1321: "Cold"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby orthogon » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:30 pm UTC

Rombobjörn wrote:The only things that aren't sensible in PolakoVoador's statement are the C equality operator, which isn't sensible even in its correct context, ...

My ideal language would use "==" for comparison and ":=" for assignment. "=" would be a syntax error.
Rombobjörn wrote:and the use of U+00BA masculine ordinal indicator instead of U+00B0 degree sign. :-P

... and I blithely copied it. Oh, the shame.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:44 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
sonar1313 wrote:P.S. Fahrenheit is incredibly more useful than Celsius for measuring weather. 0 degrees: fucking cold. 100 degrees: fucking hot. "It's in the 20s" = bundle up. "It's in the 70s" = it's pleasant. You can give a ten degree range of temperature and people know what that means and what to wear. If I go to Canada and say "it's in the 20s" you wouldn't know whether you might want a jacket for a pleasant autumn day or whether it's going to be close to sweltering.


I really have no clue what to make of this post. How is this any different from Celsius?


At first I didn't understand it either. But upon further reading, I see his point: the higher granularity of Fahrenheit make the.. tenths? tens?.. more meaningful. I coul agree with that. Actually, I agree that some extra granularity is a good thing, hence the superiority of metric over imperial units of distance :P

I think the probelm with fahrenheit is it's really not used outside of the USA, when most of the world has "agreed" in using Celsius. Take this, together with all the crazy units americans like to use, people automatically disregard Fahrenheit as one of the crazy ones.

Rombobjörn wrote:
CigarDoug wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:For everyone on the sensible parts of the world: 0ºF == -17,7ºC

You expect me to accept that your part of the world is sensible but uses commas for decimal points?

The only things that aren't sensible in PolakoVoador's statement are the C equality operator, which isn't sensible even in its correct context, and the use of U+00BA masculine ordinal indicator instead of U+00B0 degree sign. :-P

Touché.

Rombobjörn wrote:By the way, "It is too cold." is a way of saying "I didn't put enough clothes on." without sounding like it's your fault.


And that's why I prefer winter over summer. Currently, the weather around here can be described as "hellish", and there's no much you can do when it's 42C. Most people frown upon if you take too much of your clothes off. Actually, even if you take everything off, you will still suffer from the heat.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby mathmannix » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:51 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote:You can give a ten degree range of temperature and people know what that means and what to wear. If I go to Canada and say "it's in the 20s" you wouldn't know whether you might want a jacket for a pleasant autumn day or whether it's going to be close to sweltering.


While I guess someone might say "it's in the 20's" if it is 20, I would think it would mean 21-29, inclusive... but even 20ºC is 68ºF. The temperature I keep the interior of my house in the summer. You would wear a jacket for that?
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:56 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Actually :oops: Use of any symbol for separating each tridecade (I just made that word up, I think) is deprecated.
Proper notation uses a blank space. E.g., 43 547 361{.OR,}543 784 3 .

The space is a bit problematic, though, because it can cause the number to break across lines. And a non-breaking space is a pain to type and is likely to get rendered as   (if not   or worse).


Oh me yarm you're not using LaTex? :twisted: . But srsly anyone who uses Word or its clones to do technical writing -- ya know with numbers and equations and stuff -- is just asking for sadness and pain.
Last edited by cellocgw on Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:02 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby keithl » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:57 pm UTC

I am not a "climate scientist", just an engineer who can do some math and physics. So I spent time looking into the physics - as Richard Mueller of B.E.S.T. did. And yes, increasing CO2, all other things held constant, increases global surface temperature.

Thick CO2 blocks 15um infrared, it gets thinner with altitude, air gets colder with altitude, and where CO2 goes transparent, the temperature must be the same because the Earth must radiate the same amount of heat as infrared. More CO2, taller column, hotter at the bottom.

Of course, it is a LOT more complicated than that, there are positive and negative feedbacks, and billions of cubic kilometers of atmosphere, with important processes occuring on the micrometer scale. That is why we build megawatt consuming supercomputers and polar research stations. The models are getting better and the uncertainties are coming down, but it is complicated.

There are certainly bones to pick with the climate cult. First, a large fraction (perhaps most) of the runup since prehistoric times is due to agricultural land use change and herd animals, not industry, which didn't get big before World War 2. Biofuel is agriculture gone amok. Second, most so-called green technology isn't - this stuff requires energy and resources to make, and non-time-dispatchable intermittent power sources and sinks make the problem worse.

That is why it is critically important to engage engineers with the science, not the slogans. There are things that work, and information technology can generate a lot more, because much of what we do with energy can be accomplished with cleverness instead. We need a LOT more cleverness.

One of the predictions of the models is that weather patterns will move poleward - Oregon becomes California, California becomes Baha. We are trending towards that this year - the snowpack in the northern Cascades is half of normal, and California and much of Oregon is in drought. Since hydropower from northwest snowpack peaks the grid in California, expect brownouts and blackouts across the west this summer. Expect west coast food production to plummet and prices to rise. The global economy will adapt, the cost per ton-mile is cheaper than ever, but locally there will be inconvenience shading towards disruption. Invest accordingly; the smart money is going into water technology.

And for those who claim this is all a massive conspiracy by evil scientists - you just keep believing that. All your bases are belong to us.
Last edited by keithl on Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:01 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Rombobjörn wrote:The only things that aren't sensible in PolakoVoador's statement are the C equality operator, which isn't sensible even in its correct context, ...

My ideal language would use "==" for comparison and ":=" for assignment. "=" would be a syntax error.


Well, let me introduce you to The R-language

Comparison: == (or of course !=, etc)
Assignment: <- , and handily, -> for when you forgot to define the output object when you started typing.

Plain old = is accepted but not recommended for sneaky reasons :?

Plus there are "fuzzy equality" functions to deal with floating-point binary roundoff.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Vahir » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:14 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote:I see the spikes on the graph come roughly every 11 years or so.

Sunspots. (Or, for the technical, the solar cycle.)

P.S. Fahrenheit is incredibly more useful than Celsius for measuring weather. 0 degrees: fucking cold. 100 degrees: fucking hot. "It's in the 20s" = bundle up. "It's in the 70s" = it's pleasant. You can give a ten degree range of temperature and people know what that means and what to wear. If I go to Canada and say "it's in the 20s" you wouldn't know whether you might want a jacket for a pleasant autumn day or whether it's going to be close to sweltering.


Alas, we poor, poor canadians are left in the dark, completely incapable of mesuring how cold or hot the day will be. Oh, if only we were americans!

Covarr
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:23 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Covarr » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:32 pm UTC

The planet is billions of years old. 40 years is not a reliable sample size, any more than a flat floor at Walmart is evidence the entire earth is flat.

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby speising » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:35 pm UTC

regarding F vs. C: the freezing point of water is a pretty important factor in our day-to-day life. what's that in F again? and at what temperature does water boil?
otoh, -17,7C is a completely arbitrary point.

Covarr wrote:The planet is billions of years old. 40 years is not a reliable sample size, any more than a flat floor at Walmart is evidence the entire earth is flat.


in both cases, the latter is more important on human scales, though.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby markfiend » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:38 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
Spoiler:
And while an argument behind the question might be stupid, the question itself is perfectly valid. When we say "A came from B", we suggest that either A is no longer B or that B does not exist anymore. If A belongs to a monophyletic group B (such as apes or simians for humans) and other members of the group still exist, we use "A is a B".

So, if the ancestors of white Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans? ;)
CharlieP wrote:I invented (or, more likely, co-invented later) a new temperature scale, where 0 <unit> is absolute zero and 1 <unit> is the triple-point of water. So, for example, a temperature of 20 C (68 F) would be 1073.2 milli<unit>s. It has the scientific advantages of Kelvin, twice the "granularity" of Fahrenheit, and freezing and non-freezing temperatures are as obvious as in Celsius. I just need a catchy unit name.

