Author Topic: Climate Change Catchment Thread  (Read 2301 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3100
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #60 on: May 16, 2017, 07:20:45 AM »
I love the x-axis. 



Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
I like the info it gives... that emissions have stabilized and we aren't seeing a continued exponential growth trend. It just needs a better indicator of the change in scale (and 2010).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I think it's at least potentially highly misleading. This flattening would show up as just another anomalous blip in any of the preceding two-decade intervals in that graph. In fact, you can see several such slowdowns and even reductions during the 80s and 90s. The suggestion is that emissions have been stable for a long time and that this is likely to remain so, but that is not actually clear at all if you pay attention to the scale change. Especially given that large parts of the world are still experiencing some degree of economic malaise. Even from this graph, it's climbing right up until 2014. 2016 was only the third year in which emissions have been stable. I doubt that's enough to establish a meaningful long term trend. And that's just emissions, not actual CO2 concentration, which is still going up.
Mooohn!

Online 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #61 on: May 16, 2017, 07:39:15 AM »
I guess the point of the graph is to show emissions flattening, and that there's hope for them to finally go down. But would most readers think that flattening's enough? Crisis averted?

To me it means that we've maybe stopped making things worse at a greater rate. Leaving us to continue to make things worse at the highest ever rate, and we have as much reason as we ever did to reduce emissions.

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5545
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #62 on: May 16, 2017, 10:28:53 AM »
As is, it's ridiculous to read. 

I measured 65 pixels distance between 1970's 7 and 0 and 1990's 9 and 0.  So, a 20 year increment is 65 pixels, or, 3.25 pixels per year. 

If I amend 2011 to 2010 and continue that scale from 2010 to 2015, we end up with something that looks like this:

Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

Online gmalivuk

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #63 on: May 16, 2017, 10:53:14 AM »
I love the x-axis. 



Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
I like the info it gives... that emissions have stabilized and we aren't seeing a continued exponential growth trend. It just needs a better indicator of the change in scale (and 2010).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
That isn't the info it gives, that's the info it very misleadingly suggests.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline HanEyeAm

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #64 on: May 16, 2017, 01:23:15 PM »
I love the x-axis. 



Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
I like the info it gives... that emissions have stabilized and we aren't seeing a continued exponential growth trend. It just needs a better indicator of the change in scale (and 2010).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
That isn't the info it gives, that's the info it very misleadingly suggests.
Well, here's a handful of us who were not misled.

But the points of werecow and others are well taken: at a cursory glance it looks like the trend has mostly flattened, so that may overemphasize the state of things when considering other periods of short-term declines/non-growth have occurred in the past.

Aside...I assume these data points are all estimated by some formula estimating historical world population, type of fuel used, amount of fuels used, etc. Complex stuff!

Online gmalivuk

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #65 on: May 16, 2017, 01:34:42 PM »
Well, here's a handful of us who were not misled.
Except, you apparently were misled, because you thought it showed that emissions have stabilized, which it doesn't actually demonstrate.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline albator

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #66 on: May 16, 2017, 02:56:09 PM »
Well, here's a handful of us who were not misled.

But the points of werecow and others are well taken: at a cursory glance it looks like the trend has mostly flattened, so that may overemphasize the state of things when considering other periods of short-term declines/non-growth have occurred in the past.

Aside...I assume these data points are all estimated by some formula estimating historical world population, type of fuel used, amount of fuels used, etc. Complex stuff!
On current world emissions, they say there is a max relative error of 10% ( in the IEA report).
Here's what a normal chart looklike.  :)


Strangly, these numbers differ by something like a 3 gigatons co2 with the dubious chart, maybe they come from a previous report or include other source of emissions.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 03:41:18 PM by albator »

Online gmalivuk

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #67 on: May 16, 2017, 05:31:57 PM »
The graph seems to correspond to the numbers from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

Here's their data from 1870 to 2014 without the bizarre rescaling on the x-axis:


(Cement production and gas flaring are included in the CDIAC data, which probably accounts for the difference from the IEA numbers. Weird that the dubious graph would cite the IEA in that case, though.)
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 05:34:23 PM by gmalivuk »
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline HanEyeAm

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #68 on: May 16, 2017, 06:15:14 PM »


Well, here's a handful of us who were not misled.
Except, you apparently were misled, because you thought it showed that emissions have stabilized, which it doesn't actually demonstrate.

No, I was not misled. Poor choice of words on my part, though (stabilized).


 

personate-rain
personate-rain