My Republican family always advised me that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” or “a stitch in time saves nine”, never “if you ignore the problem it will go away”. Conservative is truly a misnomer for today’s Republicans.
@SUPERPOSITION. . . . It’s not a problem if you are powerful and wealthy. The rich will have their estates and the rest will be confined to resettlement camps.
Very good, climate change deniers have their head in their sand-bags. If you aren’t going to take care of the root cause of the problem, you’ll need more and more sand bags.
Let’s be clear: the creation of individual storms do not prove global warming. They are always dependent on many conditions. And at this time, there is no clear, unambiguous sign that there is a significant increase in the strength and number of hurricanes.
Arguing that any hurricane is proof of global warming is at the same level of nonsense as those who argue that their cold winter (maybe due to a “polar vortex” event) is proof that GW is fake. Don’t do it. It isn’t proof and the deniers love it when you do that. Stop making them happy!
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
The average number of named storms from 1968 thru 2016 was 12, the average number of hurricanes about 6, and 2 major hurricanes per year. At this point (With Maria about to wallop the leeward islands), the count is 13, 7, and 4. (Harvey, Irma, “Lost his way” José & Maria)
In May, the National Hurricane Center predicted an above-normal 2017 Atlantic hurricane season – with two to four storms Category 3 or stronger.
They were able to do that because they based that forecast on the a number of factors, including above-normal ocean surface temperatures. And this is not an El Niño year.
The proof of global warming is not in any hurricane, but in the actual global warming heating of the atmosphere and the oceans.
Oh, and btw, the republican administration is trying to hide data from you if it refers to climate change. See the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center:
The deniers don’t want you to see this data. It might educate you.
Paleoclimatologists will tell you that our Cat 5 hurricanes are actually quite mild compared to the “good old days” before mankind’s rise. They cite evidence of “hypercanes” in ages past. Just because the climate has been ideal for a little over a century does not mean that is the norm for this interglacial period. We finally shook off the last of the Little Ice Age just a century ago.
Is our climate changing? YES! Constantly! Can we somehow reverse it? I don’t bloody think so. We’re only little creatures, after all. How would we do this? To begin with we must take down our cities and farms and replace them with the forests of yore. When mankind found this hemisphere about 15k years ago (maybe longer), a squirrel could have traveled from Maine to Mississippi without ever having to touch the ground. And we’ll have to kill off most of our population to reduce the need for the farms and cities and other resources. Who will decide who lives and who is killed? Who is allowed to bear children and who must be spayed or neutered at birth? We’ll have to blow up the dams and let the natural cycles of rain and evaporation and water flow to the seas resume. No more hydro power. We’ll have to rely on nuclear power plants as they do not emit carbon in any form. No more airplanes, no more highways, no more heat in the winter or a/c in the summer from CO2 producing sources.
Doesn’t sound very nice, does it?
When Al Gore gives up his jets and limousines and mansions, when Babs Streisand restores her Malibu beach estate to its natural conditions and plants her own subsistence garden which she works with her own hands, we’ll talk. No more personal automobiles. Go Amish. Madonna can walk to work from her three bedroom dwelling and back home in the evening to cook for her children with her own two hands. When climate alarmists and global warming whiners actually start to live their own lives as if there is a problem, I may rethink the situation. Until then? No.
Um…no. We can support everyone at current OECD standards of living or better by using currently available technologies and intensive closed loop farming methods. Most of the forests can grow back and cities càn become more compact and liveable. In return we get a better lifestyle and a green and growing planet for us and every other lifeform on earth.
^What a load of BS! Funny thing, the “little creatures” are the ones who decimated those primal forests. The “little creatures” are the ones who drained the Aral Sea. And so on.
As for the rest of your screed, it is even more BS. Drain the dams? Not bloody likely — unless the climate has altered enough that they no longer get enough water to store and are useless.
France currently gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. The US? 20%. New reactor designs could be used to up that number. Some of them are even good at consuming spent fuel, reducing nuclear waste.
