Things are Starting to Heat Up Part VI 10

[dik]

thread1618-496010
thread1618-496614
thread1618-497017
thread1618-497239
thread1618-497988

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

But the total out of pocket expense was just under $500

That's entirely false. Are you not a taxpayer? Have you not paid many thousands of dollars towards your $500 surgery?

 

[GregLocock]

The story may be true, but since at least 50% of his justification is demonstrably wrong, I don't think it really says much.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

I fully appreciate the need to share certain costs as a community but insulating the consumer with a "$500 out of pocket" sets up the environment where costs increase out of our control. In that case, the lobbyists get to set the cost instead of the consumers. That is not capitalism.

 

[dik]

Extreme weather becomming more common?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.5960314

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[0707]

COP27 UN Climate Change Conference which kicked off yesterday 6th of November in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

During COP1 in Berlin, with representatives from 117 countries, the Berlin Mandate was established, which had as its main focus the consensus of all countries to take more energetic actions regarding the mitigation of the greenhouse effect.

Among other resolutions, it was defined that the commitment of developed countries to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels, by the year 2000, would not be sufficient to achieve the Convention's long-term objectives.

On December 11, 1997, delegates from more than 150 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement to lower the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Human activities release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which have been proven to cause climate change.

The COP26 international climate conference took place in Glasgow from 31 October to 12 November 2021. The main goal was to secure global net zero by mid-century and keep a maximum of 1.5 C degrees of warming within reach. Net zero means total emissions are equal to or less than the emissions removed from the environment.

Other goals included accelerating the phase-out of coal and mobilising at least $100bn in climate finance per year.

Why does COP27 matter?
In short, in order to keep the goal of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5°C, we need to cut emissions in half by the end of the decade. Overall, the commitments laid out at the last COP event didn’t come sufficiently close to limiting warming to 1.5°C. Scientists agree that the window for this is closing, and the current plans as they stand put us on track for a 2.5°C of warming by the end of the century. It’s better than the 4°C we were on, but there’s still a way to go to keep 1.5°C alive.

Since COP 1, This is COP 27. There'll also be COP28 and 29, and 30 and onwards, meanwhile global warming is going warmer and warmer
With climatic devastation everywhere: Droughts in Sudan, floods in Pakistan and Italy, fires in California and Amazonas, Hurricanes in Florida, Droughts in Portugal and Spain, pollution in New Delhi. Is it still a way of of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5°C by the mid-century? I guess not.

https://unfccc.int/cop27

 

[GregLocock]

What if I told you the average temperature of the earth has not increased in 8 years?

Will anybody count the number of business jets in Egypt?




Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

COP27 is a total greenwashing 'circle jerk'...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

I would suggest you were in error...

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

well, they haven't included the dailies from this year, which is running cool, but even Blind Freddy can see the last 7 years on that plot have a falling trend.

Math is hard.

here's the plot for the last 7 years from the source data for your plot.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

What are the consequences when a climate scientist gets their model or predictions wrong? An engineer can lose their license, even be held criminally liable for botching their calculations. Climatologists conveniently project out 25 years so that they can be comfortably retired before their credibility can be evaluated. There is great incentive to fabricate the worst numbers and zero consequence. The only consequences are for those that dare be skeptical of the agenda.

 

[GregLocock]

None of course. IPCC in 1990-1992 said

“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 C° per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade). This is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 C° above the present value by 2025 and 3 C° before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”

The actual to date is 0.19 deg/decade, just outside their uncertainty range, but a full 1/3 different from their central estimate. So, if reality is outside your uncertainty range for your model, then what does a responsible person do? They withdraw the model from public gaze and work on it.

One reason is that CO2 has only risen by 60 ppm (360->420), scenario A assumed we'd be at 508 by now. Presumably that is because they have overestimated the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere, or got the anthropogenic CO2 wrong.

At least half of that sentence is right assumption for manmade emissions is 7 billion tonnes of carbon in 1990 to 12-15 in 2025, the reality is they flatlined at about 10 since 2011.

Finally so far as climate sensitivity goes, a figure of 1.2 deg c/doubling fits the real world data better than 3, which is nice because the laboratory measurements suggest ~1. Paleoclimate estimate is that 7000 ppm was about +15 deg C, giving an estimate of CS of 1.55.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[CWB1]

Same accident in the US would likely have cost me over $100K.

Nah. Stateside you'd likely be in the 90% with insurance and a max out-of-pocket ~$5k, which would take a bad year to reach. $3-500 is prob normal for what you're describing.

The interestingly absurd bit of climate discussions for me is when folks insist we've made great progress by spending trillions, but also insist that we are approaching doomsday at an ever-increasing rate.

 

[dik]

You might be taught to believe that, but the reality is that everyone is not covered by insurance and to the same extent. This is reflected in the numbers for infant mortality where Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than does the US. I think that the US is down at #50 from the top.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

I've been a serious athlete for most of my life and have been injured A LOT. I know the insurance system in the US on an intimate level; I USE mine in a way a lot of people (most people?) don't.

I've never spent more than $4500 out of pocket in a single year. Never. Not once. Including years where I was under the knife three times in 12 months for major joint repairs.

Dik, you're talking out of your ass.

Also, dose of reality on infant mortality statistics:

The WHO defines an 'infant death' as the death of a child at any point between conception and 42 days after birth. The CDC in the US, who reports to the WHO, defines infant death as the death of a child at any point between conception and the child's first birthday.

Effectively the time period where a death counts as an 'infant death' in the US is twice as long as countries which use the WHO standard - which is all of Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. It's a statistical anomaly. True infant death in the US is on par with every other developed country in the world which has a robust healthcare system.

 

[dik]

I'm a ventriloquist, too... Look up the data...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[rb1957]

can we remember that we're talking about climate, and the data showing stable global (land and ocean) temp over the last 12 years.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[TugboatEng]

It's kind of relevant. It's the same twisted data coming from the same activist sources. Maybe this data is more relatable to our experience and discussing it will help us better recognize the misinformation in the climate data.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I'm a ventriloquist, too... Look up the data...

Go read my post again.

WHO and CDC count infant deaths differently. Period. It's a fact.

It pains me to agree with anyone in this thread given the bullshit that's been spread thin, but, I'm with Tug here. If you can't understand why this infant death rate conversation is nonsensical, its indicative of why your opinions are what they are.

 

[rb1957]

If we who deal with models for our professional living can't see how models can be twisted (maliciously or not, intentionally or not) then arguing about how other data can be misrepresented is as futile as the gallons of ink spilt on this matter already.

The thing that kicks this out of the real engineering/scientific arena is ... no one knows what will happen. We don't know the mechanisms of climate, we discover new ones each year/paper. This is a purely political topic, with both sides having data that supports their opinion (and of course both sides slag off the other as "cherry picking").

sigh

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[dik]

I assume great care was exercised in the assembly of the data, so everyone else (the first 50) would look good. Finland, Japan and Iceland have a real vested interest in this.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik