Akrasia wrote: » 20Twh per year in energy savings. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it's still a good regulation
The energy used by vacuum cleaners accounts for a Significant Part of total energy demand in the Union. The scope for reducing the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners is substantial.
dense wrote: » In what context? What is the total EU annual Twh energy consumption figure, of which vacuum cleaning energy demand and consumption is now being deemed to be so "significant" in the EU? In 2015, household usage accounted for 25% of total energy used in the EU.http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Final_energy_consumption,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png It doesn't give a breakdown of how much of that was used for vaccum cleaning. Therefore I find it difficult to believe that (mainly) domestic vacuum cleaners constitute any "significant part" of total energy demand and consumption" in the EU. (Industrial, wet and dry, central systems and floor polishers are outside of the scope of these regulations.)http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665
Akrasia wrote: » A new Study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences has shown that 2017 was the warmest year on record in the oceans down to at least 2km below the surface So we have 2017 as the 2nd warmest year on record for the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures, and the warmest year on record down to 2km below ocean surfaces. The top 5 warmest years have all been within the past 5 years which have included both El Nino and La Nina events.http://159.226.119.58/aas/EN/10.1007/s00376-018-8011-z#
Akrasia wrote: » Nah, I'm not going to bother runnning through your hoops Dense. 20 twh is a significant amount of energy
Akrasia wrote: » The EU has a role in regulating all kinds of consumer electronics for safety and environmental standards.
Akrasia wrote: » If companies are ripping off consumers by making their appliances needlessly power hungry so they can market them as 'more powerful' than their competitors then I'm glad they're doing it.
"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen. "Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050. Nonsense." The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » While the trend is no doubt upward, I'd be very cautious with actual figures, given the large uncertainty in measurements due to poor instrumental coverage and XBT bias. A lot of map infilling is mentioned in the article, with various methods cited. I note 10 or more different methods for correcting for XBT bias, none of which is yet satisfactory. Satellite altimetry gives better coverage but still says little about the vertical temperature profile of all the oceans. There's a tenfold difference between OHC-increase in the Atlantic and Pacific, which itself suggests more than just atmospheric roles at play.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » "I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen. "Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050. Nonsense." The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!
Gaoth Lag wrote: » "The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it." Commercially available data indicates as such. The purists amongst us dig deep for their information, so in this instance, I'm not happy to share it. "Strange username too, BTW. Only registered today. Hmmm" Ok Sherlock.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » What data would that be? The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it.
Akrasia wrote: » None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenlandhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/24/drastic-cooling-north-atlantic-beyond-worst-fears-scientists-warn
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » So you're saying the forecasts that you so readily quote may be way off the mark? If that's the case then what other forecasts are also wrong?
Akrasia wrote: » Can you elaborate please?
Furthermore, when considering only the most realistic models in simulating the present-day SPG stratification, the chance of an NA abrupt cooling in the coming century is close to 50%, while the chance of a complete AMOC collapse is negligible.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » Akrasia;105994189 None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland Now you're talking,a lot of the forecasts are the result of a primative calculation based upon historical data, there is no regard for shift or probability outcomes of the type of event that you have described. A good forecast like the ones I've seen will incorporate or at least try to factor these unpredictible events into their prediction.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » I will not share them as I've gone to great lengths to obtain them and have conducted my own research in painstaking fashion. I can sense that you are ready to disagree with me (exemplified by the use of your snide inverted commas in your post above) So I'm in no humor to be ridiculed.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » Look, you can choose to keep the faith with your primitive data and predictions. I will sleep comfortably knowing that the climate in Ireland in 2050 will be quite different.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Gaoth Lag wrote: » Look, you can choose to keep the faith with your primitive data and predictions. I will sleep comfortably knowing that the climate in Ireland in 2050 will be quite different. I assume then that if you can sleep comfortably then your forecast doesn't paint a bad picture for us by then. Lads, panic averted, go back to what you were doing. Keep Calm and Carry On.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » ???? When did I say there was cause for panic? Different climate doesn't necessarily mean a catastrophe.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Projections for Ireland up to 2100 show very minor changes overall, most notably warmer winter nights and slightly drier summers. Fairly benign in the greater scheme of things when you look at some of the horror stories being quoted. You say these forecasts don't allow for the non-neglible chance of the Gulf Stream getting cut off. Well, if that's the case then the forecasts are not worth much and highlight the uncertainty associated with future climate predictions.
In any case, the paper you quoted says the chance of the AMOC overturning is negligible, so nothing to worry about.
The paradigm that the potential for NA abrupt changes mainly depends on the fate of the AMOC is clearly incomplete. In addition to the potential existence of a tipping point for an AMOC shutdown, we argue that a separate one involving a collapse of SPG convection46 also exists. Both AMOC disruption and SPG convection collapse are possible responses to the ongoing global warming trend43,44 and changes in the hydrological cycle that are freshening the northern NA31,55. However, while the risk of an AMOC shutdown has been largely debated24,30, an assessment of the possibility of a local SPG convection collapse and its potential impacts was missing so far. Our results highlight that in CMIP5 models the occurrence of a NA abrupt cooling due to an SPG convection collapse is almost four times more likely than the occurrence of a NA abrupt cooling due to an AMOC disruption.https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14375
Akrasia wrote: » Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The long term climate forecasts/projections are guidelines that make assumptions which are justified on the basis of probable outcomes in various scenarios. I have never said that the future is certain, in fact, there are so many uncertainties, that we would be very prudent to act faster to minimize carbon emissions because there are low probability high impact risks that we cannot rule out. you, on the other hand are saying that you are highly confident that future climate change will be much less damaging and disruptive than the majority of experts, and therefore we shouldn't worry about it too much, and we can afford to be passive and just transition from fossil fuels whenever the economics and geopolitics get around to doing it
I'm curious why you chose to quote this part of that paper but not the paragraph immediately preceeding it which says that the negative consequences associated with a complete shutdown of the AMOC could also happen with a collapse of SPG convection, so there clearly isn't 'nothing to worry about'
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » No, I was just referring to the best estimates of the future Irish Climate for the rest of the century, which show little in the way of concerning changes up to 2100. I attended the IMO lecture by the Maynooth group a couple of years back that focused on that. So on the one hand you're asking us to take heed of global predictions of doomsday forecasts, yet on the other hand you're saying these forecasts are probably nowhere near reliable enough.
the chance of a total AMOC shutdown is negligible. Doesn't matter what was mentioned about it in the paragraph above, if the chance is negligible then we can, by definition, neglect it.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » Just a note too. Typically we have 2-3 storms from the start of the year until now. This year we've had seven in quick succession Georgina, Fionn, Brian, Eleanor, Hector, Larry and Geoffrey. Coincidence or climate change right before our eyes?
