 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
| Gored wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
| Just think of the world children of today will be living in when they’re adults. |
The same world we/they live in today. |
Lol. The same planet, yes, but not the same civilisation. I know it’s an inconvenience for you to think outside of ‘the universe according to Gored’ but do try. |
If my 56 years of memory; passed down family 'lore'; and photographic evidence is anything to go by, the climate in Wales has stayed remarkably consistent throughout that time
We had and still have four seasons, the length of each fluctuating each year but not markedly
We have cycles where the Summers are much warmer than those the 5 or so years before them or after them
We have cycles where the Winters are much colder than those the 5 or so years before them or after them
If we get a consistent spell of cold weather in the Winter, then snow will fall at low altitudes. Even at sea level
It rains consistently every month of the year and the temperature range for most of the calendar year is quite narrow (in comparison with other parts of the world) of around 20C. Between around 5C and 25C
I grew up in an industrial Welsh valley which had mining and iron production in the near vicinity
During my childhood we had the Phurnacite Plant producing smokeless coal fuel for the bigger UK cities
The production process filled the valley with pollution and there were many days when you could not see one end of the valley from the other (a bit like modern day China)
There is no heavy industry in and around my valley at present and nature has done a remarkable and natural job of greening the valley
Children born today are born in to a far better environment from the the one I was born into
I don't see that regressing back to 1966 levels in the next half century
And for those saying 56 years is not a long enough time period to base 'science' on, the scientists are not working with that much more data (in relative terms) than me
They're basing their forecasts on records which go back to 1884, that's 139 years |
You are comparing complex mathematical modelling and extensive, worldwide scientific data collection to you looking out the window in Wales? Righto!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Owls101 wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
| Gored wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
| Just think of the world children of today will be living in when they’re adults. |
The same world we/they live in today. |
Lol. The same planet, yes, but not the same civilisation. I know it’s an inconvenience for you to think outside of ‘the universe according to Gored’ but do try. |
If my 56 years of memory; passed down family 'lore'; and photographic evidence is anything to go by, the climate in Wales has stayed remarkably consistent throughout that time
We had and still have four seasons, the length of each fluctuating each year but not markedly
We have cycles where the Summers are much warmer than those the 5 or so years before them or after them
We have cycles where the Winters are much colder than those the 5 or so years before them or after them
If we get a consistent spell of cold weather in the Winter, then snow will fall at low altitudes. Even at sea level
It rains consistently every month of the year and the temperature range for most of the calendar year is quite narrow (in comparison with other parts of the world) of around 20C. Between around 5C and 25C
I grew up in an industrial Welsh valley which had mining and iron production in the near vicinity
During my childhood we had the Phurnacite Plant producing smokeless coal fuel for the bigger UK cities
The production process filled the valley with pollution and there were many days when you could not see one end of the valley from the other (a bit like modern day China)
There is no heavy industry in and around my valley at present and nature has done a remarkable and natural job of greening the valley
Children born today are born in to a far better environment from the the one I was born into
I don't see that regressing back to 1966 levels in the next half century
And for those saying 56 years is not a long enough time period to base 'science' on, the scientists are not working with that much more data (in relative terms) than me
They're basing their forecasts on records which go back to 1884, that's 139 years |
You are comparing complex mathematical modelling and extensive, worldwide scientific data collection to you looking out the window in Wales? Righto! |
It was an observation based on lived experience compared with mathematical modeling
The same complex mathematical modeling which predicted this back in 2007
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/snowdon-snowless-2020-2281317?fbclid=IwAR1v8E6P8ao6zB0hu9yzaSeFA7KXWZS-6mcTZLwueF0_kMclu_4Ev3MPtfQ
"He said because South Wales is likely to be affected more by global warming than North Wales, he predicts the Brecon Beacons, the Black Mountains and the Cambrian Mountains will also be snow-free by 2020."
Regular readers of this forum will be well aware that this guess has proven to be completely and utterly incorrect
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sun 30-07-23 10:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Contrarian climate change deniers are sadly inevitable in discussions like this.
Just because it snowed last winter, or one "scientist" got it "wrong" doesn't change the balance of evidence.
Though I agree that sensationalist headlines (such as this one) aren't necessarily helpful.
FWIW : There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Scottish ski seasons have become shorter and less reliable (compared to 1990s).
Elderly friends and relatives reckon the warming trend, compared 60s and 70s, is even starker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Contrarian climate change deniers are sadly inevitable in discussions like this.
Just because it snowed last winter, or one "scientist" got it "wrong" doesn't change the balance of evidence.
Though I agree that sensationalist headlines (such as this one) aren't necessarily helpful.
FWIW : There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Scottish ski seasons have become shorter and less reliable (compared to 1990s).
Elderly friends and relatives reckon the warming trend, compared 60s and 70s, is even starker.
|
I'm not a climate denier
The climate is in a continuous flux and constantly changing, for the better and the worse depending where you are on earth
I fall into the Mark Twain camp,
"Somehow, a rumor began that he was sick, and the rumor grew until many people believed he had died. According to legend, a reporter found Mark Twain, and asked him what comment he had about the rumor that he was dead. As the story goes, Mark Twain replied,
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Owls101 wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
| Gored wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
| Just think of the world children of today will be living in when they’re adults. |
The same world we/they live in today. |
Lol. The same planet, yes, but not the same civilisation. I know it’s an inconvenience for you to think outside of ‘the universe according to Gored’ but do try. |
If my 56 years of memory; passed down family 'lore'; and photographic evidence is anything to go by, the climate in Wales has stayed remarkably consistent throughout that time
We had and still have four seasons, the length of each fluctuating each year but not markedly
We have cycles where the Summers are much warmer than those the 5 or so years before them or after them
We have cycles where the Winters are much colder than those the 5 or so years before them or after them
If we get a consistent spell of cold weather in the Winter, then snow will fall at low altitudes. Even at sea level
It rains consistently every month of the year and the temperature range for most of the calendar year is quite narrow (in comparison with other parts of the world) of around 20C. Between around 5C and 25C
I grew up in an industrial Welsh valley which had mining and iron production in the near vicinity
During my childhood we had the Phurnacite Plant producing smokeless coal fuel for the bigger UK cities
The production process filled the valley with pollution and there were many days when you could not see one end of the valley from the other (a bit like modern day China)
There is no heavy industry in and around my valley at present and nature has done a remarkable and natural job of greening the valley
Children born today are born in to a far better environment from the the one I was born into
I don't see that regressing back to 1966 levels in the next half century
And for those saying 56 years is not a long enough time period to base 'science' on, the scientists are not working with that much more data (in relative terms) than me
They're basing their forecasts on records which go back to 1884, that's 139 years |
You are comparing complex mathematical modelling and extensive, worldwide scientific data collection to you looking out the window in Wales? Righto! |
It was an observation based on lived experience compared with mathematical modeling
The same complex mathematical modeling which predicted this back in 2007
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/snowdon-snowless-2020-2281317?fbclid=IwAR1v8E6P8ao6zB0hu9yzaSeFA7KXWZS-6mcTZLwueF0_kMclu_4Ev3MPtfQ
"He said because South Wales is likely to be affected more by global warming than North Wales, he predicts the Brecon Beacons, the Black Mountains and the Cambrian Mountains will also be snow-free by 2020."
Regular readers of this forum will be well aware that this guess has proven to be completely and utterly incorrect |
I think it's foolish to make very specific predictions, but also foolish to discount the accumulation of data that suggests the climate is changing on a global level, and these change could have major consequences for human life.
With all due respect, your lived experience carries little weight in this debate.
