Climate change: is the science really settled?

[Izze]

Originally posted by fastpat
Democracy is mob rule via government.

Yeah, democracy really sucks!

Goddammit, lets get rid of all strange foreigners, left wing gays, communists and environmental and Muslim fundamentalists!

Dammit, i want to see some nukes!

I wish we white middle aged men would be left alone so we could live in harmony with our cars, guns, beer and hot chick posters!

[Chocaholic]

Originally posted by stevej37
I read once that if every person in the world was allowed a 2 by 2 foot square space to occupy, the total area would be roughly the size of Jacksonville, Fl.

Imagine the impact that would have on my Disney stock value. Hmmmm.

[Aurel]

Let`s do the math:

4 sq.ft * 6 Bn people = 24 Bn sq. ft = a square of 4.9 *10^4.5 ft side
= 154 951 ft side = 29.34 miles side

So, the entire world population could fit in a square of roughly 30*30 miles. Amazing !

Aurel

[skipdup]

Originally posted by lendaddy
At the density of Manhattan (67k/sqmi) you could fit every man woman and child in the world inside Texas three times over. Unless I missed something.

Interestingly though the population density of NYC would allow the world to fit perfectly in Texas.

Cool.

[jluetjen]

If global warming really is an issue, and thus the resulting increase in sea levels is a real problem....

...then why...

...are the Florida, California and Georgia governments making the insurance companies roll back their rates for policyholders in low lying, flood-prone coastal areas??? (WSJ, 1/23/2007, Page D1) The next time those regions are flooded out, are they once again expecting the Federal Government to bail them out with loan guarantees and federal aid if their insurance (or the lack there of) doesn't cover their loss???

This was one of the points that I was trying to make earlier. If the world is getting warmer and the oceans rising, then large populations should be discouraged (or at least own the economic costs) of living and building in high-risk areas. To do otherwise is to deny the expected affects of Global Warming -- man-made or otherwise.

[competentone]

Originally posted by Aurel
Competentone, you seem very sure in scientific 'facts'. Are you a college professor, expert in climatology or something of that order?

I'll claim the "something of that order" position for my scientific knowledge.

And just in case you might be confused, science does not rely on argument from any "authority position." Because someone might have letters after his/her name, and you may not, does not automatically make their argument any more valid than yours.

Scientific knowledge is built from observation, experiment and the non-contradictory integration of facts determined from observations and experiments.

The most glaring example of the non-scientific approach of those who are "screaming" about global warming, is their continual use of "authority" and "numbers" in their argument. They argue that CO2 causes global warming because "Dr. so-in-so" says it does and "thousands" of other scientists agree with him. Rarely will they discuss the actual technical details of how this global warming is supposed to be occurring, and when they do, they get the most basic of facts dead wrong.

[island911]

it's what Aurel does when he's got nutt'n.

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by competentone
Rarely will they discuss the actual technical details of how this global warming is supposed to be occurring, and when they do, the get the most basic of facts dead wrong.

Sure, all the researchers and scientists; all the different models; all the different nations involved in the IIPC study are "dead wrong" and personally involved in some weird conspiracy - the purpose of which is unclear - except that it is anti-American.

Yet, all who dismiss the data and studies indicating man's cumulative effect on the climate in the recent industrial past are absolutely correct. Is that even statistically possible ? Amazing distribution of knowledge.

[island911]

No weird conspiracy - it's that they all CHOSE to use the same FAULTY information.

Can I sell ya a HOCKYSTICK?

[JSDSKI]

Sure, (insert sarcastic remark about spelling and typos) I have a couple of Koho's in the garage - love to have some more.

On the other hand, a brief cut and paste from Wikipedia (I know, I know, its another group of silly false data believers) presents this little factoid to dispute the semi-authoritative declarations of competentone -

FROM WIKIPEDIA: "Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30_°C (54_°F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors."

I'm sure it's just some misguided hippies falsifying internet resources again.

[competentone]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
Sure, all the researchers and scientists; all the different models; all the different nations involved in the IIPC study are "dead wrong" and personally involved in some weird conspiracy - the purpose of which is unclear - except that it is anti-American.

Yet, all who dismiss the data and studies indicating man's cumulative effect on the climate in the recent industrial past are absolutely correct. Is that even statistically possible ? Amazing distribution of knowledge.

You are proving my point. You will not discuss the technical details -- the science -- about this supposed "CO2 causing global warming," just more argument about the "large numbers" of people believing something "making it true."

By your logic, the sun must have used to revolve around the earth because at one time nearly all the "educated" men said that was the way it was!

[JSDSKI]

I guess our posts crossed in the night. Read the blurb from Wikipedia - I don't think your post about CO2 is correct.

[hytem]

There is pretty solid evidence now, according to those who should know in the scientific establishment, that global warming in the past century is man-made and has to be curbed if the planet is to survive in its present form.

That a bunch of large American Corporations, including DuPont, have signed on, indicates there is more than a good chance the problem is real and has to be dealt with for survival. That means the politicians will be next to sign on. This isn't a right-left issue. It's a survival issue. So it will be dealt with.

With regards to who is currently polluting the world with carbon emissions, here's the data (source:World Resources Institute, An Inconvenient Truth, A. Gore):

Annual Carbon Emissions (tons) per Person:

U.S. 5.5
Russia 2.8
EU 2.3
Japan 2.3
China 0.5
India 0.2
Africa 0.2

[island911]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
. . .

I'm sure it's just some misguided hippies falsifying internet resources again.

No, it's not misguided hippies falsifying internet resources. The hippies are still toke'n away.

btw, did you know that Al Gore sez smoking is a significant global warmer? --I'm not making this up.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Dottore
No. It means that when faced with the sort of intellectual intransigence evidenced by the following comment - a certain fatigue sets in at my end. A fatigue best relieved by a glass of single-malt, some John Coltrane and perhaps just a hint of ridicule.

Quote

I will "believe" Global Warming is caused by the daily activities of humans as soon as that is proven. Even then, I will oppose any action to stop those activities until it's proven that Global Warming is bad.

Since it's pretty well proven that Global Warming is an over all positive, that isn't likely to occur any time soon.

Unquote

Facts are difficult for you, no doubt. You've amply demonstrated that here and in other threads defending sociofascist control issues.

That's too bad really, science could use another articulate man.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Izze
Yeah, democracy really sucks!

Yes, it does. It allows the tyranny of the minority by the majority. The founding fathers wrote extensively about the dangers of that.

Goddammit, lets get rid of all strange foreigners, left wing gays, communists and environmental and Muslim fundamentalists!

Dammit, i want to see some nukes!

I wish we white middle aged men would be left alone so we could live in harmony with our cars, guns, beer and hot chick posters!

The rest of your post is a non sequitur.

[competentone]

Originally posted by JSDSKI


On the other hand, a brief cut and paste from Wikipedia (I know, I know, its another group of silly false data believers) presents this little factoid to dispute the semi-authoritative declarations of competentone -

FROM WIKIPEDIA: "Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30_°C (54_°F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors."

I'm sure it's just some misguided hippies falsifying internet resources again.

LOL! You think that is some sort of scientific "fact"? All they do is state a conclusion then say that their conclusion is not debatable!

Their conclusion is: Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer

Did they perform an experiment to determine this? Did they fill a chamber with a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere then introduce CO2 or CH4 and measure changes in the insulating properties of the gas mixture? What was their initial CO2 or CH4 levels? What percentage did they increase the CO2 or CH4 levels to? What was the temperatures and densities of the gas mixtures? What frequencies of radiation were used in measuring the insulating or reflective capabilities of the gas? Did the O2 and N2 play any role? How did the introduction of H20, He, dust, or other atmospheric components affect the experiment?

Oh, sorry, I forgot, their conclusion is not open to debate!

[legion]

Originally posted by hytem
That a bunch of large American Corporations, including DuPont, have signed on...

They see great profits in scaring the public into using their products.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
Sure, all the researchers and scientists; all the different models; all the different nations involved in the IIPC study are "dead wrong" and personally involved in some weird conspiracy - the purpose of which is unclear - except that it is anti-American.

First of all, it's not "all" the earth's scientists, or even a majority of them. It's those that support government action to curb the activities of humans that agree. That demonstrates a basic conflict of interests.

Yet, all who dismiss the data and studies indicating man's cumulative effect on the climate in the recent industrial past are absolutely correct. Is that even statistically possible ? Amazing distribution of knowledge.

Your confabulating the wildly differing issues over local industrial effluvia with global climate change.

Those are two different issues. I'm not surprised that you're attempting to obfuscate the differences in them, but please be aware that your tactic isn't working.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by legion
They see great profits in scaring the public into using their products.

And eliminating competition via government regulation, just like the auto industry and many others.