 Poster: A snowHead
|
| TQA wrote: |
| Gordy wrote: |
Don't you measure temperature with a thermometer? If you measure it with a theory instead you can make it out to be whatever you like! What happens if your theory is wrong?
. |
I was curious as to where the name Dryas came from. It turns out that it is the name of an arctic tundra plant which only grows in a specific set of temperature ranges and it's presence or absence tells you what is going on with the temperature.
So instead of using a thermometer and a time machine you use a microscope to see if you have dryas leaves preserved in lake sediments . You can use radio carbon dating for the year. No theory just hard science. |
Since we're discussing sea temperature particularly, do Dryas plants live underwater (or is there an equivalent)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Gordyjh wrote: |
I still love how a cold winter is weather while a warm summer is climate change...  |
That's just bad reporting.
A cold winter is weather. A warm summer is weather.
A trend of summers getting warmer (or colder, wetter, dryer or whatever) over many years is climate change.
You also can't look at the weather/climate in a single location. The UK currently benefits from warm air brought from the tropics on the gulf stream. It's likely that a warmer planet would change the gulf stream which may mean the UK doesn't get this warm air and global warming actually causes the UK to get colder. It's global warming - not necessarily UK warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| sbooker wrote: |
The problem is a simple one. There about 4 times too many people on the planet that it can handle.
The solution is the difficult thing. |
The first step is admitting that that is the problem. Then we can actually start to work out what we can do about it.
Normally if you have too much of something you'd get rid of the excess, but you obviously can't do that when you're talking about people's lives. Unfortunately if we do nothing then nature is likely to pick this option for us.
A more palatable option is to look at what can be done to reduce the birth rate. That can be done by expanding access to contraception and improving women's education. We should be doing that globally as a means to combat climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
The only certainty is that nothing will ever change it. No matter how many Kuoto Agreements or Paris Agreements there are, there will always be Trumps and Putins etc.
Unless the agreements are legally binding, with the US on board and on threat of crippling sanctions, nothing will change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@bar shaker, it will change if the alternative technologies turn out to be attractive.
- if nuclear turns out to be cheaper
- if solar creates a load of new industries / jobs
- if electric vehicles become a viable alternative and people enjoy breathing clean air.
- if it turns out these technologies free us from the stranglehold of oil producing nations...
etc.
In other words, the revolution has to make economic sense. Then I think it can be done. Whether this change will actually make any difference to climate change, who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
The only certainty is that nothing will ever change it. No matter how many Kuoto Agreements or Paris Agreements there are, there will always be Trumps and Putins etc.
Unless the agreements are legally binding, with the US on board and on threat of crippling sanctions, nothing will change. |
It won't change, because -- skiing aside -- humans know (subconsciously) that global warming is good.
The world population is bigger and healthier today than at any point in human history for a million years.
Since global warming began, global life expectancy has soared +200% and the global human race has grown +750,000%.
Everyone loves getting a tan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| bar shaker wrote: |
The only certainty is that nothing will ever change it. No matter how many Kuoto Agreements or Paris Agreements there are, there will always be Trumps and Putins etc.
Unless the agreements are legally binding, with the US on board and on threat of crippling sanctions, nothing will change. |
It won't change, because -- skiing aside -- humans know (subconsciously) that global warming is good.
The world population is bigger and healthier today than at any point in human history for a million years.
Since global warming began, global life expectancy has soared +200% and the global human race has grown +750,000%.
Everyone loves getting a tan. |
I’m not scientist but I think that has more to do with advances in medicine in the corresponding time frame than it does with the warming of the planet. Granted crop production and therefore more food can’t have hurt either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
The planet's average temperature has increased +4c in the past 300 million years.
Roughly an extra +1c every 75m years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +3c in the past 15 thousand years.
Roughly an extra +1c every 5k years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +1c in the past 150 years (human population explosion).
Roughly an extra +1c every 150 years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +0.5c in the past 50 years (human population explosion).
Roughly an extra +1c every 100 years...
Natural warming (interglacial period) has been accelerated by manmade warming (lots of people and lots of fumes).
The planet is basically a "box" to live in. You put more people inside a room, it heats up.
The world is warming, drying, and melting. |
Correlation does not equal causality.
That "average temperature has increased +3c in the past 15 thousand years" includes a lot of fluctuation too. Some centuries had larger increase, some less. The latest acceleration of increase COULD quite possibly be due to other factor but coincide with human being on the earth. We don't actually have a very good understanding of the factor's affecting earth's temperature.
Sure we human definitely have impact on the earth by definition. Every ant and every elephant has impact on the earth, however tiny that influence maybe. So billions of human definitely do. But how big is that influence? Some people have a guess. Others have a different guess. Maybe one of them is right and the rest is wrong. Or they could all be wrong. Maybe we ARE destroying the earth much faster than ANY of those estimates say. Or we had little influence even if we stop all industrial activity, and the earth still warms up faster and faster!
Having said all that, what's the downside of taking some precautionary preventive action based on what we know? We'll have more solar energy and less air pollution from coal and oil burning power plants. We may delay the sea from flooding our cities. And we still have glacier to ski on in the summer...
Oops, sorry those are not downsides. OK, dirty carbon producing oil burning cars and buses will be more expensive to operate. And our Amazon order, which arrive by carbon producing and oil burning trucks will cost more too. It's a choice for all countries to make.
Reminds me of the Titanic. According to the recollection of the crew, the first batch of lifeboats left the ship half empty, because passengers were reluctant to go into a dark cold life boat when the ocean liner was still afloat. But by the time the last group of life boat were cast off, they were overloaded. Because by that point, people realized the sinking of the ship was for real. Many probably wished they got on the first life boat! All the while, the captain knew FOR SURE the ship were sinking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Sadly the impact of Human Population on Global mean temperatures is well documented.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sat 3-11-18 7:21; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@abc,
| Quote: |
| Having said all that, what's the downside of taking some precautionary preventive action based on what we know? |
Exactly this. If we fail to take any kind of action then our grandchildren may well be confronted with the ultimate proof that anthropogenic climate change is real and will be facing the fact that had we done something 40 years ago it could have been stopped...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Steilhang, As if that sort give a to$$ what their grandkids, or even kids, or anyone for that matter, think of them.
They're all individuals!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Steilhang, This forum is great for firing comments and establishing where people sit. But it's no substitute for the kind of debate and research which occurs in the scientific realm or political sphere.
Yes it's too late to stop certain processes, Chris Turney's excellent work on the paleoclimatic record is compelling - some processes are likely to go into feedback and accelerate global warming - the darkening of glaciers through concentration of debris on the surface increases the rate of melting, the melting of the permafrost on the steppe increases the rate of release of methane, etc etc.
The feedback into humankind might reduce human population by depriving it of dependable places to live and dependable food supply. But slowly. Certainly far more slowly than we would require to really reverse human-induced climate change.
But my own view is that we do need to take action. Housing standards need to be fundamentally revised, energy policy needs to drive towards renewables. Social policy needs to confront the economic challenge of reducing birthrates. China has done more than anywhere to exceed energy targets...but then it did it through draconian measures which we find unpalatable in Western democracies.
We need good research, good strategists in top roles (Trump....pah) and concerted collaborative action. I do drive to the Alps....I would much rather go by train, but while it's five times the cost, we'll drive. I do try to video-conference rather than fly, but still wind up flying to a country to do a one-day meeting. And I do perch on a side of mountains and think, this is totally different to how this was twenty years ago.....and hate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the deniers such as@Mr.Egg and @Oleski I say this: if you're right then it won't matter anyway if we do nothing, but if you're wrong.............
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@valais2, there are plenty of reasons other than climate change for switching to renewables. Breaking the stranglehold that countries like Saudi have over us is reason enough. Cleaning up the air that we breathe is reason enough. It will only happen if it makes economic sense though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@valais2, It doesn't help that aircraft fuel isn't taxed, if it were taxed at the same level as fuel used for ground transportation then flying wouldn't be as attractive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| billb wrote: |
| To the deniers such as@Mr.Egg and @Oleski I say this: if you're right then it won't matter anyway if we do nothing, but if you're wrong............. |
Oh. Best go vegan then.
| Quote: |
| A new study published in the journal Science details the largest-ever analysis of the impact that food production has on the planet. The study concluded that ditching or reducing animal products in the diet and in commodities is the single most effective way to reduce one’s environmental impact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Without trying to be alarmist ………………. Planet Earth needs a "cull".
Best estimates for a sustainable global population suggest 2.5 - 3.1 Billion.
Sadly that's never going to happen.
My local "Climate Action" group are all parents! They miss the point! I would suspect that in the near future a "Kyoto-style" pollution limit will be set on populations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@achilles, Or …………. have NO children for a couple of generations! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| skimastaaah wrote: |
Without trying to be alarmist ………………. Planet Earth needs a "cull".
Best estimates for a sustainable global population suggest 2.5 - 3.1 Billion.
Sadly that's never going to happen.
My local "Climate Action" group are all parents! They miss the point! I would suspect that in the near future a "Kyoto-style" pollution limit will be set on populations. |
Many western countries had falling birth rates, to the point below replacing the population.
China brutally slammed the brake on birth rate also. It MAY level off to a more or less replacement rate.
Do the same country by country, it could happen. In due course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
@Achilles, Or …………. have NO children for a couple of generations!
|
Errr @skimastaaah, wanna think about that statement for a minute....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Steilhang wrote: |
| @valais2, there are plenty of reasons other than climate change for switching to renewables. Breaking the stranglehold that countries like Saudi have over us is reason enough. Cleaning up the air that we breathe is reason enough. It will only happen if it makes economic sense though. |
That's part of the problem. In some countries, such as India and China (the two most populous nations), the GDP pre head means they are decades away from affording electric transport infrastructure, let alone the cars and lorries.
Going electric will never be cheaper and the countries that don't mandate it, have an economic advantage. It is a myth that renewable energy is cheaper. The cheapest of all energy is from coal, dug out of the ground and burnt.
Saudi Arabia doesn't have a stranglehold over anyone. There has been more oil and gas found in Alaska in the past 10 years, than has already been taken out of the ground in the history of mankind. It is these discoveries that have caused the price of oil to crash to the recent $50/barrel prices. As most of this oil is in tar-sands and is literally sitting on the surface waiting to be refined, it is also the cheapest oil in the world to extract. If anyone has a stranglehold, it is the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sbooker wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
| bar shaker wrote: |
The only certainty is that nothing will ever change it. No matter how many Kuoto Agreements or Paris Agreements there are, there will always be Trumps and Putins etc.
Unless the agreements are legally binding, with the US on board and on threat of crippling sanctions, nothing will change. |
It won't change, because -- skiing aside -- humans know (subconsciously) that global warming is good.
The world population is bigger and healthier today than at any point in human history for a million years.
Since global warming began, global life expectancy has soared +200% and the global human race has grown +750,000%.
Everyone loves getting a tan. |
I’m not scientist but I think that has more to do with advances in medicine in the corresponding time frame than it does with the warming of the planet. Granted crop production and therefore more food can’t have hurt either. |
Global population already grew +25,000%, and life expectancy grew +50%, in the post-glacial, pre-medicine era.
Humans like heat.
Especially the young, old, and ill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
The planet's average temperature has increased +4c in the past 300 million years.
Roughly an extra +1c every 75m years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +3c in the past 15 thousand years.
Roughly an extra +1c every 5k years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +1c in the past 150 years (human population explosion).
Roughly an extra +1c every 150 years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +0.5c in the past 50 years (human population explosion).
Roughly an extra +1c every 100 years...
Natural warming (interglacial period) has been accelerated by manmade warming (lots of people and lots of fumes).
The planet is basically a "box" to live in. You put more people inside a room, it heats up.
The world is warming, drying, and melting. |
Correlation does not equal causality.
That "average temperature has increased +3c in the past 15 thousand years" includes a lot of fluctuation too. Some centuries had larger increase, some less. The latest acceleration of increase COULD quite possibly be due to other factor but coincide with human being on the earth. We don't actually have a very good understanding of the factor's affecting earth's temperature.
Sure we human definitely have impact on the earth by definition. Every ant and every elephant has impact on the earth, however tiny that influence maybe. So billions of human definitely do. But how big is that influence? Some people have a guess. Others have a different guess. Maybe one of them is right and the rest is wrong. Or they could all be wrong. Maybe we ARE destroying the earth much faster than ANY of those estimates say. Or we had little influence even if we stop all industrial activity, and the earth still warms up faster and faster!
Having said all that, what's the downside of taking some precautionary preventive action based on what we know? We'll have more solar energy and less air pollution from coal and oil burning power plants. We may delay the sea from flooding our cities. And we still have glacier to ski on in the summer...
Oops, sorry those are not downsides. OK, dirty carbon producing oil burning cars and buses will be more expensive to operate. And our Amazon order, which arrive by carbon producing and oil burning trucks will cost more too. It's a choice for all countries to make.
Reminds me of the Titanic. According to the recollection of the crew, the first batch of lifeboats left the ship half empty, because passengers were reluctant to go into a dark cold life boat when the ocean liner was still afloat. But by the time the last group of life boat were cast off, they were overloaded. Because by that point, people realized the sinking of the ship was for real. Many probably wished they got on the first life boat! All the while, the captain knew FOR SURE the ship were sinking! |
Humans are defo causing the world to heat up.
It is why crowded cities (like London / NY) are always 1-5c hotter than empty countryside.
Problem is, people have been dooming the world for at least 500 years.
And all the catastrophic predictions about food shortages, flooding, etc. have never come true.
As a result, most normal people just tune out when they hear some dood with a frizzy beard going off on a rant about climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Ask the Dutch about “flooding never come true”!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
