1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

DanD
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby DanD » Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:18 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
paha arkkitehti wrote:Those are easy. Feeding us all simply means changing to a more vegetarian diet (see: http://xkcd.com/1338/) and change the agricultural policy so that we would farm our stuff where the climate is good (like Africa) instead of using massive amounts of money and energy to cultivate things in near arctic environment (say, Northern Europe).


So instead of using massive amounts of money and energy to cultivate food in Northern Europe, you're going to use massive amounts of money and energy to transport food cultivated in Africa to Northern Europe.


The Romans managed it with human and sail power. More to the point, if you have adequate energy sources (Sahara solar for instance) and a feedstock (crop waste), making carbon neutral liquid fuels is trivial.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:34 pm UTC

DanD wrote:The Romans managed it with human and sail power. More to the point, if you have adequate energy sources (Sahara solar for instance) and a feedstock (crop waste), making carbon neutral liquid fuels is trivial.
Exactly how many Romans were there? However the point is moot. You grow crops using fertilizer and water. The first requires fossil fuels and the second is in short supply in that part of Africa. And reliable crop production is best done in places that are politically stable. And food is grown and transported on a daily basis already. Grain crops are sold world wide when there aren't national barriers to the importation and sale. I eat fruit and coffee from the Southern hemisphere. Fish are caught in both the Atlantic and Pacific.
gmalivuk wrote:That you need energy to drill the holes for geothermal isn't a refutation of the claim that geothermal can thereafter heat a city without producing CO2.
No it isn't but the hidden kicker is showing that the locations were it might be possible have the water supplies and the geological formations that make good geothermal. If it were simple and achievable it would be done. Where the conditions are right it is done. Where I live there are 3 cold months when heating is required and the economics don't work.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Crissa » Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:15 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Unless I'm missing something, Soteria didn't change the argument he/she was making, he just presented a different one to what other people were. By accusing him of "changing the argument" you seem to be claiming he's the same as the people denying climate change altogether.

Yes, you're missing something. By using the word 'many' and taking over the conversation; they implied their type of denial was the majority. Soteria specifically was shifting the argument from the one they lost - flat denial - to denying that we ought to do anything at all.

It's a very circular argument, since this particular argument always shifts from "nuh-uh" to "but models" to "it's not happening" to "but we can't be certain we can do anything about it" to "we've already solved it" to "But it changed before" and then we'll go back to "nuh-uh" and start all over again. The groups they cite never change so it doesn't matter that Soteria didn't personally make those arguments - they're citing the same sources and claiming the majority voice.

Very dishonest.

-Crissa

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4867
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby HES » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:If it were simple and achievable it would be done.

Not when politics gets involved. Stupid decisions happen instead.
He/Him/His Image

cphite
Posts: 1272
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby cphite » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:36 pm UTC

DanD wrote:
cphite wrote:
paha arkkitehti wrote:Those are easy. Feeding us all simply means changing to a more vegetarian diet (see: http://xkcd.com/1338/) and change the agricultural policy so that we would farm our stuff where the climate is good (like Africa) instead of using massive amounts of money and energy to cultivate things in near arctic environment (say, Northern Europe).


So instead of using massive amounts of money and energy to cultivate food in Northern Europe, you're going to use massive amounts of money and energy to transport food cultivated in Africa to Northern Europe.


The Romans managed it with human and sail power.


The Romans weren't feeding anywhere close to the number of people living in Northern Europe right now.

To be fair, there actually is (as morriswalters points out) trade between Africa and Europe; and all around the world. But when you start talking about feeding the entire population of Europe (or even Northern Europe) or any other major population center entirely with food that is imported from that far away, your costs would be absolutely staggering. It just isn't going to work out the way you're thinking it will.

More to the point, if you have adequate energy sources (Sahara solar for instance) and a feedstock (crop waste), making carbon neutral liquid fuels is trivial.


Then why isn't it happening now? Why hasn't anyone even tried this?

The knee jerk response is often that Evil Oil Companies are preventing it from happening; that they want desperately to prevent anything from replacing oil and other fossil fuels. But that's silly. The reality is, oil companies and energy companies in general are some of the biggest spenders on renewable energy on the planet. These folks want wind and solar and so forth. The reason is simple: So they can keep generating power, and charging for it, while spending a lot less in the long run to generate it.

If using solar power to turn crop waste into fuel - on a scale that actually mattered - was a feasible business plan, these folks would be all over it in a heartbeat.

paha arkkitehti
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:18 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby paha arkkitehti » Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:11 am UTC

cphite wrote:To be fair, there actually is (as morriswalters points out) trade between Africa and Europe; and all around the world. But when you start talking about feeding the entire population of Europe (or even Northern Europe) or any other major population center entirely with food that is imported from that far away, your costs would be absolutely staggering. It just isn't going to work out the way you're thinking it will.


I think you are overestimating the cost of transportation. In the North European country I live in, the cheapest beef comes from Argentina, and the cheapest mutton from New Zealand. The cheapest salmon available is Norwegian, but it's shipped to far east to be processed before bringing it back here. AND there is an import tax for all goods entering the European Union.

Transportation is dirt cheap.

dolphintickler
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:04 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby dolphintickler » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:30 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
dolphintickler wrote:I'm amazed that a person so expert at physics could produce a graph whose values are so far off those described by its title.
Do you mean "values" more as in recorded results or relative philosophy? And there are a number of different bits of text that can be considered the "title", so please do make a second post to the forum to clarify this, lest we misunderstand and thus wrongly ignore your comment.


The values as in the numbers represented, and the title as in "Earth Temperature Timeline". I mean, as svenman suggested I might, that there's a very big difference between the Earth and its atmosphere. Today's maximum weather temperature is 47.7 C, which is very far below the temperature of almost all of the Earth. Not only is the Earth's average much higher, but there's no way we could know it to the precision needed to produce a graph of it over the timescales used here.

Also I don't know if the values are intended to describe the whole atmosphere or only some part close to the ground.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby morriswalters » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:38 am UTC

HES wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If it were simple and achievable it would be done.

Not when politics gets involved. Stupid decisions happen instead.
Let me know if politics is ever not involved.
paha arkkitehti wrote:I think you are overestimating the cost of transportation. In the North European country I live in, the cheapest beef comes from Argentina, and the cheapest mutton from New Zealand. The cheapest salmon available is Norwegian, but it's shipped to far east to be processed before bringing it back here. AND there is an import tax for all goods entering the European Union.

Transportation is dirt cheap.
Yep, you can buy almost any foodstuff no matter the season. Brought to you by, wait for it, cheap oil.

ijuin
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby ijuin » Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:56 am UTC

cphite wrote:The knee jerk response is often that Evil Oil Companies are preventing it from happening; that they want desperately to prevent anything from replacing oil and other fossil fuels. But that's silly. The reality is, oil companies and energy companies in general are some of the biggest spenders on renewable energy on the planet. These folks want wind and solar and so forth. The reason is simple: So they can keep generating power, and charging for it, while spending a lot less in the long run to generate it.

If using solar power to turn crop waste into fuel - on a scale that actually mattered - was a feasible business plan, these folks would be all over it in a heartbeat.


The oil companies understand that what their customers are buying isn't oil per se--it's the ability to run their transportation and electric power generators, and the majority of customers don't really care about where that energy comes from as long as it's cheap and their own neighborhood isn't getting noticeably polluted by it. I don't really care what I'm filling my car with, as long as it's no more toxic than the unleaded gas that we've been using and I get good mileage out of it. It could be LNG, alcohol, biodiesel, or whatever.

paha arkkitehti
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:18 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby paha arkkitehti » Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:01 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
paha arkkitehti wrote:Transportation is dirt cheap.
Yep, you can buy almost any foodstuff no matter the season. Brought to you by, wait for it, cheap oil.


Oil price doesn't really change the equation, in fact it makes it worse. Transportation is only a tiny fraction of the overall carbon footprint of food, the majority of the oil is used in production. And production in Northern Europe takes much more oil than in warmer climates.

Long distance shipping is amazingly energy efficient.

niauropsaka
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby niauropsaka » Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:03 am UTC

cphite wrote:Then why isn't it happening now? Why hasn't anyone even tried this?

The knee jerk response is often that Evil Oil Companies are preventing it from happening; that they want desperately to prevent anything from replacing oil and other fossil fuels. But that's silly. The reality is, oil companies and energy companies in general are some of the biggest spenders on renewable energy on the planet. These folks want wind and solar and so forth. The reason is simple: So they can keep generating power, and charging for it, while spending a lot less in the long run to generate it.

If using solar power to turn crop waste into fuel - on a scale that actually mattered - was a feasible business plan, these folks would be all over it in a heartbeat.

I have to disagree with this analysis. Remember that these oil companies are staffed with human beings, and human beings are capable of believing incredibly silly things, and doing things for unbelievably petty reasons.

I try to keep in mind that the UK's King Edward VIII was not driven from the throne for being a Nazi sympathiser, but simply for marrying a divorcée; a fact which seems bizarre to us today. People can be very insistent about nonsense.

Energy companies want solar so long as it's concentrated solar, or alternatively if they have a monopoly on the solar cells. Distributed solar is scary to some of these guys because it means the number of suppliers they have will go way up while the number of paying customers they have will go way down. That knowledge has bred a hatred of green energy into persons who identify high electrical consumption and high electrical costs with their own future income.

It's silly, petty, selfish, and kind of ignorant, but it sounds like self-interest to these persons, who are after all just human beings.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby ps.02 » Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:22 am UTC

niauropsaka wrote:Energy companies want solar so long as it's concentrated solar, or alternatively if they have a monopoly on the solar cells. Distributed solar is scary to some of these guys because it means the number of suppliers they have will go way up while the number of paying customers they have will go way down.

Be fair. A major reason utility companies aren't crazy about net metering is that they're being asked to buy electricity at retail, not wholesale, rates. This is not a trivial difference - I think it's like a factor of 3 or 4. Of course there's more to it - net metering encourages distributed generation, which can allow a utility to save money by deferring upgrades to transmission capacity, for example. But on the face of it, net metering isn't particularly fair. If I'm selling widgets in a store, and my cost per widget is $3, but various business expenses make it reasonable to charge $10, I'm not going to be too thrilled at the government stepping in and forcing me to buy extra widgets from random customers for $10, just so I can turn around and sell them for $10. Especially when these customers aren't bound to any contracts where I'd have any idea how many widgets I can expect them to provide me at any given time.

Just saying, I can see their point.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Crissa » Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:40 am UTC

paha arkkitehti wrote:Transportation is dirt cheap.

And it's dirt cheap while burning some of the dirtiest oil.

Wind and solar are virtually free.

ps.02 wrote:But on the face of it, net metering isn't particularly fair.

I can see their point, too. But no, fairness doesn't enter into it. Their profit is not 'fair'. It's profit. They make less money when people reduce their energy use, too. Or when people waste less energy. So why should we protect their profits against that? Until household net-metered solar becomes a large part of the grid - and it is not anywhere - their whining should fall on deaf ears. Maybe someday we'll charge a baseline 'capacity charge' to electricity bills... But net metering is fair.

FreeRoy
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby FreeRoy » Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:37 am UTC

I've worn out 2 computers reading xkcd, and in that time I have to say that IMHO this graph (flawed though it may be) is the single most concise and effective presentation I've ever seen. Thanks, Randall Munroe!

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Soteria » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:49 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
Mutex wrote:Unless I'm missing something, Soteria didn't change the argument he/she was making, he just presented a different one to what other people were. By accusing him of "changing the argument" you seem to be claiming he's the same as the people denying climate change altogether.

Yes, you're missing something. By using the word 'many' and taking over the conversation; they implied their type of denial was the majority. Soteria specifically was shifting the argument from the one they lost - flat denial - to denying that we ought to do anything at all.

It's a very circular argument, since this particular argument always shifts from "nuh-uh" to "but models" to "it's not happening" to "but we can't be certain we can do anything about it" to "we've already solved it" to "But it changed before" and then we'll go back to "nuh-uh" and start all over again. The groups they cite never change so it doesn't matter that Soteria didn't personally make those arguments - they're citing the same sources and claiming the majority voice.

Very dishonest.

-Crissa


Several things. Many =/= most. That I claim to speak for a majority was your inference. I was pointing that out an alternate view exists and is usually ignored by deniers and believers alike. I never cited *any* source, so again, your claim that I would cite the same source and make the same arguments is entirely in your own mind.

Your accusing me of a "no true scotsman" fallacy is in essence a straw man--instead of addressing any point I made, you simply claimed that I'm someone I'm not and that I have (secretly?) been making arguments that I have not made.

Now, if there is a point you feel I did not address or a question regarding the topic I replied to, I would be happy to discuss that, but arguing about who said what and what they meant gets a little tedious after a while, especially when you keep putting words in my mouth.

x7eggert
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby x7eggert » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:54 am UTC

dolphintickler wrote:there's no way we could know it to the precision needed to produce a graph of it over the timescales used here.


Except for e.g. _yearly_ growth rate of trees for the past 13 500 years.

Sediments, Stalactites and Oxygen isotopes do help, too. We can also measure the strength of the sun by the amount of interstellar isotopes (strong sun pushes them away). We can look at leaf shapes in fossils - they vary by temperature. We can count the days in a year at the time of ancient earth and see it slowing down. We aren't perfect, but we got decent data.

x7eggert
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby x7eggert » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:11 am UTC

DanD wrote:Oh, I fully agree, and the more nuclear the better as far as I am concerned.


Nuclear is perfect, as long as it's not controlled by greedy companies that could as well just use Jurassic Parc's security and as long as somebody else will bury the waste.

"Do not build below this stone on this coast, because Tsunami" - what's the minimum height for flood walls?
"Earthquake fault line here" - let's sue so we can build right next to it!
"It's forbidden to dump nuclear waste from ships, because thinning the waste does not work" - let's build a pipeline!
...

x7eggert
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby x7eggert » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:24 am UTC

ps.02 wrote:Wind has the same problem. I have decent wind resources, but too many trees. Would have to build the tower(s) really high.


As far as I know, building high (above where animals fly) is a good idea, also it gives you more profit _and_ is supposed to be less noisy because of the distance to the ground. If your neighbors are far away, too, cutting down the tree might be reasonable.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Crissa » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:40 am UTC

Soteria wrote:Your accusing me of a "no true scotsman" fallacy is in essence a straw man--instead of addressing any point I made, you simply claimed that I'm someone I'm not and that I have (secretly?) been making arguments that I have not made.

Now, if there is a point you feel I did not address or a question regarding the topic I replied to, I would be happy to discuss...

Of course you would, because you used false authority, false popularity, and then disowned all previous arguments! There's no argument to make against you because you didn't make one.

Asserting that a hundred-year problem couldn't be solved yesterday is hardly an argument.

-Crissa

x7eggert
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby x7eggert » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:48 am UTC

hamjudo wrote:Here is a serious looking proposal to use railroad technology to store hundreds of megawatt hours by moving many railroad car sized weights up a mountain,
http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/grid-scale-energy-storage
Image

In this article,http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/article/9573-the-future-of-energy-storage-%E2%80%94-%E2%80%98sisyphus-railroad%E2%80%99 ,we get the quote you've been waiting for
The Economist magazine has dubbed it the “Sisyphus Railroad.”


That article also says they plan to start construction next year.


If each train can store 500 € of energy and if they make a lot of profit on each trip, maybe they can pay for the new paint on the trains before the old paint peels off.

German: http://energiespeicher.blogspot.de/2012 ... kraft.html

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:20 am UTC

Is there any realistic alternative to oil at the moment for large ships (e.g. container ships)?

x7eggert
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby x7eggert » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:34 am UTC

DanD wrote:
x7eggert wrote:Some warming events were caused by volcanoes, It's hard to explain volcanic CO₂ with increased temperatures.


Citation please? Volcanoes cause cooling in the short term (atmospheric dust) and generally don't have a long term effect. Volcanoes produce very low quantities of durable greenhouse gases like CO2 or Methane, relative to human production.


Yes, you need a BIG volcanic event, 1 000 000 years of flooding a continent with lava and some coal to ignite, IIRC. See "How the earth was made S02E11". Off cause it's only a documentary, but this one gives a lot of insight and reasoning.

x7eggert
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby x7eggert » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:37 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:I don't believe that will be forthcoming. That he "reads papers and the people who do the maths agree with him" was the citation I got for water not being an important greenhouse gas (and that it is, in fact, the reverse: that warming causes water vapor, and water vapor cannot hold heat because it rains... or something like that...)


If you need some proof that rain is a thing and consists of water vapor, you _really_ are a denialist.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby ps.02 » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:49 am UTC

x7eggert wrote:As far as I know, building high (above where animals fly) is a good idea, also it gives you more profit _and_ is supposed to be less noisy because of the distance to the ground.

Quite. The rule of thumb I read somewhere was to aim for the low point of the turbine blade to be at least 10m higher than any obstruction within 160m. You not only get more wind, but steadier wind, improving the lifetime of your turbine assembly.
If your neighbors are far away, too, cutting down the tree might be reasonable.

They aren't. I'm in the middle of a city, and 160m is a pretty fair distance in a city. Even if I wanted to cut down a dozen trees (which I don't) so as to leave clearance for wind turbines, my neighbors on 3 sides all have mature trees as well. Likewise with solar: my neighbor to the south is shading my roof with their trees. (To the north of my roof would be a lot better - too bad I'm in the northern hemisphere.)

It really does come down to residential nuclear. Pretty sure that's what I need.
Crissa wrote:But no, fairness doesn't enter into it. Their profit is not 'fair'. It's profit.

And their operating costs? The problem with net metering is that you're expecting the utility (i.e., we the ratepayers) to shoulder all the infrastructure costs for free. They're expected to pay you exactly the same cost for your excess electricity as they recoup from whoever they sell it to. There are various costs to being a utility, that's why wholesale and retail electricity prices are so different.

I think it's entirely fair to allow people to sell excess power to the utility - at wholesale. That's maybe $0.03/kWh? And if people don't like that, well, that's what the Tesla Powerwall (or that Sysphus Railroad) is for. Buy one of those, and keep most of the retail value of the energy you've collected. Why should the utility have to bear these costs for something that mainly benefits you?

I guess in the end, net metering is due to a technical limitation - making a meter run backwards at 1:1 scale apparently is easier than deploying a meter that can account the two directions separately. Maybe this is the real reason the utilities are pushing smart meters?

x7eggert
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby x7eggert » Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:10 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Mikeski wrote:He also believes that animals consuming plants negates their carbon-sequestration. Because only dead plants, and not dead animals, contain carbon? The carbon content of animal dung is also zero, apparently.

The 'skeptics' love to go on about how complex all the modeling is and how we can't make any real predictions as a result, and then they go on to miss things like breathing.

(But yeah, the bigger issue is how we've short-circuited the carbon cycle, of which living and recently-dead organisms form only a small part.)


That's because breathing would transport oxygen to the brain.

Rule of thumb: 90 % of the energy (thus of the CO₂, too) contained in food will be released*. Gnu eats grass, 90 % released. Lion eats gnu, 99 % released. Lion dies, bug eats lion: 99,9 % released. Bird eats bug ... . It's called a "carbon circle".

*(I guess humans release more due to their longer life, but I won't research that right now.)

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4867
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby HES » Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:40 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Is there any realistic alternative to oil at the moment for large ships (e.g. container ships)?

Nuclear.

Depending on your definition of "realistic", I guess.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:19 pm UTC


User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:02 pm UTC

Your first link is bad. It's an entire article about nothing directing you do a feel-good report about a boat intended to "raise awareness". Not going to waste my time with the other two. Why would you just paste links from a search engine instead of an actual comment? Aren't there rules about that?

As for nuclear commercial ships, yes, that is ultimately realistic, but the political horizon still seems pretty far away. Is that the only realistic option for carbon-free shipping?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:34 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Your first link is bad. It's an entire article about nothing directing you do a feel-good report about a boat intended to "raise awareness".
It was intended to demonstrate the(/an) alternative. And I thought commentary was unneccessary given the URLs rather described themselves better (definitely more succinctly) than my words could. But forgot the forum tends to elipsise naked URLs down to a character limit, unfortunately.

Yes, they were Search-Engined to get, but separate searches for seperate (but related) terms that gave what I had in mind, then the carefully appraised chosen pages from the Google data dump actually read to confirm true relevence before I pasted their addresses. I disagree that #1 was a "feel good" piece, but then I avoided posting the link within the first link to a less science-friendly sounding site, even though it still didn't look 'fluffy' for my purposes).

But apologies. In short, "modern sailing ships" was my intention. Vastly automated modern 'rigging' (or solid 'wingsails', in the latter case) combined with communications/forecasting technology to keep the ship safe from adverse weather and using auxilliary (standard) propulsion as little as possible. Still mostly on the drawing boards, but a low-carbon/hi-tech future for high-volume/low-urgency carriage could easily be served by such vessels.

User avatar
Cougar Allen
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:49 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Cougar Allen » Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:36 pm UTC

SuicideJunkie wrote:
Mutex wrote:I wonder how people even find this forum anymore since there's no link on the XKCD page. Google I guess.
I poked around trying to find the link for a few minutes, then punched in forum.xkcd.com in the address bar, and when that failed, tried forums.xkcd.com, and here I am.


Yeah, but you knew there was a forum to look for. I wonder how many xkcd readers don't know that.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Sableagle » Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:08 pm UTC

cooling_trends.png
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:31 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:cooling_trends.png

Exactly! Sure, people say July is warmer than January, but almost every night between last January and last July was colder than the day that preceded it!

dolphintickler
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:04 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby dolphintickler » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:45 pm UTC

x7eggert wrote:
dolphintickler wrote:there's no way we could know it to the precision needed to produce a graph of it over the timescales used here.


Except for e.g. _yearly_ growth rate of trees for the past 13 500 years.

Sediments, Stalactites and Oxygen isotopes do help, too. We can also measure the strength of the sun by the amount of interstellar isotopes (strong sun pushes them away). We can look at leaf shapes in fossils - they vary by temperature. We can count the days in a year at the time of ancient earth and see it slowing down. We aren't perfect, but we got decent data.


You have misunderstood what "it" refers to. If you look at the start of the sentence, which you chopped off:
dolphntickler wrote:Not only is the Earth's average much higher, but there's no way...


I am referring to the Earth's average temperature - not that of the Earth's atmosphere or some subset of it. The graph relies on a temperature accurate to at least 5°C - if you know the Earth's temperature for today to that accurace I'd be fascinated to learn it. Once again I emphasize that this is the temperature of the whole planet, including its crust, mantle and core - not just its atmosphere.

Additionally, if you can tell me what temperature is actually represented in the graph (and how you know), I'd be interested in that. Does it cover the whole atmosphere, or just the lower parts? Does it include any of the rivers, lakes, seas, or oceans, or does it stop at the surface of the water?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:19 am UTC

I think in the context of Earth's climate, it is safe to say nobody cares to know the temperature of the core accurate to the degree.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:52 am UTC

dolphintickler wrote:I am referring to the Earth's average temperature - not that of the Earth's atmosphere or some subset of it. The graph relies on a temperature accurate to at least 5°C - if you know the Earth's temperature for today to that accurace I'd be fascinated to learn it. Once again I emphasize that this is the temperature of the whole planet, including its crust, mantle and core - not just its atmosphere.