In all probability the UK won't feel the brunt of climate change directly, but we will feel it very acutely in indirect ways e.g. crop failure in other parts of the world will be a major problem in a country that imports almost half of its food.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Owls101 wrote: |
I think it's foolish to make very specific predictions |
Agreed
And yet that's what climate change scientists or at least their mouthpieces continue to do
| Quote: |
| but also foolish to discount the accumulation of data that suggests the climate is changing on a global level, and these change could have major consequences for human life. |
Who says I'm discounting it?
I'm questioning it, and questioning the doomsday scenario which is being touted by the MSM
| Quote: |
| With all due respect, your lived experience carries little weight in this debate. |
In global terms, most certainly
In local terms, I don't believe it is weightless
| Quote: |
| In all probability the UK won't feel the brunt of climate change directly, but we will feel it very acutely in indirect ways e.g. crop failure in other parts of the world will be a major problem in a country that imports almost half of its food. |
Agreed
Which is why I gave my lived experience as an observation
Similarly, my experience skiing SW Hokkaido between 2006 and 2023 has been very consistent and certainly far more consistent than European snow cycles
The elephant in the room which no one is talking about is an aging population and uncontrolled population growth globally
That's a far bigger problem IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so you dont class yourself as a denier, but you are clearly in denial about that.
The singularity, which often gets talked about in A.I. Or nuclear war Conversations, isnt strictly limit to A.I. Or nuclear war - It is any event from which there is no escape, unfortunately you dont always know you’ve passed the point of no return, and climate change is the prime example.
Nothing vast comes into existence without a curse.
I suppose that by the time the climate does become so unstable it is unable to support our current civilisation most of the climate deniers and those in denial about being deniers will have died content that they were right simply because they didnt live through what is to come.
I do agree that pretty much all the worlds problems are solved by having a smaller population, but when overpopulation is bought up someone always starts behaving like you’re about to commit genocide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Extremophile wrote: |
| It is any event from which there is no escape, unfortunately you dont always know you’ve passed the point of no return, and climate change is the prime example. |
That point was probably in the 1960s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Since the 1960s, the global human population is up, life expectancy is up, crop yields are up, famine has all but disappeared.
The human population is in its best ever shape.
The UN forecasts it will get even better by 2050.
Global warming is good 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand discussions like this. It's either stop using oil or use it forever, but oil is a finite resource. So, at some point, we'll need to change. If we push for a shift away from oil, the worst that can happen is that we accelerate that move. It's a no-brainer. The only ones benefiting from sticking with oil are the oil companies in the short term, and I can't see a reason to support them. They aren't known for innovation or driving GDP growth. The only material investments they make is drilling for more oil.
Honestly, I've yet to hear a compelling argument for not moving away from oil.
I'm interested in hearing, anyone here who's questioning climate change or advocating for a slower change away from oil, why don't you feel the change is necessary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| RoboJ wrote: |
Honestly, I've yet to hear a compelling argument for not moving away from oil. |
Very true.
However the energy transition away from oil needs to be carefully managed.
If we reduce supply of oil & gas, before renewables readily available in scale required, then global economy will crash.
The reality is that most of us still have gas boilers and petrol cars (for now).
In future we will always need oil (for plastics, fertilizer, gore-tex, petrol-chemicals, adhesives etc).
However we do need to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as practically possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Haggis_Trap, In reality, I believe solutions are straightforward for those. We use oil because it is cheap, not because it is the only source - sure, alternatives require investment but while oil companies are seeing a far greater ROI on new oil lines then that's where the dollars are spent.
Don't misunderstand me, we are where we are because of oil. Without it we wouldn't have the healthcare, IT, transport (quality of life basically) etc we have today - however, we now have alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RoboJ wrote: |
| ...however, we now have alternatives. |
I generally agree...
However take simple example of electric cars.
As of last 5 years they now have a range of 300-500 miles.
However a new EV costs £40k+ (which most people cant afford).
Plus we need to develop the charging network and grid capacity.
The technology is almost there - but the infrastructure needs to catch up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Agreed, but the required infrastructure is small fry compared to laying 1,000s km of new gas and oil pipelines which, frankly, we build vastly quicker.
