A renowned global-warming scientist says the problem of global warming is much more serious than previously estimated. However, he also hints that there may be no need to fear catastrophic carbon-driven climate upheaval, as mankind will run out fossil fuels much sooner than presently estimated. James Hansen, chief of NASA's …
Lost in Space
"The issue is that when things flooded back then, we moved. Maybe thousands died in the move, but we moved."
They might not say it but the warmenists want to set a point in time as the perfect time for the world and move us back to that time.
Re: Lost in Space
So where would we live? What is currently there and how much would removing it harm our economy?
There are approx. 6.7 billion people in the world.
There is approx. 148 million square kilometers of land.
36,571,596,457 acres works out to be about five acres a person.
Try it another way. Say each person gets 5000 square ft of house space and if you include the thickness of floor and ceilings every one needs 12 ft of height. That is 60,000 cubic ft of living space per person.
That means everyone in the world could live in a five level house that covers the state of Texas.
Now as big as Texas thinks it is it is not very large in comparison to all of everywhere else.
Most "environmental" problems become easy when arithmetic is applied judiciously.
Results of experiment
To those who replied to my comment about the sea level actually dropping - thanks for that. I did the experiment with ice cubes and water last night when I got home from work and you're absolutely right: the water level in the glass does not change because of ice melt.
I performed the experiment with two glasses: one (A) with water + ice cubes, the other (B) with just water as a control. In the time it took for the ice to melt (48 min), the water level in glass A decreased by 0.16 mm, while the water level in glass B decreased by 0.18 mm, measured with a digital 0.01mm resolution vernier gauge.
Conclusions: This discrepancy could be either due to evaporation, since the water in glass B was warmer and therefore would have evaporated slightly faster, or it could also (more likely) be due to errors in measurement. I have no reason to believe the ice melting was the cause of the 0.02 mm discrepancy, since given the volume of ice in glass A, and the volume of ice compared to that of the equivalent mass of water, if this volume difference were a cause, the discrepancy would have been considerably more than 0.02 mm.
Either way, I believe I have just demonstrated, by scientific method, that the ice caps melting will not cause any change in sea level. Note that this does not take into account ice on land (glaciers, mountaintops, Antarctica etc.) If this ice melts, then it will run into the sea. However, given the volume of the sea compared to land, coupled with the small land area actually covered by ice, it is highly unlikely that this would cause a change in sea level of more than a few centimetres at most. As I'm not a scientist, I could not give an exact figure on this, but I certainly don't believe the hype about coastal cities being drowned by rising sea levels.
So there you go. Global flooding as a result of global warming is bullshit.
Do you know how thick the ice is on Greenland? That's the largest island on the planet, excepting Antartica. And antartica, how thick do you think the ice is there?
That's a lot of feet.
Squoosh that over the sea area and that's still going to be lots of feet.
Hmmm. How much of that land is inhabitable? How much is used for farming? How much for resources thereon? How much for infrastructure (roads etc)?
How much of that is flat enough to make building houses affordably?
We're using up most of the land we can use. We can fragment but where are the millions of londoners going? Half way up Snowdon???
I recently saw a documentary on the Apollo 13 rescue (not the movie); the fact that they were able to pull off something like that remains one of the great achievements of 20th century science. NASA may have had its bureaucratic screw-ups but it employs top talent in its science departments. It's not for nothing that "rocket scientist" is a synonym for someone able to do hard science.
It's plain ludicrous that people are asserting Hansen left out obvious things or is purely engaged in political spin. Read some of his papers at www.giss.nasa.gov and see for yourself. I am not a climate scientist and prefer to verify things myself; what I have been able to check out looks good. See for example http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2008/04/climate-science-predictive-power.html