The global warming scale

We humans like to attach numbers to things to make it easier to visualize and understand. For example we have a scale for the intensity of a hurricane, and also a scale for tornados. The higher the number, the nastier the storm. So the thought occurred we will need a scale for global warming as well and how nasty things are in a given area.

This is a sad but ironic fate we have given ourselves. The need to have a scale to show how bad things are. Then we could just look at a map and see the numbers to give a better overview of how bad things are and where.

So the first thought is what would be the highest number on the scale. Should it be a scale of 10 or 20. The need for the higher numbers may be a bit confusing, but it also will give a better picture. The thought that perhaps there should be 2 scales may be better. One reflects the severity of the conditions, and the other reflects the ability of the local government to recover or cope. The 2 scale method seems to make the most sense as it is easier to comprehend.

So on the 2 scale method the intensity should be numeric, and the local government’s ability to cope should reflect a grade from ‘A’ to ‘F’ as in school. So a typical score would look like 3B or 7F or whatever. They would tend to follow each other. The higher the number, the more difficult it is to deal with.

So the alpha scale should be A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Fair, D = Poor, F = Failing.

The numeric scale needs to be descriptive of the conditions. For example mud slides can be a secondary effect caused by excessive rain, where the rain itself can destroy crops and infrastructure like bridges and dams. But the thought of the highest number on the scale would have to be based on conditions that would be uninhabitable such as islands or a delta being submerged as a result of rising sea-levels.

Other factors should perhaps include what percentage of the local population has been killed, or other such dreadful statistics like secondary life threatening diseases and conditions like cholera and no food or water.

Then there are conditions like relentless heat or drought. They too must be weighed in as they also will have a direct effect on the survivability of the local population.

It is important to always keep in mind that nature reduces the population of whatever to bring back balance. That is simply how it works. There is no sense of pity or remorse, death is part of the balancing equation. The most recent example that can be cited was in China. When they started filling the lake behind the Three Gorges dam, there was a plague of mice that fled the rising water and went on a rampage across the area. There were millions of mice, and that lasted about 1 month or perhaps a bit longer. Nature simply killed them as they consumed all possible food and the weakest died. Now simply it is our turn.

Connecting the Dots will leave it up to the scientists and other qualified people to come up with the scale, and we feel it will be a 9 scale. Connecting the Dots predicts it will just be a matter of time as it appears the thinning of the human population has begun. We are seeing that in China, and Pakistan already with near biblical conditions.

Comments are closed.