Climate Change Denier Changes His Mind

[printer2]

Prove that it is.


nanny nanny boo boo.

Oh I see this is going to get nasty.

[motoguy128]

For all those who complain about personal automobiles, consider that commercial jet airliners make thousands of times as much pollution as cars, per person per mile, and that takes into account the typical one person per car and sardine-seating on the airliners. I have no basis to argue about climate change causes, but I know something about what pollutes more and less. There are of course many more cars than aircraft, but the planes are still a much bigger 'problem', if indeed the pollution is a problem. Air travel has gotten so cheap that people use it today, who would never have afforded it in the decade past but would have loaded into the station wagon and drove for 3 days. It's grown tremendously. Rail is better for less pollution per ton hauled, people or freight. nothing's as quick as a plane though and some business relies on fast travel. Business also likes to control things and putting someone on a flight removes the possibility of the employee incurring uncontrolled or unforeseen expense. I like to drive though, and if i have to be in Boston for a 4-day training, I'll take some vacation days and drive it. Lovely scenery, interesting people!

THere's a lot of misinformation abotu mass transit and it's actual effciency. You have to consider average ridership, and the mass of the vehcile compared to it's occupants. Busses and trains have been shown to consume more fuel per passenger mile traveled. Train and busses are incredibly heavy even when empty and fuel consumption does not drop dramatically when unloaded... So they need to be fully loaded to be efficient which they are not most of the time.

Airplanes use jet turbines which are highly efficient in terms of motive force delivered. They have very high compression ratios and operating temperatures. IF you look at the mass of a aircraft and hte number of passenger carried, it's actually not that bad. I don't know the emmissions. Since it's jet-A vs. diesel and exhaust temps are so high, I suspect the particulate is fairly low but nitrogen and sulfur compounds are higher than cars.

However, I'd like to see a link to overall average fuel consumption and emmission per passenger mile of bus, train and car.

Don't forget, moving humans around uses far less fuel that that of freight transport and transportation represents a fairly small portion of total man-made CO2 emmissions.

Oh and for regional travel, high speed rail is much faster than a regional aircraft after you factor in ground movements, ascending, approaches and descending. A turboprop only crusies at around 200mph. A regional jet will be closer to 400mph, but will fly at higher altitudes. High speed rail can also be all electric, taking advantage of a range of energy sources.

[motoguy128]

Can anyone give me feedback on this idea?

We are creating cold pockets all around the globe known as air conditioned buildings....say 1/4 of the globe was completely covered in air conditioned buildings that transfer heat from inside to outside...where does this heat go? To the other 3/4 of the globe that is left...so 3/4 of the globe not only contains the heat it would naturally have but also the heat transferred from the 1/4 that is covered in buildings PLUS the heat caused by the transfer process.

I'm not following what difference a AC building makes vs. one that's not? It's cooling a volume of air that would have normally been hot and discharging that heat. The only NET heat generated is the power consumed by the compressor and the waste heat at the power generation and transmission lines.

Look at it this way, if a smaller city of 20k plus indsutry used 100MW of power, if the city is 4 square miles and 1 mile up, if all the nergy eventually becomes heat (which most of it will) it would heat that volume of air 0.000009F per hour. If that volume could be insulated 100% and sealed off, it would still only raise the temperature 0.7F over a 365day period. Of course in reality, that energy is lost of space and conducts to the surrounding area. An 100MW for that size populat is actually a pretty high energy density. That's 5kwhrs per resident.

[motoguy128]

effect that the change causes?

I'dd add that the bigger problem is that we don't even know for sure what all the vairables are or how significant each one is and whether one vairable is in fact leading or lagging indicator, not a vairable.

That's the problem with relying on statistical data and only using small scale tests to prove it.

If you ever looked at theoretical physics? They have all sorts of data nd mathematical formulas ot prove some pretty wild theories.

That being said, Steven Hawking apparantly is on the GW bandwagon. I would think they he might have looked at the data and determined that there were too many unsolved vairables to draw a conclusion. But OTOH, he also might say that many of the possible conclusions are in fact bad, therefore you might as well assume them to be true. Its' also popular to be for rather than against GW and CC. So He might just enjoy being well regarded. Much of his research and speaking is funded by various universities I assuem that gain funding from liberal government.

[Tool-Slinger]

It sounds like it has to be wrong. I've done the math 4 or 5 times thinking it is wrong. But I can't find an error.

196,935,000/7,030,000,000 = 0.028 sq.mi. per person
1 square mile is 640 acres
0.028 x 640 = 17.92 acres
30% of Earth's surface area is land
.30 x 17.92 = 5.376 acres

I checked the facts this morning. You are indeed correct.

Most of the people are in india/china area, scary to think how densely they must be packed.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Can anyone give me feedback on this idea?

We are creating cold pockets all around the globe known as air conditioned buildings....say 1/4 of the globe was completely covered in air conditioned buildings that transfer heat from inside to outside...where does this heat go? To the other 3/4 of the globe that is left...so 3/4 of the globe not only contains the heat it would naturally have but also the heat transferred from the 1/4 that is covered in buildings PLUS the heat caused by the transfer process.

Wow where did you get that from? You my friend are way off base, no off the planet in that statement. How about a link? This should be interesting.

Land covers only 29% of the earth's surface. The rest is covered by water. You have deserts, mountains, forrests, jungle and vast areas of frozen tundra making up the land mass.

I suspect buildings would make up a lost less than 0.1% of the land mass at best and then by deduction only 0.029% of the surface of the world. Thank you, thank you very much

This is NOT aimed at anyone, rather a comment: To a simple mind, the idea of heat and cold being a zero sum game makes sense. Lots of things make sense to simple minds. However:

When one studies history from an unbiased (and unaltered) viewpoint... one sees this zero sum idea just does not hold as much water as a funnel or a strainer. Does it make sense? No... but then a wise person understands that not everything makes sense.

EXPERIENCE is the key to understanding... not what makes sense or feels good.

[glennac]

I'dd add that the bigger problem is that we don't even know for sure what all the vairables are or how significant each one is and whether one vairable is in fact leading or lagging indicator, not a vairable.

That's the problem with relying on statistical data and only using small scale tests to prove it.

If you ever looked at theoretical physics? They have all sorts of data nd mathematical formulas ot prove some pretty wild theories.

That being said, Steven Hawking apparantly is on the GW bandwagon. I would think they he might have looked at the data and determined that there were too many unsolved vairables to draw a conclusion. But OTOH, he also might say that many of the possible conclusions are in fact bad, therefore you might as well assume them to be true. Its' also popular to be for rather than against GW and CC. So He might just enjoy being well regarded. Much of his research and speaking is funded by various universities I assuem that gain funding from liberal government.

Well moto it appears to be like I said in an earlier post. The man made GW belief is a religion. You have to have faith in the liberal socialist media, "scientists" getting rich grants and Marxist politicians to buy this crap.

Once you have brought it you condemn all those who disbelieve as ignorant hicks who have not seen the light and drank the koolaid of your Marxist masters in the Democratic Party. Thank you, thank you very much

[motoguy128]

Another scary fact, what percentage of land is tillable and in an acceptable climate for growing food or rasing livestock? 10%? So that's an average of 1/2 acre per person. Enough, but that's getting a little scary. And to government want use ot use more corn for fuel? I wonder if that strategy will change with this summer's drought conditions in the growing regions. No way we can spare a large portion of corn for fuel a year from now as corn reserves drindle.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Much of science, especially in the health care end of things, we do not have experiments that we run on people to give them a disease or another but through tests and observation we seem to advance the treatment of people. Considering that they still do not know exactly how Aspirin works you would probably relegate the tiny pill to the realm of a witch doctor.

You still have not said what kind of experiment needs to be done and what needs to be controlled and what manipulated. We do have instrumentation out in space detecting the output of the Sun along with the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. We are measuring surface and ocean temperatures. How do you propose we alter one of the variables to measure the effect that the change causes?

Hmmm, I think I need to take issue with the idea health care is moving forward...

My Dad died of a Coumadin overdose... it was being monitored carefully and 'by the book'... I verified this weekly for years. In short... this wonderful medical system killed my Dad. I did some research on this: the second most common cause of elderly folks dieing is medical screw-ups. Still think medicine is moving forward? Personally, I think medicine is BIG BUSINESS, supported by a corrupt govt, which does not really care about anything other than profits. Trusting the system is not always in one's best interest... PROOF is a better idea IMO.

My statement about repeatable same results stands. Unless the experiment can be repeated with the same results... then there is no real science there... only politics... or maybe more accurately said; hot air from sources who are probably profiting from the viewpoint being projected on the public. To me, believing this pontification without proof is similar to p*ssing into the wind... just a dumb choice which WILL produce results I have to clean up.

[Tool-Slinger]

Another scary fact, what percentage of land is tillable and in an acceptable climate for growing food or rasing livestock? 10%? So that's an average of 1/2 acre per person. Enough, but that's getting a little scary. And to government want use ot use more corn for fuel? I wonder if that strategy will change with this summer's drought conditions in the growing regions. No way we can spare a large portion of corn for fuel a year from now as corn reserves drindle.

I am sorry to have to do this to you too,, but:

Surely your numbers must be wrong. That cannot possibly be right.

LOL!

THAT IS really scary, and the corn angle had skipped my mind!!!!

Somebody should start a new thread on that topic! Population-arable land issue, and possibly another thread on the corn thing as a topic in itself.

Stunning. Frightening also.

[barbar]

I know some who believe in man made climate change and who believe it is a positive not a negative, because the elevation of the tillable area will lift. Increasing the total usable area.
I have no doubt that we are influencing our environment, how ever determining the cause and effect and rate of change, is where the issue lies, as any predictions are only as good as the formula that you use. As this is a complex model, we still do not have a accurate model. That does not mean we should just ignore our climate influences.
What harm can it do to the make the most of the earth resources.
As with war, health etc, there will always be profiteers. Do not let these people cloud the scientific facts.
If climate does turn to shyte or not, i will not be around, but does that mean i should not focus on future.

[Tool-Slinger]

I know some who believe in man made climate change and who believe it is a positive not a negative, because the elevation of the tillable area will lift. Increasing the total usable area.
I have no doubt that we are influencing our environment, how ever determining the cause and effect and rate of change, is where the issue lies, as any predictions are only as good as the formula that you use. As this is a complex model, we still do not have a accurate model. That does not mean we should just ignore our climate influences.
What harm can it do to the make the most of the earth resources.
As with war, health etc, there will always be profiteers. Do not let these people cloud the scientific facts.
If climate does turn to shyte or not, i will not be around, but does that mean i should not focus on future.

Very well said barbar.

We are all the stewards of the earth God has given us and the future we will pass on to those who follow us.

[printer2]

I know some who believe in man made climate change and who believe it is a positive not a negative, because the elevation of the tillable area will lift. Increasing the total usable area.
I have no doubt that we are influencing our environment, how ever determining the cause and effect and rate of change, is where the issue lies, as any predictions are only as good as the formula that you use. As this is a complex model, we still do not have a accurate model. That does not mean we should just ignore our climate influences.
What harm can it do to the make the most of the earth resources.
As with war, health etc, there will always be profiteers. Do not let these people cloud the scientific facts.
If climate does turn to shyte or not, i will not be around, but does that mean i should not focus on future.

One of the things that GW is said to produce is greater variability in weather, extreme events. Most crops like nice boring weather. Also not really sure where we will be getting an increase in usable growing area. Where is the soil going to come from? Say Canada has more of a US styled weather (Our corn crop has gone through the roof as we have your normal weather up here now) and we can grow things further north. There is no soil built up over centuries to take advantage of. With luck we will get dust bowl conditions and have it blown up here but that does not seem practical.