Additionally, if you can tell me what temperature is actually represented in the graph (and how you know), I'd be interested in that. Does it cover the whole atmosphere, or just the lower parts? Does it include any of the rivers, lakes, seas, or oceans, or does it stop at the surface of the water?
Damn I thought this argument was dead. The models use defined volumes, some area to some height. Sats can measure roughly the energy emitted by the earth and sampling is widespread to make fairly accurate assumptions about the average temperature over the course of a year. Other sats can measure the solar insolation. The models, at least 5 at my last glimpse, output a range not a specific number.

You don't really need the core temperature, The core is cooling off not heating up. However we have pretty good numbers for the subsurface temperatures to depth. For Kentucky about 55 or so degrees for Mammoth Cave year round and getting progressively hotter the deeper you go. Conversely and perhaps more clearly the earth gets cooler the closer you get to the surface until the sun starts to heat the top 5 or so feet. People in Coober Pedy live underground to take advantage of this. Made even better because of the low relative humidity. And if trapped in Mammoth Cave without sufficient protection you would eventually die of exposure. The temperature at the bottom of the Marianas trench is about 1 to 4 degree C, you'll need a sweater if you visit. The oceans are all pretty cold, at depth. They have ships out measuring. Freshwater lakes in the US are pretty cool deep and at least in Kentucky they can give you a pretty good idea of the average temperature in the water at various depths. Fishermen eat that kind of thing up. Fish don't like hot water.

The hocky stick graph is dated from about 1850. By which times we were scattered pretty much everywhere, with ships and crews sweating and freezing with captains logging it not to mention various people on land recording the weather. Well I've confused the issue enough.

Toodles and good luck.

User avatar
Cougar Allen
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:49 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Cougar Allen » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:03 am UTC

ps.02 wrote:Be fair. A major reason utility companies aren't crazy about net metering is that they're being asked to buy electricity at retail, not wholesale, rates. This is not a trivial difference - I think it's like a factor of 3 or 4. Of course there's more to it - net metering encourages distributed generation, which can allow a utility to save money by deferring upgrades to transmission capacity, for example. But on the face of it, net metering isn't particularly fair. If I'm selling widgets in a store, and my cost per widget is $3, but various business expenses make it reasonable to charge $10, I'm not going to be too thrilled at the government stepping in and forcing me to buy extra widgets from random customers for $10, just so I can turn around and sell them for $10. Especially when these customers aren't bound to any contracts where I'd have any idea how many widgets I can expect them to provide me at any given time.

Just saying, I can see their point.


Citation needed. Where does net metering require a utility company to buy at retail? Not where I live (Massachusetts) or any place I know of.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:44 am UTC

As I understand it, in "net metering," you pay the retail rate for electricity, but you only pay for the net difference between electricity produced and electricity consumed, regardless of when it was produced or consumed. As an extreme example, if you consume zero electricity during the day (maybe you are out of the house all day and shut everything off) but produce zero electricity at night (because all your production is from solar), then you never actually use your own electricity at all, but you are still only paying for the difference between production and consumption, even though the utility company is paying to transport all the electricity consumed and all the electricity produced. This is not a problem for the energy supplier, but it is a big problem for the utility.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby ps.02 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:27 am UTC

Cougar Allen wrote:
ps.02 wrote:Be fair. A major reason utility companies aren't crazy about net metering is that they're being asked to buy electricity at retail, not wholesale, rates. This is not a trivial difference


Citation needed. Where does net metering require a utility company to buy at retail? Not where I live (Massachusetts) or any place I know of.

Well, I always assumed that's why it was called that. Because you're paying for the net energy, i.e., amount you consume minus the amount you produce. There are other ways to compensate distributed generation, but I thought they had different names.

But anyway, let's see what Uncle Google says...
Colorado wrote:allows you to “credit back” excess generation onto your bill to ensure you receive the full value of all your generation. If excess energy generation exceeds energy consumption, you will receive payment for the excess...
This strongly implies that the energy you generate up to the amount you use is bought at retail. (That is, at the very least, the utility has to time-shift your usage, using energy storage or whatever, for free.) It's not clear what rate you get for excess energy at the end of a given billing period.
Nebraska wrote:(6) Net metering means a system of metering electricity in which a local distribution utility:
(a) Credits a customer-generator at the applicable retail rate for each kilowatt-hour produced by a qualified facility during a billing period up to the total of the customer-generator's electricity requirements during that billing period...
...shall not be charged any standby, capacity, demand, interconnection, or other fee or charge...
(There's more terms, of course. When you produce more power than you use in a given billing period, they still have to buy the extra but it seems to be at a reduced rate. So you're half right on this one.)
Kansas wrote:If they produce more than they use in a given billing period, the net excess generation (NEG) is carried forward to the next month at the full retail rate (and they would not be charged anything for electricity used during that billing period).
...also prohibited from imposing any additional standby, capacity, and interconnection charges or other fees on net-metered customers...
This one seems more generous than Nebraska, in that you get full retail credit even for excess energy. Though you do lose your rolled-over credit at the end of the calendar year.

I tried looking up Massachusetts, but the first few documents I found were much harder for me to understand. So I'll take your word for it on that one.

lyagooshka
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:19 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby lyagooshka » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:26 pm UTC

Wow!
Interesting stuff.

Just a few questions:
1. I see some scribble on the side. Looks like you took it upon yourself to smooth out some spikes. What's the max of the value you use? Just curious, you know. Because when you go from 500 year periods to 100 year ones and claim you flatten any spikes, makes me curious if this isn't just another spike that in 2100 we'll be flattening.
2. I see you used a 30 year period as "Zero". Any scientific data backing that period as the "standard" for measuring all climate variation? You know, as opposed to the temperature in the corresponding time period before the last ice glaciation.
3. And speaking of which, how about some data for time between the second to last ice glaciation and the last one? You know, just to compare.
4. I really like the dotted line that says "current path". It looks scary. And, it reminds me of this one comic I saw on xkcd. It was about someone telling someone else not to get married because if they did, in 2 days, they'd have 2 spouses, and so on and so on. Do you remember which one that was? maybe you could send a link? Not sure why it made me think of it, it just did.
5. It seems that our temps are about what they were 5500 BCE. So it's not really a record breaker. I guess in 500 years we can look back and see if it was (you know, with adjustments for any "spikes"). Wouldn't it be cool to be able to do that? You know, to hold people accountable if their predictions fail miserably? But we won't live that long. Shame.
6. Speaking of failing miserably, I think I have a "What If" idea. What if we took that initial model put out by the IPCC (I see that is one of the sources here) and compared it to actual data? I mean we don't need to as I am sure it would line up perfectly, which is why we put so much faith in their long-term predictions. But hey, "what if"?

Well, that's about it for now.
Feel free to write back.
Would be great to hear from you.
Meanwhile, I'll just go find some other politicized issue that has hijacked the scientific process and believe it with total lack of proof.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11202
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
paha arkkitehti wrote:Transportation is dirt cheap.

And it's dirt cheap while burning some of the dirtiest oil.

Wind and solar are virtually free.


Wind and solar are not virtually free. Infrastructure, etc costs still exist, and while sometimes wind and solar are practical in a given area, they are definitely not virtually free.

ps.02 wrote:But on the face of it, net metering isn't particularly fair.

I can see their point, too. But no, fairness doesn't enter into it. Their profit is not 'fair'. It's profit. They make less money when people reduce their energy use, too. Or when people waste less energy. So why should we protect their profits against that? Until household net-metered solar becomes a large part of the grid - and it is not anywhere - their whining should fall on deaf ears. Maybe someday we'll charge a baseline 'capacity charge' to electricity bills... But net metering is fair.


If you start with accepting A as a premise, and conclude with !A, logically, you done fucked up.

Eebster the Great wrote:As for nuclear commercial ships, yes, that is ultimately realistic, but the political horizon still seems pretty far away. Is that the only realistic option for carbon-free shipping?


Yes. There are severe math issues with solar powered ships. Surface area scaling is awful. Wind powered ships exist, of course, but a second age of sail would have a few downsides.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lmjb1964 and 28 guests