Coal and gas provide about 66% of US electricity. Increase our nuclear use to 75% and then we only use gas and coal for 11%. Less with more wind and solar.
Not burning our oil for fuel in the way we do now would be a good thing so in the future we might have it for useful purposes — like plastics. People disdain the use of electric cars, but they are getting better. And while the power to charge them is usually generated elsewhere, people forget that the reason gasoline is efficient is because much energy has been expended in taking crude oil and turning it into gasoline.
Aircraft will still be around, but they will be more efficient. And perhaps hybrids.
Population reduction would be nice, but with warming, it may come from starvation, as some of our food crops will not respond well to the increased heat. But maybe the Southeast US will be able to grow rice in the wetter climate there.
Basically, all your screed is crap. And you call others alarmist?
Thanks for the effort, Baslim. I am getting so tired of dealing with those who have no science and no judgement but an amazing amount of ignorant cherry-picking to support an unsupportable, politically based “science” policy. But maybe that hypothesis of the lethal nature of technological intelligence for a species as an explanation for the Fermi paradox is true. We carry the seeds of our own destruction in our ability to change the world but not to control those changes in our favor.
Those cherries are getting harder to pick, less and less of them due to man-made pollutants released into our air and water. Forests will never grow back if you keep clear cutting them. Wonder how much of the Amazon will be left after they mine all the gold out of it? They can use the wide road they cut through it to destroy the rain forest from the inside and out. We could deal with our population through infrastructure, but let’s take a look at the last infrastructure bills.
Shovel-ready jobs that were blocked because the president was black, or tax-cuts to the rich. Which will provide us with the available technologies to reduce our carbon footprint and relieve some of the toxins we are spewing into our atmosphere?
superposition over 6 years ago
My Republican family always advised me that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” or “a stitch in time saves nine”, never “if you ignore the problem it will go away”. Conservative is truly a misnomer for today’s Republicans.
jvo over 6 years ago
@SUPERPOSITION. . . . It’s not a problem if you are powerful and wealthy. The rich will have their estates and the rest will be confined to resettlement camps.
jvo over 6 years ago
@HERRWEH. . .and will be underwater soon after. Sell during the window. :)
Radish the wordsmith over 6 years ago
Trumpee says, Destroy the government climate data and support coal!
Mr. Blawt over 6 years ago
Very good, climate change deniers have their head in their sand-bags. If you aren’t going to take care of the root cause of the problem, you’ll need more and more sand bags.
Strawberry Hellcat: Gair I gall, ffon I’r anghall over 6 years ago
“Maria…I just heard of the latest Category 3 hurricane named Maria…”
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 6 years ago
Let’s be clear: the creation of individual storms do not prove global warming. They are always dependent on many conditions. And at this time, there is no clear, unambiguous sign that there is a significant increase in the strength and number of hurricanes.
Arguing that any hurricane is proof of global warming is at the same level of nonsense as those who argue that their cold winter (maybe due to a “polar vortex” event) is proof that GW is fake. Don’t do it. It isn’t proof and the deniers love it when you do that. Stop making them happy!
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
The average number of named storms from 1968 thru 2016 was 12, the average number of hurricanes about 6, and 2 major hurricanes per year. At this point (With Maria about to wallop the leeward islands), the count is 13, 7, and 4. (Harvey, Irma, “Lost his way” José & Maria)
In May, the National Hurricane Center predicted an above-normal 2017 Atlantic hurricane season – with two to four storms Category 3 or stronger.
They were able to do that because they based that forecast on the a number of factors, including above-normal ocean surface temperatures. And this is not an El Niño year.
The proof of global warming is not in any hurricane, but in the actual global warming heating of the atmosphere and the oceans.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 6 years ago
Oh, and btw, the republican administration is trying to hide data from you if it refers to climate change. See the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center:
The deniers don’t want you to see this data. It might educate you.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
hawgowar over 6 years ago
Paleoclimatologists will tell you that our Cat 5 hurricanes are actually quite mild compared to the “good old days” before mankind’s rise. They cite evidence of “hypercanes” in ages past. Just because the climate has been ideal for a little over a century does not mean that is the norm for this interglacial period. We finally shook off the last of the Little Ice Age just a century ago.