Kelvin is defined in terms of absolute zero (0K) and the triple-point of water (precisely 273.16K) so your units are just K/273.16

You're welcome.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Kit. » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:52 pm UTC

Rombobjörn wrote:
Kit. wrote:When we say "A came from B", we suggest that either A is no longer B or that B does not exist anymore.

White Beanie Guy came from St. Louis, so either White Beanie Guy is no longer St. Louis or else St. Louis does not exist anymore? :-P

You are not supposed to say that man is no longer in monkeys.

orthogon wrote:
Rombobjörn wrote:The only things that aren't sensible in PolakoVoador's statement are the C equality operator, which isn't sensible even in its correct context, ...

My ideal language would use "==" for comparison and ":=" for assignment. "=" would be a syntax error.

My ideal language would not distinguish between "=" as comparison and "=" as assignment in this context, making all 3 (thanks cellocgw) interpretations valid (for different uses).
Last edited by Kit. on Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

rob
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby rob » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:54 pm UTC

So my question is, (since I was not able to use follow the link to the source data), what results would you get if you found the temperature where there were 91 days above that point in the same year range (1970 to 2010's), and did a similar bar graph showing the days per year above that temperature.

alun009
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:16 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby alun009 » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:54 pm UTC

CigarDoug wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:
alun009 wrote:°F? What is that, some archæic temperature scale or something?


For everyone on the sensible parts of the world: 0ºF == -17,7ºC

You expect me to accept that your part of the world is sensible but uses commas for decimal points?


Ah but I use . for decimal separator. Separate issue. But since we're on that issue now, I'd like to know whether . or , is more common as a decimal separator, worldwide. I'd be happy to change to commas if it was the global consensus. Which is also why I recommend Celsius (it really is most of the rest of the world you know). While we're at it, it's aluminium not aluminum, sulfur not sulphur, 2014-01-24 not 24-01-2014, the unfathomably barbaric 01-24-2014, or (where I live) the downright bizarre 24/01-2014.

Next, we'll talk about units of weight, distance, and volume: it's bizarre how the US is so backwards on this narrow subject. Almost like they yearn for the old days of subjugation and empire. "Pounds" always makes me think of Britain and the queen. And does anyone really know what a gallon is :?:

rob
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold" meaningless precision

Postby rob » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:02 pm UTC

In the statement 0 degrees F = -17,7 Celsius,
I am not bothered by using a comma as a decimal separator, but rather by the meaningless precision.

0 degrees F means a temperature range somewhere greater than -0.5 degrees and less than 0.5 degrees, saying that the Celsius equivalent should be expressed to 3 digits is meaningless.

I would be inclined to say that 0 degrees F is the same as -18 degrees Celsius.

rob
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby rob » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Rombobjörn wrote:The only things that aren't sensible in PolakoVoador's statement are the C equality operator, which isn't sensible even in its correct context, ...

My ideal language would use "==" for comparison and ":=" for assignment. "=" would be a syntax error.
Rombobjörn wrote:and the use of U+00BA masculine ordinal indicator instead of U+00B0 degree sign. :-P

... and I blithely copied it. Oh, the shame.


I kinda see your point, but what would you to do to handle the difference between assigning two variables to the same address and assigning the same value to a second variable?

The main thing that bothers me is compilers that think I really want to evaluate the results of a variable assignment in the midst of an if statement.

ie
if (test = 1) then

Really, the compiler asssumming that the coder's intention is to see whether test can be assigned a value of 1. Where does this make sense?

hdhale
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:09 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby hdhale » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:16 pm UTC

rhomboidal wrote:Maybe I'm bigoted, but I always expect ignorance to come from the mouths of people wearing pom-pom beanies.

At least I've stopped carrying that pair of pruning shears with me everywhere in winter.


That's interesting because when I see people wearing black beanies, I assume they are an insufferable hipster who thinks they know everything about everything and if you don't agree with them, you are either uninformed or being deliberately obtuse.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Klear » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:23 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:
Klear wrote:
sonar1313 wrote:P.S. Fahrenheit is incredibly more useful than Celsius for measuring weather. 0 degrees: fucking cold. 100 degrees: fucking hot. "It's in the 20s" = bundle up. "It's in the 70s" = it's pleasant. You can give a ten degree range of temperature and people know what that means and what to wear. If I go to Canada and say "it's in the 20s" you wouldn't know whether you might want a jacket for a pleasant autumn day or whether it's going to be close to sweltering.


I really have no clue what to make of this post. How is this any different from Celsius?


At first I didn't understand it either. But upon further reading, I see his point: the higher granularity of Fahrenheit make the.. tenths? tens?.. more meaningful. I coul agree with that. Actually, I agree that some extra granularity is a good thing, hence the superiority of metric over imperial units of distance :P

I think the probelm with fahrenheit is it's really not used outside of the USA, when most of the world has "agreed" in using Celsius. Take this, together with all the crazy units americans like to use, people automatically disregard Fahrenheit as one of the crazy ones.


Ah, that explains it. I once heard someone arguing that F was better because he can feel a difference between 21 F and 22 F and celsius doesn't allow such small increments. In any case, when guessing a temperature, we'll round it to the closest five degrees, which roughly translates to tens of F.

And as speising pointed out, it's neat to be able to say "below/above zero" to signify whether snow melts or stays.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:33 pm UTC

Covarr wrote:The planet is billions of years old. 40 years is not a reliable sample size, any more than a flat floor at Walmart is evidence the entire earth is flat.


That's a poor conclusion and a poor analogy. Here's a counterexample: it's well documented that a catastrophic eruption will lead directly (in less than a year) to a period of cooling. It's also pretty well documented that you can smooth data over a few hundred million years or so and find no dramatic shift in climate. I'd be more willing to accept that 40 years is not a great sample size because of the hundreds of cofactors involved.

By the way, the required sample size for statistical analysis depends on the underlying moments (mean, variance, skew, etc) and emphatically **not** on the population size.

Meanwhile, it's been scientifically demonstrated (AIR) that Kansas is much flatter than a pancake. "Flat" could mean either "planar" or "locally smooth." In the latter case, the Earth is most definitely flat. Heck, even in Euclidean geometry, a plane is just a sphere of infinite radius.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

nebular
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:24 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby nebular » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:37 pm UTC

I live in Whitehorse, YT. I can tell you that as weird as the cold the east has been getting, it's weirder here. We've had a week of above freezing. Some days it went as high as 10C.

January around here is usually dips below -40 pretty regularly.

willhsmit
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:41 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby willhsmit » Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:44 pm UTC

Is the web reference link broken for everyone or just me? I was hoping to play around with the data source, but the direct link 404's and I can't quite find the right thing by wandering the RCC-ACIS website.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby ctdonath » Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:46 pm UTC


User avatar
Rombobjörn
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:56 am UTC
Location: right between the past and the future

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Rombobjörn » Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:52 pm UTC

alun009 wrote:But since we're on that issue now, I'd like to know whether . or , is more common as a decimal separator, worldwide.

I don't have any statistics on what people actually use, but I've heard that the ISO standard is a comma. But in programming languages and other computer languages, decimal points reign pretty much supreme.

User avatar
ramblinjd
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:41 pm UTC
Location: Probably my desk. Don't tell my boss.

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby ramblinjd » Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:56 pm UTC

speising wrote:regarding F vs. C: the freezing point of water is a pretty important factor in our day-to-day life. what's that in F again? and at what temperature does water boil?
otoh, -17,7C is a completely arbitrary point.


F was invented to take the things people might encounter in nature (if they live in northern europe or northern americas) and put them at an even distribution. Blood or similar solutions freeze around 0. Water freezes at 2^5 (32). Outside is generally at 2^5 * 2 (64). The human body is at roughly 2^5 * 3 (96). Water boils (if you're at a reasonable elevation and not sea level) at roughly 2^4 * 13 or 2^5 * 6.5 (208). Finding ice and a person and marking their temps on a blank thermometer allows you to bisect the major divisions 5 times and make an accurate thermometer with simple tools. We'll ignore the fact that the originator couldn't get an accurate reading of the human body temp and it has since been adjusted up to 98/99ish.

