 Poster: A snowHead
|
demos, that is hilarious. Sorry but it's a load of neo-socialist claptrap. My particular favourite bit was:
| Quote: |
| most budget airlines do not fly domestic |
Now I KNOW you don't know what you're talking about... Go and look at, ooh, bmibaby, easyjet, ryanair, vueling, germanwings, flydba... oh, I'm running out of the will to type them all... then look at the number of domestic routes... you will be very, very surprised...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
carled,
demos is based in Brussels I suspect that there are not that many domestic flights in Belgium 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| ami in berlin wrote: |
| 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. |
But glaciers elsewhere are growing - this is my point - we only ever hear 1 side of the story. And anyone who spent any time skiing in Europe last season will tell you just how good it was. It snowed for most of February non-stop!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Carled, T Bar, Indeed I am not referring to the UK. You on the other hand, do not seem to know anything beyond your coastline. I care little where budget airlines are flying domestic or international routes. They'd much better be replaced by trains for anything under 500 km distance.
Oh, and you're the first one ever to call me (neo)socialist. The whole solution to climate change can be driven by business and government. It makes commercial sense, but governments are not ready.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| stevo_the_saddler wrote: |
| ami in berlin wrote: |
| 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. |
But glaciers elsewhere are growing - this is my point - we only ever hear 1 side of the story. And anyone who spent any time skiing in Europe last season will tell you just how good it was. It snowed for most of February non-stop!!!! |
Glacier information can be found here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/064.htm and here: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
skanky, ive shown those charts to one of our 'chartists' here.. they show signs of forming a distinctive base and look to move higher shortly.. we need to start burning carbon sharpish or the gritters will be out
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CANV CANVINGTON, the glacier charts? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skanky,
Financial analysts believe in looking at dogs entrails and teacups for their predictions cos they are as reliable as anything else they can come up with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
T Bar, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowball wrote: |
| In global historic terms this is an almost instant change |
| laundryman wrote: |
| What do you mean by "global historic"? |
| skanky wrote: |
| He means geological terms |
| laundryman wrote: |
| In that time-frame, how accurate are the proxies to temperature, and to time, and to what extent are the proxy measurments global? |
| skanky wrote: |
| 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,... |
I'm calling the timescales into question!  Are the proxy measurements (over geological time) once a year, decade, century, millenium, 10,000 years...? And to what accuracy are the proxy measurements of time, and to what extent can they be correlated at different points (how many?) on the earth? That has a rather important bearing on the sustainability of the oft-repeated claim in the popular media that global warming is happening at a faster rate now than has occurred before - a version of which is implied by your interpretation of snowball's original claim.
| Quote: |
| 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). |
So how accurate are the 'deltas'? I think the average temperature of the earth's land surface is reckoned to be increasing at around 0.25C per decade over the last couple of decades (the surface of the oceans, less). So to test the conjecture, the deltas would have to be accurate to about 0.1C per decade at the worst - and we would need data points at least every 5 years or so. My guess is that the quality and quantity of the data is nowhere near good enough to sustain the claim - but it's arguably etched into public consciousness, through the good offices of the BBC, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
It's not just Ryan air that have cheap prices, I bagged Liverpool to Basel for 2 of us with Easyjet inc all taxes and ski carriage for £100.
Ryanair has more add ons above the base price, as well as taxes, you have credit card surchage, and then a fixed fee to put a bag in the hold + you ski fee (if you take your own skis)
Cheers,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
That depends on what you are measuring. This article by Stefan Rahmsdorf on rapid climate events phrases it rather differently:
| Quote: |
| A global warming of 3 or 5 ºC within a century, as we are likely causing in this century unless we change our ways, has so far not been documented in climate history. |
I have seen the statement that a 3C+ global temperature increase in a century is (so far) unprecedented in so many places that I couldn't state from whence it came originally, but I'd recommend reading chapter 2 of the IPCC TAR WG1 report as it may well be stated in there (it's been a while since I read it). I linked to it above. Most often if you read about geological periodic shifts, then tend to be discussed in the 1000 year timescale. I've not paid much attention to the nuts and bolts of paleoclimatology (life's too short), but I've not encountered anything that suggests that they may be missing some large, century-scaled global temperature changes. If you find any, I'd be interested to see them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skanky, the quote is rather carefully phrased. Just because it hasn't been documented, doesn't mean to say that it hasn't happened. If geological trends are discussed in a 1000-year timescale (and I suspect it's rather longer than that beyond the "recent" past), then of course it's entirely possible that a 100 or 200 year trend has been missed altogether - rather like observing sea level at noon once a day, from which you would conclude that the tide came in and out about every two weeks, rather than twice a day.
Of course he's also talking about a predicted change in this century (about which there are large uncertainties) rather than the actual change last century, which was about one quarter the size.
Similar statements in the non-specialist media tend to be much less carefully worded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Of course it's obvious (and easy to say) that because it's not been documented doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I would have thought that something as major as a global temperature rise of 3C would leave an imprint - if only in the sea-level rise. Also its cause would be something that would have to be pretty big (like a massive injection of CO2 or a major orbital cycle as examples). You may miss the high tide, but you can postulate it should have happened, and you can even see evidence that it did as it will have affected the shoreline. Anyway, even if there have been other events like this in the past, it does not stop this one from being a "almost instant change" - there's nothing about very short timescales that insists on exclusivity. That the changes so far found in the record take place over timescales ten times as long, shows that this is, by comparison, an instant change.
The only uncertainty about the change this century is whether or not humans cut their emissions to avoid reaching 560ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
skanky, it's obvious, easy to say, and highly germane.
A century that was 3C warmer (on average) at the end than at the beginning, a million years ago. What imprint would that leave?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
A century that was 3C warmer (on average) at the end than at the beginning, a million years ago. What imprint would that leave? |
Not being either geologist, climatologist, or a paleoclimatologist, I'll have to let you know in 90 years time. However, Raymond Pierrehumbert says this of it* (pdf):
| Quote: |
| Seen by a geologist a million years from now, the era of global warming will probably not seem as consequential as the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. It will, however, appear in the geological record as an event comparable to such major events as the onset or termination of an ice age or the transition to the hot, relatively ice free climates that prevailed seventy million years ago when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. It will be all the more cataclysmic for having taken place in the span of one or a few centuries, rather than millennia or millions of years. |
I'm sure other comparisons are out there.
| Quote: |
| it's obvious, easy to say, and highly germane. |
But it also doesn't alter the fact that it is "almost instant".
*I'm sure I've posted this paper on here before in discussions like this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
skanky, that looks interesting. I shall have to read it in full. I take note of the phrase "one or a few centuries" which implies a large degree of uncertainty.
The "almost instant" phrase was used to describe what is happening "now", not in the next one or few centuries. I think between 1980 (roughly when the current warming phase kicked off after a bit of a pause and 2005) is a reasonable definition for "now" in the context. I still don't see any evidence that such an episode would show up in the geological record if it occurred beyond the limited record of ice cores - and possibly not even then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| all domestic flight routes abandoned |
There really ought to be little need for domestic airtravel in a country the size of the UK, esp the very short haul flights (with exception perhaps of island services). In some ways the expanding air travel is an indiciment of the poor state and lack of strategic investment in transport, air travel is a copout because it doesn't need infrastructure between airports.
A plane uses a hell of a lot of fuel getting up there and back down in a controlled manor - the longer the flight the more efficient air travel becomes, another reason why our use of air travel is better kept for long distance travel where there is no realistic alternative at this time.
Rail Travel is not perfect, all transport has some environmental cost, but I wonder if one factor in the UK not having high speed rail is the potentially huge social shifts it could cause. I posted a map up here a while back of a high speed rail network commute times to London. The potential effects of having Highland Scotland within a 3hr train journey from London would be massive. On the other hand there is a lack of space, houses, water etc in the South East so... why not bite the bullet (train)? Sorry its late, I'll get my coat, or rather ski jacket 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I once read that a train full of passengers is less environmentally friendly than the equivalent number of people driving their cars for the same journey, especially if the train is not full !
It would be interesting to work out which has the better carbon footprint, a load of people flying to Salzburg or the equivalent number of people driving from the UK to Salzburg.
Also I use my car quite a lot when at home, so do I use more carbon driving around for a week than a return flight to a ski resort where I do not drive?
The statistics with regard to this issue are always weighted in favour of which ever side is proffering the stats !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
skanky,
Financial analysts believe in looking at dogs entrails and teacups for their predictions cos they are as reliable as anything else they can come up with. |
i was going to pass this message on to our highly trained well paid team of experts.. but it might give them some ideas..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| I once read that a train full of passengers is less environmentally friendly than the equivalent number of people driving their cars for the same journey, especially if the train is not full ! |
I've read a similar claim but this applied to rush hour(s) commuting where the car makes the journey once inwards and stops (and similarly at the end of the day) whereas the trains make a number of return journeys empty to pick up the next lot of commuters. The claim made was the comparative studies only counted the full train journeys and ignored the empty ones, thus more or less halving the real CO2 etc impact of the train.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
