Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Dave Frightens Me wrote:

On 25 Jul 2006 09:42:44 -0700, "Gregory Morrow"
wrote:


orange flamingo wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

There are reasons why mechanical refrigeration was invented, and much
of modern society cannot do without it. Pretending that it's an
unnecessary luxury is ignoring reality. I don't know why people
persist in these delusions. They don't seem to have them when
discussing heating systems; few people dispute the necessity of
heating in cold climates (even though heating in a cold climate is
actually much less necessary than cooling in a hot climate).

For some reason it seems most humans don't seem to mind the heat, but
are scared to death of even a little cold.

I've lived most of my life in the American South. I hate the heat,
and anything over 80F is hot to me. I love the cold, but not below
freezing (32F). However, I seem to be in the minority. Most people
it seems are perfectly happy when it's in the 90s even with high
humidity, which is weather that makes me feel miserable. Those same
people start shivering and putting on sweaters if the temperature
drops a degree below 70F.


"Those same people" = " women"

Less body hair maybe?


No, it's because women generally like to whinge. In this case instead
of being pro - active, e.g. bringing along a sweater or wrap to wear if
they are cold they prefer to whinge and cry and complain. Instead of
thinking things through and planning for eventualities they'll be
totally reactive and then get all over - emotional with the usual
"delightful" results :-|

This is particularly true of American women because the lot of 'em
quite generally are spoiled R - O - T - T - E - N and thus thoughtless
....not to mention being fairly stupid (and this is particularly true of
black and hispanic women. Asian women generally have been taught
properly demure behaviours, e.g. "saving face", etc. and so are less
likely to project their stupidity on the public in general).

I've seen this COUNTLESS times, e.g. in offices, restos, bars, stores,
buses, even on an Amtrak train between St. Louis and Chicago. In the
latter case some airhead chick in a skimpy tube top was complaining,
"I'm COOOOOOOOOLD...". The conductor adjusted the temp to her
satisfaction, which of course resulted in the rest of us in the packed
- full carriage sweltering (it was a steamy July day). Several of us
formed a "delegation" and went to the conductor, demanding the air con
be adjusted downward ("There are babies and elderly people aboard who
are uncomfortable, we took a vote and most everyone wants the temp
lowered..."). This worked, and one elderly woman said to the airhead
chick, "And remember, young lady, NEXT time bring along a sweater,
that's the PROPER thing to do!". Lol...

This type of sitch is quite typical here in the States amongst women,
they will insist on their being "comfortable" while everyone else be
damned, ESPECIALLY if it means the majority will be
uncomfortable...happened the other night in my corner tavern as a
matter 'o fact. As a regular I simply had to put my foot down and
insist that the air con be put on "arctic blast" as that's the way I
like it :-)

--
Best
Greg

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Keith W writes:

That depends on where you are comparing it with.

When it comes to human physiology, comparisons and relative
temperatures are not terribly meaningful. It's the absolute
conditions that count, because the requirements of human physiology
are fixed, not relative to external conditions.


I wasnt comparing relative values

Thus, 35° C is hot, even if there are places where it is 50° C.

Do you deny 50 is hotter ?

People in a temperature of 35° C will suffer equally no matter what
the temperatures are elsewhere on the planet. The level of danger is
the same as well.


The danger level for a fit adult is negligible

I have worked in fabrication yards in all 3 cities and
havent much sympathy with your whining.

Your sympathy is irrelevant.


As is your whining, kindly cease

Keith

Air conditioning is a crutch. Maybe they need it in Phoenix. It might be

argued that people shouldn't even be living in places where air
conditioning is essential.



Speaking of "crutches", heating is an equal or larger one. Why should
anyone bother to live where it's cold, other than to spend the warm and
pleasant months there?



True enough. As a Canadian, I'm looking forward to global warming. I
expect in a few years to be out in shirt sleeves in January. Global
warming is going to be big for Canada. Invest in Canucks. Remember, you
heard it here first.


No, the truth of the matter is that when the glaciers and permafrost melt,
the water will trickle South, converting the barely populated nether regions
of Canada in to pestilent, malarial swamps.

After all, that's how the Great Lakes were formed.

As for warming, you do remember that folks lived in Western Greenland in
1100AD, raised grain and cattle, and it was considerably warmer than now.


I see no reason why global warming will not make Canada a much
nicer place to live, on balance. There are all sorts of benefits
to a cyclical upturn in global temperature, such as has occurred
many times in the past. The Northwest Passage will open and become
a viable shipping route. Greenland will become habitable again. So
will Labrador, for that matter. Yes, folks, a field of clover will
stretch from the Great Lakes to the North Pole. Now's the time to
invest in some of that green.

Keith W writes:

Do you deny 50 is hotter ?

Once it's beyond 22° C or so, it's too hot, and exactly how hot isn't
very important.

The danger level for a fit adult is negligible

That isn't true, as some fit adults discover in the ER, if they live
that long.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

nobody wrote:

One more thing:

many office buildings provide insufficient ventilation and air exchange
rates. So while they may reduce temperature and humidity levels, the
concentration of gases , particles emitted by people, furniture, carpets
etc make this a very unhealthy place to spend many hours per day. This
is even worse for those buildings that shut down ventilation after work
hours to save money.


There are plenty of ways to overcome this...


Compare to those, one can be more productive in a building that has
windows that can open and you use a good old fashioned ceiling fan.


It's simply not practical from a cost standpoint because opening and
closing windows is a *very* ineffecient way to "control" the
temperature and humidity. Plus which you are going to have a *real*
problem with dirt, etc. entering...for a large building opening windows
is simply not on.

There is a reason why most large modern office buildings have central
air conditioning and sealed windows, these practical factors have been
taken into consideration.

--
Best
Greg

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

Good, so even you cannot totally shut out reality.

Apparently you can. Or at least you try.

Er, no, you are confsuing me with you. I'm not the one pretending
the majority of scientists have got it wrong. If you go back
thruogh the posts I'm sure you will find it was fairly obvious
the we are discussing the effects of man made global warming.

No, the statement was global warming, period. You were completely wrong
in your statement. If you made an unwarranted assumption as to the
topic then simply acknowledge it and move on. Your repeated attempts to
justify your incorrect statement are kind of, well, childish. See
below.

But none, I repeat *NONE*, argue that global warming has not been going
on for over 10,000 years.

so what?

So what??? When I said "Weren't you aware that global warming has been
going on for over 10,000 years?" you responded "do you ever wonder why
the worlds scientists think otherwise?"

sigh, youre playing with the words.

Using my exact words and your exact words is "playing with words"?????

The *point* is that *man* *made* global warming is accepted to be a fact by most
scientists. You are only muddying the water because you dont want
to accept the fact.

Your statement is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to
start. Let's just simplify: There is a general consensus among
scientists that there is a "man made" *COMPONENT* to the existing
natural phenomenon of global warming. There is of course no consensus
as to whether it is a major or minor component or just what the effect
is.

And as all of this is based on computer models and these same computer
models were predicting and impending *Ice Age* back in the 70s and 80s
then there is also a consensus among scientists that the models are not
completely reliable.

Are you so locked into arguing blacks white that you
want "man made" added to every mention of warming or you will
start stamping your feet?

Are you or aren't you aware that there is a difference?

of course I am, numbnuts.

Ah, your maturity level showing through.

I am pointing to the concensus that man made global warming is happening.
You are nit picking words.

When you want to talk about science, nit-picking is mandatory. The
problem with the Global Warming discussions is that people want to
inject their political beliefs into science and don't want to try to
describe things accurately. Often because they can't.

Let's make it clear again: there is a difference between natural global
warming, which is proven scientific fact, and a potential man-made
component adding to that process, which is a different topic
altogether.

That says a lot.

Yes, it says I'm trying to be scientifically correct rather than
politically correct.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Keith W writes:


Do you deny 50 is hotter ?


Once it's beyond 22° C or so, it's too hot, and exactly how hot isn't
very important.

So, it doesn't make a difference to you if it is 23 or 50?

Gregory Morrow writes:

There are plenty of ways to overcome this...

List them.

There is a reason why most large modern office buildings have central
air conditioning and sealed windows, these practical factors have been
taken into consideration.

That's one way (and the only way that springs immediately to my mind).
Unfortunately, Europeans seem to have a problem with it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mrtravel writes:

So, it doesn't make a difference to you if it is 23 or 50?

Neither temperature is really acceptable. A temperature of 23° C is
more survivable, but survivability is not the only criterion that must
be satisfied.

It's rather like asking whether 2 feet of water or 4 feet of water are
preferable in the streets of New Orleans. The only acceptable level
of water is zero.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tchiowa writes:

And as all of this is based on computer models and these same computer
models were predicting and impending *Ice Age* back in the 70s and 80s
then there is also a consensus among scientists that the models are not
completely reliable.

Not completely reliable is an understatement. They are equivalent to
rolling dice.

Let's make it clear again: there is a difference between natural global
warming, which is proven scientific fact, and a potential man-made
component adding to that process, which is a different topic
altogether.

No doubt, but the results are the same either way. I just wish it
would stop. But I suppose it won't. Nobody really knows whether it
will stop or not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.