 Poster: A snowHead
|
| demos wrote: |
As for science, from what I can see, there's very little serious research which would deny human impact on the currently ongoing change in climate. |
But there is!!! - It just doesn't get in the way of a good story. No-one is denying climate changes - but the reasons for it are still very much in doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Our baby is due in January - can we make that emissions neutral....please 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It's easy to get hostile about the difficult facts staring us skiers in the face about global warming and the potential contribution we all make to it in ski trips. But the consensus from the scientific community is clear enough and I think we have all seen evidence on the glaciers etc.
Many of us will be unable to change our travel habits overnight and it certainly does need global action. But I don't think now that most skiers will want to bury their heads in weird conspiracy theories against the current scientific consensus. I think enough people care about the sport to make sure that the skiing community takes this issue seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| carled wrote: |
| And planes are responsible for, what, about 2% of harmful emissions on the planet...? Change your target. |
No. How about a level playing field? Why should air travel alone be exempt from fuel duty?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shock, Horror.......... Will try and drag an internet thread BACK to title!
The only thing about flying with Ryanair, especially with skis, are the add-on charges. They always charge for check-in, no matter if done on-line or not, always charge for hold baggage (with a VERY small standard allowance), and then quite steep excess charges.
As long as you realise that if you pay a penny for a flight, you get what you pay for - plus hidden taxes, charges etc - no problem!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
SORRY THIS IS A REALLY LONG THREAD BUT ALSO THE FIRST POST IS SLIGHTLY MISLEADING
i tries this booked 2 people at 0.01 each way
the final bill came to 169 for 2
why u have ur taxes and fuel
then u have ur baggage bill at 7 per bag each way
then u have ur ski equipment charge at 15 each way
ive come to one conclusion for ski travel with equipment, just use opodo i.e. the big airlines
as yes this ends up costing 100 per head but it doesnt fly from stansted which costs 40 pounds to get too in a cab or 25 quid for a return train ticket
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ this is true, they're not as cheap as they first seem, it's the same with Easyjet who have now limited baggage allowances and charge for extra baggage and, of blooming course, for ski equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Yes, clearly there is a problem with going it alone - this ultimately has to be a worldwide thing to be much use or the trade will simply go elsewhere. Trouble is I don't see much evidence that governments (even ours) are pushing for huge aviation fuel taxes (in line with our petrol taxes for example). Even Branson is saying we have to do it. We have to at least make a start ourselves.
It may well be that there are general trends of temperatures (possibly it would be going a bit up or a bit down without our input - nobody seems sure) but the rate of change now is unprecedented. In global historic terms this is an almost instant change (though not, of course, compared to the fall-out from the most catastrophic meteor strikes and eruptions which have nearly wiped out life on earth in the past) so there fairly much has to be very specific new reason. We seem to be all there is.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Fri 24-11-06 10:07; 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.
|
|
Dont beleive the hype
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Put a tax on aviation fuel and use it to subsidise the trains. I wanted to go by train to St Anton but I was told it would cost me about £400. I'm flying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Tried getting a trip from Birminham to London on 2nd January (Virgin) - 2 adults, 2 children £768.00 !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
As long as getting a plane or a car for a family of four is cheaper than taking a train (the trip with which last twice as long as with plane and is less flexible as car), there's no way anyone giving them up for the sake of environment.
