Archive for July, 2011

Heat wave does not climate change make; radicalization pattern evident

July 21, 2011

Below is a comment I was going to post over at (link) but put here instead.
The debate is over comparison of temperature highs in previous
years vs. today’s:

Heads up people: I remember hearing that heating would disproportionally impact the western United States. The affected region appears to be from about western Indiana across the Mississippi to the west, then fanning out across much of the south central and Great Plains regions. Of course the inter-mountain west was expected to be hit by higher heat, manifesting in more severe and frequent forest fires. Yet we see the Pacific Northwest largely immune from warming. The overabundance of rainfall is contributing to exceptional drought along the southern tier of the nation. I remember one theory from the Deepwater Horizon spill that the huge volume of dispersant and oil would dry the atmosphere along the Gulf coast, drying it out.

Petrochemicals do decrease atmospheric humidity. Little has been done in the field of microclimate to prove causes and effects like that. But put enough of any substance in the atmosphere and it’ll make an impact. And the greater the concentration and smaller the area, the more potential for catastrophic consequences.

If Global Warming theorists came up with geocentric maps to predict which locations will be most affected by warming, they seem to be striking gold. Of course this doesn’t say their theory is accurate, even if there were enough data to explain the higher propensity of some locations to warm, and warm more.

My guess is that manmade emissions are causing this phenomena. Although Global Climate Change–or what I call Radicalization–is occurring, we do need to acknowledge wide variations in atmospheric conditions during our planet’s history. That being said, I can’t see how producing vast quantities of CO2 can help things. Whether or not manmade gases are not the main cause of warming, reductions in greenhouse gases won’t bring temperatures down anytime soon. They may reduce volatility in temperature and precipitation extremes, if caps can be achieved.

As we know from the earth’s climatic history, we’re not going to maintain our current climate forever. Probably, I’d say at this point, we’ll stabilize mostly as a result of changes in solar winds and other extraterrestrial phenomena more so than cutting back on our on carbon footprint. Still, rising CO2 levels traced directly to manmade causes are going to doom us to far higher and faster rising temperatures.

As the world industrializes it’s likely emissions profile will worsen. Naturally, polluting industries like nuclear and coal and some forms of ethanol production (due to the energy inefficiency of growing corn) need to be regulated to prevent even worse outcomes.

Bottom line: this particular heating is within natural variations but due to Climate Change, high temperatures are more frequent, droughts more extreme, and monumental flooding common.

Demand sustainable, less damaging sources of power. Grid failure will also be more common, so more environmentally friendly living is vital. Local energy and food production will be the hallmarks of a more positive future, with an transportation grid dependent on cheap energy prices that won’t continue.

Fukushima update: Trouble for babies on the West Coast: death rates reportedly rise. Not easy to get the statistics, as the MSM blackout continues. My guess is that the so-called hot particles raining down are invisible killers, but disproportionally affect the young and, yes, outdoors people. An average West Coaster is rumored to get 10 hot particles a day, and someone on the East five. Joggers and those outside absorb more air and thus more particles.

I’ve tried to identify the likelihood of developing cancer from these hot particles. Apparent there’s no safe limit. One plutonium particle–which were released by the superdeadly MOX fuel–will be enough for 100% chance of developing cancer.

I guess if you’re in your 40s, you might not lose to much of your remaining life expectancy if the cancer takes 20-25 years to develop. All the more reason to cut out bad habits and reduce risk factors.

I actually know of one person who’s chosen to just live with whatever happens, and make no changes to their routine whatsoever. Survivalists are known to call these people useless eaters who will wait for government cheese to arrive. Persoanlly, there’s some wisdom in acceptance of one’s fate. With something as random as inhaling a radioactive particles, we can never be completely safe.

Rather than passively accept your roll of the dice, it’s time we held the multinational energy conglomerates polluting our skies to account. Their big money allows untold abuses of our inalienable right to breathe clean air, drink fresh water, and eat natural, chemical-free products.The dirty nuclear industry poses a global threat, in the present an overseas nuclear power plant but one that could be just upwind of people here, (like the Japanese one, albeit much farther away.) Massive, unacceptable ongoing leakage and poor design (GE) puts all of us at risk–and by all I mean the entire population of the Northern Hemisphere. A full shutdown of ALL nuclear power is the only sane and logical solution, as the Germans and Swiss have decided.