Global warming

[Kinser79]

(10-14-2017, 08:07 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

The ice sheet upon the Arctic Ocean can melt with little influence upon the sea level. It may be expansive, but it is also thin.  The Greenland ice cap is much deeper even if it looks less impressive on the map. But there is much water in the ice, and it is not in equilibrium with current conditions. In short, as it disappears it will disappear permanently.

The Antarctic ice cap is the vast majority of the world's ice -- and fresh water. The maps show that Antarctica can evade deglaciation as the Greenland Ice Cap shrinks and as the ice sheet atop the Arctic Ocean largely disappears. As it is, the bulk of the ice in Antarctica is in East Antarctica, that is the larger share of the continent that lies due south of Africa, the Indian Ocean, and Antarctica. Ice has been melting in West Antarctica (the comparatively small part of Antarctica south of the Americas) but East Antarctica has been getting even more precipitation. That precipitation is ice. The ice cap of East Antarctica seems to be getting thicker.

In any event, the Antarctic Convergence that separates cool mid-latitude waters from the colder waters of the Antarctic shows no sign of going away. Less ice in the Arctic will put more water vapor in the air, and some of that water vapor will still reach East Antarctica and precipitate as ice.

None of that is remotely relevant.  Either water freezes at 0C or it does not.  Since it is inarguable that it does, then that means for more ice to be there, there has to be at least one of two possible conditions present (though both being the case is also acceptable).

Condition 1.  Temperatures below the freezing point of water have to be present for sufficient time for sea ice to form.  And it is the SEA ICE that is the problem for the penguins.

Condition 2.  These conditions are indicative of the climate being unusually cooler than previously.

Since there is this sea ice problem we know for a fact that condition 1 is in effect.  Since there has been an unusually high rate of chick starvation we have to conclude that condition 2 is also in effect.  It remains to be seen if condition 2 is cyclical or not though.

Regardless the fact that condition 1 has persisted to the point to create condition 2 that means that condition 3 (Hurr Dah Eurf iz warmin' an' sheit) cannot be in effect.  Unless you plan on proposing that Antartica is not on the globe.

As usual the score is:
Logic >9000
PBR 0.

[pbrower2a]

Kinser --

1. Snow is a result of condensation of water vapor from gas to solid. Snow is never frozen rain, which is sleet or freezing rain. 


2. Rain is typically molten snow  -- snow that melts in the air as it drops from parts of the atmosphere in which the temperature is below freezing to levels at which the air is above freezing. (Friction may play a role too, but that is slight).

3. Ice and snow may ablate through either liquefaction (melting) or evaporation (sublimation).

4. Although pure water freezes and melts at 0C/32F, salt as in sea water tends to lower the melting point.

As if you were expected to know this.

[Kinser79]

(10-15-2017, 02:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Kinser --

1. Snow is a result of condensation of water vapor from gas to solid. Snow is never frozen rain, which is sleet or freezing rain. 


2. Rain is typically molten snow  -- snow that melts in the air as it drops from parts of the atmosphere in which the temperature is below freezing to levels at which the air is above freezing. (Friction may play a role too, but that is slight).

3. Ice and snow   may ablate through either liquefaction (melting) or evaporation (sublimation).

4. Although pure water freezes and melts at 0C/32F, salt as in sea water tends to lower the melting point.

As if you were expected to know this.

1.  I know what snow is.

2.  In some areas true.  In the Tropics not so much.

3. Not a contention of argument unless you wish to differ over the typical physical properties of water that everyone else uses.

4.  Making my point for me.  If there is an unusually high amount of sea ice--that is to say oceanic ice formed from sea water which has an average salinity of 3.5% necessitating temperatures far below 0C. Since sea water counts as brine the freezing point is -17.78C.  This means to have extra thick sea ice to the point that penguins, a species adapted to living in and around areas with sea ice are starving, that the temperatures must be far far colder than normal.

I don't know why you feel the need to insert an obsolete measurement system into the discussion.  It adds nothing.  I would have thought if your goal was to emphasize how smart you are (a dubious claim during the best of times) you would have chosen Kelvin as the temperature system of choice alongside Celsius.  273.15 K is the freezing point of water on that scale.

Anymore windmills you would wish to tilt at?  I mean, personally I don't mind you making a fool of yourself, but your arguments are tiresome and I'm starting to think I should treat you like I did the kids that rode on the short bus at school.  Believe me I didn't debate them because they were highly skilled.