37 C is completely arbitrary.

User avatar
ramblinjd
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:41 pm UTC
Location: Probably my desk. Don't tell my boss.

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby ramblinjd » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:00 pm UTC

I like Fahrenheit better.
Last edited by ramblinjd on Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby chenille » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:05 pm UTC


Your label is wrong. The Vostok ice cores are a good source of information for climate history over the millennia, but they seem to be misused a lot; in this case, you are calling them global temperature records, but they are not. The warm spot you see at -400, the one that would sort of imply modern changes aren't such a big deal, coincides with the little ice age in Europe. So on that timescale, you're only seeing local effects - or maybe noise, seeing how that's only three points - rather than making a proper comparison.

But the ice cores do give a good indication how much climate changes over hundreds of thousands of years, and living things have mostly coped, in the sense that over the many generations most have had some progeny that found new places to live or adapted to new conditions. It may not be fun to go through the same over a few decades, though. For instance the unusually long and pronounced drought in Syria hardly matters in the long run, humans can cope with that sort of thing; but the way we "coped" so far is by adding large amounts of destitute farmers to an unstable political situation and helping push it into a really horrible civil war. Sometimes the long perspective isn't all that matters.

alun009 wrote:While we're at it, it's aluminium not aluminum...

Aluminium always kind of bothers me, though, because it seems really poorly thought out. Yes, metals are supposed to end in -ium, and aluminum doesn't. That's because it was originally supposed to be alumium, but someone added an N. I know it's too late now, but if people didn't like that, why would they add yet another syllable instead of just changing it back?

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:33 pm UTC

And this is why, ever since some genius came up with this "global warming" hogwash, that I have been saying that we have too little information to be able to know what actual "normal" is. Take my area, for example; I live in Wisconsin along the Mississippi River. At one point in history this area was buried under God only knows how many feet of the Laurentian glacier, yet prior to that during the Devonian period much of what is now the neighboring state of Iowa was a shallow wetlands that had a subtropical climate and was home to dinosaurs as proven by the fossil record.

When you stop and consider that the world is generally accepted to be around 4.5 billion years old but we have comprehensive and accurate climatological records gathered in a scientific manner that go back at most 300 of those years, I contend that what we perceive to be the norm for even the past several millennia may in fact be just a single anomaly in the historical record, and these so-called scientists who claim to be able to tell us what the world's climate will be like two or three hundred years from now might just as well be using a Magic 8-Ball or casting voodoo bones in order to make their predictions.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby ctdonath » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:39 pm UTC

chenille wrote:the ice cores do give a good indication how much climate changes over hundreds of thousands of years, and living things have mostly coped

The post certainly wasn't intended to be an encyclopedic peer-reviewed end-all to the discussion. Point is that temperatures DO change, and change according to general recurring patterns, and that we seem to be at the peak of a temperature cycle facing a long-term drop. For all the criticism of such "hey, temperature change is normal & natural" views, the "gotta do something about climate change/warming" side seems completely unclear on the concept that temperatures are NOT unchanging/stable/flat over long periods.

And yes, humans have handled local climate changes pretty badly at times. We've achieved high mobility (go anywhere on the planet in hours/days for at most a month's wages, if not a day's), so rather than fighting nature over what is mostly natural changes, perhaps better to take the hint and learn to relocate. We also are learning to use ugly/dirty technological phases to step forward to clean ones, so people shouldn't get quite so bent over the process of improvement as if we're going to stay at a bad place forever.

And yes, it's funny how time and again those trying to make a big deal about global warming by holding high-profile conferences and excursions are hit with record cold conditions.

