 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
It doesn't matter the cause of the climate change is; the results are the same. And please don't say it has always changed so it's not problem as it hasn't changed significantly with a human population in any way comparable to the present. We are seeing some of the results right now in Lancashire and Cumbria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
People can test the theory of manmade warming very easily. Stand alone in the bathroom (the Earth) of your house (the galaxy)... and then invite a halfdozen people to join you in there and start lighting matches and creating fog... you will soon be too hot and have to start removing clothing etc. to cool down again.
|
Like a climate change induced orgy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
So the fact that we keep being told that this is an "unprecedented event" and that every year now we keep breaking new weather event records has nothing to do with it then? The one thing the models have, I believe, always predicted is more frequent extreme weather events, and that is something we have seen increasing every year for decades or maybe you disagree with that too. I'm not talking about building on flood plains - that's always been stupid - I'm talking about the amount of rain that fell in such a short while, that has been stated many times in the last few days by people far more knowledgeable than myself and probably anyone on this site as breaking every record. I'm not saying anything about where people are building, or how that effects the way the water drains off. It's the very simple fact of how many inches of rain fell. An apparently "once in a generation event" that also happened in, I think, 2009 and 2013.
"I also heard that a 200 year old waterfall started to flow again during the floods. " And that's a substantiated statement I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
You can look at graphs all you like, all you really need to do is look out the window and actually see what is happening in the world. Sod the graphs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So out of your window you can see the river Eden..? no? so all you probably saw was a bit of wind and rain. Its only because of the way we now have such easy, instant access to news and weather its perceived that there is an increase in extreme weather events, when in reality there is no real difference.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 8-12-15 20:12; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is what the IPCC has to say about climate change and flooding:
| Quote: |
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and
frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are
limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,
there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of
these changes. |
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Changes in Agriculture and land use are also factors. For instance, too many sheep, water runs off the hills too fast...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bloody sheep and their new fangled Goretex's. Strip them of their infernal mackintoshes and let them soak up the water!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Any climate change deniers need to get their head checked. Top scientist who are far more knowledgeable about the subject argue it is a reality and the evidence seems to concur. The problem is that the cities that will be most affected will be third world cities such as Lagos, Dhaka and Mumbai where millions of poor people will suffer terribly, whilst we live behind our flood defences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| madlondoner wrote: |
| Any climate change deniers need to get their head checked. Top scientist who are far more knowledgeable about the subject argue it is a reality and the evidence seems to concur. The problem is that the cities that will be most affected will be third world cities such as Lagos, Dhaka and Mumbai where millions of poor people will suffer terribly, whilst we live behind our flood defences. |
Well, then, those cities need to get up off their backsides and start doing some forward-planning and some work and build climate defences.
Rather than just sitting around and wallowing in pity.
And the same advice goes for other third-world cities affected by bad weather, like Carlisle and Glasgow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Top scientist who are far more knowledgeable about the subject argue it is a reality and the evidence seems to concur.
|
So thats ok then, never question anything and just accept what you are told. Im not a climate scientist, I'm an engineer that doesn't make me unable to form opinions on a subject based on things that I have read, and not just been told to think by the media.
History tells us that established current consensus is often wrong, this is a fact. To think that we have gone past that stage is a mistake. What I don't understand is that there are plenty of good scientists out there that don't agree with the consensus, why not let them speak and debate the issue?
Just saying that the science is settled is pointless. For some reason having a debate with sceptical scientists would be detrimental and would damage the world!?.. because they have done a cracking job of curbing co2 so far!
http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C52/carbon_emissions_2013
So since 1995 there has been a climate conference, what exactly has it achieved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
On this specific issue - flooding caused by precipitation in a warming world - no-one working in the field is claiming any kind of consensus: even as to whether there has been more flooding or less. See UN IPCC view above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I love the way you guys quote the IPCC when it supports your argument and say we shouldn't believe them when it contradicts your arguments. It's really all very entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@MadMountainMan, I take it that you agree with the IPCC on all things, including that no-one can tell whether flooding has increased or decreased as the world has warmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
In a nutshell, the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increase and is still increasing. Many people believe this to be related in an increase in mean global temperature. In the mid 1970s the same thing was believed by many people to be causing a decrease in GMT possibly leading to a new ice age.
I think we can all agree that litter is a bad thing which has a negative impact on our local environments and pollutants, including Carbon Dioxide, could be classed as litter, so it makes sense to not pump too much of it out into the atmosphere.
We can also agree that over the past few decades we have seen a retreat in glaciation (certainly in the Alps). What I am unclear about is how this is related to either the pollutants in the atmosphere or the GMT. I am no expert so please bear with me, but I believe there is a well recognised correlation between drop in temperature and rise in altitude and this is not enough to explain how far the glaciers have retreated. This leads me to believe there is some other mechanism in play - does anyone know what it is? I also find it difficult to believe that a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature will have much effect on polar icecaps - they will still be at minus plenty and the freezing point of salt water is around -10, so again there may be another mechanism at work.