[David Horn]

(10-14-2017, 09:29 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 09:15 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

H-m-m-m.  Warmer temperatures can easily lead to more ice.  Start with glacial ice melting on a land mass like Greenland.  This melts into the sea, lowering the salinity.  If the sea water is adequately cold, ice can then form.

Good to see that Mr. Horn doesn't understand that the ocean is not a stagnant body of water.

It's far less dynamic than you seem to think.  Oceanic drift, the actual movement of water from place to place, is measured in months and years.  Here's an often repeated experiment that demonstrates that very well.

[pbrower2a]

Millions of people are still uncomfortable with Celsius temperatures and even more uncomfortable with Kelvin temperatures. L'd be happy to go with Kelvin temperatures, by the way, as they have more scientific use.

[Galen]

(10-14-2017, 09:39 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 07:34 PM)Galen Wrote: Yes, I am still trying to work out if he can handle Newtonian physics let alone conservation of energy.

I have discovered the more the supporters of a cause try to scare me the more likely that what they are pushing is false and not in my best interests.

As to scare tactics and shilling I have also found this to be the case.

Xers generally do because it is part of the toolkit we tend to develop needed to survive.  The ability to detect scams as early as possible is a valuable survival skill.

[Kinser79]

(10-16-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 09:29 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 09:15 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

H-m-m-m.  Warmer temperatures can easily lead to more ice.  Start with glacial ice melting on a land mass like Greenland.  This melts into the sea, lowering the salinity.  If the sea water is adequately cold, ice can then form.

Good to see that Mr. Horn doesn't understand that the ocean is not a stagnant body of water.

It's far less dynamic than you seem to think.  Oceanic drift, the actual movement of water from place to place, is measured in months and years.  Here's an often repeated experiment that demonstrates that very well.

Interesting but ultimately unimportant.  Even in a stagnant body of water the difusion of a lighter liquid into a compatible heavier liquid will occur over time.  I recomend allowing the ice in a sweet tea to melt some summer afternoon to demonstrate (though coke [and all soft drinks are coke--pepsi coke, mountain dew coke, sprite coke, etc] would also work, personally I'm partial to A&W cream soda).  Suffice it to say that even if there is melting polar ice, and it is is "freshening" the northern and southern seas it is not fresh water but is still a brine, though perhaps with some reduced salinity.

That may make the formation of sea ice easier, however, if the climate alarmists are to be believed the presence of this ice should lead to eventual cooling due to the reflective properties of ice.  Thus we still have the problem of the predictions made by the alarmists simply not coming true.  There are still polar bears even though we were told not even 10 years ago they should all be extinct by now, and don't even get me started on about how Mount Kilimanjaro still has its snows.

[Kinser79]

(10-16-2017, 02:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Millions of people are still uncomfortable with Celsius temperatures and even more uncomfortable with Kelvin temperatures. L'd be happy to go with Kelvin temperatures, by the way, as they have more scientific use.

As Stephan Molyneux would say "Not an argument".

A phenomenon I know all too well.  A good rule of thumb is if it is 0-10 it is cold, if it is 10-20 it is sweater time, if it is 20-30 its starting to get warm and over 40 is fucking hot.  Obviously negative temperatures are cold.

As for the debate over imperial and metric I drive both my mother and boyfriend to detraction by my seeming inability to use the imperial system.  We finally agreed that a pound is about 500g since when I portion bulk goods I exclusively use metric.  Thus when I package up ground meat for freezing the package is 500g and not strictly speaking a pound--a pound being 453 and change grams.  Of course I also annoy them with my use of the 24 hour clock and my insistence of using the Year Month Day dating system.

I blame the navy for all of that since the military exclusively uses the metric system, the 24 hour clock and the Year Month Day dating system.  Were I dictator I would impose it on all of America so we could potentially join the rest of the world in the 21st century.

[Kinser79]

(10-18-2017, 05:55 AM)Galen Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 09:39 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 07:34 PM)Galen Wrote: Yes, I am still trying to work out if he can handle Newtonian physics let alone conservation of energy.

I have discovered the more the supporters of a cause try to scare me the more likely that what they are pushing is false and not in my best interests.

As to scare tactics and shilling I have also found this to be the case.

Xers generally do because it is part of the toolkit we tend to develop needed to survive.  The ability to detect scams as early as possible is a valuable survival skill.

Determining whether something is or is not a scam is a technique that nearly everyone needs.  Some are merely better at doing just that than others.

In this case, I for a long while believed that the whole anthroprogenic global warming thing was a reality for a while.  Unfortunately the predictions that were made on the basis of that belief did not come true.  Now I could do like some others and ignore  that reality and continue to hold onto a viewpoint that wasn't working or I could scrap it for something else.

That said, it was far easier to stop believing in AGW than it was the labor theory of value.

[David Horn]

(10-19-2017, 03:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 09:29 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 09:15 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

H-m-m-m.  Warmer temperatures can easily lead to more ice.  Start with glacial ice melting on a land mass like Greenland.  This melts into the sea, lowering the salinity.  If the sea water is adequately cold, ice can then form.

Good to see that Mr. Horn doesn't understand that the ocean is not a stagnant body of water.

It's far less dynamic than you seem to think.  Oceanic drift, the actual movement of water from place to place, is measured in months and years.  Here's an often repeated experiment that demonstrates that very well.

Interesting but ultimately unimportant.  Even in a stagnant body of water the difusion of a lighter liquid into a compatible heavier liquid will occur over time.  I recomend allowing the ice in a sweet tea to melt some summer afternoon to demonstrate (though coke [and all soft drinks are coke--pepsi coke, mountain dew coke, sprite coke, etc] would also work, personally I'm partial to A&W cream soda).  Suffice it to say that even if there is melting polar ice, and it is is "freshening" the northern and southern seas it is not fresh water but is still a brine, though perhaps with some reduced salinity.

That may make the formation of sea ice easier, however, if the climate alarmists are to be believed the presence of this ice should lead to eventual cooling due to the reflective properties of ice.  Thus we still have the problem of the predictions made by the alarmists simply not coming true.  There are still polar bears even though we were told not even 10 years ago they should all be extinct by now, and don't even get me started on about how Mount Kilimanjaro still has its snows.

Two comments:

• Diffusion rates are linear, so diffusion through a large body like an ocean will take decades
  
• There are much larger potential cooling regimes.  If the Yellowstone caldera erupts, it's game over.
  

[pbrower2a]

(10-19-2017, 03:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-18-2017, 05:55 AM)Galen Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 09:39 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-14-2017, 07:34 PM)Galen Wrote: Yes, I am still trying to work out if he can handle Newtonian physics let alone conservation of energy.

I have discovered the more the supporters of a cause try to scare me the more likely that what they are pushing is false and not in my best interests.

As to scare tactics and shilling I have also found this to be the case.

Xers generally do because it is part of the toolkit we tend to develop needed to survive.  The ability to detect scams as early as possible is a valuable survival skill.

Determining whether something is or is not a scam is a technique that nearly everyone needs.  Some are merely better at doing just that than others.

In this case, I for a long while believed that the whole anthroprogenic global warming thing was a reality for a while.  Unfortunately the predictions that were made on the basis of that belief did not come true.  Now I could do like some others and ignore  that reality and continue to hold onto a viewpoint that wasn't working or I could scrap it for something else.

That said, it was far easier to stop believing in AGW than it was the labor theory of value.

For once  (the metric system) I largely agree with you. The metric system works better, and once people get used to it they will stick with it. The real trick is in avoiding confusion between weights, areas, and volumes. "Liter" and "meter" rhyme.

AGW seems real enough. Christmas merchandise is already appearing in stores, and we are  two months and a week away. We have yet to have a frost in southern Michigan. It's not quite summer-like, but the fall foliage is turning slowly. Alternation between cool rains and sort-of-warm temperatures?  I'm usually through mowing the lawn by now, but I will do so later today.

You saw the projection maps. Tropical zones expand at the expense of subtropical zones. Tropical zones, unless on alluvial fans (like Bengal) or on volcanic soils (Indonesia) are terribly unproductive as a rule. Deserts and semi-deserts expand or appear where they have not been. In one projection the Danube valley starts going semi-desert.

The menace not shown was inundation. Fertile lands that support millions of people, if only at the living standards of peasant farmers. Where do those people go? Yes, I know well -- peasant farmers have few real friends, especially among foreigners who have no bonds to them. Certainly not Marxists who recognize them as reactionaries for refusing to become serfs of the State. Certainly not economic elitists like Trump who want them to become bonded in debt so that they must become sharecroppers for people with an economic morality like his. The bourgeois intellectuals hold peasants in contempt for their lack of sophistication. Where do all the people of Bangladesh go? Where do all those millions of peasant farmers of China (and China is still heavily rural) go as waters overtake their lands?

Places that go from Dfc (short summers and cold winters, as in northern Scandinavia, northern Russia, most of Siberia, Alaska, and the northern and middle tiers of Canada) to Dfb (long but not very warm summers, but cold winters)? Nice try, but the soils are too thin under Dfc climates. To get new soils suitable for good agriculture would take decades of weathering. Meanwhile recent peasant farmers are in refugee camps.

...Scam detection is easy enough for those who know that nobody operates a business to lose money. Thus the black fellow who tries to sell me a stolen "Rolex" just 'liberated' in a riot (this was in the 1960s) that has a huge price tag might be a cheap fake. I wouldn't buy it. First of all, I am not buying stolen property. Second, I don't buy pointless luxuries; if I had the money I would have a nice portfolio of stocks and not buy $1000 suits, overpriced automobiles, a McMansion, etc., unless that is necessary for the work that I do. An apartment at a Trump Tower? You saw how I skewered the taste of your 'great and glorious leader'. A swimming pool, perhaps, as that offers the best exercise, and getting and keeping fit is good for staying healthy, wealthy, and wise.

Nobody has perfect knowledge. But I now the way of the scientist. These people are impeccably honest, and very rational. They are not in what they do for the money. Double-blind testing and peer review are good for driving out cranks and cheats.  Projections of the future are themselves shaky. But who else would you trust? The models that I have shown are estimates.  The model can work the other way and give the reality of the Younger Dryas (a partial reversion of world climatic patterns to the time of widespread glaciation outside the polar regions) and to the apices of glaciation in the Pleistocene.

The pattern is simple: raise levels of carbon dioxide in the air  and the greenhouse effect strengthens. The atmosphere becomes more capable of holding water vapor, and more water vapor gets into the atmosphere. Water vapor itself has an even stronger greenhouse effect than does carbon dioxide. Air temperatures rise a little more. On the other side, reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, and the atmosphere becomes chillier. Places that are now tundra or boreal forest get unending winter. About seventy-five years of such are enough to reshape the world's climate patterns to something more glacial. Ice sheets and snowfields expand, and they start to appear in non-polar locations like Scotland and the Adirondacks. High reflectivity of the ice sheets and ice caps ensure that such sunlight as snowy and icy places gets goes back into space instead of warming and melting the frozen water. The ice sheets quit expanding only when the water vapor practically disappears so that no more snow can fall in glaciated places. Yes, it works both ways.

Scientists are not scammers. Can they be wrong? Sure. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth century there were such activities as phrenology and eugenics that have since proved very wrong, in part because those studies violated the scientific method in efforts to push certain agendas. "Bad head-shape", thus criminal. Bad "race", thus criminal (Jews) or simply subhuman (you know where that leads). Academic science screens out cranks and cheats. One does science because one loves it and has the aptitudes and learning. One does industrial labor solely for the money.

[Galen]

(10-19-2017, 03:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-18-2017, 05:55 AM)Galen Wrote: Xers generally do because it is part of the toolkit we tend to develop needed to survive.  The ability to detect scams as early as possible is a valuable survival skill.

Determining whether something is or is not a scam is a technique that nearly everyone needs.  Some are merely better at doing just that than others.

That said, it was far easier to stop believing in AGW than it was the labor theory of value.

Yes, but the conditions Nomads have to deal virtually guarantee that anyone with in IQ above room temperature is going to get good at it.  If an Xer didn't then very bad things tended to happen and would continue until they learned or ended up dead or worse.

I never really did believe in the labor theory of value because the conclusions it implies tend to lead to paradox which is a sure sign that a theory is almost certainly wrong.  AGW predictions never seem to come true and the powers that be were trying to panic everyone into their already prepared solutions which is about as clear of a sign you can get that a scam is in the works.

[pbrower2a]

(10-20-2017, 03:13 AM)Galen Wrote: Yes, but the conditions Nomads have to deal virtually guarantee that anyone with in IQ above room temperature is going to get good at it.  If an Xer didn't then very bad things tended to happen and would continue until they learned or ended up dead or worse.

I never really did believe in the labor theory of value because the conclusions it implies tend to lead to paradox which is a sure sign that a theory is almost certainly wrong.  AGW predictions never seem to come true and the powers that be were trying to panic everyone into their already prepared solutions which is about as clear of a sign you can get that a scam is in the works.

