This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
French artist and climber Philippe Echaroux released his latest work this week, a project titled 'Ice Scream', which quite literally casts light on the issue of glacial retreat and global warming. Using his self-coined concept of Street Art 2.0 - or painting with light - Philippe projected 'grafitti' messages on areas of the Mer de Glace in Chamonix to highlight the topical issue of climate change, with an appearance from top alpinist and Chamonix PGHM member, Jeff Mercier.Read more
3
In reply to UKC News:
In Cham recently I was aghast how far the glaciers had melted in the almost 50 years since I 1st visited.
They will soon be gone
Chris
In Cham recently I was aghast how far the glaciers had melted in the almost 50 years since I 1st visited.
They will soon be gone
Chris
6
In reply to UKC News:
This appears to be yet another architect or artist (in this case) indulging in the most self-indulgent type of superficial virtue-signalling common in our contemporary culture, our narcissistic, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, me me me society.
Without the lights, the glacier would look natural, raw and genuine.
It is necessary to take a long-term perspective. Contemporary history and the geological time-scale are necessary reference points before any conclusions can be drawn about the present.
During the Holocene optimum, there was no ice anywhere in the Northern hemisphere excepting Greenland. Northern hemisphere glaciers are no older than 4500 years (which in geological terms is nothing).
There was a general retreat of the glaciers between 1820 and 1970. The fastest rate of retreat was between 1920 and 1960, prior to any influence from any CO2 increase.
There is no reason, or any written law of nature why the present day ice and glacial extent should return to any previous peak extent or regression, or to the Victorian state of ice advance (ca. 1850).
Today’s inter-glacial temperatures are much lower than those during the Holocene era - as substantiated by studying cores from Greenland’s ice sheet.
The artist's prognostications are completely unrelated to anything Trump decides. The so-called "Paris climate agreement" is a bureaucratic farce and irrelevant to the real issues, so Trump's decision is probably a very good one - for the USA.
Smog and particulate pollution is a completely different issue to CO2 and that debate. Smog is manageable. CO2 is managed by the Earth and the oceans by the natural cycle, Henry's law etc etc. Remember that sometimes Porsches in LA or smog-laden alpine valleys take in dirtier air than they emit from their exhausts. The same can not be said about the numerous polluting 2CVs driven by "greens" across France.
Alpine glaciers may well disappear completely. That does not prove anything - except natural climatic variability. Horses and palm trees used to be prevalent in Northern Greenland.
And as for "street art" in the Amazonian rainforest - you could not invent a better form of pollution.
A bit like artist junk hanging around the Lake District and the Eden valley. Nothing beats nature - leave it alone.
DC
This appears to be yet another architect or artist (in this case) indulging in the most self-indulgent type of superficial virtue-signalling common in our contemporary culture, our narcissistic, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, me me me society.
Without the lights, the glacier would look natural, raw and genuine.
It is necessary to take a long-term perspective. Contemporary history and the geological time-scale are necessary reference points before any conclusions can be drawn about the present.
During the Holocene optimum, there was no ice anywhere in the Northern hemisphere excepting Greenland. Northern hemisphere glaciers are no older than 4500 years (which in geological terms is nothing).
There was a general retreat of the glaciers between 1820 and 1970. The fastest rate of retreat was between 1920 and 1960, prior to any influence from any CO2 increase.
There is no reason, or any written law of nature why the present day ice and glacial extent should return to any previous peak extent or regression, or to the Victorian state of ice advance (ca. 1850).
Today’s inter-glacial temperatures are much lower than those during the Holocene era - as substantiated by studying cores from Greenland’s ice sheet.
The artist's prognostications are completely unrelated to anything Trump decides. The so-called "Paris climate agreement" is a bureaucratic farce and irrelevant to the real issues, so Trump's decision is probably a very good one - for the USA.
Smog and particulate pollution is a completely different issue to CO2 and that debate. Smog is manageable. CO2 is managed by the Earth and the oceans by the natural cycle, Henry's law etc etc. Remember that sometimes Porsches in LA or smog-laden alpine valleys take in dirtier air than they emit from their exhausts. The same can not be said about the numerous polluting 2CVs driven by "greens" across France.
Alpine glaciers may well disappear completely. That does not prove anything - except natural climatic variability. Horses and palm trees used to be prevalent in Northern Greenland.