Is our climate changing? YES! Constantly! Can we somehow reverse it? I don’t bloody think so. We’re only little creatures, after all. How would we do this? To begin with we must take down our cities and farms and replace them with the forests of yore. When mankind found this hemisphere about 15k years ago (maybe longer), a squirrel could have traveled from Maine to Mississippi without ever having to touch the ground. And we’ll have to kill off most of our population to reduce the need for the farms and cities and other resources. Who will decide who lives and who is killed? Who is allowed to bear children and who must be spayed or neutered at birth? We’ll have to blow up the dams and let the natural cycles of rain and evaporation and water flow to the seas resume. No more hydro power. We’ll have to rely on nuclear power plants as they do not emit carbon in any form. No more airplanes, no more highways, no more heat in the winter or a/c in the summer from CO2 producing sources.
Doesn’t sound very nice, does it?
When Al Gore gives up his jets and limousines and mansions, when Babs Streisand restores her Malibu beach estate to its natural conditions and plants her own subsistence garden which she works with her own hands, we’ll talk. No more personal automobiles. Go Amish. Madonna can walk to work from her three bedroom dwelling and back home in the evening to cook for her children with her own two hands. When climate alarmists and global warming whiners actually start to live their own lives as if there is a problem, I may rethink the situation. Until then? No.
jvo over 6 years ago
Um…no. We can support everyone at current OECD standards of living or better by using currently available technologies and intensive closed loop farming methods. Most of the forests can grow back and cities càn become more compact and liveable. In return we get a better lifestyle and a green and growing planet for us and every other lifeform on earth.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 6 years ago
^What a load of BS! Funny thing, the “little creatures” are the ones who decimated those primal forests. The “little creatures” are the ones who drained the Aral Sea. And so on.
As for the rest of your screed, it is even more BS. Drain the dams? Not bloody likely — unless the climate has altered enough that they no longer get enough water to store and are useless.
France currently gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. The US? 20%. New reactor designs could be used to up that number. Some of them are even good at consuming spent fuel, reducing nuclear waste.
Coal and gas provide about 66% of US electricity. Increase our nuclear use to 75% and then we only use gas and coal for 11%. Less with more wind and solar.
Not burning our oil for fuel in the way we do now would be a good thing so in the future we might have it for useful purposes — like plastics. People disdain the use of electric cars, but they are getting better. And while the power to charge them is usually generated elsewhere, people forget that the reason gasoline is efficient is because much energy has been expended in taking crude oil and turning it into gasoline.
Aircraft will still be around, but they will be more efficient. And perhaps hybrids.
Population reduction would be nice, but with warming, it may come from starvation, as some of our food crops will not respond well to the increased heat. But maybe the Southeast US will be able to grow rice in the wetter climate there.
Basically, all your screed is crap. And you call others alarmist?
martens over 6 years ago
Thanks for the effort, Baslim. I am getting so tired of dealing with those who have no science and no judgement but an amazing amount of ignorant cherry-picking to support an unsupportable, politically based “science” policy. But maybe that hypothesis of the lethal nature of technological intelligence for a species as an explanation for the Fermi paradox is true. We carry the seeds of our own destruction in our ability to change the world but not to control those changes in our favor.
Mr. Blawt over 6 years ago
Those cherries are getting harder to pick, less and less of them due to man-made pollutants released into our air and water. Forests will never grow back if you keep clear cutting them. Wonder how much of the Amazon will be left after they mine all the gold out of it? They can use the wide road they cut through it to destroy the rain forest from the inside and out. We could deal with our population through infrastructure, but let’s take a look at the last infrastructure bills.
Shovel-ready jobs that were blocked because the president was black, or tax-cuts to the rich. Which will provide us with the available technologies to reduce our carbon footprint and relieve some of the toxins we are spewing into our atmosphere?