| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
What is cause of global warming? Heat or gases?
According to what we all hear, (major) cause is increase of CO2 in atmosphere. But is it really true? Problem here is warming, not CO2, correct? CO2
is only one (if not the only) cause.
I think that global warming is just what is sound like, the warming. Meaning excess temperature buildup on earth. And due to that temperature increase
ice melts and plants and animals die because of high heat and UV. What is more problematic here? Heat or light?
What would be different in case of nuclear fusion in the future? Would not it generate the same amount of heat planet had before, if not even more?
After all it looks to me like it's all about heat, and not CO2 or any gas in atmosphere. I don't know would this heat dissipate in any different way
then the one generated by sun. Can global warming be caused by using many furnaces or heaters?
At least considering heat part of global warming. For light part, maybe there's no other way but to change atmosphere back to optimal (to block or
reduce UV).
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by RawWork]
|
|
|
TheMrbunGee
Hazard to Others
Posts: 364
Registered: 13-7-2016
Location: EU
Member Is Offline
Mood: Phosphorising
|
|
CO2 causes greenhouse effect, and the temperature climbs because of it.
I read your question again and got that you have very little idea of how global warming works.
Heat from the sun hits earth, and warms it up, heat then radiates back out to the space. greenhouse gases (CO2, water, methane) prevents some of the
heat to get away from the earth. more gases - more heat stays in atmosphere.
Major danger of global warming is not the fact that it gets warmer (and few animals(including humans) gets uncomfortable in the summer), it is what
the this heat does to weather. you get more and more extreme storms, which is worst short term effect for humanity. water level rise wont kill
anybody, just steal some area where people live.
If it gets really bad - you can have runaway greenhouse effect and if that's the case then we can add few more elements of PT to the "liquid at the
room temperature" section.
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by TheMrbunGee]
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by TheMrbunGee]
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hmm... I see that recovery of atmosphere is a must, at least because of UV. But would not more devices using nuclear fusion energy heat the earth too,
just like the sun does (even if we had perfect atmosphere we will build up excess heat from excess fusors, heaters, lights, electronics)?
Is nuclear fusion the only solution (besides solar, wind, and few other forms of energy)?
I know what is greenhouse effect. But it can be caused by heaters too? Heat that way, or heat this way, it's same, correct? Blocking heat from
dissipating into space or making more heat must be same, just like more thermal isolation or less heat can produce same temperature.
Why are not winters warmer? In my country (southeast europe) there's still winter, and it won't be gone until middle of May! Last year snow was
falling in March and May. Hope it won't appear at summer!!! I was hoping that global warming will reduce cold! This never happened before! 
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by RawWork]
|
|
|
TheMrbunGee
Hazard to Others
Posts: 364
Registered: 13-7-2016
Location: EU
Member Is Offline
Mood: Phosphorising
|
|
I don't think UV has a lot to do with this. harmful UV gets blocked at ozone layer and that is fine right now.
the heat from humankind devices is an ants pee in the ocean when you compare it to suns energy.
"Is nuclear fusion the only solution (besides solar, wind, and few other forms of energy)?"
pretty much - yes (not the only one but most realistic one for now). and decreasing consumption of energy is a solution. Increasing the effectivity
of consumed energy is a realistic solution.
|
|
|
TheMrbunGee
Hazard to Others
Posts: 364
Registered: 13-7-2016
Location: EU
Member Is Offline
Mood: Phosphorising
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by RawWork  |
I know what is greenhouse effect. But it can be caused by heaters too? Heat that way, or heat this way, it's same, correct? Blocking heat from
dissipating into space or making more heat must be same, just like more thermal isolation or less heat can produce same temperature.
Why are not winters warmer? In my country (southeast europe) there's still winter, and it won't be gone until middle of May! Last year snow was
falling in March and May. Hope it won't appear at summer!!! I was hoping that global warming will reduce cold! This never happened before!
