RE: Russia burning.
It's the vast forests in Siberia that are responsible for converting most of the planet's carbon dioxide into oxygen (not the Amazon rainforests, as most people believe). If a huge percentage of those trees burn down, that's major bad news.
And the recently-burned, new growth forests are better at producing oxygen anyway, because there isn't a layer of decomposing dead stuff on the ground.
@5, 6, it's a fool's errand to dismiss the circular tragedy of wildfire carbon emissions. Especially in countries like Russia where reforestation (which takes more than a generation to begin recouping carbon emissions from a fire) is rather unlikely. Reforestation is a lovely thing, mind, but to suggest it makes deforestation a-okay is an abuse of logic and virtue both.
If you intend to persist in sucking your thumb like that, you might as well read at the same time:
I don't speak of the length of time it takes purposely. It may take a great deal of time. My concern is only that the earth heals itself. As for how this affects people, meh. I no longer believe we humans are capable of either stopping or reversing our own destruction.
That makes more sense, then. But Vince, if it's a given that we can't stop or reverse our destruction, we still have thousands of years left eking out an existence. Shouldn't we make the most of the experience, keep our eyes and hearts open to witness and help alleviate a bit the human and animal suffering, calm the very real political dangers as they arise?
Too much shrugging and meh-ing makes people into tyrant fodder, no?
@11 It is a cycle we have followed for a long time. I really wonder what the average I.Q. is for mankind. I would have to believe it is somewhere in the mildly retarded area. As for the suffereing of other humans is concerned, Americans spend billions on pet food and toys when tens of thousands of children die every day from preventable causes. Enough said?
I really wonder what is the IQ of anyone who doesn't know what the average IQ is. (Hint: it's 100. Always has been. Always will be.)
If you don't care about people, you should stop commenting. The Earth doesn't read these blogs, and anyway, it will heal itself no matter what anybody says here, right?
Commenting looks an awful lot like you care enough what others think to make the effort to express yourself. But I suppose nihilists have always contradicted themselves, blathering on so.
The road diet on that road will increase capacity, not reduce it. The specific behaviors of motorists on two lane roads is pretty terrible. When someone wants to make a left turn they stop and wait which makes everyone behind them attempt to move into the outside lane. This change of lanes slows down the outside lane which in turn brings the road to a much slower average speed.
These road diets are first and foremost about taking new analysis of driving behavioral models we didn't have in the 50's and applying them to the roads we have. The two lanes with a middle turn lane is a much better setup for motorists. The bicycle lanes are just an afterthought.
Maybe they can ship some of iowa's extra water to Russia, because I'm here to tell you that I've never seen the rivers this high - especially in august.
@17: I'm a Chicagoan. Iowa's (relative) flatness is somewhat of a joke around here, seeing as we live in the next state over. Also, one of my RAs at school is from Iowa.
Don't get your panties in a twist; I was kidding you.
I do apologize dear. I was both cross and a bit tipsy when I posted that. Being in Steve King territory does that to me.
But honestly - relative flatness to what? Illinois? Chicagoland? Every place in Iowa I've ever lived (council bluffs and Iowa city) is quite hilly. The Vel-DuRay homeplace is located on a street that would rival anything Seattle could throw at it, and downtown Iowa City is on a bluff that is probably 60' above the Iowa River. Even I-80 through Iowa is a roller coaster compared to both its Nebraska and Illinois counterparts.
It's the vast forests in Siberia that are responsible for converting most of the planet's carbon dioxide into oxygen (not the Amazon rainforests, as most people believe). If a huge percentage of those trees burn down, that's major bad news.
If you intend to persist in sucking your thumb like that, you might as well read at the same time:
Overview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…
UN Makes A Big Statement: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/new…
Russian forestry in a nutshell:
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pa…
Global map of weekly world fires, just for fun:
http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/current/…
Too much shrugging and meh-ing makes people into tyrant fodder, no?
If you don't care about people, you should stop commenting. The Earth doesn't read these blogs, and anyway, it will heal itself no matter what anybody says here, right?
Commenting looks an awful lot like you care enough what others think to make the effort to express yourself. But I suppose nihilists have always contradicted themselves, blathering on so.
These road diets are first and foremost about taking new analysis of driving behavioral models we didn't have in the 50's and applying them to the roads we have. The two lanes with a middle turn lane is a much better setup for motorists. The bicycle lanes are just an afterthought.
You can say whatever you want about me (it would probably be true) but don't go lumping Iowa in with the great plains.
Don't get your panties in a twist; I was kidding you.
But honestly - relative flatness to what? Illinois? Chicagoland? Every place in Iowa I've ever lived (council bluffs and Iowa city) is quite hilly. The Vel-DuRay homeplace is located on a street that would rival anything Seattle could throw at it, and downtown Iowa City is on a bluff that is probably 60' above the Iowa River. Even I-80 through Iowa is a roller coaster compared to both its Nebraska and Illinois counterparts.