Are those 5000 persons who have died from the heat or are they what
our media calls "heat-related deaths" which apparently means anyone
who dies while the weather was hot. I'm guessing you really don't have
any real figures. As far as I can tell from listening to the media
most deaths were the result of persons with preconditions (asthma
etc.) having a reaction to the smoke from the forest fires. Of course
they pointed noted that it's SO hot in Moscow and the forests SO baked
to tinder dryness that the 100 degree heat just kept setting the
forests on fire as fast as they could put them out!
Whew! Of course, I'm betting you never read the book Fahrenheit 451.
Of course, it is said that the real number is 842 degrees Fahrenheit.
(When paper and wood products have spontaneous combustion from the
heat). The bottom line is the media is as usual spewing a bunch of
"plausible" explanations while the public (you) just suck them up as
truth. Sorry, the hot weather is not "starting" forest fires. And
therefore not "killing people".
Anyway, please make a note of this: Weather is not climate. Climate is
a proper average of weather. Variations (even extreme variations) of
weather are not proof that climate is changing. To understand all this
you'd need to understand the nature of Nile-like statistics. It seems
likely to me that the alarmists actually DO understand Nile-like
statistics and are using the fact that most people DO NOT understand
how they work to fuel their panic machine.
Doesn't matter. Fran Liebowitz (a New Yorker) once observed: "The outdoors
is something through which I pass between my apartment and my car." That's
what we do in the Bayou City.
We in Houston didn't build the first air-conditioned sports stadium to be
ostentatious - it was required. (Interestingly, the Astrodome is now idle.
They do keep the A/C on else the building would have its own thunderstorms.)
rant mode on-
I'm gettin' old. I remember when that place was new and high-tech.
If I was benign dictator of the universe, anybody who built a new
stadium would have to pay off, out of their own money, any remaining
public bonds for the stadium it is replacing. A massive public or
semi-public building, almost always involving tax dollars directly or
indirectly, having a service life less than 60-75 years, is a sin. In
the last five years, they have demolished several less than 30 years
old. Aside from the pillage of the public treasury, it can't be good for
the environment to expend that many calories on construction and
demolition, along with the incidental contamination inevitable any time
Big Yellow Machines are involved.
There was a time when edifices lasted a century or more. We are becoming
a country without a past, other than in old photographs. (Not that many
people keep or look at those any more either. Lotsa luck finding 50 year
old digital photos in Grandpa's attic.)
rant mode off..
The principals consider themselves owners of a money-making enterprise, not
curators of a museum. Times have changed; there's money - a lot of money -
to be made in sky-boxes with hot tubs and such. The old stadiums just can't
accomodate the needs of the uber rich.
Over 9000 Phd's say not so
Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained
in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the
past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
1. Atmosphere (579)
I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
The atmosphere is gaining less C02 than humans have been producing, and
this has been true at least since 1959. Nature is actually removing CO2
from the atmosphere.
- Don Klipstein ( email@example.com)
firstname.lastname@example.org (Don Klipstein) wrote in
Sine this has now become a Real Science Usenet Group (RSUG), let me state
that such is indeed the case. CO2 gets generated (by many different
processes) and consumed (also by many different process). These cycles
are more or less in equilibrium, so that the flux through all the ccles
combined used to keep the CO2 concentration more or less the same. The
question is whether our human generation of CO2 through burning of fossil
fuel (not the only human process) is so great that it throws the
equilibrium off. Many scientists say yes, a few no. Many here in this
RSUG say no, some yes. Maybe my grandchildren will later on be able to
answer for sure, in hindsight.
Now for a different aspect of climate. It has been said that recent
great earth quakes (China, Haiti, Chile) have altered the stance of the
earth's axis. Did this increase the expected severity of winters and
What about them? Volcanism is considered to have caused CO2 accumulations
in the geological record, with accompanying climate change. If you mean
current and recent (last several 1000 years) volcanic activity, then tell
how and what it does?
Sorry, I disagree. Unless you can show that since about 1800 volcanoes
spewing CO2 has increased compared to the average over 1000s of years
before 1800. The volcanoes have always been part of the equilibrium of
the cycles. Except for those periods (whenever that was in geologic
time) that volcanoes were much more active.
_World's Oldest Oil Spills: Asphalt 'Volcanoes'_
* The "asphalt volcanoes" were found 700 feet down off the shores
of southern California.
* The asphalt is at least 35,000-years-old and may contain remains
of ancient organisms.
* Massive and deadly eruptions of methane probably accompanied the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.