https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067
A Bit more depressing news. The amount of heat going into the oceans has been underestimated by a big percentage. It will make it even more difficult to keep below the 2c target as the oceans will take possibly hundreds of years to release their additional energy.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
over the past 25 years
The planet is 4.5billion years old.
25 years is such an insignificant sample number.
How many times has the earth warmed & cooled over the 4.5billion 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?
Quote:
The planet is 4.5billion years old.
25 years is such an insignificant sample number.
How many times has the earth warmed & cooled over the 4.5billion years
These statements are obviously true and undoubtedly over those 4.5 Billion years the planet has been both much hotter and much colder than it currently is, no one can reasonably dispute the facts that the climate has changed continuously since forever but your question regarding how many times it has heated/cooled is irrelevant and simply supports what is already known.
How quickly it has warmed is a more salient point and all of the evidence points towards it warming much, much faster than it ever has before. Following that, the question of how much of this increased rate of warming is due to human activity is key. Again, all of the evidence says that the increased rate of warming is entirely due to human activity.
The great unknowns are what will happen as a result of this increased rate? Will the rate accelerate or decelerate? Will it stop warming at previous thresholds or will it continue to get warmer still? Will this abnormal warming cycle be followed by another cooling? The answers to these may never be known but I personally agree with the universal assumption that the outcome cannot possibly be good.
And yes, it is also highly likely the we (speaking as a middle-aged person) are going to be long dead before any really significant impact is felt by humankind but that strikes me as a particularly self-centered reason not to worry and try to do something about it during our lifetimes.
Loads but it's usually a much slower process and the earth will be fine long term. Humans (who mainly live around coasts and whose major food crops are weather dependant) will face some serious issues. There are too many of the buggers anyhow.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Thu 1-11-18 22:40; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
jma wrote:
all of the evidence says that the increased rate of warming is entirely due to human activity.
As agreed by 95% of climate scientists. Just as 95% (made up number to illustrate the point) of astrologists agree that the Sun's apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations have an influence on person character and fate.
Can you imagine 95% of climate scientist suddenly standing up and declaring that humanity has no influence on climate change what so ever? This can't possibly happen, no matter the weight of evidence, because it will mean them giving up their comfy jobs and joining the dole queue.
Science has very a strict definition of what constitutes an evidence of "factor X causes effect Y on subjects from population Z".
Let's say X is "eating cucumbers", Y is "high blood pressure" and Z is "white under 30 male with reasonably healthy lifestyle"
Try publishing an article arguing that since one such male started eating cucumbers 10 yeas ago, his blood pressure raised from 120/80 to 140/90 therefore eating cucumbers cause blood pressure to raise.
You might score a feature in Daily Express "letters" section if you are lucky.
On the other hand if you select a group of 1000 white under 30 males leading a resonantly healthy life style and ask them to consume 2 cucumbers a day, select a control group of 1000 similar individuals who don't eat cucumbers, measure their blood pressure for 10 years, put your data together, calculate the variances and find that probability of blood pressure variation being due to chance alone is very low - then you might be onto something.
What then man made climate change theory does? X is "human activity", Y is "climate change" and Z is an "Earth type habitable planet".
Do they have control group? Obviously not.
Do the have at least a single control subject? Still not.
So how is it different to Daily Express cucumber theory? it isn't.
But they ask as us to make an exception for their theory, because well it's our lovely Earth and we don't have another one, so why not try to reduce pollution and emissions - surely it doesn't hurt?
Fair enough, this isn't new, Pascal came up with his dilemma almost 250 years ago. But what does it say about the field of study in question? Science or religion?
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 1-11-18 14:30; edited 1 time in total
I read a report of some really old letters to a newspaper. The average person in the street in 1910 knew that the Theory of Special Relativity was absolute rubbish while the equivalent person now uses it every day.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Is it a cause for concern and investigation, yes. Is also the biggest taxation wheeze since windows, absolutely.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Oleski Sorry, but you are really misinformed on this. Many scientists, whose jobs are not directly-related to climate change, have also looked at the data surrounding climate change and there is now almost-universal acceptance that climate change is man-made. There is more agreement on this than there is smoking causing lung cancer. They do have a control group from core ice samples taken at the ice caps before 1850 and samples taken after. The type of contamination in the after group is what has never been seen before, ever. It contains levels of CO2, SO2, etc that are linked to the us of carbon fossil fuels by man. The whole scientific community is united on this, not just climate-change scientists. Physicists, chemists, biological sciences, every branch of science agrees that this stuff is true. Would you stop being in denial and accept it.
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.
I still love how a cold winter is weather while a warm summer is climate change...
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Interesting from the BBC article:
"Now, researchers have developed what they say is a highly precise method of detecting the temperature of the ocean by measuring the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air. This allows them to accurately measure ocean temperatures globally, dating back to 1991, when accurate data from a global network of stations became available."
Don't you measure temperature with a thermometer? If you measure it with a theory instead you can make it out to be whatever you like! What happens if your theory is wrong?
Sometimes things that may be perfectly true appear to be nonsense, which doesn't help the doom-mongers convince the sceptics.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
jonnyboy9 wrote:
They do have a control group from core ice samples taken at the ice caps before 1850 and samples taken after.
That's equivalent to blood pressure before cucumbers and after cucumbers. Control group (or at least subject) must be independent.
Quote:
The whole scientific community is united on this, not just climate-change scientists. Physicists, chemists, biological sciences, every branch of science agrees that this stuff is true
Do you actually have the data to back that up?
According to latest study (Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, Cooke et al 2016)
"consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper"
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Thu 1-11-18 14:48; edited 2 times in total
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.
@Gordyjh, You have been reading a summary of something that was written by an arts graduate. If you really care about it go read the original paper.
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
Gordyjh wrote:
Interesting from the BBC article:
"Now, researchers have developed what they say is a highly precise method of detecting the temperature of the ocean by measuring the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air. This allows them to accurately measure ocean temperatures globally, dating back to 1991, when accurate data from a global network of stations became available."
Don't you measure temperature with a thermometer? If you measure it with a theory instead you can make it out to be whatever you like! What happens if your theory is wrong?
Sometimes things that may be perfectly true appear to be nonsense, which doesn't help the doom-mongers convince the sceptics.
How do you measure a body as large as a ocean with a thermometer?
The surface temperature is measurable enough using satellites, but what about at different depths?
Scientists studying ocean temperatures will need a model to take all this into account to give a measurement of the total thermal energy stored in the ocean.
Obviously, as a expert, you'll be able to give us a single ocean temperature using a thermometer.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Can measure with all kinds of measuring instruments.
But then us scientists and engineers working in the field of global and regional environmental and climate monitoring don't have a frickin' clue, don't know anything, and only have an agenda. That's what the orange one tweeted, so it must be true.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Oleski wrote:
jonnyboy9 wrote:
They do have a control group from core ice samples taken at the ice caps before 1850 and samples taken after.
That's equivalent to blood pressure before cucumbers and after cucumbers. Control group (or at least subject) must be independent.
Quote:
The whole scientific community is united on this, not just climate-change scientists. Physicists, chemists, biological sciences, every branch of science agrees that this stuff is true
Do you actually have the data to back that up?
According to latest study (Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, Cooke et al 2016)
"consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper"
and it says there (the very first paragraph, if you bothered to read) : "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree"
so where is the evidence of "he whole scientific community is united on this, not just climate-change scientists. Physicists, chemists, biological sciences, every branch of science agrees that this stuff is true" ?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 1-11-18 15:04; edited 1 time in total
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
FGS, immediately below that is a list of the various scientific groups, all of whom are NOT directly linked to climate change, ALL supporting the findings of the climate change scientists. They are not supporting them for fun - they are doing so because they believe the data. You should too. Unless you enjoy being contrary just for the sake of it, which well may be the case.
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?
@Gordyjh, Not sure how you reached that observation as it’s been a fair while since the UK (you say you’re based in Suffolk, so fair to assume that you’re talking about the UK) had a cold winter. Here are the temperature anomalies for the last few:
Winter Temperature Anomaly °C
2012/2013 -0.4
2013/2014 +1.5
2014/2015 +0.2
2015/2016 +1.8
2016/2017 +1.3
2017/2018 -0.2
Data taken from the MET office
Perhaps you were referring to the cold snaps that the UK has experienced during the above period which were correctly described as weather as they lasted a couple of weeks at most. And, anyway, the weather to which you are probably referring, the so-called Beast from the East, parts 1, 2 and 3 last year were almost certainly caused by much warmer than average temperatures in the Artic disrupting normal weather patterns resulting in cold being diverted to the UK. Climate change would seem a fair description for that
FGS, immediately below that is a list of the various scientific groups, all of whom are NOT directly linked to climate change, ALL supporting the findings of the climate change scientists.
I can see a list of scientific organisations endorsing the position on their members behalf. That is not the same as most individual scientists agreeing with it.
When UK government condemns or endorses something, does it mean the entire UK population shares it's position? No.
Does it mean that at least a majority of UK population agrees with it? No.
What does mean in terms of actual public opinion? Nothing what so ever.
Same with the listed organisations.
If you said "most scientific organisations endorse this position", I wouldn't have had a problem with it, but that's not what you said.
At least that is not how I read "he whole scientific community is united on this, not just climate-change scientists" in context of the quote I posted about 90-100% publishing climate scientists (note: individual scientists, not organisations)
The really scary thing is that there must be some natural switch between ice age and the warming periods between ice ages.
One theory is that when the glaciers and polar ice melts the fresh water released messes up the ocean currents which take warm tropical water from the equator to the 'frozen' North and South.
The gulf stream switches off and we get snow which does not melt in Aberdeen Chicago and Geneva. Some scientists studying ice cores from ice laid down in the last ice age say that it seems it could happen fast in just a few years.
OOPS glaciers are retreating and the polar ice caps are melting.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Gordyjh wrote:
Don't you measure temperature with a thermometer? If you measure it with a theory instead you can make it out to be whatever you like! What happens if your theory is wrong?
If you want to measure the temperature of something in one particular place, you use a thermometer. If you want to measure the average temperature of the oceans as a whole, then you'd have to either place billions of thermometers in various locations around the world (and at various depths) or come up with a different solution that is actually logistically possible.
If your alternative to using billions of thermometers is inaccurate, then there is no shortage of scientists out there willing to show your mistakes. As much as people love to think that the scientific community is a united group, the truth is they love proving each other wrong, and they do it all the time.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Interesting topic, I thought most folks here would agree that the planet is warming, given the hobby / lifestyles we choose to pursue and the evidence we have right in front of us such as retreating glaciers etc...
Oleski: Regardless of if you agree with the science or not the hard evidence is that we are in a warming phase, most likely driven by man made emissions such as CO2 etc...CO2 as a driver of warming potential is fairly straight forward stuff and as scientists love to disprove each other (this is a good thing) has yet to be challenged convincingly.
Yes, there is good science and bad science and you can prove anything statistically, but surely climate change is one theory is one you don't want to test to oblivion.
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.
I'm a medical doctor. Much of the science in medicine is drug company sponsored nonsense and unsurprisingly shows that drugs work all the time.
If there was any reliable science against anthropogenic climate change the oil industry would have promoted it massively, and bought enough scientists that no one would believe in it.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@cerebralvortex, My point is that it is a perfectly circular argument to say that levels of certain gases in the atmosphere cause global warming, the levels of those gases were measured at X so therefore the planet's temperature must have been Y. As I said it may be perfectly true but it sounds like nonsense.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
So if humans add to the circle by emitting the gas? The temperature rises because of us.
And with that I'll stop feeding the trolls.
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.
Gordy wrote:
Don't you measure temperature with a thermometer? If you measure it with a theory instead you can make it out to be whatever you like! What happens if your theory is wrong?
.
I was curious as to where the name Dryas came from. It turns out that it is the name of an arctic tundra plant which only grows in a specific set of temperature ranges and it's presence or absence tells you what is going on with the temperature.
So instead of using a thermometer and a time machine you use a microscope to see if you have dryas leaves preserved in lake sediments . You can use radio carbon dating for the year. No theory just hard science.
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
Gordyjh wrote:
@cerebralvortex, My point is that it is a perfectly circular argument to say that levels of certain gases in the atmosphere cause global warming, the levels of those gases were measured at X so therefore the planet's temperature must have been Y. As I said it may be perfectly true but it sounds like nonsense.
You are quite capable of educating yourself on the topic; using, as you have, a computer connected to the internet and your preferred search engine. I invite you to guess how probable it is that you have thought up some "gotcha!" that the experts have not considered.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
The problem is a simple one. There about 4 times too many people on the planet that it can handle.
