George Bush - selfish!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Save the world?? Excuse me!!

Just in the case of global warming, France has been planning to ban (or probably has already) 4x4s because they cause more pollution. The US is probably the biggest consumer of 4x4 SUVs.

---

Sorry but who really cares what France does. What works in France doesn’t work everywhere. For me that’s just another sign of Frances socialistic system at work, telling you what you can and cannot do through endless government regulation and interference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

India has the first commercially produced all-electricity vehicle, while in the US, GM and Ford had to withdraw their electric vehicles from the market because they were not financially viable. What a developing country like India can achieve, the US cannot? Gimme a break here. And the Indian government is not even giving the electric vehicle Reva many subsidies that it should be giving.

While going through the reviews of the electrical vehicle, I came across an interview excerpt of Richard Branson who hinted that in the US such a research cannot be successful because the oil companies will effectively kill it for their own profits.

---

The electric car in the US failed because no one wanted it. It really is as simple as that. It had nothing to do with oil companies or the inability to mass produce an electric car. At the time gas was cheap and the economy was good so people decided that instead of buying a low power electric car, that only had a range of 200 miles, they decided to get a large SUV with tons of room and a lot of power.

While the electrical car might be a viable alternative in a country like India it wont stand a chance in the US when gas is still cheap and people have a lot of disposable income to throw around. People will buy what they want, this will drive the market to produce to fill that demand. It really is simple economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Well, it's an improvement really that over the last few years, Mr. Bush has at least learned that automobiles and other human sources do pollute. Enlightenment at last!

Bush's statements about the climate change at the recent G8 simply show he doesn't want to do anything about it and wants to protect his own oil companies more than the global climate.

---

The problem with the whole “climate change” / “global warming” / “global cooling”, I forget what they are calling it now as it changes almost daily, is that its an unproven theory which a lot of so called experts disagree on. I cant see imposing strict environmental regulations on only some nations and leaving out others based solely on an unproven theory. For me it seems more about restraining the US economy more than anything rather than trying to save the planet.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Another day, and yet no response. I wonder why?

---

Why should I have to come up with facts and figures to prove your point? Isnt that your job? My point is that the "facts" you provided were incomplete and from rather dubious sources. If you wish to support your point with more reliable and complete facts then go to it. :)

X

Blair today said that he was disappointed that Bush didn't join in the "global emission talks"...

The reason he stated was the without the US support, coutries like China and India would not respect the emission requirements.

What a laugh - we have to change our policies so new major polluters like China and India will cut back on emissions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

The electric car in the US failed because no one wanted it. It really is as simple as that. It had nothing to do with oil companies or the inability to mass produce an electric car. At the time gas was cheap and the economy was good so people decided that instead of buying a low power electric car, that only had a range of 200 miles, they decided to get a large SUV with tons of room and a lot of power.

---

I recently read that every US citizen uses 7 gallons of oil per day - that's for all purposes - electricy production, mass transit - everything...

And we probably pay less per gallon then most other countries...

It's hard to give up my big SUV and get a little power mower of a car, when it's cheaper to just keep going the way I am...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Save the world?? Excuse me!!

Just in the case of global warming, France has been planning to ban (or probably has already) 4x4s because they cause more pollution. The US is probably the biggest consumer of 4x4 SUVs.

India has the first commercially produced all-electricity vehicle, while in the US, GM and Ford had to withdraw their electric vehicles from the market because they were not financially viable. What a developing country like India can achieve, the US cannot? Gimme a break here. And the Indian government is not even giving the electric vehicle Reva many subsidies that it should be giving.

While going through the reviews of the electrical vehicle, I came across an interview excerpt of Richard Branson who hinted that in the US such a research cannot be successful because the oil companies will effectively kill it for their own profits.

Well, it's an improvement really that over the last few years, Mr. Bush has at least learned that automobiles and other human sources do pollute. Enlightenment at last!

Bush's statements about the climate change at the recent G8 simply show he doesn't want to do anything about it and wants to protect his own oil companies more than the global climate.

.

---

Are you talking about this India?

Quote:

---

Industrialization and urbanization have resulted in a profound deterioration of India's air quality. Of the 3 million premature deaths in the world that occur each year due to outdoor and indoor air pollution, the highest number are assessed to occur in India. According to the World Health Organization, the capital city of New Delhi is one of the top ten most polluted cities in the world. Surveys indicate that in New Delhi the incidence of respiratory diseases due to air pollution is about 12 times the national average.

According to another study, while India's gross domestic product has increased 2.5 times over the past two decades, vehicular pollution has increased eight times, while pollution from industries has quadrupled. Sources of air pollution, India's most severe environmental problem, come in several forms, including vehicular emissions and untreated industrial smoke. Apart from rapid industrialization, urbanization has resulted in the emergence of industrial centers without a corresponding growth in civic amenities and pollution control mechanisms.

Regulatory reforms aimed at improving the air pollution problem in cities such as New Delhi have been quite difficult to implement, however. For example, India's Supreme Court recently lifted a ruling that it imposed two years ago which required all public transport vehicles in New Delhi to switch to compressed natural gas (CNG) engines by April 1, 2001. This ruling, however, led to the disappearance of some 15,000 taxis and 10,000 buses from the city, creating public protests, riots, and widespread "commuter chaos." The court was similarly unsuccessful in 2000, when it attempted to ban all public vehicles that were more than 15 years old and ordered the introduction of unleaded gasoline and CNG. India's high concentration of pollution is not due to a lack of effort in building a sound environmental legal regime, but rather to a lack of enforcement at the local level. Efforts are currently underway to change this as new specifications are being adopted for auto emissions, which currently account for approximately 70% of air pollution. In the absence of coordinated government efforts, including stricter enforcement, this figure is likely to rise in the coming years due to the sheer increase in vehicle ownership.
Source: US Energy Information Agency

---

And yes, a quote from Richard Branson means quite a lot. Let me see if I can dig up some Bono or Oprah quotes. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

According to another study, while India's gross domestic product has increased 2.5 times over the past two decades, vehicular pollution has increased eight times, while pollution from industries has quadrupled

---

This statement all by itself says so much!

That's why I laugh at Blair's disapproval of Bush not getting into the emission regulation issue - like Bush/Blair or anyone under the sun can change what India or China is going to do in the next decade as far as pollution is concerned!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

Why should I have to come up with facts and figures to prove your point? Isnt that your job? My point is that the "facts" you provided were incomplete and from rather dubious sources. If you wish to support your point with more reliable and complete facts then go to it. :)

X

---

Your point was rather far from it. It was a reiteration of what was already fully disclosed; so you've left me a little confused by that comment
:confused:

As for 'dubious' sources - one presumes that's your opinion. You've provided no evidence or explanation of why, say, the BBC is a dubious source.

I hope you will find it in yourself to enlighten us all with your profound evidence and insight into what consitutes a dubious or reliable source of information.

Somehow I doubt it.

I'd rather you just said 'Sorry' and went on your way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Hey, Valleysboy1978. Ever been hit with a palm tree flying at you at 155 MPH? Betch someone in florida will know the feeling before the day is done.

---

Yes, the UK is a particularly temperate environment. We don't, as a rule, suffer from weather extremes on a regular and quasi-predictable manner.

Still, I'd like to go on a storm chasing trip, and experience these things first hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Hey, Valleysboy1978. Ever been hit with a palm tree flying at you at 155 MPH? Betch someone in florida will know the feeling before the day is done.

---

Granted the US does suffer from natural disasters on a regular basis. Which is the point I tried to make. The US people know what to expect and can evacuate to another part of the country at a moments notice because the infrastructure could handle it, they are also experienced in hurricanes so know how to board up their property and where the best places to hide are and I will readily admit I wouldn't have a clue what to do in a hurricane situation. And as for cost....I was talking of human lives, not financial.

For example, as yrywddfa has already mentioned Britain is very lucky to be in a temperate environment. Granted we don't get nearly as much sun, but we don't get hurricanes. However, if we had a class 5 hurricane Britain would suffer big time because:
1. The country is too small so there would be nowhere to evacuate to.
2. The British people simply do not know what to do in the event of a hurricane
3. There are no emergency policies in these events
4. Schools and workplaces do not practice safety drills so children, and adults alike would panic
5. The terrain of Britain is very hilly and so mass flooding would be a major problem
6. Many British buildings are hundreds of years old and are barely standing up as it is, they would be destroyed utterly

This is similar to what happened in Indonesia. Because of the lack of news coverage/warning, nobody knew the tsunami was coming. The buildings in Indonesia are simply not built to withstand any severe weather, so where could the people run to? And frankly where could they run? The islands are individually so small (much smaller than Florida) that the tsunami affected entire islands.


