"Deadly temperatures for humans"
-
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) -
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?
-
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
As far as I can see none of the points you make address what I actually said. You seem to argue by dismissal and attempting to refute points not made. Have you been reading Schopenhauer's The Art of Always Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument?
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
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'.
-
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)Or with 100% humidity. We easlially have over 100 degrees here, 45`C to be exact is the highest I have seen it (in the shade), but its dry, very dry. Sit under a tree and sweat a bit and its OK. Mind you doing anykind of physical work in the sun is damn hard.
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.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Weird, I agree with you, this paper wasn't amazing.
Thats my point. Its an unintersting piece on a topic already well known and studied and ONLY published because ofits association with GW. Thau my statement anout the state of science, and scientific publications is justified.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I do like how I counter your points and you never actually answered
Sorry, I dont argue with the message, but with the man. If you expect a response to every trivial thing you write then you wont get it from me.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
and I showed how.
Sorry, you can 'calculate' how the human body reacts to heat? Go on, I am dying to hear this! I'll tell you what, since you already actually seem to understand that this piece was unnoteworthy, why dotn you stop looking for an argument by pretending you DONT understand what I was getting at.
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
some crappy little european 'country'
Well, since I have seen much of Australia, haveing traveled form Brisbane to Perth via Melbourne, Sidney, Adelaide, PortPirie and Kalgoorlie, let me tell you that almmost all of Europe is very un-shitty comnpared to Australia. Heck, you still use corregated iron for roofs! Your towns look like South African shanty towns compared to Europe! Oh, and by the way, Europe is probably as big as Australia and yes, we are aware of weather and news in most parts of it (at least if you watch Euronews you will be).
Christian Graus wrote:
AGW claims that weather patterns will become more extreme. So, I guess you're actually arguing that AGW is real, now ?
Yeah, of course I am, I mean, one little tiny bit of snow in Australia is enough to prove anyting isnt it. (Sarcasm intended). No, in fact there isnt any increase in severe or unusual weather associated with warming. You will know this if you keep tuned to the latest developements in AGW so odd weather is just odd weather and has no underlying climate association. However consistently cold weather in many areas IS obviously a sign that temperatures are falling.
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.
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
The issue is, you're at least as shrill, inconsistent and illogical as the worst AGW alarmist.
Shril, hmm, no. Ranting perhaps, but thats just for fun. Inconsistent? Nope, never. Illogical? Nope, never. Not a very accurate character assasination Christian. You could do alot better I am sure.
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.
RichardM1 wrote:
Not an evolution believer either,huh?
Actually you will find that I presented the case of the Northern Engliand White Moth on this forum some time back that proves evoloution quite nicely.
RichardM1 wrote:
I always think it is cool (not AGC) when someone shoots themselves in the foot like that.
Did it hurt much?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
As far as I can see none of the points you make address what I actually said. You seem to argue by dismissal and attempting to refute points not made. Have you been reading Schopenhauer's The Art of Always Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument?
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
Lets just review this little converstion shall we: You: global warming could result in the shutting down of the North Atlantic conveyor system ...result in an ice age in northern Europe Me: Unsupported supposition! You:Not quite - geological studies indicate that this is what has happened in past ice ages Me: Ah, so in an ice age, northern europe gets covered in ice. Hmm, hardly surprising is it. You: As far as I can see none of the points you make address what I actually said. I would love to put this to the vote as to who isnt capable of following areasonable argument. You change you point form Global Warming causing ice caps to ICe Ages causing ice caps. You then accuse me of not answering your points. Well, if you kept to a consistent stance it might be alittle easier!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
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.
Hey no, I like the 10,000 year trend, the one that shows cooling! Yep, its been getting steadilly colder this interglacial, in fact the LIA was the coldest part of it. And you expect me to worry about a little warming? Get a grip on reality would you.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
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