"Deadly temperatures for humans"
-
Doesn't change the fact that his original post is a bad attack piece on par with CSS for failing to get something.
Mind you, its incredible that anyone would print such a scientifically lame piece as this. Yeah, at 100 `C its going to be pretty untenable, but I am pretty sure we all know that anyway, so just what IS this article saying thats newsworthy?The article was talking about 95F. The fact that he couldn't figure out that no one would bother to check to see if being in temps that are near the boiling point of water says a lot. He went after the "science" of the article because it allowed him to take a jab at someone while making his position seem stronger.So basically yet another example of a climatologist making suppositions and guesses in a field he is unqualified to do so in.And so he attacks a climatologist without even grasping the point. He accuses someone of having an agenda when he DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER to read the article enough to realise it was about being in current heat waves. Now the article didn't really help much, as if you look at the Newspapers in Chicago during a heat wave you will see that people drop like flies if exposed to 100F temps for a few days. But at least it made sense.The extraordinary thing is that this kind of pure bunkum gets published. Its really extraordinary how badly 'science' is performing these days.I would say the extraordinary thing is that he was so tainted by his need to attack a climatologist that reading comprehension went out the window.If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Oh boo hoo. Who cares if it is 95F or 95C its stil a weather scientist making claimns about the human body. And did he actually back his statements up with experiments? Nope. He 'calculated' that at 95 (whatever) we are dead after 6 hours. (or nearly so). So tell me sunshine, just how DO you calculate that?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Uh, so heat stroke is all in their heads, and pointing out that their climate modeling points to a world rendered pretty difficult to live in due to the tendency of humans to up and die in certain conditions is political?
Distind wrote:
Uh, so heat stroke is all in their heads,
Yeeeaaaahhh suuuurrre... Looks like you got my point completely (sarcasm intended). Sorry, did you entirly miss the bit where I wrote that we actually know all this already? So given that you did, re-read what I wrote, and then try to work out how in any way this paper is scientific or constitutes new findings worthy of publishing? Ahhh, you cant can you. I think now you get my point.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Oh boo hoo. Who cares if it is 95F or 95C its stil a weather scientist making claimns about the human body. And did he actually back his statements up with experiments? Nope. He 'calculated' that at 95 (whatever) we are dead after 6 hours. (or nearly so). So tell me sunshine, just how DO you calculate that?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Oh boo hoo. Who cares if it is 95F or 95C its stil a weather scientist making claimns about the human body.
afraid to say it does matter 95 degree Celsius = 203 degree Fahrenheit 95 degree Fahrenheit = 35 degree Celsius this was taken from this page doing the work for me temperature converter thingy
Marc Clifton wrote:
That has nothing to do with VB. - Oh crap. I just defended VB!
-
- 95 degrees Fahrenheit, not Celsius. Nowhere in the article is the Celsius scale used. 2) It's the "wet bulb" temperature, which is described as basically skin temperature while sweating (Remember, we sweat to cool ourselves down). It's somewhat lower than air temperature, and relates to humidity too. If it's humid out, we can dissipate less heat via sweat, so we can't keep our body temperature regulated as easily. 3) It says that about a 12-degree temperature increase would bring some humid areas above that 95-degree wet bulb limit. This isn't a "We're all gonna die" story, though I'm sure there's a bit of bias in that direction (Don't have much time right now, so not reading in detail)... It's basically saying, "Ok, if global warming is real, this is how much it'll take before people start dropping dead." If anything, I think it downplays global warming, since if I remember right, the predictions are for a temperature rise of maybe a few degrees in the next century, right? This study basically implies that at that rate, it would take several centuries before it becomes unsuitable for humans. Of course, it says nothing about farming, livestock, plant life, sea levels, etc... That's out of the scope of the article. EDIT: You should actually read articles and understand them before you start using them as examples of bad science or bad journalism... You don't want to start sounding like Pillowpants.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You don't want to start sounding like Pillowpants.