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by RawWork] |
As I said human-made heat is really nothing compared to what sun gives.
weather changes because of warming. overall planets temperature gets higher. oceans gets warmer, more water gets in atmosphere and it does crazy
things to the usual weather.
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
It's not fair! People are freezing to death each year because of lack of energy, and then burning to death in summer because of excess of this heat.
We need this energy (heat) for our lives. Why let it exit into space? Why not capture it? How? I am not talking about capturing today's heat for
tonight's cold defense. But converting it into some more stable energy form like dry cells and use them when needed? Does such technology exist? It's
so sad and bad we can't capture that energy we need. Or are solar cells doing that already?
If they are, does it mean that the more solar cells, the better? But what about killing birds by solar cells? Can that problem be overcame?
|
|
|
DrP
National Hazard
Posts: 625
Registered: 28-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: exothermic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RawWork | It's not fair! People are freezing to death each year because of lack of energy, and then burning to death in summer because of excess of this heat.
We need this energy (heat) for our lives. Why let it exit into space? Why not capture it?
If they are, does it mean that the more solar cells, the better? But what about killing birds by solar cells? Can that problem be overcame?
|
People have only just really began to become a civilization - we have struggled for thousands of years to survive. People light fires or kill an
animal for it's fur to keep warm. The worlds population has boomed though - All of our technology is fairly recent in man's history. Most of our
history is pretty barbaric and most of the world today still is. What do you want? We are advancing... solar is real promising imo (what's that about
birds?... how many birds die from our total consumption of coal and other fossil fuels).
There are plenty of alternate fuel sources that are being developed - many have been retarded in their development by oil/gas/coal companies over
the years but that does seem to be changing... although the world seems to be taking a political step to the right... where many do not even
recognise the problems you are pointing out. We will get there in the end..... or die doing nothing about it. Either way it will be long after you
or I have died. I hope we do find decent alternate energy sources (like solar, wind, fusion, whatever) of course. But it will take years to develop
and there will undoubtably be teething troubles and snags with whatever is chosen... it's normal.
\"It\'s a man\'s obligation to stick his boneration in a women\'s separation; this sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger
generation\" - Eric Cartman
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
If you haven't seen this video, it's pretty cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Ra2HR27pQ There are a few fair criticisms that can be made, of course... for one, the circular arrangement of
the chart looks nice but also makes it very hard to evaluate in an unbiased manner, and it's not clear how the author defines "temperature anomaly" -
it looks like it is measured by standard deviations over the entire time period, but using which temperature readings, exactly....
If you look carefully, you'll notice that there is a run-up in temperature in Europe at the end of WWI that quickly falls off and a run-up in
temperature in most of the world at the end of WWII that also falls off.
If you measure temperature in cities and industrial areas, you'll find that paving areas and running factories cause the temperature to increase.
Higher temperatures in urban and industrial areas do matter, but in this video, they appear to reflect higher levels of industrial activity, not
climate change.
|
|
|
LearnedAmateur
National Hazard
Posts: 513
Registered: 30-3-2017
Location: Somewhere in the UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Free Radical
|
|
CO2 and heat both play major roles in the global warming phenomenon. Earth mainly releases heat as infrared radiation, which is absorbed really well
by a lot of organic compounds (look at an IR spectroscopy table for specific values). This IR is absorbed by bonds in CO2, methane, etc. where it
causes manipulation of the bonds - stretching and scissoring - and this energy is then re-emitted by the molecule back towards the Earth instead of
out into space.
Melting ice also causes massive issues for multiple reasons and is a feedback process. The heat which is trapped in the Earth causes ice to melt
(Antarctic and permafrost) which in turn means less heat from the Sun is reflected back out into space. Not only that, but Arctic permafrost contains
a lot of methane gas, obviously getting released during the process which again adds to the total greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.
