Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
👁 durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

climate change - or just change?

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Looks as though the Bank of England has now caught up with climate change too Laughing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34396961
snow report
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Ha ha, telling a bunch of insurers what they want to hear. Should get the premiums flooding in (pardon the pun). Good for the City boys. Job done.
ski holidays
 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?
Some interesting comments from a well (?) regarded scientist, including thoughts on shale gas and fusion:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
ski holidays
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3675568/

Just watched this on Showbox and found it enlightening on the while CC "debate"
snow report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Quote:

How can increased greenhouse gases NOT affect our atmosphere and therefore, directly our climate? I like to ask deniers how far they are willing to push their luck with regards to uncertainty, and what are they going to do if the rate of Climate change speeds up that modern lifestyle is incompatible with it?



Because that is an emotional statement. You believe in man made climate change based on no real evidence and a set of computer models that are nowhere near reality. You are also basing that belief on the theory that CO2 alone is responsible for climate change…again you cannot just simply take one part of a chaotic system and come up with "increase this and this happens", its just not that simple and it doesn't work like that…I don't fully understand it and nether does anybody else, despite what they say.

As they say a picture speaks a thousand words

http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
ski holidays
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
I'm not sure what your point is @letelemarker, I think that graph shows that despite some breaks the general trend is up (0.5 degrees since 1957 or nearly 1 degree since 1976). Of course we don't know everything and of course it is a chaotic system but even in that limited set of data you have chosen to illustrate (which like all pieces of denial evidence only shows the bit of data you want to show rather than say results for the last 1000 years) the general trend is still up.

If you look at the graph for the last thousand years you get a very different picture.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/CO2-Temp.png/800px-CO2-Temp.png?width=450

The two pauses of your graph are insignificant in the greater picture.

As you say it is complicated there are always different forces at work which can shift the trend. For example solar activity or the periodic stored heat that gets released by things like El Nino, which, incidentally, many meteorologists are suggesting may be part at least of the reason for the pause we are currently experiencing and, with this year's expected exceptional El Nino, may be about to change. And, purely from a trending point of view, that graph of yours looks to me like it's about to break out upwards.

Personally I'm very nervous about banking the future of our planet on statements like it's chaotic and we don't really know what's happening so let's just keep going like we are until we know more. I've never liked gambling and in this case the stakes are not attractive; if you're right we might cause some unnecessary economic problems (although that is strongly debated by economists; many co2 reduction policies result in significant financial savings), if the climate change people are right we are likely to cause a lot of death and much bigger economic issues. The stakes just don't balance.
latest report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@MadMountainMan, If you are going to take the long view, why not the 10,000 years since the last ice age. At least that gives context in terms of the interglacial cycle.
latest report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
@MadMountainMan, the Mann hockey stick at your link has been comprehensively discredited. Use of short centring in principal component analysis produces hockey sticks out of random data. Proxy data was truncated at 1960 (because it shows temperature reductions according to standard interpretations) and thermometer data spliced on the end (the infamous "hide the decline" trick). And, of course, real world measurements have been flat since the hockey stick was manufactured anyway. It was the poster child of the last but one IPCC report, but you won't find it in the latest. The Climategate emails show how much other scientists mistrusted Mann.

As for harmful effects of global warming, there are beneficial effects too. And CO2 is directly beneficial to plant growth. The world is literally a greener place than in 1960, in terms of crops and wild plants.
snow report
 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:

I think that graph shows that despite some breaks the general trend is up (0.5 degrees since 1957 or nearly 1 degree since 1976)


The theory is that co2 concentrations increase, temperatures go up. The graph doesn't show that. It shows for the last 14 years temperatures have levelled out while atmospheric co2 has continued to climb. If you take the RSS satellite dataset for global temperature it shows no warming since about 1997. Other land based data sets do show warming, but in my option you can't beat the satellites.

And why be nervous about the whole climate change thing? what can you do about it?.. apart from freezing your tits off up in Scotland over winter by not benefiting from the effects of burning fossil fuels.

There is no normal or average climate for earth it's constantly changing and there is not a thing we can do about it. I do wish we took better care of planet earth though, like not clearing hectares of rainforest or filling the oceans full of plastic. The only saving grace is that nature will sort it out in the end

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263714/Destroyed-man-reclaimed-nature-Amazing-images-reveal-exclusion-zone-Fukushima-abandoned-overgrown-wilderness.html
latest report
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:

(which like all pieces of denial evidence only shows the bit of data you want to show rather than say results for the last 1000 years) the general trend is still up


And another thing…denial evidence? denial of what exactly? denial of a theory? that's how science is meant to work people come up with ideas, hypothesis and others question those ideas. You have summed up the problem with this whole issue, where the uninformed just blindly go along with whatever the media say, and those who go against the current ideas or have a different view are made out to be tin foil hat wearing nut jobs.
ski holidays
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
I am unsure if some of these comments are opinions or informed by comprehensive critical reading of climate science, viz, inclusion and exclusion of solar variation has been modelled forward and backward ( checking the models against past empical data). Better that those commenting read the IPPC reports. Models are not determinstic , but probalistic ( like most hard science).
snow conditions
 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.
@tbovey,

Well….brilliant so the models work on a programmed guess where all of the variables are not known, thats ok then. I'll stick to getting my information from viz. Very Happy


Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 14-10-15 9:01; edited 2 times in total
snow report
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
letelemarker wrote:
Quote:

(which like all pieces of denial evidence only shows the bit of data you want to show rather than say results for the last 1000 years) the general trend is still up


And another thing…denial evidence? denial of what exactly? denial of a theory? that's how science is meant to work people come up with ideas, hypothesis and others question those ideas. You have summed up the problem with this whole issue, where the uninformed just blindly go along with whatever the media say, and those who go against the current ideas or have a different view are made out to be tin foil hat wearing nut jobs.


+1

Anyone who uses the term 'climate denier' should immediately forfeit the argument. Just another form of Godwin's Law.
snow conditions
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Sorry I don't understand you! It seems I am criticised for looking at evidence of climate change over a long period of time (1000 years) which you knock based on evidence over 57 years. To look at just 57 years of evidence is way to short a period of time in a debate on climate, but still even that evidence (that you put forward) shows an increase of half a degree in global temperature. And to then say that demonstrates that there is no climate change is, to my mind, about as far from real science as it is possible to get.
snow report
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@MadMountainMan, no one said anything about no climate change:

@letelemarker said:
Quote:

There is no normal or average climate for earth it's constantly changing and there is not a thing we can do about it.


And 1000 years isn't really a long period. As@AndAnotherThing.. pointed out

Quote:

If you are going to take the long view, why not the 10,000 years since the last ice age. At least that gives context in terms of the interglacial cycle.
ski holidays
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
clarky999 wrote:
@MadMountainMan, no one said anything about no climate change:

@letelemarker said:
Quote:

There is no normal or average climate for earth it's constantly changing and there is not a thing we can do about it.


And 1000 years isn't really a long period. As@AndAnotherThing.. pointed out

Quote:

If you are going to take the long view, why not the 10,000 years since the last ice age. At least that gives context in terms of the interglacial cycle.


I have no problem with looking at 10,000 or 100,000 or a million. I just think that illustrating a discussion on climate change with a graph spanning just 57 years is so ridiculous as to be pointless.
latest report
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:

I have no problem with looking at 10,000 or 100,000 or a million. I just think that illustrating a discussion on climate change with a graph spanning just 57 years is so ridiculous as to be pointless


Why? do you mean the graph I posted?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif

The point I was trying to make was that the models don't predict a pause in warming, they all show as co2 increases so does temperature. The graph doesn't show that, CO2 is increasing temperatures are stable, Why?

http://www.oilgasmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Goreham-CSCA_Graph.png

Good job these models are probabilistic not deterministic
snow conditions
 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?
@letelemarker,
Quote:
CO2 is increasing temperatures are stable, Why?
Maybe because other factors are working against warming, such as there being reduced solar activity over that period? I really don't know, but I find the arguments from both sides to be more than specious. On the one hand the doubters are saying there is no problem, and if there is it sure as hell isn't man made, so we should continue to spew our rubbish into the atmosphere ( and everywhere else ) as though there is no problem. On the other hand the supporters are saying we are causing a catastrophe and will all die if we don't immediately stop burning fossil fuels and move to renewables.
I think there must be a happy medium. A gradual and controlled transition to renewables and ( new ) nuclear technology without completely derailing economic growth has to be the way to go. This for a number of reasons, not only out of fear of the damage we may be doing to the climate.
snow conditions
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
I don't think any of the models attempt to predict anything down to such a fine grain as ten years, and that's all those pauses are. There are far too many factors at work (as I stated in one of my earlier posts) any number of which can explain the pause.

@Steilhang, has, in my opinion, the most sensible attitude.

letelemarker wrote:

http://www.oilgasmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Goreham-CSCA_Graph.png

Good job these models are probabilistic not deterministic


That graph does indeed show that the rise is not as much as the models predict but there is still a rise. The only real difference between our two approaches seems to be that you think it's safe to ignore that rise and I don't. I'm not saying I think the worlds going to end tomorrow or in my lifetime or the next generations' or even ever; I'm not predicting nothing but doom (please check all my posts if you disagree). All I'm saying is there is sufficient evidence for us to be concerned and be planning for a possible warmer future that many of us would not survive without some significant work. But since the problems are unlikely to arise in the lifetimes of anyone on this forum it's not a problem is it?
snow report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
MadMountainMan wrote:


letelemarker wrote:

http://www.oilgasmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Goreham-CSCA_Graph.png

Good job these models are probabilistic not deterministic


That graph does indeed show that the rise is not as much as the models predict but there is still a rise. The only real difference between our two approaches seems to be that you think it's safe to ignore that rise and I don't.


