Earth's Black Box Climate Warning Box for Future Generations to Study.

michalrz said:
Or a Tesla. Or a chunk of coal.
My country has pretty much forfeited its future by not harnessing the uptick in the economy we've had since 2016 to invest in nuclear power.

They actually started building yet another fucking coal plant and didn't even finish it. Was scrapped not long ago.
It's too late now, as these are massive undertakings and we're in for a hyperinflation and possibly war.

We're doomed here in Poland and it pains me to know I'll be watching this trainwreck in slow motion, front and center seats.

Yeah, mining crypto eats a massive amount of power.
But it's not like we had a surplus of clean power before that started. It was borrowed time for a while now.
Click to expand...
In college my band had a Polish sound guy and a Czech one, too.
 
kirbyrj said:
When people talk about the "warmest its ever been," I think it's more accurate to say that it's the warmer than it's ever been within the maybe 50 years. Before then, who knows what kind of accurate record keeping about temperatures, etc. was actually taking place.
Click to expand...
Except for digital instruments it's not like thermometers are a new thing.
 
Armenius said:
Was going to say. How is it supposed to outlive humanity if your average solar panel is only good for 25 years? The batteries that store the excess power are also not going to last forever. Unless they truly believe the world will become uninhabitable by 2050 or whatever year they've decided on this time.
Click to expand...
1- solar panels arent good for only 25 years, that typically is what they are rated at to output 70% of their original output.
2- Batteries are there for "night" time data taking, they dont half to outlive humanity either
3- a "black box" only needs power to record data, not to store it (unless it is a horrible design), black boxes are meant to survive catastrophe so that information can be gathered, and yeah either stuff will be noticeably bad by 2050 in which case data was taken to show what happened or it won't in which case no worries
 
They've uhh, been recording climate for literally thousands of years. Especially in regards to crops and such where it's kinda important. Having multiple-year records is also important because the earth doesn't actually operate on a 1:1 yearly schedule. The Farmer's Almanac is just one example of this, but there's crop records in stone tablets.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...almanac-previewed-the-information-age/415836/
 
TheSlySyl said:
They've uhh, been recording climate for literally thousands of years. Especially in regards to crops and such where it's kinda important. Having multiple-year records is also important because the earth doesn't actually operate on a 1:1 yearly schedule. The Farmer's Almanac is just one example of this, but there's crop records in stone tablets.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...almanac-previewed-the-information-age/415836/
Click to expand...
Actually recording local temperatures beyond "damn it's hot" or "damn it's cold" has not been doable until relatively recently, however. You also have to remember that local temperatures means exactly that-local. Some things can be inferred from geological samples, tree rings, peat, ice cores, etc. However, there is literally NO way to actually know what the temperature was in a given location at a given time with any accuracy without modern (and calibrated the same!) measuring methods.
We can only infer climate based on things like whether grapes could be grown in one era versus another, etc. If you have a place that is ice locked now and was productive farmland in the past, we can infer that it was warmer in the past. But exactly how much is impossible.
 
kirbyrj said:
When people talk about the "warmest its ever been," I think it's more accurate to say that it's the warmer than it's ever been within the maybe 50 years. Before then, who knows what kind of accurate record keeping about temperatures, etc. was actually taking place.
Click to expand...
The 50-year mark means you're starting at the coolest point in modern times, which is of course going to show it warmer today than back then. Remember there were fears of global cooling and a new ice age being pushed in the 1970s. Funny how that has changed. It was much warmer during the time of the Dust Bowl.

1639076532026.png
 
Armenius said:
The 50-year mark means you're starting at the coolest point in modern times, which is of course going to show it warmer today than back then. Remember there were fears of global cooling and a new ice age being pushed in the 1970s. Funny how that has changed. It was much warmer during the time of the Dust Bowl.

View attachment 420199
Click to expand...

I agree. My personal view is that there is more macro climate information that we just don't have available. I mean solar activity, volcanic activity, etc. Things that we don't have any control over. Who knows what was happening 1000 years ago let alone 10,000 years ago to get an idea about where we are today vs. the past? I'm not saying that mankind has no effect on the climate. I'm just saying that it seems like it is harder to tell the exact amount of human effect than some would have us believe.
 
If climate scientists understood what was happening, they would be able to create an accurate model and predict the changes.

So far thier models have been poor. Part of the problem is that the funding goes to the scientists claiming the sky is falling, not the ones doing the boring and accurate work.

The scientific community is being perverted by money. Just like everyone else.

https://www.science.org/content/art...ould-not-be-replicated-controversial-analysis
 
A species capable of intergalactic travel wouldn't need us to tell them what happened to the planet. I'll bet the company that designed and built this pos made a ton of cash off the fake science scam. I'm all for green energy, I'd like to see the pollution go away in my city but the fact is the technology isn't there yet and even if it was it wouldn't stop global warming, its a natural cycle. If you want to see real 3rd world poverty in the west then by all means get rid of oil, gas and coal. You won't like the result.
 
michalrz said:
My country has pretty much forfeited its future by not harnessing the uptick in the economy we've had since 2016 to invest in nuclear power.
Click to expand...
Your's and pretty much everyone else's. Until the "environmentalist" stop opposing nuclear power and actually start pushing for it I've no use them. Frankly, I consider most of them to be worthless even as carbon sinks.
 
