It's probably ok but you could look at the source data and be more specific, averages and base indexes can play tricks on the visualization. From the video:
Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water? Or just use the electricity to break down water for O2 production and use the hydrogen to power other things?
> Is it practical to have giant nuclear powered facilities that either pump cooled air or artificially cool surface ocean water?
That would be like opening your refrigerator to cool your room - more heat is emitted from the radiator on the back of the refrigerator than is removed and so the room as a whole gets hotter. (Because movement of the heat from the interior to the back cancels out, but the energy used to move it creates additional heat resulting in a nett increase.)
I am a bit upset about all the downvotes,i know it's bad etiquette to complain about that but I just wanted to say how questions of curiosity shouldn't be looked down upon. This isn't my field but climate change is concerning, so I simply wanted to know why certain solutions (however naive) were not being pursued.
That would be a heat pump and say it worked at a COP of 3 which is typical you would need 1 watt of power to move 3 watts of heat to somewhere, probably deep underground.
Nuclear power is what maybe 40% efficient so 60% of the nuclear energy is waste heat, so for every watt of energy 1.5 watts of heat released.
So now your only netting 1.5 watts for every watt. To make a difference the numbers would be staggering as the earth receives on the order 170,000 terawatts of solar energy.
Solar power rather than nuclear would make more sense but again the scale to make a difference is staggering.
I think more "realistic" would be using energy to split CO2 back into C and O2 and sequestering the carbon in the ground which is basically what plants do through photosynthesis. If we could make machines that do that more efficiently on a large scale from solar power we might make a difference.
If we have this level of surplus energy, we should be using it to first replace all fossil fuel consumption and then secondarily start drawing CO2 down from the air. We can't out-cool the sun.
Some companies are working on carbon scrubbing tech that removes CO2 from the atmosphere and converts into something else — a liquid fuel in one case, if I remember correctly. These processes, I believe, are energy intensive — so using something like nuclear to power them would make a lot of sense, if you can find a way to install new plants with less money, and less regulatory hurdles than today. (Bill Gates is funding a nuclear plant design that seems promising in this regard — Terra Nova, I think it’s called.)
This would have the net effect of warming the atmosphere, unless you developed new technology to simultaneously beam significant heat energy into space.
> This year the Earth's average temperature was 14.64C, compared with the long-term average of 14C, said James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who analyses the data collected from thousands of weather stations around the world. The meteorological year runs from December to November. During that period, 2001 temperatures were 14.51C. The record remains with 1998, when global temperature rose to 14.67C - the highest since records were first compiled in the late 1800s. The warm temperatures of 2001 and 2002 are especially significant when they are considered in the light of El Nino weather patterns that alter global climate, Mr Hansen said. "The fact that 2002 is almost as warm as the unusual warmth of 1998 is confirmation that the underlying global warming trend is continuing," Mr Hansen said.
----------
August 25, 2011:
> But Hansen and colleagues have estimated that Earth's actual average surface air temperature between 1951 and 1980 was approximately 287 K (14 degrees Celsius) (Hansen et al. 2010). The difference in temperature is attributed to greenhouse gases that trap thermal radiation, warming Earth as depicted in figure 2.1.
> In earlier versions of Vital Signs, Worldwatch added the temperature change reported by the Goddard Institute to an estimated global temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, but the institute has since informed Worldwatch that a better base number would be 14 degrees Celsius. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, email to author, 18 January 1998.”
Can someone please explain this unexplained change on how avg surface temperature between 1951 and 1980 went from claims that it was 15C to now being claimed it was 14C?
The research is done in terms of a temperature anomaly from a reference that is chosen. The absolute mean temperature is an estimate based on the specific technique chosen using the data as input. The delta values are more important because they are calculated with a consistent method for a given model, whereas from model to model the value may change.
"""
The two main marine data sets are those of Jones et al. (ref. 9; see also ref. 11) and the U.K. Meteorological Office (UKMO) (12, 13). These two data sets have overlapping primary source material but differ in the way that they are corrected for instrumentation changes.
