 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Had missed this - thanks for the reminder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 it might be or someone at the beeb might decide polar bears frolicking is inappropriately respectful 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Apparently the drone footage of an avalanche is quite impressive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Damn orcas are smart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Alright darlin' check out my nose balloon sweetheart!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unmissable. And the first TV I've watched in weeks! Other than the short bursts of "Shetland" which I watch when I'm on my rower and switch off after I've done my stint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest I like the making of shorts that they pad out the non advert hour with almost as much. Makes you appreciate the vocation that being a nature photographer is. Hanging around for weeks in clagg and mossies for the one shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 agree. We see so much CGI that watching those sequences makes one appreciate the shots such as the Siberian tiger coming out of its cave - and imagining the photographer holding her breath as he emerged, grateful that she hadn't decided to go for a pee. The fast calving ice front was moving in more ways than one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was excellent - though as a life long Attenborough fan I'm biased - and whilst it's not my intention to stir a hornet's nest, I wonder if programmes of this type would survive if Auntie were not Licence fee funded?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I used to like his shows, and can’t help but admire the stunning visuals. But he has fully swallowed the CO2 climate narrative….previously predicting polar bears would die out by 2030, (no sign of that so far)
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/02/StateofPolarBears-2021.pdf
and now saying that summer arctic sea ice may disappear within 12 years. Yet the science shows summer Arctic sea ice has been recovering for 10years since the low point in 2012. We’ll see, I suspect he will join the growing list of people making hysterical and unfounded claims….the models don’t have a great record…..wish he would just stick to the wildlife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| polo wrote: |
I used to like his shows, and can’t help but admire the stunning visuals. But he has fully swallowed the CO2 climate narrative….previously predicting polar bears would die out by 2030, (no sign of that so far)
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/02/StateofPolarBears-2021.pdf
and now saying that summer arctic sea ice may disappear within 12 years. Yet the science shows summer Arctic sea ice has been recovering for 10years since the low point in 2012. We’ll see, I suspect he will join the growing list of people making hysterical and unfounded claims….the models don’t have a great record…..wish he would just stick to the wildlife. |
Blimey, interesting perspective from someone who watches the weather closely.
What is your theory behind melting glaciers, increase in extreme weather events etc?
This is really all hysteria?
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-change-facts-2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@polo, I would trust anything put out by gwpf or Crockford who are in effect climate change deniers
But then maybe you are too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Isn't that the joy of statistics - start at 2012 and Arctic sea ice has "recovered" (if your idea of recovery is saw-toothing around 3.5 to 4.5m km'sq) once you take all the satellite data since the start of the 80s then its decreased about 15% decade on decade.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Depends what sources you trust.....or if you only look at data from one side, eg IPCC, government funded research. One thing I am clear about is that I trust very little that governments sponsor, I'm not convinced they always have our best interests in mind over a range of important issues, CO2, inflation, banking, war, media censorship etc. Many people say that politicians just make mistakes, and poor policy choices can be reversed at the next election and so on.....I think that's a poor argument, as we are currently seeing with the energy crisis, which is entirely manufactured by politics, from green agendas against coal, nuclear, oil, gas, fertilizers to sanctions on various energy rich countries. Yes Putin is bad, I get that. And the rapidly expanding money supply (20% pa) provides another self-manufactured tailwind to prices of stuff we need.
It's clear we are in a warming trend...no one is denying that, although satellite data shows no increase in 8 years....temps are flat to slightly down since 2014. What's not clear is how much CO2 is impacting temps. CO2 is a tiny percentage of the atmosphere at 0.04% and most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. CO2 has risen in line with human activity, from 200ppm to over 400, but that 200ppm is one the lowest levels ever recorded. Going back millions of years CO2 was 2000-7000ppm.
It's accepted that temps have historically driven CO2 change, with a 1000 year lag, but the argument now is that CO2 also leads to temp change....I don't get this circular logic, if both are true then we would have continuous rises in both forever.
Anyway, I don't know the answers....and it's surely ok to have a different opinion, even if in a tiny minority.
@Layne, do you have another source showing polar bears in serious decline on their way to dying out in the next 7 years?
@Richard_Sideways, yes I specifically mentioned the low point in 2012. And according to Copernicus, the EU’s weather service, the 2021 March sea ice extent was just 3% below the 30-year average. In any case, I'm not the one making wild predictions that keep getting pushed back.....some day it may all melt but we might starve or freeze to death waiting.