Oh yeah, and UV is a different matter entirely and actually has very little to do with global warming. During the last century, CFCs were very heavily
used around the world - when released into the atmosphere, UV breaks them down into chlorine radicals (Cl•) which react with ozone many thousands of
times, catalysing the breakdown of ozone to diatomic oxygen which is far less able to absorb UV.
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by LearnedAmateur]
In chemistry, sometimes the solution is the problem.
It’s been a while, but I’m not dead! Updated 7/1/2020. Shout out to Aga, we got along well.
|
|
|
RogueRose
International Hazard
Posts: 1585
Registered: 16-6-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
It is my opinion that the big fireball up in the sky that hangs around about 12 hours per day, has something to do with this "global warming" thing.
I know I'm not alone in saying that at least since about 2007 the sun has been A LOT brighter than it was before. There were times when it seemed as
much as 20-40% brighter than what it had been just a few years ago. When I say brighter, I mean it produced more intense light (more white-ish
compared to a softer yellow of the years before) and at the same time, it seemed MUCH hotter when standing directly in the sun in places where I used
to sit out all day. Sun burns also happened in 1/2 the time on a few occasions and I had gotten to know my body, how long I could stay in the sun,
etc. I had shades and drapes that used to almost black out a room but when the sun was at peak brightness, the room was significantly brighter and no
where near dark enough to sleep (for me) where before it was PLENTY dark enough.
There are a couple other forums where many people have noticed this and have brought the subject to the attention of the members. Many other people
have noticed the same things, often around the exact same times, starting the same year/month and some days where it seemed exceptionally bright were
we couldn't be outside w/o sunglasses (pretty odd when a person has never needed sunglasses in 30 years then is suddenly blinded by the sun). Had
extensive eye exams to see if it was medical or body changes and after 3 tests, they came back with the same results as all prior tests by the doc.
A lot of people have noticed that the sun is brighter (it seems more so on some days than others) and even possibly more so in some area's (IDK how
that could happen) but it seems there have been a lot of reports in the US in the NE, SW (especially SoCal & Arizona), souther east coast states
& "middle america" on the Mississippi (including Chicago). I've seen a number of youtube videos about this wondering if others have noticed.
As for other countries who have reported an increased brightness were Australia, France and Spain from what I recall.
Of course there were (and are) a lot of people who dismiss this and say that the "sun hasn't changed" but the ones I've heard say that, many of them
aren't exactly "eagle eyes" nor have great memories for comparing how it was in the past.
Now IDK if the sun is brighter or if there is some kind of atmospheric layer (ozone or similar layer??) missing that blocks out some of the
brightness but I can attest that it is happening (though it has been harder to detect the last 3-4 years, I think because I have gotten used to it).
So that is part of my theory why things are hotter, especially in some areas.
As far as CO2, the fact that it makes up .04% of air (nitrogen being about 78%, O2 21%, argon 1%, etc) and when they talk about global increases of
CO2 and that it would take 100 years for it to reach .05% or something like that, I have a difficult time believing that CO2 is more of a cause than
that big ball of fire.
Now the other idea which I tend to see as more relevant is water in the air. Over the last ~150 years, we have pumped SO MUCH water from underground
aquifers which is now surface water or is in lakes or oceans or clouds. H2O is the largest greenhouse gas and I think the pumping has effected that
as well. This and the increase of sun temp may account for the larger hurricanes/typhoons as well as tornados and even earthquakes (more H2O in air,
heavier air, more pressure on plates - could be a stretch but I see it as plausible), but I see the pumping from aquifers (in a manner for watering
crops allows for lots of H2O evaporating) and then a hotter sun, causing those severe storms.
