 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| professorpool wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| professorpool, so are you saying that no matter what pollutants we pump into the world, we are having no effect, that good old mother nature is taking care of everything, and there's nothing we can do to make the air cleaner, or stop water becoming polluted? |
Nope.
How did you come to that conclusion? |
I think it was this post that kinda hinted at it...
| professorpool wrote: |
| The idea that a planet that is 60 million billion zillion years old or whatever has somehow been affected by what a few ant like creatures have done in the last hundred years or so is slightly laughable.. |
You find it laughable that humans have had an effect on the planet, but when I ask you if that is the case, you say no.
Your argument is confusing me. Which is it? Are humans affecting the planet or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
Nature is mostly responsible.
And there is little we can do about it. |
Nothing like a fatalist attitude, and the ability to free oneself of any guilt.
(I guess you could blame "Nature" for making coal and oil, so it's "Nature's" fault for any man made pollution) |
Humans are biological beings.
Everything we do is Nature at work.
Manmade is, ultimately, Nature-made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Yes a `habit`. Scientific theory (or orthodoxy) changes continuously - and radically. If it didn`t, we`d still be heliocentrists and a lot else besides.
The fact that scientific certainties change on a regular basis is not a criticism of the scientific/empirical method. Quite the reverse. Arguably the great strength of science is that is constantly evolving or changing in order to explain fresh data and information.
But the point remains. Scientific `certainties` must be approached with some circumspection. What is `certain` today may well appear less so in the future when better/different measuring techniques are availabe and better/more accurate data is available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
Nature is mostly responsible.
And there is little we can do about it. |
Nothing like a fatalist attitude, and the ability to free oneself of any guilt.
(I guess you could blame "Nature" for making coal and oil, so it's "Nature's" fault for any man made pollution) |
Humans are biological beings.
Everything we do is Nature at work.
Manmade is, ultimately, Nature-made. |
So, "not my fault" in other words?
Who can I blame? Let's blame my parents! Let's blame my country! Let's blame someone else! Let's blame anyone but me, cause that would mean I might just have to accept the responsibility for my own actions...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| professorpool wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| professorpool, so are you saying that no matter what pollutants we pump into the world, we are having no effect, that good old mother nature is taking care of everything, and there's nothing we can do to make the air cleaner, or stop water becoming polluted? |
Nope.
How did you come to that conclusion? |
I think it was this post that kinda hinted at it...
| professorpool wrote: |
| The idea that a planet that is 60 million billion zillion years old or whatever has somehow been affected by what a few ant like creatures have done in the last hundred years or so is slightly laughable.. |
You find it laughable that humans have had an effect on the planet, but when I ask you if that is the case, you say no.
Your argument is confusing me. Which is it? Are humans affecting the planet or not? |
You're making an obtuse argument. I make an "effect" on the environment by simply opening the door and walking down my path - as do all creatures have an "affect" on the planet.
My post followed on from a previous one and references global warming. Man does not impact the climate - imho of course.
No post on this or any other thread advocates "doing nothing" nor do I endorse water pollution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| beetle wrote: |
| Yes a `habit`. Scientific theory (or orthodoxy) changes continuously - and radically. If it didn`t, we`d still be heliocentrists and a lot else besides. |
I'm well aware of the progress of science, but I assumed from what you had written that you were saying that science habitually contradicts itself, rather than deepening the understanding of certain phenomena with only occasional debunking of previously held orthodoxies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Whitegold, are you trying to write Haiku for losers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well if the earth is warming up who's to say it's a bad thing. Many people assume we are at some kind of optimal climatic position already. Have these people seen my gas bill ? Warmer weather less money to gas company. More old people die in the UK in the winter than summer. Dry arid lands may become wetter - who knows? One thing we can be sure of is that fossil fuels are finite, we need to use what's left sensibly and find alternate energy sources - nuke, burning excess fat off the obese, wind power (though not too much wind power or there be none left for my windsurfing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| beetle wrote: |
Yes a `habit`. Scientific theory (or orthodoxy) changes continuously - and radically. If it didn`t, we`d still be heliocentrists and a lot else besides.
The fact that scientific certainties change on a regular basis is not a criticism of the scientific/empirical method. Quite the reverse. Arguably the great strength of science is that is constantly evolving or changing in order to explain fresh data and information.
But the point remains. Scientific `certainties` must be approached with some circumspection. What is `certain` today may well appear less so in the future when better/different measuring techniques are availabe and better/more accurate data is available. |
This is all true, but it should not be an excuse for ignoring scientific consensus.
I'm glad we didn't take the same approach when it came to the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, lead in water/petrol/paint, asbestos in walls, etc. We humans alter our environment, and we would be wise to keep an eye on what effects that can have.
Can we say with 100% certainty that greenhouse gas emmision are the cause of climate change? No. But do you really want to wait until we can say that with 100% certainty? I'm wílling to trust the "very likely" - or probablity of more than 90% - that the IPCC assigns, and get on with fixing this mess. It's the responsible thing to do.
And what if it is all wrong? We end up with "only" cleaner air. That'd be a real shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I still find it interesting that nobody has commented on the Global Dimming theory... all a bit one-sided really!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| ami in berlin wrote: |
| And what if it is all wrong? We end up with "only" cleaner air. |
Well that depends on what is done and what the costs are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| the ability to free oneself of any guilt. |
Do you feel guilty personally about global warming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Aha, my apologies!
I find the dimming aspect extremely intriguing... I take it you have read about the 9/11 contrails investigation also?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
I'm well aware of the progress of science, but I assumed from what you had written that you were saying that science habitually contradicts itself, rather than deepening the understanding of certain phenomena with only occasional debunking of previously held orthodoxies.
|
Science regularly (or habitually if you prefer) changes its views. Previously held orthodoxies are frequently debunked. Scientific understanding of natural phenomena becomes more sophisticated, or `deeper`, as a result of fundamental changes of view. Scientifc `progress` does in many instances proceed incrementally. But - many of the most radical and far reaching changes of view/approach in science are truly radical and revolutionary and involve a complete rejection, or at least a very fundamental revision of existing certainties. To give but a few examples: geocentrism; Newtonian mechanics; evolution; general relativity, quantum mechanics - even the question of whether ancient Polar forests were deciduous (accepted view until 2003 was that they weren`t because lack of light in the Arctic would have made photosynthesis impossible).
The fact that science is certain about something today is no guarantee that it will not change its mind. Today`s scientifc orthodoxy is (apparently) that man is a significant contributor to global temperature increases. The scientific orthodoxy 20 years ago was rather different. Who knows what the position will be in another 20 years.
As someone else pointed out above - for all our scientific knowhow and expertise we cannot even accurately predict the weather 7 days down the line. The reason (or at least one reason) is that even short term weather is hugely complex and multi-factorial.
Is that a reason for us to sit on our hands and do nothing ? In my opinion - it`s not. Better safe than sorry. But that`s just my view.
Facsinating debate by the way. Lots more interesting than working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
Can we say with 100% certainty that greenhouse gas emmision are the cause of climate change? No. But do you really want to wait until we can say that with 100% certainty? I'm wílling to trust the "very likely" - or probablity of more than 90% - that the IPCC assigns, and get on with fixing this mess. It's the responsible thing to do.
And what if it is all wrong? We end up with "only" cleaner air. That'd be a real shame.
|
What`s your beef ? I actually concluded my stint on the soap box by stating "Having said that, the argument that we should seek to exercise a little more consideration for our environment would seem to be prudent."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Robbof wrote: |
| I take it you have read about the 9/11 contrails investigation also? |
I dimly remember reading about it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
beetle, I think we probably agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rob@rar, but your consensus will be overturned in 20 years! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| the ability to free oneself of any guilt. |
Do you feel guilty personally about global warming? |
Do I feel guilty for things that I do that have a negative consequence?
Of course I do! That's what makes me human. If I didn't, I'd just be a bunch of chemicals, and how sad an entity I would be then.
Do you ever feel guilty for your actions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel guilty for contributing to polution by getting in my car or getting on to a plane and heading to a ski resort to carry out an activity that serves nothing but my own pleasure.
Errr, honestly I do 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I think one predicted effect of global warming is to move the position of the Gulf Stream. This could in theory make it possible to have ski resorts in England, thereby reducing the environmental damage done by cars and planes to the alps! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| Do you ever feel guilty for your actions? |
Yes.
I was wondering whether you (actually any snowHead) felt guilty about skiing in relation to global warming. I don't, as it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| Do you ever feel guilty for your actions? |
Yes.
I was wondering whether you (actually any snowHead) felt guilty about skiing in relation to global warming. I don't, as it happens. |
Nope!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
laundryman, nor me. any more so than i do for using this computer or eating my lunch. most aspects of our lives involve the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore carbon emissions. however, politically it's much easier to put the blame on things which can be perceived as luxuries.
personally, i think we are far too far down the road of industrialisation to be able to do anything positive about climate change. aren't we also supposed to be helping developing, particularly african, countries industrialise to bring them out of abject poverty? so we create another swathe of fossil fuel consumers to go along with the more recently industrialised countries like india, china and brazil? and who says they shouldn't when the US and Europe wouldn't dream of giving up their lovely, comfy, consuming industrialised lives?
to me it seems logical that we would have to turn the clock back about 200 yrs to slow down the human effects on climate change. who's gonna do that??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Indeed.
We are probably going to eventually end up in a world a lot like that in Blade Runner except with better shirt collars..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
But the human factor is minor, overall.
Nature is mostly responsible.
And there is little we can do about it. |
Now, I'm no climatologist so I have to defer to their expertise in this matter. And from what I've read, there is a growing consensus that we are greatly increasing the rate of temperature change.
If you have evidence to the contrary then I (and more importantly the people studying this effect) would be very interested in seeing it. Otherwise this is a pure head-in-the-sand attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
There is evidence about and it is certainly clear that not all scientists agree. When I get home or maybe sometime over the weekend when I get a moment, I'll post a few links..
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| professorpool wrote: |
| There is evidence about and it is certainly clear that not all scientists agree. When I get home or maybe sometime over the weekend when I get a moment, I'll post a few links.. |
How kind of you.
But before you begin, let's just make a few things clear:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Conclusion: Yep. Pretty much all scientists actually do agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Diarmuid wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
But the human factor is minor, overall.
Nature is mostly responsible.
And there is little we can do about it. |
Now, I'm no climatologist so I have to defer to their expertise in this matter. And from what I've read, there is a growing consensus that we are greatly increasing the rate of temperature change.
If you have evidence to the contrary then I (and more importantly the people studying this effect) would be very interested in seeing it. Otherwise this is a pure head-in-the-sand attitude. |
See previous post.
The world has been heating up for 15k years.
Since the end of the last Ice Age.
Long before modern man and the Industrial Revolution.
The world was roughly 30% covered in ice 15k years ago.
Now it is 10% covered.
The ice is melting.
Nature is melting the ice.
It has been for thousands of years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Whitegold, when was the quickest rate of change?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
now i believe there is a human aspect to climate change but couple of things about that article:
this quote is a very easy statement to make, but has no back up:
"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members"
there is also alot of use of the word "likely" and "might" comes into it a few times. this quote is also interesting "Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics."
this emotive argument is always at the bottom of it:
"But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."
do you always trust the media? do you trust governments? will taking fewer flights, recycling bottles and driving your car less make any impact on climate change? or is the issue much bigger than that? none of this is known and alot of the responses are knee jerk. that's what p*sses me off. what are the big ticket items that will make a large difference? how are governments confronting them? nuclear power would make a huge difference but that makes peoples knees jerk left right and centre!! never mind that about 20% of the uk's electricity already comes from nuclear...... as for the aussies banning lightbulbs in favour of energy saving bulbs. why don't they confront the real issue which is the source of the power used to make and power those bulbs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
See previous post.
|
You'd bettter let the guys who have spent their lives studying it know that you've cracked 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.
|
If anyone is interested in looking at the figures, I suggest that you follow this link:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf
It will take you to a summary of the recent IPCC report. The full report will be available on line later this year. The graphs on page 3 showing the change in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane (a much more powerful greenhouse gas) and nitrous oxide are well worth looking at.
On the original question, variations from one year to the next mean very little, bad luck effectively, but in the longer term we have been pumping an awful lot of stuff into the atmosphere over the last couple of centuries and the chances of this not being responsible for part of the warming over that period are extremely small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really interesting thread and took me away from the mundane office work today. For my two pennies worth (and that may beall that it's worth ) I reckon that human activity and the production of C02 is of course something that will exacerbate what is already occuring. I'm not a climatologist or anything so I can't bandy around figures for what this would be as a percentage but it occurs to me it would be small in comparison to outputs of methane from, for example, farm animals (yep, a lot of cows eating and fermenting a lot of grass must create a bit of a stink globally ). Also natural emissions from peat bogs, marsh land etc would all account for a huge amount wouldn't it?
Cutting down on dependence of fossil fuels should be done beacuse if you think about it, it just makes sense! And, as a side effect, it also cuts down our impact on the atmosphere. I do get a little bit tired of the completely anthopocentric argument that it is ALL down to us, bad, bad, bad, bad humans.
So, to conclude and revert back to the original post - why is it so damn warm in the alps? Weather patterns, some years blow hot, some blow cool as has happened for many. many days before I've been around
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
