Repeating a previous reply, the Atacama Desert is 600 miles long and covers over 40,000 square miles. It's entirely possible that it got snowed on part of it and other places have not recorded precipitation for over 400 years.
Both Global Warming and Climate Change were terms that were first used in the 1950's or earlier. The Bush II administration preferred Climate Change because it didn't sound as scarey.
The Atacama Desert is 600 miles (1,000 km) long and covers over 40,000 square miles in area. I think it's entirely possible that some parts of it got snowed on and other parts have received no precipitation in at least 400 years.
I don't have to go to the library. I've lived through all of that (born in 1952). I'm not against nuclear power per se but I'm not willing to let the industries that build the plants off the hook if they screw up. The consequences can be devastating. The fact is that nuclear power was already in decline before those things you mention. See "Was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 the main cause of US nuclear power’s woes?".
Well, not to be contentious but Japan has a long record of tsunami's. We were able to figure out the date of the last Cascadia subduction zone quake (January 26. 1700 at about 9:00 PM) from Japanese records. I'd be surprised if they didn't have records of similar magnitude tsunami's in the islands.
My point though is that there is always the unexpected failure mode that we can't foresee whether it is due to a design flaw, a construction flaw or some natural event or a combination of those. That needs to be taken into account when assessing the risks of what we do. What are the potential consequences of a massive failure? Are they consequences we can live with?
I believe the drought in Texas and Oklahoma in the past few years have been worse than the dust bowl drought. We have better land practices and water from the Ogalala Aquifer now so there isn't a new dust bowl... yet.
Yeah but who could live in the US on $2000/year (52.18 weeks per year * 40 hours/week * $1/hour = $2087)? Or even $4000 if they worked 80 hours/week? It's tough enough with the approximately $16,000/year you would get with an $8/hour minimum wage.
I find it hard to believe that if the economics of nuclear power plants worked better that a way would have found to get them built. You're ascribing a level of power to environmentalists that they just don't have compared to economic interests. Instead nuclear power requires all sorts of government guarantees on loans and liability coverage before private interests are willing to take the risk.
no we can't prevent earthquakes or their results.. but i bet you based on what has happened in Japan that the next reactor built will have it's design modified to handle at least that situation.
We always design facilities like this for the last disaster, not the next one.
If you had any hard evidence for "felons, illegal aliens, etc" voting in numbers big enough to make a difference in most elections I'd be more willing to listen. Fact is there isn't hard evidence, just right wing conspiracy theories.
One reason gray whales might be reappearing in the Atlantic is the summer reopening of the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage in the past few years allows them an avenue to get there from their normal Pacific territory. The opening up of those passages is definitely climate related.
North Atlantic populations were extirpated (perhaps by whaling) on the European coast before 500 AD and on the American coast around the late 17th to early 18th centuries.
One of the basic tenets of building is that you don't do it on a flood plain.
I don't think the question is as absolute as that. Do the benefits of building on a floodplain outweigh the costs of the occasional flood? Of course you shouldn't build on land that floods every year or three but as the frequency of flooding diminishes the benefits may start outweighing the costs.
I agree with what you said but I would say that floods are four dimensional because they have a time element as well. From what I've heard some of the flooding this years is expected to be quite long lasting.
In addition, rational people would not build structures on place where flooding is guaranteed to occur every few generations and then complain that flooding occurs. My tax dollars are not there to pay for others dumb decisions.
The real question is "Do we get more benefits out of development on the floodplain than the cost of the occasional flood?" If we're paying for it we probably should require they better armor the development against flood in the rebuilding but if the benefit is greater than the cost I'm not against rebuilding.
That's kind if the situation that New Orleans is in. As one of the major ports in the US it's the center of a large economic engine near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Trying to move the port upstream is probably at least as expensive as continuing to protect the city already in place.
I don't think so. The flooding could have been moderated somewhat but there's enough water in the system that there would have been flooding no matter what the Army Corps of Engineers did.
I suppose the question is then "Do we get more benefits out of allowing development on floodplains than the costs of the occasional flooding that occurs?"
Of course the areas that predictably flood every year are flooded this year but it's the areas that don't normally flood that are the issue. This year places that haven't had a flood for years or decades in some cases are getting flooded. When something doesn't happen more often than every 5 or 10 years or longer humans are prone to forgetting about the possibility and discounting the danger/cost.
The regional predictions I've seen from the "AGW folks" predict more drought in the Southern Midwest like Texas and Oklahoma but not necessarily in the Upper Midwest and Northern Rockies. On top of that having a drought doesn't mean you can't have flooding. One or two big rainstorms that cause a big flood won't break a drought. It takes many normal rainstorms spread out over time to do that. Even deserts have their occasional flash floods.
From what I've heard this flooding is due to a cold wet spring (driven largely by the La Nina that's ending) causing well above average snow packs that are late in melting plus heavier than normal rainfall (which helps the snow melt faster when it falls on it). I'm not sure the Corps of Engineers could have let enough water out of their reservoirs to avoid flooding although they might have been able to moderate it somewhat.
The flooding in Minot, ND has no relation to the Missouri flooding. The Souris River originates and flows back in to Canada into the Assiniboine River. What I heard is it's caused by heavy rain on top of already saturated soil.
Slashdot Mirror
Repeating a previous reply, the Atacama Desert is 600 miles long and covers over 40,000 square miles. It's entirely possible that it got snowed on part of it and other places have not recorded precipitation for over 400 years.
Both Global Warming and Climate Change were terms that were first used in the 1950's or earlier. The Bush II administration preferred Climate Change because it didn't sound as scarey.
The Atacama Desert is 600 miles (1,000 km) long and covers over 40,000 square miles in area. I think it's entirely possible that some parts of it got snowed on and other parts have received no precipitation in at least 400 years.
Your comment means:
You are an idiot who is clueless about what global warming really is.
I don't have to go to the library. I've lived through all of that (born in 1952). I'm not against nuclear power per se but I'm not willing to let the industries that build the plants off the hook if they screw up. The consequences can be devastating. The fact is that nuclear power was already in decline before those things you mention. See "Was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 the main cause of US nuclear power’s woes?".
Well, not to be contentious but Japan has a long record of tsunami's. We were able to figure out the date of the last Cascadia subduction zone quake (January 26. 1700 at about 9:00 PM) from Japanese records. I'd be surprised if they didn't have records of similar magnitude tsunami's in the islands.
My point though is that there is always the unexpected failure mode that we can't foresee whether it is due to a design flaw, a construction flaw or some natural event or a combination of those. That needs to be taken into account when assessing the risks of what we do. What are the potential consequences of a massive failure? Are they consequences we can live with?
Shouldn't that be:
Tinkle Tinkle little star ...
I retract that post. Looks like I was wrong.
I believe the drought in Texas and Oklahoma in the past few years have been worse than the dust bowl drought. We have better land practices and water from the Ogalala Aquifer now so there isn't a new dust bowl ... yet.
Horsepuckey. When a company like Intel or Dow does custom work for the Pentagram ...
What! the Wiccan's are hiring Intel and Dow now?!
Yeah but who could live in the US on $2000/year (52.18 weeks per year * 40 hours/week * $1/hour = $2087)? Or even $4000 if they worked 80 hours/week? It's tough enough with the approximately $16,000/year you would get with an $8/hour minimum wage.
I find it hard to believe that if the economics of nuclear power plants worked better that a way would have found to get them built. You're ascribing a level of power to environmentalists that they just don't have compared to economic interests. Instead nuclear power requires all sorts of government guarantees on loans and liability coverage before private interests are willing to take the risk.
Maybe he's the goatse dude.
no we can't prevent earthquakes or their results .. but i bet you based on what has happened in Japan that the next reactor built will have it's design modified to handle at least that situation.
We always design facilities like this for the last disaster, not the next one.
If you had any hard evidence for "felons, illegal aliens, etc" voting in numbers big enough to make a difference in most elections I'd be more willing to listen. Fact is there isn't hard evidence, just right wing conspiracy theories.
One reason gray whales might be reappearing in the Atlantic is the summer reopening of the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage in the past few years allows them an avenue to get there from their normal Pacific territory. The opening up of those passages is definitely climate related.
From the Wikipedia article on Gray whales:
North Atlantic populations were extirpated (perhaps by whaling) on the European coast before 500 AD and on the American coast around the late 17th to early 18th centuries.
One of the basic tenets of building is that you don't do it on a flood plain.
I don't think the question is as absolute as that. Do the benefits of building on a floodplain outweigh the costs of the occasional flood? Of course you shouldn't build on land that floods every year or three but as the frequency of flooding diminishes the benefits may start outweighing the costs.
I agree with what you said but I would say that floods are four dimensional because they have a time element as well. From what I've heard some of the flooding this years is expected to be quite long lasting.
In addition, rational people would not build structures on place where flooding is guaranteed to occur every few generations and then complain that flooding occurs. My tax dollars are not there to pay for others dumb decisions.
The real question is "Do we get more benefits out of development on the floodplain than the cost of the occasional flood?" If we're paying for it we probably should require they better armor the development against flood in the rebuilding but if the benefit is greater than the cost I'm not against rebuilding.
That's kind if the situation that New Orleans is in. As one of the major ports in the US it's the center of a large economic engine near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Trying to move the port upstream is probably at least as expensive as continuing to protect the city already in place.
I don't think so. The flooding could have been moderated somewhat but there's enough water in the system that there would have been flooding no matter what the Army Corps of Engineers did.
Look up the Columbus Day Storm or the Christmas flood of 1964. I remember them both.
I suppose the question is then "Do we get more benefits out of allowing development on floodplains than the costs of the occasional flooding that occurs?"
Of course the areas that predictably flood every year are flooded this year but it's the areas that don't normally flood that are the issue. This year places that haven't had a flood for years or decades in some cases are getting flooded. When something doesn't happen more often than every 5 or 10 years or longer humans are prone to forgetting about the possibility and discounting the danger/cost.
The regional predictions I've seen from the "AGW folks" predict more drought in the Southern Midwest like Texas and Oklahoma but not necessarily in the Upper Midwest and Northern Rockies. On top of that having a drought doesn't mean you can't have flooding. One or two big rainstorms that cause a big flood won't break a drought. It takes many normal rainstorms spread out over time to do that. Even deserts have their occasional flash floods.
From what I've heard this flooding is due to a cold wet spring (driven largely by the La Nina that's ending) causing well above average snow packs that are late in melting plus heavier than normal rainfall (which helps the snow melt faster when it falls on it). I'm not sure the Corps of Engineers could have let enough water out of their reservoirs to avoid flooding although they might have been able to moderate it somewhat.
The flooding in Minot, ND has no relation to the Missouri flooding. The Souris River originates and flows back in to Canada into the Assiniboine River. What I heard is it's caused by heavy rain on top of already saturated soil.