Global warming

[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.