Climate scientists would also find it easier to convince the rest of us if their messages were more consistent - eg thawing of polar ice was supposed to shift the Gulf Stream south, leading to colder winters in the UK. Is this happening/has it happened? Why do we seem to be getting milder winters here?
I get the feeling that climate science is a bit like economics - economists have predicted 11 of the last 5 recessions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
It's plant food
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| @MadMountainMan, I take it that you agree with the IPCC on all things, including that no-one can tell whether flooding has increased or decreased as the world has warmed. |
Unlike yourself I don't consider myself qualified to decide what bits of the IPCC research is correct and which isn't. All I can do is attempt to figure out what the majority consensus of qualified scientists consider to be correct or at least their best current best estimate. I don't expect that estimate to be perfect but if it's the best we've got then I personally think we would be crazy to just write it off as mere speculation. I find it encouraging that the majority of the World governments do at least now seem to agree we have a problem even if they can't seem to make the commitments that the scientists are saying are needed. At least it is moving forward.
@letelemarker: so the fact that a river/stream that changed its course 200 years ago and now that new course presumably couldn't cope with this exceptional volume of water so that it has overflowed into it's old course - means that everything is fine and normal? Or are you trying to say that Malham Cove was created by normal occasional events that only occur once every 200 years or so and therefore a waterfall flowing for the first time in 200 years should be viewed as normal. I'm sorry I just don't see your argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@MadMountainMan, maybe the river changed course due to 'climate change,' and is now flowing in it's 'natural state' again 
BTW, if everyone went with the majority consensus and never challenged it, we'd still think the Earth is flat and was created by an old guy with a big beard.
I think it's pretty clear that there are a a lot of highly intelligent and highly qualified scientists on both side of the debate - and also that many on each side are highly biased and/or paid... It's also quite clear that models and forecasts are rarely particularly accurate, so it's also fair to say we still have a hell of a lot of learning to do before we are able to make any accurate categorical statements.
Of course there are plenty of reasons to stop polluting the planet anyway though (not just talking CO2 here).
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 9-12-15 16:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
“Never let a good crisis go to waste”
― Winston S. Churchill
How utterly true. The darling left have used that prescient to their ruthless money making end as per "global warming". Oops, that was proven wrong so now they proclaim "climate change", up the ante via the ruthless, totalitarian Marxist UN and hold decent nations hostage, stifling growth and freedom, all the while turning a convenient (paid for) blind eye to nations that pollute with more than just impunity, in fact, open license. And all the money changers within and before the UN temple are making billions.......................
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MadMountainMan wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| @MadMountainMan, I take it that you agree with the IPCC on all things, including that no-one can tell whether flooding has increased or decreased as the world has warmed. |
Unlike yourself I don't consider myself qualified to decide what bits of the IPCC research is correct and which isn't. |
The IPCC doesn't do its own research.
| Quote: |
| All I can do is attempt to figure out what the majority consensus of qualified scientists consider to be correct or at least their best current best estimate. |
That is what the IPCC tries to do. And, in the case of flooding, they are unable to identify a consensus as to whether a warming world has led to more or fewer floods or about the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| @MadMountainManAlso as you're chucking the (foolish IMO) term 'climate change denier' around, who here has been doing anything of the sort? |
Maybe it wasn't intentional but since you did address this post to me I am unaware of my ever mentioning or accusing anyone of being a 'denier' anywhere in this thread (though I admit I haven't gone back and read every word).
| laundryman wrote: |
| The IPCC doesn't do its own research |
Now you're just being pedantic; I apologise; I guess I should have said analysis. Mea Culpa!
Just to add a quote from the summary of WGII AR5, the (I believe) latest IPCC report:
| Quote: |
Extreme weather events: Climate-change-related risks from extreme events, such as heat waves, extreme precipitation, and
coastal flooding, are already moderate (high confidence) and high with 1°C additional warming (medium confidence). Risks
associated with some types of extreme events (e.g., extreme heat) increase further at higher temperatures (high confidence). |
And to mention that my reference to Cumbria was not about flooding but about precipitation, as I think I did say.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 9-12-15 17:55; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Edit: Wrong person.
Sorry @MadMountainMan!
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Wed 9-12-15 16:43; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
@MadMountainMan, no you didn't accuse anyone, but you said:
| Quote: |
Any climate change deniers need to get their head checked.
|
|
Umm no actually that was someone called "madlondoner"
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| MadMountainMan wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
@MadMountainMan, no you didn't accuse anyone, but you said:
| Quote: |
Any climate change deniers need to get their head checked.
|
|
Umm no actually that was someone called "madlondoner" |
Oops, sorry, you're right. Apologies.
Edited my posts above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
No sweat! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scarpa wrote: |
| Bloody sheep and their new fangled Goretex's. Strip them of their infernal mackintoshes and let them soak up the water!!!! |
No, Snowshoes
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
I love the way you guys quote the IPCC when it supports your argument and say we shouldn't believe them when it contradicts your arguments. It's really all very entertaining.
|
Well that depends on how you look at it, the IPCC are setup just for the purpose of studying human caused climate change..that is it, so the fact that they are admitting that there is no evidence speaks volumes.
There models on the other hand...why would you believe those? the evidence says other wise, you know the actual measured data not just guess work.
| Quote: |
I think we can all agree that litter is a bad thing which has a negative impact on our local environments and pollutants, including Carbon Dioxide, could be classed as litter, so it makes sense to not pump too much of it out into the atmosphere.
|
I would say that is one of the most out there claims I have heard, co2 is an essential gas, without it there would be no life on earth..you don't work for the guardian or the BBC do you? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Earlier someone made comment about cooling in the 70s 'due to CO2'. Sorry, you've got your gasses mixed up. Common problem.
Cooling in the 70s was due to rising amounts of SO2 in the atmosphere. Remember acid rain? It was real, the effects were very visible and measurable - lake acidification and cooling of the atmosphere. Nations did something about it. The SO2 being added to the atmosphere plummeted. Acid rain has (largely) been fixed.
Just as the Ozone hole (caused by another group of gases - CFCs and their friends, previously used in aerosols and refrigerants) was fixed when nations took action and massively reduced the quantity of CFCs in the atmosphere. The hole is still there, but it is now shrinking instead of expanding.
All this is in the reports. This is ordinary science, not edge of the projection stuff.
If science is never settled, we would never have run steam trains. Some things get to be predictable from science, even if we don't get all the answers at the start.
Now we find that CO2 is heading towards levels never experienced by human beings or their immediate ancestors. The climate is changing, and the impacts are real. The newspapers tend to sensationalise individual predictions that then get picked over, but the IPCC reports are showing that the science is settled. Those denying it are the flat-earthers, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
No, but if you agree that the increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration is unwelcome, it seems reasonable to class it as a pollutant. Some CO2 is, as you say, essential for life but, like beer, too much might be counterproductive. The question then becomes how much is too much?
The point I was trying to make is that we could all benefit from being less dogmatic and angry when discussing this subject. A little calmness and humour goes a long way😉
And as for accusing me of socialist tendencies - wash your mouth out with soap and water!😀
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@MSG101, if you think CO2 is heading to unprecedented levels, where do you think the Carbon in fossil fuels came from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@MSG101, if you think CO2 is heading to unprecedented levels, where do you think the Carbon in fossil fuels came from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@MSG101, I may have my gases wrong, but it was a long time ago and I was 8 or 9.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The carbon in fossil fuels was laid down long before humans or any other mammal was walking the earth - 300 million years ago. The climate was different then as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
It was a very different world - widely forested, higher atmospheric pressure, masses of Oxygen in the atmosphere (1/3 instead of today's 1/5). You can't draw any parallels from that world to the one we live in today.
The problem with saying 'we had CO2 levels like this in the past' is that it was a different world. It is unclear that humans will be able to live in a world with higher CO2. It is a greenhouse gas, along with methane and water, which is why we are able to live on this cosy planet. Without it we would die. But too much of it will make a different world. One we might not be able to survive.
Someone else mentioned a few pacific islands that are at risk of rising sea levels. 16% of Bangladesh is within 1.5m of sea level, with 20 million people living in that part of the country. That's a lot of refugees.
The city of London could not cope with a very large rise in sea level, nor New York. The kind of people movements across the planet would be massive is sea level rose by 1.5m.
Now this is not predicted for my lifetime. But I would like to leave a world that my grandchildren could still enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It came from plants and animals which ultimately got it from the atmosphere. This was some years before mammals were invented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has been no significant warming for the last 18 or so years according to the RSS data set, The UAH shows a tiny percentage of warming. Over the last 18 years or so man made co2 levels have continued to climb from about 350 ppm to just under 400 ppm.
What does that tell you? either the satellite data sets are utter rubbish or co2 is a pretty crap greenhouse gas?
Now where did I leave my tin foil hat....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Yes all the people are wasting their time just because of their leftie sensibilities. What wallies!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letelemarker, you must be aware of the date you chose (18 years) - the hottest year of the 20th century. Starting from that point changes your graph. But take it from further back, you see a clear trend.
Also the absorption of heat by the deep ocean is not a constant, and leads to pauses in the atmospheric warming. The current El Nino looks like it might be bringing the latest pause to an end. Certainly last year and probably this year are the warmest years on record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
