Climate-change alarmism runs into a reality check

Houston Chronicle ^ | Jan. 8, 2008 | ROBERT L. BRADLEY

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[OldNavyVet]

Some time back I looked into Texas holding every human since the species appeared. The area for each person was something like 60 square feet.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

I wish people would stop posting these negative global warming/climate change articles.

My carbon credit business is going in the toilet!!!

I have formerly believed my CC business was recession proof. I guess I’ll invest in fuel oil futures.

[Alberta's Child]

Here's a re-post of the same message I posted on another thread this morning . . .

This exact subject came up in a conference I attended a while back about "climate change" and its impact on infrastructure planning and design.

One of the sessions included a presentation by a climate change "expert" who suggested that one of the impacts of "climate change" that would need to be addressed by government agencies, civil engineers, etc. is the increased frequency and intensity of storms. He made the unfortunate* mistake of using the legendary 1992 nor'easter in the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions as an example of the kind of storms in major population centers that would occur more frequently -- and with more intensity -- in the future.

He pointed out that the 1992 storm was a 50-year event -- i.e., that storms of that intensity and with that kind of destructive capacity typically occur every 50 years in the Northeastern U.S. He then said that a storm of this magnitude would likely occur more frequently as greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere and climate change continues.

* I use the term "unfortunate" here because he happened to select -- through sheer coincidence -- a storm that I was very familiar with. During the question/answer session I pointed out to him that the 1992 storm was an event of historic proportions in coastal areas for a number of reasons:

1. The conditions associated with what would otherwise have been a "normal" major storm in the Northeast were worsened by the fact that the peak storm surge occurred during high tide.

2. The storm occurred during a period of the month when tides were unusually high -- because the moon was in its full phase just as the storm hit.

3. The high tides in the second week of December 1992 were extraordinarily high even for "full moon" high tides -- because there was a total lunar eclipse during the full moon phase in December 1992 (i.e., the gravitational forces on the earth that cause tides were at their peak because the sun and moon were exactly opposite each other relative to the earth).

I gently suggested to this "expert" that he might want to extend his research into other areas that he hadn't previously considered -- unless he wanted to be on the record as suggesting that "climate change" is also going to cause high tides to occur at more frequent intervals, the changes in lunar cycles to accelerate, and total eclipses of the moon to occur more frequently.

[Colvin]

Here is my calculation.

268,581 square miles.
1 square mile equals 640 acres.
43,560 square feet per acre.
Therefore there are (268581*640*43560)
7,487,608,550,400 square feet in texas.
Divided by 6700,000,000 (aprox 6.7 billion) is 1117.55 feet per person.

Please check, I am NO math wiz.

[AFreeBird]

If you decide that the avarge house would contain 4 people, and a house is on a 5000 square foot lot, you could fit every one on earth in Texas and a bit of Oklahoma.

Man, the morning commute would be a *itch.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Interesting. Population density just below 25,000/sq mile. As compared to NY City at 27,000/sq mile (per wikipedia)

[Colvin]

Telecommute!
Order on Line,
Pump the sewage south, and the drain the water from the north.
No, I wouldn't want to live like that either.