Too late. :laugh:
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Distind wrote:
Uh, so heat stroke is all in their heads,
Yeeeaaaahhh suuuurrre... Looks like you got my point completely (sarcasm intended). Sorry, did you entirly miss the bit where I wrote that we actually know all this already? So given that you did, re-read what I wrote, and then try to work out how in any way this paper is scientific or constitutes new findings worthy of publishing? Ahhh, you cant can you. I think now you get my point.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So given that you did, re-read what I wrote, and then try to work out how in any way this paper is scientific or constitutes new findings worthy of publishing?
Because a relatively sound explanation of "We'll throughly be fucked at X" is generally something good to have. That's the point that damn well know we want to stop before, as if we don't we're fucked. It certainly has nothing to do with your rant above, just an effective end point to measure against to shut up both people like you, and those who took the day after tomorrow to be a documentary.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, how about we agree to disagree?
Well of course.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The people from non-metric countries can continue struggling to understand metric units when trying to learn science.
Huh? Where do you get that from? I've been around quite a long time and I was taught both and am comfortable in either. What makes you think that someone taught Imperial would struggle with Metric? Far more likely that someone taught Metric would struggle with Imperial.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Josh Gray wrote:
It's funny how a dick head with a chip on his shoulder can tell me what the weather was like in my own home over the last six months.
Oh really? So you actually live in thoise vilages where they had summer snow do you? Ah, I guess not., Thats why you were completely ignorant of the fact untill I pointed it out to you. Yes, it is funny how even a dick with splinters can tell YOU more about the weather in YOUR country. Kind of makes you pretty stupid then doesnt it. At least more stupid than a dick with motes on it any way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
One village means squat. Two, slightly more squat. It snowed in Texas this year, at the same time up in places that it's typically cold it was about 60. New York in general had a fairly mild winter and most of the major storms came towards the end of it rather than being distributed through out. The 'Blarg this place was cool for a day' argument doesn't hold much weight when part of global climate change is that shit starts going wonky and that causes problems for those who live in those places. Doesn't mean it's all going to freeze over, doesn't mean every where's gonna get hot, it means shit is going to change and we don't know what the hell to do when it does, and we don't know quite how it's going to. That last bit of uncertainty drives people with the slightest bit of scientific curiosity nuts.
-
One village means squat. Two, slightly more squat. It snowed in Texas this year, at the same time up in places that it's typically cold it was about 60. New York in general had a fairly mild winter and most of the major storms came towards the end of it rather than being distributed through out. The 'Blarg this place was cool for a day' argument doesn't hold much weight when part of global climate change is that shit starts going wonky and that causes problems for those who live in those places. Doesn't mean it's all going to freeze over, doesn't mean every where's gonna get hot, it means shit is going to change and we don't know what the hell to do when it does, and we don't know quite how it's going to. That last bit of uncertainty drives people with the slightest bit of scientific curiosity nuts.
Ah, the old 'the world is going to hell in a hand cart' mentality. Well, you arent the only one to think like this. 1977 1984 1999 200 2001. Global cooling, global warming, nuclear war, aids, pestillence death and war. Well, it never did happen. Guess whats also not going to happen.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
So given that you did, re-read what I wrote, and then try to work out how in any way this paper is scientific or constitutes new findings worthy of publishing?
Because a relatively sound explanation of "We'll throughly be fucked at X" is generally something good to have. That's the point that damn well know we want to stop before, as if we don't we're fucked. It certainly has nothing to do with your rant above, just an effective end point to measure against to shut up both people like you, and those who took the day after tomorrow to be a documentary.
