 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
I do get a little bit tired of the completely anthopocentric argument that it is ALL down to us, bad, bad, bad, bad humans.
|
Quite!
If I were to believe some of those views, I should probably stop skiing, stop driving and hunt for my own food and live in some mud cave.
The earth will be here for a long time. The earth will change in whatever way it does with or without us. Whether we'll be here or not is entirely up to us. We can adopt the environment to suit us, adopt ourselves to live in the environment, or a combination of the above. I think some restraint to our activity to lessen the impact to the environment is always a good thing. But we can't go back into the cave and eat raw meat any more. So stop feeling guilty about ourselves. If we have to go to the pole to ski, so what? I'll just enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Does the climatologist community benefit from demands for further research into this problem? Extra grants and funding etc?
I am yet to meet a researcher who doesn't tell me "More research is needed"
Turkeys and Xmas?
As has been said before, if they cannot tell me what is going to happen with the weather tomorrow, why should I believe them when they tell me what is going to happen in 100 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Blindside, ...or why believe them when they tell you exactly how warm it was in Egypt about 4000 years before a thremometer was invented 
(or 5 million years ago, or whenever the last ice age was)
I prefer to work on the reliable data that has been accurately measured by people who were there at the time - i.e. the last couple of hundred years. Everything else is extrapolation and scientific guesswork based on theories that may or may not be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
God knows why everyone is going on about climate change - One ski season is a short term weather cycle, climate is a trend over a longer period, such as 30 years. I have dusted off the old meteorology text books and looked for ideas about causes for short term impacts that could lead to warm air cells being hard to move over one area of the Northern hemisphere, while other parts have had an exceptionally good season (ie been cold and snowy). I have found a few phenomena, one that I quite like is called Rossby Waves, these are a product of the jet stream that have a huge influence over air masses in terms of location, temperature and pressure. It is no coincidence that the waves this year are pushing warm air across the Atlantic nearer to the Arctic circle than usual, this cycle moves around the northern hemisphere and can lead to unusually warm air and also cold air. We have encountered one of these jet stream waves at the wrong time of year, it might also affect summer, equally it might not! For all those people offering doom and gloom, most ski resorts are open, they have reasonable snow coverage, the lower slopes are probably not great, but many are open. For all those crowing about Whistler, spare a thought for a resort down the road and across onto Vancouver Island, Mount Washington, two years ago they did not open for skiing until April, yes April, after a late season dump, they had grass and rocks even during February, this year, like Whistler, there has been a bumper year (mid mountain base around 3 metres!). Weather goes in cycles, we will have weird warm weather one year, then the media will be all over a 'mini ice age' the next. Climate change is happening, but it does not start happening during one ski season!! Chill out, I was skiing in 40cms of powder at 1200 metres last week! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| I prefer to work on the reliable data that has been accurately measured by people who were there at the time - i.e. the last couple of hundred years. Everything else is extrapolation and scientific guesswork based on theories that may or may not be true. |
Not true. You need to read up on ice cores
| pitchski wrote: |
| God knows why everyone is going on about climate change - One ski season is a short term weather cycle, |
I think you'll find it's the media/layman that is equating climate change with the poor ski season. I haven't read any climatologist claiming that this poor season is a direct result of and proof of climate change. Climate change is a longer term issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| pitchski wrote: |
| God knows why everyone is going on about climate change - One ski season is a short term weather cycle, |
I think you'll find it's the media/layman that is equating climate change with the poor ski season. I haven't read any climatologist claiming that this poor season is a direct result of and proof of climate change. Climate change is a longer term issue[/quote]
I know that any climatologist would never suggest that one year would mark the beginning of a trend. They may warn us that seasons like the current one may become more frequent if climate change continues though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diarmuid, but if you have no ice in a region (e.g. the UK), then how can you take a core sample, and precisely declare what the temperature was?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diarmuid, I think the article on ice cores confirms WTFH's point. The temperature when the ice was laid down is assumed to correlate with the distribution of isotopes. There's no way in the world that can be anything like as accurate as a mercury (or alcohol) theremometer! Then there's the question of dating the ice at a given depth in the core. Beyond a certain period it is not possible to date the ice to a given year. Five methods are mentioned which are imprecise and don't agree that well with each other. Then there's the point above that the cores are from specific regions of the world so extrapolating to global temperature is no more than intelligent guesswork. So, this work can give us broad trends, but it can't see short term oscillations, nor accurate absolute temperatures.
All of that makes headlines that the earth is warming faster than it ever did during the last 10-100 thousand years impossible to substantiate from the data (I imagine - willing to be proved wrong). To be fair, I expect the original scientific statements of this form are couched very carefully, but the nuances are lost in translation by non-scientific journalists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, yes. It's also one of the reasons that "Carbon dating" is no longer relied on (thankfully - I went out with a lump of coal once - it was the worst date I was ever on, although the post-coital glow of warmth was better than an electric blanket)
So, I'd prefer to work with what is measurable, or has been measured.
If someone has proof that the temperature has changed significantly in the last 30 years compared to the previous 100, then I'd want to know why, and what can be done about it.
If glaciers have melted more in my lifetime than they did in the first half of the 20th century, then maybe that's worth looking at.
If the permafrost where the Inuit live has suddenly disappeared, then I'd like to find out why, and what these people are going to do with their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| It's also one of the reasons that "Carbon dating" is no longer relied on (thankfully - I went out with a lump of coal once - it was the worst date I was ever on, although the post-coital glow of warmth was better than an electric blanket) |
Maybe you chose the wrong kind of carbon to date.
I went out with a diamond once.
It was brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Diarmuid, but if you have no ice in a region (e.g. the UK), then how can you take a core sample, and precisely declare what the temperature was? |
If you are looking for the afternoon temp on June 6th 14324 BC in (what now is) London, well you are right, you can't. But that is not necessary to study the climate (which is different from the weather) and that is what we are discussing ( I think)
From the document
Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information. Inclusions in the snow of each year remain in the ice, such as wind-blown dust, ash, bubbles of atmospheric gas and radioactive substances. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires.
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| So, I'd prefer to work with what is measurable, or has been measured. |
They are. Unfortunatly Ugg in 20000BC didn't keep an accurate record of the daily temps so in order to study climate the temps have to be measured by proxy. Yes they are not as accurate as a mercury thermometer but they are good enough to understand trends.
By your logic we would not do anything about climate change for the next couple hundred years until we have a good history of "accurate" temperatures. This is not a luxury we can afford to take.
Also to claim that carbon dating is no longer relied on is misleading. When carbon dating is performed . not only the estimated age is supplied by the lab but the standard deviation of the result (so you can determine if the accuracy is sufficient for your purpose) The accuracy has been questioned by a number of websites (google) but all on the first few pages I could find were all creationist web sites. If you want to take you science from them, well you're welcome to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| MrDan wrote: |
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  |
Hear hear
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| TwistBarbie wrote: |
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. |
In your opinion..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
True. But not just mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| 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.. |
The world is in a heating cycle.
It has been warming up for the last 15k years.
Since the end of the last Ice Age.
Long before the Industrial Revolution.
That is an indisputable trend. Nature is making us warmer.
But man is also impacting the climate.
If you put more people in a room, the room gets warmer.
Thus, if you put more people on Earth, it will get hotter.
But the human factor is minor, overall.
Nature is mostly responsible.
And there is little we can do about it. |
All I can say is TURN YOUR TV OFF AT THE PLUG TONIGHT - this will gaurantee fab snow next season! - I promise!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| laundryman wrote: |
Diarmuid, I think the article on ice cores confirms WTFH's point. The temperature when the ice was laid down is assumed to correlate with the distribution of isotopes. There's no way in the world that can be anything like as accurate as a mercury (or alcohol) theremometer! Then there's the question of dating the ice at a given depth in the core. Beyond a certain period it is not possible to date the ice to a given year. Five methods are mentioned which are imprecise and don't agree that well with each other. Then there's the point above that the cores are from specific regions of the world so extrapolating to global temperature is no more than intelligent guesswork. So, this work can give us broad trends, but it can't see short term oscillations, nor accurate absolute temperatures.
All of that makes headlines that the earth is warming faster than it ever did during the last 10-100 thousand years impossible to substantiate from the data (I imagine - willing to be proved wrong). To be fair, I expect the original scientific statements of this form are couched very carefully, but the nuances are lost in translation by non-scientific journalists. |
The balance of evidence indicates there was a glacier in London a few thousand years ago.
Now it is gone.
The world is warming up. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
But parts of it are getting colder
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