Has anyone else noticed the sun being especially bright starting a few years ago. For me it seemed to happen over night where once my shades were
adequate, then bam, needed to double up and put a blanket over them, all in the course of 2-3 days (time from noticing and reacting)
|
|
|
LearnedAmateur
National Hazard
Posts: 513
Registered: 30-3-2017
Location: Somewhere in the UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Free Radical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose |
As far as CO2, the fact that it makes up .04% of air (nitrogen being about 78%, O2 21%, argon 1%, etc) and when they talk about global increases of
CO2 and that it would take 100 years for it to reach .05% or something like that, I have a difficult time believing that CO2 is more of a cause than
that big ball of fire.
|
But then you have to consider that temperature and CO2 have a very strict correlation throughout the past 800,000 years, and the CO2 spike after the
Industrial Revolution brought with it increases in the temperature anomalies across the globe.
Yes, the Sun is responsible for making Earth heat up as it has been for billions of years, and will do for billions more, but the concern is not where
the heat comes from but where the energy is going. Because of greenhouse gases, the equilibrium between heat received by Earth and the energy it can
bleed away is shifted towards the former as the greater concentration of such traps the heat in.
This shit diagram basically explains what goes on - red arrows represent emitted radiation from Earth, yellow arrows represent radiation absorbed and
emitted from CO2 molecules, and blue dots are the molecules themselves. Hence, the more ‘dots’ you have, the more dense the ‘blockade’ of IR
radiation since radiation will reflect in seemingly random directions according to the orientation of the molecules.
In chemistry, sometimes the solution is the problem.
It’s been a while, but I’m not dead! Updated 7/1/2020. Shout out to Aga, we got along well.
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by LearnedAmateur | | Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose |
As far as CO2, the fact that it makes up .04% of air (nitrogen being about 78%, O2 21%, argon 1%, etc) and when they talk about global increases of
CO2 and that it would take 100 years for it to reach .05% or something like that, I have a difficult time believing that CO2 is more of a cause than
that big ball of fire.
|
But then you have to consider that temperature and CO2 have a very strict correlation throughout the past 800,000 years, and the CO2 spike after the
Industrial Revolution brought with it increases in the temperature anomalies across the globe.
Yes, the Sun is responsible for making Earth heat up as it has been for billions of years, and will do for billions more, but the concern is not where
the heat comes from but where the energy is going. Because of greenhouse gases, the equilibrium between heat received by Earth and the energy it can
bleed away is shifted towards the former as the greater concentration of such traps the heat in.
This shit diagram basically explains what goes on - red arrows represent emitted radiation from Earth, yellow arrows represent radiation absorbed and
emitted from CO2 molecules, and blue dots are the molecules themselves. Hence, the more ‘dots’ you have, the more dense the ‘blockade’ of IR
radiation since radiation will reflect in seemingly random directions according to the orientation of the molecules. |
I give this kind of stuff about as much credibility as I do the Holy Ghost. A chlorine radical reacts with thousands of ozone molecules... really? Can
you explain why?
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
The thing that confuses me about the whole about 'Global Warming' stuff is the fact that we're in the middle of a series of ice-ages, as core-samples
and fossil record Prove.
So, if it was all icy around 50,000 years back, then it got warmer (again) and now humans are doing stuff to accelerate this particular part of one of
the warm/cold cycles, what difference does it really make, in the 100,000 year view of things ?
OK, so humanity could well wipe itself out, mostly, but isn't that good thing ?
Current human civilisation being destroyed merely by the side-effects of our sheer wanton greed is kinda poetic.
Edit:
It would not be a surprise if the vast limestone rock deposits really did start off as seashells in an ancient ocean, with each of the many subsequent
layers being decomposed concrete ...
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by aga]
|
|
|
LearnedAmateur
National Hazard
Posts: 513
Registered: 30-3-2017
Location: Somewhere in the UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Free Radical
|
|
Regarding ozone depletion, mechanisms are the best way to explain it. Chlorine radicals are effectively recycled whereas ozone isn’t - it takes a
very long time (months to years) for a species to combine in a termination step, and it finds its way back to ground level.
