"Deadly temperatures for humans"
-
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
-
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) -
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
Where did you get that number? Are you a physicist, or just a programmer making suppositions and guesses in a field he is unqualified to do so in?
-
The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences [^] Wel, after yet another bloody cold winter and summer with record snow in most parts of the world (yes, even in New South Wales where the producers of this report are based) the politically motivated socialist activists that go by the name of scientists/ebvironmentalists cant help trying to scare us that little bit more. 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? Well, lets look at the supposed science that might have been carried out given the above snippet: So thay have taken animals, including humans, and exposed them to 100% humidity at temperatures of 95.000001 `C and after 6.00001 hours whereupon they all 'potentially' died? Oh, hang on, did I miss the word 'calculate'. Perhaps they took a load of people and sat them arouhd at 47.500000005`C and said "how do you feel". "pretty fucked" was the answer. So they put "pretty fucked" into their 'calculators' and doubled it, and the result was "potentially lethal". And all this biological research was carried out by the 'professor of earth and atmospheric sciences'! I wonder if there were ANY biologists in the research team? So basically yet another example of a climatologist making suppositions and guesses in a field he is unqualified to do so in. The extraordinary thing is that this kind of pure bunkum gets published. Its really extraordinary how badly 'science' is performing these days.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Matthew Huber[^]: I study past warm climates in Earth’s history. Why study past warm climates? I believe that our understanding of modern and future climate is only as secure as our understanding of past climate. It is risky to predict future global warming without testing climate models in the past. I find unsettling the fact that the warm climates that dominated the past 90 million years are poorly understood. ... One of my research foci is understanding the nature of past warm climates, and specifically, the causes of the Paleogene’s (~60-30 Ma) defining and as yet unexplained climatic features: 1. warm extratropical winter temperatures (>10°C in polar winter) 2. and apparently stable tropical temperatures (<38°C). Either some dynamical mechanism increased poleward heat transport substantially in the Paleogene, (e.g., increased thermohaline circulation), or some radiative forcing is missing from our understanding of these warm climates. A resolution to the question of dynamical mechanism vs. radiative forcing is critical. Not only is this necessary for understanding past warm climates (e.g., Eocene, Cretaceous), but also for evaluating predictions of future climate change produced by climate models. Doesn't sound like a rabid AGWer to me. He is virtually saying that the current predictions are bunk. Part of his expertise, as an earth scientist, is in paleontology (the study of fossil organisms and related remains), which might indicate some biological expertise, and why he was co-opted to do the experiments for the lead author, Steve Sherwood[^], who is just one of your common or garden physics types. The abstract of the original paper finishes Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record, which also helps explain Huber's involvement in this paper.
fat_boy wrote:
The extraordinary thing is that this kind of pure bunkum gets published. Its really extraordinary how badly 'science' is performing these days.
Perhaps it was published to enlighten ignorant climate scientists without his intere
-
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
So you're saying you knew how to quantify the conditions at which humanity would be incapable of living on the planet. Giving us a rough model to say 'this is the amount of change required to reach that point', and then say 'the end is right there, stop before that'.
-
The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences [^] Wel, after yet another bloody cold winter and summer with record snow in most parts of the world (yes, even in New South Wales where the producers of this report are based) the politically motivated socialist activists that go by the name of scientists/ebvironmentalists cant help trying to scare us that little bit more. 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? Well, lets look at the supposed science that might have been carried out given the above snippet: So thay have taken animals, including humans, and exposed them to 100% humidity at temperatures of 95.000001 `C and after 6.00001 hours whereupon they all 'potentially' died? Oh, hang on, did I miss the word 'calculate'. Perhaps they took a load of people and sat them arouhd at 47.500000005`C and said "how do you feel". "pretty fucked" was the answer. So they put "pretty fucked" into their 'calculators' and doubled it, and the result was "potentially lethal". And all this biological research was carried out by the 'professor of earth and atmospheric sciences'! I wonder if there were ANY biologists in the research team? So basically yet another example of a climatologist making suppositions and guesses in a field he is unqualified to do so in. The extraordinary thing is that this kind of pure bunkum gets published. Its really extraordinary how badly 'science' is performing these days.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Send the silly SOB down here to Atlanta for the month's of July and August. Or better yet, ahve him visit Houston, Texas for a few weeks in August. He'll rapidly discover that his theory is pure dog poop. 95 DegF is often sustained for days around here, and many people still work outside without being lethally stressed. More Climate Alarm-ism from the scientifically shameless.
-
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.
Why bother? He'll go with a 15 year trend instead. Or a 5 year. Whatever he can find that supports his model. He's shown he doesn't believe it. Even if the model pretty much jives with the observations.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Send the silly SOB down here to Atlanta for the month's of July and August. Or better yet, ahve him visit Houston, Texas for a few weeks in August. He'll rapidly discover that his theory is pure dog poop. 95 DegF is often sustained for days around here, and many people still work outside without being lethally stressed. More Climate Alarm-ism from the scientifically shameless.
It's not the air temperature... It's the "wet bulb" temperature... Basically, the temperature of your skin after sweating away as much heat as you can.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
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
fat_boy wrote:
Sorry, was the article about baths? I bet you thought your comment was pretty clever eh? How does it feel to look stupid now?
I wouldn't know. You're the idiot that couldn't figure out there is a difference between 95F and 95C. That comment was in regards to "what's the defference?" TO which I pointed out there is a HUGE difference. Unless you want to pour 95C water on yourself to prove me wrong.
fat_boy wrote:
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.
Weird, I agree with you, this paper wasn't amazing. But at the same time, it actually matters. It shows where the top end is for human life on the planet to survive outside for regular periods of time. AGW models don't show these sort of temps for a LOOOOONG time. So it isn't like this is alarmist. "Hey look, we might be in trouble in a few thousand years." I do like how I counter your points and you never actually answered. You throw a misdirect with the bath along with a strawman building of your position by saying I look stupid when my comment showed how incorrect you were. Then you attempt to reinforce your position by stating "well known facts" when you had commented on how dumb the paper was because "How can you calculate this?" and I showed how. You lost that point, tried another misdirect and did an attack on AGW with it. Tell you what, you actually admit you were wrong in your original assertation that it was rubbish because 95C would kill anyone (it was 95F), drop the pretense that the scientists didn't do anything in the way of data gathering or calculation (because figuring out the heat exchange necessary to maintain a core temp in acceptable range is actually fairly complex) and stop acting like anyone that doesn't accept your position is dumb (because some of us see right through these debate tactics.) And while you are at it, clean off your hair, there appears to be some crap on it from when you stuck it up your ass.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Sorry, was the article about baths? I bet you thought your comment was pretty clever eh? How does it feel to look stupid now?
I wouldn't know. You're the idiot that couldn't figure out there is a difference between 95F and 95C. That comment was in regards to "what's the defference?" TO which I pointed out there is a HUGE difference. Unless you want to pour 95C water on yourself to prove me wrong.
fat_boy wrote:
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.
Weird, I agree with you, this paper wasn't amazing. But at the same time, it actually matters. It shows where the top end is for human life on the planet to survive outside for regular periods of time. AGW models don't show these sort of temps for a LOOOOONG time. So it isn't like this is alarmist. "Hey look, we might be in trouble in a few thousand years." I do like how I counter your points and you never actually answered. You throw a misdirect with the bath along with a strawman building of your position by saying I look stupid when my comment showed how incorrect you were. Then you attempt to reinforce your position by stating "well known facts" when you had commented on how dumb the paper was because "How can you calculate this?" and I showed how. You lost that point, tried another misdirect and did an attack on AGW with it. Tell you what, you actually admit you were wrong in your original assertation that it was rubbish because 95C would kill anyone (it was 95F), drop the pretense that the scientists didn't do anything in the way of data gathering or calculation (because figuring out the heat exchange necessary to maintain a core temp in acceptable range is actually fairly complex) and stop acting like anyone that doesn't accept your position is dumb (because some of us see right through these debate tactics.) And while you are at it, clean off your hair, there appears to be some crap on it from when you stuck it up your ass.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I do like how I counter your points and you never actually answered. You throw a misdirect
That's all he ever does whenever someone comes up with a valid argument. He doesn't like to debate...just to obfuscate and rant.
-
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:
As a consequence higher average global temperatures could result in an ice age in northern Europe and America.
That is hilariously funny. One quarter of the world will be in an ice age due to global warming. So what kind of increases are you predicting for the equatorial regions to force world wide averages to go higher while North America and Europe drop around forty degrees F?
I don't dial 911, I dial .357
-
Christian Graus wrote:
you'd point to a single freak snow storm in an out of the way place as proof that it is false
So I guess you missed the last three years winter news for the northern hemisphere then? You know, where Gatwick aurport ran out of deicer? Where the English channel froze? Where London had the first snow in October in 70 years? Where the temperature in Scotland was colder then the Antartic? Where the entire UK was blanketed by snow? And thats just the UK.
Christian Graus wrote:
This is called hypocrisy
And you are either stupid or blind or dishonest. Mind you, you must be not to have noticed summer snow in your own damned country.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Mind you, you must be not to have noticed summer snow in your own damned country.
I am under the impression you live in some crappy little european 'country' that's slightly bigger than my backyard, and probably has one weather pattern through it. I live in Australia. In fact, I live in the coldest part of Australia, and I don't believe we had any 'summer snow'. Having snow in the snowfields is very different to it snowing in Sydney. It's no-where near strange enough to be a news story. AGW claims that weather patterns will become more extreme. So, I guess you're actually arguing that AGW is real, now ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
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
fat_boy wrote:
Its the GULF stream that carries warm WATER from the gulf to the north east atlantic.
Sorry. This is a commonly believed and many schools teach it. But there is no corresponding current on the west coast of the US, and the US North West is also mild and rainy. New theory (and all of this is theory, on both sides) puts the reason as being water upwind of both places. Since neither body of water freezes, winds blowing over the water are also kept warmer, and the land is kept warmer. Given the theory and wind patterns, for any latitude, land on the west of a large body of land should be warmer than land on the east of that body. In the US, take Washington state (near water) and New England, near water (and which has the gulf stream flowing by it at a higher temperature than England does). On your land mass, take your winters versus those of the Koreas, which are lower latitude. The Jet Streams are part of this, and so is the Gulf Stream. This world is not a simple system in which one thing makes the difference. All these systems are interrelated, with the winds driving the Gulf Stream, and the Gulf Stream changing the wind flow, and both probably effect el Nino and la Nina, which also effect them. What I discussed does not even start to look at heat transfer through salt layer boundaries in the oceans, how humidity effects heat transfer in the air. They have not identified all the critical systems, and do not yet correctly model the cross effects of the systems they have IDed. So much stuff, and people think they can predict it. [shakes head]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
riced wrote:
As a consequence higher average global temperatures could result in an ice age in northern Europe and America.
That is hilariously funny. One quarter of the world will be in an ice age due to global warming. So what kind of increases are you predicting for the equatorial regions to force world wide averages to go higher while North America and Europe drop around forty degrees F?
I don't dial 911, I dial .357
Oakman wrote:
That is hilariously funny. One quarter of the world will be in an ice age due to global warming.
Only to people who want to reduce a complex science to a simple minded proposition and THEN attack that instead of the science. All the while crying 'but weather is too complex, so all claims about it must be wrong'. Do you know that those streams actually result in places that are equally north to one another on different parts of the globe, to have very different weather patterns ? So, shutting them down could equalise the effect of being so far north.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
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:
Guess whats also not going to happen.
Rational thought ? The issue is, you're at least as shrill, inconsistent and illogical as the worst AGW alarmist.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
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 an evolution believer either,huh?
fat_boy wrote:
GW is not real according to your standards.
I always think it is cool (not AGC) when someone shoots themselves in the foot like that. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
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.
riced wrote:
Not quite - geological studies indicate that this is what has happened in past ice ages.
Ah, so in an ice age, northern europe gets covered in ice. Hmm, hardly surprising is it. Now, find me evidence that northern europe gets covered in ice when the temperature INCREASES, which is what you stated might happen.
riced wrote:
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.
Ah yes, the good old computer model, writtten to prove a point. Which have total failed to predict the last ten yesrs of cooling and are thus totally debunked.
riced wrote:
Here's a quote from Wikipedia
Whose climate related topics are heavilly guarded.
riced wrote:
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 you are totaly ignorant of the post war cooling period so severe scientists talked of a new ice age? This finished in 1973 or there abouts. The recent warming trend finished in the late 90's. Do your maths. This is less than 30 years.
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)