Phoenix Dust Storm: Arizona Hit With Monstrous 'Haboob' (PHOTOS/VIDEO)

Fernando Veloso

15 years ago

Amazing. HUGE. Saw a video on the news couple hours ago. Mas, is that normal in there?

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205146].message }}

TLTheLiberator 15 years ago

Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso

Amazing. HUGE. Saw a video on the news couple hours ago. Mas, is that normal in there?

I can't remember the last time I heard of a dust storm of this magnitude.

America had plenty of them in the 1930's though.

All The Best!!

TL
- Thanks
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205202].message }}
Kurt 15 years ago

Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso

Amazing. HUGE. Saw a video on the news couple hours ago. Mas, is that normal in there?

When I lived in Las Vegas, we'd get a few smaller dust storms, but nothing this big.
- Thanks
Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205306].message }}
HeySal 15 years ago

Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso

Amazing. HUGE. Saw a video on the news couple hours ago. Mas, is that normal in there?

Fernando - that area has very little vegetation. It's desert. About the only naturally green areas down there (outside of cactus and sagebrush, that type of thing) are by rivers, lakes, reservoirs, etc. So when the wind blows - so does the ground. This size of dust storm is not usual though. Smaller ones happen occasionally but rarely make it past local news.
- Thanks
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206243].message }}

HeySal

15 years ago

We had smaller versions in S.W. Idaho, too. If you get into one while driving it's hard just to pull off the road. You see NOTHING beyond your windshield. The size of this one is really staggering. I can't imagine being on one of the upper floors of the taller buildings and not being able to see over that thing.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205591].message }}

exsuit 15 years ago

Wow - didn't know this was happening. To all WF members and their families in Phoenix - stay safe.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205737].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

15 years ago

That ain't so much ... I kick up a bigger cloud of dust just walking through my house.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206567].message }}

jimbo13 15 years ago

In a situation such as this do shops and buildings with automatic doors dismantle them to manual opening to stop dust getting in and what happens to AC units, especially in places like hospitals?

Do they get clogged up or am I showing a bit of naivity here as I have never experienced such a thing?

Dan
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206638].message }}

Sunfyre7896

15 years ago

It's part of the monsoon season there. It starts in June 15 and ends on September 30th every year. However, most of the rains occur in August usually. When I lived there back in 2001-2002, we got some dust storms, but not to that extreme.

Thanks

Signature

We can all do our part
Candle fundraiser|Non-profit fundraising
Non-profit fundraiser

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206706].message }}

Fernando Veloso

15 years ago

Don't mean to be offtopic but couple days ago was watching this show in Discovery Channel on how the worldwide weather is getting stronger, that is, stronger storms, stronger floods, etc etc.

Perhaps this is just another live example of it?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206847].message }}

TLTheLiberator

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso

Don't mean to be offtopic but couple days ago was watching this show in Discovery Channel on how the worldwide weather is getting stronger, that is, stronger storms, stronger floods, etc etc.

Perhaps this is just another live example of it?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was but I don't really know.

There are lots of people who believe in climate change and lots of people who don't.

I've heard that 90% of the scientific community believes in climate change.

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207165].message }}

Kurt

15 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I wouldn't be surprised if it was but I don't really know.

There are lots of people who believe in climate change and lots of people who don't.

I've heard that 90% of the scientific community believes in climate change.

TL

Actually, the National Academy of Sciences says that it's 97% of scientists that study climate believe that climate changes are man made. They didn't do a poll, but instead researched papers published by the climate community.

national academy of sciences global warming 97% - Google Search

Having said this, while the huge dust storm does fit the pattern, it's hard to attribute global warming to any particular event. But over-all, it does fit the trend we're seeing across the globe.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207415].message }}

garyv

15 years ago

I don't think there's too many people that will disagree with the fact that man does have an effect on the climate. But what separates most people is the amount of effect that they believe man is having on the climate.

For instance, if you had listened to the scaremongers of the 70s, then we should all be living in igloos by now.

I guarantee you that the effect on the environment is no where near the level that they'd lead you to believe it is. Scaring people is big business. If these people were so "scared" for their children's future, then they wouldn't take such a huge piece of the pie for themselves on their way out.

There have been bigger dust storms, and we have recovered. There have been bigger Hurricanes, stronger tornadoes, and colder winters in the past. But one thing that is bigger now, is the population of the planet, and our News coverage of these weather events.

And if you follow the money, it's easy to see that large companies stand to make big money by having people "scared" of the climate.

Why do you think that some of these same companies own large New organizations?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207785].message }}

Kurt

15 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

I don't think there's too many people that will disagree with the fact that man does have an effect on the climate. But what separates most people is the amount of effect that they believe man is having on the climate.

For instance, if you had listened to the scaremongers of the 70s, then we should all be living in igloos by now.

Actually, if you were paying attention, the scientists of the 70's had most of it correct, despite your ad hominem attack calling them "scaremongers"?

Here's the facts: During the 70s scientist saw CO2 levels rising and attributed it to our burning of fossil fuels. They theorized that the co2 would block the sun and cause temps to decrease.

However, temps started to rise, causing the scientists to reformulate their theory when they discovered co2 actually causes the greenhouse affect.

IMO, changing theories as more evidence is presented is smart. And, the point that humans are contributing CO2 to our atmosphere hasn't changed in the past 40 years...Only the predicted outcome.

I guarantee you that the effect on the environment is no where near the level that they'd lead you to believe it is. Scaring people is big business. If these people were so "scared" for their children's future, then they wouldn't take such a huge piece of the pie for themselves on their way out.

Specifically, which of the 1300 climate experts cited in the report have taken a "huge piece of the pie"? Do you have anything resembling a fact to back this up?

There have been bigger dust storms, and we have recovered. There have been bigger Hurricanes, stronger tornadoes, and colder winters in the past. But one thing that is bigger now, is the population of the planet, and our News coverage of these weather events.

Yep, there have been bigger storms and tornadoes. But they are also becoming much more common and have higher intensities than any other time.

And if you follow the money, it's easy to see that large companies stand to make big money by having people "scared" of the climate.

Why do you think that some of these same companies own large New organizations?

I did follow the money and it leads me to two places:
Big Oil
Russia

Although it is hilarious to think that climatologists not only make more money, but are also more profit driven than Big Oil. Seriously? They aren't taking a huge piece of the pie?

Plus, if the models for Climate Change are correct, who do you think will profit most? You don't think that Siberia will be the new "food basket" of the World, while our own prarie land becomes a dust bowl once again?

Or that a northern passage through the Artic Circle won't make Russia a shipping giant, as Europe to Asia shipping goes North instead of through the Panama canal?

Why don't you REALLY follow the money? If money is really the issue, who really has the most to gain?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207886].message }}

Mark Andrews Banned 15 years ago

YouTube - ‪Haboob‬&rlm;
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208185].message }}

garyv

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I did follow the money and it leads me to two places:
Big Oil
Russia

Actually it's not that hard to trace the "green" money. They don't even make an attempt to hide it.

There are constantly "scientists" that are paid for by General Electric pushing stories that promote solar and other green energies while kicking big oil. Of course they're pushing it because it stands to make GE a boat-load of money. And in order to get their News (propaganda) out, they buy up a Network, like NBC, and therefore have access to MSNBC. Now you tell me why in the world would a company like GE even consider owning a Network if not for pushing an agenda?

And then somehow the CEO of GE ends up on the Government's economic advisory council. And to top it all off the company doesn't pay a dime in taxes for 2010 after making billions in profit, and in fact received a 3.2 billion dollar tax benefit. Show me a big oil company that made out like that.

The money trail is quite obvious. And if you can't see it, then you're missing the REAL Inconvenient Truth LOL.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209574].message }}

TLTheLiberator

15 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Actually it's not that hard to trace the "green" money. They don't even make an attempt to hide it.

There are constantly "scientists" that are paid for by General Electric pushing stories that promote solar and other green energies while kicking big oil.

Of course they're pushing it because it stands to make GE a boat-load of money.

And in order to get their News (propaganda) out, they buy up a Network, like NBC, and therefore have access to MSNBC.

Now you tell me why in the world would a company like GE even consider owning a Network if not for pushing an agenda?

And then somehow the CEO of GE ends up on the Government's economic advisory council. And to top it all off the company doesn't pay a dime in taxes for 2010 after making billions in profit, and in fact received a 3.2 billion dollar tax benefit.

Show me a big oil company that made out like that.

The money trail is quite obvious. And if you can't see it, then you're missing the REAL Inconvenient Truth LOL.

Interesting points Gary.

Remember, well run networks do make a lot of money also.

and...

What big company does not have an agenda?

You can thank the special favors that are embedded in the tax code for GE's remarkable earnings etc.

Hopefully all the loopholes that allow anyone to make billions and pay no taxes and to also get a rebate will be closed asap.

BTW, GE has over 900 people working in it's "tax avoidance" department.

I'm just curious...

So...

Is it your considered opinion that the nation does not...

... need to (at least slowly but surely) move in a "green energy" direction?

I'm just curious because,...

... I remember your position regarding the American auto industry crisis.

And I can only imagine your position on the current debt ceiling situation.

All The Best!!

TL

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209853].message }}

garyv

15 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Interesting points Gary.

I'm just curious...

So...

Is it your considered opinion that the nation does not...

... need to (at least slowly but surely) move in a "green energy" direction?

I'm just curious because,...

... I remember your position regarding the American auto industry crisis.

And I can only imagine your position on the current debt ceiling situation.

All The Best!!

TL

It depends on what you mean by "move in a green energy direction" ?

Many people consider driving electric cars moving in a "green energy" direction. But when you plug that car in, the electricity comes from somewhere. Where? In almost all cases it's from an electrical plant that is rotating a turbine engine to produce that electricity (yes GE turbine engines). And in many cases fossil fuel is used to turn those turbine engines. Thus the more electricity you use driving your car the more fossil fuels you are still burning anyway. And then to top it off you have a landfill hazard with all of those batteries at disposal time.

I can clearly see the need for reducing pollution. But is sickens me to see a green agenda pushed so hard that it stifles a clear and easy way out of an economic crisis. The climate is not in such bad shape that we need to make people go hungry.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210091].message }}

Kurt

15 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

It depends on what you mean by "move in a green energy direction" ?

Many people consider driving electric cars moving in a "green energy" direction. But when you plug that car in, the electricity comes from somewhere. Where? In almost all cases it's from an electrical plant that is rotating a turbine engine to produce that electricity (yes GE turbine engines). And in many cases fossil fuel is used to turn those turbine engines. Thus the more electricity you use driving your car the more fossil fuels you are still burning anyway. And then to top it off you have a landfill hazard with all of those batteries at disposal time.

I can clearly see the need for reducing pollution. But is sickens me to see a green agenda pushed so hard that it stifles a clear and easy way out of an economic crisis. The climate is not in such bad shape that we need to make people go hungry.

Electric cars use about 10% of the carbon based fuel as do internal engine cars do, even considering that many power plants use coal and/or other oil related energy.

And it sickens me to see deniers on the wrong side of the facts simply due to political reasons. If you were truly concerned about our economy, you'd be worried about shipping a billion a day overseas to purchase foreign oil...And before you make up something, domestic oil production is up 11% since the last administration. But even that will run out some day, at least to the extent it will become more and more expensive to produce.

Or, how about Big Oil pay their fair share? Why do they get tax breaks and green energy doesn't?

Or how about how half of our military budget is spent defending Big Oil in the Middle East? And most of this money is spent on Cold War era strategies, like huge navy ships...Why shouldn't Big Oil have to pay for their own security? That's another billion a day that could be spent on our own infrastructure and doing some "nation building" in our own Nation.

I keep following the money and it always leads me back to the same place...

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210177].message }}

TLTheLiberator

15 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

It depends on what you mean by "move in a green energy direction" ?

Many people consider driving electric cars moving in a "green energy" direction. But when you plug that car in, the electricity comes from somewhere. Where? In almost all cases it's from an electrical plant that is rotating a turbine engine to produce that electricity (yes GE turbine engines). And in many cases fossil fuel is used to turn those turbine engines. Thus the more electricity you use driving your car the more fossil fuels you are still burning anyway. And then to top it off you have a landfill hazard with all of those batteries at disposal time.

I can clearly see the need for reducing pollution. But is sickens me to see a green agenda pushed so hard that it stifles a clear and easy way out of an economic crisis. The climate is not in such bad shape that we need to make people go hungry.

Gary, when I talk about a "Green Energy" direction I'm talking about...

- a lot more wind

- a lot more solar

- Updating our infrastructure - ( at least slowly but surely )

- More high speed rail - where feasible

- more electric cars on the road

( I'm sure we can find something to do with the batteries so that their benefits outweighs their hazards )

- severely reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere

- Moving away from our destructive & expensive dependence on foreign & domestic oil

- Nuclear energy would be nice and it's cheap but we're scared to death of it.

You said...

I can clearly see the need for reducing pollution.

But is sickens me to see a green agenda pushed so hard that it stifles a clear and easy way out of an economic crisis.

I say...

At least you can see the need for reducing pollution.

How does a green agenda stifle economic progress and help in letting people go hungry?

And...

I'd sincerely would love to hear your clear and easy economic plan for moving the nation forward - out of this crisis - and into the 21st century.

All The Best!!

TL

Ps. You can PM me if you like.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4211881].message }}

ThomM 15 years ago

And, the point that humans are contributing CO2 to our atmosphere hasn't changed in the past 40 years...Only the predicted outcome.

Kurt that reminded me of a conversation I had with my friend from FL. yesterday.
When we where at the town beach she kept on commenting on how clean the air smelled. On our way home I was telling her about our 6 million+ acre state park and how NY also has over 4 million acres in farm and pasture land. And neither of those take into account the other wilderness areas we have. She replied that we have a lot of underutilized land here. I told her no we have a lot of land here that works real hard at giving us that clean air she is enjoying.
- Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4212136].message }}

jeffrey73 15 years ago

The monsoons are coming awfully early this year. It's usually not this humid until late July or August.

Nice share TL. Too bad I missed the whole thing, but I can see it all over my car. lol
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

[ RAVING TOP CPA WARRIOR REVIEWS!] - STUPID SIMPLE AD-WRITING AND RESEARCH TECHNIQUES USED BY WARRIORS EARNING $200-1k PER DAY!

SEE WHAT "KENSTER" AND MIKE MORGAN ARE SAYING ABOUT AD-COPY ASSAULT NOW!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210167].message }}

Kurt

15 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Actually it's not that hard to trace the "green" money. They don't even make an attempt to hide it.

There are constantly "scientists" that are paid for by General Electric pushing stories that promote solar and other green energies while kicking big oil. Of course they're pushing it because it stands to make GE a boat-load of money. And in order to get their News (propaganda) out, they buy up a Network, like NBC, and therefore have access to MSNBC. Now you tell me why in the world would a company like GE even consider owning a Network if not for pushing an agenda?

And then somehow the CEO of GE ends up on the Government's economic advisory council. And to top it all off the company doesn't pay a dime in taxes for 2010 after making billions in profit, and in fact received a 3.2 billion dollar tax benefit. Show me a big oil company that made out like that.

The money trail is quite obvious. And if you can't see it, then you're missing the REAL Inconvenient Truth LOL.

I followed the money again...It seems Rush makes $33 million a year, just from his radio contract and doesn't include books, speaking, etc.

Let's see, if the average climatologist makes $100,000 a year (which they don't), Rush alone makes as much as 330 climatologists, roughly 1/4 of the 1300 cited in the study.

Yep...There's lots of money to be made by being a denier.

Plus, like you said I followed the money and last I checked Big Oil makes more than GE, especially considering ALL of Big Oil's profits are related to global warming, while green energy is only a small fraction of GE's profits.

Give me the bottom line facts: How much does GE make from green energy and how much does Big Oil make? Or please don't tell me to follow the money, then pretend the money doesn't lead back to Big Oil and Russia. It does.

Now back to my questions...Which of the 1300 climatologists are you claiming are faking their research so they can make some extra money? It's a "convenient" allegation, except for the fact that there's zero evidence to back up these claims.

One more time for the deniers: 97% of the people that do this for a living believe man-made co2 is the cause of climate change.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210122].message }}

garyv

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Now back to my questions...Which of the 1300 climatologists are you claiming are faking their research so they can make some extra money? It's a "convenient" allegation, except for the fact that there's zero evidence to back up these claims.

One more time for the deniers: 97% of the people that do this for a living believe man-made co2 is the cause of climate change.

Did I say any of them were faking their research? Like I said there are varying degrees to which these scientists believe the climate is changing. And why is it you can throw out number nonchalantly, but when someone else puts out a number you want them to provide evidence? You have google just like I do. I don't see you putting links up w/ any of your "claims" lol.

Of course most people believe in climate change. But the differences lie in how much climate change they believe is actually man made. You have some people that believe we are close to a doomsday scenario, and then on the other side you have people that believe we are no where close to that. And there's no denying that there's money to be made pushing a green agenda. Don't believe me? Look up the salary that the Vice-President makes, and then look up the net-worth of Al Gore. Hmmm How did that happen? lol

How did that money get there? lol Now there's an inconvenient truth.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210208].message }}

MobileNatalie

15 years ago

Wow that is insane! I don't even know how I'd react to a dust storm, it's definitely not like rain or snow.

Good thing I'm out here in california hehe

Thanks

Signature

MobileNatalie Recommended Companies!
www.trumpia.com
www.aweber.com
www.constantcontact.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208391].message }}

HeySal

15 years ago

I agree that there aren't more than a handful of scientists that don't think climate is changing - but the warming issue is still to be debated. Human caused change is NOT being debated. Desertification is what is causing the change. They are now in a mad dash to reforest everything and save ecosystems that we've ruined because we've cleared trees and killed ecosystems and over populated til now we've booted ourselves into the middle of the 6th great extinction. Serious. Not making that up -we are IN the 6th great extinction. If we don't get things reforested and some of the damaged ecosystems restored, we might just be one of those critters on the endangered list pretty soon. CO2 is not a Cause - it is an effect. Once those forests begin to go back up that CO2 will clean itself up just fine. Meanwhile - all their work is going to be for nothing if they don't find a way to achieve a negative population growth.

That's what's up. It's been a long time since Pheonix has had forests, though - that much IS NOT human caused. So if you move there, you can expect to eat some sand now and again.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208546].message }}

HeySal

15 years ago

Kurt - 1,300 is IPCC - and they have already proven that much of that documentation was edited to crap and back and was nothing but propaganda to get more money in taxes.

There is no oil shortage either. The problem is that oil is extremely polluting and we CAN'T live on the planet much longer if we don't start cleaning up the mess. We went too far. Green energy isn't needed because we're running out of oil - it's needed so we don't poison the planet any further. If you think oil is going to keep people from going hungry......... there is one thing that is going to put people hungry - land that is being desertificated at the rate of millions of hectares a year while the population continues to rise. The CO2 scare was done over a year ago when India got so PO'd at IPCC that they almost walked on the United Nations completely because of the falsified documents that said the Himalaya glaciers were melting. The whole thing came down. It's still the truth - if you replant the forests, you don't have a CO2 problem - and CO2 always follows (not precedes) warming because it protects plants from the heat. 1,400 "climatologists were not what signed the Kayoto agreement - 1,400 people did - I don't call hair dressers and restaurant managers climatologists. There are 30,000 people who ARE scientifically educated that go with the ideas that I am referring to -- and NASA holds some of them.