And as for a palm tree hitting me at 155mph...obviously not, because if that were the case I would be dead and wouldn't have felt anything anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Yes, the UK is a particularly temperate environment. We don't, as a rule, suffer from weather extremes on a regular and quasi-predictable manner.

Still, I'd like to go on a storm chasing trip, and experience these things first hand.

---

Man, those storm chasers are nuts. I saw a cat 4 tornado 3 blocks away when I was 13 and it scared the living crap out of me. It didn't hurt our house but it threw a stop sign through my neighbors wall. A Brick Wall. Earthquakes are pretty neat though as long as you're not indoors or in the city. You wouldn't believe the bending concrete will go through. I was in a parking lot when the last big one hit seattle. The concrete looked like a lake with big waves in it. Freaky stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Granted the US does suffer from natural disasters on a regular basis. Which is the point I tried to make. The US people know what to expect and can evacuate to another part of the country at a moments notice because the infrastructure could handle it, they are also experienced in hurricanes so know how to board up their property and where the best places to hide are and I will readily admit I wouldn't have a clue what to do in a hurricane situation. And as for cost....I was talking of human lives, not financial.

---

Saying the US should give more money implies financial cost not cost of human lives. No amount of money can replace a human life. We could donate 30 trillion dollars and it would be irrelevant concerning human life. Florida, Georgia, and Alabama are looking at anywhere between 3 to 5 billion dollars in damage. fox news That is not counting the flood damage that is being caused while what's left of the storm heads north. Pretty big bill to run up in a few hours and this wasn't even a real huricane. It stalled into a tropical storm before it hit. Please subtract the ammount of cash we spend on natural disasters, disease research, health care ect... before you calculate what percentage of our gnp goes to another country for relief. It's expensive being a huge country built on a geologically unstable continent with a track record for really crappy weather. Now if California would just get it over with and sink into the ocean.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Your point was rather far from it. It was a reiteration of what was already fully disclosed; so you've left me a little confused by that comment
:confused:

As for 'dubious' sources - one presumes that's your opinion. You've provided no evidence or explanation of why, say, the BBC is a dubious source.

I hope you will find it in yourself to enlighten us all with your profound evidence and insight into what consitutes a dubious or reliable source of information.

Somehow I doubt it.

I'd rather you just said 'Sorry' and went on your way.

---

You are the one that posted using an incomplete source to counter someone else’s assertion. So yes I am sorry you were unable to corroborate your opinion by using a more complete and reputable source, but as I said that is your problem not mine. I made no counter argument either way, I just simply pointed out that your evidence was clearly lacking.

But I will move on as I have made my point abundantly clear :)

X

MB - I like that Frank Zappa quote - altough I imagine it's from a different time in our society that he speaks...

Bush (and I believe Blair backs this up) feel that if the rest of the world becomes "democratic" - so that the people have a say in the decisions of the country they live in - that these countries will naturally evolve into better places.

Free = Real = Better

ValleyBoy is way, way off on the "know what to expect" and "ready to evacuate" view. Evacuating from Key West along a single hundred mile long road means you have to have the money for a car, money for gas, the ability to pull off leaving your home.

There is a circle here in the US...

LIFE -> EDUCATION -> FREEDOM -> CAPITALISM -> INFRASTRUCTURE -> GOVERNMENT... it goes on and on...

We build our infrastructure from our wealth which comes from our work, education, freedom - no dictator is taking all my hard efforts and turning them into gold toilet bowls - while I end up eradicated just because of a religious belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

You are the one that posted using an incomplete source to counter someone else’s assertion. So yes I am sorry you were unable to corroborate your opinion by using a more complete and reputable source, but as I said that is your problem not mine. I made no counter argument either way, I just simply pointed out that your evidence was clearly lacking.

But I will move on as I have made my point abundantly clear :)

X

---

for the record, yrwyddfa, is ahead in your two's 'debate', you just keep saying the same thing over and over, not even trying to give evidence :sick:, how does that prove ur point? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Man, those storm chasers are nuts. I saw a cat 4 tornado 3 blocks away when I was 13 and it scared the living crap out of me. It didn't hurt our house but it threw a stop sign through my neighbors wall. A Brick Wall. Earthquakes are pretty neat though as long as you're not indoors or in the city. You wouldn't believe the bending concrete will go through. I was in a parking lot when the last big one hit seattle. The concrete looked like a lake with big waves in it. Freaky stuff.

---

I'd love to see these things first hand (from a safe distance, I guess) We do actually get around 300 tornadoes in Britain every year but they're not anywhere near the scale that you guys get. Most of our tornadoes (to bore you all completely) normally are CAPE/LI imports from France and the majority of them end up being waterspouts in the channel. There was a case of a serious tornado in London, but that was a long long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfcSmitty

for the record, yrwyddfa, is ahead in your two's 'debate', you just keep saying the same thing over and over, not even trying to give evidence :sick:, how does that prove ur point? :confused:

---

Thats because I wasnt debating him. I was simply pointing out he was using an incomplete and dubious source to put forth his opinion. Dont know why you and others cannot seem to fathom that.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

Thats because I wasnt debating him. I was simply pointing out he was using an incomplete and dubious source to put forth his opinion. Dont know why you and others cannot seem to fathom that.

X

---

Its because he is posting a news site, with many hits, and no reputation of illegit reports. And you're saying it is 'dubious', but you obviously know you're wrong, as you cannot show any proof for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I'd love to see these things first hand (from a safe distance, I guess) We do actually get around 300 tornadoes in Britain every year but they're not anywhere near the scale that you guys get. Most of our tornadoes (to bore you all completely) normally are CAPE/LI imports from France and the majority of them end up being waterspouts in the channel. There was a case of a serious tornado in London, but that was a long long time ago.

---

Those are about the same as we get in Seattle. Little, waterspouts over Puget Sound. I haven't seen a big one(small one for you Kansas folk :)) since I lived in the Ohio river valley.

Biggest one I've seen was about a foot tall and blew some leaves around :( lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfcSmitty

Its because he is posting a news site, with many hits, and no reputation of illegit reports. And you're saying it is 'dubious', but you obviously know you're wrong, as you cannot show any proof for this.

---

I said dubious because it uses Al Jazzeria as a source. Most normal and reasonable people consider this a dubious source. Maybe you don’t, but hey you are entitled to your opinion.

Also if you read his own source it also says it is an incomplete accounting of money given for the tragedy. Hence my labeling it as incomplete.

Hopefully this will be the last time I will have to explain. If you still dont understand I do know some l33t speak, perhaps you would understand that better :wave:

X

I think we'll just draw a line under this one.

:rolleyes:

Before we all get banned? :lol:

Something along those lines. ;)

See? A waste of valuable time and energy. A bit like developing hiking boots for a shark :)

Did you get out of the wrong side of bed today Wally?

Practically every day. It keeps my engine running smoothly :)

:lol:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/07/wil....ap/index.html

Now THAT's a good western disaster! We don't know hurricanes, and we don't know tornadoes, but we sure know fire!

By the way, I lived in FL for about five years. I always wanted to see a hurricane, but they never showed up (except for the Miami Hurricanes, but they mostly just showed up in court). I moved there only a few days after hurricane Andrew had gone through back in '92.

The winds in hurricanes are strong, but it is entirely possible to build normal looking buildings that can withstand that wind. I remember seeing an aerial photo in Time magazine that showed the destruction caused by Andrew. Amongst blocks of flattened houses, there was one house with only a few shingles missing. That one was built by Habitat for Humanity.

In the months following the hurricane, story after story came out about building inspectors taking bribes to look the other way as contractors cut corners. There were trailers that were not secured to the ground, roofs that were not actually attached to the walls they were sitting on, etc.

