|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2005 01:30:56 PM · #26 |
Hurricanes travel in warm weather and increase its strength over very warm water. Do you have very warm water? Do you sweat in over 100 degree weather? The northern part of the US doesnt experience these storms because our climate is different. so are you saying that only the people in the south are destroying the country? This has got to be the dumbest post, next to starting this thread.
Dircted to the starter of the original thread...... Bible pushers always seem to be able to translate everything that happens in the world. They'll always be this way, cant change them.
Originally posted by DanSig:
this is nothing like a "natural" disaster, there's nothing natural about it, these increasingly stronger hurricanes and more frequent has nothing to do with nature, its man made.... not directly but indirectly, these hurricanes, the Asian tsunamis, and other weather related disasters are because of polution caused by man, and the USA refuses to take part in the Kyoto agreement on decreasing polution, so you just keep poluting more and you get more weather anomiles, here up north we hardly polute at all, all our energy is clean, no polution from powerplants, even our buses are being replaced by hydrogen powered buses, and we have only normal weather all year round, no disasters, mega storms, floods, drout, tsunamis, or anything related to polution changing the weather.
so clean up your country and air, and these storms will slowly disapear, stop thinking about a quick profit and start thinking long term, like most of the world ! |
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 01:38:49 PM · #27 |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:03:17 PM · #28 |
I first must say: I have family in Lousiana that was struck hard but not fatally to this hurricane disaster as well as a good friend of mine attending Miami U was also struck hard.
With all that in mind, and the fact I am NOT Asocial (that I know of) hurricanes hit the coast - this is nature. I would feel sorry for those who lived in Oklahoma and were killed by Tsunami or Hurricane but not Coastal areas. Is this not common sense or perhaps the best example of the American "Ivory Tower" syndrome? I do not live in a trailer among Tornado alley and complain my house was swept away by twister.... I do not scream "my house was split in two by the earthquake! help" As I peer over the California coast and TECTONIC plates....
I dunno, I just think people should understand, THIS STUFF happens. I do have sympathy and have contributed quite well that I can - I just think people should feel sorrow and then swallow.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:10:41 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't think anyone can decisively claim that hurricanes are stronger than ever |
Quoting The Economist, lead story in the Science and Technology section, edition Sept 17 - 23 (which refers to an article in this week's Science journal):
"[There was] a doubling around the world of the proportion of storms in the most destructive categories (4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale usually employed by the metereologists). And although the exact rise in that proportion varied from basin to basin, all of them saw a significant increase."
Basically, there's not been a direct correlation established yet by warmer surface temperatures of the world's oceans and the number of hurricanes that take place. But there has been a verifiable observation that the number of SEVERE hurricanes has increased globally.
So yeah, hurricanes may not be stronger than ever, but the rate of incidence of REALLY STRONG hurricanes has increased in recent years.
In terms of biblical readings and natural disasters...
I'd say it's hypocritical of people who do take a literal reading of ANY part of the bible to NOT apply the same practice when it comes to natural disasters.
If one believes in an omnipotent and omniscient God, then why not be consistent and believe that "natural" disasters happen because of God's will? In a world where something omnipotent and omniscient is in control, nothing is up to chance, or to nature. Rewards and punishments, good and bad things...they all occur because of HIS will. Yes?
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:12:01 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
...and while it is true that our government pulled out of the Kyoto Accord (which I don't udnerstand at all and consider indefensible)... |
The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab. |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:14:34 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...and while it is true that our government pulled out of the Kyoto Accord (which I don't udnerstand at all and consider indefensible)... |
The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab. |
Actually, the US is the world's biggest consumer of energy and as a consequence, its worst polluter. By sheer volume, by ratio of population versus pollution caused, by any calculation means available to man today, this is a FACT.
Quote: The United States, with the world's largest economy, remains the world's largest single source of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions. Current projections indicate that U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, which is released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned, will reach 5,985 million metric tons in 2005, an increase of 1,083 million metric tons from the 4,902 million metric tons emitted in 1990, and around one-fourth of total world energy-related carbon emissions.
(source: //www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html)
Consumption - United States vs. World (1998)
U.S. -- World -- U.S. Total
Oil -- 18.92 million barrels/day -- 73.6 million barrels/day -- 40 %
Natural Gas -- 21.34 tcf/year -- 82.2 tcf/year -- 23 %
Coal -- 1.04 billion tons/year -- 5.01 billion tons/year -- 23 %
(source: //energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html)
Personally, I find it astounding that the US, with 295,734,134 people (4.59 percent of the global population) consumes nearly a quarter of its natural gas and coal globally/yearly, and more than 40 percent of the amount of oil consumed globally/yearly.
So by rejecting the Kyoto protocol, the US, the globe's worst polluter, exempts itself from the consequences of polluting. Sounds like what a sole superpower can do, really.
PS I'm an American. And I firmly believe that I'm being patriotic by exercising the right to critically examine my own government's, and by extension my own society's, actions.
Message edited by author 2005-09-22 14:32:26.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:30:20 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...and while it is true that our government pulled out of the Kyoto Accord (which I don't udnerstand at all and consider indefensible)... |
The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab. |
Actually, the US is the world's biggest consumer of energy and as a consequence, its worst polluter. By sheer volume, by ratio of population versus pollution caused, by any calculation means available to man today, this is a FACT. |
Whether it is or not is irrelevant. If the goal is to stop pollution, then the restrictions should/would be applied equally (or proportionally, if you like) to all. If a corporation has the choice of building a plant in the US under repressive restrictions vs. building a plant in China and being exempt from those restrictions, where do you suppose the plant will be built? Not applying the standards unilaterally simply moves the problem from the US (where there are already more restrictions than most of the developing world) to countries where, often, the inhabitants have little power to do anything about it. |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:35:48 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by rgo:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...and while it is true that our government pulled out of the Kyoto Accord (which I don't udnerstand at all and consider indefensible)... |
The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab. |
Actually, the US is the world's biggest consumer of energy and as a consequence, its worst polluter. By sheer volume, by ratio of population versus pollution caused, by any calculation means available to man today, this is a FACT. |
Whether it is or not is irrelevant. If the goal is to stop pollution, then the restrictions should/would be applied equally (or proportionally, if you like) to all. If a corporation has the choice of building a plant in the US under repressive restrictions vs. building a plant in China and being exempt from those restrictions, where do you suppose the plant will be built? Not applying the standards unilaterally simply moves the problem from the US (where there are already more restrictions than most of the developing world) to countries where, often, the inhabitants have little power to do anything about it. |
It IS, but you're right in that it is IRRELEVANT, as corporations, including and LED BY those owned by American shareholders, have started the trend of building factories abroad years ago. You see, corporations can still operate sweatshops and practice virtual-slavery labor activities outside the US. And we call that "economic development."
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:37:46 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by rgo:
PS I'm an American. And I firmly believe that I'm being patriotic by exercising the right to critically examine my own government's, and by extension my own society's, actions. |
Uh, who mentioned anything about where you're from, your patriotism, or your rights?
Also, FWIW, you're math's bad. The percentage on the oil consumption is around 25%, not 40%. |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:37:57 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by rgo:
So yeah, hurricanes may not be stronger than ever, but the rate of incidence of REALLY STRONG hurricanes has increased in recent years. |
I'd like to see some data to back this up. I don't doubt it, I'd just like to see proof because the data on the Cat 5 storms in the Atlantic does not support that statement.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:39:18 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by rgo:
It IS, but you're right in that it is IRRELEVANT, as corporations, including and LED BY those owned by American shareholders, have started the trend of building factories abroad years ago. You see, corporations can still operate sweatshops and practice virtual-slavery labor activities outside the US. And we call that "economic development." |
So you agree that the Kyoto accord is flawed and not worth signing. Thanks. :) |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:40:06 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by rgo:
So yeah, hurricanes may not be stronger than ever, but the rate of incidence of REALLY STRONG hurricanes has increased in recent years. |
I'd like to see some data to back this up. I don't doubt it, I'd just like to see proof because the data on the Cat 5 storms in the Atlantic does not support that statement. |
The Economist, referring to an article in this week's Science. I believe it's available in many news-stands in the US.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:43:47 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by rgo:
It IS, but you're right in that it is IRRELEVANT, as corporations, including and LED BY those owned by American shareholders, have started the trend of building factories abroad years ago. You see, corporations can still operate sweatshops and practice virtual-slavery labor activities outside the US. And we call that "economic development." |
So you agree that the Kyoto accord is flawed and not worth signing. Thanks. :) |
Kyoto is flawed, but so is the logic that by pointing out Kyoto's flaws, it is enough to defend against criticisms of America (once again, the world's biggest polluter, and NOT China or India or any other beating horse you might care to mention). Let's face it...Should the world comes up with a fair environmental protocol, America would be hard pressed to maintain its economic dominance. We're the big kid around the block, who sees no reason to see other kids gain size at the expense of our own, even if doing so would yield a fairer neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:46:57 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by rgo:
PS I'm an American. And I firmly believe that I'm being patriotic by exercising the right to critically examine my own government's, and by extension my own society's, actions. |
Uh, who mentioned anything about where you're from, your patriotism, or your rights?
Also, FWIW, you're math's bad. The percentage on the oil consumption is around 25%, not 40%. |
That's what's called a pre-emptive strike. And on the math thing...well, I think exagerration and twisting of figures have been a hallmark of American governance, both corporate and public. It's a good thing you checked. Caught me red-handed. Wow.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 03:02:11 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by rgo:
So yeah, hurricanes may not be stronger than ever, but the rate of incidence of REALLY STRONG hurricanes has increased in recent years. |
I'd like to see some data to back this up. I don't doubt it, I'd just like to see proof because the data on the Cat 5 storms in the Atlantic does not support that statement. |
The Economist, referring to an article in this week's Science. I believe it's available in many news-stands in the US. |
Do they back up that claim with data in the magazine, or do they just state it?
"In got we trust, everyone else bring data"
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 03:06:24 PM · #41 |
Science is the peer-reviewed journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and is generally considered the "gold-standard" for scientific publication in the US.
Not to say that they (or anyone) can't make a mistake, but it is generally considered one of the best-researched and accurate sources of scientific information available. |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 03:16:40 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab. |
Since when are China, India and Eastern Europe the worst polluters? There is only one reason the U.S. did not sign the treaty, because the present U.S. administration considers it bad for business to do so. Period. End of story.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 03:17:02 PM · #43 |
Some interesting links I've found the past few minutes if you're interested in data and studies and other things scientific...
//www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2484.htm
//www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8245668/
//www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
From that wikipedia link... "A common question is whether global warming can or will cause more frequent or more fierce tropical cyclones. So far, virtually all climatologists seem to agree that a single storm, or even a single season, cannot clearly be attributed to a single cause such as global warming or natural variation [5]. The question is thus whether a statistical trend in frequency or strength of cyclones exists. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says in their Hurricane FAQ that "it is highly unlikely that global warming has (or will) contribute to a drastic change in the number or intensity of hurricanes." [6]
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 03:54:18 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by ScottK:
The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab. |
There is only one reason the U.S. did not sign the treaty, because the present U.S. administration considers it bad for business to do so. Period. End of story. |
With a statement such as this, I assume you have valid data to back it up?
I am not a Bush fan but I would hesitate to make a blanket statement this emphatically without proof.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 04:01:07 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by ScottK:
The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab. |
There is only one reason the U.S. did not sign the treaty, because the present U.S. administration considers it bad for business to do so. Period. End of story. |
With a statement such as this, I assume you have valid data to back it up?
I am not a Bush fan but I would hesitate to make a blanket statement this emphatically without proof. |
From this article:
//www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-07.htm
"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost," said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 04:50:02 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job[/b] |
How many jobs have we lost to cheap overseas labor since he has been president?
Scientific opinion on climate change
the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) concluded that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". This position was recently supported by an international group of science academies from the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 05:00:38 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says in their Hurricane FAQ that "it is highly unlikely that global warming has (or will) contribute to a drastic change in the number or intensity of hurricanes." [6] |
Seems to counter what that guy in Science Magazine says. If he says there is a trend, I want to see the data.
I don't care how reputable a source is. People like to lie to push their agenda and I don't know what this guy's agenda is, nor do I know what NOAA's agenda is (if either has an agenda).
Is there a site showing a list of hurricanes and their intensity, by year, over the last 50 years? That will show if this is a trend or just random bad luck. Find that and I'll compile numbers when I get home from work (I might even make a chart!).
And go back to my previous post, 45 years ago there were two years back to back with two Cat5 hurricanes in each (four in a two year span) just in the atlantic. Was that global warming?
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 05:04:38 PM · #48 |
And NOAA has no "agenda" to push? Perhaps you forget that all scientific declarations by Federal agencies must be first vetted by the Administration, which has ordered changes made before publication.
So, do you consider Karl Rove, et al, to be more "qualified than the people who conducted the actual research and wrote the article? |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 05:10:55 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Is there a site showing a list of hurricanes and their intensity, |
HERE'S a list of the most intense hurricanes on record and the year, and THIS is basically the comparison you were going to create.
Message edited by author 2005-09-22 17:12:49. |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 05:20:48 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
As bear stated your weather isn't a direct offshot of your clean approach. How about you move your country to a different location where these natural disasters are more prone to happen like warm waters of the gulf or tropical areas where rain causes mud slides or places where the earth plates are more active and see how much your green approach helps the country. |
Actually Iceland is on top 10 of countries that suffer from earthquakes, volcanic activities, floods from our glaciers, avalanches, mudslides, and other catastrofic events, that would cause disasters almost anywhere else in the world, here it's a tourist attraction, there are only 300.000 inhabitants in Iceland, but our country is 104.000 square km. big, that leaves 3 inhabitants for each square km. and about 150.000 of the inhabitants live in and around our capital Reykjavik, so about 80% of our county has no inhabitants, so all anomilies, like volcanic eruption is not considered a catastropic event, it's just something for us DPC members to photograph ;)
so we DO have our share, we just learn from our mistakes, we are an old nation, over 1000 years old, and in that time we have learned how our country works, where volcanoes erupt, where avalanches come and such, we have records dating 1000 years ago, telling stories about volcanic eruptions, plagues and other catastrofy, and we study those documents and learn from them.
we've had earthquakes that have reached 7.2 on the Richter scale, and only old farmhouses got damaged, in our building regulations it states that houses built after 1980 are supposed to withstand 7.0 on Richter without any structural damage, and withstand wind of 150Mph.
so severe storms here are just something we selebrate, it just means a day off from school :)
and ALL energy in Iceland comes from natural resourses, like geothermal energy end waterfalls, we do NOT burn oil, coals, or use nuclear energy to produce electicity.
Message edited by author 2005-09-22 18:02:18.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 02:54:48 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 02:54:48 AM EDT.
|