Aga: it doesn’t really matter on the grand scheme of things, the Earth will continue revolving the Sun in our lonely little solar system in an
obscure sector of our galaxy, amongst billions of stars in trillions of galaxies. The thing is though, we have made such a huge change to the global
climate in the past 300 odd years, more change than would naturally occur in thousands of years. Life evolves far too slowly to adapt as it has done
over massive periods of time far longer than any single organism can live for. Global warming destroys huge swathes of forests, expanding deserts and
paradoxically drying up and drowning areas of land which means species are at least displaced and some driven to extinction. Why? Like you said,
because of us. It’s a change to the only planet we know holds life, a change that could potentially lead to all but the most hardiest organisms
disappearing from existence leaving the lush, diverse Earth a barren rock, following in the footsteps of Venus or Mars. It’s a change that we made,
and that we can halt so that future generations of life have a chance to survive in the same way that it always has done.
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by LearnedAmateur]
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by LearnedAmateur]
In chemistry, sometimes the solution is the problem.
It’s been a while, but I’m not dead! Updated 7/1/2020. Shout out to Aga, we got along well.
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay | | it's not clear how the author defines "temperature anomaly" - it looks like it is measured by standard deviations over the entire time period, but
using which temperature readings, exactly.... |
Temperature anomaly is the difference between measured temperature and some baseline. Here's a short explanation of how this works:
https://topologicoceans.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/temperature...
| Quote: | If you measure temperature in cities and industrial areas, you'll find that paving areas and running factories cause the temperature to increase.
Higher temperatures in urban and industrial areas do matter, but in this video, they appear to reflect higher levels of industrial activity, not
climate change.
|
It sounds like you're attributing observed regional trends to industrialization via the "urban heat island effect". How did you arrive at this
conclusion?
| Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose | | It is my opinion that the big fireball up in the sky that hangs around about 12 hours per day, has something to do with this "global warming" thing.
I know I'm not alone in saying that at least since about 2007 the sun has been A LOT brighter than it was before. |
Good lord, no! The sun has been remarkably cool and dim during the last decade or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24
| Quote: |
As far as CO2, the fact that it makes up .04% of air (nitrogen being about 78%, O2 21%, argon 1%, etc) and when they talk about global increases of
CO2 and that it would take 100 years for it to reach .05% or something like that, I have a difficult time believing that CO2 is more of a cause than
that big ball of fire.
|
They both "cause" the earth's temperature: one sends heat to earth, and the other slows its escape from earth. However, solar variation is currently a
minor contributor to temperature variation. This has been examined pretty thoroughly. In particular, the sun's brightness has been flat or slightly
decreasing for the last few decades, a time period where the fastest observed warming has taken place:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447
| Quote: |
Now the other idea which I tend to see as more relevant is water in the air. Over the last ~150 years, we have pumped SO MUCH water from underground
aquifers which is now surface water or is in lakes or oceans or clouds. H2O is the largest greenhouse gas and I think the pumping has effected that
as well.
|
I'm skeptical that the limiting factor in global humidity is above-ground water, but there's also an important distinction between water vapor and
other greenhouse gasses: water will condense under typical atmospheric conditions. This means that water vapor can amplify smaller changes in
temperature (it's a well-known positive feedback) but doesn't add much on its own. Here's the ACS:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesci...
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay |
I give this kind of stuff about as much credibility as I do the Holy Ghost. A chlorine radical reacts with thousands of ozone molecules... really? Can
you explain why? |
It's called catalysis. For a detailed account, I'd suggest starting with Dessler's "Chemistry and Physics of Stratospheric Ozone".
al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mayko |
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay |
I give this kind of stuff about as much credibility as I do the Holy Ghost. A chlorine radical reacts with thousands of ozone molecules... really? Can
you explain why? |
It's called catalysis. For a detailed account, I'd suggest starting with Dessler's "Chemistry and Physics of Stratospheric Ozone".
|
If you don't understand the mechanism, kindly don't offer patronizing answers with a tone of false authority.
