By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheRealMafoo said:
Squilliam said:

From what I understand I would have to say you're wrong here. The sheer quantity of thermal energy held in water is massive compared to the atmosphere above it. There simply isn't enough energy for the storm to be powered from the atmosphere or the sun.

We don't know for sure that it does not contribute. Several years back the northern east coast of the US and Canada lost power. Millions of people.

The reason was a massive solar flair hit the earth at that time, and the ground could not absorb enough energy, so it went into the lines and overloaded the system.

If you had asked a scientist before that happened if it was possible, almost all of them would have said no.

This is just a small example of why I hate this legislation. We know far less then we think we know. Trying to change the world on something as unproven as man made global warming is just crazy.

We don't know for sure that the solar flare that you spoke off did do that, as it could have just been a power outage by a power company and they blamed soemthing else. Solar Flares are huge and for it to strike just the small region of NE america seems odd.

But in the case of tropical storms, Squilliam is right, there is a good reason why they usually storm when they hit land, the sea and the energy contained within it, is not longer powering it.

 

I can see you are against this legislation but I can't work out if you are generally against making this world a better place? Whether or not you believe man's influence on climate change is real, surely any change to reduce pollution around the world (or at least in one of the most polluting countries of the world) is something that is only good, wether or not it changes anything.



Hmm, pie.