"""
As you know, you're piggybacking talking points off of a minor conspiracy theory that has been floating around for a while. Here's a yahoo post from 7 years ago raising the same questions and citing much the same sources: https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201211281036...
I won't pretend to know anything in detail about climate science but these alleged discrepancies don't seem to have raised enough alarms at any point to have warranted a serious rebuttal from the scientific community. Perhaps citing a handful of random cherry-picked sources isn't really the smoking gun you think it is? However, fwiw, here's a comment from a couple of years ago responding to some of those points.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=11&t=521&&a=110#...
What's making me suspicious about the whole question is the lack of significant decimals on a number that's supposed to be the average of a very large number of measurements.
What's the average of [15, 15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14]? 15.
What's the average of [15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14, 14]? 14.
It is alarming to say that temperatures around polar areas increased a lot. That is where a couple of positive reinforcement loops are located (less reflective surface because ice melted, and the release of frozen greenhouse gases).
In fact, animations that show the average global temperature increase, or local, but by (alphabetically sorted) countries like this one don't let us see that trend.
Another mostly hidden temperature trend (that may have regional component too) is the sea temperature, as water is capturing most of the heat. And in part that is what is fueling extreme weather events.
Does the dataset before the dawn of agriculture and permanent settlements matter that much?
The conversation largely revolves around flooding and food production.
The earth will be fine, itll bounce back. Billions of people however, could be displaced from their homes as their land floods, or starve if food production and distribution is destroyed. The Earth had maybe 1 billion people 200 years ago. Now its at 7.5. Unprecedented doesnt begin to describe the migration that would occur if the Earth lost its coastal cities.
What I dont like about this animation is that giant land masses like the USA and Russia get the same treatment as tiny countries. The average temperature of the USA is a lot less useful than if it were broken down by region.
hans1729|6 years ago
Also, see this: https://i.redd.it/h6annrws3qa41.png
aruggirello|6 years ago
ratboy666|6 years ago
phaemon|6 years ago
emj|6 years ago
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gisstemp
Data source NASA GISS, GISTEMP Land-Ocean Temprature Index (LOTI), ERSSTv5, 12000km square smoothing.
Average of monthly temprature anaomolies. GISTEMP base period 1951-1980.
winrid|6 years ago
taneq|6 years ago
(That's not to say the data aren't also terrifying, of course.)
badrabbit|6 years ago
jwatt|6 years ago
That would be like opening your refrigerator to cool your room - more heat is emitted from the radiator on the back of the refrigerator than is removed and so the room as a whole gets hotter. (Because movement of the heat from the interior to the back cancels out, but the energy used to move it creates additional heat resulting in a nett increase.)
badrabbit|6 years ago
Cheers.
SigmundA|6 years ago
Nuclear power is what maybe 40% efficient so 60% of the nuclear energy is waste heat, so for every watt of energy 1.5 watts of heat released.
So now your only netting 1.5 watts for every watt. To make a difference the numbers would be staggering as the earth receives on the order 170,000 terawatts of solar energy.
Solar power rather than nuclear would make more sense but again the scale to make a difference is staggering.
I think more "realistic" would be using energy to split CO2 back into C and O2 and sequestering the carbon in the ground which is basically what plants do through photosynthesis. If we could make machines that do that more efficiently on a large scale from solar power we might make a difference.
has2k1|6 years ago
Good curiosity, but they would have to put out atleast an equal amount of heat into the atmosphere! (2nd law of thermodynamics).
winrid|6 years ago
pjc50|6 years ago
gdubs|6 years ago
imtringued|6 years ago
jshevek|6 years ago
busymom0|6 years ago
http://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/hanse...
----------
In 1988, it was claimed that the global avg temperature was 59 deg F = 15 degree C
Multiple sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-w...
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19880705&id=...
----------
IPCC's First Assessment Report in 1990, table on page xxxvii of the report listed the "Observed Surface Temperature" of Earth as 15 degrees Celsius:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_...
----------
In Jan 12 1992, it's 15 degree C:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=S2xGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7ugM...