In regards to the range anxiety etc, it's a frame of mind (and a little tech required). We used to have fleets of electric milk floats, perfectly pratical vehicles, but, now nearly all deliveries are carried out by oil powered vehicles as it was cheaper.
I get I'm being polemic about this but I feel we have to challange where we've been told things like we need 300 miles range on a car. Again, it feels like we make a yes or no decission based on a single, fairly uncommon, metric.
A few years ago I was buying a Porsche Boxster, people said "wait, you can only get two people in it" and that nearly stopped me, I had visions of airport runs, family, kids etc. But then I calculated that 95% of my journeys were solo and those that weren't I didn't need to do. So, I bought it and never once regretted it (even though I had to lower the roof to get my skis in).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| RoboJ wrote: |
| ...however, we now have alternatives. |
I generally agree...
However take simple example of electric cars.
As of last 5 years they now have a range of 300-500 miles.
However a new EV costs £40k+ (which most people cant afford).
Plus we need to develop the charging network and grid capacity.
The technology is almost there - but the infrastructure needs to catch up. |
Interesting how there are people driving around in petrol/diesel cars they cant afford outright. But those people seem perfectly happy with hire purchase. For ~£400 a month for 3 years then take it back to the dealer and get a new one… not sure why those very people suddenly cant afford an electric vehicle. But i do agree the charging infrastructure is not there in the UK. France, kn the other hand, is stuffed full of EV charge points… because their cut off date is sooner than UK and they seem to actually take it seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
If we do get a change of government next year then we may expect to see a change of pace on climate policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
The elephant in the room which no one is talking about is an ... uncontrolled population growth globally
|
In my lifetime the population of the planet has gone from under 3 Billion to 8 Billion. Both India and China have increased their populations by over 1 Billion each!
UK population has increased from 53 million to 68 million.
Here is the main problem of Human contribution to global temperature/emissions ...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle
There is certainly a dialogue that needs to be opened regarding what is a sustainable family size. Just how many children should be acceptable to maintain, or even reduce, local and global populations.
https://populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PROJECTIONS-95-hi-lo-rec-1.png
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| skimastaaah wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
The elephant in the room which no one is talking about is an ... uncontrolled population growth globally
|
In my lifetime the population of the planet has gone from under 3 Billion to 8 Billion. Both India and China have increased their populations by over 1 Billion each!
UK population has increased from 53 million to 68 million.
Here is the main problem of Human contribution to global temperature/emissions ...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle
There is certainly a dialogue that needs to be opened regarding what is a sustainable family size. Just how many children should be acceptable to maintain, or even reduce, local and global populations.
https://populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PROJECTIONS-95-hi-lo-rec-1.png |
While the majority of the worlds problems are solved with a smaller population, this only goes hand in hand with a reduction in over consumption by that smaller population, if a smaller population has an unsustainably high level of consumption our current problems still exist. Lets not get side tracked in to an overpopulation debate instead of climate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
COP26 clearly identified "Human Activity" as the main driver for Climate Change. The more humans, the more activity, the greater the pace of change.
My suggestion is about a "sustainable" population that starts to limit both growth and consumption otherwise any attempt to "cut" carbon emissions as the only mechanism to manage Climate Change is doomed to fail as more than half the world is not interested in reducing pollution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Extremophile, I take it that you are a population denier. The "over-population debate" is the elephant in the room and as it happens (funnily enough), the two graphs of Population Increase against Time, and CO2 emissions against Time, given the right scaling, will show clear similarities if not match with accuracy. As will car production, Coca Cola consumption, McDonalds Big Mac purchases, domestic Electricity demand, global increase in Jet aircraft mileage, and a whole host of other contributing factors that have cumulatively contributed to a very complex set of circumstances that just may have something to do with "human activity".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Extremophile wrote: |
Ok, so you dont class yourself as a denier, but you are clearly in denial about that.
The singularity, which often gets talked about in A.I. Or nuclear war Conversations, isnt strictly limit to A.I. Or nuclear war - It is any event from which there is no escape, unfortunately you dont always know you’ve passed the point of no return, and climate change is the prime example.
Nothing vast comes into existence without a curse.
I suppose that by the time the climate does become so unstable it is unable to support our current civilisation most of the climate deniers and those in denial about being deniers will have died content that they were right simply because they didnt live through what is to come.
I do agree that pretty much all the worlds problems are solved by having a smaller population, but when overpopulation is bought up someone always starts behaving like you’re about to commit genocide. |
I'm a questioner
However YOU interpret and label that is YOUR perogative and choice of nomenclature
I was extremely sceptical of the complex mathematical modeling, the forecast, the science, and actions behind COVID-19 and this has made me less likely to just accept what I'm spoonfed by MSM with regards to Climate Change
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Mon 31-07-23 9:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@skimastaaah, population and co2 correlates but doesn't mean causation. The USA has one quarter the population of China but produces twice as much CO2. COP26 statement is saying, humans are causing it, ie not natural phenomenon.
The population debate is at best a distraction. It's blaming developing and 3rd world countries for a mess we have created.
Frankly, it's way easier and faster cut carbon emisions than population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RoboJ wrote: |
I don't understand discussions like this. It's either stop using oil or use it forever, but oil is a finite resource. So, at some point, we'll need to change. If we push for a shift away from oil, the worst that can happen is that we accelerate that move. It's a no-brainer. The only ones benefiting from sticking with oil are the oil companies in the short term, and I can't see a reason to support them. They aren't known for innovation or driving GDP growth. The only material investments they make is drilling for more oil.
Honestly, I've yet to hear a compelling argument for not moving away from oil.
I'm interested in hearing, anyone here who's questioning climate change or advocating for a slower change away from oil, why don't you feel the change is necessary? |
To adopt the new technologies and laws is too expensive for the 'ordinary person' when the Government has not put low cost/ similarly costed alternatives in place
And as we've seen with some technologies foisted on us by the UK Government, they're not economically viable
Last edited by After all it is free  on Mon 31-07-23 9:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Mike Pow, keeping on topic, I'm genuinely curious what are the benefits to making misleading climate change forecasts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mike Pow, so what you're saying is we shouldn't believe in climate change because it's expensive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| RoboJ wrote: |
Agreed, but the required infrastructure is small fry compared to laying 1,000s km of new gas and oil pipelines which, frankly, we build vastly quicker.
In regards to the range anxiety etc, it's a frame of mind (and a little tech required). We used to have fleets of electric milk floats, perfectly pratical vehicles, but, now nearly all deliveries are carried out by oil powered vehicles as it was cheaper.
I get I'm being polemic about this but I feel we have to challange where we've been told things like we need 300 miles range on a car. Again, it feels like we make a yes or no decission based on a single, fairly uncommon, metric.
A few years ago I was buying a Porsche Boxster, people said "wait, you can only get two people in it" and that nearly stopped me, I had visions of airport runs, family, kids etc. But then I calculated that 95% of my journeys were solo and those that weren't I didn't need to do. So, I bought it and never once regretted it (even though I had to lower the roof to get my skis in). |
That is comedy gold
Porsche Boxster
Surely it should have been the other way round
95% of your car usage is solo ergo buy the smallest, most economical, most fuel efficient, least polluting vehicle to complete those journeys
NIMBY
Not In My Boxster
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Mon 31-07-23 9:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| RoboJ wrote: |
@skimastaaah, population and co2 correlates but doesn't mean causation. The USA has one quarter the population of China but produces twice as much CO2. COP26 statement is saying, humans are causing it, ie not natural phenomenon.
The population debate is at best a distraction. It's blaming developing and 3rd world countries for a mess we have created.
Frankly, it's way easier and faster cut carbon emisions than population. |
And yet I've read that China has surpassed our total CO2 emission level since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the past 10 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RoboJ wrote: |
| @Mike Pow, keeping on topic, I'm genuinely curious what are the benefits to making misleading climate change forecasts? |
The people making them don't think they are making any mistakes in the gathering, modeling, interpretation, and presentation of their data and/or their exaggerated doomsday scenarios
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| RoboJ wrote: |
| @Mike Pow, so what you're saying is we shouldn't believe in climate change because it's expensive? |
Once again, that's YOUR interpretation of what I wrote
I don't know how I can put this any clearer
I BELIEVE THAT THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IS CHANGING
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Extremophile wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| RoboJ wrote: |
| ...however, we now have alternatives. |
I generally agree...
However take simple example of electric cars.
As of last 5 years they now have a range of 300-500 miles.
However a new EV costs £40k+ (which most people cant afford).
Plus we need to develop the charging network and grid capacity.
The technology is almost there - but the infrastructure needs to catch up. |
Interesting how there are people driving around in petrol/diesel cars they cant afford outright. But those people seem perfectly happy with hire purchase. For ~£400 a month for 3 years then take it back to the dealer and get a new one… not sure why those very people suddenly cant afford an electric vehicle. But i do agree the charging infrastructure is not there in the UK. France, kn the other hand, is stuffed full of EV charge points… because their cut off date is sooner than UK and they seem to actually take it seriously. |
From what I can find France is not banning the sale of IC cars until 2035, currently 5 years after the UK. Yes they are ahead in charging points which may have quite a lot to do with housing stock, given the preponderance of flats in France we have a lot more houses than they do, so they can’t charge on their drives etc. Ultimately to see the success of any policy you have to look at take up of EV vehicles. Zap map report 810k fully electric and 510 hybrid in the UK in Jul 23, Le Monde report 761k and 449k respectively on 6 May 23. So pretty much even Stephans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| And yet I've read that China has surpassed our total CO2 emission level since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the past 10 years |
Can you point me in the direction of that data?
I do agree emmisions from China has gown considerably, though it has more to do with their industrialization as opposed to their population growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@RoboJ, The UK currently emits less than 1% of global emissions annually and ranks 68th globally in per capita emissions after adjusting for population.
China is the second largest emitter of global greenhouse gases, accounting for 30% each year.
China’s emissions have quadrupled in the past 30 years. In 2020, China emitted 10.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide compared to the UK’s 329 million.
And you maintain that the "population debate" is merely a "distraction". It should be core to any debate regarding climate change!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Down the rabbit hole we go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
As regards snow, another major concern is the rapid disappearance of glaciers. Alpine resorts such as Tignes in France rely on glaciers for snow cover and water supply. In the European Alps, glaciers are expected to vanish almost completely by 2100, with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning that they could lose 94% of their 2017 volume by the end of the century. As temperatures rise, glacial ice melts faster and there is less fresh snow. Glaciers melting could lead to severe flooding and erosion in the valley below and increase the risk of avalanches, destroying critical infrastructure as well as significantly reducing water supplies for local mountain communities.
According to a 2017 study by the Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research, the Alps could lose up to 70% of their snow cover by 2100, if global temperatures rise in line with business-as-usual. The world is currently on track for an average of 2.7C (4.9F) of warming by 2100. If global temperature rise is kept below 2C (3.6F), though, the reduction in snow cover will be limited to 30%, according to the study.
Rising temperatures and decreased snowfall are shortening the winter ski season, a concerning trend for the mountain communities whose livelihood depends on the winter sports industry.
In a swathe of US ski resorts covering a combined area the size of Virginia, the ski season shrank by an average of 34 days between 1982 and 2016, according to a 2018 study.
https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/1600x900/p0dygrjq.webp
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| skimastaaah wrote: |
| @Extremophile, I take it that you are a population denier. The "over-population debate" is the elephant in the room and as it happens (funnily enough), the two graphs of Population Increase against Time, and CO2 emissions against Time, given the right scaling, will show clear similarities if not match with accuracy. As will car production, Coca Cola consumption, McDonalds Big Mac purchases, domestic Electricity demand, global increase in Jet aircraft mileage, and a whole host of other contributing factors that have cumulatively contributed to a very complex set of circumstances that just may have something to do with "human activity". |
I am absolutely not an over population denier, i wrote a paper about it in school a looooong time ago. I only called it a debate because i was under the impression that we were debating things. People debate lots of things.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Mon 31-07-23 16:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
Ok, so you dont class yourself as a denier, but you are clearly in denial about that.
The singularity, which often gets talked about in A.I. Or nuclear war Conversations, isnt strictly limit to A.I. Or nuclear war - It is any event from which there is no escape, unfortunately you dont always know you’ve passed the point of no return, and climate change is the prime example.
Nothing vast comes into existence without a curse.
I suppose that by the time the climate does become so unstable it is unable to support our current civilisation most of the climate deniers and those in denial about being deniers will have died content that they were right simply because they didnt live through what is to come.
I do agree that pretty much all the worlds problems are solved by having a smaller population, but when overpopulation is bought up someone always starts behaving like you’re about to commit genocide. |
I'm a questioner
However YOU interpret and label that is YOUR perogative and choice of nomenclature
I was extremely sceptical of the complex mathematical modeling, the forecast, the science, and actions behind COVID-19 and this has made me less likely to just accept what I'm spoonfed by MSM with regards to Climate Change |
I didnt direct my answer at you per se, plenty of people on here claim to be skeptics and questioners etc etc even though the scientific evidence is all there. My statement is directed at each and every one of them, whether you feel the need to defend yourself against being in denial is your prerogative… some might say the lady doth protest too much. If you questions have answers that dont support already held beliefs of something then looking for ‘answers’ that do support certain beliefs is confirmation bias. Dont look at media, read the science for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Extremophile, Thank you for that. Over-population is inextricably linked to over-consumption. That is undeniably "human activity".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| chocksaway wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| RoboJ wrote: |
| ...however, we now have alternatives. |
I generally agree...
However take simple example of electric cars.
As of last 5 years they now have a range of 300-500 miles.
However a new EV costs £40k+ (which most people cant afford).
Plus we need to develop the charging network and grid capacity.
The technology is almost there - but the infrastructure needs to catch up. |
Interesting how there are people driving around in petrol/diesel cars they cant afford outright. But those people seem perfectly happy with hire purchase. For ~£400 a month for 3 years then take it back to the dealer and get a new one… not sure why those very people suddenly cant afford an electric vehicle. But i do agree the charging infrastructure is not there in the UK. France, kn the other hand, is stuffed full of EV charge points… because their cut off date is sooner than UK and they seem to actually take it seriously. |
From what I can find France is not banning the sale of IC cars until 2035, currently 5 years after the UK. Yes they are ahead in charging points which may have quite a lot to do with housing stock, given the preponderance of flats in France we have a lot more houses than they do, so they can’t charge on their drives etc. Ultimately to see the success of any policy you have to look at take up of EV vehicles. Zap map report 810k fully electric and 510 hybrid in the UK in Jul 23, Le Monde report 761k and 449k respectively on 6 May 23. So pretty much even Stephans. |
The first uk date announced was 2040. In the time between announcing the first date, then changing it hardly anything was done regarding infrastructure, and i seem to remember before bringing the date forward there was a lot pressure to put the date back to 2050. Yes, the date is now 2030, but it won’t surprise me if pushing the date back forms part of the next tory manifesto Citing cost of living and infrastructure readiness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skimastaaah wrote: |
| @Extremophile, Thank you for that. Over-population is inextricably linked to over-consumption. That is undeniably "human activity". |
Never said it wasnt. But it is impossible to reduce the population unless by genocide or super deadly pandemic or some other devastating event. So our only other option is to change the foundation of our society… stop burning fossil fuels etc, replant rainforest, stop over consumption, remove excess co2 from atmosphere etc.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Mon 31-07-23 16:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
