|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1723 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3978 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Source BTW Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Source link. Edited by Admin, : Give the image a white background.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Higher ocean temps means more storms and stronger storms. There is no way around that. I guess people could argue that the increase in temperature isn't man made, that temperature cycles naturally. However, it is getting rather difficult to deny the facts of temperature increases and the impact it has on long term climate trends. Yes, that's the question, what is the cause of the rise in temperature. Somewhere not too long ago, sorry I don't remember who said it, some creationist interpreted the rise in temperature as the normal playing out of effects since the Flood. That is, the Flood brought on a horrific ice age that covered a lot of the planet and since then has been gradually receding to the poles, so the warming we're experiencing is just the continuation of that trend. Interesting that this is bringing on more destructive storms because it does happen to correspond to the rapidly accumulating "fullness of time" for God's judgment on the planet too. I'm sure if some great number of us asked God to spare us, He would, but that isn't going to happen, is it? "Science" no matter how questionable is always preferable to prayer. In fact it's all going to continue to be imputed to human causes which is going to have political consequences that may be as devastating as the natural causes of God's judgment. Sorry to bring up such a bummer of a thought, especially after hearing about the cute Talk Like a Pirate Day. But Avast ye and all hands on deck, not to mention shiver me timbers, for the time is at hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 730 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That isn't how He works though, is it? He picks one person, such as Noah or Abraham, and spares one family from the general slaughter. Abraham personally advocated for the Sodomites and Gomorrites but Noah didn't even bother to do that. To be fair, he was busy building the ark, while Abraham only had to check the fire extinguishers.... I'm sure if some great number of us asked God to spare us, He would....And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: Yes, that's the question, what is the cause of the rise in temperature. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which means it traps heat in the atmosphere. The increase in temperature correlates with the massive increases in carbon dioxide. That massive increase in carbon dioxide correlates with humans burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. The cause seems pretty clear to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1342 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
The climate change prediction for the New England region is that we would become warmer and wetter. We were warmer this summer than we've ever been. I thought wetter would mean more rain, but it turned out to mean higher humidity - it was a very hot and humid summer. The warmer part also means less snow. We get more rain in the winter now than we used to. While I understand that climate change is supposed to mean wetter climates overall, the recent trend here in recent years seems to be drier. Less snowfall in winter and less rainfall in summer. It's unquestionably gotten hotter over the last decade though; and we haven't really had a winter for the past few years. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wonder how the assumption of billions of years for the age of the earth affects calculations of natural causes of CO2 production as opposed to thousands of years. Just wondering. Also, if the theory that there is a natural trend of warming since the Flood is true, human contributions might be speeding it up now, but it would still continue in any case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 157 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: I wonder how the assumption of billions of years for the age of the earth affects calculations of natural causes of CO2 production as opposed to thousands of years. There is no assumption of billions of years for the age of the Earth but rather a conclusions based on absolute and overwhelming evidence.
Faith writes: Also, if the theory that there is a natural trend of warming since the Flood is true, human contributions might be speeding it up now, but it would still continue in any case. There is no such theory and there is absolute and overwhelming evidence that there has never been a Biblical Flood during the time humans existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
caffeine writes: While I understand that climate change is supposed to mean wetter climates overall, the recent trend here in recent years seems to be drier. Less snowfall in winter and less rainfall in summer. It's unquestionably gotten hotter over the last decade though; and we haven't really had a winter for the past few years. The nature of any climate change will differ around the world. Changes could be in any direction, including warmer/colder and wetter/drier. On average the global temperature will rise. The biggest climate change could be to Europe if Greenland's melting glaciers disrupt the Gulf Stream that keeps Europe's climate moderate. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: I wonder how the assumption of billions of years for the age of the earth affects calculations of natural causes of CO2 production as opposed to thousands of years. Just wondering. All we need is the data from the last 200 years or so.
There is also a shift towards 12C in the isotope concentrations in atmospheric CO2, and fossil fuels are rich in 12C compared to other natural sources like dissolved CO2 in the ocean and CO2 from volcanic eruptions. All of the evidence points to humans increasing atmospheric CO2 by more than 30%.
Also, if the theory that there is a natural trend of warming since the Flood is true, human contributions might be speeding it up now, but it would still continue in any case. That's a made up fantasy, not a theory. There is a difference between the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined:
|
The biggest climate change could be to Europe if Greenland's melting glaciers disrupt the Gulf Stream that keeps Europe's climate moderate. The biggest changes occurring right now appear to be warming in some arctic regions of 20-30 degrees. That warming is leading to the thawing of tundra and the release of massive amounts of methane, a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. An interesting consequence of this warming period is sea level rise from expansion of warmer water and from melting glaciers. We are living through a period of ocean transgression and can observe the patterns of erosion and deposition around the continents. Our very own realtime Walther's Law Experiments.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
An article in today's Washington Post (Houses intact after Hurricane Michael were often saved by low-cost reinforcements) says that one of the contributing factors to houses that survived was use of windstorm plywood.
Googling windstorm plywood didn't tell me anything I could understand. Windstorm plywood eliminates blocking, but what is blocking? Even Wikipedia just left me more confused. And windstorm plywood reduces or eliminates the need for metal hardware. How is that possible? I'd be grateful if anyone can provide a simple explanation of how windstorm plywood is different from normal plywood, what is the blocking that is eliminated, how is it possible to attach plywood to a frame without "metal hardware", and how these differences add up to a house that is more resistant to high winds? Just curious. Thanks! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 361 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I have a few answers, maybe a springboard for more searching?
First, a bit on blocking. First of all, to remove confusion, I believe blocking is not "getting in the way of something" blocking... but more "using a block of wood" to add structural support blocking. Think of framing a wall.You have the base 2x4, and the top one. Then you have the studs going vertically each one spaced by however-much (12" normally? 16"?... whatever it needs to be). The "blocking" is the horizontal short pieces that go inbetween the studs. When you have a frame, and you put plywood on the outside of it (think of the building of the exterior walls of a house)... I think this is called "shearing" a wall. Plywood comes in 4x8 sheets. However, these sheets are not always long enough to go from base-to-top of a framing wall (think of a 9' ceiling or something like that...). Therefore, you end up with "horizontal joints" in-between the plywood that is not located at the base-2x4 or the top-2x4. This "shearing horizontal joint" is in the middle of the wall... only connecting to the studs. I think the point of the "blocking" is to put in some horizontal support so you can nail in the plywood along these middle-horizontal joints.Without this... you can have plywood supported more on it's vertical sides (nailed into vertical studs) than it will be supported along it's horizontal top and bottom. This would make the structure weaker. Now... that's all normal shearing. Normal plywood on a normal frame. Windstorm plywood (again, I think...) is special plywood that is created long enough to go from the base-2x4 to the top-2x4 of the framing without the need of a middle joint. Therefore you don't need need the "blocking" to support the "additional hardware" to support the plywood along the middle-horizontal-seam... because there is no middle-horizontal-seam. The only horizontal seams would be along the already existing base-2x4 and top-2x4. I also found this link helpful:
Windstorm FAQ-Especially the section under "What is special about Windstorm and why does it work?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 730 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
I think you have it about right. According to the Lowes website, windstorm sheathing comes in 10-foot lengths. What they illustrate isn't actually plywood; it's chipboard, which is what is normally used for sheathing (up here out of hurricane-range, anyway).
As for "additional hardware", you can get aluminum clips with an H cross-section to reinforce joints that don't have blocking behind them.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Thanks, now I get what blocking is. The main idea is to use one piece of plywood from base to top, making blocking part way up unnecessary. But how is "no blocking" stronger than blocking? It seems that blocking done correctly should even stronger since two parallel studs with no horizontal block between them have to be weaker than when there are one or more horizontal blocks. One guess would be that "no blocking" provides no joints into which wind could get a grip, but the plywood is covered by siding, so that couldn't be it unless it's intended for after the wind strips off the siding.
I can see how "no blocking" reduces the need for hardware, since blocking requires extra nails, but not how it could eliminate it. How could plywood be fastened to studs without nails? Now I'm looking at https://www.norbord.com/na/wall-sheathing/windstorm/.
quote: What is the "gable end hinge point"? Is that the top of the gable? And what is the "bottom chord"?
quote: What is a top chord? Is this the underside of the roof?
quote: A hurricane clip fastens the top plate to the roof trusses and/or rafters. How do plywood sheets that extend all the way up to the roof eliminate the need for hurricane clips or at least something to fasten the roof to the top plate? Do these longer plywood sheets somehow get attached to the roof? However it is done, how does it prevent "lift and roll over"? How would it "prevent lift" since this whole junction between plywood sheath and roof is covered by the soffit?
quote: This is closely related to the previous point. I'm still not sure how their extra long plywood sheathing is connected to the roof, so maybe understanding what that looks like would explain why they think the "hinge point" where the roof connects to the plywood is no longer a hinge point. Even if the fastening is more secure it still has to be a "hinge point," doesn't it? This is from the Windstorm FAQ.
quote: If there are no or fewer stud to plate connectors and floor to floor connector straps, doesn't that just mean using more nails? I'm still not getting how it's possible to ever eliminate hardware. Are nails not considered hardware?
quote: Is wall air leakage a significant contributor to exerting destructive force on a structure during high winds? Sorry to be a nuisance with all the questions. Obviously I shouldn't go into the building trades. ![]() --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 361 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Disclaimer again - not my area of expertise - but here goes with another possible-explanation.
Percy writes: But how is "no blocking" stronger than blocking? It seems that blocking done correctly should even stronger since two parallel studs with no horizontal block between them have to be weaker than when there are one or more horizontal blocks. Yes, you are correct if taken literally.That is... blocking is better than no blocking if you're not going to add any plywood to the outside of the wall. However... a wall is not as literally described here. The sheathing (the plywood on the outside) acts just as well as the blocking as far as bracing for lateral movement. In fact, it acts even better because it's larger and connects multiple studs instead of just two specific studs. It also has multiple nails in it per-stud or per-connection... where each blocking only has one point of connection to each stud. To prove this point... think of an Ikea-ish bookshelf. Have you ever put one of these together?You lay the long sides down, you put the top and bottom on and you add in the shelves. Here, the shelves act like the blocking would in a framed wall as far as lateral-movement is concerned. However, if you've ever stood up a shelving unit at this point, you know it's very weak against lateral-movement still. If you push it from one side, the two side-ends (the "studs") push over together and the "blocking" shelves barely do anything to stop this motion. Of course... the shelves aren't nailed into the studs where the blocking would be... but this isn't adding a lot of structure... only the connection point of the single-nails-per-blocking-per-stud. It's still relative-ly weak against lateral movement. However, there's always that super-flimsy back piece you put on those shelves. Put that on... and the entire shelf suddenly becomes super-rigid. This back piece is the sheathing... the plywood we put on an exterior wall. It's very good at preventing lateral movement because it connects the top and bottom and all the studs together into their "full square shape" with multiple connection points (multiple nails per stud or top/bottom piece.) A non-windstorm plywood is good... but if it is jointed in the middle it means it's not connecting the top and bottom and studs all together. It's only connecting the top and studs... or maybe just the bottom and studs. This is "good" but connecting all 4 sides... top, bottom and studs... all together with one large-enough windstorm-plywood (or whatever it's made of) is much better for bracing against lateral movement. Also, there's a step-back view of the whole structure.Windstorm plywood is larger... so you have less pieces in total. Regular plywood is smaller and would require more smaller pieces to fit together in order to cover all external faces. When dealing with structural support... larger one-piece things are always stronger than smaller-multiple-pieces-connected-together things. Therefore, even without blocking, the less-pieces-because-they're-bigger idea of the windstorm plywood covering is stronger than the smaller-multiple-pieces-connected-together idea of the non-windstorm plywood. What is the "gable end hinge point"? Is that the top of the gable? And what is the "bottom chord"? What is a top chord? Is this the underside of the roof? Let's go through some pictures:
Basic Truss Just need to look at the top-most picture on the right side here. A Truss is one-triangle-piece of a roof support system.Bottom chord is the base of the triangle. Top chord is either one of the two top-sides of the triangle. Examine the blow-up of the overhang. Understand that the "butt cut" is the part of the roof-truss that is exposed to the exterior wall-side, but not covered by the truss's top chord.
Gable End Frame I believe a "gable" is a bunch of trusses all together to form a roof. As shown in this picture.Notice how the wind is hitting the flat-face of the end-truss of the gable. This is the gable end frame. The same wind direction is used in the following pictures:
Gable End Hinge Point We're now looking at the side of the gable... that's why we no longer see the triangle shape.Notice here that the wind is bending the structure where the gable meets the base structure (roof meets top of wall.) Notice how this gable has it's own sheathing and the base structure has it's own. This separation is causing most of the gable end hinge point problem. Now with a single piece of sheathing going from bottom of base structure to top of gable:
No More Gable End Hinge Point Here, the wind's force is distributed across the entire face of the windstorm sheathing. (The picture doesn't clarify this very well at all - in fact, it makes it seem like it isn't... but it really is - that's just physics.)The roof and wall system are now "connected" and the hinge point disappears. How do plywood sheets that extend all the way up to the roof eliminate the need for hurricane clips or at least something to fasten the roof to the top plate? Do these longer plywood sheets somehow get attached to the roof? However it is done, how does it prevent "lift and roll over"? How would it "prevent lift" since this whole junction between plywood sheath and roof is covered by the soffit? I think these questions go back to the first picture again. Remember the "butt cut?" If the butt cut is not covered by plywood, or covered with it's own plywood and not connected to the wall - because the wall-plywood was not large enough - this would make "lift" a difficult problem. It would only be single-point hurricane clips holding the roof to the wall structure. Now, add in windstorm sheathing that goes from the bottom of the wall structure up to the top chord of the roof truss - covering the entire butt cut as well.This, again like the flimsy-back-piece of the Ikea shelves, adds much more structure and many more connection points between the wall structure and the roof structure. "Lift force" from the wind still exists - this will always exist as long as the overhang exists.However, going from single-point-connection hurricane clips to mutliple-point-and-single-large-piece windstorm sheathing connections is such a huge gain is structural stability that it reduces it so much some claim it to be "eliminated." The soffit isn't structural... it doesn't add in to this in any significant way. Any lift force generated because of wind and the overhang (regardless of it going on the soffit or not) will be transferred to the structural connection of the hurricane clips or the windstorm sheathing. The roof will want to come off all together ("rolling") this puts strain on the connection between roof-and-wall/base.
If there are no or fewer stud to plate connectors and floor to floor connector straps, doesn't that just mean using more nails? I'm still not getting how it's possible to ever eliminate hardware. Are nails not considered hardware? I think this is more of a laymans vs. expert terminology thing.I really don't know, because I'm very much a layman here as well. My guess is that nails are technically "hardware" in the sense that you will find them in the hardware section of any hardware store.However... they are considered so much fundamental hardware that they are sometimes not included when discussing "using hardware" especially when the context is around using other-connection-things that are not nails/screws/bolts... like hurricane clips or plate-connectors or straps or anything else like that. So I think this is a definitional/contextual confusion issue more than anything else. Maybe if you're talking about "getting nails" you can say you're getting hardware for the job.However, if you're talking about all-the-other-connection-types... and you mention dealing with "the hardware" you would be referring to everything-that-connects-stuff but not really including the nails (because nails are so fundamental and obviously required). Is wall air leakage a significant contributor to exerting destructive force on a structure during high winds? This one... I'm really not sure.Maybe? Or maybe something else entirely like R-Value of the wall in general (nothing to do with hurricanes or winds?). As far as high winds are concerned... my initial thought is that gaps/seams would help (assuming all other structure aspects are equalized somehow)... because wind blowing through something causes a lot less force than wind getting trapped by something. That why I think this might have something to do with non-hurricane-winds benefits. But maybe it's touching on the idea of more-seams = more-little-pieces-connected-together-instead-of-solid-one-piece-things... which would also imply that the structure is weaker against wind forces (more joints = more possible bending/weakening locations).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025