Distind wrote:
Because a relatively sound explanation of "We'll throughly be f***ed at X"
Groan. Let me say it agiain. You think we dont know this already? How does this constitute new research worthy of being published?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
:mad: Hey watch it matey! :laugh:
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
:)
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Ah, someone else who missed the point. OK, we know all this already. It gets hot, people die. How in anyway is this new research worthy of publishing?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
OK, we know all this already. It gets hot, people die
Yes, we all know that. The point is that it defines HOW hot it needs to be, before people start dying. That's like saying, "Yeah, water turns to ice when it gets cold... How cold? Uh, you know... cold... Who cares how cold it is? It's cold!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
It's, uh, all in Fahrenheit, which is a stupid unit of measurement just like all of the Imperial units.
I like to measure temperatures by using my own scale. This is done by me yelling: "Fuck this!". The louder the yell indicates the distance the temperature is from from what I consider an acceptable. It may not be the most "scientific," but everyone in earshot seems to agree with my measurement.
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, we know all this already. It gets hot, people die
Yes, we all know that. The point is that it defines HOW hot it needs to be, before people start dying. That's like saying, "Yeah, water turns to ice when it gets cold... How cold? Uh, you know... cold... Who cares how cold it is? It's cold!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's like saying, "Yeah, water turns to ice when it gets cold... How cold? Uh, you know... cold... Who cares how cold it is? It's cold!"
0`C
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The point is that it defines HOW hot it needs to be, before people start dying.
And we didnt know that before did we.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Oh boo hoo. Who cares if it is 95F or 95C its stil a weather scientist making claimns about the human body. And did he actually back his statements up with experiments? Nope. He 'calculated' that at 95 (whatever) we are dead after 6 hours. (or nearly so). So tell me sunshine, just how DO you calculate that?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Who cares if it is 95F or 95C
Tell you what, let me pour 95 degree water on you. I get to pick F or C. Think you would care?
fat_boy wrote:
And did he actually back his statements up with experiments? Nope. He 'calculated' that at 95 (whatever) we are dead after 6 hours. (or nearly so).
His calculations are pretty accurate when you look at the data. Major city loses power in the summer, people die, a lot. Almost as if those folks were unable to get out of 95F+ temps... In fact most people start shutting down in hot weather and attempt to get out of it, because we can't cool down.
fat_boy wrote:
So tell me sunshine, just how DO you calculate that?
Quite easily, actually. The numbers are known[^] Especially when you understand Thermoregulation[^] Reduce the effectiveness of the surrounding environment to lower your temperature and you begin to escalate your core temp. Hot, humid environments are the worst at allowing thermoregulation. So take a normal place, increase the temp to 95 and sit in it for 6 hours with normal activity. Yea, grats, you are probably having heat stroke. In the military, they change the soldiers duties once it hit 85 degrees outside. They had fun charts showing how fast we'd drop as heat casualties if we didn't have enough water or breaks, or shade. Once it hit the 90s we were taken inside frequently for breaks if able. Even with these precautions people would get heat fatigue or heat stroke. If anything the scientist should have been mocked for making a paper on widely know info that he just cobbled together.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Who cares if it is 95F or 95C
Tell you what, let me pour 95 degree water on you. I get to pick F or C. Think you would care?
fat_boy wrote:
And did he actually back his statements up with experiments? Nope. He 'calculated' that at 95 (whatever) we are dead after 6 hours. (or nearly so).
His calculations are pretty accurate when you look at the data. Major city loses power in the summer, people die, a lot. Almost as if those folks were unable to get out of 95F+ temps... In fact most people start shutting down in hot weather and attempt to get out of it, because we can't cool down.
fat_boy wrote:
So tell me sunshine, just how DO you calculate that?
Quite easily, actually. The numbers are known[^] Especially when you understand Thermoregulation[^] Reduce the effectiveness of the surrounding environment to lower your temperature and you begin to escalate your core temp. Hot, humid environments are the worst at allowing thermoregulation. So take a normal place, increase the temp to 95 and sit in it for 6 hours with normal activity. Yea, grats, you are probably having heat stroke. In the military, they change the soldiers duties once it hit 85 degrees outside. They had fun charts showing how fast we'd drop as heat casualties if we didn't have enough water or breaks, or shade. Once it hit the 90s we were taken inside frequently for breaks if able. Even with these precautions people would get heat fatigue or heat stroke. If anything the scientist should have been mocked for making a paper on widely know info that he just cobbled together.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Tell you what, let me pour 95 degree water on you. I get to pick F or C. Think you would care?
Sorry, was the article about baths? I bet you thought your comment was pretty clever eh? How does it feel to look stupid now?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Quite easily, actually. The numbers are known[^] Especially when you understand Thermoregulation[^]
Proves my poiint that this is nothing new. ANd that this 'scientific' paper was published not for its insight into biology, but because it isa an alarmist piece of GW crap.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Okay, so from what I understand the Jet Stream is normally powerful enough that it takes warm air from the gulf of Mexico and carries it across the Atlantic.
No, you got it completely wrong. Its the GULF stream that carries warm WATER from the gulf to the north east atlantic.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It peaked in the winter, and it appears the Jet Stream was weakened.
No, in fact the GULF stream has been further south than usual for about 5 years giving wet cool summers and cold winters.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
England got cold
As did the USA, Europe, China, Russia etc etc etc. (This winter and the last four). As for Vancouver it shows that weather is seldom predictable.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
The paradox is that global warming could result in the shutting down of the North Atlantic conveyor system (i.e. moving the Gulf Stream south). As a consequence higher average global temperatures could result in an ice age in northern Europe and America. You have to remember that climate refers to weather over a period of years (typically 30+) and not just one year. Furthermore the average gloal temperature can rise while parts of the globe could be cooler.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
The paradox is that global warming could result in the shutting down of the North Atlantic conveyor system (i.e. moving the Gulf Stream south). As a consequence higher average global temperatures could result in an ice age in northern Europe and America. You have to remember that climate refers to weather over a period of years (typically 30+) and not just one year. Furthermore the average gloal temperature can rise while parts of the globe could be cooler.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
The paradox is that global warming could result in the shutting down of the North Atlantic conveyor system
Unsupported supposition!
riced wrote:
You have to remember that climate refers to weather over a period of years (typically 30+)
And who made up this figure of 30 yesrs? In fact since we only had warming from 1973 to 1995 we havent had a 30 year trend and thus GW is not real according to your standards.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
riced wrote:
The paradox is that global warming could result in the shutting down of the North Atlantic conveyor system
Unsupported supposition!
riced wrote:
You have to remember that climate refers to weather over a period of years (typically 30+)
And who made up this figure of 30 yesrs? In fact since we only had warming from 1973 to 1995 we havent had a 30 year trend and thus GW is not real according to your standards.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Unsupported supposition!
Not quite - geological studies indicate that this is what has happened in past ice ages. There's also models of the ocean currents that indicate that this is likely if there is large scale melting of northern polar ice sheets. See e.g. Shutdown of Thermohaline Circulation article on Wikipedia (or just google for 'gulf stream ice age climate change').
fat_boy wrote:
And who made up this figure of 30 yesrs?
It's what is meant by climate change i.e. changes in whether over a period of years. Here's a quote from Wikipedia. Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.[
fat_boy wrote:
In fact since we only had warming from 1973 to 1995 we havent had a 30 year trend
Unsupported supposition - unless you have a source for the claim. Global records of temperature exist from 1850 onward (e.g. those held by Hadley Centre, NASA, NOAA etc.) these indicate a rise in average temperature particularly in the latter half of the 20th century. So by my 30 year standard GW is real.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's like saying, "Yeah, water turns to ice when it gets cold... How cold? Uh, you know... cold... Who cares how cold it is? It's cold!"
0`C
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The point is that it defines HOW hot it needs to be, before people start dying.
And we didnt know that before did we.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
0`C
You just made my point. We know that because someone did the research to figure that out... That's what this is.
fat_boy wrote:
And we didnt know that before did we.
Did you? I didn't.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)