a once-in-a-millennium event (Colorado)

[Bernard_Fokke]

**Lets hope with the changing climate this type of weather does not become the annual once-in-a-millennium event**

(Reuters) - The downpour that inundated parts of Colorado this month was a once-in-a-millennium event for those areas, according to an analysis by the National Weather Service.

Colorado residents are coping with widespread destruction from floods unleashed by torrential rains that began on September 9 and lasted for several days. The flooding killed at least eight people, forced thousands from their homes and caused nearly $2 billion in property damage.

Towns at the base of Colorado's so-called Front Range in Larimer and Boulder counties, northwest of Denver, experienced the most damage.

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-rainfall-one-ages-weather-says-103757354.html

 

[fairsheet]

**Lets hope with the changing climate this type of weather become an annual a once-in-a-millennium event**

(Reuters) - The downpour that inundated parts of Colorado this month was a once-in-a-millennium event for those areas, according to an analysis by the National Weather Service.

Colorado residents are coping with widespread destruction from floods unleashed by torrential rains that began on September 9 and lasted for several days. The flooding killed at least eight people, forced thousands from their homes and caused nearly $2 billion in property damage.

Towns at the base of Colorado's so-called Front Range in Larimer and Boulder counties, northwest of Denver, experienced the most damage.

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-rainfall-one-ages-weather-says-103757354.html

The "score" is 900+ to ZERO, in terms of peer-reviewed and accepted studies in support of the global warming consensus vs. those in dispute.

I'm not sure everyone understands though, that those 900+ studies haven't considered and concluded the same thing. In fact, each is unique. The "consensus" derives from the complimentary aggregate of all those studies.

I raise this, because even among these specific peer-reviewed and accepted studies, there're all manner of different "opinions" as to the exact causes, effects, and cures. Nevertheless....it's way past time we dispensed with "debating" whether or not "global warming" exists. We should be already into debating the most efficient and effective ways of dealing with it. For instance, I'm all for a "carbon tax". If someone doesn't like the idea of a carbon tax, by all means, tell me why. But please, don't waste your time and mine, arguing that a carbon tax is bad...because global warming is a "hoax".

Back to the top-cited story though...from an honest political economic perspective, it'll probably take us at least century before we can sufficiently bend the greenhouse gas curve, to reverse current trends. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get on it posthaste. But parallel to that and in the interim, we need to start focusing on those negative effects of global warming that WILL be happening over the next century.

We can debate whether or not the sea will rise 1 foot or 6 feet over the next century. Some may be willing to go "all in" with 1 foot. But..there are 150 million Bangladeshis living in a country with an AVERAGE elevation of 6' above sea level, who probably don't quite see it that way.

 

[Bernard_Fokke]

Much like people arguing about how the fire started in the barn while the barn continues to burn.

 

[fairsheet]

Much like people arguing about how the fire started in the barn while the barn continues to burn.

What frosts me most from my political economy perspective, is that there's no reason we couldn't or shouldn't cast and approach this issue as a terrific opportunity going forward into the 21st-Century.

Instead...all too many can only see it in terms of sacrifice. The denier is afraid someone might force him to ride a bike. And on the opposite end, we have people insisting that our only out, is to all ride bikes.

 

[Bernard_Fokke]

The issue is a global one and the solution is a global one as well, it's in the hands of the entire human race and you and I know all too well how the "Race" co-operates amongst it's different fractions around the world.

 

[NightSwimmer]

The hard truth is that our population is currently too large to suddenly stop using coal and petroleum products. We have the technology to convert much of our energy consumption to renewable sources, but we wont have the economic incentive to do so until the technology is sufficiently advanced.

Major multi-national energy companies are currently investing in alternative energy sources. This isn't a left-wing pipe dream. It will happen. It's only a question of when.

 

[justoffal]

**Lets hope with the changing climate this type of weather become an annual a once-in-a-millennium event**

(Reuters) - The downpour that inundated parts of Colorado this month was a once-in-a-millennium event for those areas, according to an analysis by the National Weather Service.

Colorado residents are coping with widespread destruction from floods unleashed by torrential rains that began on September 9 and lasted for several days. The flooding killed at least eight people, forced thousands from their homes and caused nearly $2 billion in property damage.

Towns at the base of Colorado's so-called Front Range in Larimer and Boulder counties, northwest of Denver, experienced the most damage.

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-rainfall-one-ages-weather-says-103757354.html

S0 let me get this straight...

You mean this happened about a thousand year ago too?
Hmmm... why did it happen then?

JO

 

[justoffal]

The hard truth is that our population is currently too large to suddenly stop using coal and petroleum products. We have the technology to convert much of our energy consumption to renewable sources, but we wont have the economic incentive to do so until the technology is sufficiently advanced.

Major multi-national energy companies are currently investing in alternative energy sources. This isn't a left-wing pipe dream. It will happen. It's only a question of when.

Even after the conversion there will never be any hard evidence that Global climate change has been due to the industrial revolution...it is and always will remain a theory.

Solar, Wind, Geothermal...all mere toys...hobbies that will never really be all that useful albeit it interesting.

This is your future energy source and once installed it will be the energy source for the human race probably for the following ten thousand years or until a mile wide meteor says differntly.

http://www.iter.org/mach

 

[justoffal]

The "score" is 900+ to ZERO, in terms of peer-reviewed and accepted studies in support of the global warming consensus vs. those in dispute.

I'm not sure everyone understands though, that those 900+ studies haven't considered and concluded the same thing. In fact, each is unique. The "consensus" derives from the complimentary aggregate of all those studies.

I raise this, because even among these specific peer-reviewed and accepted studies, there're all manner of different "opinions" as to the exact causes, effects, and cures. Nevertheless....it's way past time we dispensed with "debating" whether or not "global warming" exists. We should be already into debating the most efficient and effective ways of dealing with it. For instance, I'm all for a "carbon tax". If someone doesn't like the idea of a carbon tax, by all means, tell me why. But please, don't waste your time and mine, arguing that a carbon tax is bad...because global warming is a "hoax".

Back to the top-cited story though...from an honest political economic perspective, it'll probably take us at least century before we can sufficiently bend the greenhouse gas curve, to reverse current trends. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get on it posthaste. But parallel to that and in the interim, we need to start focusing on those negative effects of global warming that WILL be happening over the next century.

We can debate whether or not the sea will rise 1 foot or 6 feet over the next century. Some may be willing to go "all in" with 1 foot. But..there are 150 million Bangladeshis living in a country with an AVERAGE elevation of 6' above sea level, who probably don't quite see it that way.

Yep for the sake of poltical expediency we are subjected to fuzzy math. The maybes and possiblies evolve into defintely's and without a doubt sentences.

There simply are too many possible inputs to our global thermal signature to single out ony one to date as responsible for anything in particular.

The fact that they have never recorded this kind of temperature signature before is also reather meaningless...it just means that man if a fairl recent arrival to this planet's overal history... and that's about what it means.

Oh and BTW.. this following pargraph is just pure folly.... sorry.....but it just is.

Back to the top-cited story though...from an honest political economic perspective, it'll probably take us at least century before we can sufficiently bend the greenhouse gas curve, to reverse current trends. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get on it posthaste. But parallel to that and in the interim, we need to start focusing on those negative effects of global warming that WILL be happening over the next century.

JO

 

[fairsheet]

Like our historically quick flip from majority homohate, to magority homohate-hate, it's amazing how quickly our "certitudes" about these thing can change in our modern world. It seems like only yesterday that we were all convinced that we'd passed petro's peak AND would be OPEC's lackeys for decades to come.

Now of course, with the oil and natural gas being discovered and exploited in the W. Hemisphere, all that's gone completely out the window. NOW our problem isn't that energy will inevitably become scarce and expensive. Our "problem" now - at least as regards global warming - is that petro will be come cheap and abundant!

We enviros don't like that aspect of it all, but I imagine most people, to include most of we enviros like that energy will be cheap AND that we won't be the tail to OPEC's dog.

Still....these markets can change more quickly than we might imagine. LESS than a year a half ago, a controversy arose hereabouts, as to whether or not we should build a couple of massive coal export terminals, so's to ship Wyoming coal to China and India. Those in favor of jobs, taxes and revenue, liked the idea. Enviros were concerned about the negative aspects of shiiping the coal AND the extent we were encouraging the burning of coal.

Now, LESS than a year and a half later, the whole controversy looks to becoming moot, since the price of coal has dropped to a point where it doesn't even pencil out, to sell and ship the coal.

The same applies to vritually any energy source. As time goes by, the alternatives to petro will inevitably grow less expensive. In order to stay competitive, petro will have to stay cheaper than the alternatives. No matter what petro does, their cost curve is going eventually going to intersect that of the alternatives.