### Trouble With Zeros

Math isn't one of my strong suits. I have a problem with very large numbers. Perhaps you can help me.  The LAND AREA of the world is, according to the almanac, an area of about 57,800,000 square miles. That's length times width. 7600 L x 7600W = 57,760,000 sq. miles.

How many SQUARE FEET is that?   7,600 L x 5280 = 40,128,000 feet.  Multiplied by itself 40.128 million feet by 40.128 million feet = 1,610,000,000,000 square feet.

The ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION is?  About 7,000,000,000 (almanac again). Assuming that each person stands on an area of 2 square feet, the entire population could stand on:

14,000,000,000 square feet.

5280 ft. x 5280 ft.  = 27,878,400 sq. ft. = 1 square mile.  14,000,000,000 square feet divided by 27,878,400 sq. feet =

502 ,000 square miles

502,000 sq. miles divided by 57,800,000 square miles (total land area) = about .00087%

(IF CORRECT) OUR HUMAN POPULATION COULD THEORETICALLY
STAND ON JUST .00087% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA

Questions:

(1) Did I get the math right?

(2) If human beings have such a little footprint on the
earth's land area, and obviously an even smaller footprint
compared to the total world land area, (where 70% or so of
the total world area is water), is it still logical to assume
that human beings total use of resources can actually
affect global warming?

End . . .

Rain said…
Yes, it is logical to think that and the idea of the total land mass ignores the fact that most of it is not usable for man to live upon. Where man can live in concentrated populations is where most of the carbon dioxide is being produced. Forests do the most good for the environment and much of the earth's land can't grow forests. The worry that I hear discussed the most is that of the usable land mass, that more of that might end up lost to oceans' rising. I think man could be a factor in this. Just think about what one factory can put out in a country that doesn't monitor it, but it also could be a natural cycle that will nearly wipe humans from the earth (as many species have had happen before). Add to it the wars over what land remains and you can see how our population could be much reduced. The whole question with global warming could end up moot if say a super volcano went off and that also happens.

The problem with the Kyoto Accord and most of the recent attempts to do something about carbon dioxide is that they don't deal with developing nations and China was putting out a lot of pollution (which I hear is lessening as they find their own air quality being deteriorated so much they have to change).
Greybeard said…
I heard the same thing about China, Rain.
I heard they held some sort of "Big deal" Athletic event there recently and they had to virtually shut down all the industry in Beijing for several days in order to clear the air enough so athletes could breathe.
When the games were over, they went back to business as usual.
They have central planning there...
Control of people is more important than people themselves.
Rain . . Don't you have a sneaking suspicion that many of these green folks have an agenda of some kind that has nothing to do with preserving the planet? I, for one anyway, am convinced that several of the green proponents are flat out frauds. Al Gore quickly comes to mind.

The recent disclosure that his movie "An Inconvienient Truth" simply and purposely lied about the facts that supported his thesis, is weird. His often stated contention "that man made warming endangers the planet" ended the debate isn't true either.

More recently the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia admittedly conspired to "adjusting the facts to fit an agenda". What in the world was THAT all about?

I am convinced by history that the earth undergoes constant changes including temperature changes. If the experts agree that modern technology proves we are on a warming cycle I can accept that without undue panic. The cycle is likely to swing the other way some time in the future.

If human activity is indeed creating chemnicals that are trapped in the atmosphere, and if the result is that more heat radiation from the sun gets through to the earth's surface, then it obviously follows that we should pay attention. At this point I don't believe there is a proven scientific basis for the conjecture.

If it's still a "maybe" why are we listening to Gore and other fear mongers. Let's study and prove the actual impact of the human presence.

There is no question in my mind that we are polluting the atmosphere. When I first arrived in Los Angeles (from Minnesota) I couldn't believe the smog. Eyes teared and itched. You couldn't see down the block. It was awful.

Now pictures of Bejing, Tokyo and other metropolitan areas look just like L.A. used to.
Diligent work by the A.Q.M.D. (Air Quality Management Department)over the years has made a terrific positive improvement. In L.A. (only) but not in Northern Minnesota where there still is no problem.

Interesting don't you think?
Rain said…
I think that most scientific evidence is that man is putting out carbon dioxide which is contributing (at the least) to climate change. What that will mean is more uncertain. It's not really debatable (except by those paid to do fossil fuel positive studies) that it's happening but to know what it means. The logical thing to reduce use of say gasoline is a tax using that to research new energy approaches, but this carbon trade thing seems like a scam to me.

I heard one person say Gore has made his fortune off this but that's not true. He made it off investing early in Google. I have no idea what he has made off these carbon exchange things but to me they make no sense.

The recent climate summit had some nations commiting to paying nations with forests but that are in poor countries that the rest of the world will help them out for not cutting say the Amazon rain forest. To me that makes sense. If the big forests disappear, we may find a very different planet
Ingineer66 said…
They did the same thing for the Olympics in Sarajevo Yugoslavia. They banned private cars in the down town area unless you were a top party member or a VIP. You can do that when you have an iron fist communist rule of a country and there is a soldier with a Kalashnikov on every corner. That won't happen here for at least another 15 to 20 years.
Paul B. said…
Every way I look at it, dividing 14B by 27M yields only 502 sq miles needed for the "standing" population of earth. The land area of the U.S. is 3.8M #m, meaning the world population could stand on one percent of one percent of U.S. land.

Or, going backwards, globally: 57.76M #m of land on earth /7B ppl = .00825 #m/person, or 5.2 acres/person.

### Intellectual / Incompetent / Liberal

We all know that there are serious problems with ou American political system. The federal government and national media have been telling us that we continue to lead the world in just about everything. Unfortunately, we do not. Measuring our status against other nations is difficult as it entails comparison of different attributes and characteristics. Comparisons are, at best, crude.  Surely, if we look, it's clear that America is no longer dominant among the world's communities.

For decades following the 1929 economic depression, America has enriched foreign industries at the expense of our own. We have subsidized foreign military powers while allowing the depletion of our own. We've defended other nations borders while, at the same time, not defended our own. We've spent trillions of dollars to subsidize unworthy governments, and let our own infrastructure to fall into disrepair.

The use of our economic power as a diplomatic tool may have been the correct thing to d…

### Cruel and Thoughtless . . .

A disheartening situation has hit our family. A cousin, one that we don't know very well, has reached 93 years of age. Most of the Chapman family made it to the mid 80's, but Mary Lou Chapman has managed a few years more. And, she's not gone yet. Mary was unmarried her entire life. She grew up in a good home, was well educated, has always hd a good job, and has enjoyed pretty good health - until just a few years ago. While she is still very much alive, I sometimes speak in the past tense as if she had already died. Mary is either confused or in her own little world now. She began losing some of her sparkle a few years ago. At first it was mild memory loss, and then mild hearing loss, and then drifting in her speech as she lost track of what she wanted to say. Her Doctor said it was a mild dementia coming on with old age, and nothing to worry about yet. A few month's passed by before she began to have problems driving herself to the market and appointments and so forth,…

### Mark Turner - Another Look

MARK TURNER.  I'm an interested ex-corporate exec., now retired, and have little to contribute to this. Perhaps you can help? At first I thought Mark's story was so complicated it couldn't be true. I discovered later that  Mark's business may indeed have  generated as much money as he said it did. His story is long and complicated, but regardless of his guilt or innocence, there is definitely  something wrong with the legal process he encountered. Maggie Thornton says his business dealings were honest. I'm not thoroughly convinced, but she may be right.  There is no question that he was improperly sentenced in one court, and deserves an appeal process in another.

I have received several comments from a blogger named "Anonymous". He (or she) has chosen to remain unknown but clearly has an inside track to information about Mark's problems. I have removed my original speculations from this blog and regret there were so many errors. Sorry folks, my fault…