Discussion in 'Environment' started by Billy_Kinetta, May 21, 2018.
Agent Smith was right.
Human race just 0.01% of all life but has eradicated most other living things
We shouldn't have...
The likelihood of floods is changing with the climate
IN 1979 it was Claudette; in 2001 it was Allison; now it is Harvey: in 50 years, the city of Houston has been hit by three separate “500-year floods”. A 500-year flood does not have to happen only twice a millennium. But a run of three in one place does make it feel as if the past climate were no longer a reliable guide to the present—as if the climate itself were changing.
So, of course, it is. The world’s average temperature is between 0.6 and 0.7°C (1.1- 1.3°F) higher than it was in 1979. Scientists have understood since the 1850s that hotter air holds more water vapour; a law known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation states that for every degree Celsius of warming, the atmosphere will hold 7% more moisture. In 1989 two Japanese researchers used computers to model this phenomenon and concluded that this wetter air would lead to more of the heaviest rains rather than, say, near-perpetual drizzle. It is thus no surprise that insurers see an increase in water-related disasters (see chart 1).
Call it any way you want. We are reaping what we have sown.
Internet conjecture backed by dartboard science.
Nobody is worried about the floods except the climate obsessed. In the bigger picture, they equate to a meer handful. Billions have been seeing floods their whole lives....the magic of modern day TV.
The climate obsessed would be better served heading down to the local handball court for an hour or two ( in between floods of course ). At least they'd getting a little exercise.
Warm climate, increased CO2, heavy rain and never ending drizzle.... Sounds like the Cretaceous period to me.
Warmest period in Earth's history, no polar ice, average temperature of 95 degrees... Happened naturally without humans, ended naturally without humans, grew the largest plants the Earth has ever seen (which in today's world would mean the end of world hunger)... Doesn't sound so bad.
Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
But a run of three in one place does make it feel as if the past climate were no longer a reliable guide to the present—as if the climate itself were changing.
Anyone who thinks the climate should be static is a stupid watermelon.
Well, Pele sure is.
Not sure a a lava flow at 1-2 MPH is "angry". I would say more peckish.
I hate lava flows.
Separate names with a comma.