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ok, so they are defining temperature anomaly as the simple deviation from the monthly average by country, across years, from the base period. Or is
that deviation from the average temperature from stations within 1200 miles by month, across years, from the base period? Or did they use a kernel and
fail to state its specifications? Does it matter? Not really... you can actually determine whether this data has statistical significance without
knowing that.
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by JJay]
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay |
If you don't understand the mechanism, kindly don't offer patronizing answers with a tone of false authority. |
If you don't understand the mechanism, aren't willing to look it up yourself, and aren't willing to follow up on source recommendations, there's very
little I can do for you.
As for my alleged bad attitude.... maybe look in a mirror sometime?
al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mayko | | Quote: Originally posted by JJay |
If you don't understand the mechanism, kindly don't offer patronizing answers with a tone of false authority. |
If you don't understand the mechanism, aren't willing to look it up yourself, and aren't willing to follow up on source recommendations, there's very
little I can do for you.
As for my alleged bad attitude.... maybe look in a mirror sometime? |
You suggested a piece of literature with more than 74 volumes as your source. With all due respect, no respect is due. https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here's the data from that video, averaged globally and normalized by month.
The data is heteroskedastic, and it probably shouldn't be... the fact that it is calls into question whether using "temperature anomalies" really has
an advantage over using temperature readings directly, but I'm not going to worry about that right now... the heteroskedasticity arises from the early
data.
Does this show a significant increase in temperature? Sure. I'm pretty confident that the temperature readings here are directly correlated with
industrial activity rather than CO2 levels, though.
Oh and here are some other charts:
[Edited on 29-3-2018 by JJay]
|
|
|
nitro-genes
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
If CO2 and temperature are showing an not completely known interaction, why did they use CO2 measurements from icecores as a temperature proxy in the
first place? Considering the inertness of noble gasses and it's temperature dependend solubility in ocean water (assuming equal salinity and volume),
icecore noble gas levels make at least an interesting comparison/control. According to this article, these data may provide a much more unbiased
temperature proxy than CO2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08721-4
[Edited on 29-3-2018 by nitro-genes]
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay |
You suggested a piece of literature with more than 74 volumes as your source. With all due respect, no respect is due.
|
It's a 225-page textbook.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Chemistry_and_Physi...
al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay | Here's the data from that video, averaged globally and normalized by month.
The data is heteroskedastic, and it probably shouldn't be... the fact that it is calls into question whether using "temperature anomalies" really has
an advantage over using temperature readings directly, but I'm not going to worry about that right now... the heteroskedasticity arises from the early
data. |
Why "should" these data be homoskedastic?
| Quote: |
Does this show a significant increase in temperature? Sure. I'm pretty confident that the temperature readings here are directly correlated with
industrial activity rather than CO2 levels, though. |
Given that industrial activity is the cause of and correlated with CO2 levels, temperature is directly correlated with both of them. This doesn't get
us any closer to attributing regional temperature changes to UHI.
| Quote: |
Oh and here are some other charts:
|
ok, what is their relevance? The Keeling Curve isn't exactly breaking news.
al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mayko |
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay | Here's the data from that video, averaged globally and normalized by month.
The data is heteroskedastic, and it probably shouldn't be... the fact that it is calls into question whether using "temperature anomalies" really has
an advantage over using temperature readings directly, but I'm not going to worry about that right now... the heteroskedasticity arises from the early
data. |
Why "should" these data be homoskedastic?
|
Here, the error variance is correlated to the global temperature (which we don't know, but the correlation is still evident), and while I haven't run
any diagnostics, I doubt that happened by random chance.
There are ways of dealing with these things, but the heteroskedasticity suggests that converting the temperature readings to "temperature anomalies"
introduces a loss of information which might actually be helpful for constructing a model.
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ohh.. ok... not all of the volumes are on ozone haha... ok..
I'm probably not going to read all of that, but I do know that chlorine radicals are not incredibly destructive to ozone in all circumstances, and I
don't see offhand why they would be so incredibly destructive to ozone in the atmosphere unless they have nothing else to react with....
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
