Since 2006 , federally declared weather-related disasters in the United States have affected counties housing 242 million people--or roughly four out of five Americans. That's the remarkable finding of Environment America, who last week released a detailed report on extreme weather events in the U.S. The report analyzed FEMA data to study the number of federally declared weather-related disasters. More than 15 million Americans live in counties that have averaged one or more weather-related disasters per year since the beginning of 2006. Ten U.S. counties--six in Oklahoma, two in Nebraska, and one each in Missouri and South Dakota--have each experienced ten or more declared weather-related disasters since 2006. South Carolina was the only state without a weather-related disaster since 2006. The report did a nice job explaining the linkages between extreme weather events and climate change, and concluded, "The increasing evidence linking global warming to certain types of extreme weather events--underscored by the degree to which those events are already both a common and an extremely disruptive fact of life in the United States--suggests that the nation should take the steps needed now to prevent the worst impacts of global warming and to prepare for the changes that are inevitably coming down the road."
Figure 1. County-level map of federally-declared weather-related disasters between 2006 - 2011. Tornadoes and severe thunderstorms in the Midwest, and heavy rains and snows from Nor'easters, hurricanes, and other storms in the Northeast gave those two regions the most disaster declarations. An interactive version of this map that allows one to click and see the individual disasters by county is on the Environment America website.
Jeff Masters
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 — Blog Index
how can i not respect a fellow blogger that joined, and began writing blogs on my favorite topic right off the bat! lol
yal, TropicalAnalystWx13 is here, watch your attitude....
Ok that's it... Everyone, man your battle stations!
Prepare to [!}, [-], and [Ignore User]!!!
What?
I lived in the DFW (Dallas/Fort Worth) area during 2010. Our house got a little over 16". Having that much snow is amazing. :D
Call me insane.
But I'm not the one who doesn't realize that WWII caused the US government to borrow and spend a tremendous amount of money.
We could have gotten over the Great Depression sooner (most likely) with an additional stimulus, but conservatives blocked it and the recovery stalled. Only the bombing of Pearl Harbor got government borrowing and spending going once more.
If you don't understand why borrowing and spending works to increase revenue works you should stay far, far away from business. Others will gladly eat your lunch....
let me do the [-] this time! :D lol
WWII got us out of the depression but bob wallace has the wrong on the reasoning
Bingo
I would sort of agree with you on that but there is another way to look at it.
When you reach the top of an hill, the only way to go is down. You are not in a position to evolve and fly up and off it as you will starve to death waiting for the evolution.
A man told me a long time ago that the Chinese leader said:- A hunger man will stand on top of a hill for a long time with his mouth open waiting for a roast chicken to fly into it.( I might have got that slightly wrong!)
The economy is bad because its a quandary; spending limitless cash will solve it but there is not limitless cash. Not spending enough cash will lead to depression.The 2 sides of the argument are easy to understand but you have to accept that the government is the fulcrum of balance.
Now the real interesting part is other mountains on the western slope such as Vail/Beaver Creek only reported ~4", Aspen ~7", and a snotel site on buff pass under 10 miles away, and in a location that usually gets more snow then the ski resort only reported 8-10 inches last night.
Tower 825 snow depth past 7 days Link
I'm really curious to how there is such a drastic difference. I'm familiar with mountain snowfall and how orographic uplift can be a huge player on what slopes the snow falls, but this just seems kind of crazy!
Energy is basic necessity for all other goods.
Because of this, energy demand is automatic, which is why the seller can set any price they like and will get it, particularly when there is no competition.
The economy was very rocky in the late 1940s after all the GIs returned so all the women and African-Americans were excluded from the workforce once more to make jobs for the white men. Then cheap oil was discovered and the economy boomed ala Mad Men until the mid-1960s. Sadly when LBJ tried to provide both guns and butter (maintain the War in southeast Asia and provide social programs for the Great Society) runaway inflation reared its ugly head.
By 1973, we had run through all our domestic oil and started importing foreign. That began to prove a finite supply by 1979 and then we had to compete with the rest of the world and the economy went off a cliff from which it has never recovered. Then the country had to embrace Gordon Gekko and his ilk as we no longer really manufactured anything or had cheap energy. The oligarchs began to use wealth to manipulate democracy and create the disparity fo wealth that continues today.
Which kinda brings us up to the present which is a diminishing oil supply, AGW from burning all those irreplaceable fossil fuels, 7 billion folks on the planet with hungry mouths, and the U.S. has bought into a way of life that is unsustainable. Furthermore, all our current wars only benefit the oligarchs not the working class citizens of this or any other country.
The ends do not justify the means. Despite having good intentions and whatever good may follow from his actions, it was not the best decision. By pulling a stunt like this he has given ammunition to detractors and a means for deniers and the like to keep the subject safely away from the science. He will also be subject to a lot more scrutiny ("He did this, so what else is he capable of?"). This will not only come from the public side, but also the academic side.
The long term consequences of this action are unknown, and it remains to be seen whether it will be an overall good thing or a bad thing when it comes to climate science. My thinking on the subject is that this is a short term gain with a long term loss, as now the deniosphere has "vindication" for their various conspiracies (or at least, that is how they will spin it). It won't matter that the docs actually show active FUD campaigns or who is on the take for pushing anti-science rhetoric. The HI docs could show them kicking puppies and eating babies. It won't matter. The simple fact that a climate proponent did something dishonest will be used to paint the entire community (and thus all the science) in the same color.
This right here demonstrates why scientists should not sink to the same level as groups like HI, Fox News, etc. . By doing so, all you do is give them additional fuel to burn you with. Once you leave the realm of hard facts and science, they can obliterate you with logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, and empty rhetoric. They will win too because they are much better at it (they've had lots of practice) and have a much larger PR budget.
no people made this map which is pobably not correct, and people in south carolina and surrounding areas fix things on their own and dont rely on govt pigs for help!!!!!!
Okay so in your last post you said it isn't a supply and demand thing, and now you are saying it is a basic necessity. In other words, it is a demand. So now you are contradicting yourself. If that energy demand (or necessity as you put it) suddenly disappeared, so would the monopoly. So it is a supply and demand situation.
Anyway, back to this post...If you set prices too high, you will get competition. Furthermore, you seem to be blurring oil companies and energy companies together as one when really there are many forms of alternative energy out there. For this reason, as oil becomes too expensive, people seek out alternative sources like riding bikes, staying home for vacations, or buying solar panels for their roof tops.
I agree with you these monopolies have the majority of the control, but they do not have all the power and they can not raise the price to whatever they like (as you clearly stated in the bold). Gas prices would never reach $1,000 dollars per gallon, not even $100 per gallon. Oil will only be extracted for as long as it is more profitable than other sources of energy. Once those reserves start running low and technology makes alternate forms cheaper, oil will begin to fade. That could be a while before that happens though.
First, I don't recall making any comment as to why the United States entered the war, I only commented on the outcome. Second, the Great Depression was long gone by the time the war ended. If you don't believe me, you might want to check on GDP and employment statistics during the war years. As to economic growth after the war; there were lots of factors including the GI Bill and the Marshall Plan (paid for with borrowed money, I do believe). The fact that significant growth did occur in the US during post-war years - when US government debt was much higher, relative to GDP, than it it is today - seems to give lie to claims that federal debt is dragging down today's economy.
some never learn how to talk weather, just argue bout politics. :D
I know but... I'm desperate for snow!
Yup, a veritable atmospheric river carrying heat from the tropics to the poles--well, in that direction.
Northern, near DC
Some people also learn how to not make a run-on sentence and to use commas properly.
Not trying to be picky or anything. Your grammar is much better than some others, probably even mine. :P
No, it's not.
A normalized supply/demand curve presents with demand going down as supply goes up.
Look around. Your energy company has you by the balls. Either you pay the bill, or it gets cut, you don't really have much of an option,since most of the price is things you do anyway: cooking, hot water for bathing, washing clothes.
Same thing with Gasoline. You have to drive to work and grocery no matter what anyway right? So the price doesn't effect those decisions at all. Either you buy it or you're screwed.
That doesn't fit a supply/demand curve at all.
That sounded Beautiful
Gas and Electricity are maybe the most inelastic things on the market. I don't know how you release the grip since the start up costs for those businesses are astronomical.
Bush had 8 years to add slightly more than 5 trillion, obama has had about 3 and has added slightly under 5 trillion big difference in the rates
Some people use the word "granite" when they really mean "granted".
Now the US is falling out of place, despite being the big and scary power just a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, the US is still the world's sole superpower and it will be for at least a decade, but I don't expect to see it hold that title in 50 years.
It might be time to give the world power back to Asia. Them and the Muslims did control most of the world's power after the fall of the Roman empire until colonization.
It was completely unnecessary, period.
if i wanted to use grammar i would. as for you tom...here is some advice i gave yesterday...
SHUT YOUR TRAP.
Why would you ever choose not to use proper grammar? To look not as intelligent?
$5 trillion.
When Obama took the reins from Bush, he was handed a bloated government and a ruined economy that was shedding about 500K jobs each month.
Why?
There are lots of reasons, of course, but the two primary ones are Bush's very expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his absolutely insane tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And adding to that mess, a reckless Wall Street allowed to run amok under the constant lie of an "unregulated free market", and a White House that looked the other way, nudge nudge, wink wink. (FWIW, much of the "exorbitant" government spending under Obama has gone to things such as stimulus projects and federal unemployment benefits--two programs necessitated by Dubya's malfeasance.)
And those, my friends, are irrefutable facts.
Anyway, were I a GOP Presidential campaign manager, I wouldn't be sleeping too well these days:
He's right, it's not that hard to use correct vocabulary.
Firefox even makes it easy for you with the spelling checker.
I mean, not to be rude, but you enjoy looking like you're stupid and don't know how to speak correctly? Come on...
Viewing: 601 - 651
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 — Blog Index