The solution is the difficult thing.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Within 50 years (around about 2050), there will be a natural event that will significantly change the way we live - poimanently!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Mr.Egg wrote:
over the past 25 years
The planet is 4.5billion years old.
25 years is such an insignificant sample number.
How many times has the earth warmed & cooled over the 4.5billion years
The planet's average temperature has increased +4c in the past 300 million years.
Roughly an extra +1c every 75m years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +3c in the past 15 thousand years.
Roughly an extra +1c every 5k years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +1c in the past 150 years (human population explosion).
Roughly an extra +1c every 150 years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +0.5c in the past 50 years (human population explosion).
Roughly an extra +1c every 100 years...
Natural warming (interglacial period) has been accelerated by manmade warming (lots of people and lots of fumes).
The planet is basically a "box" to live in. You put more people inside a room, it heats up.
The world is warming, drying, and melting.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Whitegold wrote:
The planet's average temperature has increased +1c in the past 150 years (human population explosion).
Roughly an extra +1c every 150 years...
The planet's average temperature has increased +0.5c in the past 50 years (human population explosion).
Roughly an extra +1c every 100 years...
Natural warming (interglacial period) has been accelerated by manmade warming (lots of people and lots of fumes).
The planet is basically a "box" to live in. You put more people inside a room, it heats up.
The world is warming, drying, and melting.
Well, since the earth is supposed to be in a cooldown period because of less sun activity, lets see what its like in 50 years. Its well known the Sun has been in its hottest period with most activity since the late 1980s anyway. Not saying we dont contribute - so do farting cows. I remember when it was called global warming - yet that was debunked, so they went away & came back with a new name for it.
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?
sbooker wrote:
The problem is a simple one. There about 4 times too many people on the planet that it can handle.
The solution is the difficult thing.
++1 but try getting any politicians to stand up & say this, capitalism and it's holy grail of economic growth are addicted to population growth, the planet is choking to death on its human population but leaders of society at every level want more people to govern as this = more power. When two tribes go to war, the bigger tribe is more likely to win.
@86tomw, I’m not arguing one way or the other, I’m just pointing out why sceptics have not been convinced. If people are given explanations that sound like nonsense they might well believe they are in fact nonsense.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@tangowaggon, surely when two tribes go to war, 1 is all that you can score!
@Gordyjh, but that's the thing with sceptics, the worst (or best?!) sceptic will be pushing off in a life raft as sea levels rise and civilisation is collapsing, mumbling something about pure chance, there was no way 95% of climate scientists could have been right and all this would have happened anyway.
Regardless if one thinks a theory is 99% nonsense, you have to allow for the 1% that just maybe it's not and that 1% opens up a whole world of possibilities...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
beenative wrote:
Regardless if one thinks a theory is 99% nonsense, you have to allow for the 1% that just maybe it's not and that 1% opens up a whole world of possibilities...
ball cocks you do.
Its a gravy train cash cow.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Peter S wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067
A Bit more depressing news. The amount of heat going into the oceans has been underestimated by a big percentage. It will make it even more difficult to keep below the 2c target as the oceans will take possibly hundreds of years to release their additional energy.
Best get on with skiing whilst you can then. And I loved last summer.
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.
Mr.Egg wrote:
beenative wrote:
Regardless if one thinks a theory is 99% nonsense, you have to allow for the 1% that just maybe it's not and that 1% opens up a whole world of possibilities...
ball cocks you do.
Its a gravy train cash cow.
Err yes you do. That 1% could produce a whole new theory, another 99% which is another 1%. Ad infinitum.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
The solution to this is simple, and would provide a recycling use for some non-biodegradable waste.
Polystyrene packaging does not degrade, and is not generally recycled. I have been looking into a use for polystyrene, and tried breaking it up and making it into concrete bricks or as drainage in a plant pot.
A more significant use would be to collect it all together, and make a giant ice-berg. This would replace the melting poles, and reflect the sun from the sea to stop it heating up. (as it is generally white) On these ice-bergs made of recycled polystyrene, I would place some solar panels which would power some robotic controlled propellors which would keep the ice-bergs in a GPS position determined by a centrally located control centre.
Problem solved, and the world would be saved from its own destruction!
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
