Zone of Fire in Curym?

[-]

I'm talking about the level of evidence in favour of a negative

But there cannot be a "level of evidence in favour of a negative." A negative is the absence of evidence; if there's any evidence involved, it's the evidence inherent in a positively identifiable state of affairs whose composition seems to rule out the presence of a certain thing.

So, the statement "Darth Maul does not live and work at a Tim Horton's Doughnuts in Sarnia, Ontario," would be based on his absence from the lives, records, and general observed existence of the good employees of Sarnia's Tim Horton's outlets. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- Darth Maul could have just been hiding really, really well that whole time, or maybe he was just on coffee break every time people could have looked for him, or maybe he can use The Force to cloud people's minds. His literal existence in Sarnia's Tim Horton's is, in the strictest sense, non-disprovable.

Second, it seems to me that Ahribar has already covered the question of in what sense fictions are "false" quite well. The statement "false" applies to fictions only insofar as they can be compared with evidential conditions in our shared reality. The statement is meaningless as regards fictional realities, where we suspend our workaday standards of belief (or disbelief) in order to be entertained. AFAICS you're simply repeating this point in an unnecessarily complicated format.

[zompist]

To answer the original question... ils is right; the rivers are too hot to offer any real relief.

I set the length of the day somewhere, but I can't find the figure...

As for the Zone of Fire... I understand the feeling that it's unmotivated, but you're not seeing it in context. Which I also understand, because I haven't provided one yet. Much weirder things can work well in a fantasy story, if they're done right. Tim Powers comes to mind here-- some of his ideas would sound absurd if you heard them in a summary; but they're brought alive through the intensity and consistency of his writing.

[Salmoneus]

And as far as I can see, you're just repeating the same objections to an argument I'm not putting forward.

Stop conflating proof and evidence. Not finding Darth Maul is evidence of his not being there. It isn't proof, and it doesn't support a proof, but it is evidence, and it does support a belief.

How can a story be false? Something is false as it relates to our reality? Stories cannot be false because they make no comment on our reality - they comment on their reality. [though bringing "realities" into it makes in more complicated - that is what I was trying to simplify before].

As for the rest, I would reply in more detail, but its 2:37 in the morning and even I must sleep.

But please, if you don't understand what I'm saying, don't just guess. Read it through. there's no point repeating the same arguments, or trying to convince me that I'm saying the same thing - I know I'm not.

[Shinali Sishi]

The point was not that the statements before each story were true or false, but rather that given those assumptions about all worlds the stories were false.
If I had stated that tinsel does sing, with the same lack of constraints, then the story would have been true.
Basically I'm saying the argument (story) is valid or invalid only based on what evidence is given in the statement.
If I had said "In the real world tinsel does not sing" then there is no truth or falsehood to the story.

Also, the beliefs I stated were my beliefs not your beliefs. If I had said "Dazi believes..." it would have been more clear, but just as accurate.

A set...
Dragons do not exist.
There is a dragon.

Now, two things can be inferred from this set...
1)the set is inconsistent, or;
2)The dragon is present but does not exist (which gets really existential -_-;)

Basically, it is a shorter and neater path to say a and b contradict each other than to explain the existentialism of dragons. This is the path I have chosen.

What if I said...
Gravity makes things fall towards the ground.
I fell towards the ground.
______
Gravity exists.

Now compare that to...
No one has seen a dragon.
Anything that has not been seen does not exist.
_________
Dragons do not exist.

Both of these rely only on perceptions. Both are theories and cannot yet be wholly proven or disproven, yet I can still draw these conclusions.
How is the existence of gravity any different than the existence of dragons?

[-]

Stop conflating proof and evidence. Not finding Darth Maul is evidence of his not being there. It isn't proof, and it doesn't support a proof, but it is evidence, and it does support a belief.

Perhaps we part ways on the definition of "evidence" -- I tend to be something of a positivist here. OTOH it's true that the frequency of a negative, of the absence of evidence for a thing, determines the degree of influence it has on our beliefs (eg. it's not impressive to not find Darth Maul once, but to not find him 100,000 times is something else). If I'm correct that this is what you're getting at, then we agree.