I think his point is purely that the models are poor, rather than about how the climate is changing.

Stielhang has it bang on.

Whether it's linked to climate change or not, there are plenty of reasons why we should stop polluting the planet.
Whether it affects climate change or not, there are plenty of reasons why we should transition from fossil fuels.

Nuclear solves a hell of a lot of the issues.
latest report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
We so need to crack fusion!
snow conditions
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
clarky999 wrote:
Whether it's linked to climate change or not, there are plenty of reasons why we should stop polluting the planet.
Whether it affects climate change or not, there are plenty of reasons why we should transition from fossil fuels.


For me the climate change debate distracts from the general issues humanity will have to deal with if it is to survive long term with anything like comfortable living standards and a decent measure of bio diversity.
snow conditions
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
MadMountainMan wrote:
We so need to crack fusion!
useful Fusion seems to always be 50 years out & has been for the last 50 years. I really hope this situation changes, because fusion would change the game completely.
ski holidays
 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.
A different take on the perils (or not) of Co2 from the founder of Greenpeace, speaking at the 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture,
Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

He argues that the release of Co2 from fossil fuel is a good thing for a number of quite plausible reasons. Read on...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/
snow conditions
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@AndAnotherThing.., awesome, ^^thanks for that!
latest report
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Quote:

I don't think any of the models attempt to predict anything down to such a fine grain as ten years


So is that just your opinion? or is it based on something?. There seems to be climate scientists coming out with predictions within 10 years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

This prediction was made in 2007 for 2015

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

This was from the independent, posted in 2000 (since been taken down)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/14/climatechange.scotland

This one was over 20 years

I also remember a prediction made by a scientist in 2008 written in the Telegraph, saying that within 5 years the arctic permafrost will release all of its trapped methane (I couldn't find the story) I'm sure there is plenty more if you dig around.
snow report
 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.
Quote:

A different take on the perils (or not) of Co2 from the founder of Greenpeace, speaking at the 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture,
Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

He argues that the release of Co2 from fossil fuel is a good thing for a number of quite plausible reasons. Read on...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/


Good link thanks…my favourite part:

From the IPCC in 2007:

“we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
latest report
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Nice read on a Saturday morning, OK a few thoughts from me.

Climate is a difficult word to use in this context, none of use have experienced any type of climate change during our life time, why? well climate is a much longer time scale than any of us have lived through?

Weather on the other hand is a more short time scale event, I was never taught what the cut off point was between weather and climate, however I am pretty sure that its much more in the 1,000 year cycle than a few hundred years.

Sea Levels/
Well sea level rises have been relatively small over the last 200 years, in fact only 1,000 years ago the sea level was much much higher than it is today, there is loads of evidence of this from ports of that time now being many miles inland! Current rises have no relationship to CO2 levels and most geographers (like me) were taught that sea level rise since the 1850's are more to do with the slow melt of ice from the little ice age we experienced from 1300 to 1850's.

Ice Age!
Are we at a peak or trough or whatever goodness knows, funny though David Bellamy taught me that humans were maybe decreasing the chance of another ice age due to global warming, but this was back in the 70's, when the view was that we were heading back into another ice age!! And the temperature was rising, funny that warming has sort of stopped of the last 15 years!

So are humans affecting the weather? Well if its going to happen its going to happen pretty quick! after all there are now 7.3 billion people on the earth thats a double since the 70's and history shows us also that when a eco system out reaches itself, nature always comes up with an answer to regain balance

Nice thought for a Saturday, lets hope we have cold winter weather LOL
latest report
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Interesting couple of stories from nasa

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/a-summer-of-nasa-research-on-sea-level-rise-in-greenland
snow conditions
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Missed the debate here, but some other interesting and very concerning stories from NASA too Shocked

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/in-greenland-another-major-glacier-comes-undone

Linked with El Nino, this year is likely to break the record set in 2014 for the warmest year http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/17/2015-hottest-year-on-record-noaa

(2014 links)
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/23/sorry-skeptics-nasa-and-noaa-were-right-about-the-2014-temperature-record/
snow conditions
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Another take from someone who has changed their view on the subject. Some of the long time range charts make for interesting viewing and add context:

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace
snow conditions
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Unfortunately @AndAnotherThing.., that article is written like clickbait and I would hope most would be highly suspicious as they read.

I did read it. Honest. But I can't be bothered to talk about all of the things that are wrong with what he says. Luckily others were pissed off enough to do it for me:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/10/more-of-david-siegels-climate-lies-and.html

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3ykd5yxvw



( To summarise for the TLDR response: Some web designer guy who gets into fads (Veganism, crystal healing, whatever), reads some climate denial blogs and gets confused. People who understand it correct him. End. )
ski holidays
 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?
Well I hope it is CO2 that's causing climate change, as technology may be coming to the rescue.

The basic premise is that solar energy and batteries / electric cars are technology products whose cost is falling very fast. As such, they will replace more expensive fossil fuel generation, and the combustion engine. And this is much closer than you might think.


http://youtube.com/v/8xy1EDY7Ruw
ski holidays
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
@travelwomble, very interesting. I have been surprised at the speed at which renewables have been developed here in Germany over the last few years. This shows where the journey is taking us.
snow conditions
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@Pynch, Clickbait ? I see no cats Wink

Some interesting comments in the second of those.... particularly as in my view one of the casualties in the whole climate debate is the scientific process.

For entertainment and even handedness, here is authors point by point address the criticism, although I fear this will run and run...

https://medium.com/@pullnews/climate-change-is-it-real-and-important-8a9c824853ff


My reason for the original post was that here is someone else who was once wedded to the idea but has reversed their position.
latest report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Read 'An appeal to Reason' by Nigel lawson... very interesting on how politics and money play thier part in making 'climate change' seem like it's only ever heppened once...ie now !!
an example is sea water levels... they are predicted to rise by 500mm in the next 100 years, that was from 2008 when the book was released...so far they reckon its gone up by 0.5mm upto 2014.. they rely too much on computor models apparently.. very good read
latest report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
just saw this graphic

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif

puts the current "warming" into perspective


Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 20-11-15 17:56; edited 1 time in total
snow report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
letelemarker Just a couple of things;

1) The figure that you refer to is the Oxygen isotope record measured from the ice (snow), it should not be interpreted as a direct proxy for temperature as has been done here. Temperature is just one variable affecting the isotopic composition of the snowfall in central Greenland, others include ice thickness (site altitude), sea-ice extent (distance to moisture source), air mass trajectory, seasonality of snowfall and isotopic composition of sea water (this changes with the amount of ice on land compared to water in the sea), i.e. it is complicated.

2) The temperature of central Greenland, or Antarctica, or any single point on the Earths surface for that matter should not be taken to be representative of global mean temperature over the time-scale that you refer to. This is because although the warming that we have experienced over the last 100 years or so can generally be seen to have occurred at most points across the Earths surface, the strong relationship between what we experience locally and what we experienced globally breaks down as climate change causes the reorganisation of the Earths ocean and atmospheric system, and with it, the reorganisation of local climates. For instance, the UK has a mild climate in winter compared to say, Berlin, primarily because the prevailing winds in winter are westerly and warmed by the ocean, whilst in Berlin they get more cold easterly winds from Siberia. If in the future the climate system reorganises itself and the prevailing winds started to come from a more easterly direction in winter (as has been suggested), then the uk could locally experience cooler winters even if the global mean temperature continued to rise. Even during the strong global warming of the last 100 years, some regions of the Earth have cooled (for instance, the area just south of Greenland and coastal regions of Chile). This is to be expected for the type of (local) reasons I have mentioned.

One of the biggest problems we will experience in the future is not the change in a few degrees in global mean temperature, but the much more dramatic changes in local climates caused by the reorganisation of the Earths ocean and atmospheric system, something that climate models are really not very good at.
latest report
 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.
@FreeBeer

How should oxygen isotope be interpreted? I thought that the ice core samples, along with the other data collected like tree rings etc were used as the basis of any model, conjecture that has gone into recreating our past climate records, If we can't rely on the heavy/light oxygen isotope concentration as a measure of past temperature how can we come to any conclusion? there is no way of knowing all of the past variables, people weren't there to observe and measure them all, including the position and strength of the sun, so there has to be some kind of excepted standard to work off.

Quote:

climate change causes the reorganisation of the Earths ocean and atmospheric system, and with it, the reorganisation of local climates


What do you actually do you mean by climate change? the naturally occurring type that has gone on since the second day of creation Happy or the man made co2 is evil type of climate change?
snow conditions
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
letelemarker wrote:
just saw this graphic

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif

puts the current "warming" into perspective



Natural climate change and global warming are 100% indisputable.

The world was 30% ice in 10,000BC. It is now 10% ice in 2015AD. More heat = less ice. Mother Nature is giving us a longterm warming cycle.

Manmade climate change and global warming are also 100% indisputable.

The Earth is basically a small room with a thin roof in a big galactic house. The room is filling up with ever-more billions of hot people, hot businesses and hot gases. More heat = warming.

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.
snow conditions



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy