Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Mxsmanic wrote:

Keith W writes:


30 deg and 32% humidity isnt extreme, they regard such conditions
as positively chilly in the Far East


It's difficult to even sleep in such conditions, and in the Far East,
they have air conditioning, like everywhere else.


But, I guess in the old days, they had to stay awake all night, huh?

mrtravel writes:

But, I guess in the old days, they had to stay awake all night, huh?

It the old days, their lifestyles and activities were far more
severely restricted by the climate. If sleeping all day and moving
slowly at night is okay for your lifestyle, you can tolerate a hotter
climate, but if you want to build a modern civilization, you need air
conditioning.

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

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

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.

OK, you choose to wilfully misunderstand my meaning,

???? Nonsense. Unfortunately for this conversation my psychic abilities
don't extend to Usenet so I have to respond to what people write not to
what they were thinking about when they wrote it.

The fact is that global warming is a completely natural phenomenon. Man
made Global Warming is a completely different topic. If you want to
talk about that then try to be specific.

This is what happens when people let their politics color their view of
science.

Do you acknowledge *man* *made* global warming is happening and
is a problem? Yes or no?

I acknowledge that there are computer models to suggest that man is
contributing to a level of global warming that exceeds the normal
warming rate.

Now do you acknowledge that no scientist knows just what that affect
is?

That is the point.

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.

nope, its the one we are discussing but the one you seek to avoid.

No. It is one that you were discussing in your own mind but didn't
bother to mention when you challenged my statement.

The context is one of excessive consumerism and industrial
pollution causing big increases in warming, apparently you think
that meant we talking about "naturally" occurring phenomena.

Again, apparently you weren't aware of the difference and still aren't
aware that there is no clear cut line to differentiate.

If it was "no"

I repeat my original comment:-
"do you ever wonder why the worlds scientists think otherwise?"

If it is "yes" I congratulate you on starting to see the problems
of the future rather than fight yesterdays wars with what you
call "socialism".

I'm beginning to understand why you seem to be confused all the time in
your posts. Now you're combining the theory of man's contribution to
Global Warming with a discussion on economic theory and Socialism.
Unrelated topics.

Mxsmanic wrote:
mrtravel writes:


But, I guess in the old days, they had to stay awake all night, huh?


It the old days, their lifestyles and activities were far more
severely restricted by the climate. If sleeping all day and moving
slowly at night is okay for your lifestyle, you can tolerate a hotter
climate, but if you want to build a modern civilization, you need air
conditioning.


You said it was difficult to sleep in these conditions.
Now you start talking about "If sleeping all day and moving slowly at
night". I thought we were talking about the conditions for sleeping at
night.

mrtravel writes:

You said it was difficult to sleep in these conditions.

It is, but eventually you're exhausted enough to do so. And in some
cases, you sweat less if you don't move, or you can find a spot that
is cool in which to sleep, even if it allows for nothing else.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
mrtravel writes:


You said it was difficult to sleep in these conditions.


It is, but eventually you're exhausted enough to do so. And in some
cases, you sweat less if you don't move, or you can find a spot that
is cool in which to sleep, even if it allows for nothing else.


Do you think that the people living in the climate have adjusted to the
climate in a way that permits them to sleep?

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:18:12 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Keith W writes:

30 deg and 32% humidity isnt extreme, they regard such conditions
as positively chilly in the Far East

It's difficult to even sleep in such conditions, and in the Far East,
they have air conditioning, like everywhere else.

No, they don't. Go there, and you will see.

I live in Thailand. Does this mean I have to go yank the
air-conditioning out of my Bangkok apartment? How about the window unit
in my house up country? Did that stop working magically over night?

Or do you not know what you're talking about?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Frightens Me writes:
Name a few such countries.

Essentially all of them: Singapore, India, Thailand, Nigeria, Saudi
Arabia, etc. They all have air conditioning. While the Third World
may still lag somewhat behind the most developed countries, it hasn't
been standing still.

One key difference between us as we visit these observations of yours is
that I have been to these places and you have not. And time and time
again it is clear that you are talking out of your ass.

I'm not aware of any dirt hut tradition in southeast Asia, but in any
case I can assure you that Saudi Arabia is the only one where you could
all air conditioning a necessity. I don't think many people disagree
with the contention that Saudi Arabia is only habitable at its current
density thanks to the ready availability of low-cost energy, and is thus
really only populated beyond desert nomads and coastal settlements as

I just got back last Thursday from two weeks working in Thailand. I
visited about a dozen offices (not multinational corporations but local
outfits), stayed in a couple hotels, and ate in 10 or 15 different
restaurants.

None of the offices was air-conditioned. By none I mean zero. They were
full of people and computers and we had meetings and worked on the
computers by the refreshing air of fans. Many of these computers were 8
or 9 years old and still humming along fine. All of the people were even
older than that and likewise still humming along fine.

None of the restaurants we ate in was air-conditioned. By none I mean
zero. They were full of people eating and drinking and talking and
laughing and not, as far as I could tell, dying.

In one of the hotels, which was targeted at foreigners, the windows did
not open so I used the air conditioner. In the other one, they did open
and I used the fan.

It is correct. Removal of heat is far less important than the
insurance of warmth.

Actually, maintenance of core temperature is important, irrespective
of external temperature. However, it is much easier to keep core
temperature from dropping than it is to keep it from rising, since the
former requires only warm clothing, whereas the latter requires active
(and often external and mechanical) cooling.

The amount of clothing required to maintain core temperature at the
below-freezing temperatures typical of densely-populated Europe, north
America, and east Asia does not make it practical to do most household
tasks or perform most work functions. You can insulate yourself in 4
inches of goose down and cling film but then you are not going to get
anything else done, not least because your fingers have become giant
senseless sausages.

Hence heating is necessary in order to do all the other things that
people have to do in order to stay alive.

Meanwhile, in the densely-populated areas of the tropics, etc.,
air-conditioning is a luxury, by no means necessary to safely conduct
normal business. It's only in extreme desert areas that it becomes a
necessity.

Also, whereas hypothermia is potentially survivable in certain cases,
hyperthermia generally is not.

However, when you take all the places that people actually live, and
weight by the number of people actually living there, it's a lot easier
to get hypothermia than hyperthermia.

miguel
--
Photos from 40 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Malaysia; Thailand; Singapore; Spain; Morocco
Airports of the world: http://airport.u.nu

Following up to The Reid :

while below zero eliminates humidity.

Not necessarily. It can take quite a while for the water in the air to
freeze out - some days. Until then the cold air can still have a fair
amount of water in it. (But I do see what you meant)
--
Tim C.

Following up to Dave Frightens Me

Please note that Mixi has stated that they either don't exist, or just
suffer. This of course doesn't accord with my, or your experience. But
when you know it all...

last night I put the fan on in the bedroom as it was hot and
humid, I was soon rather cold and had to pull the sheet up, as I
fell asleep I thought for a second of Mixis psedo scientific
bull****ting about fans.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap