Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
skinutter, did the Beeb mention the Antarctic ice pack at an all time high?
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
AxsMan wrote: |
Diarmuid, If they can't predict the weather 10 days out with any accuracy, why should I accept that they can predict the next 10 years, or 20 or 50? |
I can't tell you what the weather will be like on Jan 10 2008 but I can tell you that it will be colder than today. Climate and weather are not the same
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
laundryman wrote: |
skinutter, did the Beeb mention the Antarctic ice pack at an all time high? |
Course not.... thats what i mean. They we talking about the northern shipping route being free from ice (apart from all the footage of bloody great icebergs). The media have a lot to answer for in this 24hr news society. it always used to be quality rather than quantity, i fear we have the latter these days with slack journalism causing more problems than anything
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Diarmuid, But can you say whether it will be colder or warmer than last Jan10th or the one before? and with what degree of certainty? and if it is warmer is that just 'natural' variation, or sunspot activity, or part of a long term trend? and if it's part of a trend, is the trend a result of human activity or was it happening anyway?
I don't believe all (or any of) the above can be answered with certainty.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Man will adapt to global warming... Thing which I don't get is why people are fighting about this whole debate, what it's doing is gearing governments to stay away from oil and find other energy sources, this can only be a good thing. Why is everyone fighting this whole debate? At the moment it's moving the world to a:
-less polluted
-more environmentally friendly planet
-less oil dependant nation, which is a whoooooooole lot more important than anything else because once oil peaks (if it hasn't already) things are going to look quite awful for all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why aren't we discussing the wholesale murder of all bovinity?
Think of the feast we could have up the mountain after a hard day's skiing!
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
AxsMan wrote: |
don't believe all (or any of) the above can be answered with certainty. |
So you "believe" that based on your knowledge and expertise of the subject you are in a position to disagree with people who have studied this phenomenon for 10+ years. I must say I am not as confident as you (engineering degree or not)
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Diarmuid, Not everyone who has studied climate change agrees that it is caused by human activity. Do you believe that the questions I asked CAN be answered with certainty?
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
AxsMan wrote: |
Diarmuid, Not everyone who has studied climate change agrees that it is caused by human activity. Do you believe that the questions I asked CAN be answered with certainty? |
Not everyone I agree, but there is a consensus. And no, in science nothing can be answered with certainty. However if the consensus is correct, waiting for the certainty will result in a very costly outcome for us (and even more so for the poor/developing nations.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diarmuid, Or the temperature cycle will swing downward again and we'll all start worrying about 'global cooling' (Like they did in the 70's)
Many of the actions being proposed to reduce global warming will have immediate and very costly outcomes for us and even more so for the third world in terms of restricting their economic development and population. They can (and rightly do) argue that it's all right for the developed world to decide that development has gone far enough and needs to be reigned in, we've got our infrastructure, theirs is yet to be built.
IMHO it is not as simple as 'reduce C02 emissions - good, ignore them - bad'. All actions have consequences and not all the consequences of reducing C02 emissions (globally) are 'good'.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Diarmuid wrote: |
And no, in science nothing can be answered with certainty. |
The AGW conjecture is not comparable to (say) the laws of motion, thermodynamics or electromagnetism - areas where billions of observations show accurate quantitative agreement with theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|