AG
for nine years old you've got quite a vocabulary.
Good for you!
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
When I say global climate, and any changes happening to it, cannot be "experienced" by personal observation in one's own home, I mean that no one can possibly see all the varied climatic conditions around the globe and how they change over time. We must rely on information gleaned from a variety of sources.
Our local climates are naturally affected by wider regional and global climatic conditions, so we should expect that a significant change in global climate will result in local changes--greater in some places, negligible in others. Of course we can experience those changes.
When I posited that global warming might affect snowpacks and reduce river flows in your area, you said that that was "local climate". Now you say that worldwide temperature rise IS "global climate". You also say that sea level rise on the Oregon coast is global climate, but why is it not just local climate, as sea levels don't matter in Afghanistan, Austria, Bolivia, Uganda, Kansas, and thousands of other places far from the coast?
My opinion is that global climate is the conglomeration of all local climates and noticeable changes in global conditions will cause variations in regional climatic conditions that people everywhere will experience.
To answer your question, because global climate includes all of what you mentioned. If global rise (global climate) in temperature causes our snowpack to melt, yes, that would be something experienced locally.
So I'll ask again, if global climate cannot be experienced locally, how would one go about experiencing it any other way? From my experience, a person can only experience climate at the local level. It is impossible to experience the entire global climate, all at once. So I'm curious, how would one go about experiencing global climate on a global scale?
Is it because global climate cannot be experienced at all? If that's the case, global climate CHANGE cannot be experienced, wouldn't you agree? And if something cannot be experienced, it's probably not something to be worried about.
I will suppose your last paragraph is your answer, which I agree with. I think it's probably a way of saying, yes, global climate is experienced locally. Just worded differently to help bail out Fester.
Further elucidation:
I have repeatedly said that there will be (varied) local manifestations of global climate change. So why do you constant attribute "global climate cannot be experienced locally" to me?
It seems obvious that no one can see what is happening to all the different environments around the entire planet solely from personal observation of their own neighborhood.
Again, I am not "supporting" or "bailing out" Fester. If you have issues with or questions for him, address them to him.
I have. But his response was pretty typical. I asked him if global climate cannot be experienced locally can global climate CHANGE be experienced locally. He didn't have an answer and instead said it was a stupid question. Given the topic of conversation is climate change it seemed like a pretty relevant question.
The only reason we are discussing it is because you responded to my comments to Fester. So did Elroch. It seems pretty obvious the only way to experience global climate, or climate change, is locally. Afterall, the only way local climate exists is because of global climate. There are no places on earth where it's 300 degrees, or minus 300 degrees. (not counting things like volcanoes of course) All local climate falls under the limitations of global climate. So I decided to ask the internet anyway. The internet insists climate and climate change can only be experienced locally, despite Festers assertion that it "cannot".
I would ask him to type in the same question into whatever search engine he uses and compare the results. But I have a feeling that the question, the answer, the internet, and anything else he can think of are all "stupid".
That title is reserved for you and everything you write.
Bask in the glory. You've earned it.
Elroch wrote:
I'm not sure he realises what an amazing story he has presented.
It’s all true. And I still dream of a day when I can use ‘supercilious’ in a conversation without it sounding like a bad fit.
Also, are nine year olds really that bad?
Not bad. Just not usually erudite nor literate as you.
Festers-bester wrote:
Not bad. Just not usually erudite nor literate.
I’m not sure how to respond to that.
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
AG120502 wrote:
Festers-bester wrote:
Not bad. Just not usually erudite nor literate.
I’m not sure how to respond to that.
Let's just say I suspect your user name is your date of birth.
Festers-bester wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
Festers-bester wrote:
Not bad. Just not usually erudite nor literate.
I’m not sure how to respond to that.
Let's just say I suspect your user name is your date of birth.
I thought we all talked about that. I am a fourth grader. A nine year old fourth grader.
You are furtunate your school teaches the Stanley-Milgram experiment in elementary school. In the lower grades no less.
Festers-bester wrote:
You are fortunate your school teaches the Stanley-Milgram experiment in elementary school. In the lower grades no less.
My school doesn’t do that. My dad just tells me to learn about specific subjects. He never gives me homework or tests on them, but he does observe me very closely. Just told me to learn how to deal with people after an incident in kindergarten.
My school will probably not teach that. Mainly because we just won’t be able to absorb the information. Then there’s the issue of parents alleging that the school is taking away the morals of the kids.
The total land mass of Earth is just under 200 million square miles. That's 40 people in every square mile if it were all liveable. It's not. There are only 24 million square miles of habitable land. That equates to 320 people per square mile. That's crowded by any measure.
Thankfully, a large number are crowded into cities and away from me.
22 days ago
0
#31175
Festers-bester wrote:
The total land mass of Earth is just under 200 million square miles. That's 40 people in every square mile if it were all liveable. It's not. There are only 24 million square miles of habitable land. That equates to 320 people per square mile. That's crowded by any measure.
Thankfully, a large number are crowded into cities and away from me.
Area of earth is just under 200 million square miles.
But about 139 million square miles of that is ocean.
So the land mass is about 57 million square miles.
About half of that is habitable and yes that works out to over 300 people per square mile.
That works out to over 80,000 square feet per person.
Sounds like a lot? Its about 2 acres.
----------------
So by a kind of coincidence - it seems each person would average a square of land about 300 feet on a side - about the same as the population density.
One and a half football fields.
----------------------
Regarding 'arable land' versus habitable land - not so easy to find out how 'arable' land is defined.
For example many if not most big cities were agricultural areas at one time.
But supposedly of the 28 million square miles of inhabitable land only about 5 million is used for agriculture now.
Could that be right?
----------------------
It would mean that about half an acre could sustain one person all year around?
