How 'green' are you?

[shorthair]

A possible reason to be more green:

KIller Waves From Nowhere:

Asian Beaches Reopen After Winds Trigger Huge Waves .
DENPASAR, Indonesia - Tourist beaches in Southeast Asia reopened on Monday after giant waves triggered by intense winds thousands of kilometres away crashed ashore last week, reviving memories of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

The waves, which were 7 metres (23 feet) high in some areas late last week, struck large parts of Indonesia, the Maldives, Thailand and Western Australia. There was no official warning about the freakish waves that killed at least one person, damaged hundreds of homes and displaced thousands of people across Indonesia. Homes and fishing boats were also damaged in Thailand and the Maldives. Weather officials said the waves were the result of an accumulation of winds in one spot on the ocean, but were looking at why they were so intense....

[ChadTower]

Rogue waves are nothing new.  I've had family members killed by them.  They suck, but it's not like we made them.

[boykster]

Rogue waves are nothing new.  I've had family members killed by them.  They suck, but it's not like we made them.

yep....I'm for environmental responsibility, but blaming fluke weather events -> that have been happening since the dawn of time <- on "global warming" and our society's environmental impact is just crazy talk.

[shorthair]

I didn't say they were caused by that. I said they could possibly be influenced by. Of particular import is the cause of the waves.

[ChadTower]

Probability of fluid mechanics.  They have been happening throughout recorded history from time to time.

[shorthair]

The cause was wind.

[Samstag]

Air is a fluid.

[DrewKaree]

I didn't say they were caused by that. I said they could possibly be influenced by. Of particular import is the cause of the waves.

Patrick, assplain to him your theory of climate not being the same as weather.

[shorthair]

Using his words doesn't make StrongBad your friend....although, you do come across sooo sexy when you're like that. Who said anything about climate? Still, climate is only part weather. It also includes region and the flora and fauna.

[patrickl]

I didn't say they were caused by that. I said they could possibly be influenced by. Of particular import is the cause of the waves.

Patrick, assplain to him your theory of climate not being the same as weather.

Why would I need to do that? I think he does understand that already.

It's not like they are completely unrelated, but what I was saying is that one freak weather day doesn't imply or disprove climate change and that getting an accurate weather report 5 days ahead is something different from a climate prediction. On the other hand, when the climate changes to allow more extreme weather conditions then of course you will see weather changes accordingly.

I still wonder why no one seems to think that finite natural resources running out is a problem. Why is it always about the climate change? Even for the most egotistical it should be obvious that decreasing oil reserves and decreasing oil production will hurt them even on a reasonably short term already (actually it does now already).

[shorthair]

Oil isn't in short supply. It's just harder to get at than before. There's so much oil in the marshlands of....Alaska, or Ireland, or somewhere, I forget where...that we needn't worry for a century or two. And though the techniques needed aren't in practice, they actually wouldn't be that expensive, economically. But ecologically, they'd be horrendous. Basically like strip-mining.

It's not a matter of resources. It's a matter of paradigm. There are numerous, bonafide examples of things that are more efficient and not very, sometimes even less, expensive than our current way of things, without sacrificing lifestyle (though 'more, more' is not in balance). These things have been stifled. Then imagine that even one of the 'unreal' things, say Tesla coils and that stuff, is actually possible. Totally changes things.

[Buddabing]

Oil isn't in short supply. It's just harder to get at than before. There's so much oil in the marshlands of....Alaska, or Ireland, or somewhere, I forget where...that we needn't worry for a century or two. And though the techniques needed aren't in practice, they actually wouldn't be that expensive, economically. But ecologically, they'd be horrendous. Basically like strip-mining.

Canada.

[DrewKaree]

I still wonder why no one seems to think that finite natural resources running out is a problem. Why is it always about the climate change?

It is about the climate change because the "solutions" directly involve these finite natural resources.

I thought you said you were a thinker?

[boykster]

Oil isn't in short supply. It's just harder to get at than before. There's so much oil in the marshlands of....Alaska, or Ireland, or somewhere, I forget where...that we needn't worry for a century or two. And though the techniques needed aren't in practice, they actually wouldn't be that expensive, economically. But ecologically, they'd be horrendous. Basically like strip-mining.

Canada.

So does that mean in a decade or two we can expect to see canadians wearing turbans with Maple Leaf's on them?

[patrickl]

Oil isn't in short supply. It's just harder to get at than before.

Ehm isn't that amounting to the same thing? Oil is running out and the few remains are harder to get out of the ground. It will run out one day (if we keep using the stuff)

I wonder if the oil price going up by a factor of 2 or 4 over the next 20 years wont have a bigger impact than maybe a degree of global warming.

I have seen several reports that at least Saudia Arabia is over its peak. For instance Peak Oil for Saudi Arabia?

[patrickl]

I still wonder why no one seems to think that finite natural resources running out is a problem. Why is it always about the climate change?

It is about the climate change because the "solutions" directly involve these finite natural resources.

The discussion often goes like, "Hey it snowed here in <insert usually warm city> so the climate is not warming and thus it is ok to drive a Canyonero". My point is that there are more problems with wasting energy (or oil in this case) besides climate change.

I thought you said you were a thinker?

Yes and? Maybe you should try thinking once in a while too.

[HaRuMaN]

...

[Donkey_Kong]

 Ok, ok. I'll bite. I was fortunate enough to get an education on going green just last night...Al Gore was on Dave Letterman. I will hit on one of the highlights of the interview for you...

Dave"What types of things can a regular person do to minimize further damage to the environment?"
Al "We need to pay attention to what we do, the types of things we purchase, educate ourselves on the type of..."
Dave interrupts "Are frozen waffles ok?"
Al "Yes. As long as you don't heat them up."

[mr.Curmudgeon]

/Rimshot!


Or Romney!

[shorthair]

Ha, ya ---maternal-smurfs---, just yuck it up!

[DrewKaree]

I still wonder why no one seems to think that finite natural resources running out is a problem. Why is it always about the climate change?

It is about the climate change because the "solutions" directly involve these finite natural resources.

The discussion often goes like, "Hey it snowed here in <insert usually warm city> so the climate is not warming and thus it is ok to drive a Canyonero". My point is that there are more problems with wasting energy (or oil in this case) besides climate change.

In this instance, the point you brought up was "why is it always about the climate change".  The response was because the solutions - meaning the solutions to climate change - directly involve these finite natural resources.

What are your "more problems" you're referring to?  You'll have to be less vague when asking a question you actually want an answer to, since the only other "more problems" I see (actually, the only other one I care about), is the cost going up.  Perhaps they need my heartless attitude to drive a pipeline directly through a caribou or to chop down a few hundred trees that house some owl that can fly somewhere else to live. 

If a few animals need to sacrifice so I can save fifty cents per gallon, well, that's something I'm willing to make happen.

Say, any chance of you explaining how using computer models to predict what the earth is going to be like in my area for the next three days is different from using computer models to predict what the earth is going to be like in my area in the next 50 years?

Seems as if you haven't realized the "climate" is the result of "weather".

[patrickl]

In this instance, the point you brought up was "why is it always about the climate change".  The response was because the solutions - meaning the solutions to climate change - directly involve these finite natural resources.

What are your "more problems" you're referring to?

I said it in the post above the one you responded too, but it has to do with the relation between demand of oil and production of oil. Running out of a finite resource means there will be problems producing that resource and thus if demand doesn't go down accordingly:

I wonder if the oil price going up by a factor of 2 or 4 over the next 20 years wont have a bigger impact than maybe a degree of global warming.

I mentioned that one since even the most selfish people will realize that will be bad for their own situation, but yeah using less fuel would be better for the environment too and with less air pollution for the people as well.

Say, any chance of you explaining how using computer models to predict what the earth is going to be like in my area for the next three days is different from using computer models to predict what the earth is going to be like in my area in the next 50 years?

You really cannot see the difference? These two fields use completely different parameters and thus they use completely different computer models.

Weather predictions use atmospheric pressures (and distribution of those pressures), satellite images, radar images of rain, power of the sunsine on a certain location at a certain date. It basically predicts local wind directions, wind strength, where it will rain and by how much and what the exact (more or less) temperature will be for a certain location. All pretty detailed local information.

The climate change predictions we are discussing here look at the amount of energy being taken in by the planet (and it's atmosphere) and the amount of energy that goes back out into space. The diffrence between these two would indicate warming or cooling down. They estimate which gasses in the atmosphere are responsible for trapping heat and for each to which degree (one of those graphs I posted before). Then they predict the future amounts of these gasses in the atmosphere and estimate a global temperature for that future. This is more global and average data and completely different from what they use for weather predictions.

So at that point the two fields are just about completely unrelated. Where the relation comes back in is when weather and climate scientists together start looking at the climate change data and they estimate what the consequences of these changes will be for the local weather. They take the climate change prediction that the temperature will rise slightly, but mostly that the difference between high and low temperatures will increase (so the weather will be more volatile). For instance, they would estimate if perhaps tornado's will be more likely to occur based on their knowledge of local weather systems and the estimated temperature changes.

So there is a relation between the two fields, but a weather prediction and a climate change prediction on itself use a completely different science behind it.

Seems as if you haven't realized the "climate" is the result of "weather".

Like I said before climate is the average of weather, but alternatively you could see it as that the weather will (on average) fit in with the climate.

[AtomSmasher]

It's not easy being green.

[danny_galaga]

With only 2 seats and only space for one shopping bag in the "back", the smart narrows it's market quite a lot (basically single women with no hopes/wishes of getting kids). Especially since for the same money you can buy a car twice the size.

On the other hand, in the Netherlands they use smarts for "ambulance" and "firetruck" and in Belgium for taxi's:

actually, they would be great for taxis in congested cities (",). that ambulnace looks like it is a 3 wheeler 

Why would it work better than a normal car in a congested city? It stil gets stuck in traffic. Or do you mean it pollutes less?

1): theres more chance of bypassing accidents

2): traffic will actually be smaller

youre right though, id hate to have to actually carry anything with me in one of those! but it would be the case that you can select what type of taxi you get. if i was late for work id definitely be ordering one of the smart taxis...

[shorthair]

It's not easy being green.

Cute.

patrickl: I think drew's meaning that weather is the cause of climate. An evolutional thing. I think this is sorta true, at least before bio-chemical synthesis. Then it just runs exponentially away into an interactive amalgam.

[jbox]

The fact that you can't reliably tell me which side of a fair die will come up from a fair roll has not somehow prevented casinos from making money on the game of Craps. 

[saint]

But you can tell someone statistically what combined number will come up more often that others with two dice...

[jbox]

Nahhh..... Surely if you can't tell me exactly what the total will be on my fifth roll from now, how can I believe you can tell me what the average total will be over five million rolls?!? 

[saint]

I'm slow today

[AtomSmasher]

Nahhh..... Surely if you can't tell me exactly what the total will be on my fifth roll from now, how can I believe you can tell me what the average total will be over five million rolls?!? 

I can tell you the exact probability of what could come up in five rolls, you can't tell me the exact probability of what the weather will be in 5 days.

[DrewKaree]

Nahhh..... Surely if you can't tell me exactly what the total will be on my fifth roll from now, how can I believe you can tell me what the average total will be over five million rolls?!? 

I can tell you the exact probability of what could come up in five rolls, you can't tell me the exact probability of what the weather will be in 5 days.

Sure you can.  50% chance of sunny.  I should start my own religion based on this!

[shorthair]

  50% chance of sunny.  I should start my own religion based on this!

I thought you already had your hands in the cookie jar.


And, something cute I came across:

ecosexual n. A single, environmentally conscious person with a strong aesthetic sense. Also: eco-sexual.
—ecosexuality n.


Example Citations:
I'm not sure whether to blame it on the Stern report on climate change or Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but being green has never been more fashionable nor annoying.

The competitiveness by some to be an eco-warrior is so out of control that it now extends to the world of dating and the birth of the ''ecosexual''.

Good looks, a sense of humour, education and high income count for zilch these days if you don't eat organic, wear organic and recycle.

To get lucky, you have to think globally and act locally in your day-to-day living.
—Anita Quigley, "Beware the tree-loving ecosexual," The Daily Telegraph, December 20, 2006

[jbox]

I can tell you the exact probability of what could come up in five rolls, you can't tell me the exact probability of what the weather will be in 5 days.

Prove it. Don't forget to explain how rolling, reflection, cross-sectional drag and rotational momentum work since you have stated you can give me an exact probability. 

[bfauska]

And don't forget the influence that my need for money has on the dice either.  Whether or not I can easily afford to loose the money I have on the pass line usually has a distinct effect on the outcome, if I shouldn't have bet in the first place I'm sure to loose.

[AtomSmasher]

I can tell you the exact probability of what could come up in five rolls, you can't tell me the exact probability of what the weather will be in 5 days.

Prove it. Don't forget to explain how rolling, reflection, cross-sectional drag and rotational momentum work since you have stated you can give me an exact probability. 

Sure, theres a 1 in 36 probability that any particular combination will hit.  Since the throw will always give a completely random variable to the equation which will effect all the other variables you mentioned, it becomes equally likely that any sides of the dice will come up.

[jbox]

And don't forget the influence that my need for money has on the dice either.  Whether or not I can easily afford to loose the money I have on the pass line usually has a distinct effect on the outcome, if I shouldn't have bet in the first place I'm sure to loose.

Too true, too true.

I can tell you the exact probability of what could come up in five rolls, you can't tell me the exact probability of what the weather will be in 5 days.

Prove it. Don't forget to explain how rolling, reflection, cross-sectional drag and rotational momentum work since you have stated you can give me an exact probability. 

Sure, theres a 1 in 36 probability that any particular combination will hit.  Since the throw will always give a completely random variable to the equation which will effect all the other variables you mentioned, it becomes equally likely that any sides of the dice will come up.

Huh, that's weird. That doesn't look like a physics "proof", but I guess we just have to take your word for it. 

[shorthair]

And don't forget the influence that my need for money has on the dice either.  Whether or not I can easily afford to loose the money I have on the pass line usually has a distinct effect on the outcome, if I shouldn't have bet in the first place I'm sure to loose.

What?

[AtomSmasher]

Huh, that's weird. That doesn't look like a physics "proof", but I guess we just have to take your word for it. 

rofl.  I'm sorry, but I have better things to do with my time then formulate scientific proof's to disprove a minor point in a thread I care little about.  The only reason I gave a serious response in this thread is because of the glaring hole in your example.  You should feel free to formulate a proof to support your theory that the climate is like craps and prove me wrong.

[DrewKaree]

And don't forget the influence that my need for money has on the dice either.  Whether or not I can easily afford to loose the money I have on the pass line usually has a distinct effect on the outcome, if I shouldn't have bet in the first place I'm sure to loose.

What?

The above exchange is darned near hysterical

[jbox]

Huh, that's weird. That doesn't look like a physics "proof", but I guess we just have to take your word for it. 

rofl.  I'm sorry, but I have better things to do with my time then formulate scientific proof's to disprove a minor point in a thread I care little about.  The only reason I gave a serious response in this thread is because of the glaring hole in your example.  You should feel free to formulate a proof to support your theory that the climate is like craps and prove me wrong.

Apparently not. 

Since most people here haven't studied Brownian motion, special relativity, aerodynamics, plastics molding, and so on, my point remains that you have assigned those probabilities via observation, not proof. Thus, it is equally valid for me to make assertions regarding the probabilities of the weather using observations too. If you found that over time the 6-side of the die was starting to wear away and thus the resulting roles were changing, would you still cling to your personal belief that the odds of every combination was 1 in 36? Or would you instead wonder what would happen if we really did roll the dice five billion times? 

Global Warming is one of those discussions where I don't particularly favour one "Church" over another (as Drew would say), but I do object to people poo-poo-ing the scientific method just because of the politics being used by various parties. I too get annoyed when people confuse actual discussion with some idiots that make tabloid movies about Bush being the Saudi Boogyman, or about a dude who wishes he was a rodeo cowboy or something (I don't know how it ends because none of us could stand to watch it all the way through).