Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember it "self-leveling" during Katrina. Oh ,wait, that was New Orleans that got leveled.
speaking of Katrina, it has been 7+ years since America has been hit by a major hurricane (Willma if memory serves). That is the longest period in American history for such quiet.
NOAA also has data showing the most recent 12 month period is at an all time low for Tornadic activity.
I believe in global warming to some extent, man made or otherwise. I don't feel guilty about anything. I just try to limit my impact when possible. We have to take from the earth to live on it, but we can limit what we take. If we do it doesn't make us left wing gay tree hugging leftist communists. Just makes us interested in the future health of the planet and it's people. Most liberals are interested in a healthy planet and a good economy.
I was with you (the climate changes naturally, we puny humans really have no impact on actual climate), until that last line.
I absolutely do not believe that for a single second. I think it is quite the opposite.
speaking of Katrina, it has been 7+ years since America has been hit by a major hurricane (Willma if memory serves). That is the longest period in American history for such quiet.
NOAA also has data showing the most recent 12 month period is at an all time low for Tornadic activity.
It is when there are radical changes in the weather from year to year that we should become concerned. If the climate goes from cold and wet, with lots of storms one year, to hot and dry with little storm activity the following year, that has been an indication in the past that we are in for a sudden climate change. The same indications of radical changes in the weather over short periods (less than a decade) both preceded, and marked the ending of, the Mini-Ice Age.
For the record, I am not in any way suggesting the global climate is being effected in any significant way by humans. A large volcanic eruption or a change in the sun's luminosity will have a far more dramatic effect on global temperatures and climate than anything paltry humans could contribute.
It could go either way, we could suddenly get 1°F to 3°F warmer or cooler, and stay that way for the next 500 years or so. However, this is based entirely off of one event, the Mini-Ice Age. Hardly what I would call a "trend." Even if the change is only a mere 2°F, it will have devastating effects globally. Wars will be fought over dwindling resources and disease and starvation will be wide-spread. Just as with the Mini-Ice Age, millions or even tens of millions may die.
4.5 billion? That seems very inflated. Could such an event happen? Sure, but it's a worst case scenario and isn't likely to happen. I'm of the view that natural cycles combined with a solar grand minimum will cause a cooling over the next few decades or centuries, not warming, but that's besides the point. Even if we do experience significant warming over the next century I doubt the death toll will be even close to that 4.5 billion figure. If we experience warming the main effect will be higher food prices, at least until we've learned to adapt to the new climate, and a gradual migration of people northward and further inland. If cities are rendered uninhabitable via Texas experiencing 120 days >100F per annum or Washington experiencing 30 days >100F per annum, do you seriously think people will stay in those places? If such an event occurs they will migrate north to more hospitable cities.
EDIT: I see now that the OP referenced an article claiming in 2007 that global warming will kill 4.5 billion people by 2012. Obviously I was right about that figure being very inflated. Also, the disaster-related deaths from 2007 to 2012 cannot be blamed on global warming, since there has been very little if any warming of global temperatures during that time. My post was in reference to casualties of 4.5 billion over the next few decades or by 2100.
The amount of damage humans can do is nothing compared to what nature throws our way every now and again. The explosion over the Urals in February was evidence of that. AGW is only for those with the hubris to think we could come anywhere near the amount of destruction that nature is capable of producing. And has already done so, just ask the dinosaurs.
LOL I am right smack in the pacific ring of fire Mt. Saint Helens was just one example of the pressure the on the major fault lines that cause massive earthquake's in the pacific and massive super volcanos more to do with geology but if the ring of fire goes then that will be a big quake and a massive explosion.
The Ring of Fire is an area where a large number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur in the basin of the Pacific Ocean. In a 40,000 km (25,000 mi) horseshoe shape, it is associated with a nearly continuous series of oceanic trenches, volcanic arcs, and volcanic belts and/or plate movements. The Ring of Fire has 452 volcanoes and is home to over 75% of the world's active and dormant volcanoes.[1] It is sometimes called the circum-Pacific belt or the circum-Pacific seismic belt.
About 90%of the world's earthquakes and 81%of the world's largest earthquakes occur along the Ring of Fire.
The next most seismic region (5–6% of earthquakes and 17% of the world's largest earthquakes) is the Alpide belt, which extends from Java to Sumatra through the Himalayas, the Mediterranean, and out into the Atlantic. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is the third most prominent earthquake belt.
The motion of the fault generates numerous small earthquakes, at multiple times a day, most of which are too small to be felt.[7][8] The active Queen Charlotte Fault on the west coast of the Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada, has generated three large earthquakes during the 20th century: a magnitude 7 event in 1929; a magnitude 8.1 in 1949 (Canada's largest recorded earthquake); and a magnitude 7.4 in 1970.]
Because of the very large fault area, the Cascadia subduction zone can produce very large earthquakes, magnitude 9.0 or greater, if rupture occurred over its whole area. When the "locked" zone stores energy for an earthquake, the "transition" zone, although somewhat plastic, can rupture. Thermal and deformation studies indicate that the locked zone is fully locked for 60 kilometers (about 40 miles) down-dip from the deformation front. Further down-dip, there is a transition from fully locked to aseismic sliding.
Unlike most subduction zones worldwide, there is no oceanic trench present along the continental margin in Cascadia. Instead, terranes and the accretionary wedge have been uplifted to form a series of coast ranges and exotic mountains. A high rate of sedimentation from the outflow of the three major rivers (Fraser River, Columbia River, and Klamath River) which cross the Cascade Range contributes to further obscuring the presence of a trench. However, in common with most other subduction zones, the outer margin is slowly being compressed, similar to a giant spring.
When the stored energy is suddenly released by slippage across the fault at irregular intervals, the Cascadia subduction zone can create very large earthquakes such as the magnitude 9 Cascadia earthquake of 1700. Geological evidence indicates that great earthquakes may have occurred at least seven times in the last 3,500 years, suggesting a return time of 400 to 600 years.
There is also evidence of accompanying tsunamis with every earthquake, as the prime reason they know of these earthquakes is through "scars" the tsunami left on the coast, and through Japanese records (tsunami waves can travel across the Pacific).
The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens was the most significant to occur in the contiguous 48 U.S. states in recorded history (VEI = 5, 0.3 cu mi, 1.2 km3 of material erupted), exceeding the destructive power and volume of material released by the 1915 eruption of California's Lassen Peak.
The eruption was preceded by a two-month series of earthquakes and steam-venting episodes caused by an injection of magma at shallow depth below the mountain that created a huge bulge and a fracture system on Mount St. Helens' north slope. An earthquake at 8:32 a.m. on May 18, 1980, caused the entire weakened north face to slide away, suddenly exposing the partly molten, gas- and steam-rich rock in the volcano to lower pressure. The rock responded by exploding into a very hot mix of pulverized lava and older rock that sped toward Spirit Lake so fast that it quickly passed the avalanching north face.
Alaska is known for its seismic and volcanic activity, holding the record for the second largest earthquake in the world, the Good Friday Earthquake, and having more than 50 volcanoes which have erupted since about 1760.
Part 3 - The 1980 Eruption - YouTube
mother nature made global warming packs some power and man is just a spec on what or own planet candies all the time and will at some point happened again but with the 9.0 earthquake and then the pacific ocean is sucked back looks like it is going away but no just comes back with a wall of water at in a super sonic massive tsunami and with volcanos erupting around me well then funding solar and Wind turbines or a buying a hybrid car were nothing but a waste of money.
plus if you live in the Ring of fire region we all know it is going to happen someday just not anytime in the next century.
I was with you (the climate changes naturally, we puny humans really have no impact on actual climate), until that last line.
I absolutely do not believe that for a single second. I think it is quite the opposite.
The tree huggers are far removed from trees..... So cutting down any tree is bad to them. Where you live so far as i know, there are trees harvested most all the time. If i am wrong, where I am next to the White Mtns National Forest inside that area and outside that area, trees are harvested nearly every day of the year, for the better use of the forest, and better care by man.
The modern science of the forestry these days is a great thing to behold.
The tree huggers are far removed from trees..... So cutting down any tree is bad to them. Where you live so far as i know, there are trees harvested most all the time. If i am wrong, where I am next to the White Mtns National Forest inside that area and outside that area, trees are harvested nearly every day of the year, for the better use of the forest, and better care by man.
The modern science of the forestry these days is a great thing to behold.
Do the harvesters replant on the cleared ground? If so, how long does it take for the trees planted to mature for harvesting? What types of trees? Or do they use the cleared land for other things, like grazing, etc.? (always been curious about this).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
