Analogy: Climate change vs. impaired driving

[pbrower2a]

In view of the upcoming Drunk Night (New years' Eve)....


AGW deniers can contemplate these two graphs:    



I look at that chart, and I see this: that below 320ppm the differences of temperature are cycles of weather. Above 320ppm it is carbon dioxide. That's where the inflection point lies.

I figure that a good analogy is blood alcohol content and vehicle accidents: below about .03 BAC, where one drives and at what time makes the difference. Above .03 it is the BAC. If you drive at 2AM when the bars close you have a higher-than-average chance of an accident because of all the drunks behind the wheel or staggering about as pedestrians. Between about .03 and .08 any anger, tiredness, confusion, or stupidity will add to the effect of alcohol. At .08 or higher you are the drunk.



We are in the driver's seat now, and we are undeniably impaired.

Oh, by the way -- drive sober -- or GET PULLED OVER!

[The Free North]

There is so much wrong with that chart that its not even worth getting into.


Please stop.

[pbrower2a]

There is so much wrong with that chart that its not even worth getting into.


Please stop.

Do you mean that impaired driving is not so bad as we have been told that it is?

[Badger]

<grabs popcorn>

[Deus Naturae]

What does "global temperature" refer to? Air temperature? Ocean temperature? Land surface temperature?

Also, that drunk driving chart is probably bunk. How did they come up with that data?

[pbrower2a]

What does "global temperature" refer to? Air temperature? Ocean temperature? Land surface temperature?

Surface temperatures, land, sea, and ice together .

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wikipedia.

[Deus Naturae]

Surface temperatures, land, sea, and ice together .

Can I see the source?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean the chart came from Wikipedia or the authors of the chart found a Wikipedia article whose author had somehow calculated the probability that intoxication will lead to a crash? I just don't see how anyone could have produced that statistic, not necessarily because I find it unrealistic, but because I can't think of anyway someone could derive that information.

[Cory]

What does "global temperature" refer to? Air temperature? Ocean temperature? Land surface temperature?

Also, that drunk driving chart is probably bunk. How did they come up with that data?

Internet Libertarians: Officially denying the correlation between being drunk and being an a car accident.

[Deus Naturae]

What does "global temperature" refer to? Air temperature? Ocean temperature? Land surface temperature?

Also, that drunk driving chart is probably bunk. How did they come up with that data?

Internet Libertarians: Officially denying the correlation between being drunk and being an a car accident.

No, just that chart. What experiment and/or research could have been conducted that would allow someone to determine precise data like that on this subject?

[Boston Bread]

Keep on fighting the good fight, pbrowser!

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml


More red to come when this year's graph arrives next month, needless to say.

[traininthedistance]

The idea is less crazy than it seems.  The common thread, of course, being that global climate systems and the human body have a certain amount of resilience/"buffer" that can absorb small to moderate amounts of shock in terms of GHG or booze or whatever without ill effects, but at a certain point you hit an inflection where the natural feedback systems get overwhelmed and any further stress will lead to genuine impairment.

This isn't necessarily meant as a defense of that Wiki-sourced drunk driving chart, of course (which I can't vouch for); just an explanation/defense of the underlying idea.

[Vosem]

Both charts look broadly reasonable, but I don't understand what the two have to do with each other.

[Badger]

What does "global temperature" refer to? Air temperature? Ocean temperature? Land surface temperature?

Also, that drunk driving chart is probably bunk. How did they come up with that data?

Internet Libertarians: Officially denying the correlation between being drunk and being an a car accident.

No, just that chart. What experiment and/or research could have been conducted that would allow someone to determine precise data like that on this subject?

Nationwide data of chemical testing after accidents. It's really not difficult.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The link between co2 and temperature isn't clear from that graph.

If you're vague, then the argument stands just fine.

We know co2 is increasing.

We are nearly certain that It is due to human emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

We know co2 is a greenhouse gas with an approximate warming of the climate with a doubling of co2 of anywhere from 0.5-3°C without the inclusion of feedbacks.

This is where skeptics and the consensus diverge.

Alarmists say feedback is strongly positive and that environmental damage will be catastrophic.

Scientists are all over the place but generally apply the precautionary principle and suggest even a small amount of warming could be harmful.

Skeptics both argue that a small amount of warming would be adaptable...but also that it is very likely there will be only a small amount of warming in the future, on the scale of up to 1°C on a busness as usual path, and that we should use fossil fuel energy sources to lift the third world out of poverty before we all go greener, since development will save the third world's environment and prevent millions from dying.  But renewables can't do that for them, yet.

This new brand of eco socialism that politicus subscribes to... A badly veiled xenophobic opposition to immigration with the excuse that "its better for the environment if they're impoverished"...illicits a strong negative reaction from me.

[Deus Naturae]

Nationwide data of chemical testing after accidents. It's really not difficult.

How would that allow you to calculate the risk/probability of crashing at different levels of intoxication? If you found that 50% of crash victims had X BAC, that wouldn't tell you anything, because it doesn't follow that drivers with X BAC have a 50% chance of crashing. That's not how probability works.

[pbrower2a]

My rationale: the graphs have similar shape. It's hard to imagine anyone denying a connection between BAC and the relative likelihood of a vehicle crash beyond a certain point in BAC. People might argue that they might be better drivers after one drink, especially if the drink makes them more relaxed and less nervous. Beyond the first drink one has no question: the higher the BAC, the worse one's driving gets. Nobody responsibly denies the connection between the BAC and the impairment of driving beyond a certain point.

At any level of atmospheric carbon dioxide there will  be some statistical noise in the correlation of temperature to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. There are volcanic eruptions and sunspot cycles. The big numbers that relate to commonplace vehicle collisions, very frequent events, make allowances for weather, time of day, and the quality of highways. We don't have as big numbers for world temperatures. 

The idea is less crazy than it seems.  The common thread, of course, being that global climate systems and the human body have a certain amount of resilience/"buffer" that can absorb small to moderate amounts of shock in terms of GHG or booze or whatever without ill effects, but at a certain point you hit an inflection where the natural feedback systems get overwhelmed and any further stress will lead to genuine impairment.

This isn't necessarily meant as a defense of that Wiki-sourced drunk driving chart, of course (which I can't vouch for); just an explanation/defense of the underlying idea.

Bingo!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keep on fighting the good fight, pbrowser!

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml


More red to come when this year's graph arrives next month, needless to say.

What's striking is that big blotch of blue in northeast Asia.  One has to wonder how much of global warming is due not to increased CO2, but decreased particulate emissions from air pollution in the West removing what had been a damper.

[Deus Naturae]

My rationale: the graphs have similar shape. It's hard to imagine anyone denying a connection between BAC and the relative likelihood of a vehicle crash beyond a certain point in BAC. People might argue that they might be better drivers after one drink, especially if the drink makes them more relaxed and less nervous. Beyond the first drink one has no question: the higher the BAC, the worse one's driving gets. Nobody responsibly denies the connection between the BAC and the impairment of driving beyond a certain point.

I understand the concept, but I don't think that either of these are particularly good examples (climate change less so than drunk driving). In both cases, the dependent variables (probability of a crash and global temperature, respectively) are influenced by a multitude of other factors besides the independent variables included in the respective charts.

In the case of the climate system, temperature is influenced by countless opposing feedbacks and atmospheric gases other than CO2. Even IPCC climate scientists recognize that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration alone is not enough to cause catastrophic warming. Their reasoning is that atmospheric CO2 will set off a bunch of other feedbacks all of which amplify the warming effect:



The problem with this is that it ignores opposing feedbacks which dampen the warming effect and in some cases directly counteract pro-warming feedbacks (for example, increased evaporation results in a greater atmospheric concentration of water vapor (a greenhouse gas), but this same concentration also results in increased cloud formation which directly dampens warming but reflecting sunlight back into space before it penetrates the atmosphere).

But anyway, even if you agree with the mainstream IPCC view, the point is that the alleged catastrophic increase in global temperatures (which you still have yet to source) is not the direct result of CO2 crossing a certain concentration threshold, but rather the chain reaction of many different feedbacks. Of course most people (including many arrogant "pro-science" leftists who mock ignorant "deniers") have no idea that this is the case (or are even aware of what a "feedback" is in the context of the climate system), despite the fact that it's agreed on by nearly all scientists on both sides of the debate.

[Deus Naturae]

Keep on fighting the good fight, pbrowser!

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml


More red to come when this year's graph arrives next month, needless to say.

We've only had reliable measurement of ocean temperatures since the Argo system went operational in the early 2000's. Here's what it's come up with:

[Ban my account ffs!]

My rationale: the graphs have similar shape. It's hard to imagine anyone denying a connection between BAC and the relative likelihood of a vehicle crash beyond a certain point in BAC. People might argue that they might be better drivers after one drink, especially if the drink makes them more relaxed and less nervous. Beyond the first drink one has no question: the higher the BAC, the worse one's driving gets. Nobody responsibly denies the connection between the BAC and the impairment of driving beyond a certain point.

At any level of atmospheric carbon dioxide there will  be some statistical noise in the correlation of temperature to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. There are volcanic eruptions and sunspot cycles. The big numbers that relate to commonplace vehicle collisions, very frequent events, make allowances for weather, time of day, and the quality of highways. We don't have as big numbers for world temperatures. 

The idea is less crazy than it seems.  The common thread, of course, being that global climate systems and the human body have a certain amount of resilience/"buffer" that can absorb small to moderate amounts of shock in terms of GHG or booze or whatever without ill effects, but at a certain point you hit an inflection where the natural feedback systems get overwhelmed and any further stress will lead to genuine impairment.

This isn't necessarily meant as a defense of that Wiki-sourced drunk driving chart, of course (which I can't vouch for); just an explanation/defense of the underlying idea.

Bingo!

Look at the climate debate in the context of drunk drivers.  Only idiots would deny a pos correlation between BAC and crash rates.

Where the point of contention lis is in whether lowering the legal limit is economically feasible enough for the lives it saves.

Translate that to climate change and we're talking about significant economic damage to prevent warming in the neighborhood of a couple tenths of a degree.  Is that worth the cost? I say no.

But clouding things up with ideology and pseudo dogmatic tactics of name calling (deniers!) gets nothing done and only feeds alienation or smugness.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This entire thread hurts my head.

[traininthedistance]

But clouding things up with ideology and pseudo dogmatic tactics of name calling (deniers!) gets nothing done and only feeds alienation or smugness.

Like adopting the misleading Luntzian moniker "skeptics" is any better.

[Deus Naturae]

But clouding things up with ideology and pseudo dogmatic tactics of name calling (deniers!) gets nothing done and only feeds alienation or smugness.

Like adopting the misleading Luntzian moniker "skeptics" is any better.

It is. You may not like it but the term "climate denier" literally makes no sense whatsoever.