14 Comments Add a Comment
- Add a Comment
-
- The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Also, to reduce oil consumption, government needs to ban oil heating, in commercial and residential buildings, and replace such energy consumption by wind and solar energy instead. Thus, we could curb significant amount of oil consumption and push forward green energy production and applications. Another big thing is building national high speed rail network, so that alternative transportation to either cars or airlines would become reality and thus further curb the nation's oil/gas consumption.
If Obama admin is serious about renewable energy and reducing oil consumption, they should do these things or push such agendas quickly. But, with the admin's record so far, I doubt it would really happen. However, as people in this country, we need to advocate the changes like these and make them happen now.
------------------------
Total fantasy. If there were any options to avoid home heating oil in the northeast that were affordable, they'd be in place now. Windmills and solar collectors are not energy dense enough to make even a dent in the short cold January days.
The U. S. probably needs to lead the way since it seems to be the greatest carbon fuel user. The problem with the nuclear industry in the United States is that each and every power plant currently on line was designed and built as though it were the first and only one of its kind. There were no standards. There are no interchangeable parts. What works just fine at one nuclear power plant most likely will not even fit equipment at another.
Look to the French. They have a pretty well developed nuclear industry and that is largely because they used one engineering company to design and build all of their plants. The U. S. should at least copy their model if not contract that same company to perform the same task here.
The incoming electric cars will be great, depending on one's needs. However, if they get their electricity from a fossil fuel plant the benefits are offset.
Newer nuclear energy would be great. But I can hear the naysayers now, "You are only providing more targets for the terrorist's."
It's easier to speak to a family pet and get them to understand, than it is to speak to a politician.
The problem is that our carbon production is too high. It isn't a question of -eliminating- carbon it's a question of -reducing- carbon production.
And the most important thing that we can do to -reduce- carbon production to to HALT THE GROWTH OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION.
As long as world population continues to increase it doesen't matter if you do something that reduces your carbon output, such as conserve energy, because what carbon you save will be spent the next day by more bodies on the planet, using more resources. Total carbon output will still increase, just not as quickly, but it will still go up.
People like this article author claim that the politicians don't want to face the hard choices - well, the Green environmental people don't wanna, either. If they did they would be going up against organizations like the Catholic Church which has opposed birth control for centuries.
It's easy to assemble a hundred thousand people across the globe to be in favor of the environment. But when you start telling those
people that they either cannot have children at all, or should only have 1 child, in order to counterbalance all the wild breeders out there so as to help reduce population growth, well your gonna see your support evaporate like a puff of air.
The next time you see a Greenie protesting with a sign she is carrying, ask them if they are doing their part by not having children or just having 1 child, and watch them run off.
Here's another problem with "fixing global warming." The U. S. economy is still hurting. The average working citizen cannot afford for his utility bills to go up. In fact, he cannot afford for them to not go down. Cap-and-trade or any other carbon tax scheme cannot help but force utility bills up.
Further, while I do see clear and compelling evidence of global warming, I do not believe that human activity caused or causes it. The very notion actually seems a bit arrogant of us to thing we are that significant. That said, I don't think there is squat we can to do reverse, slow, stop, impede or very much change global warming.
I sincerely believe that global warming is a very natural, cyclic process -- invariably followed by global cooling. For example, at least once in Earth's past, the planet was collectively hot enough that there was no ice on it. During that time, the sea levels were so high that most of what is now the Continental United States was under water with really only the Appellations and Rocky Mountain ranges above sea level.
Subsequent to that were periods of glaciation, commonly and collectively known as the Ice Ages. During that time, so much of Earth's water was locked up in ice that sea levels were hundreds of feet lower than they are now. In fact they were so low as to expose a land bridge between Asia and North America (the Beringia land bridge).
Incidentally, Beringia was most likely responsible, at least in part, for the *first* time that Old World humans invaded North America. You see? Everything in life is cyclic.
Yes, global warming is a fact. The planet is getting hotter. And in time it will get colder again. Meanwhile, life is resilient. Life will *change*, but life will remain. Civilization on the other hand... well that's anybody's guess.
Friday
Scattered Clouds. High: 104 ?F . Wind Calm.
Saturday
Clear. High: 100 ?F . Wind Calm.
Sunday
Scattered Clouds. High: 100 ?F . Wind Calm.
Monday
Clear. High: 100 ?F . Wind Calm.
Tuesday
Clear. High: 100 ?F . Wind Calm.
Wednesday
Scattered Clouds. High: 98 ?F . Wind Calm. Heat Index: 98 ?F .
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/27612.html
Today's satellite pass -
Smoke and fires across western Russia
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2010217-0805/Russia.A2010217.0820.2km.jpg
---------
This number has changed , it is now 16 nations that have set their all time temperature records in 2010.
--------------
Ukraine ties its record for hottest temperature in history
On August 1, Ukraine tied its record for hottest temperature in its history when the mercury hit 41.3?C (106.3?F) at Lukhansk. The Ukraine also reached 41.3?C on July 20 and 21, 2007, at Voznesensk. Sixteen of 225 nations on Earth have set extreme highest temperature in history records this year, the most of any year. The year 2007 is in second place, with fifteen such records.
Five major U.S. cities record their warmest month in history during July
July 2010 was the warmest month in history for five U.S. cities:
Las Vegas, NV: 96.2?F (old record: 95.3?F, July 2005).
Atlantic City, NJ: 79.8?F (old record: 78.7?F, July 1983)
Washington, D.C.: 83.1?F (tied with July 1993)
Baltimore, MD: 81.5?F (tied with July 1995)
Trenton, NJ: 80.5?F (tied with July 1955)
Also, in June, Miami, FL recorded its warmest month in history: 85.6?F (old record: 85.4?F in June 1998.)
Commentary
None of the 303 major U.S. cities listed in the records section of Chris Burt's book Extreme Weather has set a coldest month in history record since 1994 (these 303 cites were selected to represent a broad spectrum of U.S. climate zones, are not all big cities, have a good range of elevations, and in most cases have data going back to the 1880s.) There were just three such records (1% of the 303 major U.S. cities) set in the past twenty years, 1991 - 2010. In contrast, 97 out of 303 major U.S. cities (32%) set records for their warmest month in history during the past twenty years. It is much harder to set a coldest month in history record than a coldest day in history record in a warming climate, since it requires cold for an extended period of time--not just a sudden extreme cold snap.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1565&tstamp=