 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
What is your point exactly? Are you saying the IPCC are wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| caughtanedge wrote: |
| What is your point exactly? Are you saying the IPCC are wrong? |
Are you saying they were right in 2009? If so, then it's now too late so we may as well carry on regardless 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| MikeM wrote: |
Are you saying they were right in 2009? If so, then it's now too late so we may as well carry on regardless |
Who is "they" ?
Just because someone once made a prediction (... whose accuracy can not yet be verified) doesn't mean all subsequent predictions are necessarily wrong.
The balance of evidence clearly does not favor climate change deniers.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Wed 6-04-22 9:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
It was HRH Charlie in 2009.
I fear this is going nowhere.... let's just do nothing eh?
One more try: are you saying the IPCC are wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The issue is what we are leaving to our children and our Childrens’ children - as well as all the other species on the planet. A legacy some cultures think more about than some of us. We all need to act and think differently if we are to have a planet with any ice on it at all, if we are to avoid horrible conflict over resources and are to protect vulnerable societies affected by climate change. What Prince Charles said is neither here nor there…the science and observations are what talks. Artic this year 40 deg above normal.
Wake up and smell the ….
…Acrid smell of fires in Siberia…
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/un-confirms-hottest-temperature-ever-recorded-in-the-arctic-in-2020-180979259/
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 6-04-22 10:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it was ever that the world will end in x amount of years, but that the climate change effects get harder to reverse.
You can't deny that change is happening, you only need to look at glacial retreat in our beloved mountains to see that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| caughtanedge wrote: |
| What is your point exactly? Are you saying the IPCC are wrong? |
I'm not a climate scientist so don't have any competence to criticise the IPCC
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@luigi, indeed … and conflict and stress over resources is close to home in the Alps - water shortages in Valais and the Savoie are a pressing and chronic issue. People may be in the Valais for one or two weeks when everything is covered in snow, but for the other 300+ days of the year there are stark realities. Salgesh is a few minutes’ drive from us:
https://www.aqua4d.com/news/a-swiss-drought-how-water-scarcity-is-closer-than-you-think/
The Savoie is under a great deal of water stress:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/comm_droughts/2nd_int_report.pdf
This isn’t scare-mongering - it is a stark fact for those living in the Isere valley. And there are UN and EU initiatives to support local communities because of the gravity of the situation. Buying a bottle of Evian is one thing. Maintaining the family farm and cattle at altitude is quite another.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Wed 6-04-22 10:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| caughtanedge wrote: |
| What is your point exactly? Are you saying the IPCC are wrong? |
I'm not a climate scientist so don't have any competence to criticise the IPCC |
That's not the implication of your original post though, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| caughtanedge wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| caughtanedge wrote: |
| What is your point exactly? Are you saying the IPCC are wrong? |
I'm not a climate scientist so don't have any competence to criticise the IPCC |
That's not the implication of your original post though, is it? |
I see you are an expert in mind reading, nice to know, what are next week's lottery numbers and are you always as aggressive as this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@davidof, I think it's fair to say your original post casts doubt on the recent IPCC announcement, by comparing it to a statement made 13 years ago by HRH Prince Charles, which hasn't turned out to be accurate.
I'm sitting working from home on the top floor of my home. I can see a cloudy sky, there are cars passing, builders working nearby etc. it all looks and sounds fairly normal. I can't see any climate change. But I can see something happening to glaciers every time I go to the mountains. I have to rely on others, and other organisations, to take a wider, long term view on my behalf.
I think climate change is a serious subject, and this is a discussion forum, so it seems reasonable for me to challenge your original suggestion.
I don't think that counts as aggression, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| luigi wrote: |
| I don't think it was ever that the world will end in x amount of years, but that the climate change effects get harder to reverse… |
Yebbut.
Not too good for a headline and a cheap dig at Old 2 Jags Charlie, innit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@luigi, everyone else seems to have missed that point.
Unfortunately it is impossible to know, until our grandchidren can see how the century pans out - and even then they will depend on modelling to work out whether doing some things faster now would have made the crucial difference.
I think the underlying point is that setting on the right strategy early would limit temperature rises without the drastic actions that would be necessary if it was left till later. And there would be some point when even the most drastic action imaginable couldn't stop temperature rising above the IPCC target.
To be fair some countries had achieved some success by 2017 and had plans for ongoing progress - but they represented a minority of emitters and it needs action by the whole world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
For the last 2 years or so, most have been working from home and life has survived. Now the restrictions have been lifted people are going back to the office. This is so wrong. My Fiancee's boss wants them all back in the office asap because he's a workaholic. There are so many like him.
The Govt are trying to get us to buy electric/hybrid cars but how about not using cars for 5 days of the week by working from home? Think of the saving in emissions that would have.
We need to learn to put a jumper on at home rather than turn up the heating.
Every new build house should be heated by a heat pump and have solar panels on, really not expensive when installed at the correct time.
Something is wrong with our way of thinking that needs to change completely. Do we really need to buy a new car every 3 years for tax efficiency? Do we really need a new phone when the contract has run out?
But really it is industry that is the main culprit in the UK, not us individuals.
And another thing...Why is it that taking a plane to the alps is cheaper than a train? How is it that riding a motorbike or driving a car into London is cheaper than taking the train, and more likely to get to work on time too? Do you really think a 20mph speed limit inside the M25 will reduce emissions, or should we make every junction in London a yellow box junction AND POLICE IT?
But all this really is just a drop in the ocean when it comes to global warming. China and India alone are responsible for most of it on this planet now such that it really doesn't matter what we do if they carry on the way they are.
Maybe we could change the British constitution so that we could vote for Charlie boy, he's not perfect by a long way but he seems to care more than any of the crooks we have in power now.
Rant over!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Something is wrong with our way of thinking that needs to change completely
|
STONE HIM! STONE HIM!
Or, 3 weeks in the ScGb forum for you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Is not the answer to this (and many other questions), too many humans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@AL9000, Nice one centurian!
| Quote: |
| Or, 3 weeks in the ScGb forum for you! |
not sure I'd last a day!
@Ski lots, too many humans or too much greed? Both I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Ski lots wrote: |
| Is not the answer to this (and many other questions), too many humans? |
Which humans are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Whilst I am sure we might all have a few pet ones, I’m talking of humanity as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
You have a pet human?!!
Isn’t that illegal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consent is everything  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay as you go or on contract? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Old fashioned barter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ski lots wrote: |
| Whilst I am sure we might all have a few pet ones, I’m talking of humanity as a whole. |
Just as with productivity, some humans are more polluting than others, or are you sticking to a global average?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
No need to get too granular. It seems to me there are only 2 broad solutions. Managing to populate other planets - perhaps possible or seeking to reduce population in a slow and manageable way and thus reduce consumption. It disturbs me when I hear talk of invasive species, when humans are not only responsible for most of those invasions and are the epitome of that type of species themselves. Of course one has to recognise being part of the problem, but choosing not to have children both reduces my own impact whilst paradoxically reducing my own interest and stake in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
No need to get too granular.
|
Why not? That is, if we have the data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@AL9000, fill your boots and come up with a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Interesting re stake in future and the paradox. I do quite a bit to lessen our carbon footprint - getting into trouble at work for refusing to do unecessary foreign travel, building an eco-house, etc. I mithered about having children and then had Grom1 (Gromette aged 1 and Grom2 (Grom aged 16).
One understands that light switches have two positions, doors also. One thinks both only have one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Ski lots wrote: |
| @AL9000, fill your boots and come up with a solution. |
I was just trying to clarify your problem. But I guess it’s too difficult for you to look at more deeply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
This is all very anthropomorphic.
We puny humans have mastered the natural world and become greedy and complacent. James Lovelock would have it that the Earth will balance out our activities to return the planet to a state of equilibrium over time.
We are sowing the seeds of our own destruction as a species and will get a whooping from Mother Nature in the end. The first law of Thermodynamics applies to the carbon cycle meaning that favourable conditions for plant life will eventually capture atmospheric carbon and cool the planet. Probably once larger mammals have suffered an extinction event of fairly dramatic proportions. Smaller creatures and other phyla will be much less affected and will breath a sigh of relief once we have been thinned out.
Governments have to drive de-carbonisation of the world's economies 'cos people, left to their own devices, won't do enough. Difficult to see any other outcome than mutually assured destruction for humanity and it's going to get ugly! Fossil fuels are a bit addictive though and which heartless first world countries are going to tell the rest of them that they can't have a crack at improving their lot when we've already fecked it up for them.....
Anyway, back to skiing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Klamm Franzer, exactly, taking the evolutionary biological view life is not at risk if CO2 emissions don't reverse. Over the long term there are micro-organisms that can cope with most things, there will be plants that thrive on the increased CO2 and heat and in the end bring things back to sensible levels, and a lot of smaller animals will adapt. The trouble is that larger slow reproducing animals like Homo sapiens won't have much of a future, given that it will take tens or hundreds of thousands of years to reach a new equilibrium.
Sadly, most of us on this forum have a vested interest in Homo sapiens, and it happens that we are also the only species that has any agency to correct the trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
