If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Here's a question you probably haven't spent enough time wondering about: Do camel farts contribute to global warming? And if so, how much?   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 12
    More: Strange, global warming  
•       •       •

1376 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2014 at 1:03 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-10 02:55:50 PM
4 votes:

mark12A: Chart Time?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 555x456]



Yowch. I haven't seen this one before, but your critical thinking alarms should be going off at this point. What should be immediately visible to someone with some background knowledge:

- comparing model runs which predict surface temperature with mid-tropospheric temperature is very misleading.
- not including any sort of error measurement for either data set or models completely ignores the range of values inherent in all three, rendering any judgement of meaningful differences between them impossible.
- setting a single point in time as a baseline makes an a priori assumption about the accuracy of the data at that one point, and would misleadingly increase any difference as this would conflate any sought-after potential difference with differences due to short-termvariability.

I know this is just an overview, but we can get more into any of these points if you're interested.


Whomever made that graph is trying to lie to you. It looks like it was made for a non-scientific audience and they seem to be assuming the intended audience wouldn't know any better. I suggest extreme caution in dealing with information from that source in future.
2014-04-10 03:22:47 PM
2 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: mark12A: Chart Time?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 555x456]


Yowch. I haven't seen this one before, but your critical thinking alarms should be going off at this point. What should be immediately visible to someone with some background knowledge:

- comparing model runs which predict surface temperature with mid-tropospheric temperature is very misleading.
- not including any sort of error measurement for either data set or models completely ignores the range of values inherent in all three, rendering any judgement of meaningful differences between them impossible.
- setting a single point in time as a baseline makes an a priori assumption about the accuracy of the data at that one point, and would misleadingly increase any difference as this would conflate any sought-after potential difference with differences due to short-termvariability.

I know this is just an overview, but we can get more into any of these points if you're interested.


Whomever made that graph is trying to lie to you. It looks like it was made for a non-scientific audience and they seem to be assuming the intended audience wouldn't know any better. I suggest extreme caution in dealing with information from that source in future.


Well, with a source like that, you don't even need to say it.
2014-04-10 11:35:19 AM
2 votes:
Probably not as much as cow farts because the number of camels is much less than the number of cows.
2014-04-10 08:52:32 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: Way to cherrypick the baseline, hockey teamer.


Because changing the baseline (i.e. adjusting all of the datasets up or down by the same amount) would do what exactly to the model-obs comparison? Go on, I'll wait.

SevenizGud: Hide the hiatus.


What a "hiatus" might look like:

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
2014-04-10 03:26:36 PM
1 votes:

mark12A: Chart Time?

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 555x456]


Do you mind providing the DOI of the peer reviewed paper that chart was published in?

I mean, it's not like you would use a bullshiat graphic from some whack-off denialist blog that relies on dishonest averaging together of different data types, a cherry-picked baseline, ignores all internal variability in the system, etc. to give the impression that models and obs are in disagreement, and imply that model sensitivity is too high, right?

I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that actual model-obs comparisons using surface temperature data don't show anywhere near that level of divergence, right? And that obs are entirely consistent with mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity, right?

i.imgur.com

Observational data from Cowtan and Way, 2013. Climate model data from the CMIP5 project, via KNMI Climate Explorer.
Feel free to plot them yourself. I used a 60 month running mean to preserve decadal variability but keep the comparisons readable. Baseline is standard 1961-1990.
2014-04-10 03:11:42 PM
1 votes:
Have you learned nothing over the years, everything contributes to global warming.

And it MUST BE REGULATED
2014-04-10 02:23:39 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: Pretty sure any animal farting is a mousefart in comparision to the greenhouse gases humans are belching out.

Oh well, guess they had to know for sure.


But, you see, cattle are a human-produced source of greenhouse gases. To cattle, we are the Borg. Cattle are so domesticated that they serve no ecological purpose, but only to provide food and other products for humans. They can no longer exist in the wild and are 100% dependent on man for survival. There are some 1.5B cattle in the world and they produce a lot of methane and CO2. Maybe not as much as many of our other activities, but a significant amount.
2014-04-10 01:56:32 PM
1 votes:

Ned Stark: Farting is carbon neutral.


It might be carbon neutral but methane is about 1000x more IR-active than CO2 so converting CO2 to CH4 would actually make things worse - although it's obviously very dependent on just how much CO2 is being converted to CH4.

/That's assuming I've remembered the relative numbers correctly too
2014-04-10 01:51:58 PM
1 votes:
Chart Time?

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
2014-04-10 01:34:31 PM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: Subby seems like a camel fart denier, string him up


He might just be a skeptic, ya know.
2014-04-10 01:11:43 PM
1 votes:
Having not read the article I am going to guess:

1) Yes.

2) Not much.
2014-04-10 01:06:27 PM
1 votes:

BizarreMan: Probably not as much as cow farts because the number of camels is much less fewer than the number of cows.


Pet peeve.

Amount goes with less.
Number goes with fewer.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report