Suggested reading on societies which have succeeded or failed: Jared Diamond - Collapse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| stevo_the_saddler wrote: |
| snowball, Depends which scientists you listen to though. There was a 15 minute piece on the news the other day, usual media hype, they played a clip of an "expert" scientist who contradicted almost everything the news were reporting - she got 20 seconds and they "carried on regardless" good story you see. Bird flu anyone? |
I keep hearing complaints from scientists that the media's feeling that they have to have a "ballancing" view, however "fringe" it may actually be is giving the impression that there is still substantial disagreement about the basic ideas, which there is not. In the media almost anyone can claim to be an expert (unlike in the best specialist journals). (I am not, of course, saying there is no disagreement or contrary evidence - this is just about never the case in science).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
snowball, there are far more non-experts given air-time to talk about "catastrophic" climate change (a word most sober scientists would steer clear of) than non-experts giving a less devastating prognosis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
'Stevo_the_Saddler said that his Birmingham to London trip was costing £768 on 2nd January, 2 adult & 2 children. How about £46.60 with a Family Railcard (add £20 but it lasts for a year) for a cheap day single, checked on 'The Trainline' this morning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
All I am trying to point out - is that it is not "cut and dry" about the cause of climate change - I am not saying it isn't happening - but I am saying that it will happen regardless of whether I take a cheap (or expensie) flight to the alps. Climate change has and will always happen. The media love to jump on "scare" stories and governments like to keep us in a "state of fear". If we beleive all that is thrown at us in the media/from governments then we would be falling like flies with bird flu, every other muslim wants to blow themselves up, we would all have mad cows disease, the russians are coming to get us (20 years ago), Iraq has weapons of mass distruction..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
velodocuk, I said with Virgin - I can do other options by searching around - but the default is Virgin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
velodocuk, Obviously I didn't book it ! I will take my Gasguzzler instead!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, hurray - someone else taking notice of the "silent"
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| snowball wrote: |
| In global historic terms this is an almost instant change (though not, of course, compared to the fall-out from the most catastrophic meteor strikes and eruptions which have nearly wiped out life on earth in the past) so there fairly much has to be very specific new reason. We seem to be all there is. |
What do you mean by "global historic"? I would imagine that temperatures have been recorded globally and continuously for no more than about 150 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
heheh being eco frdly is great.. slagging off 4x4 owners is easy.. but not go sking!! dont be ludicrous.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Stevo the saddler..... OK - Virgin. I can get £64.10 for a saver return for 2+2 on 2nd Jan(with family railcard), coming back a week later (if you need to). Any more quotes and I'll need commission! Paul 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
velodocuk, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stevo_the_saddler wrote: |
| All I am trying to point out - is that it is not "cut and dry" about the cause of climate change - I am not saying it isn't happening - but I am saying that it will happen regardless of whether I take a cheap (or expensie) flight to the alps. Climate change has and will always happen. The media love to jump on "scare" stories and governments like to keep us in a "state of fear". If we beleive all that is thrown at us in the media/from governments then we would be falling like flies with bird flu, every other muslim wants to blow themselves up, we would all have mad cows disease, the russians are coming to get us (20 years ago), Iraq has weapons of mass distruction.......... |
The trouble with this statement is that on this particular issue, my government at least does not like to keep us in a "state of fear", as you say, but rather a "state of denial".
I'd have though that for a bunch of skiers at least, the increasingly warm winters of recent years and the shrinking of glaciers would have at least raised a few red flags.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| snowball wrote: |
| In global historic terms this is an almost instant change (though not, of course, compared to the fall-out from the most catastrophic meteor strikes and eruptions which have nearly wiped out life on earth in the past) so there fairly much has to be very specific new reason. We seem to be all there is. |
What do you mean by "global historic"? I would imagine that temperatures have been recorded globally and continuously for no more than about 150 years. |
He means geological terms. The rate of change, due mainly to anthropogenic causes is almost unprecedented. How much change there will be, and how much will be damaging and when it will all occur are the only subjects of debate in the peer-reviewed areas. Take for example se-level rise AFAICT, the mainstream thinking atm is that by 2100 (everything else being equal) we will have committed the planet to ~5-8 meters of sea-level rise over the next 1000-few 1000 years. There are some serious scientists who are looking at evidence that hint a a quicker rise (and there is some geological precedent), but this is very much a minority view.
Whether all changes are bad is another point, and this example shows quite an interesting circularity. The rate of excess deaths in winter in the UK is very high (higher than the European excess deaths in the summer 2003, or at least on a par). Last winter the numbers were down because we had a mild winter. Thus as global warming increases and the winters get milder, the rate should go down. However, the rate in other, colder countries (Austria, Scandinavia), is higher than in the UK, so it must be a combination of more than just the temperatures. Most deaths are not from cold, but from other illnesses, including heart problems but all are triggered by cold spells. It seems that there is a strong link between the "coldness" of the housing (and it's dampness) and the incidence of increased winter deaths (this may not be a surprise, but the prevailing view has tended to be that poverty is a string factor where people cannot afford to pay for heating - however the increase rate cuts across most wealth bands). So, if the houses of the elderly were brought up the same standard of the Scandinavian countries, the rate of excess deaths would drop. Interestingly, heating houses is one of the main UK causes of CO2 emissions, and if we insulated our houses to the same standard as the Scandinavians, then we'd cut CO2 emssions. Thus we can see that some mitigation effects will also help solve current problems so the "costs" can be off-set against current problems. Another example is that of cutting pollution (which can damage buildings and causes a lot of annual deaths and ill-health) from diesels by finding alternative forms of power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| skanky wrote: |
| He means geological terms. |
In that time-frame, how accurate are the proxies to temperature, and to time, and to what extent are the proxy measurments global? (You seem like a guy who might know.  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Icecores are a common source of proxy data on temperature, mud-cores are another as there are various old lifeforms that leave evidence of past climate behind. In More recent times old trees can provide info on local conditions. In the UK there is the Central England Temperature record which is accurate back to 1659 - but to some extent is skewed by the 'Little Ice Age', shame the CET didn't go back through the Medeval Warm Period.
The issue with climate is that climate is awalys changing, from short term cycles measured in years to cycles of 100,000s to millions of years. Major long term drivers are the shape of the Earths Orbit more circular or more streached, tilt of the Earths Axis and distance from the Sun. Each cycle is predictable and how they interact are a significant VERY long term driver of climate.
Since the end of the last ice age proper, we've had warmer conditions, glacial re-advance in the Loch Lomond Stadial, colder conditions in the Little Ice Age (There is some evidence of glacial activity in the Northern Corries of CairnGorm Mountain as late as the 1800s). The natural tree line on the Cairngorms is about a 1000ft lower than it's highest point since the last ice age - climate has been warmer and less severe on these mountains than now in the last 10,000years.
This all makes it hard to determine the balance between GW and AGW - put that is not an excuse not to act, even if AGW turns out to be a lot of hot air (er no pun intended) we should still seek to be more sustainable, reduce pollution and anyway we need to face up to the fact that oil is finite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
| You seem like a guy who might know. |
Well not really, but I know where to look: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/067.htm This is a little out of date now, and AR4 next year should update it.
My take (FWIW) is that in terms of climatic change, which is what we're talking here, we are looking at sea-level, ice extent, dating of vegetation and sedimentary rocks etc and I've not seen anything to call into question the timescales of these changes. As regards to temperature proxies well the error bars are quite big but not so as they are unusable, and you get global temperatures by combining many different proxies, however they are more useful in showing whether the magnitude of the temperature change is precedented or not, which doesn't necessarily alter the actual effects we may or may not see (though it may help show what they may be).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
| This all makes it hard to determine the balance between GW and AGW |
That depends. It has no bearing on whether AGW is happening as that is directly measurable and attributable and based on sound physics. However, as AGW gets stronger you would expect the effects to become more clear from the noise. The issue is, do you wait to see them and say "Ah yes that's definitely AGW caused" and then live with it, or do you say "Here's what we think will happen at this time, can we live with that?", and hope that you can prevent it if you don't want to, or do you say "Let's limit the effects as much as possible". None of which are mutually exclusive, obviously but all have different aspects that need to be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I read in the Independent-not exactly a supporter of environmental destruction-yesterday that, even assuming the fastest growth in air travel, it will only account for about 6% of global emissions of CO2 by 2050. I know that aircraft CO2 goes straight into the upper atmosphere, so it has more of an effect than if emitted at ground level-but even so, as carled, says it's a red herring and easy target, and should not be an immediate priority if we want to make a fast impact. If anthing, low cost airlines are more energy efficient-they have higher loading and more modern planes than the national flag-carriers which are only kept afloat by huge govt subsidies.
About 2/3rds of emissions come from electricity generation, and 15% from other forms of transport (principally cars). The technology is already there to deal with this-particularly carbon removal and burial, renewable generation methods, improving home insulation-so we should be looking to get those introduced now. Apparently, we could cut electricity use by 10% is we all changed to efficient lightbulbs!!
the main issue with flying is running out of oil at some point the future. At the moment, there is no sign whatsoever of a replacement airline fuel which has the same energy density as jetfuel.
But I do think that it should be taxed fairly-E.g. VAT, so that other modes of transport can compete on a level playing field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
snowhound, If I read you correctly, you conclude that tripling the CO2 emissions from one source does not matter while other CO2 emissions should be cut? Yet, you are talking of a level playing field... Your exact logic is what?
Also, should we all agree that since 2/3 indeed come from generating electricity, we should move purely to nuclear generation as there is no plausible alternative, or just cut our consumption - meaning really seriously cutting at household level too, not just in industrial production, thus return to the level of just after 2nd WW?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
My point is that although CO2 emissions from airtravel are growing quickly in % terms (2-6% is tripling-a 200% increase), they are still relatively insignificant in the wider scheme of things. Therefore, given we are highly unlikely to solve all issues at once, anything we do to tackle airline emissions (E.g. reducing the increase from 6% to 5%) is not going to make much of a difference. Whilst cutting emissions from electricity generation would quickly make a big difference so this should be an immediate priority.
Re. level playing field-I meant between different modes of transport. Jetfuel is effectively subsidised because it is not taxed whilst other fuels-petrol, elec for trains-are.
I agree that nuclear capacity does have to grow-although it obviously has its own not-insignificant downsides, it can work as a stop-gap over the next few decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
demos,
| Quote: |
| you conclude that tripling the CO2 emissions from one source |
is merely being lazy with statistics. The point that both snowhound and I are in agreement with is that air transport is not the target to choose at present and, even if those figures are right, still won't be in 2050!
2-6% of the problem is not where you should be starting. That's like fronting an initiative to cut vehicle accident rates by getting milk floats, refuse collection lorries and gritters off the road (which are involved in a very small percentage of accidents each year).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowhound wrote: |
My point is that although CO2 emissions from airtravel are growing quickly in % terms (2-6% is tripling-a 200% increase), they are still relatively insignificant in the wider scheme of things. Therefore, given we are highly unlikely to solve all issues at once, anything we do to tackle airline emissions (E.g. reducing the increase from 6% to 5%) is not going to make much of a difference. Whilst cutting emissions from electricity generation would quickly make a big difference so this should be an immediate priority.
I agree that nuclear capacity does have to grow-although it obviously has its own not-insignificant downsides, it can work as a stop-gap over the next few decades. |
Two points: it is not more difficult to tackle airline emissions than it is to tackle car emissions. In fact, it would probably be the other way around. While I agree that it will not solve the whole problem, it is worth picking the lowest hanging fruit first. And I hasten to add that for me currently, any increase in flight fares is a total disaster for personal family reasons. Still, I understand fully the need to act.
Secondly, if we now make a policy decision to build nuclear, it will be 2020 before any of that is made available and is running. Past experience proofs that nuclear takes 10-15 years minimum from decision to build to delivering energy. What are we going to do in the meantime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
OK. So realistically what happens in the "attack the airline" scenario.
1. Budget flights leap in price. Don't know how much by, but maybe back up to "pre budget flight" prices
2. Passenger numbers on planes greatly reduced, almost all domestic flight routes abandoned
3. Several small airlines will go bust, leading to amalgamation and monopoly in the marketplace, prices probably go even higher
4. Passengers who can't afford high prices make choice of how to get to destination. For foreign travel it's ferry, train, coach or car (or combination of all three), thus leading to increased demand, increased prices, more carbon emissions from extra services put on by trains, planes and, of course, automobiles...
5. Those who can afford it keep flying, so carbon emissions still occurring, just not at quite so high a rate.
6. People drive more (less or no opportunities to fly to/from Scotland & Ireland) and therefore create more emissions...
So the way I see it, attacking air travel just has a negligible effect. Granted the airlines ought to be working towards fueling aircraft with more efficient/renewable energy (I keep telling people, airships WILL come back into use - it'll take longer to get to places, but it'll be much more efficient) but the green lobby would be far better off spending their time on attacking a useful target rather than the red herring of air travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's give another realistic scenario:
1. Prices of budget airlines take a hike. Ordinary intra-EU flight will cost 300-500 euro return.
2. This limits number of passengers. Domestic flights will be reduced, but most budget airlines do not fly domestic, so it makes a minute difference there.
3. Several small airlines go bust, as they already have. Only those which are profitable, survive. This is happening already.
4. Passengers would prefer to choose fast trains as Governments feel compelled to take measures against global warming (does the UK have a single one fast train?). Train CO2 emissions/passenger are a fraction of the airlines. Alternatively, those who cannot use the train, will use car, as they often have until now. And even without further investments in less polluting cars, CO2 emissions/user of a car are a fraction of air-travelling.
5. Those who can afford to fly, will fly with airlines which use some of the ticket price to buy emission quotas and make their travel CO2-neutral.
6. The next Conservative Government decides to build a TGV between all major regional cities in the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
