Fourteen U.S. billion-dollar weather disasters in 2011: a new record

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 12:12 PM GMT on November 04, 2011

Share this Blog
33
+

It's time to add another billion-dollar weather disaster to the growing 2011 total of these costly disasters: the extraordinary early-season Northeast U.S. snowstorm of October 29, which dumped up to 32 inches of snow, brought winds gusts of 70 mph to the coast, and killed at least 22 people. Not since the infamous snow hurricane of 1804 have such prodigious amounts of October snow been recorded in New England and, to a lesser extent, in the mid-Atlantic states. Trees that had not yet lost their leaves suffered tremendous damage from the wet, heavy snow. Snapped branches and falling trees brought down numerous power lines, leaving at least 3 million people without electricity. The damage estimate in Connecticut alone is $3 billion, far more than the damage Hurricane Irene did to the state. Hundreds of thousands still remain without power a week after the storm, with full electricity not expected to be restored until Monday.


Figure 1. Wet, heavy snow from the October 29, 2011 snowstorm weighing down trees still sporting their fall leaves in Winchester, VA. Image credit: wunderphotographer MaddScientist98.

The October 29 snow storm brings the 2011 tally of U.S. billion-dollar weather disasters to fourteen, thoroughly smashing the previous record of nine such disasters, set in 2008. Between 1980 - 2010, the U.S. averaged 3.5 of these weather disasters per year. Through August, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) estimated that ten weather disasters costing at least $1 billion had hit the U.S., at total cost of up to $45 billion. However, the October 29 snow storm brings us up to eleven billion-dollar disasters, and a new disaster analysis done by global reinsurance company AON Benfield adds three more. Flood damage from the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee in the Northeast on September 8 is now estimated at more than $1 billion, and two outbreaks of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes--one in April and one in June--now have damage estimates exceeding $1 billion. A remarkable seven severe thunderstorm/tornado outbreaks did more than $1 billion each in damage in 2011, and an eighth outbreak July 10 - 14 came close, with damages of $900 million. In total, the fourteen billion-dollar disasters killed 675 people. Tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods in these fourteen disasters killed over 600 people, putting 2011 into fourth place since 1940 for most deaths by severe storms. Only 2005, with over 1,000 deaths caused by Katrina, 1969, with over 700 hurricane and flood-related deaths, and 1972, with 676 hurricane and flood-related deaths, were deadlier years for storms, according to NOAA. The fourteen billion-dollar weather disasters of 2011 caused $53 billion in damage, putting 2011 in fifth place for most damages from billion-dollar weather disasters. The top damage years, according to NCDC in adjusted 2011 dollars, were 2005 (the year of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma), 2008 (Hurricane Ike), 1988 (Midwest drought), and 1980 (Midwest drought). With nearly two months remaining in 2011, the potential exists for more billion-dollar weather disasters this year. Our first opportunity comes Tuesday, when the NOAA Storm Prediction Center is forecasting the possibility of a severe weather outbreak centered over Arkansas and Missouri.


Video 1. Remarkable video of the tornado that hit Tuscaloosa, Alabama during the April 25 - 30, 2011 Super Outbreak. This tornado outbreak was the most expensive U.S. weather-related disaster of 2011, with damages estimated at $9 billion. Fast forward to minute four to see the worst of the storm.

Here are AON Benfield's estimates of the damages and NCDC's estimates of the death tolls from 2011's fourteen billion-dollar weather disasters (a clickable version of this table with information on each disaster is available on our severe weather resource page):



Have a great weekend, everyone, and I'll be back with a new post on Monday.

Angela Fritz is subbing for Ricky Rood this week, and has written an interesting post on the latest climate change controversy, the release of the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study by skeptic Dr. Richard Muller.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 132 - 82

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog Index

Quoting troy1993:
Is this blog a weather blog or is it a climate blog now?
LOL, it's both how's the weather at your location? Mine is a pleasant 65°F with a NW wind at 19mph gusting to 23mph.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I would really like to know if anyone has changed their position today one way or the other?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting troy1993:
Is this blog a weather blog or is it a climate blog now?

I was thinking the same exact thing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Is this blog a weather blog or is it a climate blog now?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


He also stated, correctly, that the time frame was too short to make any long term conclusions. Any change we may see, over that short of a time period, is statistically insignificant. Any short term trend, up/down/neutral, does not indicate what the long term trend will be. ... You can pick nearly any 5-15 year period and claim a rise/fall/neutral warming period. The long term trend is still a rise in the warming, as far as we can tell. He does not see any indications that the warming has slowed, or stopped, based on this evidence. The shorter the time frame, the less significant the data. Should tomorrow be 10 degrees warmer than today, does this indicate we are seeing rapid temperature rise in the long term? .... I HOPE that you are correct. The evidence provided does not show that you are. Nor does it show you to be incorrect. Simply put, this is too short of a sampling to know now and there is not enough evidence to say that the long term warming has slowed or stopped. ... It took me awhile to grasp this concept but, now, I do get it.

He did make that statement. The problem then is that, if 13 years is statistically insignificant, so is the 25 year period from 1975 to 2000 (the period during which almost all the rise of the 20th century occurred). And, yes, although the long term trend, going back to the last Ice Age, shows warming - that trend does not call for policy intervention because man cannot have been the cause of that long term trend.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Yawn......
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 553
Quoting DallasGumby:

Okay, I'll "think about it" as requested. The fact is, the atmosphere of our earth is so massive that, despite those "Bauxite Plants" and all the other industry in the world, and despite all those "millions of cars worldwide", carbon monoxide makes up only 0.00001% of the atmosphere. There probably is some statistic somewhere that shows this data before the Industrial Age, but I can't find it quickly - but, I doubt it was significantly different. We're not going to be "choking" on CO or CO2.
Well you know now that I look back on it, the last paragraph does sound a bit overzealous. Since you bring that statistic up, I was just giving a scenario on a small scale and trying to compare it to a large one. I think it's a fallacy on my part. But still we must be wary of what these industries are doing to the Earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Great Smog of 1952)
Jump to: navigation, search

Nelson's Column during the Great Smog of 1952The Great Smog of '52 or Big Smoke[1] was a severe air pollution event that affected London, England, during December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants mostly from the use of coal to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday 5 to Tuesday 9 December 1952, and then dispersed quickly after a change of weather.

Although it caused major disruption due to the effect on visibility, and even penetrated indoor areas, it was not thought to be a significant event at the time, with London having experienced many smog events in the past, so called "pea soupers". However, medical reports in the following weeks estimated that 4,000 people had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill because of the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the number of fatalities was considerably greater at about 12,000.[2]

It is considered the worst air pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom,[3] and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2] It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DallasGumby:

Okay, I'll "think about it" as requested. The fact is, the atmosphere of our earth is so massive that, despite those "Bauxite Plants" and all the other industry in the world, and despite all those "millions of cars worldwide", carbon monoxide makes up only 0.00001% of the atmosphere. There probably is some statistic somewhere that shows this data before the Industrial Age, but I can't find it quickly - but, I doubt it was significantly different. We're not going to be "choking" on CO or CO2.


How about a space eye view of how "massive" our atmosphere really is? ... Image attained at -Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DallasGumby:

As noted in the article to which you linked, the lead author of the research paper, Dr. Mullin, stated publicly: "We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down".

But, after Dr. Curry (the second listed co-author of the paper under discussion)came public with her comments that the BEST's own data showed no rise in global temperatures for the last 11 years, Dr. Mullin was again interviewed. His comments as reported by the UK Daily Mail:

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-205 5191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-prove d-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1c lrhU7Yt


He also stated, correctly, that the time frame was too short to make any long term conclusions. Any change we may see, over that short of a time period, is statistically insignificant. Any short term trend, up/down/neutral, does not indicate what the long term trend will be. ... You can pick nearly any 5-15 year period and claim a rise/fall/neutral warming period. The long term trend is still a rise in the warming, as far as we can tell. He does not see any indications that the warming has slowed, or stopped, based on this evidence. The shorter the time frame, the less significant the data. Should tomorrow be 10 degrees warmer than today, does this indicate we are seeing rapid temperature rise in the long term? .... I HOPE that you are correct. The evidence provided does not show that you are. Nor does it show you to be incorrect. Simply put, this is too short of a sampling to know now and there is not enough evidence to say that the long term warming has slowed or stopped. ... It took me awhile to grasp this concept but, now, I do get it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WoodyFL:


Please try and stay on topic.

ROFLMBO!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GTcooliebai:
I believe there is a human side to Global Warming, my friend from Jamaica was telling me today about how the Bauxite Plants in Jamaica operate 24/7 and how much smoke is released into the atmosphere. If you think about it along with emissions from cars, that is more smoke being released into the atmosphere than before the age of industry!

IMO the the layer of our atmosphere most endangered from Global Warming is the Stratosphere where the Ozone Layer is located which provides us with the air we breath in. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halogenated ozone depleting substances (ODS) are mainly responsible for man-made chemical ozone depletion. Also the Stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet rays from the sun which bounces around the earth until it finds holes in the atmosphere to escape.

Think about it if you were in a garage with your car on for hours you would probably suffocate from Carbon Monoxide a poisonous gas given off from CO2. Now multiply that by millions of cars worldwide and we will be choking on the very gas that makes up the human body. "Too much of something is not always a good thing."

Okay, I'll "think about it" as requested. The fact is, the atmosphere of our earth is so massive that, despite those "Bauxite Plants" and all the other industry in the world, and despite all those "millions of cars worldwide", carbon monoxide makes up only 0.00001% of the atmosphere. There probably is some statistic somewhere that shows this data before the Industrial Age, but I can't find it quickly - but, I doubt it was significantly different. We're not going to be "choking" on CO or CO2.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GTcooliebai:
I like the Stratocumulus clouds in the Gulf :)


Awesome.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WeatherNerdPR:

I like the Stratocumulus clouds in the Gulf :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoted directly from NOAA..."If your high-frequency radio went silent briefly Thursday afternoon, blame the sun. An active region on the sun, "NOAA region 1339," (marked in the posted image below) flared beautifully, triggering a brief radio outage. The outburst was not of the sort that threatens power systems on Earth or creates aurora, but stay tuned: the NOAA NWS Space Weather Prediction Center says chances are good there’s more to come from "1339"!




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Perhaps this will help:

The BEST way to hide the decline

As noted in the article to which you linked, the lead author of the research paper, Dr. Mullin, stated publicly: "We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down".

But, after Dr. Curry (the second listed co-author of the paper under discussion)came public with her comments that the BEST's own data showed no rise in global temperatures for the last 11 years, Dr. Mullin was again interviewed. His comments as reported by the UK Daily Mail:

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-205 5191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-prove d-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1c lrhU7Yt
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WoodyFL:


Please try and stay on topic.


LOL, sorry, I had to laugh.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I believe there is a human side to Global Warming, my friend from Jamaica was telling me today about how the Bauxite Plants in Jamaica operate 24/7 and how much smoke is released into the atmosphere. If you think about it along with emissions from cars, that is more smoke being released into the atmosphere than before the age of industry!

IMO the the layer of our atmosphere most endangered from Global Warming is the Stratosphere where the Ozone Layer is located which provides us with the air we breath in. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halogenated ozone depleting substances (ODS) are mainly responsible for man-made chemical ozone depletion. Also the Stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet rays from the sun which bounces around the earth until it finds holes in the atmosphere to escape.

Think about it if you were in a garage with your car on for hours you would probably suffocate from Carbon Monoxide a poisonous gas given off from CO2. Now multiply that by millions of cars worldwide and we will be choking on the very gas that makes up the human body. "Too much of something is not always a good thing."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WoodyFL:


Please try and stay on topic.


LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DallasGumby:

That's not true. It is based on the 1950-1980 baseline - and, this comes from the same BEST study that is being highly touted this week, because it comes from a "former climate change skeptic" and showed the 1 degree rise over 50 years that everyone's talking about. The same data set shows stable global temperatures for the last 11 years, after the sharp rise in the four previous decades.


Perhaps this will help:

The BEST way to hide the decline
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WeatherNerdPR:



GFS has the low hanging around in the Western Atlantic for a few days.
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14076
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
We may be dealing with Subtropical Sean by the beginning of next week as the low pressure area centered over my area retrogrades off the coast, and then meanders to the northeast of the Bahamas for a while. Most models deepen it a little before it is absorbed by another cold front in 5 days or so.


Please try and stay on topic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
We may be dealing with Subtropical Sean by the beginning of next week as the low pressure area centered over my area retrogrades off the coast, and then meanders to the northeast of the Bahamas for a while. Most models deepen it a little before it is absorbed by another cold front in 5 days or so.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We may be dealing with Subtropical Sean by the beginning of next week as the low pressure area centered over my area retrogrades off the coast, and then meanders to the northeast of the Bahamas for a while. Most models deepen it a little before it is absorbed by another cold front in 5 days or so.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31587
Quoting DoctorDave1:
Make sure to explain if I am wrong, but I believe that severe weather is mostly influenced/intensified by upper-level cold air. Thus, these extreme weather events would imply that our atmosphere is getting colder, not warmer, in the upper levels.

Coupla things:

1) A warmer atmosphere can hold more precipitable moisture.

2) The stratosphere cools for a number of reasons; Dr. Masters has a great write-up here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Land area may not be a problem--but being sure those refugees have access to adequate jobs, food, water, medical services, and so on, may prove to be an unconquerable logistical nightmare.

Agreed!!!
What we might end up with are "lifetime climate refugees," who have to be sustained by the occupied members of society, this seems to already happening in some countries, I would be willing to hedge a bet that in 10 years 10% or more of some developed nations working populations will have become permanently unemployable. We have about 10% in the UK now and 20% in Spain Unemployed, some of these poeple may never work again, a lot of them are work seeking migrants.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:
Sure, temperatures have been flat for the last 13 years... if you cherry-pick your data and treat 1998 as a baseline, rather than the positive outlier it actually was.

That's not true. It is based on the 1950-1980 baseline - and, this comes from the same BEST study that is being highly touted this week, because it comes from a "former climate change skeptic" and showed the 1 degree rise over 50 years that everyone's talking about. The same data set shows stable global temperatures for the last 11 years, after the sharp rise in the four previous decades.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting jrweatherman:
This just in. In 30 years the Left will be cramming down your kids throats the next ice age as the globe cools.

Oh, I wish so. Of course, since we haven't shown the willpower needed to cut emissions nearly enough to cause a halt--much less a decrease--the only thing that could possibly cause "the next ice age" will be a supervolcano eruption, a massive comet/asteroid strike, or a global thermonuclear war. Any of those three would fill the skies with heat-reflecting aerosols for many years, and the planet would definitely cool. Of course, those particular cures are worse than the disease--you know, like asking to be shot in the head to "cure" your cancer--so I'm not sure whether I'm ready to be hoping for one of them to happen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Make sure to explain if I am wrong, but I believe that severe weather is mostly influenced/intensified by upper-level cold air. Thus, these extreme weather events would imply that our atmosphere is getting colder, not warmer, in the upper levels.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PlazaRed:
This problem has been on the cards for some time now and its not going to go away.I fear that the drought affected people aren't going to go away as well. The USA has a vast area with about 300 million people in it, room will be found for any climatic refugees.

Land area may not be a problem--but being sure those refugees have access to adequate jobs, food, water, medical services, and so on, may prove to be an unconquerable logistical nightmare.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
People, a 1 degree fluctuation (Globally) can have big implications on wx patterns. This is the reason for more and more of these big wx disasters over the last 10 to 20 years globally. This post by Doc pretty much sums it up guys.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting goodsign:
The only logical answer is to get rid of human beings. They are the cause of everything we hate about the world. Then the animals and plants would be happy again.

We are working fast, to do this.
Stuff like Roundup weedicides are ensuring that we will soon be unable to reproduce.
All is well. :}:}}
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sure, temperatures have been flat for the last 13 years... if you cherry-pick your data and treat 1998 as a baseline, rather than the positive outlier it actually was.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If you believe in global warming, like. If you dont, dislike.
I don't
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thinking on some of the comments and info about fuel/energy prices and the amount of disposable cash that gets spent on energy in general, in the CO2 theme.
A gallon of Diesel in the UK costs about $8.50 a US Gallon, (a bit cheaper in Europe,)other energy prices are very high as well. Meanwhile the requirements for transport and energy are not getting any less.
I recently did a survey of local people about what they intend to do to combat costs and a lot of them said they are going to burn wood which can be got for free in forests and land fills. Its of course inevitable that this will lead to increased dirty air pollution mainly in rural areas with little smoke controls.
I would be willing to chance a bet that this will also be happening in a large amount of the developing world,leading to more tree felling.This is a downward spiral which will be difficult to halt.
Its a lot easier to burn wood than make your own diesel. The pollution quandary.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting goodsign:
It's a catastrophe. The earth has warmed 1 degree Celsius in the last 50 years.

One of the greatest climate catastrophes ever was the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), an event that took place about 60 million years ago during which there were major disruptions to the biosphere, with mass extinctions. During the PETM, global temperatures rose roughly six degrees Celsius over a period of approximately 20,000 years--a rate about 65-70 times slower that what's taking place now. That "1 degree Celsius in the last 50 years" may not seem like much, but it's a bad thing. A Very Bad Thing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The only logical answer is to get rid of human beings. They are the cause of everything we hate about the world. Then the animals and plants would be happy again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DallasGumby:


Kyoto or no Kyoto - U.S. carbon emissions have fallen 7 percent since 2007.

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2011/u pdate101

Curious.
How much of this is due to the slowing of manufacture within the US ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting goodsign:
It's a catastrophe. The earth has warmed 1 degree Celsius in the last 50 years. The scientists know everything about what effects the climate. Look at all the disasters, and you're still asking questions?


Yet, for the last 11 years (actually 13, says the lead author of this week's Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures paper), global temperatures have remained flat.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Unless we find alternatives for every thing made from a barrel of oil, we are still screwed.

Well, do we want to screw ourselves more or do we want to screw ourselves less?

We can get off of oil for most of our transportation using current technology. Just look at the Chevy Volt. Switching to PHEVs like the Volt would cut personal petroleum use to a very small percentage of what it now is. Current Volt owners report that they buy a 9.3 gallon tank of gas for every 1,000 miles driven. That's about 20% as much gas as the average US auto uses.

Some portion of drivers could do fine with a pure EV like the Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus, or upcoming Chevy Spark. Those cars use zero oil and all the electricity they need can be made using wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro and other renewable methods.

Furthermore, we're now making plastic from plant sources rather than oil. Not a huge percentage, but we will increase that amount over time. Especially if we decide to do so.

We might not have all the answers right now, but we've got enough to keep us busy converting while researchers discover more. If we had all the answers right now it would still take a couple of decades or more to transition over.

Makes sense to me to get started and assume that we'll figure out the rest of the puzzle as we go along. Just look at how successful we've been in all the other technological areas we've worked. Consider how your computer has changed since the Apple II, B&W, 12MHz clock, no hard drive, ....


