TMPHBITEU
Podcast #50: RPE and AGW Theology
Ask Rip #50 | Starting Strength Channel
Nothing controversial here.
Member
Member
I enjoy when it goes outside of just strength training. I have watched all these videos, been to the seminars, and follow SS. It is nice to see Mark's opinions on other topics. To be honest, SS helped me analyze many different aspect of life, esp politics. Thinking critically , with no agenda, and common sense with weed out a lot of crap. I dont see why people get upset with these discussions, as humans all we do everyday is take in information, ignorance is not bliss, listen to opposing sides even if you don't agree. Also, many questions outside strength training can help people with their training, like not being concerned with mass hysteria and just trainOriginally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
remember Y2K. In addition, many of the strength questions beating dead horses. We need a 'Ask Mark' political questions. I have one, Nationalism vs Globalism.....
Member
I'm sorry. You know a helluva lot about training. But when it comes to the subject of the green house effect, I have to claim that you are clearly misinformed. I will continue to listen to your training advice instead.
Member
Question about RPE:
What if, for a novice, RPE drops off steeply?
For instance, what if on a lift I am progressing normally, then when I make the next jump and I go back for some reason I feel like I have at least 3 or 4 reps left after the last set, and rest times drop dramatically? Could this be a cue that I could increase the weight a bit more next time?
It seems that RPE errors slant towards overestimation in novices, is there a danger in underestimating it given the other signals we have in our workout?
Member
I've recently taken up an interest in climate science, after listening to some of Randall Carlson's ideas on the Joe Rogan podcast, and am looking forward to reading his 6 part redemption of the beast series.
Still just scratching the surface, but I found potholer54's videos to be quite excellent (look up his youtube channel, he has a 36 video playlist on climate science). He has strong powers of investigation, and traces back hysterical claims to their source, and, like Rip advocates, is far more interested in data and quality of science, rather than consensus.
His take downs of Steven Crowder's blog posts are absolute gold.
Rip, a point you made about C02 levels vs temperature showing no correlation over a long period of time. I'm guessing you're referring to the graph that shows data over the last half billion years. My understanding is that when you factor out the effect of solar radiative forcing, the correlation between C02 and temperature reveals itself.
Member
rip, is the wall poster to which you referred available online? in a text/reference book? was curious since i have never a climate change timeline drawn in geologic-time scale....usually they only go back a couple hundred years
excellent discussion on the RPE - really put that one to bed
thanks!
TMPHBITEU
Clearly. After all, I am not part of the consensus.
Why would just sticking with the program be less than efficient? We know that x works as an incremental increase for many months. We know this because tens of thousands of people have successfully done it. It doesn't matter how it feels -- if you take a bigger-than-x jump, you will get stuck. You are of course free to get stuck. Be my guest.
The chart on the wall I referred to starts at 4.6 billion years.
Member
Yea, I'm pretty sure it's the same one.
It's true that when you look at the graph showing C02 and temp over this period (4.6 billion years), there's no evident relationship.
It's also true that when you look at a graph showing the relationship between solar radiation and temp over the last half billion years, there's also no evident relationship.
At first glance, this might suggest that neither solar radiation nor C02 drive temperature.
But the fascinating thing is that when you plot temperature vs the two factors combined (i.e. solar radiation plus C02), you get an excellent correlation, as discovered by Dana Royer over a decade ago. You can see this for yourself in this paper (see Fig 2 in full text here).
Of course, this particular data, alone, doesn't prove that C02 drives temperature. For one thing, I don't think the temporal resolution is sufficient to say whether there is a lag between the two, and if so, which lags which. But the correlation certainly appears real.
Member
You folk go to a strength training seminar and talk about climate change, bizarre! Anyway what is the misinformation about the "greenhouse effect" anyway?
I learned about the greenhouse effect when I was in primary school way back in the 1950's, we used to grow stuff in a glass greenhouse because plants use Co2 and it use to get warm in the greenhouse but plants grew, Co2 is plant food, we were also told about the carbon cycle without which we would all die.
As a matter of fact many folk down here have been caught using the greenhouse effect to grow Mexican tomatoes inside the roof space of their house, it is a dead giveaway when you see the light circuit with a 20 amp fuse in it and the Kwh meter not spinning. Ha!
If you have any global warming leftover up there you could send some down here it is freezing and not conducive to good training.
Posting Permissions
