"Deadly temperatures for humans"
-
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
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Did you? I didn't.
What? You didnt know that excessive heat kills people?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Man, are you purposely trying to sound stupid? This isn't rocket science... Yes, everyone knows that excessive heat kills people. What we didn't know is EXACTLY HOW MUCH heat it would take. That's it... I'm done with this thread... If you still don't understand it, then nothing I say is going to get the point across. Even CSS would have figured it out by now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
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
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.
-
Man, are you purposely trying to sound stupid? This isn't rocket science... Yes, everyone knows that excessive heat kills people. What we didn't know is EXACTLY HOW MUCH heat it would take. That's it... I'm done with this thread... If you still don't understand it, then nothing I say is going to get the point across. Even CSS would have figured it out by now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Man, are you purposely trying to sound stupid? This isn't rocket science... Yes, everyone knows that excessive heat kills people. What we didn't know is EXACTLY HOW MUCH heat it would take. That's it... I'm done with this thread... If you still don't understand it, then nothing I say is going to get the point across. Even CSS would have figured it out by now.
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:
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
-
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.