Well, if we do not want to change current methods because of uncertainty in scientific data, why not change it for health reasons? Enjoy breathing in exhaust much? Smog-filled cities? I am sure none of this has any immediate impact on our health.

 

... still not convinced that the intensity of Hurricane Sandy had anything to do with global warming?
...

Probability the hurricane happened because they do always that every so often... Close to 100%

Probability the hurricane happened because we are experiencing some recent climate instability? Maybe 30%

Probability the hurricane happened because of MAN's effect on the planet? Close to 0%

 

World weather events have been around for a long time. Can we replace the

weather, with what more weather. There is proof of events ,like the ocean

floors ending up on top of mountians. What about rising waters from melting ice.

 

What about rising waters from melting ice.

Currently negligible, as most melted ice is still not land based.

More important side effect of melting ice is that ice is a very good energy reflector(solar). Water/ground is a very good energy(solar) collector.

---

- Atmosphere(air/gas) heating/cooling is a less powerful effect compared to ocean heating/cooling(water/liquid). Oceans are effectively the energy/heat buffer of the planet.

- Higher global ocean temperature means more energy available(top level) for bigger/stronger storms. (+higher frequency of storms.)

 

Probability the hurricane happened because they do always that every so often... Close to 100%

Probability the hurricane happened because we are experiencing some recent climate instability? Maybe 30%

Probability the hurricane happened because of MAN's effect on the planet? Close to 0%

Probability that I am alive because I got out of bed this morning... 100%

Probability that that I have a splitting headache because I had too much to drink last night... 50%

Probability that greater than 1% of the population understand global climate... 0%

 

Oh, and let's not forget that 65% of all statistics are made up.

 

Oh, and let's not forget that 65% of all statistics are made up.

Pretty sure it's 72.4%, Geo

 

People are too quick to bury their heads in the sand.

Let's take out the whole 'global warming is caused by man' out of the equation - just for the moment.

Why should we change from 'dirty fuels' and a 'dirty lifestyle', to a one based on cleaner energy?

Our health is a good reason. Even a monkey could figure out that lots of pollutants = bad health. Wether it is respiratory from smog or fumes, physical from contaminated water or food, or indirect (ie, passing diseases on in preagnant women). If we were to increase use of public transport and/or switch to hydrogen or battery powered cars, the amount of pollutants would fall dramaticly. Even a congestion charge will help greatly. I don't have exact figures, but the health of London improved greatly a
shortly after our congestion charge. Also, air pollution fell. Coincidence? And what about physical exercise from walking short distances? Why take the car to the shops round the corner when you could walk there? Save some money on fuel and improve your health.

Preservation of history and environmental pollution. All of these poisonous gases we release in vast quantities create vast amounts of acid rain. Over a few short years these eats right into buildings - literally dissolving them away. Not only this, but when this rain falls it finds its way back into waterways, contaminating them. What happens now?

What about those who have the misfortune to live near oil extraction? You might get along ok if you live in a developed country, but what about those in developing countries? Cases of cancer increase vastly as you get near oil extraction points in these places. The locals have no choice but to drink water which is contaminated.

But imagine that we are selfish for a moment. What about the money? You guys love cash right? The efficiency of nuclear power is far greater than that of coal or oil. Efficiency means more money. But what about jobs? The US provides about 170'000 jobs based on coal - those who mine it, those who transport it, those who organise everything to do with it, those who work in coal power plants and those who build those plants.

A typical nuclear station takes about 2000 to construct it, and about 700 to operate it. That is one station. Not including those who will transport goods, remove material, etc. A coal station requires just as many to operate. So perhaps it makes economic sense?

But what about your pocket? What good is it that your country is doing well, if you have no cash yourself? Insulating your home pays for itself over and over again during its lifetime. Big savings on fuel to heat your home.

What do all these things have in common? Economic and social sense to reduce dependency on fossil fuels? Or just using less fossil fuels?

Oh my, that would be great if it did slow or prevent global warming. But even if it doesn't - you've saved money. Problem with that?

 

Sparky,

The NIMBYs will rise up and badger the politico's into submission.

Believe me, I would love to see the U.S. with a very high percentage of nuclear power plants, but the political reality is, it won't happen because of the voters.

 

But still, there are things that the individual can do to 'be green' (save money!).

Insulate your house is a big one.

Being green isn't a one thing idea. Nuclear power is one, but there are many aspects to the whole thing.

 

...
Probability that greater than 1% of the population understand global climate... 0%

That's bordering on a religious level of conviction MrChips.

Currently in science we have two very large camps of very qualified experts, arguing both sides of this "climate change" argument. Are you saying just the guys in YOUR camp represent the 1% that know what they are doing?

Are you denying there are lierally billions of dollars up for grabs by milking the concept of "climate change"? Or denying that institutions, governments, scientists etc would jump on those billions of dollars by promoting that agenda?

And finally, do you have ANY evidence at all that this hurricane was caused by man's activity, which would also mean you need evidence that every other hurricane in history was NOT caused by man's activity?

All the people I've seen that are really convinced climate change is some recent man caused phenomenon seem to have a religious style conviction of that, and seem to have very little open-minded common sense on the matter. I think the concept appeals to a certain "extreme green" personality type. Do you drive a hybrid? Do you think your actions driving a hybrid will have ANY significant effect on the planet?

Two type of people come out after a natural disater, the ones that blame it on God (and often predict the end of the world) and the ones that blame it on man's actions... When the volcano Vesuvius erupted and wiped out the ancient Roman city of Pompeii there were just as many people in those camps, saying it was god's wrath for man's actions etc. It's a base human instinct to blame a large negative event on God's actions, or man's actions, or some combination.

 

Yes, but is it a bad thing? To go green I mean.

You're right, governments would seize the opportunity to make millions. Who wouldn't? What will happen to those millions? They either go straight into funds for science, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. Even if some lines some guys pockets, they'll still be paying more tax.

And what about you? The point isn't suddenly ending oil consumption - that will never happen. But even simple things like insulating your house will save fuel and save you money. If everone did small things, then that would have a big affect. As I said, even if nothing changes, you're still saving yourself money.

What's wrong with that?

 

@ JoeJester ,there is no fear left ,reality. There are so many things to

consider. All are toxic,choose your..............

 

And finally, do you have ANY evidence at all that this hurricane was caused by man's activity, which would also mean you need evidence that every other hurricane in history was NOT caused by man's activity?

When it comes to complex dynamical systems. There is really no (good) point or reason for argumentation's like these. Even if you(anyone) would know all the major and minor influences/triggers of a particular event, trying to focus on just one single attribute as main reason for that/a single event makes no sense.

(But than again most don't care or know how to deal with percentages and uncertainties. ... Figure it might have something to do with that hardwired "Fight or Flight (or freeze)" instinctual behavior.)

 

Look at the increase in populations,the mountain tops removed for mining.

Deforesting every where,why would you not expect some kind of change.

Professors should be Ignored,they live in bubbles awaiting tenture and

pensions. When you take a flight, take a picture near the ground,like the

storm Sandy the press give you approved pictures of the real damage and

victims comments. Where the water,Red Cross giving out hot chocolate and

cookies,when water you need for life is in shortage.

 

Power outage,suggestion....the contractors and subcontracors teams get

work orders,they can reply we can't get to that location for some reason.

A dispatcher in another state will let the work order lay aside until that crew

decides to clear it. In the mean time you could be out power with out knowing.

After calling 1-800-4 outage two or three times you start getting a human to

pickup. Good advise, ask the dispatcher to take direction street by street on

a route you know that is clear,get a work order number. Keep calling back with the

information. The reason,the out of town contractors don't know where they are

in the city. If the directions street by street are repeated you have a better chance

of getting a truck to your area. This is a true experience,do with it what you will.

P.S. The power contractors get storm pay, electric lines you guys know that not

as bad as some people think, not that many working parts. The tree service gets

storm pay....no one to account to..hidden in a group. Your opinion.......

 

On a TV science show recently they showed how governments soon can spend millions of dollars by changing the path of a hurricane or reducing its intensity.

 

You never know what the Hurricane hunter planes are doing, N.O.A.A. have

tried what they call seeding storms. They keep quiet just in case a storm goes

in the wrong direction.

 

Yes, but is it a bad thing? To go green I mean.
...
And what about you? The point isn't suddenly ending oil consumption - that will never happen. But even simple things like insulating your house will save fuel and save you money. If everone did small things, then that would have a big affect. As I said, even if nothing changes, you're still saving yourself money.
...

For the record, I personally believe in living a fairly green lifestyle; I recycle, use very little oil/gasoline, eat fresh foods and not processed and buy very little in the way of disposable items or consumer goods. My personal transport is a restored old Harley that I can keep going forever, my TV is an old CRT type that I have fixed more than once. You get the idea.

I would even vote "green" if the green political parties were not full of morons and extremist psychos.

When it comes to complex dynamical systems. There is really no (good) point or reason for argumentation's like these. Even if you(anyone) would know all the major and minor influences/triggers of a particular event, trying to focus on just one single attribute as main reason for that/a single event makes no sense.

And that's very much how I feel about it. I've designed temperature control systems and maintained them in industry, and there are instabilities. It's an understood fact that the temperature on this planet has changed through numerous cycles before, so IF we are in a major temperature change event (and not just a minor blip) then it would be logical to assume man's responsibility for hte temperature change would likely be small compared to all the other normal factors that caused the previous temperature changes.

Man puts the kettle and toaster on in the morning. Scientist rushes in... "Your kettle and toaster are releasing X watts of heat into the environment!" "It's a scientific fact the kettle makes heat! Since you put the kettle on the temperature has risen X degrees! If you continue your actions this house will be un-liveable in X hours!"

False assumption 1; That the "man's use of kettle" was responsible for the temperature rise in the room, instead it was likely because the sun was rising.
False assumption 2; That the temp rose X degrees in one hour so it would continue at that rate forever "because of mans actions".

There are a great many reasons that temperature systems are unstable, I have time for any one open minded enough to discuss what small percentage of the rise might be from mans activity, what large percentage is from all the other normal factors. Unfortunately there's very few of those people in the "Chicken Little" camp.

 

@ THE RB ,you don't have to recycle,every thing you toss out gets recycled

by corporations to make money doing it. They don't require you to put your

recycles in a bin,every thing that goes on the street hit a conveyor belt,even

body parts. Your small print is very interesting,way to go.