It may well be that much of the property damage suffered in a hurricane in the US is not because of the force of the storm, but rather it is because the storms hit in areas that lack other severe weather (like winters). The lack of annual challenges to building integrity allows builders to cut corners with the understanding that the building will do well enough until the dice roll the wrong way.

hehehe. Yeah, I have a nice view of the mountains from my front window. The usual snowpack all melted 4- 5 months ahead of the norm. Should have a front row seat for that one when some moron tosses a lit cigarette butt out of his car window and it lands in a brush pile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I always wanted to see a hurricane, but they never showed up (except for the Miami Hurricanes, but they mostly just showed up in court).

---

:lol: :lol:

Well I think that cause of this is obvious. Clearly it's a joint effort between passive smoking and global warning. Which is Bush's fault anyway. ;)

and another

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/10/wil....ap/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

hehehe. Yeah, I have a nice view of the mountains from my front window. The usual snowpack all melted 4- 5 months ahead of the norm. Should have a front row seat for that one when some moron tosses a lit cigarette butt out of his car window and it lands in a brush pile.

---

It can be pretty scenic when the fires get going. I remember a few years back when some researchers went out in a helicopter to survey the nesting habitat for an endangered sparrow. Unfortunately, when they set down in the Everglades, the hot exhaust from the chopper lit the sawgrass. The resulting fire burned thousands of acres, including the entire area of nesting habitat. That was a classic.

Up here, we give out a cat's-ass trophy (it is a mount of the back half of a bobcat) for things like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I remember a few years back when some researchers went out in a helicopter to survey the nesting habitat for an endangered sparrow. Unfortunately, when they set down in the Everglades, the hot exhaust from the chopper lit the sawgrass. The resulting fire burned thousands of acres, including the entire area of nesting habitat. That was a classic.

---

:lol:
If they'd kicked the bucket too they would have definitely been up for a Darwin Award :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Up here, we give out a cat's-ass trophy (it is a mount of the back half of a bobcat) for things like that.

---

Hey, you guys have any xtra stuffed bobcat arses laying around?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

That's a pretty good thread, but painfully close to home. The Treasure Valley area (Boise and vicinity) hit those levels in an inversion about three years ago. Folks were told not to work or exercise outdoors even if they were healthy. I found it hard to work indoors, too, since my throat and eyes were stinging.

We get that cloud of death each fall for some length of time. That year was particularly bad. The last two years have been dreary, and sometimes the air was disturbingly visible, but it never caused irritation for me.

An inversion being a temperature inversion?

Yeah at times where there are high levels of particulate pollution a temperature inversion can be very dangerous indeed.

When you have a temperature inversion - which is where temperature increases with height - it affects the 'loftiness' of air packets. Effectively the sun heats the ground which in turn heats the air (air is is a very poor radiative conductor - so solar radiation generally passes straight through it)

Once the air is warmed - in normal circumstances - it will rise (we all know that hot stuff rises, and cold stuff sinks) Under a 'normal' atmospheric sounding the hot air will rise and if it's moist will eventually start condensing into clouds as the surrounding air gets cooler.

But in a temperature inversion the hot air can't rise because the air parcel can only rise if the surrounding temperature is cooler than the parcel itself. It is therefore the case that the pollution is not dissipated, and becomes concentrated and dangerous.

Furhermore there are values called Lifting Index, and CAPE (Convective Active Potential Energy) If you are in a 'long-term' termperature inversion the potential for these values to (i) LI to fall, and (ii) CAPE to rise increases.

Low LI's, and high CAPE coupled with moist air is a reasonable indicator of thunderstorm activity. If there is helicity in the atmosphere then there is also some small potential for tornadoes. I would expect if you followed the system that caused the temperature inversion then as soon as it hit moist air and the atmospheric profile returned to normal that some relative severe weather would be expected. This could be local or some 100kms away

Sorry to bore you all ;)

For those interested in thunderstorm activity check out:http://expert.weatheronline.co.uk/

If you check out the forecasted LI, CAPE for Sun 14th at 12z. You should see the LI=0, and CAPE=500j/kg-1 over Holland

With dewpoints in the late teens this could well produce some thunderstorm activitiy especially over Northern Holland. There will probably need to be some fairly good surface temperatures to trigger the appropriate amound of convection (cloudy skies will need to clear late afternoon for the maximum lunchtime insolation effect) but the dewpoint/2m Max temp looks good enough for at least a little lightshow.

Still, three days for GFS is like 10 years away and this could well change ;)