TED Conversations

Blake Ekelund

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is Hurrican Sandy proof of global warming?

Personally, I do believe in global warming, but it lacks some proof.
I'd like to hear what you think of Hurricane Sandy and its relation to global warming.

Related Talks:
Topics: Earth climate change enviroment future global warming science
0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Scott Armstrong 50+

    • 0
    Nov 3 2012: it proved how biased and skewed mainstream media is. sandy was famous in New York despite appearances in other countries with no less devastation..

  • Colin Shaw

    • 0
    Nov 3 2012: Why do we believe that there is a need for one event to prove absolutely that climate change exists? And what if there were such an event? Would that change the sceptics or would they just bang on about the science being faulty? Would you change the way you live? Would the oil companies suddenly stop selling fuel in order the save the planet? I think not.

    The only thing that will help us survive is if we ALL start taking responsibility for our own actions. Yes, it requires changing the way we live. Is that such a big deal?
  • thumb

    Ken brown 30+

    • 0
    Nov 3 2012: What if Sandy grew in power and decided to head inland across the states? Climate change has been with us for as long as i can remember, what people need to decide is whether they want to build a geoendineering system as big as the system that puts CO2 into the atmosphere? Great for the businesses that are putting their dollars into the research, patents have already been taken out on this kind of technology, so it really comes down to how much cash will be funneled into these projects and from where and to whom?

    So who owns our Blue Ball?
  • thumb

    peter lindsay 30+

    • +2
    Nov 2 2012: How about instead of wasting so much time and energy arguing about the data and whose analysis is better, maybe we should face up to the fact that whether GW is real or imaginary or natural or anthropogenic it is incredibly unlikely that we as a planet will do anything about it until it is too late anyway, so how about we prepare for possible consequences and leave it at that. Nothing will stand in the way of India and China as they grow and burn more and more oil and coal so how about we work out ways to cope.

    • richard moody jr 10+

      • +1
      Nov 9 2012: We'll burn up all our cheap fossil fuels before doing anything serious about alternative energies. When all we got during the campaign was drill baby drill and no mention of global warming by either candidate, we can look for the environment to take back seat to the economy until the world wide recession is over.
  • thumb

    Obey No1kinobe 50+

    • 0
    Nov 2 2012: Suggest no individual weather event is proof of climate change
    There may be a trend of increasing higher energy storms consistent with the climate getting warmer.

  • Entropy Driven

    • 0
    Nov 1 2012: Sandy is one more sign. Unfortunately. Because we will start seeing more and more of these, all of them will be dismissed because, well, we have seen things like that before. Yeah, but not that frequent! Oh, but Sandy we knew we had seen things like that before. Yeah, but Katrina. But we had seen things like Katrina before ... some people don't want to see the evidence. One single point, looked at without context does not make proof. It is the totality of trends. The loss of ice in Canada is very evident, but the people in denial live too far from there, so easy to ignore. Long et cetera. It's like boiling a frog little by little. The frog will not jump if slow enough. People get desensitized. It won't be easy to convince those who rather burn fuels as if they were harmless and eternal that they are not doing something too healthy for the environment. Burning oil has become their lifestyle. They reason d'être.
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • 0
      Nov 2 2012: RE: "So it's OK to cite meteorologists if they disagree with GW/CC, but not if they see evidence for GW/CC?"

      It seems you interpreted something I posted to be against the posting of pro-GW/CC scientist's comments. I am not opposed to such postings. I find them informative and worthwhile, mostly. Also, I have neither the authority nor the acumen to impose such a restriction.
  • thumb

    Laszlo Kereszturi 500+

    • 0
    TED AttendeeTED TranslatorAssociateLanguage Coordinator
    Nov 1 2012: Maybe off-topic, but...

    Kim Stanley Robinson's "Forty Signs of Rain" was written in 2004.
    It describes a perfect rain storm, flooding Washington DC.

    On it's Amazon page now it's mentioned:
    "Delivery may be impacted by Hurricane Sandy."
  • thumb

    Lejan . 30+

    • 0
    TED Translator
    Nov 1 2012: Single incidents within complex systems are no 'stand alone' proof for any change. It is statistics applied on long term and detailed data which reveals tendencies, especially in high dynamic systems.
  • thumb

    edward long 100+

    • 0
    Nov 1 2012: Does a NOAA scientist's opinion bear on this query?
    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/31/scientists-dispute-politicians-claims-that-global-warming-grew-sandy/
  • thumb

    peter lindsay 30+

    • +1
    Nov 1 2012: No one datum or event is ever proof of anything. When you do science you want a data set of thousands before you even start to draw conclusions. The problem with GW is we can't actually collect the data over a long enough period without missing the whole thing so its always going to be conjecture. But that's the best we can do. We can't fully explain the current warming just as we can't fully explain the little ice age or the medieval warming. The current warming wouldn't look anywhere near as dramatic if we hadn't just had the little ice age which was much more dramatic. In reality GW might be something we can reduce so we may as well have a go. The next ice age is going to be a much bigger problem for us and there is much better evidence telling us that it is inevitable. You could argue that in the long term ice ages are actually the normal climate on Earth.
    • thumb

      pat gilbert 50+

      • +1
      Nov 1 2012: so invest in a mink farm? by low sell high and all

  • Andy Cunningham

    • +1
    Oct 31 2012: For the climate sceptics I would like to point you to an amazing talk here on TED called Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss by James Balog. The former climate sceptic and National Geographic photographer undertook an extreme ice survey and made a fascinating documentary called Chasing Ice.

    I personally believe AGW is real but I don't think you can say one storm is proof of global warming but is consistent to an emerging trend. However I do think it's a wake up call for many Americans who burn a quarter of the world's oil supply. Will renewable stocks go up when the New York Stock Exchange reopens today?
  • thumb

    Feyisayo Anjorin 50+

    • +1
    Oct 31 2012: No. Some extreme weather conditions are part of the normal courses of nature. Hurricane Sandy proves nothing; just as we can not say that earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis are as a result of climate change.
  • thumb

    Robert Winner 50+

    • +1
    Oct 31 2012: The magnatitude of storms are dependent upon existing conditions and paths. Ike, Katrina, Sandy were all big storms and caused much damage. The amount of media coverage is often the deciding factor in the history of the storm. The amount of deaths that occur is indeed sad. The amount of publicity that political parties recieve for the pain and suffering of others is unacceptable. The current campaign has now focused on if Obama is doing more that Bush did at Katrina.

    If the media wants to associate global warming with this storm they will persuade people to become believers. These people are called sheeple. They have come to like the taste of the koolade and request more.

    As you say " global warming lacks proof". When the facts become indisputable I will take heed. Until then the use of Al Gore as a spokes person is reason for me not to believe that this is a serious issue as he is the punch line for cocktail party jokes.

    • John Smith 30+

      • 0
      Nov 3 2012: Scientists don't look at the number of deaths or the amount of damage, they look at the energy of the storm, it's path and it's date and they have found that strong hurricanes are increasing in number and climbing northwards.
  • thumb

    edward long 100+

    • 0
    Oct 31 2012: Al Gore + Sandy looks like something carved in a tree trunk, but it is true. Mr. Gore, drawing on his Political Science and Law degrees, says we should get ready for more superstorms because Global Warming/Climate Change is a part of our world. Many scientists who are not trained in politics and law, but in meteorology, disagree with Al and show scientific data to support their conclusions that ,while inconvenient, GW/CC is a normal phase of Earth's cycle and it is not true to say it is the result of greenhouse gases impeding the as-designed (?) process. The only thing Sandy proves is that when air masses of different temperatures collide there is a storm. That is an inconvenient truth.

    • John Smith 30+

      • +1
      Oct 31 2012: "Many scientists who are not trained in politics and law, but in meteorology, disagree with Al and show scientific data to support their conclusions that ,while inconvenient, GW/CC is a normal phase of Earth's cycle"

      This is simply not true: the only disagreement out there is on how much the climate will change, all scientists know that it is a special event that even if it is predominantly natural is very exceptional because never before has there been such rapid climate change without a huge asteroid impact or devastating supervolcano activity. It is clear the Earth is experiencing a major extinction event, it's not the first time that has happened but it is the first time that it happened with no discernible natural catastrophic event to cause it.
      • thumb

        edward long 100+

        • +1
        Oct 31 2012: I cited no references for my statement because it is simply my opinion. If you claim to prove my opinion is untrue you are obliged to cite references in support of your claim. Otherwise you can only disagree with my opinion. My interest is not sufficient to motivate me to compile evidence. That's what separates a conversation from a debate. You present four logical conclusions with no supporting premises for any of them. I maintain my opinion is not falsified by your opinion. Thank you!

        • John Smith 30+

          • +1
          Oct 31 2012: I'm not going to do all the work for you, there are thousands of scientists who've done that already. There are dozens of websites that will answer all your questions and you can even e-mail scientists with specific questions (many will actually respond as long as they see you are honestly asking a question). Unless you are afraid of the answers you will find you should really check these sources out, also read a freshman physics textbook.

          Btw: this is an excellent source that's also readable for those who do not have a degree in an exact science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
      • thumb

        edward long 100+

        • +1
        Oct 31 2012: Thanks for your suggestions on how I can augment my education. However, my ignorance is not the subject of this CONVERSATION (as opposed to a debate). If this were a debate you might want to keep in mind the following:
        1) Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy of logic John. You are using it.
        2) Cherry Picking is a logic fallacy commonly used by the Gore Corps to "prove" GW/CC.
        3) Correlation Proves Causation is a logic fallacy found in most "proofs" of GW/CC.
        4) It is not realistic to think there are no capable, objective, reputable scientists who disagree with your concept of GW/CC.
        5) Your contentious, condescending attitude is off-putting. Consider being more civil and respectable.

        • Entropy Driven

          • 0
          Nov 1 2012: So it's OK to cite meteorologists if they disagree with GW/CC, but not if they see evidence for GW/CC?

          Do you really think that pouring that much CO2 into the atmosphere is inconsequential? You must live too far from the cities.
        • thumb

          Obey No1kinobe 50+

          • 0
          Nov 2 2012: Suggest there are plenty of credible sources supporting the position that humans are increasing greenhouse gases and this is likely to increase average temperatures with a high degree of probability.

          For Example from an Australian perspective
          The peak scientific body in Australia - CSIRO
          The Bureau of Meteorology
          We even have a department of climate change and energy efficiency

          Not to mention all the international sources - UN Climate Change Group etc.

          Kyoto, Copenhagen with all the global leaders are not happening because of Al Gore and a few quacks. Most governments accept the mainstream science.

          Australia has recently introduced a Carbon tax. We have had vigorous debate about this in Australia for years. From what I understand 90%> of qualified scientists have a general consensus that humans are causing global warming with a high degree of probability.

          Yes there are dissenting views by some smart people. Yes this could be a massive group think, but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that we are heating up the planet.

          In Australia, there is a minority of the general population disagree with the science.
          However, much of the debate has been about the idiocy of Australia going it alone, and taxing ourselves. We have high CO2 per capita, but only make up 1.5% of the global total. So what we do in isolation costs us, without making any significant difference to the overall impact. Other argue the benefit of setting an example and getting a head start.

          I'll leave it to individuals as to whether they decide to accept the mainstream scientific view or not, but anthropomorphic climate change is the consensus scientific view.
  • thumb

    pat gilbert 50+

    • 0
    Oct 31 2012: No

    In fact there are reports that the global warming ended 16 years ago.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/
    • thumb

      Gail . 50+

      • 0
      Oct 31 2012: The report you link to is just more lies intended to reach a specific political audience. If you go to the UK's weather center directly (Met Office), you will see that they say that global warming is real.

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • 0
        Oct 31 2012: I don't have a horse in this race.

        I will say that if you want to talk about global warming the only metric that is relevant is temperature. The article I linked shows temperature the one you linked does not show temperature. And they do say "but the rise has slowed more recently"

        Is this more a case of government is spending a lot of money on research into this matter which will go away if there isn't anymore warming?

        • John Smith 30+

          • 0
          Oct 31 2012: It's not "global warming", it's climate change. The average temperature in the world is rising but that does not mean every place in the world is getting warmer or at the same rate. Hurricanes are a result of hot ocean water, when they increase in number and intensity (which they have) this indicates that the Atlantic Ocean is warming.

  • John Smith 30+

    • +2
    Oct 31 2012: "Is Hurrican Sandy proof of global warming?"

    Not on it's own because it could have been a statistical fluke, however it is part of a trend that is consistent with predictions made about the consequences of climate change for North America.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4850542
Showing all 31 comments