"Deadly temperatures for humans"
-
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