Dow Jones Index for Climate Change
December 12, 2009 10:03 AM Subscribe
A "Dow Jones Index for Climate Change". The IGBP Climate-Change Index distills complex climate change factors into a single number, like how the Dow Jones distills the markets to a single number, and visually graphs it over time.
Wow, that chart is hideous. Almost unreadable. What were they thinking?
posted by Perplexity at 10:17 AM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Perplexity at 10:17 AM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Pity those fuckers in Copenhagen place greater value on a Wall Street bailout than an environmental one.
posted by gman at 10:18 AM on December 12, 2009
posted by gman at 10:18 AM on December 12, 2009
Who'd a thunk that when you combine six different charts that all show steady change into one meta-chart, that it, too, would show steady change? I think it would be more convincing to show people the data that they used rather than this final result.
Am I missing something?
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:25 AM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Am I missing something?
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:25 AM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
OK, that chart that shows that Arctic sea ice has nearly halved since 1980 is pretty frightening.
posted by I_pity_the_fool at 10:35 AM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by I_pity_the_fool at 10:35 AM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I don't think this will be very convincing for people who already think scientists are cooking their data.
posted by delmoi at 10:35 AM on December 12, 2009
posted by delmoi at 10:35 AM on December 12, 2009
Did they design these charts in Powerpoint? Seriously - a blue polar cap with lines everywhere and purple data points? What happened to a white background with axes and simple data points? Next thing you know, when you click to see the next one there will be that stock "applause" or "car horn" sound that college freshmen so frequently abuse.
posted by msbutah at 11:04 AM on December 12, 2009
posted by msbutah at 11:04 AM on December 12, 2009
> Am I missing something?
Scroll down in the last link to "Datasets used for the climate-change index".
> a blue polar cap with lines everywhere and purple data points?
Didn't seem that confusing, but there is also the Index as a straight line.
> Wow, that chart is hideous. Almost unreadable.
Is it really that difficult to read? Maybe your right. I honestly had no problem, seems straightforward, or see straight line graph version above.
> I don't think this will be very convincing for people who already think scientists are cooking their data.
AP just did a deep investigation of the emails and found nothing. The UK Govt is doing an investigation, as is the United Nations (yeah, I know..). Of course what they will find is no evidence of a conspiracy.. which conspiracy nuts will conclude is evidence of a wider conspiracy.
posted by stbalbach at 11:24 AM on December 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
Scroll down in the last link to "Datasets used for the climate-change index".
> a blue polar cap with lines everywhere and purple data points?
Didn't seem that confusing, but there is also the Index as a straight line.
> Wow, that chart is hideous. Almost unreadable.
Is it really that difficult to read? Maybe your right. I honestly had no problem, seems straightforward, or see straight line graph version above.
> I don't think this will be very convincing for people who already think scientists are cooking their data.
AP just did a deep investigation of the emails and found nothing. The UK Govt is doing an investigation, as is the United Nations (yeah, I know..). Of course what they will find is no evidence of a conspiracy.. which conspiracy nuts will conclude is evidence of a wider conspiracy.
posted by stbalbach at 11:24 AM on December 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
I thought it was pretty illuminating. But judging from the comments thus far one sees the "between rock and hard place" kind of situation climatologists find themselves in: on the one hand, simply publishing their mountains of raw data is not really the right way to go about stating their case for climate change, especially in the age of the MTV attention span; on the other hand, simplifying their data into such bite-sized, easily digested pieces invites accusations of data manipulation and nutty conspiracy-theorizing.
posted by Anderson_Localized at 11:53 AM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Anderson_Localized at 11:53 AM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
stbalbach - I was just snarking ... With so many ways to gorgeously present data they seem to have chosen a unique style is all.
posted by msbutah at 12:39 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by msbutah at 12:39 PM on December 12, 2009
the idea that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to trick the whole world breaks up families. after being accused of being part of a global warming coverup, i am no longer on speaking terms with my father.
posted by flyinghamster at 3:14 PM on December 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by flyinghamster at 3:14 PM on December 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
some people still question the earth is still warming so we built an index that includes CO2 levels. so what is this index measuring again?
posted by drscroogemcduck at 6:29 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by drscroogemcduck at 6:29 PM on December 12, 2009
Prior disclaimer: I am a treehugger who could justifiably be described as "rabid." I am entirely persuaded that a) the climate is changing (duh, when was it ever static?); b) that the current trend is warmer; and c) that human activity is the largest contributor underlying the trend. So you don't have to convince me that AGW is real, dig?
But I am also a lifelong geek who is absolutely not happy if all aspects of a given technical or scientific topic are not out there and open to public scrutiny. No, it's not enough to just say "The data is online." I also want to see which data you selected for use, what transforms or other processing you applied, and explicit rationales for each. Short version, which I have red-pencilled on hundreds if not thousands of student exams and papers: Show. Your. Work.
> AP just did a deep investigation of the emails and found nothing.
Pretty good article; very poor summary. If "found nothing" is what you got out of it then "found nothing" is what you took in. AP's headline is Science not faked, but not pretty, which is exactly how the geek in me sees it also.
And the article only discusses the emails, while the most interesting part of the maybe-hack, maybe-leak ("interesting" the way plane or market crashes are "interesting") is the programmer comments file HARRY_READ_ME.txt, after wading through which I hereby revise the old saw to Never watch sausage, law, or databases being made. [www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME.txt appears to be down but the google cache is still available as of now.]
The ugliest thing the "ugly" in the AP headline refers to is watching the CRU researchers fail, in their professional conduct as reflected in the emails, to act as if AGW is the defining crisis of our time (and of course theirs also.) Sure the emails cover a decade, but one looks in vain for any change of attitude as the mail dates approach the present. If anything, the wagon circling and denial of access to outsiders gets worse over time. And that just won't do. That is not the conduct of people who actually believe that we must all change our ways of doing things in order to rescue the planet. It's the conduct of people who actually believe "Everybody else has to change, yes. Moi, no."
The point also applies to anyone inclined to say "Oh, that's just the way scientists work and talk, that's just everyday science." Of course it is, and that's exactly the point. If AGW is the defining crisis of our time then science-as-usual is just as much out the window for scientists as industry-as-usual is out the window for industry and cars-as-usual is out the window for drivers and airliners-as-usual is out the window for travellers. Exhibit A: pacifist Einstein, who took a look at Hitler and decided the Allies needed a bomb and he would help build one.
posted by jfuller at 9:59 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
But I am also a lifelong geek who is absolutely not happy if all aspects of a given technical or scientific topic are not out there and open to public scrutiny. No, it's not enough to just say "The data is online." I also want to see which data you selected for use, what transforms or other processing you applied, and explicit rationales for each. Short version, which I have red-pencilled on hundreds if not thousands of student exams and papers: Show. Your. Work.
> AP just did a deep investigation of the emails and found nothing.
Pretty good article; very poor summary. If "found nothing" is what you got out of it then "found nothing" is what you took in. AP's headline is Science not faked, but not pretty, which is exactly how the geek in me sees it also.
And the article only discusses the emails, while the most interesting part of the maybe-hack, maybe-leak ("interesting" the way plane or market crashes are "interesting") is the programmer comments file HARRY_READ_ME.txt, after wading through which I hereby revise the old saw to Never watch sausage, law, or databases being made. [www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME.txt appears to be down but the google cache is still available as of now.]
The ugliest thing the "ugly" in the AP headline refers to is watching the CRU researchers fail, in their professional conduct as reflected in the emails, to act as if AGW is the defining crisis of our time (and of course theirs also.) Sure the emails cover a decade, but one looks in vain for any change of attitude as the mail dates approach the present. If anything, the wagon circling and denial of access to outsiders gets worse over time. And that just won't do. That is not the conduct of people who actually believe that we must all change our ways of doing things in order to rescue the planet. It's the conduct of people who actually believe "Everybody else has to change, yes. Moi, no."
The point also applies to anyone inclined to say "Oh, that's just the way scientists work and talk, that's just everyday science." Of course it is, and that's exactly the point. If AGW is the defining crisis of our time then science-as-usual is just as much out the window for scientists as industry-as-usual is out the window for industry and cars-as-usual is out the window for drivers and airliners-as-usual is out the window for travellers. Exhibit A: pacifist Einstein, who took a look at Hitler and decided the Allies needed a bomb and he would help build one.
posted by jfuller at 9:59 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wow, that's an interesting document. What a mess. But, I got the impression he was doing a thorough job. Not his fault that the data he has to work with is full of bugs and mistakes. He's throwing out the stuff he can't use, and fixing the obvious mistakes. These guys are just climate scientists getting down and dirty with the real figures.
I can see how you might be wary of giving your raw data away if you gave it away before and then the data was used in some bullshit fossil-fuelled study casting doubt on your academic integrity. I can see how it might get pretty personal.
It is not their job to convince the world to change its ways by being personally perfect human beings (especially not in their private emails!).
posted by snoktruix at 12:10 PM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can see how you might be wary of giving your raw data away if you gave it away before and then the data was used in some bullshit fossil-fuelled study casting doubt on your academic integrity. I can see how it might get pretty personal.
It is not their job to convince the world to change its ways by being personally perfect human beings (especially not in their private emails!).
posted by snoktruix at 12:10 PM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older The Devil in Georgina Spelvin | Adobe will use this crash report to help find a... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jeffburdges at 10:13 AM on December 12, 2009