 Poster: A snowHead
|
I've already admitted I got that speed thing wrong.
I don't claim our models are perfect but I have seen the changes myself in the Alps, the Andes and the Himalayas. We are getting warmer.
If it all changes and we start cooling down again I'll jump up and cheer with everyone else. However I'm sure as heck not expecting it to and certainly I'm not going to bet on it. Modern humans have had a pretty soft time of it climate wise; our ancestors had to face much colder conditions and, if you go right back, much warmer ones but then they didn't have million plus settlements beside the sea. Despite our modern technology I'm not so sure we are ready to survive even the small increase we've already had without an awful lot of pain.
If we do loose the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets then there will certainly be a lot of pain. Is that likely? I don't know and nor do the naysayers. Is it possible? Yes, I'm pretty sure it is. Do we do nothing and just sit back and see what happens? Well the answer is that's probably exactly what we'll do with just a few pathetic wind farms to show willing.
To deny climate change is stupid. To spend all our time debating the scale of that change rather than planning on how to deal with it is, IMHO, equally stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
was it really that recent?
I know I made use of live NOAA satellite data for my uni lab work in 1992.
|
I think so, can't remember where I read or heard that from now, I think they had weather satellites first in the 60's then that launched others that had more sensors though the later decades
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| MadMountainMan wrote: |
We are getting warmer.
If it all changes and we start cooling down again I'll jump up and cheer with everyone else.
To deny climate change is stupid. |
I think the cheering will be short lived. It's tough to grow corn in permafrost.
I was up Cadair Idris yesterday, wondering at the horse shoe cliffs & tarns formed by glaciers. I agree, the climate is changing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I think the cheering will be short lived. It's tough to grow corn in permafrost.
|
Yeah but think of the skiing 
(not been up Cadair in years...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@MadMountainMan, lol, I was - some excellent potential lines up on Cadair. I need a local to let me know when it's in condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
wikipedia tells me there were satellites launched in the 1970's capable of (and at least one with a primary mission of) monitoring the oceans.
although I don't believe everything wikipedia says (and definitely don't believe that wolfram alpha thing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy just had a look
Seasat was the first satellite launched that could monitor sea level in 1978, it blew up after 105 days couldn't find the next one apart from jason 1 which was launch in 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well I can categorically state that there were other satellites launched before Jason which had a mission purpose to monitor oceans
at least one of those was launched in 1991
(ps that's those direct from memory with which I am familiar, not wikipedia, so there are almost certainly others)
(pps the description for the one launched in 1991, is in the words of the owner: "at the time, the most sophisticated earth observation satellite launched")
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| andy wrote: |
well I can categorically state that there were other satellites launched before Jason which had a mission purpose to monitor oceans
at least one of those was launched in 1991
(ps that's those direct from memory with which I am familiar, not wikipedia, so there are almost certainly others)
(pps the description for the one launched in 1991, is in the words of the owner: "at the time, the most sophisticated earth observation satellite launched") |
That would be ERS-1 (which I worked on  - but not on the altimetry side)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If we do loose the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets then there will certainly be a lot of pain. Is that likely? I don't know and nor do the naysayers. Is it possible? Yes, I'm pretty sure it is.
|
From memory, the IPCC predicts 20-40cm sea-level rise by the end of this century. Again from memory, a complete melt of the ice caps would imply tens of metres of sea level rise - which certainly would be painful, but not on the cards I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I hope you're right, but again I wouldn't like to bet on it not happening, especially with some of the more recent exceptional calving events we've witnessed. Also even a partial melt would be pretty disastrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@MadMountainMan, I think 4mm (i.e. the top end of IPCC range) a year would be an inconvenience rather than disastrous - plenty of time to get out of the way!
I would bet against the total ice cap melt scenario - on the grounds that I'd be drowned before I lost. Though, come to think of it, I'd also be too dead to collect my winnings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
especially with some of the more recent exceptional calving events we've witnessed. Also even a partial melt would be pretty disastrous.
|
I think you mean "unprecedented"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
This is a link for an IPCC AR5 Working group presentation on GMSLR (Global Mean Sea Level Rise) that quite nicely distils many of the key points: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf
From this:
The estimate of sea level rise of 10-40cm by 2100 is for thermal expansion only.
Rate of GMSLR for the last two thousand years was of the order of a few tenths of mm per year.
Significant increase in GMSLR since mid 19th Century (no surprise there)
Very likely that the 21st-century mean rate of GMSLR will exceed that of 1971-2010 under all RCPs. Giving predictions of between .5 and 1.2m rise by 2100
And possibly most worrying for the long term: "It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100, with the amount of rise dependent on future emissions."
Now whether or not you want to believe the IPCC I guess they probably know more about it than any of us.
With regard to the Younger Dryas period. I've done a little reading up on it and it appears to be a climatic tipping point event and it may be that these are regular events that occur during the transition from glacial to inter-glacial periods. It is thought to be caused by ice melt causing reductions in salinity which in turn disrupts the ocean's thermohaline circulation. As such I don't think it makes a very useful comparison with what is happening today since we've already had our Younger Dryas period following the last glacial period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
Rate of GMSLR for the last two thousand years was of the order of a few tenths of mm per year.
|
And you really believe that?…seriously? how on earth would they get that sort of data with that degree of accuracy? a few 10th's of a mm, thats 1 mm split in to 10 parts, measured over 140 million square miles of uninhabited ocean that is constantly moving, over the last 2000 years. The most accurate way to measure the ocean height is with a satellite, there has only been satellite data since the 1990's
| Quote: |
Now whether or not you want to believe the IPCC I guess they probably know more about it than any of us.
|
Why should they know more that us? they are not scientists they don't carry out research, they are a group set up by governments to read studies on climate change and issue advice and statements…they also like to throw the odd conference that has a pretty high carbon footprint. Lets also remember they superb record at predicting things thus far
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
And you really believe that?…seriously? how on earth would they get that sort of data with that degree of accuracy? a few 10th's of a mm, thats 1 mm split in to 10 parts, measured over 140 million square miles of uninhabited ocean that is constantly moving, over the last 2000 years. The most accurate way to measure the ocean height is with a satellite, there has only been satellite data since the 1990's
|
Few tenths per year over two thousand years 1mm per year would be 2000mm or 2m, 1/10th mm would be 20cm. Geologists can make estimates of sea level within the 20cm to 2m range
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Geologists can make estimates of sea level within the 20cm to 2m range
|
Yep so can I, doesn't mean that its worth anything valuable, its not based on evidence, it's a guess which has been my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
So far as you are concerned @letelemarker, it seems anything that has not come from you must be guesses. I think you hugely underestimate what information geologists can extract nowadays.
All the IPCC Assessment Reports are authored by and peer reviewed by scientists though maybe that's not enough for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@MadMountainMan,
I just don't like guess work and opinion. I like things to be of a factual nature. People seem to let there overall feelings and beliefs influence there opinions and seem to ignore or twist facts to suit what they want to believe.
You only have to read the same news story in the mirror, then again in the Daily mail to see this on a daily basis.
Climate science is full of guess work and failed predictions, we should be sea ice free this summer for one. Even in your statement on the Dryas period you said
| Quote: |
It is thought to be caused by ice melt causing reductions in salinity which in turn disrupts the ocean's thermohaline circulation
|
As if that is a good enough answer, but what exactly caused the ice to initially melt? if that could be answered we would be getting somewhere.
If we were back in the time of Aristotle, we would be arguing if the earth was flat or spherical, things should always be questioned, people, governments…whatever are always wrong, and if any organisation states the science is settled that is already a massive red flag in my mind
If there was any substantial evidence, i would change my mind, just listen to any statement on climate change you will hear the words, could, maybe, possibly, potentially
As for the peer review process
http://www.springer.com/gb/about-springer/media/statements/retraction-of-articles-from-springer-journals/735218
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I agree, to some extent, but, until we have better science, to ignore what we have is just to bury our heads in the sand.
Peer review cheating is not a new phenomenon but peer review is still the best mechanism we have for checking on scientific claims. And 64 peer reviews found to be compromised across a number of publishers is a drop in the ocean of published articles and certainly does not mean all peer reviewed material is compromised and should be doubted. And the very fact that they have detected problems and are addressing them says a lot for the system.
I agree we should question things but I also think we should ask how many 'coincidences' (where a direct link cannot be proven) it will take before we have to conclude there is no smoke without fire. Also I think there is plenty of substantial evidence that warming is happening, it's just questionable how far and how quickly it will go. But to assume that because we can't yet make more accurate estimates it's best to ignore it just doesn't work for me.
Just because global warming and cooling has happened before doesn't mean that a) it's not happening now and b) that we will be able to cope this time without at least some preparation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The climate has always changed and always will, it has changed since I have been alive Ive seen it, same as you have in the alpine glaciers for one example.
But just because its different from when we were born doesn't mean its bad, that link I put on my first post
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/adt-article-1922.pdf
Is some anecdotal evidence from the 1920s. There is no fixed way the climate should be, that needs to be accepted. Its wrong how we treat the earth in my opinion, but I condone it by taking part in modern life, i fly on planes, drive cars and go skiing, which is one of the sports/past times with the biggest carbon footprint that you can participate in.
Approximately 3% of the earth has been built on, not all of that 3% will produce co2, we need to get some kind of perspective on our influence over the earths climate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been googling to remind myself of the satellite data signals I was using way back when. 3 Satellites launched in 1985, 1988 and 1991 in particular, but that would have been measuring sea surface temperatures etc. as part of the mission. And there were predecessors launched way back in the late 70's.
Sea level rise is just one component of a huge number, but that is data that has been monitored for decades and centuries, and the satellite data just gives a continual global view.
And since you mentioned Jason, I imagine your 1992 figure comes from Topex/Poseidon. But there is very well documented data going back to the 1700's, just not global.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MadMountainMan wrote: |
| peer review is still the best mechanism we have for checking on scientific claims. |
No, it really isn't. That would be replication. And the volume of published papers is so great these days that it rarely happens. When I was the most junior researcher in a lab, I remember my eminent supervisor quite often tossing me a manuscript he'd undertaken to review, with an instruction to tell him what he thought of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I don't understand enough of the science to know whether AGW is a thing or not.
I know that we've chucked a lot of stuff into the atmosphere since approx 1750, and intiutively it seems like that it would have had some sort of effect.
What I don't know is what that effect is, and whether whatever it is is a good or bad effect.
If we lose a few sparsely inhabited tropical islands to higher sea levels, while that is a tragedy for the people who live there it may be an average benefit. (A warmer world would produce more food - carbon in the atmosphere seems to be promoting plant growth - and fewer deaths from cold. But then it might produce more disease. )
I dunno. But I have several essential problems with the whole thing.
The first is that I don't really trust the AGW advocates, because they almost always either benefit personally from the money that goes into the research, or are believers in more taxation and bigger government. I especially don't trust any scientist who says that 'the science is settled'. It's never settled; could it just be that it needs to be settled from their point of view to scare people into giving them money?
The second is that they often don't walk the walk. Al Gore famously lives in a house with an electrical usage (from memory) thirteen times greater than that of the average American, whom he was excoriating for excessive electicity usage. As letelemarker points out, an awful lot of these IPCC conferences seem to be held in far-flung locations, with thousands of people jetting in to stay in luxury hotels for weeks on end. I can accept that this would be justified - do a little damage to warn of a looming disaster - if it were not for my third problem.
Which is that they are telling us that the world is doomed if we don't do something and yet the 'something' is already there. Nuclear power is very clean and very safe and could provide limitless clean power. Germany - one of the hotbeds of the green movement - decided to close down all of its nuclear plants after Fukushima, a once-on-a-lifetime freak accident which killed precisely no-one and, if anything, proved how safe modern nuclear tech is. Is it too cynical to point out that this would entail a massive climbdown, careers and egos would be destroyed and other jobs would have to be found? I'm not sure.
The fourth issue is linked to the above - they constantly overstate the case with warnings of impending doom on dates which somehow come and go without the doom actually occurring.
(In this and in other ways it reminds me of a religion - it's as though people have a deep psychological need for some doomsday to fear, a bogeyman to be scared of, and a saviour.)
One that sticks in my mind is the 2007 IPCC statement, which said that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. Turned out that this was based on precisely no peer-reviewed scientific literature but came from a World Wildlife Fund press release based on an interview in a magazine. They had to apologise for that one, and I'm eagerly waiting to see if Prince Charles apologises for his July 2007 claim (based on lots of expert evidence) that we only had ninety-six months (or eight years) to save the world. This year he quietly started talking about a further 'thirty-five years to save the world'. At least he's unlikely to be around to be embarrassed by that one.
And that's the other thing: it's always about to happen. Meanwhile, you give me your money and I'll keep flying around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Germany - one of the hotbeds of the green movement - decided to close down all of its nuclear plants
|
And the funny thing is, in effect they're not really shut down, but because they are not making electrons move back and forth along a wire, they're no longer in anybodies mind.
And the other funny thing is that while it may artificially make their renewables production look higher, this is probably offset by importing nuke generated electricity from the French side of the Rhine, rather than using home brewed nuke leccy from the German side of the Rhine. I'm guessing nuke stations are clever enough to respect national boundaries in the event they try to repeat Chernobyl (also close to a border) or Fukushima? And there's probably more coal use (a guess - I've not seen real numbers), the extraction of which has been known to have a man made trigger on seismic activity.
Lots of solar parks here though. Why grow bio mass for food or alcohol when you can cover it in Silicon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Merkel is a politician and needs to win over popularity, regardless of academic background.
Popularity and keeping the general public sweet is based on media statistics and news (and media couldn't accurately report a statistic to save their lives), not scientific or engineering data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@andy, quite possibly. I don't know what her exact motivation was when she did the 180° about face. Like I said, I'm not convinced the exit from Nuclear is a good idea, and wouldn't be surprised to see another change in direction sometime soon. However Germany still seems to be doing quite OK in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
even with some of the highest leccy prices in EU. and I still keep getting letters suggesting that I can swap to the 100% renewable leccy and feel smug for a higher fee, when in fact they really should have been discounting the 7% "ecological tax" for the renewables. if the plan is to be the world leader in renewables.
I'm happy to pay for 100% nuclear generated power to come in thru my main breaker panel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| northernsoulboy wrote: |
Which is that they are telling us that the world is doomed if we don't do something and yet the 'something' is already there. Nuclear power is very clean and very safe and could provide limitless clean power. Germany - one of the hotbeds of the green movement - decided to close down all of its nuclear plants after Fukushima, a once-on-a-lifetime freak accident which killed precisely no-one and, if anything, proved how safe modern nuclear tech is. Is it too cynical to point out that this would entail a massive climbdown, careers and egos would be destroyed and other jobs would have to be found? I'm not sure.
The fourth issue is linked to the above - they constantly overstate the case with warnings of impending doom on dates which somehow come and go without the doom actually occurring.
And that's the other thing: it's always about to happen. |
This, this and this, times a million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
| Quote: |
plugging it into VERY imperfect models
|
That's somewhat disingenuous - the models themselves are widely reliable and have predicted many phenomena that we've seen replicated in the real world. The problems often lie in taking those predictions and using them incorrectly as justification for a partisan viewpoint. |
I think the point was made above that weather forecasting models are only accurate over 4-5 days at best and often not even for that far. Met Office longer term weather forecasts are wrong at least as often as they are right. So I don't think a bit of healthy scepticism about the reliability of climate change models is a bad thing.
Plus of course, the self proclaimed best brains in the world, backed by a shedload of cash built models that by an large spectacularly failed to foresee the global financial crisis, proving that model development is a tricky business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@The Flying Snowplough, "self proclaimed" is the important part of your statement. For those close to it the financial crisis was an obvious problem. Their leaders chose to ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@dogwatch, a good and interesting article; sadly it now seems to be more trendy to deny global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@under a new name, seconded - to the point that its arguable to say that the financial crash was as severe as it was due to the accuracy of the models used in the market modelling systems - everyones system is to highly attuned to make capital from a falling position, and the speed those systems are able to respond are so swift, once a collapse starts to happen, its accelerated as the majority of traders are getting out.
@The Flying Snowplough, again, the difference between Weather and Climate comes to the fore - a climate level event can lead to very different local weather for a region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if there are still a few 'flat earthers' walking the earth we cannot escape the embarrassing fact that for all our technical progress, humankind still relies on burning coal / oil / gas to heat up water and make electricity. It is a pitiful and outdated means to supply our energy needs. These are finite resources and will run out one day and if credible scientists are to be believed they are warming our planet. If mainstream climate scientists are wrong then the resource companies would have some extra fossils fuels underground and waiting to be mined in the coming years, if the sceptics are wrong then snowheads will be a forum to reminisce on the bygone days of outdoor snow sports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a big believer in Climate change, as i said before - the issue for me is that deniers keep saying 'but the Earths climate has always heated and cooled' when they fail to accept that that is not in question, what is in fact in question is the rate of that change, which is being sped up by increasing human pollutants and polluting activities.
How can increased greenhouse gases NOT affect our atmosphere and therefore, directly our climate? I like to ask deniers how far they are willing to push their luck with regards to uncertainty, and what are they going to do if the rate of Climate change speeds up that modern lifestyle is incompatible with it?
Why can we not live clean and have a clean society? why must we (as a species) be as dirty as possible and argue what is going to happen if we don't change?
I really dislike waste, I really dislike it. I really hate the way average Joes like us are told to recycle and drive eco cars (which i don't actually have a problem with in itself) then giant companies build things like 'The Shard' out of Concrete which in turn produces its weight in CO2 - 1 tonne concrete takes 1 tonne of CO2 to make... I wonder how many Tonnes went in to that building! and that's before you even begin to power it.
If governments were serious about takling the issues around climate change they wouldn't be scrapping renewable subsidies at the same time a giving the UN Billions 'to show the UKs commitment' in the words of Mr Cameron. I'd like to see every new building be equipped with solar panels and a little wind turbine
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@Mountain Addiction, If any recent government were genuinely serious they would not have bothered about renewable subsidies and dumped the money directly into fundamental research and pure physics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well yes, that too... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