Anyway, don't have time for keyboard bashing.....I realise I'm in the minority, more reseach needed....but am busy installing more solar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Kea barstewards tonight plus some dropping chamois off cliffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
| Kea barstewards tonight plus some dropping chamois off cliffs |
Plus shocking time lapse images of glaciers receding massively in only three years... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Kea barstewards …. |
I don’t know what this means TBH but I thought some of the footage on tonight’s prog was stunning. Any film of eagles is usually fairly innocuous - just circling, for scraps - and I’ve certainly never seen the eagles working together like that or an eagle (or any other bird) risking serious injury to drag a huge prey item off a cliff 
And the infra-red film of the cougars was just fantastic. And the snowflakes being formed in super slo-mo was magical
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| polo wrote: |
It's clear we are in a warming trend...no one is denying that, although satellite data shows no increase in 8 years....temps are flat to slightly down since 2014. |
That's because the deep sea is absorbing CO2 and some of the heat from the atmosphere - this is due to something called the Albedo effect (dark things like the ocean absorb heat, light things like glaciers and clouds reflect heat). The deep ocean is very cold which also means it can store more oxygen and nutirents, which is why the cold arctic ocean and southern ocean are so rich with life. As the ocean absorbs more CO2 and heat it gradually acidifies and becomes anoxic (unable to hold oxygen), the deep ocean is vast therefore takes a long time to heat up, and it doesn't heat up evenly. Fresh water melt heats up differently to sea water melt, because sea water is more dense than fresh water, fresh water 'sits on top' of sea water heating sea water faster than without which in turns drives the heating of the oceans creating a positive feedback loop.
| polo wrote: |
What's not clear is how much CO2 is impacting temps. CO2 is a tiny percentage of the atmosphere at 0.04% and most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. CO2 has risen in line with human activity, from 200ppm to over 400, but that 200ppm is one the lowest levels ever recorded. Going back millions of years CO2 was 2000-7000ppm.
It's accepted that temps have historically driven CO2 change, with a 1000 year lag, but the argument now is that CO2 also leads to temp change....I don't get this circular logic, if both are true then we would have continuous rises in both forever. |
The current average surface temperate of the earth is ~14*c at ~400ppm (which is of course roughly exactly where we are) - looking at that graph the average global temp of ~22*c is at ~3000ppm - I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make in sharing this graph. Especially since the last discussion you and I had I pointed out the PT boundary at ~250 million years ago when the polar caps were last free of ice - you can clearly see the MASSIVE spike in atmospheric CO2 in conjunction with a MASSIVE avg temp rise at that time directly on the lead up and crossing the PT boundary.
Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere increase the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can itself support, which is why storms become more violent.
Sure, the Earth itself can exist with 7000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, but that concentration will not support modern human civilation - and that is the very crux of the matter - the preservation of modern human civilisation. The earth existed long before humans, the earth will exist long after humans - the question is 'How long do we want to preserve our modern society?'
| polo wrote: |
| Anyway, I don't know the answers.... |
no, you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fascinating
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 watch v little TV. Couple of hours a week. Just watched episode 4 of FP. I feel extraordinarily privileged to be able to watch this stuff - and very moved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Extremophile wrote: |
Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere increase the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can itself support….
|
Is that actually the case?
Or do you mean the increased CO2 leads to warming (the effect some people disagree about) which in turn allows for increased water vapour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Red Leon wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere increase the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can itself support….
|
Is that actually the case?
Or do you mean the increased CO2 leads to warming (the effect some people disagree about) which in turn allows for increased water vapour? |
Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature, which in turn increases the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can support - just as i said. Water vapour on its own does not increase the temperature.
This page explains it well. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The Tonga underwater volcanic eruption increased the amount of water in the Stratosphere by up to 10%.
Unlike dust from a land eruption that usually cools, Scientists believe this extra water could warm the climate for some years.
It could also have a detrimental effect on the Ozone layer.
The water will eventually work it's way down to the lower atmosphere. The time scale and overall effects are unknown as this is the first time such an event can be studied.
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-atmosphere-tonga-eruption-weaken-ozone.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| brianatab wrote: |
The Tonga underwater volcanic eruption increased the amount of water in the Stratosphere by up to 10%.
Unlike dust from a land eruption that usually cools, Scientists believe this extra water could warm the climate for some years.
It could also have a detrimental effect on the Ozone layer.
The water will eventually work it's way down to the lower atmosphere. The time scale and overall effects are unknown as this is the first time such an event can be studied.
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-atmosphere-tonga-eruption-weaken-ozone.html |
There is a lot of mssing information in that summary. In the paper it actually says that CO2 growth at the tropopause due to stratospheric enhancement was 0.26 watts per square meter between 1996 - 2005, where as H20 (due to the eruption) was 0.15 watts per square meter, so even with the massive input due to the extremely rare, very powerful underwater volcanic eruption, more energy was added due to CO2 emmisions, and is continually added to the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