How can a story be false? Something is false as it relates to our reality? Stories cannot be false because they make no comment on our reality - they comment on their reality.

I don't see how that general a statement can be supported. To refine my earlier point, certain elements of stories are generally evaluated on the terms of the story's internal textual dynamics, and that's fine. In that context I quite agree with you.

But that doesn't mean that fictions can't or don't aspire to support certain statements of fact about our own reality. Put more precisely, fictions can be constructed within a textual tradition to encourage the bulk of readers to see them in a certain relationship to their own shared "literal" reality. In fact, a huge number of fictions are constructed, and read, specifically as arguments about, commentaries on or allegories to situations in our world -- such was at least partly the origin of the modern novel in English -- and there's nothing wrong with evaluating them in that context. (In fact, your example about the story featuring a person named "Dazi" seems to me to concede the very thing you want to deny, e.g. that fictions exist and are evaluated relationally, in some way, to the world outside the fiction.)

But please, if you don't understand what I'm saying, don't just guess. Read it through.

Oi... let's please not make it into an intellectual dick-measuring contest, dude. There's nothing more dreary. It wasn't my intent to condescend to you or to seem like I was ignoring or dismissing your further comments, and I apologize if that's how my comment came across.

All I'm saying is that you seem to be hung up on certain semantics, and that those hangups seem to be preventing you from seeing the similarities underpinning what you're saying and what Ahribar was saying. For instance, the underpinning assumption of your example about a story where tinsel sings is that you apply different standards of belief to tinsel-in-w, which you (for the sake of argument) believe cannot sing, and to tinself-in-s, which you believe can sing within the context of the story. This is not different, AFAICS, from what has been outlined previously as "suspension of disbelief" -- the difficulty appears lie in definition of that term, which you seem to be assuming involves importing a tension between belief and non-belief into interpretation of a fiction.

[Guest]

To answer the original question... ils is right; the rivers are too hot to offer any real relief.

OK, makes sense.

I set the length of the day somewhere, but I can't find the figure...

As for the Zone of Fire... I understand the feeling that it's unmotivated,

I don't have any problem with it being "unmotivated", but its implications about the Almean climate all seem to contradict the "Its climate and ecology are similar to Earth's" statement at the top of the Drilldown: Planet page

As far as I can see, if you want the Zone free of rain clouds without also scorching the neighbouring areas like Nan and Bekkai (and without creating strong trans-equatorial monsoon winds at least to the north of Belesao and in the Kraitise Sea!), then Almea?s axial tilt has to be far smaller than Earth's... but that'd mean that Almea has virtually no seasons at all, and the Historical Atlas, the Count of Years etc. all seem to suggest that at least Erel?e has distinct seasons.

Later,

Oerjan

[Oerjan]

OK, makes sense.

!"#?!?$1"#$?!

No, "Anonymous" didn't - I did For some reason I seem to get logged out from the board whenever I hit "preview"...

/Oerjan

[-]

As far as I can see, if you want the Zone free of rain clouds without also scorching the neighbouring areas like Nan and Bekkai

Another speculation occurs to me -- could it be that the Zone's effects don't extend to creating true desert at the equator? The Drilldown isn't really specific on this, but my mental image of the Zone has always been that of a sauna writ vast, almost constantly shrouded in searing mist and overcast as the heated rock evaporates precipitation from overhead.

As for trans-equatorial monsoon winds, I don't see why those would pose a problem for what we know thus far of Almea's ecology -- not enough of a problem to have to start messing with the planet's axial tilt, anyway...

[Aidan]

As far as I can see, if you want the Zone free of rain clouds without also scorching the neighbouring areas like Nan and Bekkai

Another speculation occurs to me -- could it be that the Zone's effects don't extend to creating true desert at the equator? The Drilldown isn't really specific on this, but my mental image of the Zone has always been that of a sauna writ vast, almost constantly shrouded in searing mist and overcast as the heated rock evaporates precipitation from overhead.

I would prefer to think of the Zone like that, because otherwise Oerjan's right that it's hard to reconcile the other parts of the climate.

I would note that this sauna-model of the Zone doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a desert. A desert is defined as having an average per year rainfall of less 10cm (or something close to that). It could be completely shrouded in clouds, with fog lowering to the ground at certain times of day, and then lifting up again, and still have little or nor true preciptitation.

A (little) bit like west-coast deserts on Earth: the Namib and Peruvian deserts, for example, have daily morning fogs, but little to no precipitation.

The precipitation could be vaporized by the heated air just above the ground, and so it never actually hit.

Also deserts tend to get very cold at night, precisely because there is so little water in the air, and so few clouds. If the Zone was completely arid, it's temperature should drop at night when solar input ceases. And I'm under the impression that this is not in fact the case.

Though perpetual clouds would sort of contradict the statement "devoid of . . . shade."

[vec]

I want to point out that the driest regions on earth are not the equator, but some hundred km away, because of some winds and stuff. It does not seem to be so on Almea, though I don't know, since there are no temperature maps on the website.

[jburke]

I always thought that was the least realistic aspect of the conworld. Other than that, it's a pretty well made conworld.

Who says realism should the appropriate measure here? The Zone has a lot of dramatic potiental.

[ils incognito]

I want to point out that the driest regions on earth are not the equator, but some hundred km away, because of some winds and stuff. It does not seem to be so on Almea, though I don't know, since there are no temperature maps on the website.

Earth's desert belts are produced by a number of factors, including rainshadow, altitude, and the interaction between high- and low-pressure cells in the atmosphere. They extend as far north as 50 deg latitude in some places if I'm not mistaken. Yes, I'd expect Almea's atmospheric patterns would probably differ from our own.

[ils incognito]

I would note that this sauna-model of the Zone doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a desert.

Yes, good point. I guess what I was getting at is that it wouldn't match our traditional image of a desert as a sun-seared wasteland (even the Namib and the Atacama would be closer to that traditional image than I what I think of in connection with the Zone). And perhaps that's a traditional image for Almeans as well -- it's possible that Mark's original reference to shade derived from a Verdurian scholar who hadn't actually seen the Zone, and rendered it in terms familiar to him as desert imagery.

OTOH, maybe we're all wrong...

[zompist]

Well, I'll have to abandon any claim to be able to fool the climatologists.

A (little) bit like west-coast deserts on Earth: the Namib and Peruvian deserts, for example, have daily morning fogs, but little to no precipitation.

Unfortunately they're not good models for what I want with the Zone. Lima, for instance, is arid but not at all hot.

Also deserts tend to get very cold at night, precisely because there is so little water in the air, and so few clouds. If the Zone was completely arid, it's temperature should drop at night when solar input ceases. And I'm under the impression that this is not in fact the case.

I have to admit that I didn't think much about the Zone at night.

I can fall back on magic if necessary, but it'd be nice to do as much of the work as possible with natural means. Even gods like to work with nature rather than against it.

[Aidan]

Well, I'll have to abandon any claim to be able to fool the climatologists.

A (little) bit like west-coast deserts on Earth: the Namib and Peruvian deserts, for example, have daily morning fogs, but little to no precipitation.

Unfortunately they're not good models for what I want with the Zone. Lima, for instance, is arid but not at all hot.

Oh, yes, absolutely. I was only using them as an example of deserts with, at least periodically, very humid air. They're definitely not good all-around models for the ZoF.

[con quesa]

Maybe the atmosphere above the zone is so hot, that any clouds that reach it dissipate (something like the opposite of supersaturation- the hotter air would be able to hold more water vapor than the air outside the zone, so the vapor wouldn't condense onto particles and make clouds).

Also deserts tend to get very cold at night, precisely because there is so little water in the air, and so few clouds. If the Zone was completely arid, it's temperature should drop at night when solar input ceases. And I'm under the impression that this is not in fact the case.

Perhaps the hot rocks radiate heat into the air, keeping it hot even at night.

[Aidan]

Maybe the atmosphere above the zone is so hot, that any clouds that reach it dissipate (something like the opposite of supersaturation- the hotter air would be able to hold more water vapor than the air outside the zone, so the vapor wouldn't condense onto particles and make clouds).

Hot air at the equtor is going to rise, and as it rises, it's going to expand because it's under less pressure from the air above it, and as it expands the same amount of energy is going to be spread over a larger volume. Result: less energy per unit volume, i.e. it's colder. Then the water condenses.

I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting, though.

If you could somehow get subsidence (sinking air) at the equator, subsiding air is hotter and dryer when it gets to the surface, then when it went up. But I can't think of any good way to create a band of subsidence at the equator.

Pedantic point:

Hot air doesn't "hold more water". If it did, then adding more air to a volume should increase the amount of water vapor that can be "held", because there's more air to hold it. It doesn't, because the air is completely irrelevant.

The saturation vapor pressure of water goes up as temperature increases, because the evaporation rate goes up with T, but the condesation rate doesn't, it's dependent only on vapor pressure. So at higher temperatures, the vapor pressure can get higher before it produces condensation rates matching the higher evaporation rates. When vapor pressure is high enough to do so, there is no net change in vapor pressure, and the pressure state is saturated. Other gasses never come into the picture.

Also deserts tend to get very cold at night, precisely because there is so little water in the air, and so few clouds. If the Zone was completely arid, it's temperature should drop at night when solar input ceases. And I'm under the impression that this is not in fact the case.

Perhaps the hot rocks radiate heat into the air, keeping it hot even at night.

It's very doubtful that they could store enough heat to keep up high temperatures all night.

[Oerjan]

Well, I'll have to abandon any claim to be able to fool the climatologists.

From what little climatology I've studied, it seems that you can justify lots of strange things if you look at it hard enough... and that's what I'm trying to do - figure out a way which lets the ZoF pass my "dispension of disbelief" threshold

Another speculation occurs to me -- could it be that the Zone's effects don't extend to creating true desert at the equator? The Drilldown isn't really specific on this, but my mental image of the Zone has always been that of a sauna writ vast, almost constantly shrouded in searing mist and overcast as the heated rock evaporates precipitation from overhead.

But if it is almost constantly overcast and/or shrouded in mist, then most of the sun's heat gets reflected before it reaches the rocks below... and evaporating water uses up LOTS of energy. Without a regular, and massive, energy supply those rocks will cool down quite fast.

(BTW, the reflection of sunlight off clouds is precisely why the highest mean temperatures on Earth are found in the desert belts "ils incognito" - is that you, or someone else with a very similar name? - referred to, rather than along the equator.)

As for trans-equatorial monsoon winds, I don't see why those would pose a problem for what we know thus far of Almea's ecology --

The Drilldown: Planet page says:

"The Zone is not much less formidable at sea; the 250-km torrid zone is impassible by rowing or oaring, and the wind typically dies down to less than 10 km/h, forbidding sail transport at almost all times."

If there are trans-equatorial monsoons, then the winds don't die down like this and sail transport across the equator would be relatively easy during at least half the year in the monsoon areas - and seeds etc. would also be relative well able to cross the ZoF by drifting.

HOWEVER... unless I'm badly mistaken (which I probably am ) the main area for these monsoons would be north of Belesao, with minor effects in the Nan-Bekkai area, east of Kereminth and possibly in the Zei Kraitise north of Haibalai.

The weak Nan-Bekkai monsoons explain the existence of the Bekkai states, no Erela?ans sail east of Kereminth, and the Kebreni seem to be doing their best to keep the Verdurians away from the easternmost Belesao shores (from which it'd be possible to continue to Curym); so if the above Drilldown quote is read as "what the Verdurians currently (3480) belive" rather than as "the absolute truth about Almea" I'd find it a lot more believable

***
Now let's see if this post gets registered under my user name, or as "Guest"...

/Oerjan

[ils incognito]

The Drilldown isn't really specific on this, but my mental image of the Zone has always been that of a sauna writ vast, almost constantly shrouded in searing mist and overcast as the heated rock evaporates precipitation from overhead.

But if it is almost constantly overcast and/or shrouded in mist, then most of the sun's heat gets reflected before it reaches the rocks below... and evaporating water uses up LOTS of energy. Without a regular, and massive, energy supply those rocks will cool down quite fast.

The impression I have is that the ZoF is not composed of natural rock as we know it. There seems to be some kind of bizarre emanation or radioactivity going on. Certainly it would have to be able to work independent of solar heat to produce anything like its described effects.

(BTW, the reflection of sunlight off clouds is precisely why the highest mean temperatures on Earth are found in the desert belts "ils incognito" - is that you, or someone else with a very similar name? - referred to, rather than along the equator.)

Yep, that was me ("incognito" is my lazy-assed non-logged-in incarnation). And yeah that sounds right.

As for trans-equatorial monsoon winds, I don't see why those would pose a problem for what we know thus far of Almea's ecology --

The Drilldown: Planet page says:

"The Zone is not much less formidable at sea; the 250-km torrid zone is impassible by rowing or oaring, and the wind typically dies down to less than 10 km/h, forbidding sail transport at almost all times."

If there are trans-equatorial monsoons, then the winds don't die down like this and sail transport across the equator would be relatively easy during at least half the year in the monsoon areas - and seeds etc. would also be relative well able to cross the ZoF by drifting.

Well, the trans-equatorial monsoons IIRC would have been a consequence of having the Zone cloudless. If the Zone is not cloudless then perhaps something like the "doldrum zone" the Drilldown page describes is possible, though more likely it would seem to me there would be a similar intersection of currents at the equator to what our own world experiences. If that more prosaic reality is in fact borne out, it's perfectly plausible to me that the doldrum zone is an Erelaean seafarers' myth invented to explain some other lethal phenomenon within the Zone that sailors don't typically return to describe.

Perhaps more Almean scholarship will shed some light on the question.

[Aidan]

But if it is almost constantly overcast and/or shrouded in mist, then most of the sun's heat gets reflected before it reaches the rocks below... and evaporating water uses up LOTS of energy. Without a regular, and massive, energy supply those rocks will cool down quite fast.

(BTW, the reflection of sunlight off clouds is precisely why the highest mean temperatures on Earth are found in the desert belts "ils incognito" - is that you, or someone else with a very similar name? - referred to, rather than along the equator.)

IIRC, if the clouds are high enough, then they'll trap more radiation (being re-emitted out from Earth), than they will reflect radiation incoming radiation out.

So if there are constant high clouds than they could keep the temperature very high; high enough that water would evaporate at lower altitudes, and rise to the high cloud level before condensing.

This could even explain a comparatively recent and abrupt switch between non-ZoF and ZoF conditions. The equator could have been fairly normal, and a certain point a strong enough cloud cover could built up at a high enough altitude to start a run-away effect.

I'm not sure that would totally work, keeping it stable at the equator, but confined there seems a little sketchy, but it's a fascinating model. We definitely see cases (on all time fframes) where that kind of thing happens, a gradual (or randomly varying) change, once it passes a certain threshold, falls into a self-reinforcing pattern that creates an abrupt change.

Certainly it would have to be able to work independent of solar heat to produce anything like its described effects.

If it's independent of solar heat, then there's no reason for it to be at the equator. Then it definitely takes on magically improbable characteristics, that it just happens to be a coherent band aroound the equator. I think it should be explained in terms solar input if at all possible.

(BTW, the reflection of sunlight off clouds is precisely why the highest mean temperatures on Earth are found in the desert belts "ils incognito" - is that you, or someone else with a very similar name? - referred to, rather than along the equator.)

Yep, that was me ("incognito" is my lazy-assed non-logged-in incarnation). And yeah that sounds right.

As for trans-equatorial monsoon winds, I don't see why those would pose a problem for what we know thus far of Almea's ecology --

The Drilldown: Planet page says:

"The Zone is not much less formidable at sea; the 250-km torrid zone is impassible by rowing or oaring, and the wind typically dies down to less than 10 km/h, forbidding sail transport at almost all times."

If there are trans-equatorial monsoons, then the winds don't die down like this and sail transport across the equator would be relatively easy during at least half the year in the monsoon areas - and seeds etc. would also be relative well able to cross the ZoF by drifting.

Well, the trans-equatorial monsoons IIRC would have been a consequence of having the Zone cloudless. If the Zone is not cloudless then perhaps something like the "doldrum zone" the Drilldown page describes is possible, though more likely it would seem to me there would be a similar intersection of currents at the equator to what our own world experiences. If that more prosaic reality is in fact borne out, it's perfectly plausible to me that the doldrum zone is an Erelaean seafarers' myth invented to explain some other lethal phenomenon within the Zone that sailors don't typically return to describe.

What? If the more prosaic reality, that there's a similar intersection of currents at the equator as we have, than the equator would be a doldrum zone. Right? 'Cause both wind and water are coming from both directions, creating little net push either North or South.

[-]

What? If the more prosaic reality, that there's a similar intersection of currents at the equator as we have, than the equator would be a doldrum zone. Right? 'Cause both wind and water are coming from both directions, creating little net push either North or South.

Ehhh, I was using the term "doldrum" a little sloppily there. What the Drilldown outlines is a region of constant calms, which is not like our doldrums (where calms are only periodic). I should have said "becalmed zone."

[-]

I'm not sure that would totally work, keeping it stable at the equator, but confined there seems a little sketchy, but it's a fascinating model.

The only thing is I think keeping it stable at the equator would be precisely the problem, in that scenario -- how would it work to prevent such a runaway change from having knock-on effects on climates across Almea?

[Aidan]

I'm not sure that would totally work, keeping it stable at the equator, but confined there seems a little sketchy, but it's a fascinating model.

The only thing is I think keeping it stable at the equator would be precisely the problem, in that scenario -- how would it work to prevent such a runaway change from having knock-on effects on climates across Almea?

I don't know. Well, I think it has to have effects across the globe, but the question is it possible for them to be fairly minor and/or in keeping with what's been laid down in other regions.

I can't work through candidate models in enough detail to figure that out with any ease. But it does seem less magical to me than a purely terrestrial cause creating an effect that matched up to latitude so cleanly.

[Oerjan]

"ils incognito" - is that you, or someone else with a very similar name?

Yep, that was me ("incognito" is my lazy-assed non-logged-in incarnation).

OK

The Drilldown: Planet page says:

"The Zone is not much less formidable at sea; the 250-km torrid zone is impassible by rowing or oaring, and the wind typically dies down to less than 10 km/h, forbidding sail transport at almost all times."

If there are trans-equatorial monsoons, then the winds don't die down like this and sail transport across the equator would be relatively easy during at least half the year in the monsoon areas - and seeds etc. would also be relative well able to cross the ZoF by drifting.

Well, the trans-equatorial monsoons IIRC would have been a consequence of having the Zone cloudless. If the Zone is not cloudless then perhaps something like the "doldrum zone" the Drilldown page describes is possible, though more likely it would seem to me there would be a similar intersection of currents at the equator to what our own world experiences.

The similarities to Earth is exactly the problem! The Almean situation north of Belesao looks uncomfortably similar to our world's Indian Ocean where the doldrum zone (aka equatorial convergence zone, aka...) moves in over Asia during the northern hemisphere summer, causing the entire system of winds and currents in the northern Indian Ocean to reverse direction during half the year. While Arc?l isn't nearly as large as Asia (so wouldn't be able to shift the convergence zone nearly as far) it is also much closer to the equator than Asia is (so it doesn't need to shift the convergence zone nearly as far to draw it in over land).

Perhaps more Almean scholarship will shed some light on the question.

Let's hope so

/Oerjan

[Oerjan]

But if it is almost constantly overcast and/or shrouded in mist, then most of the sun's heat gets reflected before it reaches the rocks below... and evaporating water uses up LOTS of energy. Without a regular, and massive, energy supply those rocks will cool down quite fast.

(BTW, the reflection of sunlight off clouds is precisely why the highest mean temperatures on Earth are found in the desert belts "ils incognito" - is that you, or someone else with a very similar name? - referred to, rather than along the equator.)

IIRC, if the clouds are high enough, then they'll trap more radiation (being re-emitted out from Earth), than they will reflect radiation incoming radiation out.

IIRC clouds that are high enough to do this are also too high up to give such a localized effect on the ground as the Zone seems to be - their main contribution seems to be to the overall global warming. This brings us back to the "what keeps Bekkai and Nan inhabitable" problem

Later,

Oerjan