Disappearing glaciers...

A snowHead

laundryman, If only a fraction of the predictions prove to be true, then those undermining the arguments bear responsibility for some potentially grave consequences. If they don't materialise, and we have taken a little more care over how we have managed the environment in the meantime, then we all win regardless. One approach follows simple logic, as for the other.... well, do you find your sandwiches a little gritty?

A snowHead

PG, is this you?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

PG, There are no one way bets. We could take the view that the world will be rendered unhabitable unless we cease all CO2 production forthwith. In which case, we can also sit back and wait for wars, famine, pestilence, etc, etc. There is a balance to be struck, and it won't be got right by ignoring one side of the equation. Would that life be organised such that "simple" logic always provided the right answer.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Jonpim, Masque may have been nearer the mark..... but perhaps this is you? Wink

You'll need to Register first of course.

laundryman,

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

It's not only Hollwood that has come up with exciting future scenarios due to Global Warming. New Scientist has this offering .
I especially liked "the Arctic Ocean passage across the North Pole has become a crucial shipping route between Europe and Asia since the Middle East Water Wars disrupted movement through the Suez Canal".

After all it is free

I haven't read all the links in this thread but I remember a television documentary about an earlier and much worse extinction event than the one that may have done for the dinosaurs. It wiped out 2/3 of all species on earth.
I don't know how authoritative it was, but I remember they reckoned the climate change involved was about 6 degrees

snowball, there have been five or six episodes of Mass Extinctions , maybe more.
If you read into the subject at all it quickly becomes obvious how amazing it is that there is life on earth at all!

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

I think the thing with mass extinctions is that you'd prefer them to happen to someone else, some other time! Smile

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

I done some more reading (such a fascinating subject).
I think snowball was suggesting that a significant rise in temperature was associated with a Mass Extinction event prior to the end-Cretaceuous (goodbye dinosaurs).
Reading the details of all the mass extinctions, the opposite is in fact true. All the biggest mass extinctions are thought to be associated with major glaciation , and a large temperature drop .
An increase in rainfall has been suggested as the cause of the late Triassic event.

Did you know about the Snowball Earth theories, snowball?

snow reports

New data 'confirms' global warming (Guardian, May 6th)

You know it makes sense.

Yes, Skanky, that's the programme I meant (they calculated 3 deg from the strike and 3 from the methane release). I don't really remember the rest either (it wasn't the subject of the programme) but I was impressed that what seemed a relatively small increase might lead to such a giant effect.
Jonpim, I've heard of "snowball earth" but not read such a detailed account. I'm relieved to find I wasn't the cause.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

snowball and skanky, if Siberia was involved, you are probable referring to the End Permian mass extinction: the biggest mass extinction of them all. I think the tv program may have been simplifying matters somewhat. There is still much debate about Cretaceuous event, only 65 million years ago. The Permian event was 250 million years ago when the land mass was very different. As the link shows: exactly what went on is unclear, with possibly both cooling and heating involved.

A snowHead

Well here it is, judge for yourself. I don't have time to read it at the moment, but will do so at some point.

A snowHead

skanky, thank you, I remember this program now. Like the article, it did drag on a bit, but a most interesting show all the same.
So you need a major Mantle Plume to raise the temperature 5 degrees, and then the release of vast amounts of methane to push it up another 5 degrees.....
Yes, I think that would do it. Sad

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

[quote="PG"]New data 'confirms' global warming (Guardian, May 6th)

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Or any tomatoes in my see through garden shed Laughing

You'll need to Register first of course.

Mark Hunter, You have tomatoes there already Puzzled

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Lager, as shanky says: greenhouse effect is undisputed and necessary.

After all it is free · Last edited by After all it is free on Thu 6-05-04 22:52; edited 1 time in total

Thanks Jonpim, that was the one.
Oh b***er, yes, it was 5 degrees + 5 degrees, my memory is going.

Lager, to lower the intellectual tone, somewhat) I know a better, true put-down than your Astor - Churchill:
Jean Harlow, on being introduced to Lady (Margot) Asquith: "Do you pronounce your name Margo or Margotte?"
Lady Asquith: "Margo. The T is silent as in Harlo"
(This works better out loud)
The version I heard of the Astor - Churchill story ended "Yes, Madam, and you are ugly, but I shall be sober tomorrow" (which is marginally neater, though still cruel. Well, he was drunk.)

snowball, if youi ee-arr it you need the asterixes, but of you aye-arr it the naughty-word-detecter leaves it alone.
So: Bug#er gets clobbered, but Buggar gets through.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Get out your charcoal masks, summer is coming ....

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

So this nasty isoprene stuff is produced by trees. Simple solution: cut down all the trees! Toofy Grin

snow reports

It's all your fault PG, I should be clearing out the garage, but you have got me intrigued by isoprene.
Never heard of it before today. Now I'm a blooming "expert".
What a tangled web is the enviroment.
Isoprene is the monomeric unit of natural rubber.
It is possibly secreted by plants as a protective mechanism against high levels of ozone.
Unfortunately, as the Observer article says, this is not good for the local environment.
But it might be good for the global climate.
Nothing simple about the environment. Confused

Jonpim, If you really want something meaty to get your teeth into, there's the on-line version of the Laternser, M. and Schneebeli, M.: "Climate trends from homogeneous long-term snow data of the Swiss Alps (1931 – 1999)" manuscript.

Makes fascinating reading if you have a day (at least) to spare!

Chapter 1 - Chapter 2 - Chapter 3 - Chapter 4 - Chapter 5 - Chapter 6

You know it makes sense.

PG, Great! That's another day down the Swanny. I'm hooked already.

Gregory: I need a smiley for Grrrrrr! while grinning.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-152-1105786,00.html

Bjorn Lomborg wrote the "Skeptical Environmentalist" (not read it yet, it's one of those books that seems to hover on the "must read" list for years).

It's interesting that his choice is between carbon management and drinking water (though I think the Kyoto agreement was merely a token effort at the former), and not between say, something else and drinking water.

$150billion is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the amount spent on say, arms, by the world governments. Still may not be able to afford Kyoto, but why not compare the price of everything? Or is cutting back on some things taboo? Providing drinking water for everyone would probably have a bigger positive effect in this so called "war on terror" (ha ha), than anything else done, so far.

Incidentally, it's always disappointing to read when people say "envirnmentalists think" or other similar sentiments. There are many environmentalists who agree with him about placing the emphasis on developing renewables, as there are many who try and pin their hopes on carbon control - there are many who advocate both. This lumping of a spectrum under one banner can is what creates polarisation in the debates.

Ahem, rant over.

A snowHead

A snowHead

laundryman, surely an environmentalist (there I go, lumping them all together Wink

) would make the choice between environmental and others, whereas a militarist would be the one who says that cutting arms spending is not an option?

Or am I being too pedantic about a joke? Very Happy

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

skanky, I suspect we're at cross purposes. I thought you were saying that if clean drinking water were the aim, it could be funded by cutting military spending rather than by failing to implement Kyoto. My point is that Lomborg might think so too, but he hasn't mentioned it because his book is solely concerned with environmental issues.

Anyway, let's hope, for the sake of our sport (and for more important considerations), that the powers that be get it right. Sadly, I suspect that the global climate is like the proverbial oil tanker (there's an unfortunate simile) and that global warming will prove incredibly difficult to arrest. I think we're stuck with receding glaciers and rising snow levels for the foreseeable. Sad

I do tend to Lomborg's point of view; at the point that renewables become more economic than fossil fuels, we won't need the protracted agony of implementing Kyoto-type agreements (you can bet your life that even if it does get ratified, many countries will backslide), nor need to accept the undoubted costs involved in the absence of economic alternatives. This point can't be reached fast enough in my opinion, and I think research in that area should be boosted massively. A re-commitment to nuclear power could be a useful stop gap. Oh dear, I seem to have wandered off...

You need to Login to know who's really who.

laundryman, no that is what I meant, and I now see your point. But my point is that nothing can be taken in isolation and everything (most things) has an impact in every (most) sphere - environmental, ethical, economical, etc. as they're all linked.

I tend to agree with the rest of what you say, and the broad thrust of his argument. I do think though that economic calculations are skewed in that they don't take into account the full picture (non-renewablt must be more expensive as you're using a finite resource) and are often too short-term. Other people put the arguments a lot better than I can, though.

The, as yet unanswered, problem with nuclear power is the waste.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

skanky, I think we're in complete agreement! Smile

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

"The British royal family freezes to death in Balmoral
Unlikely, but the castle is notoriously underheated"

Now that was the bit that made me laugh...

After all it is free

Bad news for the royals, better news for Glenshee!

Can't believe the Royals would freeze to death...surely they've got Corgi?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Groan... Less of the Monkhouse gags please... Wink

Help!!

Disappearing glaciers...

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste