You do, Pseudopolous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
Printable View
You do, Pseudopolous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
Ent either enter a discussion and put a sensible and logical position on your point of view or by pass the subject.
As it does seem you don't wish to participate in any form of debate, though wish to TRY and cause conflict in the thread.
^ :dtroll:
Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, Ph.D :
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
Human Emissions Saved Planet
ICECAPQuote:
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCrkqLaYjnc&t=671
This is a interesting read going back to 1969.
Early climate change warriors
WARNING: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25 per cent by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet,” Moynihan wrote in his 1969 memorandum. The picture, taken in 1999, shows a walrus perched on a melting iceshelf in the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean.
Reuters WARNING: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25 per cent by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet,” Moynihan wrote in his 1969 memorandum. The picture, taken in 1999, shows a walrus perched on a melting iceshelf in the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean.
Social scientist Daniel Patrick Moynihan can veritably lay claim to being perhaps the first person to alert an American President directly on global warming
It is generally believed that global warming is a concern that is of fairly recent origin. Indeed, the issue has become embedded in the public consciousness only in the past two decades. But actually there were early warning signals that were ignored and the world is paying a huge price for it. The worst culprit in this regard is the United States which cannot take the excuse “we didn’t know.”
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, essentially a social scientist, was unarguably one of the outstanding public intellectuals of the 20th century. He held many pivotal positions in the American academic and political establishment including a stint in India as U.S. Ambassador in the mid-1970s when our bilateral relations were, to put it mildly, very prickly on account of suspicious mindsets on both sides.
Now Moynihan can veritably lay claim to being perhaps the first person to alert an American President directly on global warming. Way back on September 17, 1969, he wrote a memorandum which has been published in Steve Weisman’s Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Portrait in Letters of an American Visionary, a book that contains hugely interesting material on his turbulent India stint as well. The memorandum has not got the public attention it demands. It deserves to be quoted in full given the current global debates on the subject, particularly in the U.S. itself.
The memorandum
The White House
Washington
September 17, 1969
FOR JOHN EHRLICHMAN
“As with so many of the more interesting environmental questions, we really don’t have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon dioxide problem. On the other hand, this very clearly is a problem, and, perhaps most particularly, is one that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.
“The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The CO2 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the century, several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content will rise 25 per cent by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.
“It is entirely possible that there will be countervailing effects. For example, an increase of dust in the atmosphere would tend to lower temperatures, and might offset the CO2 effect. Similarly, it is possible to conceive fairly mammoth man-made efforts to countervail the CO2 rise. (E.g., stop burning fossil fuels.)
“In any event, I would think this is a subject that the administration ought to get involved with. It is a natural for NATO. Perhaps the first order of business is to begin a worldwide monitoring system. At present, I believe only the United States is doing any serious monitoring, and we have only one or two stations.
“Hugh Heffner knows a great deal about this, as does the estimable Bob White, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau (Teddy White’s brother).
“The Environmental Pollution Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee reported at length on the subject in 1965. I attach their conclusions.”
This is an absolutely fascinating document and how Moynihan came to write it can only be speculated since he left no clues. The very first technical paper drawing the world’s attention to the impact of emissions of CO2 on global climate was by the scientist Roger Revelle (and Hans Suess) in 1957 in the publication Tellus. It was this paper and Revelle’s persistence that led to the establishment of the world’s first and now-iconic CO2 measuring station at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Revelle was then Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. He moved to Harvard in September 1964. Apart from other things, Revelle was to later work on issues relating to water resources in Pakistan and India. One of his teaching assistants in the 1970s was an Indian doctoral student in physics who later became an eminent environmental thinker himself, Ashok Khosla. Revelle and Mr. Khosla were, incidentally, tutors to a young Al Gore at Harvard. Mr. Khosla thinks that the close friendship that Revelle and Moynihan had could well have influenced the latter to write the memorandum on global warming. Mr. Weisman himself feels that the clue could lie in the last two lines of the memorandum since Moynihan was a close friend of the journalist and chronicler of Presidential election campaigns Teddy White, the brother of Robert White.
The Moynihan Memorandum refers to a 1965 report of the President’s Science Advisory Committee that was chaired by Revelle himself and that included C.D. Keeling, the scientist who ran the CO2 monitoring station at Mauna Loa. Actually, even before Moynihan, the famous biologist-author Rachel Carson had, in her books published in the 1950s, drawn attention to the growing pattern of warmer temperatures and rising sea levels and their impacts on biodiversity. And in early 1963, the Conservation Foundation has issued a report which said that “a continuing rise in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is likely to be accompanied by a significant warming of the surface of the earth...The effects of a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide are worldwide... The consumption of fossil fuel has increased to such a pitch within the last half century that the total atmospheric consequences are matters of concern for the planet as a whole.”
Nixon’s environmental legacy
Richard Nixon is a controversial figure but other than his epochal China trip of February 1972, his greatest legacy is on environmental issues. It was during his tenure, for instance, that the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), a favourite target of Republicans these days, was established. Why he chose to remain silent on Moynihan’s note remains a mystery. It is also puzzling why the very first U.N. Conference on the Human Environment held in June 1972 at Stockholm did not discuss climate change at all. That may well be because the conference never received political traction at the highest levels as such conclaves do these days. In fact, the only head of state to address the conference (other than the host Premier) was Indira Gandhi. Her speech changed the international environmental discourse completely by incorporating into it the hitherto missing dimension of economic development and growth. “Poverty is the worst pollutant,” she is very often quoted as having said there. What she really said was a little more nuanced though: “Are not poverty and need the greatest polluters?” She went to add: “The inherent conflict is not between conservation and development but between environment and the reckless exploitation of man and earth in the name of efficiency.” That message has great contemporary relevance both in India and elsewhere.
(Jairam Ramesh is a Rajya Sabha MP and former Union Minister.)
Wrong, well not for plants but for a diverse biosphere which includes humans it is 350ppm which was the pre industrial levels. Plants seemed to thrive happily back then didn't they...Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
We have as much evidence as any current accepted scientific theory. You can prove CO2 increases the temperature with a thermometer, a clear plastic bottle, a little water, a desk lamp, and some bicarb soda.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Wrong, as has been ably reported in this thread on multiple occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide
New measurements from Alaska and Oklahoma have confirmed that recent increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, caused mostly by burning coal, oil and gas, are indeed heating up Earth's surface by making the greenhouse effect stronger (Feldman et al., 2015).
This was already beyond all reasonable doubt: satellites (Harries et al., 2001), computer simulations tested with measurements from planes (Tjemkes et al., 2004) and other ground experiments (Evans & Puckrin, 2006, Philipona et al., 2004) confirmed that more CO2 is making us hotter. This new study is still important though. Unlike satellites, these measurements were taken from Earth's surface. And unlike the previous surface measurements, this experiment combines a decade-long experiment with the right instruments to be able to untangle the causes of heating.
The Science
Rather like a tuning fork humming to the right note, greenhouse gases like CO2 respond to specific frequencies of light. The Earth glows constantly in the infrared (a bunch of colours we can't see) and greenhouse gases respond. They absorb very specific fractions of some frequencies and then recycle the energy they absorbed, sending some of it back down to Earth to warm us up.
In this study, instruments called spectrometers were pointed at the sky to watch this recycled infrared. They split light into its different frequencies (or colours, if you prefer) like a rainbow or a prism does. The brightness of each frequency is measured, the whole spectrum is put back together and patterns in the spectrum tell us what's going on.
The scientists used their measurements to test a computer model of the physics of how light moves in the atmosphere (LBLRTM, available here). It needs to know things like temperature, humidity and the presence of other gases in the air, and these were provided by a combination of weather balloons and some other sources. Measurements and simulations were only done when the sky was clear of clouds to make comparison easier. For the frequencies where CO2 is most active, the computer model predicted the spectrum to within a few tenths of a percent in most cases, so it's reliable.
Figure 1 The top is what a spectrum looks like, with the radiance (think "brightness") at each different frequency (reported here as wavenumber). The left shaded red bit is mostly from CO2, and can be separated from the effect of other things like water vapour. The bottom shows, in red, the difference between the computer simulation and the measurements over March 2001. Differences in the CO2 region are mostly less than 0.5 units, out of total measurements of up to 140 units.
Some older studies that managed to measure over a longer period of time used instruments that weren't able to split up the atmosphere's spectrum: they could tell that more heat was coming down, but they couldn't directly measure the cause. Big, quick changes can happen because of changes in the air's temperature or the amount of water vapour, for example. These new measurements can tell the difference.
In the next step, the team calculated the amount of CO2-caused heating. They ran the impressively-accurate computer model LBLRTM with the observed changes in atmospheric temperature and everything else except for CO2. It was fixed at the starting level. Outside of the CO2 bands, the model matched the observations, but inside the CO2 bands the observations were different. This difference is due to the extra heat being sent down by CO2, and the team used this to calculate the growth in heating from CO2.
Figure 2 As measured at the North Slope Alaska (NSA) measurement site, the growth in CO2 heating effect is shown in red, and in grey the concentration of CO2 estimated to be in the bottom 2 km of the atmosphere is shown. The CO2 heating effect is in Watts per square metre, and the amount of CO2 in parts per million.
From 2000–2010, the CO2 we added to the atmosphere (22 parts per million) added another 0.2 Watts per square metre (W m-2) of heating to the surface. It was even possible to see the yearly cycle of plant growth: spring growth sucks up CO2 and reduces its heating effect, before the plants lose leaves for winter and the CO2 and its heating effect returns.
The extra heating reported here is not directly comparable with the effect known as radiative forcing, which is used to help project climate change. However, it confirms the calculations that have been used to work out these values.
Conclusions
We already knew that the greenhouse effect was real and that we're making it stronger. This new study uses some truly impressive measurements, and reports that they match the predictions of physics excellently. The computer models that apply these physics have been rigorously tested in the past and they are an amazing achievement.
I would interpret this study as being worth a sigh of relief: physics works great at calculating CO2's heating effect so we can move on to other problems. It's unlikely to change the opinions of those who deny the greenhouse effect though. Measurements showing that it exists and is getting stronger have been around for years, and evidence has failed to convince them so far, so there's no reason to think this will be any different.
This is a hilarious video;
Rick Scott's dumb "cimate change" gag order
youtube.com/watch?v=Jo3K7rbkWZQ
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/03/1414.jpg
Gallup Poll: America’s Fear Of Global Warming Drops To Lowest Level Ever Recorded…
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Despite being bombarded with warnings from environmentalists and politicians, Americans still aren’t very worried about global warming.
A new Gallup poll shows that Americans’ concern about warming has fallen to the same level it was in 1989. In fact, global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns, with only 32 percent saying they worried about it a “great deal.”
“Importantly, even as global warming has received greater attention as an environmental problem from politicians and the media in recent years, Americans’ worry about it is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989,” writes Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones.
So far in 2015, Americans are less worried about global warming than they were just last year when 34 percent said they worried about warming a “great deal.” Gallup’s poll comes after a CNN poll from January found that 57 percent of Americans don’t see global warming as a threat to their lives.
“Americans express greater concern over more proximate threats — including pollution of drinking water, as well as pollution of rivers, lakes and reservoirs, and air pollution — than they do about longer-term threats such as global warming, the loss of rainforests, and plant and animal extinction,” Jones adds."
Poll: America?s Fear Of Global Warming Drops To 1980s Levels | The Daily Caller
Guess there's fewer and fewer Chicken Little's out there these days, huh? :chitown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
"about alleged longer-term threats such as global warming"
Fixed your post for you. ;)
Question for the Global climate Alarmists.
Can you please inform the thread, the best way to be a DIY climate campaigner to change the world's demise.:)
Basically the Alarmists blueprint seems to be :
have your AC on 24/7, rack up as many air miles as possible on frivolous weekend trips, drive a big car .
Then tell poor people in cold countries to turn their heaters off and wear a hat and thick jumper indoors ,and don't allow poor countries to have cheap coal power stations.
Ever hear alarmists talk about carbon footprints these days ?
no , when it was pointed out they had the biggest ones they stopped mentioning them .
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/03/1536.jpg
Easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
Stop blowing your horn or other meat-whistles would be a good start.
Blue come on give em a break, I 'm sure they all live in wooden huts and drink water from wells and have there own , Eco sustainable farms, never fly and have solar powered cars.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Yup...the chart tells the story:
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
How are you going to scare people in direct mail letters if things keep getting better? Well, at least there’s global warming. Wait—you say that’s not working either?
"Importantly, even as global warming has received greater attention as an environmental problem from politicians and the media in recent years, Americans’ worry about it is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989."
In U.S., Concern About Environmental Threats Eases
Comparing apples and oranges. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
But you are making a good point. Strictly enforced regulations turned the environmental contamination problem around to some extent. Showing that a difference can be made. Now we just need to do the same for phasing out fossil fuels in the long run.
