It was 100% humidity yesterday.
There's also the fact that since weather tends to move west to east, more of the ocean seabreeze likely blows over LA vs NYC where it's harder for the colder ocean air to move west. LA does not have as many temperature extremes and some people say they've gone 365 days of the year without turning on AC or Heating.
Missing the point that in the Eastern United States the humidity coming from the Gulf of Mexico is a big factor.
Having done 4 months of electronics tech school training in Biloxi, I would not live in Mississippi or Alabama for any amount of money.
Careful that ICE doesn't whisk you off to an El Salvador gulag for dissing The Donald by misnaming the Gulf of America.
Careful that ICE doesn't whisk you off to an El Salvador gulag for dissing The Donald by misnaming the Gulf of America.
Hi @mpaetz !
The donald can ... well gotta avoid politics and profanity.
The US heat wave isn't over yet.
But a lot of places are now getting some relief.
---------------
Daily High Temperature Records Broken: 322
Daily High Minimum (Warm Night) Records Broken: At least 255 (specific to June records, with 59 of those being all-time warmest nights for the stations).
59 all time records being broken for high 'lows' at night.
But in June.
577 records broken.
Because of manmade climate change.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "radical solution". It is my opinion that many climate activists aren't wrong when it comes to the fact of whether climate change or global warming exists, which I believe they do. Problems begin with their solutions, which are almost always radical. These radical solutions may mean a curbing of freedom or cratering the global economy. These are not only unrealistic but also morally wrong. I am in favor of green technology, as long as it's implemented in a free-market friendly manner. This means that these green solutions must be efficient enough to survive in an unsubsidized environment, which they often aren't. An example of a successful green alternative would be Tesla, despite undergoing controversy recently, ironically, among the climate activists, it is by far the most sold EV. The reason for this is that it's a good car for those who can afford it, while the other EVs tend to be of just equal or even lesser quality than gas-powered cars. Thus, the only people who buy it have to be either 1. rich or 2. care enough about the climate to buy a car not worth the price.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "radical solution". It is my opinion that many climate activists aren't wrong when it comes to the fact of whether climate change or global warming exists, which I believe they do. Problems begin with their solutions, which are almost always radical. These radical solutions may mean a curbing of freedom or cratering the global economy. These are not only unrealistic but also morally wrong. I am in favor of green technology, as long as it's implemented in a free-market friendly manner. This means that these green solutions must be efficient enough to survive in an unsubsidized environment, which they often aren't. An example of a successful green alternative would be Tesla, despite undergoing controversy recently, ironically, among the climate activists, it is by far the most sold EV. The reason for this is that it's a good car for those who can afford it, while the other EVs tend to be of just equal or even lesser quality than gas-powered cars. Thus, the only people who buy it have to be either 1. rich or 2. care enough about the climate to buy a car not worth the price.
Pardon me, but do I read your post correctly? Tesla is your example of "unsubsidized" green success?
Your free market "solution" (aka doing little to nothing) has been tried...for the past 4 decades. There's not enough time left to wait for that solution, this point in time right now is the inflection point...and honestly a bit past the inflection point. Permanent damage is already baked in. We're out of time for letting the plodding masses figure out that it's getting hotter and that this doesn't end well.
Government support for critical industries is neither unusual nor new.
The government routinely prevents business failures by legislation and lawsuits against monopolies. This is simply another form of subsidizing. In addition, and this has been repeated in this thread often, fossil fuels have long been receiving government support.
There is certainly room for criticism for government involvement in this fashion. Tobacco is a good example of this.
Clean energy protects people from pollution. It is but one thing we expect from government after all. What good does claiming to want free health care for all if we allow the causes if bad health to continue?
Supporting tobacco was seriously wrong. Supporting clean energy is seriously right.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "radical solution". It is my opinion that many climate activists aren't wrong when it comes to the fact of whether climate change or global warming exists, which I believe they do. Problems begin with their solutions, which are almost always radical. These radical solutions may mean a curbing of freedom or cratering the global economy. These are not only unrealistic but also morally wrong. I am in favor of green technology, as long as it's implemented in a free-market friendly manner. This means that these green solutions must be efficient enough to survive in an unsubsidized environment, which they often aren't. An example of a successful green alternative would be Tesla, despite undergoing controversy recently, ironically, among the climate activists, it is by far the most sold EV. The reason for this is that it's a good car for those who can afford it, while the other EVs tend to be of just equal or even lesser quality than gas-powered cars. Thus, the only people who buy it have to be either 1. rich or 2. care enough about the climate to buy a car not worth the price.
Pardon me, but do I read your post correctly? Tesla is your example of "unsubsidized" green success?
Your free market "solution" (aka doing little to nothing) has been tried...for the past 4 decades. There's not enough time left to wait for that solution, this point in time right now is the inflection point...and honestly a bit past the inflection point. Permanent damage is already baked in. We're out of time for letting the plodding masses figure out that it's getting hotter and that this doesn't end well.
1. I never said it's unsubsidized, just that it could survive on its own.
2. There is actually enough time to wait for a solution.
Government support for critical industries is neither unusual nor new.
The government routinely prevents business failures by legislation and lawsuits against monopolies. This is simply another form of subsidizing. In addition, and this has been repeated in this thread often, fossil fuels have long been receiving government support.
There is certainly room for criticism for government involvement in this fashion. Tobacco is a good example of this.
Clean energy protects people from pollution. It is but one thing we expect from government after all. What good does claiming to want free health care for all if we allow the causes if bad health to continue?
Supporting tobacco was seriously wrong. Supporting clean energy is seriously right.
My view is that we shouldn't subsidize any industry, as business failures are just as important for the market as business successes, even if they are unpleasant to the ears. In my view, neither industry is right nor wrong, and subsidizing one means a disadvantage in the market for the other.
I agree in a normal competitive market. The issue here us not competition between providers. It's a matter of public safety, health and ultimately survival of a significant number of places in which people live.
And no, there is not time to wait for a "solution". We have the solution and need accelerated implementation.
I agree in a normal competitive market. The issue here us not competition between providers. It's a matter of public safety, health and ultimately survival of a significant number of places in which people live.
And no, there is not time to wait for a "solution". We have the solution and need accelerated implementation.
1. I agree in some sense, which is why I think regulation is a fine idea.
2. I have heard from some that the Earth will become a barren wasteland by 2050, but that just isn't true. Realistically, global warming won't start affecting us severely for hundreds of years, long after clean solutions become the main, not the alternative.
No scientist ever said that and you're wrong about the timefrane
No scientist ever said that and you're wrong about the timefrane
Some have made similar predictions.
According to you, what is the timeframe?
Parts of the world are already experiencing more frequent and more severe storms, higher ocean levels and record high and low temperatures. If you're looking for sudden catastrophes you won't find them. The climate is changing more rapidly than in recorded history but not so you'd likely see it daily. This is the fallacy climate deniers hide behind.
Basing your so called "hundreds of years" on hunches does not equate to knowledge.
Parts of the world are already experiencing more frequent and more severe storms, higher ocean levels and record high and low temperatures. If you're looking for sudden catastrophes you won't find them. The climate is changing more rapidly than in recorded history but not so you'd likely see it daily. This is the fallacy climate deniers hide behind.
If it's too late, what's the point of switching now?
Where?