lonewolf wrote:97% Sounds like a third-world election result..and about as valid. Almost makes me smug about being in the elite 3%.
As Yogi Berra wisely said, "You can observe a lot by just looking."
I have been looking for a long time and made some observations. I am not spouting industry mantra nor do I follow the logic that Big Oil somehow profits by buying into the carbon credit scam, which defies reason that shuffling paper credits can influence world climate..
Nor do I understand the disdain for fossil fuel which made possible the Industrial Revolution and the internal combustion engine we putter around in today. Oil companies, fortunately, make a lot of money because it takes a lot of money to find more oil/gas.What people overlook is the risk and that the ROI is among the lowest in any industry.
Forty years ago, conventional wisdom Chicken Littles were bemoaning the coming Ice Age. Did not happen, did it? Short term aberrations of weather mean nothing. I have repeatedly acknowledged that Earth has been warming, without man's influence, for 15,000 years and will continue to do so until it doesn't.
If use of fossil fuels could grant the totalitarian statist more cash they would be all for more fossil fuels. But alas they have already tapped out that tax avenue and are looking for fresh meat and new scams to work. .. hence carbon credits!
By the time the climate starts to cool again the totalitarian high priesthood will be selling us ice to warm our coffee.
Even if global warming has not been human-influenced, if it's potentially harmful to life on our planet, don't we have a responsibility to engage in behavior that does influence the climate in a positive way? Perhaps we can and should do this, regardless of what may be responsible for the current situation. If we saw a large meteor or other celestial body headed for the earth on a collision course with us in a hundred years, wouldn't we try to intercept and deflect it? Why shouldn't we treat global warming as a similar threat? To me, who or what is causing global warming is almost irrelevant. If we think we can reverse it or slow it down, we probably should be working on that.
Looked at in that way, and taking the blame factor out of it, we may find it easier to modify our individual, corporate, and governmental behavior.
tandfman wrote:Even if global warming has not been human-influenced, if it's potentially harmful to life on our planet, don't we have a responsibility to engage in behavior that does influence the climate in a positive way?
That's been my argument all along: regardless of man's contribution to Global Warming (which IS a scientific fact; it's measurable), CO2 emissions DO exacerbate the effect, and we ARE polluting the earth at an alarming rate, so why not do something about it now?
Marlow wrote:CO2 emissions DO exacerbate the effect
But by how much? Enough to worry about?
According to 'most' of the most recent studies, yes. Equating it back to the "pee in the backyard pool" analogy, if one kids pees, not a big deal, when the adults do it regularly, yeah, that's a problem, even if the water hasn't turned yellow yet.
"Indian disaster teams have begun a relief operation after Cyclone Phailin crashed into eastern areas, forcing up to one million people to flee. Officials are assessing the damage and providing food to hundreds of thousands who spent the night in shelters. The cyclone wrecked many coastal homes, uprooted trees and blocked roads in Andhra Pradesh and Orissa states. Five deaths have so far been linked to the cyclone, far fewer than were initially feared. In 1999 a cyclone killed more than 10,000 people in Orissa. But the authorities said they were better prepared this time. The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Berhampur, Orissa, says the authorities made massive effort to get the message out to people, many of whom were reluctant to leave their homes. He says their efforts appear to have paid off....But officials were confident that a massive loss of life had been avoided. "We were preparing for a super cyclone, but Phailin did not turn into a super cyclone," disaster official Tripti Parule told the AFP news agency. He said the evacuation was the biggest in India's history for such an event."
The last time a major hurricane hit Jamaica, only a couple of people died in a country of nearly three million. Like India, Jamaica have mastered the best way of minimising casualties against hurricanes and cyclones.
India has successfully evacuated a million people from a hurricane/cyclone zone. There are lessons here for so-called First World countries who have had difficulty minimising death tolls during a hurricane strike. The United States could learn a lot from countries like India and Jamaica in this regard. India do evacuations better than the Americans do, and Jamaicans are better at turning off public services that can kill during these storms, such as electricity, than Americans. As a result, the death tolls in countries such as India and Jamaica are much lower when hurricanes/cyclones strike than the US.
Yes, the US hardly gets hit by these superstorms, when compared to the Caribbean and South Asia, but it also stands to reason that the US would be well-advised to call in experts from countries such as India and Jamaica, because they have handled these storms much better than the Americans have, due to this experience. However, there is still this First World prejudice against countries who have dark-skinned people, because there's a reluctance to believe that they can actually master their responses to something like hurricanes and cyclones better than the most powerful country in the world....
I think the problem with many folks in the way of a hurricane in the U.S. is that they rely on their modern buildings and transportation too much. "My buildings will hold up or I can get the hell out in time." In developing countries where houses are fragile and transportation spotty governments can get a mass exodus to work. Once those countries get a sizeable middle class look for them to be as stubborn as we are in the face of disaster.
Daisy wrote:I suspect we're already beyond the point of no return. The key now is can we adapt? What will the new carrying capacity of the Earth be? Not much room for optimism here.
Adapt or drown. Most of Florida will be underwater in 100 years at this new accelerated rate. Wyoming and Montana and the Dakotas looking pretty sweet right now. Tropical Canada? Sarah Palin sun-bathing on her Bridge to No-Where?
In fact, this kind of fluctuation isn't unexpected. Whenever you have a system in equilibrium and perturb it one way (think a spring or a pendulum), it tends to swing back the other way almost as much.
Right now is the first time our school district has called off three consecutive days since 1978, when the "Cleveland Superbomb" set a record for lowest non-tropical atmospheric pressure ever recorded in the mainland United States. (We had two weeks off back then and had to call out the National Guard.)
Our temperatures went from 30 to -15 in less than 48 hours and then it's supposed to go back up to 40+ with rain on Saturday. This kind of temperature yo-yo doesn't happen very often when you've got the Great Lakes sitting nearby.
Madison (and elsewhere) was closed for a second day -- yesterday it was technically not cold enough for closure (above the threshold) but today it was clearly not going to be that close; it was warmer and less windy. On the other hand, my model 2000 car will not start (may be now that it has warmed 20 degrees and is above 0  I will give it another try).
On the weather versus warming thing it is incredible that people think that since the global temperature is one degree warmer that very cold weather will not occur. Without global warming, maybe our low of -20 would have been -21...