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby chenille » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:39 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:For all the criticism of such "hey, temperature change is normal & natural" views, the "gotta do something about climate change/warming" side seems completely unclear on the concept that temperatures are NOT unchanging/stable/flat over long periods.

I don't know why you think this. The main proponents that anthropogenic warming is having a large effect on our climate are scientists studying the subject, and if you actually cared to look at the literature, they are entirely aware that the planet's climate has not been a steady state. They know more about it than you or I do, and they have good reasons to believe what we are seeing is something unusual. I can't believe how many people feel comfortable dismissing an entire field of detailed study as somehow based on complete ignorance or magic 8-balls just because they didn't understand their point on a superficial first glance.

Let me make it simple for you and RAGBRAIvet. There is no normal, and it wouldn't matter if there was. What does matter is the averages people have built their civilization around and other living things are adapted to, and whether they change faster or slower than infrastructure and ecosystems can. There is a very strong body of evidence suggesting carbon dioxide emissions have been shifting those averages, at a rate that we are going to have some difficulty coping with, and many other organisms more. We have to put in some effort to adapt, sure, but that doesn't mean we couldn't also put in some effort to stop making problems.
Last edited by chenille on Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:45 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby ctdonath » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:41 pm UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:these so-called scientists who claim to be able to tell us what the world's climate will be like two or three hundred years from now might just as well be using a Magic 8-Ball or casting voodoo bones in order to make their predictions.

Wasn't long ago they were hollering about the looming ice age. Now we're all gonna melt & drown. Except they're starting to make noise about long-term freezing again.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby ctdonath » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:44 pm UTC

chenille wrote:There is no normal, and it wouldn't matter if there was.

Pretty long leap from "change! Oh me yarm!" to "chaos is normal - so what?". Let's establish what the normal for natural change is, and then take an hones look at our contribution. Both sides are blowing the issue so far out of proportion that we can't get a sensible discussion.

(And it's also a pretty long leap for the message board software to replace "O M G" (without spaces) with "Gee Willikers".)
Last edited by ctdonath on Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby chenille » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:47 pm UTC

Response edited to reflect the edit above:
ctdonath wrote:Pretty long leap from "change! Gee Willikers!" to "chaos is normal - so what?". Let's establish what the normal for natural change is, and then take an hones look at our contribution.

Fortunately, there are people who've been looking at such things, called climate scientists. I wish more people would look at what they actually say, instead of caricaturing them as somehow unaware the earth has natural changes and unable to distinguish signal from noise. They've done a lot of work on both prehistoric changes and more recent ones, and have given good reason to think the latter are happening faster, largely anthropogenic, and concerning. If you actually believe the myth that scientific consensus was ever hollering about a looming ice age, though, you obviously aren't interested.
Last edited by chenille on Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby ctdonath » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:48 pm UTC

chenille wrote:Not if

See edit.

scharb
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:09 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby scharb » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:17 pm UTC

Count me in as a Farenheit fan.
Temperatures <0 degF may kill you;
Temperatures >100 degF may kill you.
It divides humans' (safely) survivable temperature range neatly into a one-hundred base. What's not to like?


More relevant to the comic, where does Randall find statistics like this? Where can I find number of subzero temps per year in my city?

hujackus
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:30 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby hujackus » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:25 pm UTC

CigarDoug wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:
alun009 wrote:°F? What is that, some archæic temperature scale or something?


For everyone on the sensible parts of the world: 0ºF == -17,7ºC

You expect me to accept that your part of the world is sensible but uses commas for decimal points?


Approximately 24% of the world's population uses commas to delimit decimals including Brazil.

Though I disprove of the reckless truncating in proximity to a double equals. 7/9ths is closer to 0,8

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Kit. » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:46 pm UTC

scharb wrote:Count me in as a Farenheit fan.
Temperatures <0 degF may kill you;
Temperatures >100 degF may kill you.
It divides humans' (safely) survivable temperature range neatly into a one-hundred base. What's not to like?

70 °F may kill you easily if it's your body temperature.

50 °F will usually kill you in a hour if it's the temperature of water you are floating in (dry suits rule, by the way).

m1el
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:38 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby m1el » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:21 pm UTC

scharb wrote:It divides humans' (safely) survivable temperature range neatly into a one-hundred base. What's not to like?

Humans can change over time, and this temperature range is "survivable" depending on many factors. 0°F with 130% humidity can easily kill you if you're not wearing any warm clothes.
Imagine aliens contacting Earth and asking how we measure temperatures:
"Ok, we take temperature under our armpits, mark it as 96°F. Then we measure when our blood some salt solution freezes, that's 0°F."
"Could not reproduce - we have no armpits. Also our human body temperature measurement always shows (translate 4K to alien scale), do you have negative slope on temperature measurements?"

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Djehutynakht » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:25 pm UTC

Fahrenheit works well as a sort of... I guess you could say "vernacular" or "every day" temperature scale. In no way or shape has me referring to a cool/moderate day as "70 degrees" affected my sanity or intelligence in any way. It works pretty well for those of us who use it.

Scientifically... Celsius (or Kelvin) works better. But I'm not trying to be a scientist every time I remark on what the weather's like outside.

Fahrenheit's a perfectly good temperature scale. It's nice to know both, however.

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby speising » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:25 pm UTC

scharb wrote:Count me in as a Farenheit fan.
Temperatures <0 degF may kill you;
Temperatures >100 degF may kill you.
It divides humans' (safely) survivable temperature range neatly into a one-hundred base. What's not to like?


More relevant to the comic, where does Randall find statistics like this? Where can I find number of subzero temps per year in my city?


0C may kill you, too, if you are unprotected. and with proper gear, 0F won't be a problem, either.
100F is about 40C, isn't it? a pretty normal temperature in much of the world.

the comic references it's source, btw.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:30 pm UTC

chenille wrote:Response edited to reflect the edit above:
ctdonath wrote:Pretty long leap from "change! Gee Willikers!" to "chaos is normal - so what?". Let's establish what the normal for natural change is, and then take an hones look at our contribution.

Fortunately, there are people who've been looking at such things, called climate scientists. I wish more people would look at what they actually say, instead of caricaturing them as somehow unaware the earth has natural changes and unable to distinguish signal from noise. They've done a lot of work on both prehistoric changes and more recent ones, and have given good reason to think the latter are happening faster, largely anthropogenic, and concerning. If you actually believe the myth that scientific consensus was ever hollering about a looming ice age, though, you obviously aren't interested.


~40 years ago, according to my best information (it was before I was born, let alone taking an active interest) it was known that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age, and that the average 10k years or so they last had been overshot by 5% and counting. The models have got a lot better since then.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:41 pm UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:And this is why, ever since some genius came up with this "global warming" hogwash, that I have been saying that we have too little information to be able to know what actual "normal" is. Take my area, for example; I live in Wisconsin along the Mississippi River. At one point in history this area was buried under God only knows how many feet of the Laurentian glacier, yet prior to that during the Devonian period much of what is now the neighboring state of Iowa was a shallow wetlands that had a subtropical climate and was home to dinosaurs as proven by the fossil record.

When you stop and consider that the world is generally accepted to be around 4.5 billion years old but we have comprehensive and accurate climatological records gathered in a scientific manner that go back at most 300 of those years, I contend that what we perceive to be the norm for even the past several millennia may in fact be just a single anomaly in the historical record, and these so-called scientists who claim to be able to tell us what the world's climate will be like two or three hundred years from now might just as well be using a Magic 8-Ball or casting voodoo bones in order to make their predictions.


There are over 3 million years of climate data available. Yes, there is only about 300 years of direct measurements available (i.e. someone noting what the day-to-day temps were), but there are also indicators such as ice cores (which measure year-to-year, as well as having air bubbles in them, which allow you to measure O16/O18 ratios), pollen counts, tree rings, and about half a dozen other things that allow us to indirectly measure temperature and climate over several MILLION years.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pfhorrest and 117 guests