I was thinking you needed more insulation to keep them cooler against the heat from the outside.

 I do.  I read your question as asking if they needed more insulation 30 years ago.  No.  They need more insulation today.



 To clarify, your position is the insulation protecting the device or package used to transport Intravenous fluids needed to be upgraded to protect the fluids from the effects caused by higher average annual temperatures  which has been proven to be the result of  anthropogenic climate change.

 No.  I was addressing your statement using only the words you used at the time: "I still say none of us have experienced anything negative in our personal lives related to climate change. Nothing."

 If you add in, later, "proven to be the result of  anthropogenic climate change." then I would say that is an entirely different statement.  

 There is no way to "prove" anthropogenic climate change beyond very short term and known direct processes - like cloud seeding or massive land alterations like dams for instance.

But you were forced to change the insulation in your IV carriers due to an increase in the average annual temperature for that area of Africa. That’s a correct statement?

 Yes.  For decades the safe parameters were fine, and now within the past decade those parameters have changed.  Due to average climate changes.  The average climate has changed, so the safe handling guidelines have changed.

 Yes, the standard SCI/IV maximum temp for field carry is 22C.

 The insulation standard was more than enough for decades, one could literally use a WWII padded carry bag and not have issues.  That same insulation standard would be too low today.  I have to buy the next higher level insulation standard because the ambient average temperature exceeds the acceptable levels of the older purchased insulation standards.

 The average ambient temperature of the local climate today is higher than the average ambient temperature 3 years ago.  We can not purchase decade old standards as they are too "thin" so to speak and will not provide enough insulation, on average.  The prior insulation standard that was acceptable consistently, used in field, and has purchasing records going back to the mid 1980's is no longer acceptable in today's average ambient temperature.

 We can no longer purchase the same insulation standard that our purchasing records would indicate was acceptable from oct 1986 to Oct 2021 as those insulation standards would not consistently maintain a safe temperature in the local climate.  That average temperature being 22C or lower, which was an average ambient temperature 3 years ago and prior decades, or at least to Oct 1986, recorded by field teams establishing safe-carry reports for DOKs.  

 Today that average ambient temperature documented by field teams establishing safe-carry reports for DOKs indicate, for the past 3 years, that the average ambient temperature has taken their DOKs outside their safe limit of 22c.  While still usable, they would be considered outside of safe specifications.

 DOKs since 2001 have been carried in the same locations with identical strapping and locking methods and maintenance procedures.  They have been in the same vehicles, with the same environmental exposure times for the past 7 years.  We have no reasonable expectation that the placement of DOKs has been altered within the past 3 years so much as to indicate their physical locations have created a consistent unsafe temperature.  The testing equipment including the thermal evaluation modules have their up to date tolerance/maintenance records.  Also documentation of the ambient temperature, including humidity, has increased, specifically within the past 6 years.  The assessed primary contributor to physical temperature is the ambient temperature.  Given we have years of average ambient temperature documentation, that has increased 2.6434 degrees in the past 6 years, and also in that time have had an increase in out of spec IV units in DOKs the assessment has concluded that average ambient temperature is increasing the physical temperature.  

 Thus the most immediate and reliable mitigation is to place IV carriers into the next higher standard of insulation.


 Another example is my thermometer at home has a consistently higher temperature reading each year.  If I place chocolate on a plate on my porch it will melt earlier in the year, on average, and remain melted longer on average than it did 10 years ago.

If it’s true that a very small increase in temperature of 2.6434 degrees is exceeding the tolerance for the insulation, then I would say the original installation specifications were at the 99 percentile of average temperature which seems unlikely.


 Considering it wasn't an issue for decades it appears nobody noticed.  Once it started happening periodically it was looked into and decided to upgrade the insulation standard.


And knowing you (and your mathematical point of view regarding language) you will say that was exactly your original point but I would say, (maybe best described as from a practical point of view) I stand by my position, that none of us have experienced anything in our personal life has been negatively affected by climate change.

 So to me that means that either the climate has not changed anywhere on the planet, or that no human has ever been impacted negatively by bad weather.  I find this very hard to believe since there has been changes in the average climate all over the planet.  The planet changes.

 Also I have personally been impacted, negatively, by the change in climate over time.  We can go back to the multi-year, and still ongoing, agricultural yield assessments East of my property.  There is not one human out here that thinks the climate is the same as it was 30 years ago, nor do they think they can get the identical yields.  FFA groups have been travelling here for years now to do their own assessments, not one has said the average climate is the same, or that yields have not changed.

 I find it impossible to think farmers can only be neutrally or positively impacted by climate variances over time.

 The CO Parks and Wildlife maintains a tremendously large climate history ledger.  Nobody there thinks there has not been a change in CO climate, they continually have to monitor wildlife numbers almost exclusively due to climate variances over time to mitigate over or under hunting/fishing etc.  If a human that hunts can't get a tag because the overall number of approved animal to be hunted has down-trended for 40 years making the lottery change lower, that to me is a negative impact.