Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part XI 10

[dik]

For earlier threads, see:
thread1618-496010
thread1618-496614
thread1618-497017
thread1618-497239
thread1618-497988
thread1618-498967
thread1618-501135
thread1618-504850
thread1618-506948
thread1618-507973


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

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Did you read dik's article? It's attempting to redefine what it means to die due to heat. In their new definition if you die during heat wave you died due to the heat wave. Reminds me of car accident victims being coded as COVID deaths if they had COVID during their accident.

 

[SwinnyGG]

Did you read dik's article? It's attempting to redefine what it means to die due to heat. In their new definition of you die during heat wave you died due to the heat wave. Reminds me of car accident victims being coded as COVID deaths if they had COVID during their accident.

Literally does not say that.

Since June 1, the Daily Mortality Monitoring System (MoMo) of the Carlos III Health Institute has recorded 95,904 deaths. Of these, 1,834 have been directly linked to the scorching heat.

 

[TugboatEng]

What does this mean, SwinnyGG?

According to Roye, MACE offers a ‘far more modern’ statistical estimate than MoMo, which still employs a 1990s methodology.

Does 1990's methodology make it incorrect? Do we base the validity of measurements on the decade they were defined?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Dik -

I tend to use the term "anthropogenic global warming" because it is the most accurate and precise description of what we're talking about. Though, I will admit to being lazy and using the term "Global Warming" for short. Or, AGW, but I don't like having to explain the acronym.

The problem with calling it "climate change" is that this invites people to look to anything that isn't the average normal weather for a particular day / week / month as part of a dire consequence from CO2 emissions.

I am constantly annoyed by people who say, "Look how hot it is today, I don't understand how those idiots on the other side can deny Global Warming". Just the same as I'm annoyed by people who say, "Look how much cold and snow we've had this winter, I don't understand how those sheeple on the other side fall for this Global Warming nonsense".

The data certainly seems to show some excellent (nearly incontrovertible) evidence that the earth has been warming. There is really good science to believe that our CO2 emissions are at least partly responsible. Whether you want to take this evidence and say, "It doesn't worry me much compared to the normal issues of my life" or "This is so scary, I think it might lead to the destruction of life as we know it" is entirely up to interpretation. Though I will suggest that history has never really proven the 'sky is falling' types to be correct. Not when it was nuclear annihilation, mass starvation due to population explosion, or a coming ice age.

 

[GregLocock]

Yup, my best guess, from lab type properties of gases, is that the rise in CO2 since 1950 is due to man, and that that is responsible for about half of the trend in global temperature. As such my model agrees with the observed temperature record (because I have 50% wiggle room), the properties of gases, and the 'consensus' (just). As to what the other 50% is, we don't have the data, because the atmosphere is such a small part of the thermal mass of the earth's surface.

I have seen estimates of the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere as small as 12 years, based on the decline in C14 levels in atmospheric CO2 since the end of atomic bomb testing. That would imply that 'something' is releasing additional CO2, whether that is outgassing from the ocean, errors in the effect of landclearing, or what, again I don't know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

Incidentally that graph rather puts the kibosh on the meme that the atmosphere is well mixed, doesn't it? It takes years for the NH and SH C14 levels to equalise. I suppose an explanation could be that it takes a while for the C14 to get turned into atmospheric CO2.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[dik]

Thanks Josh... AGW is the correct term and I'll use it from now on. I was aware of it, but didn't think many others were. I think climate change is applicable, too. We've accomplished in decades what has normally taken millennia. Climate is normally a bigger 'blip' on the geologic time line, but we've compressed it. People that dispute global warming by using areas that are colder as an example to refute it; that's why I dislike using global warming. AGW is good, but even the climate scientists are having difficulty in agreeing to the 'A' part of AGW. The earth is heating, overall, and there is an incredible amount of energy being stored in the oceans. We haven't reduced this, and it continuously increase.

As far as '...how hot it is today', I think it's their idea that things are warming up of late, maybe a little more than usual. The southern states have just broken thousands of temperature records, and will likely continue to break them. The heat is going to continue for a bit since we are doing nothing to reduce it. It will be interesting if this condition progressively gets hotter. I have no idea of what the upper limit is. That's my concern. There is no easy and painless way to fix the problem we've created. Some people are of the opinion that there is no problem. Time will tell... we may be past the point where we can 'fix' the problem.

I have a problem with people that say this is the new normal... simply because 'normal' implies something static. The new normal may mean the new 'dynamics'. We have to simply see how this 'plays out'.

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

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

What does this mean, SwinnyGG?

You have clearly demonstrated that your mind is made up on all aspects of this topic and that actual discussion or exchange of knowledge isn't what you want.

If you post a comment that is egregiously false, I'm going to point it out for posterity and for the rest of the people reading this thread. That's what you've done here. No further discussion is really needed.

 

[dik]

There may be some other spinoffs from AGW (The correct term for climate change and/or global warming)...

"At the Panama Canal, where freshwater serves as the lifeblood for its lock-driven operations, the lack of abundant rainfall is leading to lower water levels and putting a squeeze on a critical international shipping artery: Canal authorities have imposed restrictions on vessel weights and daily traffic.

Just this week, the Panama Canal Authority extended those restrictions for at least another 10 months.

While the direct impact to US manufacturers, retailers and consumers appears to be minimal right now, the potential for broader disruption is growing."

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/26/economy/panama-canal-supply-chain

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

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Egregiously wrong? The article clearly stated that they are redefining what it means to die from heat...

 

[dik]

Perhaps they are clarifying what it means to die from heat. It could be the old definition was not correct or was too inclusive.

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

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Too inclusive? Did you read your article?

 

[dik]

...and this is likely the beginning, and things could get a lot worse.

"Summary
After hitting Florida, Hurricane Idalia is crossing into Georgia, bringing powerful winds and potentially life-threatening conditions
There are 275,000 people without power in Florida and another 100,000 have no electricity in Georgia
Though the eye of the storm has left Florida, the National Hurricane Center warns "dangerous" storm surge still threatens coastal areas
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis says there are no officially confirmed storm deaths, though Florida Highway Patrol says two drivers died in crashes
The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency says Idalia is the strongest storm to hit this part of Florida in more than 100 years
Some areas of the state have been flooded, with water inundating towns and rendering major roads impassable
You can watch live pictures from around Florida by clicking the play button at the top of this page"

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-66640995

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

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

How were the storms stronger more than 100 years ago, before CO2?

 

[dik]

...maybe at the beginning of CO[sub]2[/sub]

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

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

I see Mr Logic has left the building.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[TugboatEng]

The story said that this is the most powerful storm to strike the area in 125 years. One cannot conclude the storms are getting stronger or more frequent from this observation. The only conclusion one could make is that storms can be powerful and it's been a long time since we've had one this powerful in the region.

 

[hokie66]

"In the region" leaves a lot to interpretation. There have been major storms to hit centered 100 miles to the north and 100 miles to the south of this one, so that statement about location is meaningless, unless you happen to live right there. Typical media hype.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Well, let's look at the number of fatalities associated with this hurricane compared to some of the powerful ones that hit 100 year ago. Which one do you think is going to show a higher per capita death rate for the communities hit hardest?

You see the point here? The advancements we (as a society) have made are so significant that loss of life has genuinely gone way down.

 

[SnTMan]

But, but, but, we cannot adapt to Climate Change

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[dik]

You cannot compare fatalities today because of the advanced warning everyone receives... one of the reasons weather related fatalities are down....

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

-Dik