I have a high IQ; I still make plenty of bad decisions playing chess.
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
mpaetz wrote:
I have a high IQ; I still make plenty of bad decisions playing chess.
A good book on why make mistakes is Adam Grant's: Hidden Potential . Was reading yesterday
I believe it's more a case of where the individual imagines themself to be on an intelligence level. If you think you are smarter than average you are more likely to believe your own bs rather than trust that others may be smarter.
After all, very few people take IQ tests in their lifetime and even fewer believe those tests to accurately measure intelligence.
Too much attention is paid, most especially online, to IQ scores rather than judging motivations and actual actions, especially under stress when it counts.
honesthufflepuff if you see this, the link isn’t working anyways. i wasn’t trying to advertise my forum, i was just trying to help.
this has nothing to do with the forum i am posting on soz
this has nothing to do with the forum i am posting on soz
14 days ago
0
#31267
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Its correct that even the roads are affected by high temperatures.
Have you ever seen tarmac roads that have melted? I have quite a while back. I think maybe they are better at the formula used these days!
I haven't seen melted roads.
But what I've been reading concerning the current US heat wave is that some roads 'buckle' because of the asphalt expanding.
Regarding whatever the surface is - macadam or concrete or blacktop I haven't studied how that works across the different surfaces. Nor have I studied how bridges are made to allow for severe heat or cold. I imagine they have small gaps between lengths of steel.
Apparently the current heat wave is affecting the steel rails on railroads.
From my declining memory of railroad knowledge:
Class A railways in the USA are akin to the interstate highway system. Both require strict adherence to specifications allowing travel by the most advanced vehicles.
Interstate highways have minimum height requirements for overpasses, lane widths and radius of exit and entrance ramps, for example.
Class a trackage has similar measures to ensure safe passage of 80 foot long cars and double deck container hauling, for example.
In addition, rails are of a certain strength, heat treated and joints are welded when laid to decrease kinking from heat stress. Rails are clamped (clipped) rather than spiked to ties.
Even with these precautions, in extreme heat traffic is reduced in speed to ensure protection from derailment
14 days ago
0
#31269
Of course climate is complex and local conditions vary. I was providing a simple answer to Lola's question "why it takes so long for the temp to drop after full sundown".
14 days ago
0
#31270
mpaetz wrote:
The sun warms the ground. The more heat the ground absorbs, the longer it takes to cool down after the heat source (the sun) is removed.
As days get longer the ground doesn't shed all of its warmth in the shorter nights, so heat builds up. That's why July and August are hotter than May and June, even though each period gets about the same amount of sunlight.
I replied to this but had to delete and reword my reply to improve that reply.
In deserts there can be a big diurnal range of temperature.
It can be thirty degrees of range.
The surface ground and the dry air give up heat more quickly.
And how that works near the coast can depend on the direction of the prevailing winds.
--------------------
Since weather and climate are complex then so are their sciences.
Which means that various elements can set up a paradox.
And each paradox might not be quickly resolved unless one is willing to acknowledge the complexity. Could happen in any science.
They tried to rename 'global warming' as 'climate change' or 'manmade climate change' to take care of this.
For example manmade climate change also causees some severe freezes - not just heat waves.
By interfering with arctic air.
Do those who 'don't get that' (and reject climate science generally) do so deliberarely?
Or because they just don't understand?
It seems the reality is that whoever won't understand something if he/she doesn't want to.
In that way they can honestly claim they 'don't get it'.
While being motivated by 'don't like and don't trust'.
14 days ago
0
#31271
Of course all that you say is accurate, but if Lola lived someplace where local conditions resulted in rapid cooling after sunset she would not have asked that question.
Actually she didn't. She responded to endgame by copying his post #31265.
14 days ago
0
#31273
mpaetz wrote:
Of course all that you say is accurate, but if Lola lived someplace where local conditions resulted in rapid cooling after sunset she would not have asked that question.
It was EE who said 'don't understand'.
I just edited my earlier post a bit more concerning those who 'don't like and don't trust' can genuinely claim they don't understand but with 'don't want to understand' being key.
If they want to understand that might cause them to do so - but that could severely interfere with 'don't trust' and compromise 'don't like'.
Another irony: are those who accept climate science more likely to understand those who don't more than the rejectors understand themselves?
Not necessarily. That's where the 'don't like' figures in.
14 days ago
0
#31274
playerafar wrote:
They tried to rename 'global warming' as 'climate change' or 'manmade climate change' to take care of this.
Jeez. No-one renamed global warming.
To avoid such confusion it's necessary to define some terms.
Local climate is the statistical behaviour of weather at a location. It is well thought of as a set of summary statistics that describe the chances of different weather at different times in the year - a lot of numbers are needed.
Local mean surface temperature is the average of the temperature at a single location over a typical year - single number for each location, but a lot of numbers for the world as a whole.
Global mean surface temperature is the average over all locations of the local mean surface temperature - a single number.
Global climate is the collection of all local climates (see above) for all locations in the world. This needs a LOT of numbers to describe it.
Global warming is the upward trend in global mean surface temperature due mainly to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. It describes how one single number changes over time.
Climate change is the change in climate everywhere in the world due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. it describes how a huge number of numbers change over time.
So no-one should ever confuse the latter two entities. They are different concepts in the same branch of science.
playerafar wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Of course all that you say is accurate, but if Lola lived someplace where local conditions resulted in rapid cooling after sunset she would not have asked that question.
It was EE who said 'don't understand'.
I just edited my earlier post a bit more concerning those who 'don't like and don't trust' can genuinely claim they don't understand but with 'don't want to understand' being key.
If they want to understand that might cause them to do so - but that could severely interfere with 'don't trust' and compromise 'don't like'.
Another irony: are those who accept climate science more likely to understand those who don't more than the rejectors understand themselves?
Not necessarily. That's where the 'don't like' figures in.
Congratulations. You have, once again, won the coveted monthly award for most annoyingly repetitious spammer in the OTF, cementing your name above Optomissy on the long list of contenders, using the most verbage to say the least.
14 days ago
0
#31276
stopped reading that one after the first few words.
EE said 'don't understand'. Stands.
Somebody who trolls said something about that before I did?
Perhaps he'll never get it that his trolling causes his posts to be 'lower priority' and he and his partner will continue to fail forever to blame themselves for their own trolling.
14 days ago
0
#31277
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
They tried to rename 'global warming' as 'climate change' or 'manmade climate change' to take care of this.
Jeez. No-one renamed global warming.
To avoid such confusion it's necessary to define some terms.
Local climate is the statistical behaviour of weather at a location. It is well thought of as a set of summary statistics that describe the chances of different weather at different times in the year - a lot of numbers are needed.
Local mean surface temperature is the average of the temperature at a single location over a typical year - single number for each location, but a lot of numbers for the world as a whole.
Global mean surface temperature is the average over all locations of the local mean surface temperature - a single number.
Global climate is the collection of all local climates (see above) for all locations in the world. This needs a LOT of numbers to describe it.
Global warming is the upward trend in global mean surface temperature due mainly to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. It describes how one single number changes over time.
Climate change is the change in climate everywhere in the world due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. it describes how a huge number of numbers change over time.
So no-one should ever confuse the latter two entities. They are different concepts in the same branch of science.
the word 'rename' may have not been the best choice of verb there.
'rename' in a de facto sense.
I'm talking about the general usage as to how this works.
And how the scientific community interprets terms and recognizes various meanings as 'understood' is different from those who reject science.
But those who are not scientists but accept science being another group in the middle with that middle group happening to be the majority. Well over 80% of the population.
I used to see 'global warming' phrase used relatively more and then saw 'climate change' coming in more. 'global warming' is a more vulnerable term that gives rejectors of climate science a big foothold to misinterpret regional versus global and also to misinterpret the eras and the trajectory of those eras.
But 'manmade climate change' says it better but takes three words.
Still gives the dissenters some room though.
They resort to 'if its manmade then its 'good''
--------------------
Might get clearer if one factors in that manmade climate change causes freezes in addition to heat waves. By interfering with arctic air.
'Global warming' doesn't convey the reality properly in other words.
playerafar wrote:
stopped reading that one after the first few words.
no you didn't
EE said 'don't understand'. Stands.
Somebody who trolls said something about that before I did?
Perhaps he'll never get it that his trolling causes his posts to be 'lower priority' and he and his partner will continue to fail forever to blame themselves for their own trolling.
Your award stands.
14 days ago
0
#31279
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Festers-bester wrote:
Our resident weather complainer lives in NewYork City which is 90% buildings and roadways. Even surrounded by water these take a long time to cool down after a long sunny day. In fact the water creates so much humidity it does more to keep the nights uncomfortable than to help cooling even with onshore breezes.
I lived there for 42 years with no airconditioning at home. It was rough but as a kid in the 50s and 60s no one had A/C.
Stating that you lived in New York isn't the flex you think it is. I don't even visit popular destinations/take part in typical New Yorker activities because I can't stand the culture so much that I want to "boycott" as much of the NYC experience as possible before my dad retires and we move. I don't want to "look" or "seem" like a "New Yorker" when outside doing stuff. Everyone bashes California like it's some stereotype but NY is basically all the negatives of California x10, with none of the positives. Worse Traffic, worse weather, worse food, worse personalities, more mental illness, less beautiful highways...etc. I try and spend more of money in Long Island where possible. NYC isn't even technically the mainland of the United States with the exception of the Bronx, just a bunch of islands stopped together lol, and Staten Island is just...pffftt 😆😆
LA/San Diego have perfect weather by comparison, and as importantly, a completed grid of beautiful interstate highways 😍😍😍
EE you're right that California beats New York City and NY state in a number of ways.
And San Diego has beautiful weather. The best.
LA weather isn't exactly 'great'. Neither is LA smog.
---------------
regarding the people and culture there's quite a big difference between So Cal and No Cal.
Its a lot nuttier in southern california. A lot of hotheads down there.
Although San Diego is a great city. A kind of island of cosmopolitan that happens to have a temperate climate just in that region.
Regarding 'culture' I don't know if you'd like the crazies driving through the heavy fog on the Golden Gate bridge in SF at 70 mph.
I saw that when I was there a long time ago. 1996 or so.
Avoided that particular thing after that.
Maybe they've done something about that now.
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Festers-bester wrote:
Our resident weather complainer lives in NewYork City which is 90% buildings and roadways. Even surrounded by water these take a long time to cool down after a long sunny day. In fact the water creates so much humidity it does more to keep the nights uncomfortable than to help cooling even with onshore breezes.
I lived there for 42 years with no airconditioning at home. It was rough but as a kid in the 50s and 60s no one had A/C.
Stating that you lived in New York isn't the flex you think it is. I don't even visit popular destinations/take part in typical New Yorker activities because I can't stand the culture so much that I want to "boycott" as much of the NYC experience as possible before my dad retires and we move. I don't want to "look" or "seem" like a "New Yorker" when outside doing stuff. Everyone bashes California like it's some stereotype but NY is basically all the negatives of California x10, with none of the positives. Worse Traffic, worse weather, worse food, worse personalities, more mental illness, less beautiful highways...etc. I try and spend more of money in Long Island where possible. NYC isn't even technically the mainland of the United States with the exception of the Bronx, just a bunch of islands stopped together lol, and Staten Island is just...pffftt 😆😆
LA/San Diego have perfect weather by comparison, and as importantly, a completed grid of beautiful interstate highways 😍😍😍
It's obvious "culture" isn't your thing.
It's not the A/C It's the I/Q
https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/new-iq-research-shows-why-smarter-people-make-better-decisions/
Smarter individuals tend to have more accurate beliefs about uncertain future events - they are more skilled at assessing probability.
Individuals with a higher IQ are significantly better at forecasting, making fewer errors (both positive and negative) and showing more consistent judgement compared to those with a lower IQ.
“Accurately assessing the probability of good and bad things happening to us is central to good decision-making,” said Professor Dawson. “Almost all decisions we make, whether it’s starting a business, investing, crossing the road, choosing who to date, all require probabilistic assessments.