Global Warming: For Experts Only

[OddTrader]

B2. Why 2% reduction is preferred? According to Deming, this kind of target used in process control is a basic fault, when without a steady/stable process or system first built/reached.

Why not 10% or 100%? Who has the best knowledge to define this target? Where is the body of knowledge in this process/system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
Q
This is how your world could end

In an extract from his book Ends of the World, Peter Brannen examines mass extinction events and the catastrophic outcome of rising temperatures for all the world’s population

Peter Brannen

Sun 10 Sep ‘17

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...world-could-end-climate-change-global-warming

Today, the most common maximums for wet-bulb temperatures around the world are 26C to 27C. Wet-bulb temperatures of 35C or higher are lethal to humanity. Above this limit, it is impossible for humans to dissipate the heat they generate indefinitely and they die of overheating in a matter of hours, no matter how hard they try to cool off.

...

Already in today’s world, heated less than 1C above preindustrial times, heatwaves have assumed a new deadly demeanour. In 2003, two hot weeks killed 30,000 people in Europe. It was called a once-in-500-year event. It happened again three years later (497 years ahead of schedule). In 2010, a heatwave killed 15,000 people in Russia. In 2015, nearly 700 people died in Karachi alone from a heatwave that struck Pakistan while many were fasting for Ramadan. But these tragic episodes are barely a shade of what’s projected.
UQ

* Sydney, Melbourne urged to prepare for 50C days by end of century ...
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-04/sydney...50c.../9012640 - Cached
3 Oct 2017 ... Sydney and Melbourne have been warned to prepare for scorcher days reaching 50 degrees Celsius by the end of the century — even if global warming is contained to the Paris Agreement target of a 2C increase. A new study led by Australian National University (ANU) climate scientist Dr Sophie Lewis ...

* Melbourne and Sydney should prepare for 50 degree days – study ...
www.anu.edu.au/.../melbourne-and-sydney-should-prepare-for-50-degree-days-–-study - Cached
4 Oct 2017 ... A new study led by ANU has warned that Melbourne and Sydney should prepare for 50 degree Celsius days under the Paris Agreement global warming limit of 2 degrees. Lead researcher Dr Sophie Lewis said the study assessed the potential magnitude of future extreme temperatures in Australia under ...

Q
http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/melbourne-and-sydney-should-prepare-for-50-degree-days-–-study

Major Australian cities, such as Sydney and Melbourne, may experience unprecedented temperatures of 50 degrees Celsius under 2 degrees of global warming.
UQ

* Australian Scientists Say 50 Degree Days Are The Future For ...
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/.../aust...days-are-the-future-for-sydney-and-melbourne/
5 Oct 2017 ... The Paris Global warming agreement limit sits at two degrees Celsius above "pre -industrial" levels. Seems reasonable enough, but guess what will happen to Sydney and Melbourne at that temperature? Researchers at The Australian National University reckon we're looking at 50 degree days. Dr Sophie ...

* Can the body cope with 50C? - BBC News - BBC.com
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20956421 - Cached - Similar
9 Jan 2013 ... The body works best within a narrow range of body temperature - 36C to 37.5C - and gets rid of heat mainly by sweating, although breathing and an increased heart rate can also expel heat. The hotter and more humid it gets the more the body has to sweat, increasing the risk of dehydration. In extreme heat ...

Q
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20956421

When people are not able to do that, history shows heat can be a killer. The European heatwave of 2003 - the hottest summer since the 1500s - was estimated to have caused the deaths of more than 70,000 people across the continent.

Meanwhile, up to 10,000 deaths were said to have been caused by the hot summer of 1988 in the US.
UQ

 

[stu]

robust... has nothing to do with my statement.

I can certainly agree with that. I'd go as far as to say - robust... has nothing to do with any of your statements.

among other issues...

Thing is, you need to deal with the real issue which is that according to the fundamental basic principles of physical chemistry, the relationship between (man made) CO2 and warming is scientifically established.

On the other hand, there is no comparable or supportable science to confirm any other natural events can be responsible for the amount of warming being directly measured.
Nor that any other natural events will play out to mitigate the effects of that (man made)CO2 warming, before it fucks everything up.

 

[stu]

Yes. There are many experts who don’t believe that man made co2 causes catastrophic warming. Many.

Yes, and many experts who didn't believe curvature of spacetime causes Gravity, or natural selection causes Evolution. Many.

 

[stu]

“This new work gives credit to a mechanism that is much stronger than changes in solar irradiance alone,” Svensmark told The Australian.

Problem is, he has said things on similar lines previously and his research was found to be seriously flawed. All he seems to be doing here is providing an extra category for amplification. But fundamentally his basic proposition still doesn't overcome its initial flaws.

It is not what he says, it is what the actual science says. To date what he says has not been able to stand up scientifically.

Thing is you have to ask yourself, why are you accepting these claims, words and only assumptions from one scientist because it fits with anti- man made CO2 warming, when science itself leaves no other realistic outcome other than man made CO2 is causing the high level of warming.

 

[OddTrader]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajan-thapaliya/politics-without-principl_b_9926614.html
Q
These things will destroy the human race: politics without principle, progress without compassion, wealth without work, learning without silence, religion without fearlessness and worship without awareness. - Anthony de Mello

A man can never be good of anything unless he gives us all the selfishness and begins to think about serving the God that sent him and the humanity. We must purify ourselves from the bottom of our heart before we begin exercising our power. Otherwise, it will destroy ourselves and hurt others.
UQ

 

[OddTrader]

Too many sciences disciplines are involved! Scientists and engineers have fairly different mindsets/paradigms in solving scientific problems.

System engineers are trained to this kind of projects when involving so many multi-discipline engineers/scientists! With their objective measures and auditing. They in general have much better mathematical and computational skills for modelling and simulations than many scientists who usually use vertical thinking in depth.

This project might be a historic one in human history. It would be most likely helpful in pushing further scientific advancements during the process!

System engineers use project management tools like control charts (PERT or else) to plan and control cost/budget/time-schedule/quality/reliability/constrains/solutions/consequences/life-cycle analysis/feasibility-studies/Contingency plans!!!/etc. that many times are not the major concerns to scientists.

Most often scientists enjoy investigations/findings/arguments/publishing/papers/breakthroughs/collecting data and more data for validation or for challenging others/ etc. Never-ending enjoyment plus more expenses!

Just unsure whether the earth has much time to hear further more arguments from both sides of scientists who prefer freedoms and would not be obliged to invite practical constraints to be implemented by systems engineers.

Lack of leadership perhaps may be getting to become the most important factor rather than any CO2/Greenhouse-gases by now!?

 

[OddTrader]

It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions
We have to bury gigatons of carbon to slow climate change. We’re not even close to ready.
By David Roberts@drvox Aug 18, 2017

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions

"You see, in order to have a reasonable chance of hitting the 2C target, modeling shows that humanity must go carbon negative in the mid- to late 21st century. Here are two scenarios developed by Oil Change International, one that offers a 66 percent chance of hitting 2 degrees, one that shows a 50 percent chance of hitting 1.5 degrees: "

 

[jem]

the only relationship between co2 (not even man made co2) and warming is that co2 trails the warming up and trails the cooling down. this has been established by multiple peer reviewed studies... over and over.

fundamental science shows the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for millions of years and there is no science which says we are warming outside of those natural cycles.
That is fundamental science.

That science also shows that the oceans are warming.
And peer reviewed science is showing us that atmospheric co2 levels are following that ocean warming.

That is the fundamental science and peer reviewed.
There is no peer reviewed science man made co2 is causing warming.
Some agw nutters speculate co2 ampliefies the warming.
But that is just a guess it is absolutely not fundamental science because the earth has a large complex climate with negative feedbacks.

That is the state of science today.

I can certainly agree with that. I'd go as far as to say - robust... has nothing to do with any of your statements.



Thing is, you need to deal with the real issue which is that according to the fundamental basic principles of physical chemistry, the relationship between (man made) CO2 and warming is scientifically established.

On the other hand, there is no comparable or supportable science to confirm any other natural events can be responsible for the amount of warming being directly measured.
Nor that any other natural events will play out to mitigate the effects of that (man made)CO2 warming, before it fucks everything up.

 

[stu]

There is no peer reviewed science man made co2 is causing warming.

False.
You still need to address the real issue.
The fundamental basic principles of physical chemistry show that (man made) CO2 will warm the Earth.
(man made) CO2 must cause warming according to those basic principles of physical chemistry.

Where there isn't any peer reviewed science is in the bizarre assumption that any amount of (man made) CO2 will not adversely effect the planet to the detriment of human and all other species.....

That is the state of science today.

and has been for a very long time and nothing you refer to is any where near likely to overthrow the fact.

 

[futurecurrents]

the only relationship between co2 (not even man made co2) and warming is that co2 trails the warming up and trails the cooling down. this has been established by multiple peer reviewed studies... over and over.

fundamental science shows the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for millions of years and there is no science which says we are warming outside of those natural cycles.
That is fundamental science.

That science also shows that the oceans are warming.
And peer reviewed science is showing us that atmospheric co2 levels are following that ocean warming.

That is the fundamental science and peer reviewed.
And peer reviewed science is showing us that atmospheric co2 levels are following that ocean warming.
Some agw nutters speculate co2 ampliefies the warming.
But that is just a guess it is absolutely not fundamental science because the earth has a large complex climate with negative feedbacks.

That is the state of science today.

the only relationship between co2 (not even man made co2) and warming is that co2 trails the warming up and trails the cooling down.

lie

And peer reviewed science is showing us that atmospheric co2 levels are following that ocean warming.

lie

Some agw nutters speculate co2 ampliefies the warming.
But that is just a guess it is absolutely not fundamental science

lie



you are a liar