Would suggest that 20 square feet could produce one meal per year.
Plausible?
To make a pun its 'fishy'.
Because the figures don't include the oceans producing fish as part of sustaining 8 billion people.
22 days ago
0
#31176
AG120502 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
I'm not sure he realises what an amazing story he has presented.
It’s all true. And I still dream of a day when I can use ‘supercilious’ in a conversation without it sounding like a bad fit.
Also, are nine year olds really that bad?
Hi AG.
Get to use 'supercillious' in a conversation?
That reminds me of 'gargantuan' in Kill Bill.
Regarding as to whether its believable or not that you're 9 years old -
I would say 'Yes with a reason'.
The reason is that fifty years ago you being 9 years old would have been much much less belilevable - because there was no internet.
But now its much more believable when both the internet and internet AI are factored in.
----------------------------------------
The opportunities for one to educate onseself through the net nowadays are enormous.
Its somewhat double-edged though because of the internet used for things like to spread flat-earthism.
But if you have some very basic school education plus your parents are looking out for you - then you're getting a lot of protection from things like flat-earthism and from various forms of rejections of things like rejections of news facts and rejection of science.
And that also puts you in a position to protect yourself from disinfo.
Including realizing that AI is often wrong but that doesn't mean its useless though (some try to claim that)
-------------------------------
In other words the pre-internet generations do try to protect their kids from disinformation and misinformation on the net. Some of them do.
But what about geocentric parents? Could work the other way.
Maybe try to keep their kids out of school? Go to geocentric websites?
So the pre-net generations are double-edged too. So many things are.
playerafar wrote:
Festers-bester wrote:
The total land mass of Earth is just under 200 million square miles. That's 40 people in every square mile if it were all liveable. It's not. There are only 24 million square miles of habitable land. That equates to 320 people per square mile. That's crowded by any measure.
Thankfully, a large number are crowded into cities and away from me.
Area of earth is just under 200 million square miles.
But about 139 million square miles of that is ocean.
So the land mass is about 57 million square miles.
About half of that is habitable and yes that works out to over 300 people per square mile.
That works out to over 80,000 square feet per person.
Sounds like a lot? Its about 2 acres.
----------------
So by a kind of coincidence - it seems each person would average a square of land about 300 feet on a side - about the same as the population density.
One and a half football fields.
----------------------
Regarding 'arable land' versus habitable land - not so easy to find out how 'arable' land is defined.
For example many if not most big cities were agricultural areas at one time.
But supposedly of the 28 million square miles of inhabitable land only about 5 million is used for agriculture now.
Could that be right?
----------------------
It would mean that about half an acre could sustain one person all year around?
Would suggest that 20 square feet could produce one meal per year.
Plausible?
To make a pun its 'fishy'.
Because the figures don't include the oceans producing fish as part of sustaining 8 billion people.
It also doesn't include animals that do not necessarily live on arable land yet provide food.
Billions if chickens, for example, are raised in buildings.
Globally, approximately 75 billion chickens are killed for meat each year. In the United States alone, around 9.5 billion chickens are slaughtered annually. This staggering number translates to roughly 206 million chickens killed every day.
AG120502 wrote:
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
22 days ago
0
#31179
lfPatriotGames wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
IPG - do you really believe that or is that some kind of gambit?
Are you saying that the Vietnam war couldn't be experienced in Oregon and that therefore it shouldn't have been worried about?
On this one - I think you're 'having us on'.
This isn't the 'common ground' you were talking about earlier.
Maybe your way of talking back to 'f'? (since he appears to insist that rejection of climate science is about education and intelligence)
-----------------
I think its about trust.
First - about rejection of climate news to set up rejection of climate science.
22 days ago
0
#31180
Regarding the current US heat wave being expected to break records - that's already started now.
"Minneapolis, Minnesota: On Saturday, June 21, Minneapolis broke its old record that stood for more than 100 years when the actual temperature hit 96 degrees Fahrenheit (35.5 degrees Celsius). The previous record for that date was 95°F (35°C) set in 1910.
Mitchell, South Dakota: Temperatures soared to 104 degrees Fahrenheit, breaking its old record of 101 degrees set in 1988.
Chicago, Illinois: Chicago set a new highest minimum temperature for a June 21, with a low of 78°F (25.6°C). The previous record was 74°F (23.3°C) in 1923.
Denver, Colorado: Tied its record high of 99 degrees Fahrenheit on Friday."
--------
the worst one there is probably the low in Chicago.
A high 'low' can be extra nasty. As in 'deaths' nasty.
Many will just brush this all off: 'hey its just july temperatures in june. no big deal.'
More records probably broken in the coming week.
Point: the forecast of record-breaking from several days back is proving to be accurate.
Just saw this:
"Central U.S.: Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Iowa, and parts of Colorado are already experiencing major heat impacts, with temperatures soaring into the triple digits"
But that's expected to spread east.
Plus its the lows (staying hot at night in other words) that are even more of a threat.
Can this be 'viewed' globally by a global audience?
---------------------
Yes. So in that sense it can be 'experienced'. News. TV. Internet. And so on.
But some might react with
'No! Its only the region the person is in that that can be 'experienced locally' !'
In other words those rejecting climate and climate science might or will concentrate on their own locality only.
If their own region is not hit hard then they can say 'Its fine here!'
And on other regions they can reply 'what about them? Hey they'll adapt!'
And those who reject climate science who are in the hard-hit regions can say:
'hey this was going to happen anyway - carbon burning has nothing to do with it - that's a scam!'
and those stances might continue year in year out decade in decade out even as manmade climate change continues to get worse and worse.
In other words the worse it gets then the more powerful that those that don't agree might get.
'you can't get us to think your way.'