Floods in Atacama, one of the driest regions in the world, a state of emergency in Peru and Chile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOkQzW09mcY
^ Floriduuh is next.
^
Have you been drinking? :rolleyes:
Heh. I can't wait. Just drown on your own stupidity. Don't plan on moving north.
Antarctica Just Got Hotter Than Has Ever Been Recorded, Twice
The coldest place on Earth just got warmer than has ever been recorded.
According to the weather blog Weather Underground, on Tuesday, March 24, the temperature in Antarctica rose to 63.5°F (17.5C) — a record for the polar continent. Part of a longer heat wave, the record high came just a day after the previous record was set at 63.3°F.
Tuesday’s temperature was taken at the Argentina’s Esperanza Base, located near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. The Monday record was from Marambio Base, about 60 miles southeast of Esperanza. Both are records for the locations, however the World Meteorological Organization is yet to certify that the temperatures are all-time weather records for Antarctica. Before these two chart-toppers, the highest recorded temperature from these outposts was 62.8°F in 1961.
Setting a new all-time temperature record for an entire continent is rare and requires the synthesizing of a lot of data. As Weather Underground’s weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, explains, there is debate over what exactly is included in the continent Antarctica, and by the narrowest interpretation, which would include only sites south of the Antarctic Circle, Esperanza would not be part of the continent.
According to the WMO, the official keeper of global temperature records, the all-time high temperature for Antarctica was 59°F in 1974. As Mashable reports, the verification process for these new records could take months as the readings must be checked for accuracy.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/03/1625.jpg
Departure of temperature from average for Tuesday, March, 24, 2015, over Antarctica.
Even in their unofficial capacity, the readings are stunning.
As Burt reports, these temperature records occurred nearly three months past the warmest time of year in the Antarctic Peninsula, December, when the average high is 37.8°F. The average high for March is 31.3°F, making this week’s records more than 30°F above average. Burt also points out that temperature records for Esperanza have previously occurred in October and April, so these spikes are not unheard of.
They should also not be unexpected: the poles are warming faster than any part of the planet and rapid ice melt is being observed at increased rates in Antarctica. According to a new study, ice shelves in West Antarctica have lost as much as 18 percent of their volume over the last two decades, with rapid acceleration occurring over the last decade. The study found that from 1994 to 2003, the overall loss of ice shelf volume across the continent was negligible, but over the last decade West Antarctic losses increased by 70 percent.
According to the British Antarctic Survey, since records for the Antarctic Peninsula began half a century ago, the average temperature has risen about 5°F, making it “the most rapidly warming region in the Southern Hemisphere – comparable to rapidly warming regions of the Arctic.”
While the polar regions are feeling the most severe temperature changes brought on by the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, areas across the globe are setting record highs at a much faster rate than record lows. Since 2010, 46 nations or territories out of 235 have set or tied record highs. Only four have set record lows. According to the Weather Underground, so far this year, five nations or territories have tied or set all-time records for their highest temperature: Antarctica, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Wallis and Futuna Territory, and Samoa.
Here are the national heat and cold records set so far in 2015:
Antarctica set a new territorial heat record of 17.5°C (63.5°F) at Esperanza Base on March 24. Previous record: 17.4°C (63.3°F) at Marambio Base, set the previous day.
Equatorial Guinea set a new national heat record of 35.5°C (95.9°F) at Bata on March 17. Previous record: 35.3°C (95.5°F) at Malabo in February 1957.
Ghana tied the national record of highest temperature with 43.0°C (109.4°F) at Navrongo on February 12.
Wallis and Futuna Territory (France) set a new territorial heat record with 35.5°C (95.9°F) on January 19 at Futuna Airport.
Samoa tied its national heat record with 36.5°C (97.7°F) on January 20 at Asau. Previously record: same location, in December 1977.
How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.
For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence.
But as those gases build in the air, an energy overload is rising below the waves. A raft of recent research finds that the ocean has been heating faster and deeper than scientists had previously thought. And there are new signs that the oceans might be starting to release some of that pent-up thermal energy, which could contribute to significant global temperature increases in the coming years.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
This map shows trends in global ocean heat content, from the surface to 2,000 meters deep. Yellow, orange, and red zones represent increases in ocean temperatures since 2006, as measured by the Argo network of 3,500 floating sensors. Green, blue, and violet zones depict temperature decreases, as measured in watts per square meter. The map shows that much of ocean warming in the past decade has occurred in the Southern Hemisphere.
The ocean has been heating at a rate of around 0.5 to 1 watt of energy per square meter over the past decade, amassing more than 2 X 1023 joules of energy — the equivalent of roughly five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second — since 1990. Vast and slow to change temperature, the oceans have a huge capacity to sequester heat, especially the deep ocean, which is playing an increasingly large uptake and storage role.
Scientists are also learning that the ocean has gained more heat, and at greater depth, than they had realized. That means the entire climate is even more out-of-whack than is evident today.
“If you want to measure the energy imbalance of the earth, the ocean temperature gives you nearly the whole story,” said Dean Roemmich, oceanography professor at the University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
The long-term heat gain in the top 700 meters (.43 miles) of the world’s oceans has likely been underestimated by as much as half, according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories research scientist Paul Durack. Earlier measurements had lowballed heat accumulation due to historically sparse observations for large parts of the ocean. The figures were especially low for the Southern Hemisphere, which contains about 60 percent of the planet’s oceans but was very poorly sampled — until Argo, an array of around 3,500 floating sensors, was deployed worldwide in 2005.
An updated analysis by Durack and colleagues found that from 1970 to 2004, the upper 700 meters of oceans in the Southern Hemisphere had gained from 48 to 166 percent more heat than earlier observations had estimated. Globally, the findings suggest, upper oceans hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than most current climate models assumed.
______________
More Than Scientists
______________
If they are still around, in time they will feel the effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
At her small beach house that sits in a flood zone, Nancy Loft-Powers worries. The prospect of rising water, she said, isn’t what bothers her. It’s the expected rise in the cost of her $7,500 yearly flood insurance.
“My insurance is more than my mortgage,” Loft-Powers said in a phone interview from her year-round home in Deerfield Beach, Fla., near Fort Lauderdale. “I live by the beach in an old neighborhood. I pay [too much] insurance for a crap house that’s not great.”
This April Fool’s Day, when a congressional act that revised federal insurance premiums goes into effect, coastal homeowners such as Loft-Powers say the joke will be on them. The government is slowly phasing out subsidized flood insurance for more than a million Americans with houses in flood zones who, in some cases, pay half the true commercial rate.
Some owners say they are angry because their houses near lakes, rivers, bays and oceans were much more affordable with cheap rates that will now increase by as much as 25 percent each year until the premiums equal the full risk of settling down on property mapped as a flood zone.
Congress ordered a rate increase because the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is $24 billion in debt. It reached that historic amount because revenue from the discounted premiums could not cover payments on flood claims, particularly after two devastating hurricanes, Katrina and Sandy, on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.
Ninety percent of disasters in the United States result from flooding, according to NFIP statistics, and coastal homeowners with discounted policies are getting little sympathy from conservationists and advocates for taxpayers who think they should pay dearly for that risk.
Rising sea levels from climate change make coastal living even more dangerous, conservationists say. And the flood-insurance program that went into the red paying flood claims is deep in debt to a U.S. treasury funded by taxpayers, advocates say.
Snip
Under the new law that goes into effect Wednesday, primary homeowners would see an average yearly 10 percent increase. Loft-Powers would pay an extra $750. To make up for slowing the revenue stream meant to pay FEMA’s debt to the U.S. treasury, primary residents living like her would pay an extra $25 yearly surcharge.
Secondary owners of vacation houses and condominiums will see about an 18 percent rate increase, along with a $250 yearly surcharge. Businesses and farms will also shoulder that increase.
Homeowners can also lower their insurance costs with upgrades to their houses such as stilts and brick elevations that make them less vulnerable to flooding. But the costs, $30,000 in many cases, can be steep.
“In general it’s a move in the right direction,” said Eli Lehrer, president the R Street Institute, a conservative Washington think tank, but doesn’t go nearly far enough to fix a program that’s broken.
Discounted insurance is “expensive for taxpayers and encourages people to live in harm’s way,” Lehrer said. “Stupid, rich people who want to should be allowed to build wherever they want to as long as taxpayers don’t have to bail them out.”
Could you explain how heat, which surely rises,gets to and is then is stored in the oceans depths ?Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Anyways if true its good news, I live right by the north sea, but its too cold to swim in , If i can start soon , who cares about some toffs flood insurance , or some overbreeding 3rd world rabbits ?
Fill a glass with cold water and put it on the sill in sunlight, go back 30 minutes later.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Or read a book or try Google...