Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part XIV 2

dik

Structural
Apr 13, 2001
25,891

For earlier threads, see:

For earlier threads, see:
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/things-are-starting-to-heat-up-part-xii.512015/[/URL]
 
Last edited:
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

How so? The media is merely reporting whatever the climate alarmists are telling them to report.
Contrairy... my son sent me this a couple of days back...

"Disclaimer

Polite Notice

Customers are reminded that these newspapers are merely the opinions of billionaires desperate to influence public opinion and are not 100% factual reflecting reality. (Daily Telegraph)"
 
If that is the case why do you flood this forum with links to their articles?
 
I guess if you seasonally adjusted weather, you could likely do away with winter..
Is seasonal adjustment a Canadian ploy or is it used more widely.
The term "Seasonal Adjustment" brings to mind a Canadian Government ploy of many years ago.
During a time of high unemployment, the Canadian Government introduced the "Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rate".
This gave rise to the joke;
One unemployed person to another;
"You will find that unemployment isn't as bad once you have been "Seasonally Adjusted".

Definition; seasonally adjusted.
This is what I want the data to show?
 
Dik: Customers are reminded that these newspapers are merely the opinions of billionaires desperate to influence public opinion and are not 100% factual reflecting reality. (Daily Telegraph)"

That is a funny / pithy comment for sure. I don't think newspapers have been very "factual" for a long time. So much so that they're in a death spiral lashing out at new media because they lost control over the political narrative in the country.... Basically because they've completely lost the trust of the public.

I will suggest that a billionaire who buys a newspaper probably has a secret desire to be a journalist. It might not be a defining desire. But, this owner wants to seen as a savior that is there to "rescue" a dying industry or something along those lines.

I feel like if these people were approaching these industries as businessmen, then they would have really, really disrupted them. Fired half (or more) of their staff and switch over to contract journalists. Maybe re-create their pay structure based off of bringing in clicks / engagement or advertising or such. But, they're not doing anything like this so far.... as far as I can tell.

FWIW, I wonder what percentage of the NYT's total revenue is based off of their games platform. In my opinion, that's where this former newspaper is most culturally relevant to Gen Z and Alpha.
 
Somethings that I was thinking about recently:
a) Greta Thunberg gave her "how dare you" speech at the UN approximately 5 years ago. What has changed since then? Are ecosystems genuinely collapsing? Not really. All the doom and destruction predictions haven't come true at all. At least not in the sense that it would justify her desired level of CO2 emission reductions.

b) Finally, she seems to have changed her tune. Because she thinks respecting some elk migratory pathways is more important to her than the CO2 free energy that comes from the wind farms she was protesting.

c) AOC gave her "the word will end in 12 years" speech 6 years ago. So, we're halfway from that point to the end of the world...... Has anything really changed in those 6 years? Is weather / climate really that much worse? I haven't noticed any real difference personally. I don't see a huge increase of loss of life at all based on hurricanes or heat. I don't see whole countries disappearing. I don't see shorelines being swept away by rising oceans.

d) Now, what would have happened if we had taken the drastic action this silly children recommended to us? We'd pretty much have a severe economic depression that would have resulted in an unprecedented loss of life..... Populations would revolt against these actions, and these elites would have to slaughter these rebels or abandon their pursuit of these drastic actions.

Honestly, I look forward to 2030 when we can replay AOC's comments over and over again as a beautiful example of how incredibly stupid her policy proposals have always been.
 
Once upon a time I asked why higher global temperatures would be linked to more cyclonic energy, since most of the warming is at the poles, and heat engines work on temperature DIFFERENCES to a much greater extent than the hot end temperature (which has hardly changed). Predictably in the non engineering world of climate change there was no explanation forthcoming. To my glee it has been revealed that the hottest year on record (if we ignore all the hotter ones, where admittedly we have no hurricane data) had lower accumulated cyclone energy than usual.

So let's pretend the enrgy available to power hurricanes is proportional to the absolute temperature at the eaqutor, which since 1990 might have increased from 300K to 301 K.

And then the carnot efficiency is linked to that temperature and the temperature at the Arctic, which increased by 4 degrees.

Hence work=some_constant*Th*(1-Tc/Th)

1990
k*(300*(1-269/300)=31 energy units

2024

k*(301*(1-273/301)=28 energy units.

The following prediction hasn't weathered very well


Roughly out by 30% on every metric. But of course it got headlines.

And of course the panic merchants at SciAm were on the case

1736382748778.png

Fair enough it is only one year, not the trend, but of course the absence of an upward trend in NH ACE since 1990 rather belies the Just So explanations the meeja and the gullible are so fond of. The trend is -43 NH ACE/decade, but since 1990 individual years have hit as high as 900 and as low as 370 you'd have to say the data is noisy (which also belies the Just So explanations). NH 2024 hurricane season compared with average since 1990. 100%!


Year​
Named Storms​
Named Storm Days​
Hurricanes​
Hurricane Days​
Major Hurricanes​
Major Hurricane Days​
Accumulated Cyclone Energy​
Ave 1990-2024​
62.00​
292.29​
34.11​
123.41​
17.83​
42.88​
575.30​
2024​
58​
242.5​
32​
94​
17​
34.75​
455.1​


1736393563592.png
So the trend is a reduction from 650 to 500 NH ACE since 1990, whereas my boring old thermodynamics model, scale to the same starting point, gives 650 to 587

Oh I just checked, the Arctic has only warmed by 2 degrees in summer, making my thermo model even less sensitive. Oh well, I thought I was on to something.
 
Last edited:
From another website and related to the California Fire...

1737503437599.png
 
The word "may" is as usual in dik's world doing a lot of work. eg Climate change may prove to be a net benefit to mankind.

WEF says your three German Government funded scientists are out by a factor of 10. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/10/climate-loss-and-damage-cost-16-million-per-hour/
"
  • The global cost of climate change damage is estimated to be between $1.7 trillion and $3.1 trillion per year by 2050.
  • This includes the cost of damage to infrastructure, property, agriculture, and human health.
  • This cost is expected to increase over time as the impacts of climate change become more severe.
  • The poorest countries in the world are at greatest risk from the economic impacts of climate change."
I wonder who I trust with $ estimates, scientists or economists? Actually I don't trust either predicting financial stuff 25 years out to any great extent to be honest. And since Germany is one of our net zero crash test dummies I doubt they'd get funding for anything not promoting the Net Zero nitwittery.

And of course the cost of Net Zero is not trivial, Mckinsey say "Capital spending on physical assets for energy and land-use systems in the net-zero transition between 2021 and 2050 would amount to about $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion per year on average, an annual increase of as much as $3.5 trillion from today."


Which to the accuracy we are working to is pretty much the same as the other two numbers.
 
Last edited:
38 Trillion per year..... based on a 15% per year inflation between now an then? LOL

Regardless, we'll all do a little dance when this is proven to be 100% wrong.

FWIW, what's the alternative? They'd like us to spend trillions and trillions NOW to reduce our CO2 footprint while the developing world ramps up their CO2 emissions so much that we'll still face whatever real consequences would have happened anyway.
 
For what it's worth, here is an MSN article suggesting that there are other things that are helping to reduce global warming that are not being accounted for:
 

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor