Results 21 to 40 of 48
28-10-2012, 03:51 PM #21
I mean, I agree that personal actions don't matter in the sense that the sorts of things you do to be more energy-efficient in a 2000 sq ft home that's 400 meters from established pipe and power networks (and reachable solely by automobile) are dwarfed by your choice to live in that home, but I think economics will eventually render that mode of existence untenable anyway.
29-10-2012, 12:20 AM #22
29-10-2012, 06:34 PM #23
29-10-2012, 06:45 PM #24
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Stockton-on-Tees, UK
It snowed here last week. Snow here in October is rather unusual.Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
29-10-2012, 07:57 PM #25
29-10-2012, 10:10 PM #26
Last edited by Grizzly; 29-10-2012 at 10:14 PM.
29-10-2012, 10:41 PM #27
30-10-2012, 02:58 AM #28
Then we had the case of the floods in 2010-2011 where there was some warning (though not much) of a flood that had the potential to be very dangerous, which ended up killing a bunch of people. Similar warnings went out to other towns and cities (including Brisbane) and a bunch of people continued to ignore them or presumed they were not that bad. Civil defence warnings are worst-case scenarios not for the fun of putting people through a panic, but because the worst case scenario is the best to prepare for. Far better that than to understate the threat and end up with a major disaster.
Also (and unrelated) even the media over here is providing 24 hour coverage of that system. I doubt you heard more than 20 seconds of the floods when they were on though. Global media, hey? Get pictures!
Of course every little bit helps and I can't blame the various conservation funds for targeting their advertising to get people to part with their cash (in a similar but far more honest way to the KONY 2012 video) but still it illustrates how superficial some of these things are in their presentation.
30-10-2012, 06:56 AM #29
It's just as well, too, because they were expecting 10 foot storm surges in New York harbor and got 14 foot storm surges. The subways are flooded, the river broke through 23rd St, New Jersey pretty much got knocked out, Brooklyn's half on and half off, and there's no power in downtown Manhattan.
We had a hurricane hit a Canadian cold front and become a Frankenstorm nor'easter at high tide. It's the biggest storm in two centuries. But we're taking it seriously: No FEMA disasters a la New Orleans, no pandemonium in the streets, and a small army of civil servants waiting for the wind to die down so they can start clearing out the shit.
30-10-2012, 11:22 AM #30
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Is this one of a bigger magnitude than the hurricanes that besiege the southern states on a regular basis?
30-10-2012, 11:55 AM #31
I'm not entirely convinced by the "we're causing global warming and ruining the world with it" argument. Having said that and before anyone jumps on me, I do believe that renewable and clean energy sources are better than fossil fuels, I just don't think fossil fuels are as damaging as people suggest.
For all the science we have on the matter, how much data is that in terms of the age of our planet? Suppose we've records for the last 100 years, that's still a tiny percentage of time to try and suggest that flying aeroplanes and driving cars is destroying the planet.
I personally believe the earth just goes through these periods where the seasons get a bit "whacky" and we end up with hurricanes in New York, it's just that the "seasons" of these periods is a lot longer than we're used to experiencing.
30-10-2012, 02:00 PM #32
Remember it's not just fossil fuels but a host of human activities, like deforestation, manufacturing of particular products, and irresponsible land use for farming etc which contributes. Also developing nations are becoming more and more industrialised, belching out more emissions. As the years go on it'll only get worse. We've actually come a very long way in only 200 years, and it shows.
30-10-2012, 02:46 PM #33
I am sorry to learn about the devastation over the East Coast of North America.
Hong Kongers have a strange theory. They believe that densely located skyscrapers will lead any strong wind to dissipation. That's why typhoon rarely leads to real disasters to that city. I guess that only works for Hong Kong though.
But be fair, every coastal city in tropical or temperate zone has equal share of opportunities to be hit by typhoon. Only regions within 5 degree North and South are free from the threat of this climatic phenomenon. While living a simple life style voluntarily is good for individuals, being forced upon is another matter.
Last edited by squirrel; 30-10-2012 at 02:48 PM.
30-10-2012, 03:44 PM #34
You're absolutely right that the planet's climate will quite merrily change over time of it's own accord, but this isn't just a case of comparing temperatures now to what they were 100 years ago and seeing a change; it's that pretty much all the research done indicates that the rate of change is unprecedented.
30-10-2012, 06:05 PM #35
What I mean is this: I have no clue where the stuff I eat, for instance, come from. I can know where my meat is from (e.g. a local farmer), but I cannot possibly control whether or not he gets his feed from, say Egypt, because it's still cheaper to import it than buying it locally. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that just because I take the train instead of the car, I'm doing something for the environment.
*Edit: The numbers I had in mind were a bit off; in fact, share of private households seems to be between 10-15% according to IPCC and other sources, which is about as much as transportation, too. Although I didn't find a figure that would divide into private transportation (people jetting to their holidays, people driving to work) and commercial transportation (for goods, be it by ship, plane or truck).
Last edited by Labbes; 30-10-2012 at 06:24 PM.
31-10-2012, 04:42 AM #36
Just as the collective voters are 100% responsible for political votes, the collective consumers are responsible for (almost) all of our impact on the environment. Your example of meat and not knowing where the feed comes from would probably require political regulation (which you can influence with your vote or by otherwise making your wishes clear to politicians) but surely that's not the only food you buy and certainly not the only purchasing decision you make?
What we need in the long term is for the choices that have little impact on the environment to be the obvious ones, but to get there we have to start by making those decisions conciously.
01-11-2012, 10:47 AM #37
There certainly isn't something right with the climate. Two days before it was cold all day and half the terrain was covered in a thin layer of snow. Yesterday the sun was shinning all day and it was kinda warm at some moments.
Also, I think global warming is a to simple term to describe whats happening with our climate. The weather is messed up, sometimes it gets hotter than usual and sometimes it gets colder than usual in many various regions of the world. The question is that is it possible to bring the climate to its normal state within a reasonable timeframe or have we messed it up for a couple of centuries. Maybe it's like a domino effect and we will see it getting more chaotic and out of hand.
Last edited by NecroKnight; 01-11-2012 at 10:49 AM.But where did he come from, this fleck of spite in an abandoned paradise?
01-11-2012, 10:50 AM #38
In my very short time on this earth (25 years) I've seen global warming be blamed for all the weather.
When I was around six or seven, I saw my last "white christmas" as a child. It wouldn't snow again heavily until around 2010 when I was 23. In both instances global warming was blamed.
"It wont snow any more because of the effects of global warming"
Skip over a decade.
"This heavy snow is being caused by global warming"
01-11-2012, 04:54 PM #39
25 years ago the science was still being developed. They didn't have as much data, they didn't understand completely. They also did not have proper equipment... My four year old GPU is apparently 8 times faster than a supercomputer from 1993 (4850 reached 1.0TeraFLOPS. Numerical Wind Tunnel peaked at 124 GigaFLOPS)
Furthermore: global warming does not mean there won't be snow. Heck. UK for example supposed to get colder with global temperatures getting higher because the front from Caribbean which warms up the isle will disappear.
Finally: can you really remember what was said 25 years ago correctly? what was the context, how experienced that person was etc?
01-11-2012, 05:06 PM #40
The science is still being developed on it. My point earlier in the thread was with the sheer age of the world we have an absolutely minuscule amount of data. Suppose we take my 25 years as data, that means we've on record 0.00000005% of data to plot out what's really going on. Now obviously it's not as black and white as that and science can tell us more, but how close are we to even having 1% correct information on what's going on now compared to say 10,000 years ago or 100,000 years etc.
Edit to mention, I'm not calling the science communities liars. Or everyone who believes global warming is as big a deal as they think, to be fools. I just personally think we need data than we have to draw conclusive facts.
Hopefully this will help me look less like a science hating nut job.
Last edited by Jesus_Phish; 01-11-2012 at 05:42 PM.