Right now it's like being in a sinking boat in the middle of the ocean. Best to start bailing and hope that someone shows up to help you out than to sit in the cockpit and watch the water rise around your ankles. We can buy time and have less water to get out in case someone shows up with a pump....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's a catastrophe. The earth has warmed 1 degree Celsius in the last 50 years. The scientists know everything about what effects the climate. Look at all the disasters, and you're still asking questions?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HuracanTaino:
The U.S. lack of responsibility was shown for not ratifying the Kioto Protocol. . . .

On the contrary As China emerges as the #1, world power, would also be the #1 country responsible for Climate changes.


Kyoto or no Kyoto - U.S. carbon emissions have fallen 7 percent since 2007.

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2011/u pdate101
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aspectre:
7 Stormchaser2007 "What?! No GW reference?"

Since ya mentioned it...

blog1980comment38 Patrap "co2now.org 389.00ppm Atmospheric CO2 for September 2011"

People pumped ~512million more (metric) tonnes of carbon into the air in 2010 than they did in 2009...an increase of 6 percent.
That extra pollution exceeds the individual emissions of all but three countries...

...China (2,248megatonnes), the UnitedStates (1,498megatonnes), and India (564megatonnes).
Simply put, it's all India's fault. Reducing India's carbon emissions to 52megatonnes would eliminate the increase.

Extra emissions from China and the U.S. account for more than half of the increase last year... hrrrm... May hafta eliminate Russia's contribution to make up for 2011.

The carbon emissions for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change four years ago...
...which led to a projected global temperature increase of 4to11degreesFahrenheit with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees by the end of the century.

The IPCC's worst case scenario was about in the middle of what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated to be likely scenarios.

The good news is, the developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels.

The U.S. did not ratify the agreement, and that lack of commitment shows.
As U.S. economy continue to fall, and production falling too, probably their carbon emissions, will fall too. The U.S. lack of responsibility was shown for not ratifying the Kioto Protocol. That possition made the rest of the world lose respect for the U.S. as well.On the contrary As China emerges as the #1, world power, would also be the #1 country responsible for Climate changes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This just in. In 30 years the Left will be cramming down your kids throats the next ice age as the globe cools.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting EasyRiderX:


That is a poor invention for a couple of reasons.

What happens when the open regions of the tires fill with mud, dirt, or snow? What happens when other debris finds it's way in there as it easily would?

Do I spend an hour scraping the debris out of the tires to regain a comfortable ride?

What happens when the mischievous kids down the block slide a broom handle through the spokes and I don't see it and try to drive off?

It would seem to me like this tire invention is begging for trouble.

People had negative things to say when Michelin built the first steel-belted radials, too.
Bring the New Designs, I love it!
And I am sure you will have the options to stick with leaking tyres.

How many times have kids put nails under your Tube-type tyres, by the way??? And what makes you think that they will put the garden rake through these ones?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
87. MTWX
Quoting 1911maker:
Quoted from Bobwallace
....
Were we to switch to renewable energy for our electricity, heating and transportation we would no longer need to extract carbon from underneath the Earth and pump it into our atmosphere. We can do everything with renewables that we now do with fossil fuels. And we can save money by switching to renewables...................


I commented on this in the climate blog yesterday so this is a bit redundant. But given the statement above, here it is again worded different

What oil is used for
~%40 is gasoline and Diesel fuel
~%60 is:
Plastic
Asphalt
Pharmaceuticals
Pesticides (herbicide and insecticide) (think food here)
and a great many more things.

a list of things made from oil I grabbed off the net at random.

Link

Unless we find alternatives for every thing made from a barrel of oil, we are still screwed.

Even if we had the magic "energy" replacement for coal, Natural gas, Gasoline, and diesel fuel, the demand for oil will stay the same.

Way to many people focus on the evil SUV instead of the big/complete picture. A barrel of oil is more then energy.


I understand the point you are getting at. There will always be a demand for oil, but the reduction of use will always help. If we could somehow cut out the fuel aspect (and the fact both plastics/asphalt are both recycleable/reusable for the most part) you are looking at roughly a 60% decrease in demand, in my humble opinion...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TXMegaWatt:


Bohonk, I hope you guys get some of the wet weather expected here in Dallas next week. A lot of rain is forecast for our area beginning Monday.
Some areas of North Texas could get 1 to 2 inches in heavier storms, I am happy now when any part of Texas gets rain. This is from NWS Dallas: A CAP WILL REMAIN IN PLACE OVER THE EASTERN
COUNTIES THROUGH EARLY MONDAY...THUS THUNDERSTORMS ARE NOT EXPECTED
TO MIGRATE INTO THAT AREA UNTIL MONDAY AFTERNOON. THE SEVERE
THUNDERSTORM POTENTIAL SHOULD REMAIN LOW UNTIL MONDAY NIGHT WHEN
THE PACIFIC FRONT ENTERS THE WESTERN COUNTIES...AND ON TUESDAY
WHEN COLD 500MB TEMPS TRANSVERSE THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE CWA.
THE AXIS OF MAXIMUM RAINFALL REMAINS ALONG AN ARDMORE OKLAHOMA TO
COMANCHE LINE WITH AROUND ONE INCH POSSIBLE AROUND GAINESVILLE AND
SHERMAN-DENNISON TO 1/2 INCH AROUND STEPHENVILLE THROUGH TUESDAY
NIGHT.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoted from Bobwallace
....
Were we to switch to renewable energy for our electricity, heating and transportation we would no longer need to extract carbon from underneath the Earth and pump it into our atmosphere. We can do everything with renewables that we now do with fossil fuels. And we can save money by switching to renewables...................


I commented on this in the climate blog yesterday so this is a bit redundant. But given the statement above, here it is again worded different

What oil is used for
~%40 is gasoline and Diesel fuel
~%60 is:
Plastic
Asphalt
Pharmaceuticals
Pesticides (herbicide and insecticide) (think food here)
and a great many more things.

a list of things made from oil I grabbed off the net at random.

Link

Unless we find alternatives for every thing made from a barrel of oil, we are still screwed.

Even if we had the magic "energy" replacement for coal, Natural gas, Gasoline, and diesel fuel, the demand for oil will stay the same.

Way to many people focus on the evil SUV instead of the big/complete picture. A barrel of oil is more then energy.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Reading through today's comments, it seems we have been on more or less the same theme for the last 3 blogs, in the form of disasters,and potential disasters, financial included.
Of special interest is:-61. EasyRiderX. This problem has been on the cards for some time now and its not going to go away.I fear that the drought affected people aren't going to go away as well. The USA has a vast area with about 300 million people in it, room will be found for any climatic refugees. The refugees of the Asian droughts probably wont have anywhere to go. The population of the world has risen from 6 billion in 1999 to 7 billion in 2011. Chances are at the rate things seem to going it won't get to 8 billion?
Financially these increased numbers of disasters are a massive problem but no amount of finance is going to stop them.This might just be the reaping of the whirlwind that was sown as the wind.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TXMegaWatt:


Bohonk, I hope you guys get some of the wet weather expected here in Dallas next week. A lot of rain is forecast for our area beginning Monday.
Reading NWS in Dallas and Austin, half an inch expected in Dallas area and less than a tenth of an inch in Austin area? The 7 to 10 day computer models for past several weeks have been showing great rains for Texas but so far they have all been Wrong, I dont think the models take La Nina and the stupid drought into play? I will take whatever light rain i can get but according to NWS rainfall amounts will be disappointing again in almost all of Texas? Hope they are wrong at least once. It seems it rains down here pretty good every 3 to 4 months but that is about it, that is the way it has been since last September. Strong system comes in and is Lacking moisture or gets dry slotted every time. We will get a dry line to come thru before the fronts come thru and just dry us out. With La Nina almost all weather systems miss Texas except maybe the Northern third of Texas that is why Dallas has been 3 times as wet as Austin the past year plus.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 132 - 82

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.