Wilma?
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/grap...446.shtml?5day
Yikes...here we go again. This may be a little premature, as its only a tropical depression as of now, but the forecast takes this one as a hurricane over Western Cuba (just like Dennis earlier this year) and into the Gulf of Mexico, heading North towards.... Florida. Again.
The NHC has this one as almost a Category 2, with 95mph (85kt) sustained winds before hitting Cuba, and waters in the Gulf between there and Florida are still really warm.
How wildly will Wilma's winds wail and where, or will Wilma wimp out?
Yikes...here we go again. This may be a little premature, as its only a tropical depression as of now, but the forecast takes this one as a hurricane over Western Cuba (just like Dennis earlier this year) and into the Gulf of Mexico, heading North towards.... Florida. Again.
The NHC has this one as almost a Category 2, with 95mph (85kt) sustained winds before hitting Cuba, and waters in the Gulf between there and Florida are still really warm.How wildly will Wilma's winds wail and where, or will Wilma wimp out?
Comments
Originally posted by addabox
I wonder why the weather wants to weaken our will?
It hates our life style. You play by its game and let it win if you try to understand it. The only solution is to fight it. All brave americans: Pollute it until it stop.
"Ah. Another person promoting the gravity agenda"
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Ahh, the global warming agenda.
Global warming is a broadly accepted trend.
What agenda can a fact have?
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Global warming is a broadly accepted trend.
What agenda can a fact have?
Well, you can realise that there is nothing that you can do to stop global warming, so any effort or money spent on stopping it is a waste.
Any effort at conservation reduces the prices of oil and coal, which causes some other person (in China, perhaps) to consume more. The only factor that determines how much oil is burnt worldwide is how much Opec decides to pump - conservation is just like squeesing a water baloon, it bulges out somewhere else.
We would be better served to spend the time and money moving (or making plans for moving) people from low lying areas and into the more northern areas.
Money spent trying to stop comet impacts is much better than money spent trying to avert global warming. Only a worldwide military dictatorship could stop global warming.
Canada begin? I'm free next week, if it helps.
Originally posted by e1618978
Well, you can realise that there is nothing that you can do to stop global warming, so any effort or money spent on stopping it is a waste.
Any effort at conservation reduces the prices of oil and coal, which causes some other person (in China, perhaps) to consume more. The only factor that determines how much oil is burnt worldwide is how much Opec decides to pump - conservation is just like squeesing a water baloon, it bulges out somewhere else.
We would be better served to spend the time and money moving (or making plans for moving) people from low lying areas and into the more northern areas.
Money spent trying to stop comet impacts is much better than money spent trying to avert global warming. Only a worldwide military dictatorship could stop global warming.
Bullshit. Show me the proof that we can't slow or reverse global warming.
"causes some other person... to consume more"
Bullshit. Water conservation never once caused my next door neighbor to use more water. Demand is demand, and supply is supply. While prices are driven by the supply and demand tracks with prices, they aren't directly related. Conservation in the US simply means that opec will produce less fuel or our nation's reserves will be refilled. A chinese farmer in manchuria won't know the difference.
Your entire "let's be fucked" attitude is wearing thin.
Originally posted by e1618978
Well, you can realise that there is nothing that you can do to stop global warming, so any effort or money spent on stopping it is a waste.
Any effort at conservation reduces the prices of oil and coal, which causes some other person (in China, perhaps) to consume more. The only factor that determines how much oil is burnt worldwide is how much Opec decides to pump - conservation is just like squeesing a water baloon, it bulges out somewhere else.
We would be better served to spend the time and money moving (or making plans for moving) people from low lying areas and into the more northern areas.
Money spent trying to stop comet impacts is much better than money spent trying to avert global warming. Only a worldwide military dictatorship could stop global warming.
Or if we as nations sat down and made a treaty that agreed how to limit the use of CO2 producing fuel until we have developed wind, solar and water energy good enough to replace oil. But that of course is just a pie in the sky because whenever would the countries sit down and do that?
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Conservation in the US simply means that opec will produce less fuel
No - conservation will lower prices, and lower prices will encourage demand. To use your water example - imagine that everyone upstream of Los Angeles started to conserve water. The good folks of LA, who don't fill their pools often because of rules and prices, when start to use the newly freed up water to swim in.
The fact that you don't think that it is true about water just indicates that water is plentiful in your area - unlike gas (and unlike water in the desert) people use as much water as they like where you live.
We all saw this spike in demand due to low prices when tons of people bought SUVs, and China spiked its demand also, in response to the low prices we had in the 1990s. The people now buying Prius cars are doing no good for the environment, although the car is probably worth the extra money because it fills the people with unwarrented hope and self satisfaction.
Opec is pumping at 100% capacity - they added the last 2 million barrels per day after Katrina. We have passed peak oil, and they want the price lower, so it is unlikely that they will ever go lower than 100% capacity again.
Really, conservation is even more distructive than that - by lowering prices it also discourages alternative fuel research. Really, we should all be using as much fuel as we can afford to.
It is the end result that matters, how much carbon is still left in the ground when we stop using it as fuel. High demand (and therefore high prices) now could cause us to shift off oil sooner.
And Anders - the Kyoto treaty is not being observed, even by the countries that signed it - without a global dictator it is doomed to fail.
If you can convince me that I am wrong, great, but otherwise I plan on buying a 12mpg BMW M5 and spewing carbon dioxide all over the place....
You are describing the free marked and realist IR position as set in stone. They are both normative theories in the field of social sciences. They are therefore very changeable and well in reach of our powers to change when the situation becomes nessesary.
The free marked is not a natural state in any way. It is man made and is held up by rules and regulations. Without the active support of governments it would actually fail to work so its not beyond our powers to change. We have build regimes and institutions like WTO and TWB to support those regimes. Its only a matter of political will to make the nessesary changes. Japan and Europe have that will. With US on board we would have the nessesary power to force the rest of the world to follow. Marked access would be the driving weapon in such a struggle.
WRT to the "realistic" IR approach you are taking it is IMO not applicable to this situation. The realistic approach of the cold war do not stand alone anymore for four reasons IMO: Well, the end of the cold war, the development of EU as an non realist driven international institution, the emerge of non-traditional global threats (mostly climatic, but also cosmic and natural-biological) and the formation of very important non state actors in the field of IR (terrorist organisations). For a realistic strategy to win over a liberal one in the scientific battlefield the relative gains of a certain strategy must be high enough to overshadow the absolute gains: How good is it that some little country can get a relative gain over other countries if it means that it threatens the whole world on its existence including the country that got the relative gain? Actually all it would take for the realistic approach to be an incorrect discribtion of the IR subfield of international enviromental coorporation is for the US to join in with EU and Japan who are already ready to do so. Then it would not matter if the rest of the world followed an relative or absolute gain approach because the outcome would be the same (to coorporate).
Originally posted by e1618978
The fact that you don't think that it is true about water just indicates that water is plentiful in your area - unlike gas (and unlike water in the desert) people use as much water as they like where you live.
Really? I don't think they do. I certainly don't draw a bath every night to read.
e#, you are wrong on several counts here with oil in particular. Our national price of gasoline is not directly related to the international cost of gasoline due to several very important factors: 1) Subsidies 2) Reserve releases 3) Refinery location.
Our fuel costs less here if we conserve but it doesn't change the demand or consumption in other parts of the world because 1) local supply/demand creates local prices, meaning that Mr. Yang in Beijing is more affected by Mr. Lee next door than he is by Mr. Smith in Greenville, 2) the distribution of fuel by the oil producing countries is so tightly controlled that a change in demand in the US reduces their production of fuel, rather than shifting fuel to other nations.
When we hit peak oil, any remaining free market philosophies will be removed forcibly. It will not be in the interests of the oil producing nations to act on the principle that demand is demand is demand, and they will instead sell strategically...
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Really? I don't think they do. I certainly don't draw a bath every night to read.
e#, you are wrong on several counts here with oil in particular. Our national price of gasoline is not directly related to the international cost of gasoline due to several very important factors: 1) Subsidies 2) Reserve releases 3) Refinery location.
Our fuel costs less here if we conserve but it doesn't change the demand or consumption in other parts of the world because 1) local supply/demand creates local prices, meaning that Mr. Yang in Beijing is more affected by Mr. Lee next door than he is by Mr. Smith in Greenville, 2) the distribution of fuel by the oil producing countries is so tightly controlled that a change in demand in the US reduces their production of fuel, rather than shifting fuel to other nations.
When we hit peak oil, any remaining free market philosophies will be removed forcibly. It will not be in the interests of the oil producing nations to act on the principle that demand is demand is demand, and they will instead sell strategically...
1) We tax gas, rather than subsidise it.
2) Reserve releases are short-term, and infrequent
2nd part
1) That is true over the short term only, over the long term the oil supply shifts to other countries when demand drops.
2) Ditto
And in regards to the oil producing nations selling stratigically, that is up to them, but it will mean that they make less money than they could. We are already seeing this with Venezuela selling at below cost to Cuba - but that is just another squeese of the water balloon, it means that other oil is diverted to the US via supply/demand.
Anders - you are totally wrong, the free market is the natural state (at least once law enforcement reduces crime to a low enough level to let it start hapenning), and international free markets cannot be controlled by single governments. The European Union cannot even enforce Kyoto limits within its own borders.
I don't think that global warming is going to be an issue, because I believe that we are at peak oil right now. Sky rocketing gas prices over the next few years will convince us to move to alternative fuels. The only thing that I have seen that could really hurt this argument is if they develop a way to get gasoline from coal.
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
[B]Ahh, the global warming agenda.]
What exactly is the "global warming agenda" anyway?
(a) nature's way of telling us that we humans as a species are fouling our own nest (by ignorance, stupidity, denial or unwillingness to adapt?), and if we don't stop, all hell will break loose?
(b) A campaign by environmentally conscious/obsessed groups (aka eco-terrorists, hippies or "commies" by some) to publicly trash traditional energy generation using fossil fuels and nuclear fission, and replace it with less polluting methods, or
(c) the collective revenge on the planet by the world's cattle population?
Originally posted by e1618978
The free market is the natural state
No its not. It must be actively supported by law, organizations and regimes to work.
Originally posted by Anders
No its not. It must be actively supported by law, organizations and regimes to work.
Sure, but only minimal government services are required to start up free trade (mainly crime prevention). If you want to interfere with free trade, you require many extra government layers (tarrifs, customs, subsidies, etc) than if you just want to allow it to happen.
If you just dump a bunch of people on an island, trade will spring up very quickly. Big government will take a while.
How will this be paid for?
How will this money be collected?
Originally posted by Harald
Who will build the roads or sanitary system the people on your island need?
How will this be paid for?
How will this money be collected?
Sure - as you get more government infrastructure, the quality of trade improves - but trade starts up before any of this. Also, government intervention in trade will come way after road building and sewers - it is a very late, low-priority government "service".
Trade existed with the pioneers, who had no roads or sewers. Free trade is as natural as sex, grain tarrifs are not.
Anders was saying that trade is not natural - which is totally wrong, trade will exist as long as there are people. Government intervention in trade is much more "unnatural", as it comes in thousands of years later in societies development.