At first I thought you guys were being facetious, but it's evident there are people here who still don't understand how this works. At risk of wasting my breath, It's like this:
  1. Ice core samples have been taken by several unaffiliated groups of scientists across the planet.
  2. The data from these samples leads us to believe that the earth has been through several cooling and warming periods in the past. Most climate change denialists will at least agree on this point.
  3. The data also shows that we're currently in the middle of a natural warming period. Climate change denialists love this, and believe that it invalidates the idea that humans have caused it. However...
  4. The data also show that the rate of warming in this iteration of the cycle is much more rapid than during any other iteration that earth has experienced in the detectable past.
  5. The only significant global change to the planet since the last iteration of this cycle is that humans have industrialized.
  6. Given what we know, the only plausible explanation for the accelerated heating is that human industrialization has caused it.
  7. I'm not trying to sell you anything.
  8. I can't stop you from coming up with or believing somebody else's crackpot conspiracy theories about this.
  9. Regardless of what you believe, this is the logic that most sane and reasonable people follow, so it's good to at least understand it.
 
pendragon1 said:
right back at ya and gots some sources for all those "statements of fact"?
Click to expand...

Most of the data is publicly available here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/?dataTypeId=7

Here's a graphical summary of that data over the past 600,000 years averaged across several sampling sites: https://www.co2.earth/images/figures/co2-ghg-ice-core-record_650kyr_ipcc-ar4_2007_720w.jpg

Do you see the historical cycles followed by the giant vertical spike in the last 1,000 years? Let's zoom in on that. Here's a sample I just found from a couple of sites in Antarctica: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.xls

Notice how CO2 and CH4 are rapidly rising everywhere?

These aren't facts. This is just data. Contrary to popular belief, science isn't about finding an authority you trust and accepting their conclusions as truth. You're welcome to look it up yourself and draw your own conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
. It was much warmer during the time of the Dust Bowl.
Click to expand...
That not what your graph are saying I think, there was more extreme heat days (and cold one).

Global:
main-qimg-c073476f574ab1f56fe461d6f7f17c6c.webp


Continental US:
noaa1895-2016.jpg




In the US it got colder in the lates 60s early 70s, but it is now back up to higher than the 30s (if someone trace line that start in 65-70 it could make the change look over dramatic)
 
"Berkley earth land values combined with interpolated HadSST ocean values"
Now why would someone combine data that way? What's the rationale? How were they combined?

In the legend of the first graph it says "Annual Average with 95% uncertainty"
95% uncertainty?????? Either the author of this study failed freshman statistics, or this whole graph is a joke. Im leaning toward the latter. There is no way this would have gotten through any sort of peer review, even peers of high shool students.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobu
like this
Wat said:
"Berkley earth land values combined with interpolated HadSST ocean values"
Click to expand...
To have some world temp one can look at only ocean or only land.

Wat said:
95% uncertainty??????
Click to expand...
Isn<t a 95% confidence interval pretty common ? (i.e. evaluated at 95% that the real value is in the light gray zone, zone that get smaller and smaller over time with the data becoming better and better)
 
LukeTbk said:
Isn<t a 95% confidence interval pretty common ? (i.e. evaluated at 95% that the real value is in the light gray zone, zone that get smaller and smaller over time with the data becoming better and better)
Click to expand...

Yes, a 0.95 C.I. are pretty much the norm for most observational/experimental data (When sample size allows).

The chart just said it weird with a 95% uncertainty , but really just meaning the 0.95 C.I.
 
LukeTbk said:
To have some world temp one can look at only ocean or only land.
Click to expand...
Or maybe to amplify variation in order to skew the data? Is the quality of ocean temperature readings reliable? These are the types of issues that can separate science from junk science
LukeTbk said:
Isn<t a 95% confidence interval pretty common ? (i.e. evaluated at 95% that the real value is in the light gray zone, zone that get smaller and smaller over time with the data becoming better and better)
Click to expand...
A 95% confidence interval is common. 95% uncertainty is not. That is a stupid, sloppy mistake that never should have passed any sort of review.
 
Wat said:
A 95% confidence interval is common. 95% uncertainty is not.
Click to expand...
Are they not the exact same thing, just different way to talk about it, first time I encounter the term but that what a quick google seem to say,
 
LukeTbk said:
Are they not the exact same thing, just different way to talk about it, first time I encounter the term but that what a quick google seem to say,
Click to expand...
No they are not the exact same thing. 95% uncertainty would suggest a 5% confidence interval.

Details are important.

If the authors screwed this up, what else were they sloppy doing? Data is data, but it can be manipulated (or misrepresented) in all kinds of ways to show something that really isn't there.

I find it funny how the "follow the science" crowd has very little scientific knowledge. And view scientists as some sort of infallible high priest that we must follow, without question. F that and the pseudoscience sheep they rode in on.
 
i wonder how long it would last if a volcano suddenly appeared close to it and started spewing lava everywhere.
 
Wat said:
No they are not the exact same thing. 95% uncertainty would suggest a 5% confidence interval.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why the suggest part, is it not clear and not a suggestion ? Is it something you know or are you speculating ?:

An uncertainty interval refers to confidence interval, the difference between the two being only philosophical rather than mathematical. Confidence interval is an interval estimate of the parameter. Thus a confidence interval is meant to estimate the degree of uncertainty in a sample statistic. The wider confidence interval means greater uncertainty level and narrower one indicate greater certainty level. Therefor philosophically, uncertainty interval is a more appropriate term for the confidence interval. For a lay person, a 95% confidence interval can be thought as the lower and upper limit for a parameter estimate which will contain the true estimates for 95 out of hundred random samples.

https://www.rsc.org/images/uncertainty-confidence-technical-brief-26A_tcm18-214879.pdf

It does seem to be used interchanbilty and be the same thing:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673616315938

In 2015, among the 5·9 million under-5 deaths, 2·7 million occurred in the neonatal period. The leading under-5 causes were preterm birth complications (1·055 million [95% uncertainty range (UR) 0·935–1·179])

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia....dence-interval-lets-say-uncertainty-interval/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top