 Poster: A snowHead
|
This season could be interesting. Don't wish to turn into @stanton, but will there be:
- enough snow (or at least precipitation to fill mountain reservoirs)?
- enough electricity to run the infrastructure (lifts, snow-making) at all, as if there is a shortage leisure activities are likely to be at the bottom of the priority list? Or will they only run am/pm, or every other day?
- electricity at a reasonable price, or will lift passes need to go up significantly/ (What proportion of a pass price relates to power?)
- accommodation prices reflecting higher electricity prices, and there still could be possible power outages?
- fuel prices (whether car, air, train) possibly remaining high, or increasing again if there is demand to use it in refineries for power generation etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@ecureuil, all of the above. Plus skiing may be the last thing on peoples minds... Sorry to sound so negative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| ecureuil wrote: |
This season could be interesting. Don't wish to turn into @stanton, but will there be:
- enough snow (or at least precipitation to fill mountain reservoirs)?
- enough electricity to run the infrastructure (lifts, snow-making) at all, as if there is a shortage leisure activities are likely to be at the bottom of the priority list? Or will they only run am/pm, or every other day?
- electricity at a reasonable price, or will lift passes need to go up significantly/ (What proportion of a pass price relates to power?)
- accommodation prices reflecting higher electricity prices, and there still could be possible power outages?
- fuel prices (whether car, air, train) possibly remaining high, or increasing again if there is demand to use it in refineries for power generation etc? |
Its funny when we get a really cold snap its dismissed as simply weather we now get one hot dry summer and its "proof" of climate change, if the forecasts are accuarate then winters are predicted to be wetter not drier, in 76 once the weather broke it rained continuosly and was a very wet winter, it is very likely to do the same this time, the question is if it falls as snow or rain, hopefully it will be snow and thus reduce the need for artificial snow making
While skiing may be a leisure activity for those who ski, it is the living for many thousands of people who own businesses or work for them, if you close them then why not close the local pub or restaurant ?
it should be possible to reduce consumption of electricity quite easily, turn off a few ski lifts on quiet days there are often several ways to get to the same point so wont be a huge problem to have less choice, turn down the thermostat in buildings the first thing we do when we arrive is turn turn down the heating as it is normally far too hot
As for the cost I would imagine that most businesses are on contracts, I renewed mine for three years from 1st jan this year, I agreed the price this time last year, it was obvious that prices were rising and most contracts can be ended without charges when prises are rising to get on a longer contract, of course finding someone who hasnt looked ahead is great news for the media to create a good headline
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| it should be possible to reduce consumption of electricity quite easily, turn off a few ski lifts on quiet days there are often several ways to get to the same point so wont be a huge problem to have less choice.... |
Just wondering, if they do that and are running fewer lifts do you think they'll drop the price of the lift pass? I have my doubts... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
would the extra glacial run off counter act the lack of precip in filling reservoirs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| Its funny when we get a really cold snap its dismissed as simply weather we now get one hot dry summer and its "proof" of climate change, if the forecasts are accuarate then winters are predicted to be wetter not drier, in 76 once the weather broke it rained continuosly and was a very wet winter, it is very likely to do the same this time, the question is if it falls as snow or rain, hopefully it will be snow and thus reduce the need for artificial snow making |
Careful, you're in danger of sounding like a climate change denier. More precipitation is not likely to reduce demand on snow making, because if the overall temperature is higher, the snow line will be higher and the snowmaking is used more on lower “home run” type pistes.
| Quote: |
| it should be possible to reduce consumption of electricity quite easily, turn off a few ski lifts on quiet days |
This already happens. Go to many a ski resort mid-week in low season and you'll find only the main bits of it open.
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Just wondering, if they do that and are running fewer lifts do you think they'll drop the price of the lift pass? I have my doubts... |
Definitely not. There are already discussions about how much the prices will have to rise to cover increased energy costs (more that usual annual rises, I expect), but the problem is that customers may not be able to afford them, so they may need govt subsidies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| ...While skiing may be a leisure activity for those who ski, it is the living for many thousands of people who own businesses or work for them, if you close them then why not close the local pub or restaurant ? ... |
I agree with you - none of those would be a priority. IF there turns out to be an energy crisis this winter, through Russia simply turning off or significantly reducing gas supplies to Europe, then it could easily mean something like the UK in 1973-4. IIRC that was rolling power cuts for domestic users; health, transport, communications, food supply etc all prioritised; but almost all other business required to operate for only a specified three days each week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scarlet wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| Its funny when we get a really cold snap its dismissed as simply weather we now get one hot dry summer and its "proof" of climate change, if the forecasts are accuarate then winters are predicted to be wetter not drier, in 76 once the weather broke it rained continuosly and was a very wet winter, it is very likely to do the same this time, the question is if it falls as snow or rain, hopefully it will be snow and thus reduce the need for artificial snow making |
Careful, you're in danger of sounding like a climate change denier. More precipitation is not likely to reduce demand on snow making, because if the overall temperature is higher, the snow line will be higher and the snowmaking is used more on lower “home run” type pistes.
