"Deadly temperatures for humans"
-
Yes, because obviously anything that can cause the end of humanity is going to occur in under 30 years. I'm doing a rough pegging here, but from various bits of memory I'd put what this guy is proposing about 400 years out, using the rather alarmist plot points for average temp increases. No shit it's not going to happen right now, this isn't the kind of thing that does. A nuclear exchange could fuck humanity over for decades, a full on war with them may well end it entirely. Thankfully it hasn't happened yet. Aids is still a problem in many areas of the world, and thanks to the wonders of religion and politics we're not doing much of anything about it. Anyone who thought the bird flu or swine flu was going to kill us all was an idiot, the risk was something nastier evolving from them or overwhelming the medical care facilities. And have you missed our wars in the last decade? Sure those of us lucky enough not to be arbitrarily targeted by a bunch of idiots with far to much power are fine, but aren't there a few Iraqis who are less than alive right now because of them? You have a couple communications issues, that much is obvious. Generally when no one gets what you're trying to say it's not everyone else who's wrong, and generally when making dumbass assumptions, limit them to something related to what was said. Following the current theory, and it's pretty much the same as the old theories just with less idiotic press, we don't particularly know what's going to happen, but what may well happen could screw us over, and we could be responsible. Anyone who gives a shit about science or humanity's continued existence should be interested in global climate change, because it's pretty damn impressive what could happen with a bit of continued stupidity. Or it could even be that we have nothing to do with it, but one way or another we have some serious changes to try to nail down and prepare for. We know things change, we know they have changed in the past, we may be influence them now, we should be trying to figure out why they change and how they change so that when they do change we are ready. THAT was my point, which you happily passed off as alarmist. Like I've said elsewhere, this model along with other data mostly serves to shut up both idiots like you, and those who take the day after tomorrow as a documentary.
Distind wrote:
Yes, because obviously anything that can cause the end of humanity is going to occur in under 30 years.
You arent wrong now you mention it. Man made scare stories always have to be in the future, but not too far ahead.
Distind wrote:
Generally when no one gets what you're trying to say it's not everyone else who's wrong,
Odd though that 'everyone' who disagrees/doesnt understand me, are also fervent AGW supporters.
Distind wrote:
it's pretty damn impressive what could happen with a bit of continued stupidity
Its pretty stupid to continue thinking the impressive will happen given that the earth is telling us our models are wrong and we have NO idea whihch way its going to go.
Distind wrote:
this model along with other data
The good old models eh? Gotta believe them!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Loads of words, doesnt answer the fact that you dont know the difference between the jet stream and the gulf stream.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
1: I was the one that said jet stream. 2: His info is talking about what I said. 3: You changed the game, and attacked that instead of what I was talking about. 4: 3 is called strawman. 5: You resort to 4 a lot. 6: You didn't bother reading what I linked to. 7: There is no 7. 8: After all of these points, I don't see a reason to continue. We'll all just agree to disagree. 9: You will, of course, try to get the last word in.
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:
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.
When you argue, you argue with facts. Arguing with the man not the message is equivilent to "NYAH NYAH, YOUR MOM!" This is possibly the most obnoxious response I have ever heard. If you aren't going to argue the point, then all you are doing is being a brat.
fat_boy wrote:
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.
DO I have to get the freaking link again?! A PHYSICS class had the numbers. You can measure the amount of heat that is dissipated through sweat. Water evaporates. Heat is exchanged and leached off the body evaporating sweat. These are well known facts. Outside temperatures will adjust this. The temperatures at which your body starts to have issues issues are documented. SO if the outside temperature and conditions are enough to reduce the cooling effect of sweating, your core temp does not regulate properly and you overheat. THESE ARE ALL FACTS. You COULD go out for 6 hours once your body had adjusted (called acclimitization) and work in extremely high heat, but even then you are in danger of having a heat injury if the conditions are drastic enough. I've seen it. The entire point of this paper is "This is the point where you simply can't deal with this anymore." Not exactly a big deal, but still better than nothing. Thing is, you found a headline, DIDN'T BOTHER READING FOR COMPREHENSION, and judged something without the straight facts. SO what is worse, being an AGW proponent or skeptic without the facts? Now, if your usual pattern continues I expect "not a big deal" quoted and you saying "AHA!" you will ignore the point of this and you will pick on something small I said here and act like it was important so you won't have to deal with the fact that you are a pretentious prick.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
true dat. It's like he gets off on being a fucktard.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What we didn't know is EXACTLY HOW MUCH heat it would take.
And you think this guy actually did? Its guesswork, pure and simple. He ISNT a biologist. He has no idea how the body withstands heat, he is a climatologist. Dont you get it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
and yet a physicist did the numbers for a class. Oh wait, I suppose a climatologist could, I don't know LOOK IT UP... Or would that make sense? "Oh hey, organs begin to fail at 27C. Nervous system at 30C" Or is that F...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I was educated. Thats where I got that figure from.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I was educated. Thats where I got that figure from.
fat_boy wrote:
I wonder if there were ANY biologists in the research team?
I rest my case
-
fat_boy wrote:
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.
When you argue, you argue with facts. Arguing with the man not the message is equivilent to "NYAH NYAH, YOUR MOM!" This is possibly the most obnoxious response I have ever heard. If you aren't going to argue the point, then all you are doing is being a brat.
fat_boy wrote:
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.
DO I have to get the freaking link again?! A PHYSICS class had the numbers. You can measure the amount of heat that is dissipated through sweat. Water evaporates. Heat is exchanged and leached off the body evaporating sweat. These are well known facts. Outside temperatures will adjust this. The temperatures at which your body starts to have issues issues are documented. SO if the outside temperature and conditions are enough to reduce the cooling effect of sweating, your core temp does not regulate properly and you overheat. THESE ARE ALL FACTS. You COULD go out for 6 hours once your body had adjusted (called acclimitization) and work in extremely high heat, but even then you are in danger of having a heat injury if the conditions are drastic enough. I've seen it. The entire point of this paper is "This is the point where you simply can't deal with this anymore." Not exactly a big deal, but still better than nothing. Thing is, you found a headline, DIDN'T BOTHER READING FOR COMPREHENSION, and judged something without the straight facts. SO what is worse, being an AGW proponent or skeptic without the facts? Now, if your usual pattern continues I expect "not a big deal" quoted and you saying "AHA!" you will ignore the point of this and you will pick on something small I said here and act like it was important so you won't have to deal with the fact that you are a pretentious prick.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
THESE ARE ALL FACTS
Yes, and they were well known long before this lame piece of attention grabbing ;scientific' paper reprinted a few bits of someone elses research, or evn common knowledge available in almost any school textbook about the bodies ability to with stand heat, and then get the crap published. DO you actually see my point? I dont CARE what the content of the piece is at all. I only care that it is NOT new, and should NOT have been published. It was ONLY published because it comes under the heading of GW. Get it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
and yet a physicist did the numbers for a class. Oh wait, I suppose a climatologist could, I don't know LOOK IT UP... Or would that make sense? "Oh hey, organs begin to fail at 27C. Nervous system at 30C" Or is that F...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I was educated. Thats where I got that figure from.
fat_boy wrote:
I wonder if there were ANY biologists in the research team?
I rest my case
-
1: I was the one that said jet stream. 2: His info is talking about what I said. 3: You changed the game, and attacked that instead of what I was talking about. 4: 3 is called strawman. 5: You resort to 4 a lot. 6: You didn't bother reading what I linked to. 7: There is no 7. 8: After all of these points, I don't see a reason to continue. We'll all just agree to disagree. 9: You will, of course, try to get the last word in.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Loads of words, doesnt answer the fact that you dont know the difference between the jet stream and the gulf stream.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
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
fat_boy wrote:
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.
Did you purposefully miss the sarcasm, or did you do it without realizing it?
fat_boy wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
I always think it is cool (not AGC) when someone shoots themselves in the foot like that.
Did it hurt much?
I was aiming that at the 30-year average, not at your comment about it. I see it was not clear in my post, but that was my intent. :-O
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
9: You will, of course, try to get the last word in.
Damn, I wanted to get the last word it. :(
Opacity, the new Transparency.
:thumbsup:
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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
Here's a final summary which indicates why ragnaroknrol took the right approach.
The plot so far:
Me: 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. You: Unsupported supposition! Me: 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'). You: 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. Me: 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? You: 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!
Now let's spell out what is going on. I pointed out the paradox that global warming could possibly lead to an ice
-
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
-
fat_boy wrote:
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.
Did you purposefully miss the sarcasm, or did you do it without realizing it?
fat_boy wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
I always think it is cool (not AGC) when someone shoots themselves in the foot like that.
Did it hurt much?
I was aiming that at the 30-year average, not at your comment about it. I see it was not clear in my post, but that was my intent. :-O
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
fat_boy wrote:
So basically yet another example of a climatologist making suppositions and guesses in a field he is unqualified to do so in.
The irony, it burns.
- F
So I see you have been following this thread without comment so far. And when you do its a cheap shot. Sure, of course no one is capable of recognising that a climatolagist is unqualified to comment on biological functions. I mean, that is just such a difficult and complex conclulsion to come to isnt it. (sarcasm intended)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So I see you have been following this thread without comment so far. And when you do its a cheap shot. Sure, of course no one is capable of recognising that a climatolagist is unqualified to comment on biological functions. I mean, that is just such a difficult and complex conclulsion to come to isnt it. (sarcasm intended)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I mean, that is just such a difficult and complex conclulsion to come to isnt it.
Especially by a computer programmer with no formal scientific education whatsoever! However, wasting your time attacking the dummy-summary article and the credibility of the authors when the primary literature it is based on is clearly referenced AND freely available is just truly you being your adorably disingenuous self. Comment on the paper itself and the methods if you want to be taken seriously because there are some interesting problems with the paper - but your all-or-nothing judgmental approach to the intrinsic value of a scientific paper is frankly somewhat naive.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
I mean, that is just such a difficult and complex conclulsion to come to isnt it.
Especially by a computer programmer with no formal scientific education whatsoever! However, wasting your time attacking the dummy-summary article and the credibility of the authors when the primary literature it is based on is clearly referenced AND freely available is just truly you being your adorably disingenuous self. Comment on the paper itself and the methods if you want to be taken seriously because there are some interesting problems with the paper - but your all-or-nothing judgmental approach to the intrinsic value of a scientific paper is frankly somewhat naive.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
formal scientific education whatsoever
ANd what do you mean by formal? College? In that case you are wrong, but thats not important. What is is that a climatologist is not qualified to have a paper discussing the abilityof organisms to withstand heat. And in fact he is wrong anyway. Sudanese natives can withstand temperatures well over 95`F for a very long time. Llke all day. For days after day after day. In fact it gets to about 120`F there in the summer. Mind you, not that I am an expert.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription