much a thing. When information is presented in a way that can be shown to be very misleading, it tends to make one question the integrity of all other data even when it is presented in as forthright a fashion as possible.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
And while I suspect this is well intentioned, I also think it's more likely to backfire than to help produce positive change. Poisoning the well [1] is very much a thing. When information is presented in a way that can be shown to be very misleading, it tends to make one question the integrity of all other data even when it is presented in as forthright a fashion as possible.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Might be worth a visit here https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/ if you want some context.
What if you'd make it so that "normal" (non-anomalous) was defined like it is today (rather than how it was 1880)? Would that make the animation look like it's gone from super bad to super good?
[deleted]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95uvT67bNg
The data set is here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php
IIRC, it took about a hundred lines of Perl to generate that animation of temperature station locations in the definitive global historical temperature data set.
When you are watching the animation, note when specific regions of the world make an appearance in the data set and the relative importance of measurements from specific countries.
I do not draw policy conclusions from these observations. However, I am frequently annoyed by official and unofficial visualizations which completely gloss over the sample selection and observational continuity problems in the historical record.