| Quote: |
| it should be possible to reduce consumption of electricity quite easily, turn off a few ski lifts on quiet days |
This already happens. Go to many a ski resort mid-week in low season and you'll find only the main bits of it open.
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Just wondering, if they do that and are running fewer lifts do you think they'll drop the price of the lift pass? I have my doubts... |
Definitely not. There are already discussions about how much the prices will have to rise to cover increased energy costs (more that usual annual rises, I expect), but the problem is that customers may not be able to afford them, so they may need govt subsidies. |
Climate has always changed. We should be doing our best to minimise our impact, the trouble is too many vested interests spouting rubbish make a proper and honest debate but that is another subject.
We always go early season and most are usually running but not being used much, it could be done in sections over a week so more could be closed for a day or so, it would be a pain for people but better than not skiing at all.
Obviously if temperatures are higher then it could be rain not snow but as long as it fills lakes, rivers, reservoirs and ground water storage it solves many of the problems, snow making may well have to be reduced to save electric and costs, better some skiing than none, I'm sure the Ukrainians would like our problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| ... Climate has always changed. We should be doing our best to minimise our impact, the trouble is too many vested interests spouting rubbish make a proper and honest debate but that is another subject. |
Careful, you're in danger of sounding like a climate change denier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Mother hucker wrote: |
| would the extra glacial run off counter act the lack of precip in filling reservoirs? |
At least around here, even the glacier-fed rivers are have been running around average/bit below average flows. The Ötz for example (high/low water markings are related to kayaking rather than hydrological regime mind):
While the glacial ice has melted more than usual, there was much less snow (especially summer snow) to melt off the top of it, hence lower run-off generally.
The non-glacial rivers have been running even lower below average...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@philwig, so "climate has always changed" is a denial of climate change?
The only debate is how much of total CO2 emitted is due to humans (anywhere from 3-93% it seems), and how much does that CO2 actually warm the planet (anywhere from 3-93% it seems). The narrative is this time it's different and you should discount the previous million years where temp change always lead CO2. The science is not settled despite what 90% of IPCC government funded scientists say (and that count includes many who are not actually scientists). Don't believe everything you hear on the BBC, mainstream....a little independent research goes a long way IMHO.
Doesn't say anything about the warming trend we are in, the fact there is way too much energy waste going on and way too much pollution. Shut down the booming private jet business and the likes before bankrupting the farmers.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 17-08-22 14:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
While the glacial ice has melted more than usual, there was much less snow (especially summer snow) to melt off the top of it, hence lower run-off generally.
|
And presumably with unusually high temperatures more snow and ice will have sublimated, rather than melted and adding to run-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| polo wrote: |
....a little independent research goes a long way IMHO.
|
Depends where you're getting your 'research' from - are you reading articles that reinforce views you already hold, or are you conducting your own scientific research, establishing a hypothesis, testing/experimenting, reviewing results, report conclusions, do the results support your original hypothesis or not? if not, did you do it all again with a revised hypothesis?
Climate Science is an extremely complex field and involves everything from the deepest parts of our oceans, right up to the 'edge'* of the atmosphere - Think i'd rather trust scientists who have dedicated their lives to the development of the field and have actually conducted their own research.
*the atmosphere has no singular defined end, it just fades away in to space, but the commonly accepted 'edge' is ~100km above the earths surface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The article in question wasn't a climate change study, it was a study entitled “A global network of marine protected areas for food,” and address overfishing and marine protected areas to ensure sufficient food stocks, and help increase the amount of fish caught for consumption.
All clicked through from the link you shared.
The retraction was 2 pronged, 1 - conflict of interest as her BIL was a coauther, 2 - the study relied on out of date data.
Infact the ONLY mention of climate change in the entire paper was to say ''Other unaccounted-for factors that contribute to uncertainties in K include species interactions, food availability regulating growth, and future environmental impacts affecting habitat quality. While our computed K per stock implicitly accounts for current environmental impacts as it is based on actual catch data and stock assessments (1), it does not account for future impacts such as habitat destruction or climate change that could reduce or increase K''
Seriously, a little of your own research here would have gone a long way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@Extremophile, the national academy of sciences banned one of the top US climate officals for 5 years for breach of code of conduct. Do I really need to read more than that? She's not the first, there are other examples of scientists having their work edited, or misued, assigning names without authority etc. It's all new to me, as I said on the other thread I don't just buy what the government tells me without at least doing a little digging. I've spent all of 30 minutes so far and it's safe to say there is a huge amount of skepticism about the official narrative. So why not tackle it?
How about this recent declaration, signed by 1107 scientists.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
I do remember Al Gore telling us Florida would be underwater by 2020, and in 2009 he said 75% chance that the entire northern polar ice cap would be gone by summer 2013 because of man made global warming. So there are reasons to doubt the officials....especially when they start to impact everyone's food supply. That's what got me interested....imposing 30-50% cuts on various farming output from NZ, to Sri Lanka, Holland, Ireland, Canada....just the ones I am aware of.
My point is CO2 is good for growing food, it's always followed temperature change before (never led), and it's not even close to being the biggest Greenhouse gas (water vapor is). So even if you stretch the truth massively and accept that this time it's different and human CO2 emissions are actually warming the planet....then you need to quantify it. How much impact will x and y make to future warming. But why would you start by attacking the food supply, when there are so many other ways to reduce carbon? And we are already in a food 'cost of living' crisis, also made by the government. Looks like many countries are returning to coal and wood in any case....Greta will be fuming, but no one seems to promote her anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| polo wrote: |
I do remember Al Gore telling us Florida would be underwater by 2020, and in 2009 he said 75% chance that the entire northern polar ice cap would be gone by summer 2013
(and then added this)
So even if you stretch the truth massively . |
Its always a sunny day in your world. We can see it shining through your eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Hardly an unbiased source - produced by a climate change sceptic organisation. And 1107 "scientists" is a big stretch: a quick scan down the first page or so of signatories suggests many/most are not scientists, and very few have an obvious connection to expertise in climate science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Scooter in Seattle, for sure, I love the world as it is, happy and healthy as any other functioning wino.....less government interference would be nice, but hey, life goes on.
Not sure what you are saying about Al Gore, have you tried some MSM sponsored fact checking? They seem to agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@mgrolf, and the IPCC list is unbiased and full of actual scientists? Not from what I've read, and they are government funded. The sceptics are independent.
It's funny how so many people accept stuff just because it's officially endorsed, ie on the news, repeated by politicians. Trustworthy sources?
No idea who is right.....but I can't blindly accept the storyline by just listening to government and media endorsed scientists, but no one else. The last few years (pandemic) have cemented that view. But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| polo wrote: |
How about this recent declaration, signed by 1107 scientists |
Or, as is actually quoted in the link, "Scientists and Professionals". A quick persue showed a teacher, a forester, a mathematician, a publisher, lots of people claiming to be some sort of scientist with no relation whatsoever to climate change science, lots claiming to lead scientific sounding organisations, again, with no qualifications published. About a quarter/third of the whole list, it seems, are retired anyway, (probably in sheltered accommodation where they have plenty of time to indulge in flights of fancy fed by the Book of Face).
So I think I'll rely on the usual, erm, reliable sources, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@maggi, what's a reliable source to you?
I just found that list, there are many more articles and professors disputing the climate emergency.....I'll start paying attention (saving them) and you guys can dismiss them all you want. I reckon Nottingham will be far enough from rising sea levels so you will be fine....but why do you say all those brave signatories are probably in "sheltered accommodation"....what do you mean? On the coast?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
@mgrolf, and the IPCC list is unbiased and full of actual scientists?
|
It's far from perfect, and suffers from the need to reach consensus from a massive membership (amongst other issues).
| Quote: |
The sceptics are independent
|
Depends what you mean by independent - many are funded by industries with vested interests, so can hardly be described as fully independent.