Nomads at their worst sell out cheaply to bad people. So it was with Lost fascists and, just as evil, Stalinist functionaries. Integrity and freedom are worth great sacrifices in keeping. The best Nomads know the Abyss and find it the scariest phenomenon of all -- even scarier than Death itself.

The crude representation of labor theory of value brings about the failure to recognize that (1) small-scale enterprise is often to a large extent labor, and that profits from owner-operation of small business are largely a reasonable return to effort, (2) labor value can vary greatly from one worker to another based upon skill or sacrifice -- that the work of an unspecialized laborer is not worth as much as that of a skilled worker, and that such dangerous activities as mining and logging need incentives to get people to do such work, and (3) much that makes life truly fulfilling requires a sort of cultural or academic aristocracy. If one thinks of music, the Soviet system did produce the likes of Igor Oistrach, Emil Gilels, and Mstislav Rostropovich who got recognized very often as the greatest violinist, pianist, and cellist of their times. Sure, such people represent supreme talent; but they also blow away the Marxist labor theory of value.

But let us remember: the only means of survival of most people is their toil. Denial of the value of labor is the debasement of the worker into a serf at best. Even in the old slave system the masters recognized the value of a 'prime field hand'. Of course the 'prime field hand' was not to enjoy the fruits of his toil. To deny the value of labor is to establish that ownership and bureaucratic power are the sole measures of merit, and that ownership and bureaucratic power are the means of denying everything beyond an animal level of existence to people who have only their toil to offer. In an order in which ownership and bureaucratic power are the sole measures of human merit, no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as owners and power-wielders get what they want. Everything. If the elites do not simply sweat workers with long hours of hard labor under brutal management for bare sustenance, then they will squeeze the petit-bourgeoisie into a proletariat and gouge the not-so-well-connected professionals with gigantic rents and taxes (the latter to enforce the will of the elite and support wars for profit and colonial adventures).

Oh, by the way -- most Nomads have no hostility to mainstream science, as mainstream science is fully compatible with Nomad rationalism.

[Kinser79]

PBR, lets make this simple.  I think your tiny mind is being confused by the minutia.  AGW only seems to be real because there have been a series of years that were quite warm recently.  In the late 1960s and 1970s there was just as much hullabaloo about global cooling.  The simple fact of the matter is that humans at most have about 150 years of detailed records and that simply isn't long enough to establish any consistent pattern.

In Florida, despite having to endure the worst hurricane in living memory, yes Irma was worse than Andrew as it disrupted the whole state and not just Miami, we've had an unusually cool ultra-summer with most tempertures not getting above 32C (91F) whereas the average ultra-summer tempertures hover near 35C (95F).  Though I must admit that the humidity was clearly normal rarely dipping into the 70's of percent.

Furthermore there is no actual proof that humans have caused anything unless you count the extra CO2 causing increased phytoplankton blooms.  Has our activty helped?  Probably not, but there is no proof that humans are the cause.  There are simply too many verriables at play.

What do we know?  There have been numerous environmental predictions that have been made, none of them have come true, and the moral panic that is being whipped up fits nicely into the per-packaged solutions of a certain cabal of individuals.  And no I'm not speaking of these scientists--though those polls are probably a scam.  A nuclear engineer is a scientist sure, but does he really know shit about the environment beyond what the average everyman does?  Probably not.  Furthermore science does not concern itself with consensus--that's politics--it concerns itself with facts and simply put we do not have enough facts to say for certain what is going to happen with the climate.

Perhaps where I'm going is best explained by this cray haired dude.





It should be noted that this video is some three years old.


Say what you will about Nomads but one thing we do know is a scam when we see one.  As Galen pointed out, if one has an IQ above room temperature (in F--doesn't really work in C) and one is also a Nomad you either develop a bullshit detector or end up in the morgue---or worse.

[Kinser79]

(10-20-2017, 03:13 AM)Galen Wrote: I never really did believe in the labor theory of value because the conclusions it implies tend to lead to paradox which is a sure sign that a theory is almost certainly wrong.  AGW predictions never seem to come true and the powers that be were trying to panic everyone into their already prepared solutions which is about as clear of a sign you can get that a scam is in the works.

The labor theory of value has something that AGW really doesn't, some truth to it. Nearly everything of value contains human labor of some sort. But I would say that labor content is one factor among many. AGW on the other hand seems to be consistently incorrect.

[pbrower2a]

(10-22-2017, 04:51 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, lets make this simple.  I think your tiny mind is being confused by the minutia.  AGW only seems to be real because there have been a series of years that were quite warm recently.  In the late 1960s and 1970s there was just as much hullabaloo about global cooling.  The simple fact of the matter is that humans at most have about 150 years of detailed records and that simply isn't long enough to establish any consistent pattern.

I'll let the accusation of a 'tiny mind' slide. I don't know whether you recognize that I took calculus and statistics in college and got grades of B or higher in them. And, no, this was not from a second-rate university.

I am also aware of the concern in the 1960s and 1970s about global cooling. But atmospheric CO2 was not so high as it would be in the late 1990s and on. Global warming was increasing as countries newly industrializing, like Brazil, China, India, and Iran got their factories running and people were accelerating their use of motor vehicles. Yes, there were a couple of cooler-than-average years (1992 and 1993), but that is generally linked to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo and perhaps to a lesser extend the formerly centrally-planned states no longer being so lavish in the use of fossil fuels. Paradoxically a simplistic application of the Marxist labor theory of value understated the value of energy.

But since then, have tended to rise, largely due to increased automobile use outside the advanced industrial countries in which further expansion of motor-vehicle use is nearly impossible.

Quote:In Florida, despite having to endure the worst hurricane in living memory, yes Irma was worse than Andrew as it disrupted the whole state and not just Miami, we've had an unusually cool ultra-summer with most temperatures not getting above 32C (91F) whereas the average ultra-summer temperatures hover near 35C (95F).  Though I must admit that the humidity was clearly normal rarely dipping into the 70's of percent.

The relevant temperature from a physiological standpoint is the wet-bulb temperature -- at least so long as one has adequate water if one is not exposed to direct sunlight and has adequate circulation of the air. Thus

Quote: Living organisms can survive only within a certain temperature range. When the ambient temperature is excessive, humans and many animals cool themselves below ambient by evaporative cooling of sweat (or other aqueous liquid; saliva in dogs, for example); this helps to prevent potentially fatal hyperthermia due to heat stress. The effectiveness of evaporative cooling depends upon humidity; wet-bulb temperature, or more complex calculated quantities such as Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) which also takes account of solar radiation, give a useful indication of the degree of heat stress, and are used by several agencies as the basis for heat stress prevention guidelines.

A sustained wet-bulb temperature exceeding 35 °C (95 °F) is likely to be fatal even to fit and healthy people, unclothed in the shade next to a fan; at this temperature our bodies switch from shedding heat to the environment, to gaining heat from it.[7] Thus 35 °C is the threshold beyond which the body is no longer able to adequately cool itself. A study by NOAA from 2013 concluded that heat stress will reduce labor capacity considerably under current emissions scenarios.[8]
[/url]
A 2010 study by Purdue University concluded that under a worst-case scenario for global warming with temperatures 12C higher than 2007, the wet-bulb temperature limit for humans could be exceeded around much of the world in future centuries.[9] A 2015 study concluded that parts of the globe could become uninhabitable.[10] An example of the threshold at which the human body is no longer able to cool itself and begins to overheat is a humidity level of 50% and a high heat of 46 °C (115 °F), as this would indicate a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F).[11] (Wikipedia)

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature#cite_note-11]

Thus people can do well enough so long as they can cool off through perspiration and evaporation of the perspiration, which one well knows if one has lived in the northern Texas, whose summers alternate between Arizona-style heat ("It's a dry heat") and Florida-style heat ("Oh, the humidity!). With plenty of water or near-water (weak iced tea, perhaps?) one can deal well enough with the heat even with temperatures around 35 °C (95 °F). That's how things are most of the time in Phoenix, where the dew point (wet-bulb temperature) might be in the chilly zone of even if the temperature is as much as  35 °C (67 °F) warmer.  But one does need to keep hydrated lest one get sick.

One effect of more atmospheric carbon dioxide at high levels is that there will be more evaporation of water from the oceans and seas, and thus more water vapor in the air.

Quote:Furthermore there is no actual proof that humans have caused anything unless you count the extra CO2 causing increased phytoplankton blooms.  Has our activity helped?  Probably not, but there is no proof that humans are the cause.  There are simply too many variables at play.

The oceans warm slowly. The only rapid changes in ocean temperatures come from the melting or formation of sea ice, which greatly affects the ability of the surface water in its local form to absorb or reflect heat. Open water absorbs heat very well. Sea ice reflects it.