----------
############## SOMETHING CHANGED IN 1997:
"Global Temperature Down Slightly":
https://books.google.ca/books?id=VyFpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA...
----------
December 14, 2002: They magically started using 14C as the long term average instead of 15C without any explanation:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/global-warming-blamed-for-heat-...
> This year the Earth's average temperature was 14.64C, compared with the long-term average of 14C, said James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who analyses the data collected from thousands of weather stations around the world. The meteorological year runs from December to November. During that period, 2001 temperatures were 14.51C. The record remains with 1998, when global temperature rose to 14.67C - the highest since records were first compiled in the late 1800s. The warm temperatures of 2001 and 2002 are especially significant when they are considered in the light of El Nino weather patterns that alter global climate, Mr Hansen said. "The fact that 2002 is almost as warm as the unusual warmth of 1998 is confirmation that the underlying global warming trend is continuing," Mr Hansen said.
----------
August 25, 2011:
> But Hansen and colleagues have estimated that Earth's actual average surface air temperature between 1951 and 1980 was approximately 287 K (14 degrees Celsius) (Hansen et al. 2010). The difference in temperature is attributed to greenhouse gases that trap thermal radiation, warming Earth as depicted in figure 2.1.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/330/322216.html
##########
Sometime between 1997 and 1998, they magically started claiming the avg to be 14 degree C instead of 15.
18 January 1998's "Vital Signs 1998: The Environmental Trends that are Shaping Our Future" magazine made this magical change with a small footnote:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=EfZRAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=P...
> In earlier versions of Vital Signs, Worldwatch added the temperature change reported by the Goddard Institute to an estimated global temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, but the institute has since informed Worldwatch that a better base number would be 14 degrees Celsius. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, email to author, 18 January 1998.”
Can someone please explain this unexplained change on how avg surface temperature between 1951 and 1980 went from claims that it was 15C to now being claimed it was 14C?
Edited: changed magic to unexplained change
rrmm|6 years ago
from https://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8314
""" The two main marine data sets are those of Jones et al. (ref. 9; see also ref. 11) and the U.K. Meteorological Office (UKMO) (12, 13). These two data sets have overlapping primary source material but differ in the way that they are corrected for instrumentation changes. """
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_ha09210n.pd... (mentions the particular model in section 1, along with a discussion of the data sources).
You basically want to be looking at the temperature anomaly not the absolute temperature.
zuminator|6 years ago
I won't pretend to know anything in detail about climate science but these alleged discrepancies don't seem to have raised enough alarms at any point to have warranted a serious rebuttal from the scientific community. Perhaps citing a handful of random cherry-picked sources isn't really the smoking gun you think it is? However, fwiw, here's a comment from a couple of years ago responding to some of those points. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=11&t=521&&a=110#...
pjc50|6 years ago
What's the average of [15, 15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14]? 15.
What's the average of [15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14, 14]? 14.
Is that a big difference?
Tepix|6 years ago
If you wouldn't use the word "magic" in your post, I'd perceive it as neutral/curious.
jansan|6 years ago
anoplus|6 years ago
gmuslera|6 years ago
In fact, animations that show the average global temperature increase, or local, but by (alphabetically sorted) countries like this one don't let us see that trend.
Another mostly hidden temperature trend (that may have regional component too) is the sea temperature, as water is capturing most of the heat. And in part that is what is fueling extreme weather events.
0x445442|6 years ago
basch|6 years ago
The conversation largely revolves around flooding and food production.
The earth will be fine, itll bounce back. Billions of people however, could be displaced from their homes as their land floods, or starve if food production and distribution is destroyed. The Earth had maybe 1 billion people 200 years ago. Now its at 7.5. Unprecedented doesnt begin to describe the migration that would occur if the Earth lost its coastal cities.
What I dont like about this animation is that giant land masses like the USA and Russia get the same treatment as tiny countries. The average temperature of the USA is a lot less useful than if it were broken down by region.
erikpukinskis|6 years ago
Like how does p<0.01 compare to my age (38 years)?
eaq|6 years ago