I'm not a climate scientist (my real expertise is in a different discipline) but having read some of the original "research" from both sides, I know which I find more credible and it's safe to say that it isn't coming from the denial side of the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| polo wrote: |
| @Extremophile, the national academy of sciences banned one of the top US climate officals for 5 years for breach of code of conduct. Do I really need to read more than that? She's not the first, there are other examples of scientists having their work edited, or misued, assigning names without authority etc. It's all new to me, as I said on the other thread I don't just buy what the government tells me without at least doing a little digging. I've spent all of 30 minutes so far and it's safe to say there is a huge amount of skepticism about the official narrative. So why not tackle it? |
Actually you do - a conflict of interest in the non-malicious republication of her brother in laws paper (that had absolutely nothing to do with Climate change) is hardly the scandle you seem to think it is.
I mean, YOU were the one who claimed the article in question to be an ''erroneous climate change study'' when infact it was no such thing - so you didn't even know what you were referring to... after making claims about ''doing your own research'' you couldn't even be bothered to read the paper YOU were claiming was something it wasn't - almost like you were lying about it... ironic hey.
| polo wrote: |
| I do remember Al Gore telling us Florida would be underwater by 2020, and in 2009 he said 75% chance that the entire northern polar ice cap would be gone by summer 2013 because of man made global warming. So there are reasons to doubt the officials....especially when they start to impact everyone's food supply. That's what got me interested....imposing 30-50% cuts on various farming output from NZ, to Sri Lanka, Holland, Ireland, Canada....just the ones I am aware of. |
If you knew anything about climate science - like you make wild 'whataboutery-claims' that you do - you'd know that climate science is a relatively young branch of science, and the more data that is gathered (by doing actual scientific research - not making false claims about articles that have nothing to do with climate change or climate science) - then you would know that the model(s) are always being refined, and the more data that is gathered the more refined the output - it's not perfect and no one claimed it was, but seeing as observations are essentially out of data as soon as they are plugged in to a model the result is almost always 'out of date'.
The last line in this article https://www.science.org/content/article/after-40-years-researchers-finally-see-earths-climate-destiny-more-clearly
''Unfortunately, the years of work needed to attain that certainty came with a cost: 4 decades of additional emissions and global warming, unabated.''
Read the whole thing - if you can be bothered.
The polar ice caps will eventually melt, but due to man-made climate change they will melt faster than if there were no man made climate change.
| polo wrote: |
| My point is CO2 is good for growing food, it's always followed temperature change before (never led), and it's not even close to being the biggest Greenhouse gas (water vapor is). So even if you stretch the truth massively and accept that this time it's different and human CO2 emissions are actually warming the planet....then you need to quantify it. How much impact will x and y make to future warming. But why would you start by attacking the food supply, when there are so many other ways to reduce carbon? And we are already in a food 'cost of living' crisis, also made by the government. Looks like many countries are returning to coal and wood in any case....Greta will be fuming, but no one seems to promote her anymore. |
Climate deniers always seem to be oblivious to the fact that you are going down a one way street - there is no going back, there is no 'well if the evidence was clearer at the time I'd have had a different attitude etc etc - Surely if you know so much and are so sure of your scientific knowledge regarding the climate you really should pop yourself along to a university that offers a Climate science degree and teach them a thing or two hey.... but no - you'll just regurgitate articles you couldn't be bothered to read yourself. typical denier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even with driving out to the Alps, I can guarantee we do less mileage than the average commuter in a year - if we drive the return journey of ~2000 miles, our yearly mileage is still less than ~5000 miles a year. The majoirty of people drive double that (at least in a year), we don't have any children - producing more than one or two (max) climate producers is far worse than most other things in terms of environmental impact. So our climate impact is relatively lower than that of the average family with 3 kids commuting for work, and flying everywhere for their holidays.
So no, skiing on it's own is not 'turning a blind eye', producing more than one or two (max) carbon consumers who will have to live with the consequences of the previous generations choices, is to deny - or at best turn a blind eye.
https://www.science.org/content/article/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@Extremophile, And then someone in Africa who's going to be far more effected by the crisis than us could say "My family and I produce less CO2 in a year than Extremophile does on journey to have fun in the snow"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Mother hucker wrote: |
| @Extremophile, And then someone in Africa who's going to be far more effected by the crisis than us could say "My family and I produce less CO2 in a year than Extremophile does on journey to have fun in the snow" |
Must include you in that too then.
TO be fair, I'm not the one who started saying 'This' produces more than 'that'... another snowhead did, so i suggest you direct your whataboutery business in that direction - probably won't though.
I see the shifting snow drifts of the snowheads in play here. And suddenly everyone has forgotten about the blatent climate denier on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Extremophile, you are right I should have read the retracted study, it was just one news story on the day of my initial reply, the only point I attempted to make is that top officials aren’t to be blindly trusted, they make mistakes, are subject to bias…..whether intentional or not.
I’ve stated several times that I know very little about the subject, and would describe myself as sceptical rather than in denial of anything. The planet is definitely warming, but rather than resort to name calling and sarcasm why not refute some of sceptics claims, eg CO2 is good for the planet, it’s led by temp change over hundreds of years, only a fraction is man made and there is minimal impact from that in terms of greenhouse gas warming.
You seem confident predicting the polar ice caps will melt, and faster due to man made CO2. That’s a big call, so would like to see what it’s based on….. man made models and trend projections haven’t resulted in a lot of the scare mongering that was pushed out in the last 20 years. I read after the 30 years of falling temps from 1945-1975 the models (and political / media hype) of the time were about the coming ice age.
In any case, what effect do you think potential ice cap melt will have on sea levels? Surely the huge underwater ice volume will decrease as it melts?
Would be nice to have a climate change thread rather than random hijacking. There’s not much any of can do about it, but my main concern is the politicization of science and how the UN, WEF plans are going to cause even more food poverty. The ESG social credit score system is already costing companies a fortune, so get used to higher costs for everything they produce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Extremophile,
100% includes me but I didn't start preaching how eco my life was compared to others.
Lucky for you you don't have to commute for for work but some people don't have a choice and some of those people keep the wheels of our country turning.
Those kids you didn't have which make you feel more superior about being able to ski. Who going to be looking after you when you need a hand when your older? someone else's younger generation of kids I presumme
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| polo wrote: |
| but rather than resort to name calling and sarcasm why not refute some of sceptics claims, eg CO2 is good for the planet, it’s led by temp change over hundreds of years, only a fraction is man made and there is minimal impact from that in terms of greenhouse gas warming. |
This is a basic misunderstanding of the climate, and what we are adding to it - CO2, CH4 etc. If you read the article I shared to you, you would have seen that humans have halfway doubled the CO2 that was already in the preindustrial atmosphere by burning fossil fuels etc. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more energy the atmosphere can store, which drives more violent weather patterns - whether that be intense heat, intense dry, intense cold, intense storms, just more extreme weather patterns across the board.
Your 'idea' that CO2 is 'good' for the planet is only partly true, CO2 emissions from the natural carbon cycle related to tectonic activity and volcanoes is essentially what made this planet habitable, but we humans are adding too much extra carbon to that cycle disrupting the delcate balance.
| polo wrote: |
| You seem confident predicting the polar ice caps will melt, and faster due to man made CO2. That’s a big call, so would like to see what it’s based on….. man made models and trend projections haven’t resulted in a lot of the scare mongering that was pushed out in the last 20 years. I read after the 30 years of falling temps from 1945-1975 the models (and political / media hype) of the time were about the coming ice age. |
The last time the polar ice caps were completely free from ice was at the PT boundary some ~250 million years ago, the vast majority of species went extinct due to this event - it is locked in the geological history of the Earth so can be studied well, it is a thick black line that pretty much encircles the planet (tectonic movement since means the line is not now straight).
Anyway, my point is, that geologically speaking, we are still in an ice age, geologically speaking and ice age is when there are polar ice caps, and it is part of the Earths natural cycle that at times that ice caps form, and melt over vast timescales. So eventually, the ice caps will melt... it'll be the PT boundary again. It is just a matter of time, and man made climate change is speeding up its coming - now, it would be childish for you to expect one to say it will happen on 'this' date, for we have already discussed that is not how climate science works, but that does not mean it will not happen, like you seem 'skeptical' of.
| polo wrote: |
| In any case, what effect do you think potential ice cap melt will have on sea levels? Surely the huge underwater ice volume will decrease as it melts? |
Ok, so there are several answers to your questions here, and to answer them I need to explain about ice and water - Water has a maximum density at ~4*c, which is essentially why ice floats - look at the icecubes in your drink, they float.
The 'problem' with ice, is not the ice underwater- like the bottom of an ice berg, it is the ice above water level - There is enough water on Greenland alone to raise the worlds sea level by 7 meters, that's not even including the ice in glaciers, permafrosts or the Polar ice caps. During the geological period commonly known as the last ice age ~16000 years ago, the worlds sea levels were at least 125 meters LOWER than todays, this of course enabled the migration of humans across Beringia in to the Americas.
Just so you know I am studying Planetary science as part of my degree.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 8-09-22 13:15; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Mother hucker wrote: |
@Extremophile,
100% includes me but I didn't start preaching how eco my life was compared to others.
Lucky for you you don't have to commute for for work but some people don't have a choice and some of those people keep the wheels of our country turning.
Those kids you didn't have which make you feel more superior about being able to ski. Who going to be looking after you when you need a hand when your older? someone else's younger generation of kids I presumme |
Wasn't preaching, just a rebuke of a comment another snowhead made. Just like you're doing... the irony
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Extremophile, thx for civil and informative reply
I’ll read up on CO2 storing energy and causing storms, in particular whether current volatility is something new (post industrial) and whether cutting food output would lead to more stable weather…..and if that’s a good trade off.
We agree that talk of ice cap melt is largely scare mongering? Apart from silliness of putting a date on it (Al Gore said 2013-2015, the original scientist he misquoted said 2030 and IPCC estimate later this century), the ice caps themselves are not going to cause sea levels to rise, as 90% already below water and will reduce in volume by 8% when melting. Different matter with land based ice…..I’ll have a look at how that’s holding up, or not.
Anyway am off now for a few days of eco friendly MTB, on my solar charged electric bike, watching the experts compete in world championships…..thankfully no extreme weather in sight or restrictions on fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| polo wrote: |
@Extremophile, thx for civil and informative reply
I’ll read up on CO2 storing energy and causing storms, in particular whether current volatility is something new (post industrial) and whether cutting food output would lead to more stable weather…..and if that’s a good trade off. |
The 'problem' is not necessarily 'cutting' food output, their are several intertwined problems, and none can be looked at individually. For example, if one did think it was a good idea to cut food output - what are ~8 billion people going to eat? there would likely be famine affecting only the poorest nations or peoples. So the question should be more focused on quality land and resource management and focusing on the actual carrying capacity of the Earth while still allowing the natural world to florish... as I say, these are complex issues, non can be looked at in isolation.
| polo wrote: |
| We agree that talk of ice cap melt is largely scare mongering? |
No, ice cap melt is not scare mongering - it will happen, man made climate change is speeding it up. Once we lose the polar ice caps nothing good will happen. I'm not sure how you came to say 'we agree' it is scare mongering - I'm not sure you actually read up on what I wrote.
| polo wrote: |
| Apart from silliness of putting a date on it (Al Gore said 2013-2015, the original scientist he misquoted said 2030 and IPCC estimate later this century), the ice caps themselves are not going to cause sea levels to rise, as 90% already below water and will reduce in volume by 8% when melting. Different matter with land based ice…..I’ll have a look at how that’s holding up, or not. |
As I said, there is enough water ON Greenland (not in the sea) to raise the sea level by 7 meters. Only ~45% antartic ice is underwater - that leaves ~55% not underwater... https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/question/much-antarctic-ice-sheet-sea-level/
You say you're a skeptic, but you seem completely unwilling to even entertain the data that I'm giving you and its implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Folks keep your environental crap off here.... We are at the end of the Last Ice Age.... There is nothing we can do to stop Glaciers melting... They will retuen when the Next Ice Age dawns so dont worry !!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is Switzerland ...
The Swiss municipality household electricity tariff 2023 can now be compared to (2022 etc) on the website of the Electricity Commission (Elcom).
https://www.strompreis.elcom.admin.ch/?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How much ski passes cost this season with the rise in energy costs, which will be a substantial additional cost to lift companies running lifts, cannons and other facilities ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Extremophile wrote: |
This is a basic misunderstanding of the climate, and what we are adding to it - CO2, CO4 etc.
|
I just noticed this in your post. CO4 (carbon tetroxide) is a highly unstable oxide of carbon, so I don't think we need to bother about it as even if it is formed it won't stay around for long. Perhaps you meant to refer to CH4 (methane)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
This is a basic misunderstanding of the climate, and what we are adding to it - CO2, CO4 etc.
|
I just noticed this in your post. CO4 (carbon tetroxide) is a highly unstable oxide of carbon, so I don't think we need to bother about it as even if it is formed it won't stay around for long. Perhaps you meant to refer to CH4 (methane)? |
Lols.... yes, just a typo! haha. I will go and correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