Phytoplankton blooms generally do not have carbon dioxide as the defining element; it is when certain critical elements not so common in surface waters as on land (especially iron and phosphorus) get above certain levels. Compounds of iron or phosphorus tend to go into substances of low solubility (like iron phosphates, iron sulfides, iron oxides, and iron carbonates and phosphates of almost every metallic element except the alkali metals). Except where upwelling of ocean currents dredges up nutrients from the deep to near-surface waters, the open oceans have relatively poor biota.

By the way -- statisticians have a name for 'too many factors at play'. It's called 'random chance'. Statisticians are really good at distinguishing random chance from causality. I need not go into the details.

Quote:What do we know?  There have been numerous environmental predictions that have been made, none of them have come true, and the moral panic that is being whipped up fits nicely into the per-packaged solutions of a certain cabal of individuals.  And no I'm not speaking of these scientists--though those polls are probably a scam.  A nuclear engineer is a scientist sure, but does he really know shit about the environment beyond what the average everyman does?  Probably not.  Furthermore science does not concern itself with consensus--that's politics--it concerns itself with facts and simply put we do not have enough facts to say for certain what is going to happen with the climate.

Yeah, sure. I have heard schmucks say that they have been smoking for forty years and haven't gotten cancer yet. The chance of getting a smoking-related cancer is almost random chance. But the random chance is far higher for someone who smokes than for someone who avoids cancerweed products altogether.

I do not smoke, and I try to avoid places in which smoking is commonplace.

Quote:Perhaps where I'm going is best explained by this cray haired dude.





It should be noted that this video is some three years old.

If you are to dissent with the scientific mainstream, then you had better be a scientist or have sold out  for a good price to well-heeled special interests who pay highly-skilled liars very well. It's easier to make a living selling used cars at a tote-the-note lot than to learn the scientific lingo for bamboozling the more foolish sorts of contrarians.

Quote:Say what you will about Nomads but one thing we do know is a scam when we see one.  As Galen pointed out, if one has an IQ above room temperature (in F--doesn't really work in C) and one is also a Nomad you either develop a bullshit detector or end up in the morgue---or worse.

As a Boomer I have my own detectors of mierda del toro -- like probabilistic analysis, scrutiny for internal inconsistency (great for detecting a fraud like Donald Trump, whom I regret to say is a fellow Boomer), objective fact, and such basic knowledge as the laws of thermodynamics (economics is a monetary expression of such laws), and knowledge of the means of the hustle. Sure, the world and human nature are full of paradoxes, but you can expect that I would never fall for a 419 scam.

[pbrower2a]

Global warming is a hoax/
Just like cancer in our smokes!
Donald Trump tells us what is true/
But the 'libruls' have no clue.

Yes, Trump is truthful! Yes Trump is Truthful.
Yes, Trump is truthful! Breitbart doth tell me so!

(to the tune of Jesus Loves Me)   

Quote:The Environmental Protection Agency has reportedly barred three agency scientists from giving talks about climate change at a conference in Rhode Island days before they were scheduled to speak.
The researchers were booked to appear Monday in Providence at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed workshop, an event highlighting the health of New England’s largest estuary, where temperatures have risen 3 degrees Fahrenheit and water has risen up to seven inches over the past century. 

The New York Times first reported the news on Sunday. EPA spokesman John Konkus, a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, provided an emailed statement to The Washington Post and The Hill confirming the cancellations: “EPA scientists are attending, they simply are not presenting, it is not an EPA conference.”

Konkus did not respond to an email and text message from HuffPost on Sunday evening.

The move comes days after the EPA scrubbed dozens of links from its website to materials that helped local governments deal with the effects of climate change. Administrator Scott Pruitt has said he does not believe greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels cause climate change, and has scrapped or proposed eliminating numerous regulations to reduce emissions. Two weeks ago, he proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, the federal government’s primary policy for slashing utilities’ output of planet-warming gases.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa...mg00000009

My comment:

Burn more coal! Burn more coal! Rah! Rah!

That's what our Great and Infallible Leader tells us to do.

But remember -- it's "Clean Coal" because our Great and Infallible leader concurs with the coal barons that if it is the coal that they produce, then it is clean. (Maybe it is dirty coal if it is imported by people other than America's beloved coal barons. Oh, I get it. Nice, clean profit -- that's all that matters. Better yet, that that profit be 'clean' of any taxes).

[Galen]

(10-22-2017, 04:51 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: What do we know?  There have been numerous environmental predictions that have been made, none of them have come true, and the moral panic that is being whipped up fits nicely into the per-packaged solutions of a certain cabal of individuals.  And no I'm not speaking of these scientists--though those polls are probably a scam.  A nuclear engineer is a scientist sure, but does he really know shit about the environment beyond what the average everyman does?  Probably not.  Furthermore science does not concern itself with consensus--that's politics--it concerns itself with facts and simply put we do not have enough facts to say for certain what is going to happen with the climate.

One thing you have to realize is that PBR and most Silent and Boomers grew up in a time where people were taught to trust in authority.  In the main they still act that way and with the GIs and Lost running things it wasn't much of a problem but the Boomers have proven themselves to be incompetent.  In the interest, probably futile, of imparting useful knowledge to PBR I have included the following video.

(10-22-2017, 04:51 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Say what you will about Nomads but one thing we do know is a scam when we see one.  As Galen pointed out, if one has an IQ above room temperature (in F--doesn't really work in C) and one is also a Nomad you either develop a bullshit detector or end up in the morgue---or worse.

No kidding, the other thing Xers have had to learn the hard way is that sometimes all of the choices are bad.  In that case you just pick the one the sucks the least.

[Galen]

(10-22-2017, 09:36 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: As a Boomer I have my own detectors of mierda del toro -- like probabilistic analysis, scrutiny for internal inconsistency (great for detecting a fraud like Donald Trump, whom I regret to say is a fellow Boomer), objective fact, and such basic knowledge as the laws of thermodynamics (economics is a monetary expression of such laws), and knowledge of the means of the hustle. Sure, the world and human nature are full of paradoxes, but you can expect that I would never fall for a 419 scam.

In my experience Boomers are about the most gullible people I have ever met.  Eric the Obtuse is the archetype of the gullible Boomer.

[David Horn]

(10-24-2017, 02:11 AM)Galen Wrote:

(10-22-2017, 04:51 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: What do we know?  There have been numerous environmental predictions that have been made, none of them have come true, and the moral panic that is being whipped up fits nicely into the per-packaged solutions of a certain cabal of individuals.  And no I'm not speaking of these scientists--though those polls are probably a scam.  A nuclear engineer is a scientist sure, but does he really know shit about the environment beyond what the average everyman does?  Probably not.  Furthermore science does not concern itself with consensus--that's politics--it concerns itself with facts and simply put we do not have enough facts to say for certain what is going to happen with the climate.

One thing you have to realize is that PBR and most Silent and Boomers grew up in a time where people were taught to trust in authority.  In the main they still act that way and with the GIs and Lost running things it wasn't much of a problem but the Boomers have proven themselves to be incompetent.  In the interest, probably futile, of imparting useful knowledge to PBR I have included the following video. <VIDEO DELETED AS REPETITOUS>

Talk about false equivalency.  Nothing on earth is 100% safe, so yes, some people have side effects from inoculations of all types.  Now back to the climate scientists.  The only point of disagreement is how quickly we get to catastrophe if we don't change our ways.  Being scientists, they speak of future events in terms of probability, since assured results are impossible to determine.  In the >80% probability range, effects are loss of most forests, rising ocean levels that devastate most of the coastal cities of the world and other effects to numerous to list.  Your video geek uses hyperbole.  I'll take the former.

Galen Wrote:

Kinser Wrote:Say what you will about Nomads but one thing we do know is a scam when we see one.  As Galen pointed out, if one has an IQ above room temperature (in F--doesn't really work in C) and one is also a Nomad you either develop a bullshit detector or end up in the morgue---or worse.

No kidding, the other thing Xers have had to learn the hard way is that sometimes all of the choices are bad.  In that case you just pick the one the sucks the least.

If addressing climate change is a net positive, why not?  Here's an incomplete list of arguments for continuing the flight from fossil fuels:

• Fossil fuels are depleting, but renewables never do.  
  
• The cost of fossil fuels has to rise as depletion continues, but renewables are declining in cost with no likelihood they won't continue this trend.  
  
• Renewables are everywhere, so getting energy requires a smaller military -- a net positive.
  
• Zero carbon will slow climate change.  
  
• We already have a lot baked-in that will happen anyway; why make it worse?  
  
• New industries create new jobs, and fossil fuels are now low on job creation or even job retention.
  

Where's the downside?