Typhoon Bopha hits the Philippines at Cat 5 strength; at least 40 killed

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:00 PM GMT on December 04, 2012

Share this Blog
37
+

Typhoon Bopha slammed ashore on the Philippine island of Mindanao at 4:45 am local time on Tuesday morning as a Category 5 storm with 160 mph winds. Bopha is the third Category 5 typhoon to affect the Western Pacific this year, and the strongest typhoon ever recorded to hit Mindanao, which rarely sees strong typhoons due to its position close to the Equator. The death toll from the powerful storm already stands at 40, and is expected to rise. While passage over land has weakened Bopha to a Category 2 storm, the tropical cyclone is spreading torrential rains over a large portion of the southern Philippine Islands, and this will cause serious flooding problems today. The island of Mindanao is highly vulnerable to flood disasters from tropical cyclones; last year's Tropical Storm Washi, which hit Mindanao on December 16, 2011 with 60 mph winds and torrential rains, killed over 1500 people. Before hitting the Philippines, Typhoon Bopha brought a storm surge estimated at ten feet to the island nation of Palau, where near-total destruction is being reported in some coastal areas.


Figure 1. Super Typhoon Bopha as seen from the International Space Station on December 2, 2012. At the time, Bopha had top sustained winds of 150 - 155 mph. Image credit: NASA.

Bopha: the 2nd most southerly Category 5 typhoon on record
Bopha, a Cambodian word for flower or a girl, became a tropical depression unusually close to the Equator, at 3.6°N latitude. Tropical cyclones rarely form so close to the Equator, because they cannot leverage the Earth's rotation to get themselves spinning. Bopha became the second most southerly Category 5 typhoon on Monday at 7.4°N latitude. The record is held by Typhoon Louise of 1964, which was a Category 5 storm at 7.3°N.


Video 1. Scenes of wind damage and flooding from Typhoon Bopha's landfall in the Philippines yesterday.

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: 151 - 101

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

Quoting pottery:

It would be cheaper to annex Canada, actually. And Russia.

:):))

"Annex", "go to war": as between Canada and the U.S.A., it's just words. However, you would still have the problem of moving water from north to south as well as across the divides, and the problem of monitoring the lines against espionage and terrorism -all of which you already knew. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

It would be cheaper to annex Canada, actually. And Russia.

:):))


It would be cheaper to dump water on farmland with those planes that are used to fight forest fires.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:






Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


You don't understand a basic truth, which is that "money" is not economics.

Money is a parasitic abstraction layer.

The Russians won't be able to make enough grain anyway, and neither will anyone else, so you'll be forced pay these costs to get water in order to grow food here, even if it costs 10 times more, because nobody else will have it anyway, as they don't have the land or infrastructure to grow it and ship it.


You can't buy your way out of a famine just because you have paper money, because the other nations only have so much, and they aren't going to sell everything to you and starve themselves in the process, just so they can get some of your paper money to look at.
Reality sucks, man.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

The difference of course, is the price of the commodity.
If water was priced at US$100.00/bbl (like oil) it would be feasible/profitable/cost effective to move it around.

That's not going to happen of course.
Or will it ?


Good point. Barring some miraculous technological advancement, the price of water is destined to rise at a rapid clip over the coming decades.

But of course the ecological and NIMBY issues remain. Plus our modern society has clearly lost its appetite for large engineering projects. Used to be these large projects were held up as evidence of a country's success. These days people just ask "how much will it cost?" and the conversation never makes it past the planning phase...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

The difference of course, is the price of the commodity.
If water was priced at US$100.00/bbl (like oil) it would be feasible/profitable/cost effective to move it around.

That's not going to happen of course.
Or will it ?

Sure hope not.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


A national water grid is a fantasy. Water isn't electricity. If the cost of growing a ton of grain with expensive pumped water exceeds the cost of importng the same ton from Russia, then you'll be buying Russian grain.

This is an unsatisfatory situation, because it's not good to be dependent on others for food, oil, or whatever. But, it's economics, and you can't buck the market. Do you really think US bread makers are going to pay more for home grown wheat, rather than buy cheaper, imported wheat?



You don't understand a basic truth, which is that "money" is not economics.

Money is a parasitic abstraction layer.

The Russians won't be able to make enough grain anyway, and neither will anyone else, so you'll be forced pay these costs to get water in order to grow food here, even if it costs 10 times more, because nobody else will have it anyway, as they don't have the land or infrastructure to grow it and ship it.


You can't buy your way out of a famine just because you have paper money, because the other nations only have so much, and they aren't going to sell everything to you and starve themselves in the process, just so they can get some of your paper money to look at.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Land area of the contiguous United States is 2,959,064 square miles (7,663,941 km2)
Land area of the Roman empire:- 2,750,000 km²

Roughly a third the land area of the lower United States.

Not a bad lump of land area to control and irrigate for about 800 years. Not all of it needed irrigating of course but Ive seen some pretty impressive aqueducts that are still in use 2000 years after they were built.

Supper time now!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMixon:


Yes you could. But the size of the pipes/aqueducts you need to relieve regional floods/droughts are huge. And because we don't know where floods/droughts will occur, we'd need the network to cover every watershed. In other words, you'd need pipelines connecting every one of these little units:




And you'd need huge pumping stations to move water up and over the divides. And even in flood years many of these huge pipelines and pump stations would sit unused because they weren't in the right spot.

Never mind the NIMBY problem you'd face... who wants one of these running through their back yard?



And then there are the environmental impacts. Agricultural land along our river corridors is fertile in large part thanks to regular flooding (think deposition of nutrients and fresh topsoil). Riparian zones, estuary systems, etc. have all evolved to depend upon occasional flooding. How do we maintain these ecological systems if we deprive them of the floods they've gotten so used to?

It would be cheaper to annex Canada, actually. And Russia.

:):))
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bohonkweatherman:
i agree
In the Past 3 years we will get some rain but then we have periods of 2 to 4 months with little to no rain, that is why Lake Travis is not gaining water and is at its lowest levels since World War II.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Bielle:


Sure we would, just the way we all buy home manufactured goods rather than the cheaper imports.

LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:


Either the crop won't grow or by your water idea If I bought enough to grow my crops you could not afford them anyway.

So what is the difference?

Exactly. No difference.

Prepare for the worst. Hope for the best.
I am not overly optimistic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


I'm not advocating this, but couldn't you just build larger aqueducts if you needed more water?


Yes you could. But the size of the pipes/aqueducts you need to relieve regional floods/droughts are huge - MUCH larger than our current systems. And because we don't know where floods/droughts will occur, we'd need a network of tens of thousands of these massive pipeline/pump systems to cover every watershed. In other words, you'd need pipelines connecting every one of these little units:




And you'd need huge pumping stations to move water up and over the divides. And even in flood years many of these huge pipelines and pump stations would sit unused because they weren't in the right spot.

Never mind the NIMBY problem you'd face... who wants one of these running through their back yard?



And then there are the environmental impacts. Agricultural land along our river corridors is fertile in large part thanks to regular flooding (think deposition of nutrients and fresh topsoil). Riparian zones, estuary systems, etc. have all evolved to depend upon occasional flooding. How do we maintain these ecological systems if we deprive them of the floods they've gotten so used to?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


A national water grid is a fantasy. Water isn't electricity. If the cost of growing a ton of grain with expensive pumped water exceeds the cost of importng the same ton from Russia, then you'll be buying Russian grain.

This is an unsatisfatory situation, because it's not good to be dependent on others for food, oil, or whatever. But, it's economics, and you can't buck the market. Do you really think US bread makers are going to pay more for home grown wheat, rather than buy cheaper, imported wheat?



Sure we would, just the way we all buy home manufactured goods rather than the cheaper imports.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Bielle:


Just in case you didn't know (as I did not) about Les Stroud, here he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Stroud

I am quite sure there are American equivalents, many of them, even if they don't make videos, or get their friends to chop their wood.

If 40% of Americans are obese, I don't know how that is connected to them not knowing where vegetables and beef come from. Are you conflating two separate ideas here?


Ok, so 35%, beg pardon, I guestimated.

Obesity in the U.S.

Obesity in the United States has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent decades. While many industrialized countries have experienced similar increases, obesity rates in the United States are among the highest in the world.[3] Of all countries, the United States has the highest rate of obesity. From 13% obesity in 1962, estimates have steadily increased, reaching 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[4] 26.6% in 2007,[5] and 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.[6][7] In 2010, the CDC reported higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Quoting yonzabam:


A national water grid is a fantasy. Water isn't electricity. If the cost of growing a ton of grain with expensive pumped water exceeds the cost of importng the same ton from Russia, then you'll be buying Russian grain.

This is an unsatisfatory situation, because it's not good to be dependent on others for food, oil, or whatever. But, it's economics, and you can't buck the market. Do you really think US bread makers are going to pay more for home grown wheat, rather than buy cheaper, improrted wheat?


It's dependent on the consumer, again.
If the consumer agrees to pay more for home-grown bread, then that's it.

Not happening, of course.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

The difference of course, is the price of the commodity.
If water was priced at US$100.00/bbl (like oil) it would be feasible/profitable/cost effective to move it around.

That's not going to happen of course.
Or will it ?


Either the crop won't grow or by your water idea If I bought enough to grow my crops you could not afford them anyway.

So what is the difference?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:


We're bankrupt, never will happen. Anything like that will add to deficit, that's now the mindset now as well, we can't afford more debt. We're a few major natural disasters from imploding, that's how close we are. It's crazy to wrap your head around it, but it's the truth.

Leaving things on a trifle negative note, I'm going to cook supper and think about how to inject a few positive thoughts into the Mid West drought problem.
There was no comment on the European 9pm news about the cyclone, which I find very disturbing, everybody over here is moaning about debt and inflation. 5 million out of work now in Spain with a population of 40 million more or less. that's 26% of the active workforce.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PlazaRed:

When you consider expense in the matter of millions of human lives and a large section of the national agricultural economy then the foundations of society must be in question.
If nothing is done or even planed to be done then the results probably will be catastrophic!
How many of us who are not directly affected are concerned?
Some countries have canals hundreds of miles long to bring water, you have built roads,railways and pipelines in the US for many years, its now time to build a national water grid and if necessary a power station to drive the pumps.
At the end of the day, the alternative does not bear thinking about.


A national water grid is a fantasy. Water isn't electricity. If the cost of growing a ton of grain with expensive pumped water exceeds the cost of importng the same ton from Russia, then you'll be buying Russian grain.

This is an unsatisfatory situation, because it's not good to be dependent on others for food, oil, or whatever. But, it's economics, and you can't buck the market. Do you really think US bread makers are going to pay more for home grown wheat, rather than buy cheaper, imported wheat?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMixon:


The Romans did not redistribute massive floodwaters with aqueducts. They used them to bring fountains and running water to urban dwellings and then only where gravity provided favorable conditions to do it.

There's a big scale difference between making a cute fountain in your town square and moving hundreds of millions of acre-feet of water up and over a hydrologic divide.

I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations using stated costs of existing pipeline systems compared to volumetric estimates for floods/droughts. The numbers aren't even close. The Treasury couldn't print money fast enough to create a nationwide (or even regional) drought/flood relief network.

The difference of course, is the price of the commodity.
If water was priced at US$100.00/bbl (like oil) it would be feasible/profitable/cost effective to move it around.

That's not going to happen of course.
Or will it ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Rome's a bit smaller than the US.


Actually the Roman Empire did not confine it's efforts to just the city of Rome..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:



"Agricultural fires" are from sugar cane, and possibly some beets (I forget).

Look it up, I don't feel like typing.


In the U.S. West fields of all crop types (wheat, corn, barley, etc) are burned as a weed management strategy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMixon:


The Romans did not redistribute massive floodwaters with aqueducts. They used them to bring fountains and running water to urban dwellings and then only where gravity provided favorable conditions to do it.

There's a big scale difference between making a cute fountain in your town square and moving hundreds of millions of acre-feet of water up and over a hydrologic divide.

I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations using stated costs of existing pipeline systems compared to volumetric estimates for floods/droughts. The numbers aren't even close. The Treasury couldn't print money fast enough to create a nationwide (or even regional) drought/flood relief network.


I'm not advocating this, but couldn't you just build larger aqueducts if you needed more water?
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6624
Quoting pottery:

That would be Italy.


Wait, what? haha
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6624
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


The Romans were able to do it without a single pump.


The Romans did not redistribute massive floodwaters with aqueducts. They used them to bring fountains and running water to urban dwellings and then only where gravity provided favorable conditions to do it.

There's a big scale difference between making a cute fountain in your town square and moving hundreds of millions of acre-feet of water up and over a hydrologic divide.

I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations using stated costs of existing pipeline systems compared to volumetric estimates for floods/droughts. The numbers aren't even close. The Treasury couldn't print money fast enough to create a nationwide (or even regional) drought/flood relief network.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


1/3rd the size, same concept would still work

That would be Italy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PlazaRed:

When you consider expense in the matter of millions of human lives and a large section of the national agricultural economy then the foundations of society must be in question.
If nothing is done or even planed to be done then the results probably will be catastrophic!
How many of us who are not directly affected are concerned?
Some countries have canals hundreds of miles long to bring water, you have built roads,railways and pipelines in the US for many years, its now time to build a national water grid and if necessary a power station to drive the pumps.
At the end of the day, the alternative does not bear thinking about.

Good post.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Rome's a bit smaller than the US.


1/3rd the size, same concept would still work
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6624
Quoting yonzabam:


That would require pumping. Water's heavy, and it takes a lot of energy to pump it. That would make it very expensive and the economics probably wouldn't stack up.

When you consider expense in the matter of millions of human lives and a large section of the national agricultural economy then the foundations of society must be in question.
If nothing is done or even planed to be done then the results probably will be catastrophic!
How many of us who are not directly affected are concerned?
Some countries have canals hundreds of miles long to bring water, you have built roads,railways and pipelines in the US for many years, its now time to build a national water grid and if necessary a power station to drive the pumps.
At the end of the day, the alternative does not bear thinking about.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

I wonder how vulnerable China is to climate change. The U.S. always has had the Great Plains problem. It was labeled on maps as the Great American Desert before it was settled.


As vulnerable as everywhere else, I should think.
But it's pretty well accepted that some areas would become wetter and others drier. It HAS to rain somewhere.
I'm not sure how it all pans out of course.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


That would require pumping. Water's heavy, and it takes a lot of energy to pump it. That would make it very expensive and the economics probably wouldn't stack up.


LOL?

Economics, he says.

Paper money is meaningless if people are starving or dying of thirst.

Which is more important? Your $200 iPhone (which costs you a minimum of $67 per month,) or the water needed to grow a crop or a livestock animal for food?
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
"The term Great American Desert was used in the 19th century to describe the western part of the Great Plains east of the Rocky Mountains in North America to about the 100th meridian."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

Agreed. Thanks.
Going to be Problems though.

On another tack....
The US is about to become independent of imported fuels to a large extent.
Thanks to LNG supplies from TarSands.
This will make fuel plenty cheaper for domestic use (especially manufacture/industry) and people are saying that in 20-30 years the manufacturing base of the US will once again be #1 Globally.

It will be cheaper to make goods in the US for the US market & export, than the Chinese/Indian/Korean/etc factories.

Successive US governments have been accused of "exporting" manufacture/jobs/technology overseas.
Government doesnt do that. The buying public does that by demanding cheap consumables.

Hopefully, the weather/climate allows the US to remain virtually independent in food.
If it does not, the US is back to square one, exchanging dependence on oil for dependence on food.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

I wonder how vulnerable China is to climate change. The U.S. always has had the Great Plains problem. It was labeled on maps as the Great American Desert before it was settled.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I think that we all know that in the near future there is probably a 1% chance that Canada and the USA will go to war...

2nd of all... 1812 was a british victory bcause of british forces

Come on people Canada and the USA are allies and allies don't fight each other.... (this was for the last pages argument :P) ANYWAY...

The weather is great here in SE PA. It is in the mid 60's which hasnt happened since early October so its quite nice to have another taste of early fall!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


The Romans were able to do it without a single pump.


Rome's a bit smaller than the US.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:
Canada has Les Stroud.

U.S. has 40% obese people who don't actually know where we get vegetables or beef.


Just in case you didn't know (as I did not) about Les Stroud, here he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Stroud

I am quite sure there are American equivalents, many of them, even if they don't make videos, or get their friends to chop their wood.

If 40% of Americans are obese, I don't know how that is connected to them not knowing where vegetables and beef come from. Are you conflating two separate ideas here?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:


I'm afraid Central TX is becoming Mexico desert land, and massive implications are coming for TX
i agree
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


That would require pumping. Water's heavy, and it takes a lot of energy to pump it. That would make it very expensive and the economics probably wouldn't stack up.


The Romans were able to do it without a single pump.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6624
Quoting PlazaRed:

I sincerely appreciate what you are saying and predicting.
The results of this drought, or it might turn into a climate change if it goes on for a very long time are that reality will eventually take precedence over materialism, when people start dying things will happen.
Last week Skyepony posted a picture of a massive pipeline being constructed, probably to do with oil transport. What you have to create is a grid type of water distribution similar to electricity distribution. At least this way water will get delivered. Maybe not enough for irrigation but enough for survival.


We're bankrupt, never will happen. Anything like that will add to deficit, that's now the mindset now as well, we can't afford more debt. We're a few major natural disasters from imploding, that's how close we are. It's crazy to wrap your head around it, but it's the truth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

Use less fossil fuel, make less cement, less deforestation. Those are the big three CO2 contributors. But it will be a tough sell. People won't see any benefit from doing it for quite a while since CO2 has a fairly long life time in the atmosphere--except the benefit from imagining how much worse things could be.

People won't change on their own. History with coal and killer smogs in the US and UK show that. There will have to be legislation. That won't happen without an enlightened electorate. I'm pessimistic about that.

Then there is the problem of China which has quickly passed the US as the largest CO2 producing country--even though the per capita production is less. All of the denial propaganda helps China continue on their current course.

Agreed. Thanks.
Going to be Problems though.

On another tack....
The US is about to become independent of imported fuels to a large extent.
Thanks to LNG supplies from TarSands.
This will make fuel plenty cheaper for domestic use (especially manufacture/industry) and people are saying that in 20-30 years the manufacturing base of the US will once again be #1 Globally.

It will be cheaper to make goods in the US for the US market & export, than the Chinese/Indian/Korean/etc factories.

Successive US governments have been accused of "exporting" manufacture/jobs/technology overseas.
Government doesnt do that. The buying public does that by demanding cheap consumables.

Hopefully, the weather/climate allows the US to remain virtually independent in food.
If it does not, the US is back to square one, exchanging dependence on oil for dependence on food.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
111. yoboi
Quoting RitaEvac:


lol, The end?....it's only just beginning, we aint going out with a bang, it's gonna be a long drawn out process....


atleast for 4 more yrs...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PlazaRed:

I sincerely appreciate what you are saying and predicting.
The results of this drought, or it might turn into a climate change if it goes on for a very long time are that reality will eventually take precedence over materialism, when people start dying things will happen.
Last week Skyepony posted a picture of a massive pipeline being constructed, probably to do with oil transport. What you have to create is a grid type of water distribution similar to electricity distribution. At least this way water will get delivered. Maybe not enough for irrigation but enough for survival.


Here in New Mexico, we don't know if it is climate change or the multiseasonal droughts that have been recurring cyclically for as long as there have been people here. Nevertheless, we are in a drought and now expect wild fires every spring and summer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PlazaRed:

I sincerely appreciate what you are saying and predicting.
The results of this drought, or it might turn into a climate change if it goes on for a very long time are that reality will eventually take precedence over materialism, when people start dying things will happen.
Last week Skyepony posted a picture of a massive pipeline being constructed, probably to do with oil transport. What you have to create is a grid type of water distribution similar to electricity distribution. At least this way water will get delivered. Maybe not enough for irrigation but enough for survival.


That would require pumping. Water's heavy, and it takes a lot of energy to pump it. That would make it very expensive and the economics probably wouldn't stack up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Before we jump to conclusions on food lets look at the harvest data for the U S

Sorghum harvest up nearly 20% from last year

Corn harvest down 13% from last year

Soybeans down 10% from last year

Wheat harvest up 13% from last year

Cotton up 12% from last year

Source usda


Mixed bag.

They don't actually report "good news" on television, so never realize that side of things.

Still, if the rivers get too low it won't matter what we produce, much of it won't make it to port.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Quoting RitaEvac:


Yep, but in this country, it's playing on Facebook, how to make the next million dollar idea, how to get rich and make more profits, and what's the latest fashion, what's my stock portfolio look like, and where we going to party this weekend, and all about me, me me, me me. Just sit back and watch the whole thing implode and fall in on itself, matter of time.

I sincerely appreciate what you are saying and predicting.
The results of this drought, or it might turn into a climate change if it goes on for a very long time are that reality will eventually take precedence over materialism, when people start dying things will happen.
Last week Skyepony posted a picture of a massive pipeline being constructed, probably to do with oil transport. What you have to create is a grid type of water distribution similar to electricity distribution. At least this way water will get delivered. Maybe not enough for irrigation but enough for survival.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting lilElla:


Green Bay NWS is talking about it, too. :)


I hope it becomes a good winter storm.

We need snow cover or else we are in trouble again next year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FunnelVortex:


Who wants to eat food from those homophobic a**holes anyway?



I do....some GOOOOD chicken sandwiches.....and the boycott was stupid...regardless of what the guy said.

The company doesnt violate any laws in hiring or serving, nor do they show any bias.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9733
104. txjac
Quoting bappit:

Use less fossil fuel, make less cement, less deforestation. Those are the big three CO2 contributors. But it will be a tough sell. People won't see any benefit from doing it for quite a while since CO2 has a fairly long life time in the atmosphere--except the benefit from imagining how much worse things could be.

People won't change on their own. History with coal and killer smogs in the US and UK show that. There will have to be legislation. That won't happen without an enlightened electorate. I'm pessimistic about that.

Then there is the problem of China which has quickly passed the US as the largest CO2 producing country--even though the per capita production is less. All of the denial propaganda helps China continue on their current course.


I would love to see more trees and less concrete! In Houston it seems like we continually through up strip malls on every available piece of land ...they are ugly. Most of them stay empty too,
Some nice small parks would be appreciated.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
SPC convective outlook was no joke today! Raining buckets in South Houston... Wish I could throw all this a little bit north, droughts make me sad.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FunnelVortex:


How does it look for Wausau?


Green Bay NWS is talking about it, too. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Before we jump to conclusions on food lets look at the harvest data for the U S

Sorghum harvest up nearly 20% from last year

Corn harvest down 13% from last year

Soybeans down 10% from last year

Wheat harvest up 13% from last year

Cotton up 12% from last year

Source usda
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 151 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog 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.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
65 °F
Partly Cloudy