 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
that's just nuts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I blame it on the sheep and the subsequent hole in the ozone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Surely, sheep don't run on fossil fuel...
BTW, PG, do you know of anywhere in UK I can find grass skis? I saw some on ebay a while ago, never thought I'd want them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
In Europe the best tracked skis are made in Austria by Christian Balek, a former world champ at the sport. We buy ours on line from him at http://www.grasski.com/ - there are no UK manufacturers.
A drawback is that grass skiing is quite a 'technical' sport - i.e. there's quite a few parts in a grass ski! One reason that it's remained a fringe sport is that ski maintenance is vital and in comparison to skiing on snow, a little time-consuming. I'll put a more comprehensive guide to the sport on the forum some time soon....
Cleaning skis at the end of the day
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Thanks for the links, PG. How do you choose the right size? Is it a matter of preference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The grass skis look surprisingly good value for money, considering the realtively low (I suspect) production volume, the cost of design and CNC set up, and the degree of manual work required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"....there are no UK manufacturers"
Back in the Seventies, not only was there a snow ski factory in Aviemore (Vielhaber), there was a grass ski manufacturer in the south of England (Grilson). They were pretty clunky grass skis, with a set of four rollers instead of caterpillar tracks, but they worked.
I guess there are people still grass skiing in Britain, but I've heard very little about it in the last 10 years. What has this got to do with cloud seeding in Australia, by the way? I suppose it helps the grass grow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
| What has this got to do with cloud seeding in Australia |
Zilch, I imagine - that's the nice thing about forums - threads tend to wander!
I imagine MartinH had noticed that PG was interested in grass skiing, and took the opportunity to discuss the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote="MartinH"]Surely, sheep don't run on fossil fuel...
No but they emit lots of CH4!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Here's Mark Lynas's take on this... he's just published a book on the effects of global warming...
"the idea is very, very stupid... As a techno-fix solution, which nicely illustrates human folly in trying to engineer away the symptoms of climate change, it's a winner. As a project to "mitigate the impact of climate change on our precious alpine environment", in the words of state agriculture minister Ian Macdonald, it's bound to be a dead loss - and possibly even seriously damaging to other regions. D'uh!"
http://www.marklynas.org/blog/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cloud seeding from aircraft as a means of inducing rain is one thing but I can't get my head round the use of hot air to blow the silver iodide up into the clouds. People have been playing with cloud seeding for a long time but I'm not aware that it is considered a viable proposition for rainmaking.
Even if this ground-based technique works (and the promoters do seem convinced of that), the energy involved in making the hot air must be considerable.
And the point about depriving other areas of precipitation is also a good one.
sums it up nicely for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
MartinH, [OT] Missed your earlier question.... I would ask Balek for advice, giving your weight/experience (snow) etc. To give you an idea my daughter moved up to 70cms last year when she was still 10 and 32kgs, a sturdy, skilled adult will find 100cms to be plenty large enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Apologies for dragging you back from Grass Skiing to Global Warming, but the message being fed to Joe Public about global warming is subtly distorted.
The idea that the world's climate has been stable for millions of year's, but now nasty man in burning fossil fuels is going to ruin it and destroy Life-as-we-know-it is wrong. Snark is a good source for articles on climate change, and Scotese.com has a neat chart that shows "During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs." The earth is not so much warming up as unfreezing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Jonpim, Ok then.... perhaps we could settle on trying not to speed up the unfreezing process? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I think jonpim is right - the latest science suggests that our civilization has coincided with an period of unusual climate stability. I think there is also a problem of presenting very definite outcomes from climate change - the gulf stream will switch off on in 2045; temperatures will rise by 2.5 degrees. The point is that it's really hard to predict what will happen as we stress a very complex and unstable system... And that is quite a good reason for prudent action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Back to the original topic - a follow-up in more detail...
| Quote: |
| Thredbo has probably undergone its driest period for this time of the year in the last 40 years, or at as long as we've been keeping records - we effectively haven't had a decent rainfall for the last 9 to 10 weeks, which is very odd for Thredbo. In a few weeks, it's hoped the annual alpine snowfall will once again fill the faltering river stocks. But the snowfall too is in decline. In the past 50 years at some locations, the snow pack has halved. Some even predict that global warming will soon mean there may be no snow at all. Hence the rush by NSW Agriculture Minister Ian MacDonald to trial cloud seeding, despite the fears of some. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
In abc.net.au
| Matt Peacock wrote: |
| So, this month, the NSW Government has bypassed its own environmental legislation to fast-track an experimental cloud-seeding program in the park despite angry objections from conservationists. |
I am unsure exactly what the Conservationists are trying to conserve. 
I do note that we are trying to fight Evolution. In the past species adapted to changes in the environment. These days mankind seems reluctant to adapt (change) and instead tries to stop the environment changing. Usually this fails, sometimes with disastrous consequences. You would have thought the Australians might have learnt after the rabbit fiasco.
(PS. I don't think we ever went off the subject PG: the thread heading is "Aussies combat global warming with hot air....")
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I would love for snow to evolve to combat melting!
On a side note, i've just noticed one of our greatest scientists - John Maynard Smith, died today. He was a top evolutionary biologist!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Jonpim, It does seem to me that there is a distinct difference between an honest acceptance of our humble role in the grand scheme of things à la Dawkins/Darwin and turning a blind eye to those areas where we are directly affecting our environment, dismissing it as simply part of those changes to which we will eventually have to adapt and evolve. I don't quite follow your logic here.
If we accept that we are able to influence the biosphere in negative ways (ie harmful to humanity on a relatively immediate timescale), then preservation (and by inference self-preservation) is only an extension of the same logic of interference. It then becomes a matter of choice. I would rather we limited the poisons we are pumping into our environment, but that doesn't mean I'm some kind of Luddite who wants to turn the clock back. I don't see it as an either/or situation. Of course we've made mistakes, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to stay ahead of the game...
(or perhaps one might argue that antibiotics were as ill-conceived as bunnies in Oz? )
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Fri 23-04-04 10:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I reckon that they're all just a load of old Hippies who think Mother Nature knows best, and human interference in Biology usually has disastrous results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, you were doing fine until you mentioned antibiotics.
The Conservationist jibe was that conserving (=preserving, saving) should have meant maintaining the snow levels, and therefore the conservationists should have supported cloud seeding.
The environment. It is true we have managed some local successes: Clean Air Act, Sewage for example, but a global policy impinges on the much more serious problem of Poverty. Rich countries are asking poor countries to abandon the very technology that got the Rich countries rich in the first place. Rich countries do not want to help the poor countries out of this mess. And the USA has I understand said "stuff you!" to Kyoto coz it might adversly affect the economy.
Antibiotics. Ah yes. Been with us for 60 years. Mismanaged by humans, adapted to by bugs. Predicted all will be useless in another 60 years.
If you want some interesting reading, try Medical Nemesis by Ivan Illich . Ivan died December 2002, but as his obituary and comments from friends and colleagues show, he was quite a man.
How about this for Thought for the Day:
"Modern medicine is a negation of health. It isn't organized to serve human health, but only itself, as an institution. It makes more people sick than it heals." (Ivan Illich 1976) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Jonpim wrote: |
| Rich countries are asking poor countries to abandon the very technology that got the Rich countries rich in the first place. |
Not true, Jonpim - not yet at least. Developing countries are yet to make - or be asked to make - any commitments at all under the climate change framework.
As for "modern medicine" not making people healthier - it's a very hard case to make. It helps though if you hive off health-related research, public health, vaccines etc. - but it still remains hard to disassociate what is left of "modern medicine" from responsibility for rising health standards...
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Fri 23-04-04 11:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonpim wrote: |
The Conservationist jibe was that conserving (=preserving, saving) should have meant maintaining the snow levels, and therefore the conservationists should have supported cloud seeding. |
That's a little bit like saying they want to conserve river levels so should be in favour pumping in sea water to top them up.
| Jonpim wrote: |
| The environment. It is true we have managed some local successes: Clean Air Act, Sewage for example, but a global policy impinges on the much more serious problem of Poverty. Rich countries are asking poor countries to abandon the very technology that got the Rich countries rich in the first place. Rich countries do not want to help the poor countries out of this mess. And the USA has I understand said "stuff you!" to Kyoto coz it might adversly affect the economy. |
I think you'll find that most of the people who back the conservation movements also back things like debt relief, improved/increased aid, etc. Plus there's a striong argument by many conservationists that the best way to ensure conservation is to level the wealth levels around the world, which would include lowering western levels which are considered unsustainable. They are against trying to bring everyone else up to Western levels as they don't believe the Earth could sustain that.
That is a generalisation and there are some exceptions - including possibly, some very welll known names, but they tend to be single issue campaigners. That's how I see it, anyway. I'm sure others see it differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
When the green movement sets about levelling wealth levels around the world ("so much less for you, so much more for you" etc) Skanky, how is it going to decide what is neither too rich nor too poor, but just right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Who knows? But I don't think that they think that should be the ones making the decisions as such. There are estimates of how many planet Earths would be needed to sustain various lifestyles if everyone had the same lifestyle, and I would guess that as as long as a lifestyle was higher than one, then it might be considered too rich?
Of course, there would be some debate about the accuracy of some of the estimates, but I'm sure some research could be done into improving them.
Or everyone could just continue until everything's used up. Either that or the population could be reduced.
Who knows? It'll probably all come to a head after we're dead anyway and seeing as the sun will one day wipe the Earth out, does it matter if we extinct ourselves a few years earlier than nature would?
Just throwing arguments into the conversation here, BTW, I don't (pretend to) have any answers. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonpim,
| Quote: |
| you were doing fine until you mentioned antibiotics. |
But the antibiotics parallel was deliberately chosen for that very reason! (Remember you're talking to a died-in-the-wool, sceptical, fully qualified devil's advocate here.... )
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
There is a proposed solution to the climate change problem which relies on a levelling process between rich and poor, Skanky.
Step one - agree, at a global level, how much further atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases should be allowed to rise - and work out what level of total emissions will keep us under that level.
Step two - allocate a 'right to emit' to all citizens, on an equal per capita basis (in practice these would probably be national allocations).
Step three - allow trading of these emission rights during a transitional period, so that those who emit too much can purchase further permits from those who do not use their allowance.
The end result would be for rich and poor to 'converge' on an acceptable level of emissions (a level which could be changed upwards or downwards by the same mechanism as scientific evidence changed). Depending, of course, on what ceiling was set, the UK would probably have to reduce emissions by about 60% from current levels - the US considerably more.
Whether this would make people poorer or not depends on whether you believe it will be possible to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions or not. i.e. whether non-carbon energy technologies can be developed and deployed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
DavidS, thanks for puting me right on poor country's committments.
But "rising health standards". Yes and No.
Athersclerosis (furred up arteries) is almost unknown in rural China. Appendicitis, diverticular disease and many other large intestinal problems are almost unknown in rural Africa. These diseases are common here due to our diet.
The terrible diseases of the past: Plague, Tuberculosis, Rheumatic fever, Osteomyelitis, Rickets, malnutrition were not defeated by "medecine", but by improvements in public health and some other factors we don't understand (see Plague: Black Death & Pestilence in Europe by Andrew Spicer and William Naphy)
Consider Diabetes: before insulin this was quickly fatal and few sufferers had children. Diabetes was rare. Now sufferers can expect long lives and have children. Similar comments for hormone deficiency, cystic fibrosis, etc.
Some years ago a book came out (but can't find it now) in which the supply of medicines halted world-wide. You can imagine the results.
Yes we live longer in the western world - but healthier? I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
As I said, if you exclude health research, public health, vaccines etc from "modern medicine", then your case is easier to make - but antibiotics have played an important role in the fight against, say, TB. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be so worried about drug-resistant strains.
As for the 'diseases of affluence' idea - most of the world's poor would be much healthier if they were rich enough to suffer from them. I'd prefer to be a Westerner with a life expectancy of 75 and a high chance of getting heart disease as I get older than an African with a life expectancy of 58 who at least doesn't have to worry about a dicky heart...
I know where you're going with the eugenicist argument that it would be better if we allowed the sick to die before they had a chance to breed, but are you sure that the recent rise in diabetes has anything to do with more diabetics having children? I very much doubt this is the case...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| DavidS wrote: |
There is a proposed solution to the climate change problem which relies on a levelling process between rich and poor, Skanky.
Step one - agree, at a global level, how much further atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases should be allowed to rise - and work out what level of total emissions will keep us under that level.
Step two - allocate a 'right to emit' to all citizens, on an equal per capita basis (in practice these would probably be national allocations).
Step three - allow trading of these emission rights during a transitional period, so that those who emit too much can purchase further permits from those who do not use their allowance.
The end result would be for rich and poor to 'converge' on an acceptable level of emissions (a level which could be changed upwards or downwards by the same mechanism as scientific evidence changed). Depending, of course, on what ceiling was set, the UK would probably have to reduce emissions by about 60% from current levels - the US considerably more.
Whether this would make people poorer or not depends on whether you believe it will be possible to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions or not. i.e. whether non-carbon energy technologies can be developed and deployed. |
Thanks, hadn't seen that proposal in full detail. Not sure that it would definitely create a convergence, but wouldn't argue too strongly that it wouldn't.
It is though, a variation (or specialisation?) of the model I mentioned - it merely deals with C02 whereas I mentioned all resources used. It does however put the limits in slightly better terms than those that I did
As for decoupling economic growth from carbon-based energy, well that has to happen, doesn't it? Whether climate change is man-made...sorry, man-accelerated...or not as there are finite reserves of oil and gas. Unless some other form of carbon based energy is found, of course.
I wonder if there's power generation to be obtained from converting C02 into oxygen and carbon...after all it's what plants do?
Or from recycling plastic? Can you imagine, the plastic prospectors hunting through landfill sites for old rubbish thrown away in the last 50 years? That could inspire a remake of The Graduate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| skanky wrote: |
| As for decoupling economic growth from carbon-based energy, well that has to happen, doesn't it? |
Not for sure, no. As countries have got richer, they have consumed more carbon-based energy. And, as your original post suggested, one solution to climate change is just for the rich to get poorer again - the UK cuts emissions, and its economy, by 60%. Decoupling implies that we can stay rich - and get richer - but still solve pressing environmental problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DavidS, I think we need to be careful with the words here: you wrote "the eugenicist argument that it would be better if we allowed the sick to die". Better? No. Different? Yes. And Eugenics is a word to use very carefully (interestingly, "eugenicist" is not recognised by Chambers).
I do not propose we condemn the sick and unfortunate to suffer. I just wonder if we are actually making the sick healthy (general increase in health), or are we just preserving the sick (general decrease in health).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Not really as there are other limits on wealth. However if the economy is not decoupled from carbon-based energy, when the reserves stop, so does the economy. Which may well happen, of course.
Unless, like the runner who never reaches the finish line, we half the amount of reserves we use every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| skanky wrote: |
| wonder if there's power generation to be obtained from converting C02 into oxygen and carbon...after all it's what plants do? |
Not quite skanky. You are referring to Photosynthesis here, and it requires energy rather than generates it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonpim wrote: |
| I think we need to be careful with the words here |
Sorry if I misunderstood the diabetes point - actually, I'm still not sure if I've got it right. Surely, treatment of diabetes is a very good example of where people who would otherwise have died are able to enjoy good (if not perfect) quality of life. And what difference does it make if they can then have children, unless you are worried about diluting the gene pool?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonpim wrote: |
| skanky wrote: |
| wonder if there's power generation to be obtained from converting C02 into oxygen and carbon...after all it's what plants do? |
Not quite skanky. You are referring to Photosynthesis here, and it requires energy rather than generates it. |
All 'power generation' requires more energy than it generates - just like photosynthesis surely!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Yeah, sorry it was a mildly facetious statement (mildly in that I wasn't ruling out being told that it was possible) Should have used a smilie
Interesting web page though, I'd often wondere how photosynthesis worked (normally whilst away from the computer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DavidS wrote: |
| Jonpim wrote: |
| skanky wrote: |
| wonder if there's power generation to be obtained from converting C02 into oxygen and carbon...after all it's what plants do? |
Not quite skanky. You are referring to Photosynthesis here, and it requires energy rather than generates it. |
All 'power generation' requires more energy than it generates - just like photosynthesis surely! |
Yes but aren't you building in extra inefficiences by trying to break up carbon dioxide as part of the process? Trees merely do it as a way of getting carbon - needed to create the sugar with the water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
