Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
>What caused the 1916 event? <
The Western Front?
The Western Front?
Global warming
- Thread starter DavidofMersea
- Start date
jimi
Well-Known Member
Quote from another forum
Mountain glaciers are retreating three times faster than they were in the 1980s, says the World Glacier Monitoring Service.
On average, they lost about 66 centimetres in depth in 2005, according to the latest report from the UN-affiliated body, released on 30 January. This loss rate is 1.6 times more than the annual average for the 1990s and three times the 1980s average.
While the rate of change is certainly alarming, it is not a surprise, says Michael Zemp of WGMS. He says it fits in with the accelerating trend of the past 25 years, and simply serves to "make it sharper".
The truly worrying observation, he says, comes when the past 150 years are analysed in the context of the past 10,000 years of glacial history. Mountain glaciers reached their maximum extent for 10,000 years in 1850. But since then they have lost 50% of their area and retreated to their minimum extent for 10,000 years.
Biggest and highest
Global temperatures during that time rose by about 0.8°C. But a major report from the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is expected to announce on Friday that global temperatures will rise by a further 2.0°C to 4.5°C by 2100.
The WGMS believes that an increase of 3°C on current European temperatures would mean the European Alps would lose another 80% of their glaciers. If temperature predictions are accurate "only biggest and highest glaciers would survive into 21st century", says Zemp.
WGMS monitors 30 representative glaciers from nine mountain ranges around the world. They measure the thinning in metres of water equivalent, to account for differences in ice density (1.0 m of water equivalent is about 1.1 m of ice). On average, mountain glaciers have lost 9.6 metres of water equivalent since 1980.
The data indicate that glaciers in the European Alps are among those shrinking fastest. Since 2000, they have been losing an average of 1 metre every year and have lost 19 metres since 1980. They are now only about 30 metres deep on average.
Consensus and timing
The imminent release of the IPCC report has prompted speculation on how conservative the report will be, particularly in its predictions of sea-level rises. Media leaks suggest the report will predict rises of between 28 cm and 43 cm by 2100. The upper limit is considerably less than the IPCC's 2001 prediction of up to 88cm, but some recent studies suggest the upper limit should in fact be higher.
The issue is partly one of consensus. The 3750 report authors and reviewers and 154 participating governments need to agree on everything in the report. Inevitably, the most extreme predictions will be hardest to get agreement on.
There is also the question of timing. Studies published after mid-2006 may have come too late to be included in the IPCC report.
A study led by Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, is a case in point: published in Science in December 2006, it predicts rises of up to 140 cm.
But Zemp believes that, so far as mountain glaciers are concerned, the IPCC report will take all the latest data into account. He personally submitted a study in summer 2006 and believes it has formed part of the IPCC's deliberations, Furthermore, his colleagues have been working on the IPCC report, and have access to frequently updated WGMS data.
Mountain glaciers are retreating three times faster than they were in the 1980s, says the World Glacier Monitoring Service.
On average, they lost about 66 centimetres in depth in 2005, according to the latest report from the UN-affiliated body, released on 30 January. This loss rate is 1.6 times more than the annual average for the 1990s and three times the 1980s average.
While the rate of change is certainly alarming, it is not a surprise, says Michael Zemp of WGMS. He says it fits in with the accelerating trend of the past 25 years, and simply serves to "make it sharper".
The truly worrying observation, he says, comes when the past 150 years are analysed in the context of the past 10,000 years of glacial history. Mountain glaciers reached their maximum extent for 10,000 years in 1850. But since then they have lost 50% of their area and retreated to their minimum extent for 10,000 years.
Biggest and highest
Global temperatures during that time rose by about 0.8°C. But a major report from the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is expected to announce on Friday that global temperatures will rise by a further 2.0°C to 4.5°C by 2100.
The WGMS believes that an increase of 3°C on current European temperatures would mean the European Alps would lose another 80% of their glaciers. If temperature predictions are accurate "only biggest and highest glaciers would survive into 21st century", says Zemp.
WGMS monitors 30 representative glaciers from nine mountain ranges around the world. They measure the thinning in metres of water equivalent, to account for differences in ice density (1.0 m of water equivalent is about 1.1 m of ice). On average, mountain glaciers have lost 9.6 metres of water equivalent since 1980.
The data indicate that glaciers in the European Alps are among those shrinking fastest. Since 2000, they have been losing an average of 1 metre every year and have lost 19 metres since 1980. They are now only about 30 metres deep on average.
Consensus and timing
The imminent release of the IPCC report has prompted speculation on how conservative the report will be, particularly in its predictions of sea-level rises. Media leaks suggest the report will predict rises of between 28 cm and 43 cm by 2100. The upper limit is considerably less than the IPCC's 2001 prediction of up to 88cm, but some recent studies suggest the upper limit should in fact be higher.
The issue is partly one of consensus. The 3750 report authors and reviewers and 154 participating governments need to agree on everything in the report. Inevitably, the most extreme predictions will be hardest to get agreement on.
There is also the question of timing. Studies published after mid-2006 may have come too late to be included in the IPCC report.
A study led by Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, is a case in point: published in Science in December 2006, it predicts rises of up to 140 cm.
But Zemp believes that, so far as mountain glaciers are concerned, the IPCC report will take all the latest data into account. He personally submitted a study in summer 2006 and believes it has formed part of the IPCC's deliberations, Furthermore, his colleagues have been working on the IPCC report, and have access to frequently updated WGMS data.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Good grief. You people who want to believe certainly cherry-pick don't you. The sentence before and after your quote modifies the perceived meaning.
In addition the whole article is about
[ QUOTE ]
I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.
It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns.
[/ QUOTE ]
How the scientists are being railroaded into supporting a cause rather than merely reporting their findings.
This fab IPCC report is supported by 2500 scientists.
What % of interested scientists does that represent?
In addition the whole article is about
[ QUOTE ]
I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.
It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns.
[/ QUOTE ]
How the scientists are being railroaded into supporting a cause rather than merely reporting their findings.
This fab IPCC report is supported by 2500 scientists.
What % of interested scientists does that represent?
ChrisE
Well-Known Member
It looks as if GW is added itself to the list of religion, political beliefs and Fray Bentos as topics that shouldn't be debated in polite society.
G
Guest
Guest
The guy you are quoting is (a) saying that the language used is often exaggerated for political purposes (b) saying that he DOES believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by man (c) citing the IPCC as being an authoritative forum for scientists where exaggerated language is not used and (d) saying that something needs to be done about climate change.
Which all sounds eminently reasonable.
Since that report, the IPCC which he holds in such esteem has decided that, rather than it being just 60% likely that global warming is caused by man, it is more than 90% likely that climate change is caused by man.
Which all sounds eminently reasonable.
Since that report, the IPCC which he holds in such esteem has decided that, rather than it being just 60% likely that global warming is caused by man, it is more than 90% likely that climate change is caused by man.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
I think the hot air generated by this thread is itself a major contribution to global warning. So I'll add my 2p /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
(a) Global Warming is a fact not a theory - the Earth is getting warmer - no one doubts that
(b) The majority of reputable Scientists now believe there is a strong probability that this is due to Human activity
(c) Global Warming is already having an adverse impact on millions of humans - islands disappearing, increased droughts and storms.
(d) The only real uncertainty is the long term impact - which is anywhere from not much worse than now to totally catastrophic.
It is a difficult dilemma - no reputable scientist should be going on record to say that this will be a catastrophe because there the models are simply not reliable enough to make any such prediction with the sort of certainty reputable scientists like. However most will agree that a catastrophe is a real possibility.
(a) Global Warming is a fact not a theory - the Earth is getting warmer - no one doubts that
(b) The majority of reputable Scientists now believe there is a strong probability that this is due to Human activity
(c) Global Warming is already having an adverse impact on millions of humans - islands disappearing, increased droughts and storms.
(d) The only real uncertainty is the long term impact - which is anywhere from not much worse than now to totally catastrophic.
It is a difficult dilemma - no reputable scientist should be going on record to say that this will be a catastrophe because there the models are simply not reliable enough to make any such prediction with the sort of certainty reputable scientists like. However most will agree that a catastrophe is a real possibility.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Doing it again. Only answer the bit that suits.
What about the second part?
"This fab IPCC report is supported by 2500 scientists.
What % of interested scientists does that represent? "
I am not denying that some scientists have suspicions that man is involved. What I dispute is that they have it right. Armfuls of statistics and charts don't prove a case, they merely illustrate an opinion that they have been chosen to illustrate. Cherry-picking again.
Additionally, I know, as do all the scientists, that we can't do anything meaningful about it.
What about the second part?
"This fab IPCC report is supported by 2500 scientists.
What % of interested scientists does that represent? "
I am not denying that some scientists have suspicions that man is involved. What I dispute is that they have it right. Armfuls of statistics and charts don't prove a case, they merely illustrate an opinion that they have been chosen to illustrate. Cherry-picking again.
Additionally, I know, as do all the scientists, that we can't do anything meaningful about it.
G
Guest
Guest
I was addressing the fact that the link you cited against the IPCC findings was in fact expressly supporting the IPCC.
As for whether the international committee of 2555 scientists is authoritative, then have a read through the stuff posted by Jimi. It seems that the IPCC acts as a clearing house for reports submitted by scientists from all over the world - not just the 2555 who submit the final report.
That is why, as Jimi's info explains and your guy also implies, the IPCC report tends to be very conservative in its findings.
As for whether the international committee of 2555 scientists is authoritative, then have a read through the stuff posted by Jimi. It seems that the IPCC acts as a clearing house for reports submitted by scientists from all over the world - not just the 2555 who submit the final report.
That is why, as Jimi's info explains and your guy also implies, the IPCC report tends to be very conservative in its findings.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It seems that the IPCC acts as a clearing house for reports submitted by scientists from all over the world
[/ QUOTE ]
Some are cleared and some are not. I rest my case.
It seems that the IPCC acts as a clearing house for reports submitted by scientists from all over the world
[/ QUOTE ]
Some are cleared and some are not. I rest my case.
gandy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
We have just had the warmest January since 1916
This year the cause was global warming
[/ QUOTE ] Meteorologists don't seem to say this. Discussions are mostly about jet streams and high pressures keeping the cold air the other side of the Urals, rather than an absence of coldness overall.
We have just had the warmest January since 1916
This year the cause was global warming
[/ QUOTE ] Meteorologists don't seem to say this. Discussions are mostly about jet streams and high pressures keeping the cold air the other side of the Urals, rather than an absence of coldness overall.
Robin
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, I know, as do all the scientists, that we can't do anything meaningful about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, we (worldwide) could try by closing down everything and recreating the stone age, that might delay the 'catastrophe' by what, a year or two maybe based on current science?
I turned my phone charger off last night, but still the lights of London burned.
Alternatively maybe we could start up some more positive quangos working on learning to live with climate change? I would certainly favour a project entitled 'How to live with climate change without increased taxation.'
I'm still confused as to why the glaciers that apparently stretched down the east coast retreated and then Romans grew vineyards on UK soil whilst tropical animals roamed years and years before that. Apparently you could walk from the UK to Europe too before the water levels rose because fossils of land animals were found in the seabed, source BBC TV programme 2 weeks ago. Didn't Greenland used to be ice free and Iceland icy? Must be the Flintstones that caused it all to change back then?
I'm not arguing that climate change isn't happening, I think it is, just as it has ALWAYS been happening but in timescales not noticeable in human lifetimes. I'm not arguing either that we are not influencing it, but maybe that in planetary timescales the effect is rather smaller than the catastrophe theorists would have us believe.
DOOMED we are all DOOMED I say, and it will all end in tears, mark my words.....
Additionally, I know, as do all the scientists, that we can't do anything meaningful about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, we (worldwide) could try by closing down everything and recreating the stone age, that might delay the 'catastrophe' by what, a year or two maybe based on current science?
I turned my phone charger off last night, but still the lights of London burned.
Alternatively maybe we could start up some more positive quangos working on learning to live with climate change? I would certainly favour a project entitled 'How to live with climate change without increased taxation.'
I'm still confused as to why the glaciers that apparently stretched down the east coast retreated and then Romans grew vineyards on UK soil whilst tropical animals roamed years and years before that. Apparently you could walk from the UK to Europe too before the water levels rose because fossils of land animals were found in the seabed, source BBC TV programme 2 weeks ago. Didn't Greenland used to be ice free and Iceland icy? Must be the Flintstones that caused it all to change back then?
I'm not arguing that climate change isn't happening, I think it is, just as it has ALWAYS been happening but in timescales not noticeable in human lifetimes. I'm not arguing either that we are not influencing it, but maybe that in planetary timescales the effect is rather smaller than the catastrophe theorists would have us believe.
DOOMED we are all DOOMED I say, and it will all end in tears, mark my words.....
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Quite, and we'll all be dead long before that. So what's the panic?
Sailfree
Well-Known Member
Agree we will all be dead before then.
Man has always been a greedy self seeking individual and religion that professes to preach meekness has just divided mankind up into groups that "believe" - "believe" its OK to kill those of any other religion (or tribe). Same religions prevent us tackling the true cause of the problem - that this planet cannot sustain the current population with our developed lifestyle.
Add that religious/political extremists will aquire atomic weapons in the near future as there is not enough political will between the big nations to set up a army/police force to stop them.
I forecast a major chemical/biological/atomic terrorist incident within 10 -15 years instigated by a terror organisation or rogue state and this will happen while we are all worrying about global warning. Its how we deal with this event that will decide whether mankind has the start of a future.
I am not denying global warming but wonder if we are worrying about it as its a problem we could take some actions to partially or completely solve while we ignore a potentially bigger problem because no one can find a solution.
Now many of you may read this and disagree and I find that another interesting trait of human nature we prefer to deny that a problem exists if we cannot see a way of dealing with it!!
Now about my wife........!!!!
Man has always been a greedy self seeking individual and religion that professes to preach meekness has just divided mankind up into groups that "believe" - "believe" its OK to kill those of any other religion (or tribe). Same religions prevent us tackling the true cause of the problem - that this planet cannot sustain the current population with our developed lifestyle.
Add that religious/political extremists will aquire atomic weapons in the near future as there is not enough political will between the big nations to set up a army/police force to stop them.
I forecast a major chemical/biological/atomic terrorist incident within 10 -15 years instigated by a terror organisation or rogue state and this will happen while we are all worrying about global warning. Its how we deal with this event that will decide whether mankind has the start of a future.
I am not denying global warming but wonder if we are worrying about it as its a problem we could take some actions to partially or completely solve while we ignore a potentially bigger problem because no one can find a solution.
Now many of you may read this and disagree and I find that another interesting trait of human nature we prefer to deny that a problem exists if we cannot see a way of dealing with it!!
Now about my wife........!!!!
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Yup. Taking your eye off the ball is a mistake.
The Blairs and Bushes (?) and other leaders of the civilised world are running around making issues of climate change, but they know that it also creates opportunities for those who see an opening to act.
There will be plenty of leaders of small and not so small countries who see the whole debacle as a great moment to increase their influence by fair means or, more likely, foul.
The Blairs and Bushes (?) and other leaders of the civilised world are running around making issues of climate change, but they know that it also creates opportunities for those who see an opening to act.
There will be plenty of leaders of small and not so small countries who see the whole debacle as a great moment to increase their influence by fair means or, more likely, foul.
jenku
Well-Known Member
You could say this is typical male thinking. Why can we only address one threat at the same time? It is not a question about which threat is more dangerous (and of course your assessment can be questioned). They are all real threats and have to be dealt with.
In other words, I could just as well twist your argument around and say, hey why should we all worry about terrorists and create the total surveillance state while in fact we will all freeze to death in 20 years because of the gulf stream stopping.
You cannot prove either, so you will have to do something about both, wouldn't you?
In other words, I could just as well twist your argument around and say, hey why should we all worry about terrorists and create the total surveillance state while in fact we will all freeze to death in 20 years because of the gulf stream stopping.
You cannot prove either, so you will have to do something about both, wouldn't you?
G
Guest
Guest
Well it's good to know that you're taking the end of the world lying down...
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
There comes a time when you have to realise that no amount of running around looking busy will have any effect on the outcome.
G
Guest
Guest
You mean because there are too apathetic many people in the world?
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
No. I mean because what is happening is too big and not of man's making for him to be able to do anything about it. Sometimes you have to step back and view the whole situation.
G
Guest
Guest
Well on the one hand we have the scientific community saying it is. On the other hand, we have you saying it isn't.
I think I'll step back, view the whole situation, and believe the scientists, thanks.
I think I'll step back, view the whole situation, and believe the scientists, thanks.