And as for "street art" in the Amazonian rainforest - you could not invent a better form of pollution.
A bit like artist junk hanging around the Lake District and the Eden valley. Nothing beats nature - leave it alone.
DC
6
22
In reply to UKC News:
Philippe's concern is real but needs to be tempered by a longer view.
Many continental glaciers in N Hemisphere are retreating but some expose remains of medieval villages that were certainly not built on the glacier. Glaciers advance and retreat all the time and during the medieval warm period when Vikings settled in Greenland, they would have been even further up the valley than they are today. There never was a perfect time when there was no climate change, today is no different. 50% of the 1 deg C warming we have seen since the industrial revolution had already taken place by 1943 (look at ANY of the charts published on temperature). CO2 did not start its modern rate of increase until the 1950s. After 1943 there were 30 years of cooling /hiatus, while CO2 was increasing. There is no connection between CO2 and 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change'; Trump's advisers seem to be aware of these 'alternative facts'. If you look at the last 600 million years you will find periods when CO2 was high (7000ppm) and temperatures were low, with ice ages like the ones we have seen for the last million years. Other periods saw low CO2 and high temperatures. I suggest Philippe zooms out from his understandable local concern and look at the wider picture.
Philippe's concern is real but needs to be tempered by a longer view.
Many continental glaciers in N Hemisphere are retreating but some expose remains of medieval villages that were certainly not built on the glacier. Glaciers advance and retreat all the time and during the medieval warm period when Vikings settled in Greenland, they would have been even further up the valley than they are today. There never was a perfect time when there was no climate change, today is no different. 50% of the 1 deg C warming we have seen since the industrial revolution had already taken place by 1943 (look at ANY of the charts published on temperature). CO2 did not start its modern rate of increase until the 1950s. After 1943 there were 30 years of cooling /hiatus, while CO2 was increasing. There is no connection between CO2 and 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change'; Trump's advisers seem to be aware of these 'alternative facts'. If you look at the last 600 million years you will find periods when CO2 was high (7000ppm) and temperatures were low, with ice ages like the ones we have seen for the last million years. Other periods saw low CO2 and high temperatures. I suggest Philippe zooms out from his understandable local concern and look at the wider picture.
10
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
A interesting read and view point(s).
Can you explain what you mean by Holocene Optimum, and when was this - are we not in the Holocene now? Many things are a question of scale I agree, so can you give a little more context and detail on what you mean by:
'there was no ice anywhere in the Northern hemisphere excepting Greenland. Northern hemisphere glaciers are no older than 4500 years' - the ice may not be older than 4500 years, but couldn't glaciers still be present from the end of the Younger Dryas to the current day (unless it has already gone). I may have mis-read your post, but no ice present anywhere in the Northern hemisphere exc. Greenland would imply everything melted between the end of the YD and 4,500ya?
A interesting read and view point(s).
Can you explain what you mean by Holocene Optimum, and when was this - are we not in the Holocene now? Many things are a question of scale I agree, so can you give a little more context and detail on what you mean by:
'there was no ice anywhere in the Northern hemisphere excepting Greenland. Northern hemisphere glaciers are no older than 4500 years' - the ice may not be older than 4500 years, but couldn't glaciers still be present from the end of the Younger Dryas to the current day (unless it has already gone). I may have mis-read your post, but no ice present anywhere in the Northern hemisphere exc. Greenland would imply everything melted between the end of the YD and 4,500ya?
1
In reply to UKC News:
It's amazing how quickly the paranoid chauvinists come out of the woodwork to dismiss the influence of industrial society on climate change, in the face of a) well-evidenced and documented scientific consensus; b) the kind of tangible evidence that Chris Craggs notes above. These people are always ready with their re-heated "google facts", such as this corker "There was a general retreat of the glaciers between 1820 and 1970. The fastest rate of retreat was between 1920 and 1960, prior to any influence from any CO2 increase." It's just nonsense, frankly.
This story is even better, because it makes room for this new type of boastful philistinism that seems to be all the rage amongst a generation of men weaned on Jeremy Clarkson and Boris Johnson's "jokes": "This appears to be yet another architect or artist (in this case) indulging in the most self-indulgent type of superficial virtue-signalling common in our contemporary culture, our narcissistic, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, me me me society."
Yes, how dare someone make art! It's so obviously just about getting them attention... Now, that Picasso - he was just self-obsessed. Lucian Freud - probably should have seen a psychiatrist. Cindy Sherman? I bet she just needs a good...
Meanwhile, anyone who approvingly cites Trump's advisors as being "aware" of "alternative facts" (Petroalbion doesn't seem to have an understanding of irony) is probably a lost cause...
It's amazing how quickly the paranoid chauvinists come out of the woodwork to dismiss the influence of industrial society on climate change, in the face of a) well-evidenced and documented scientific consensus; b) the kind of tangible evidence that Chris Craggs notes above. These people are always ready with their re-heated "google facts", such as this corker "There was a general retreat of the glaciers between 1820 and 1970. The fastest rate of retreat was between 1920 and 1960, prior to any influence from any CO2 increase." It's just nonsense, frankly.
This story is even better, because it makes room for this new type of boastful philistinism that seems to be all the rage amongst a generation of men weaned on Jeremy Clarkson and Boris Johnson's "jokes": "This appears to be yet another architect or artist (in this case) indulging in the most self-indulgent type of superficial virtue-signalling common in our contemporary culture, our narcissistic, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, me me me society."
Yes, how dare someone make art! It's so obviously just about getting them attention... Now, that Picasso - he was just self-obsessed. Lucian Freud - probably should have seen a psychiatrist. Cindy Sherman? I bet she just needs a good...
Meanwhile, anyone who approvingly cites Trump's advisors as being "aware" of "alternative facts" (Petroalbion doesn't seem to have an understanding of irony) is probably a lost cause...
10
1
In reply to C Witter:
The usual inane personal abuse without tackling the issue.
Firstly, there is no consensus - if you look at the data you will see why.
Neither are the facts "Google facts".
Neither is the contrarian view "nonsense".
Neither am I paranoid, nor a chauvinist.
Neither am I a Philistine.
Keep your insulting abuse to yourself and deal with the debate please.
Some art is very good, but nature is better.
Some people are subsidised to support the global climate scam, others are not.
DC
The usual inane personal abuse without tackling the issue.
Firstly, there is no consensus - if you look at the data you will see why.
Neither are the facts "Google facts".
Neither is the contrarian view "nonsense".
Neither am I paranoid, nor a chauvinist.
Neither am I a Philistine.
Keep your insulting abuse to yourself and deal with the debate please.
Some art is very good, but nature is better.
Some people are subsidised to support the global climate scam, others are not.
DC
3
12
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
That was me dealing with the debate, by describing the "type" to which your "analysis" belongs.
That was me dealing with the debate, by describing the "type" to which your "analysis" belongs.
1
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
In a fashion that would probably provide hours of material for Stewart Lee, you appear to be confusing Climate Change with Political Correctness.
> This appears to be yet another architect or artist (in this case) indulging in the most self-indulgent type of superficial virtue-signalling common in our contemporary culture, our narcissistic, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, me me me society.
In a fashion that would probably provide hours of material for Stewart Lee, you appear to be confusing Climate Change with Political Correctness.
5
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
How do you qualify that statement? what do you regard as a consensus? i would say 96% of scientists agreeing would be a consensus.
> The usual inane personal abuse without tackling the issue.
> Firstly, there is no consensus - if you look at the data you will see why.
How do you qualify that statement? what do you regard as a consensus? i would say 96% of scientists agreeing would be a consensus.
5
In reply to La benya:
If you believe that you are not well-informed.
The "97% of scientists" statement (Cook, 1998 and 2002) has been proved incontrovertibly to be totally untrue and has been withdrawn by its authors, as has the now famously misleading hockey stick graph.
That is a fact. In fact Michael Mann who "invented" the hockey stick graph is in court currently.
DC
> How do you qualify that statement? what do you regard as a consensus? i would say 96% of scientists agreeing would be a consensus.
If you believe that you are not well-informed.
The "97% of scientists" statement (Cook, 1998 and 2002) has been proved incontrovertibly to be totally untrue and has been withdrawn by its authors, as has the now famously misleading hockey stick graph.
That is a fact. In fact Michael Mann who "invented" the hockey stick graph is in court currently.
DC
1
6
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
If that were true, then one would expect at least one of the two following things to be true:
1. The *existence* of Climate Change during the modern data recording era would be a subject of academic debate and active research in university departments.
2. Assuming 1. Is accepted, the *attribution* of climate change to man made or natural causes is a subject of active debate and research.
Can you provide evidence that either of these things is true? That is, can you name a single climatology department in any University in the world where your view is supported? Or failing that, a single climatologist who has published peer reviewed research in, say, the last decade, who supports your view?
> Firstly, there is no consensus - if you look at the data you will see why.
If that were true, then one would expect at least one of the two following things to be true:
1. The *existence* of Climate Change during the modern data recording era would be a subject of academic debate and active research in university departments.
2. Assuming 1. Is accepted, the *attribution* of climate change to man made or natural causes is a subject of active debate and research.
Can you provide evidence that either of these things is true? That is, can you name a single climatology department in any University in the world where your view is supported? Or failing that, a single climatologist who has published peer reviewed research in, say, the last decade, who supports your view?
4
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Source?
Yes, taking action against people who accused him of dishonesty. Which he has a fair chance of winning, given that no investigation that's been started against him seems to have found him guilty of any wrongdoing.
> as has the now famously misleading hockey stick graph.
Source?
> That is a fact. In fact Michael Mann who "invented" the hockey stick graph is in court currently.
Yes, taking action against people who accused him of dishonesty. Which he has a fair chance of winning, given that no investigation that's been started against him seems to have found him guilty of any wrongdoing.
3
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Really ? do you have a source for that ? I don't follow climate change research that closely but it does impact on my work & everything I read suggests that extremely few researchers actually involved in active research doubt its reality - maybe the figure isn't 97% but everything I've seen suggests its pretty high
> The "97% of scientists" statement (Cook, 1998 and 2002) has been proved incontrovertibly to be totally untrue
Really ? do you have a source for that ? I don't follow climate change research that closely but it does impact on my work & everything I read suggests that extremely few researchers actually involved in active research doubt its reality - maybe the figure isn't 97% but everything I've seen suggests its pretty high
Post edited at 13:46
1
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
well i quoted 96% as that is the lastest number from the metastudies.
could you provide the evidence for your assertions, rather than simply suggesting mine are wrong?
well i quoted 96% as that is the lastest number from the metastudies.
could you provide the evidence for your assertions, rather than simply suggesting mine are wrong?
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
I pass no judgement on whether the art is meaningful or crap... but quite frankly your arguments are just plain wrong.
just because you can quote some relevant and intelligent facts, doesn't mean that your misguided opinion holds water, and many of your quoted facts prove nothing.
sure climate has always and will always vary naturally due to a multitude of drivers, but right now we are altering one of those drivers at a rate and scale which is (almost) unprecedented! The often quoted line that climate change is "just natural variability due to orbital patterns" sounds perfectly intelligent and is usually the bedrock on which sceptics build their whole 'argument', but they seem blind to the fact that under the current state of the Milankovic cycle the earths climate should be cooling not warming!
The industrial revolution began in the mid 1700's so your line "prior to any influence from any CO2 increase" is just plain wrong...
sure the warming trend plateaued in the mid 20th century despite the accelerated increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but this was largely due to global dimming (another consequence of pollution) offsetting the greenhouse effect by blocking some of the solar insolation in the first place. Clean air policies around the world have largely stopped that and now we are seeing the acceleration in warming again...
Sure there may be periods in deep time when CO2 has been way higher yet temps were lower and vice versa, but you are comparing apples and pears. Different continental distributions and make ups, different ocean currents, different vegetation cover and differences in solar intensity etc etc all mean that you cant use absolute temp and absolute CO2 concentration as comparable variables back through deep time. what is unequivocal is that every time in history that there was a massive spike in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations it triggered a rapid increase in global temperatures, from whatever that bench mark may have been. Nobody can deny or question that, it is not a matter of debate, it is a clean and simple fact.
There is no debate in the scientific community around the validity of anthropogenically induced climate change, the science of the greenhouse effect is simple enough for a primary school pupil to understand! there is simply debate around the magnitude and consequences of it, but that is science, its how it works.
Sure the lefty loonist greeny environmentalist brigade are a bunch of hypocritical nut jobs, and sure 'climate change' has undoubtedly been hijacked for political and commercial gains, but that doesn't change the fact that it is happening and we are at fault! to continue to deny that is just burying your head in the sand...
there are other equally important environmental concerns (such as air pollution and plastics in the oceans etc) which have been brushed aside by the climate change circus, and that could potentially be of even greater consequence.
I pass no judgement on whether the art is meaningful or crap... but quite frankly your arguments are just plain wrong.
just because you can quote some relevant and intelligent facts, doesn't mean that your misguided opinion holds water, and many of your quoted facts prove nothing.
sure climate has always and will always vary naturally due to a multitude of drivers, but right now we are altering one of those drivers at a rate and scale which is (almost) unprecedented! The often quoted line that climate change is "just natural variability due to orbital patterns" sounds perfectly intelligent and is usually the bedrock on which sceptics build their whole 'argument', but they seem blind to the fact that under the current state of the Milankovic cycle the earths climate should be cooling not warming!
The industrial revolution began in the mid 1700's so your line "prior to any influence from any CO2 increase" is just plain wrong...
sure the warming trend plateaued in the mid 20th century despite the accelerated increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but this was largely due to global dimming (another consequence of pollution) offsetting the greenhouse effect by blocking some of the solar insolation in the first place. Clean air policies around the world have largely stopped that and now we are seeing the acceleration in warming again...
Sure there may be periods in deep time when CO2 has been way higher yet temps were lower and vice versa, but you are comparing apples and pears. Different continental distributions and make ups, different ocean currents, different vegetation cover and differences in solar intensity etc etc all mean that you cant use absolute temp and absolute CO2 concentration as comparable variables back through deep time. what is unequivocal is that every time in history that there was a massive spike in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations it triggered a rapid increase in global temperatures, from whatever that bench mark may have been. Nobody can deny or question that, it is not a matter of debate, it is a clean and simple fact.
There is no debate in the scientific community around the validity of anthropogenically induced climate change, the science of the greenhouse effect is simple enough for a primary school pupil to understand! there is simply debate around the magnitude and consequences of it, but that is science, its how it works.
Sure the lefty loonist greeny environmentalist brigade are a bunch of hypocritical nut jobs, and sure 'climate change' has undoubtedly been hijacked for political and commercial gains, but that doesn't change the fact that it is happening and we are at fault! to continue to deny that is just burying your head in the sand...
there are other equally important environmental concerns (such as air pollution and plastics in the oceans etc) which have been brushed aside by the climate change circus, and that could potentially be of even greater consequence.
8
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
If you want to go back long term then 12000 years ago we were in a glacial period. What's your point?
There's been a general retreat for as long as direct measurements have been taken
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/4-8.jpg
The long term measurements we have are from the Morteratsch Glacier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morteratsch_Glacier
Speculative nonsense.
Meaningless waffle.
I take it you have some anecdotal evidence of this? Your claim is not supported by people who have tried to reconstruct glacial lengths.
http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/prosem/GEO518_Panel01_Oerlemans_2005.pdf
We are in the Holocene period. Researchers such as Jørgen Peder Steffensen have confirmed it was warmer at the start of the Holocene, but not 'much'. The temperature variation over the Holocence is small compared to those over the geological timescale.
If you want to have a waffly rant about art you don't like, fill yer boots. If I were you I'd avoid bringing pseudo science you stumbled across on the internet into it.
> It is necessary to take a long-term perspective. Contemporary history and the geological time-scale are necessary reference points before any conclusions can be drawn about the present.
> During the Holocene optimum, there was no ice anywhere in the Northern hemisphere excepting Greenland. Northern hemisphere glaciers are no older than 4500 years (which in geological terms is nothing).
If you want to go back long term then 12000 years ago we were in a glacial period. What's your point?
> There was a general retreat of the glaciers between 1820 and 1970. The fastest rate of retreat was between 1920 and 1960,
There's been a general retreat for as long as direct measurements have been taken
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/4-8.jpg
The long term measurements we have are from the Morteratsch Glacier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morteratsch_Glacier
> prior to any influence from any CO2 increase.
Speculative nonsense.
> There is no reason, or any written law of nature why the present day ice and glacial extent should return to any previous peak extent or regression, or to the Victorian state of ice advance (ca. 1850).
Meaningless waffle.
> or to the Victorian state of ice advance (ca. 1850).
I take it you have some anecdotal evidence of this? Your claim is not supported by people who have tried to reconstruct glacial lengths.
http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/prosem/GEO518_Panel01_Oerlemans_2005.pdf
> Today’s inter-glacial temperatures are much lower than those during the Holocene era - as substantiated by studying cores from Greenland’s ice sheet.
We are in the Holocene period. Researchers such as Jørgen Peder Steffensen have confirmed it was warmer at the start of the Holocene, but not 'much'. The temperature variation over the Holocence is small compared to those over the geological timescale.
> The artist's prognostications ect...
If you want to have a waffly rant about art you don't like, fill yer boots. If I were you I'd avoid bringing pseudo science you stumbled across on the internet into it.
12
In reply to petroalbion:
Whats your point? yes things have varied naturally. they are now varying unnaturally.
"There never was a perfect time when there was no climate change,"
Again, whats your point?
"50% of the 1 deg C warming we have seen since the industrial revolution had already taken place by 1943"
yes, during 200 years of industrial pollution... your facts don't support your argument?
"CO2 did not start its modern rate of increase until the 1950s."
umn, just bollocks...
"After 1943 there were 30 years of cooling /hiatus, while CO2 was increasing."
Global dimming...
"There is no connection between CO2 and 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change';"
where is your PhD in climatology then? care to disprove decades of research by thousands of climate scientists...
"If you look at the last 600 million years you will find periods when CO2 was high (7000ppm) and temperatures were low, with ice ages like the ones we have seen for the last million years. Other periods saw low CO2 and high temperatures."
again whats your point? climate varies naturally, it is now varying unnaturally... see my reply to DC if you want to see your above sentence fully discredited
"I suggest Philippe zooms out from his understandable local concern and look at the wider picture."
and what wider picture is that? the one where something like 10 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 2 decades? That the arctic sea ice extent has reached record lows in each of the last few summers. that glaciers globally in every glaciated region are shrinking at an alarming rate. I think you will find the global picture is even more alarming!
> Many continental glaciers in N Hemisphere are retreating but some expose remains of medieval villages that were certainly not built on the glacier. Glaciers advance and retreat all the time and during the medieval warm period when Vikings settled in Greenland, they would have been even further up the valley than they are today.
Whats your point? yes things have varied naturally. they are now varying unnaturally.
"There never was a perfect time when there was no climate change,"
Again, whats your point?
"50% of the 1 deg C warming we have seen since the industrial revolution had already taken place by 1943"
yes, during 200 years of industrial pollution... your facts don't support your argument?
"CO2 did not start its modern rate of increase until the 1950s."
umn, just bollocks...
"After 1943 there were 30 years of cooling /hiatus, while CO2 was increasing."
Global dimming...
"There is no connection between CO2 and 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change';"
where is your PhD in climatology then? care to disprove decades of research by thousands of climate scientists...
"If you look at the last 600 million years you will find periods when CO2 was high (7000ppm) and temperatures were low, with ice ages like the ones we have seen for the last million years. Other periods saw low CO2 and high temperatures."
again whats your point? climate varies naturally, it is now varying unnaturally... see my reply to DC if you want to see your above sentence fully discredited
"I suggest Philippe zooms out from his understandable local concern and look at the wider picture."
and what wider picture is that? the one where something like 10 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 2 decades? That the arctic sea ice extent has reached record lows in each of the last few summers. that glaciers globally in every glaciated region are shrinking at an alarming rate. I think you will find the global picture is even more alarming!
6
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Which data would you suggest we look at?
> The usual inane personal abuse without tackling the issue.
> Firstly, there is no consensus - if you look at the data you will see why.
Which data would you suggest we look at?
1
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Interesting use of the word 'managed'. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased from about 280ppm in the pre-Industrial Revolution time to over 400ppm now. That increase is largely due to man-made activities, most notably the burning of fossil fuels. Given that we know that CO2 has a role to play in governing the temperature of atmosphere, it would be surprising if such an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 were not accompanied by a change in temperature.
I'd be interested to know the science by which you think the greenhouse gas concentration and atmospheric temperature can be separated.
> Smog and particulate pollution is a completely different issue to CO2 and that debate. Smog is manageable. CO2 is managed by the Earth and the oceans by the natural cycle, Henry's law etc etc.
Interesting use of the word 'managed'. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased from about 280ppm in the pre-Industrial Revolution time to over 400ppm now. That increase is largely due to man-made activities, most notably the burning of fossil fuels. Given that we know that CO2 has a role to play in governing the temperature of atmosphere, it would be surprising if such an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 were not accompanied by a change in temperature.
I'd be interested to know the science by which you think the greenhouse gas concentration and atmospheric temperature can be separated.
4
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Shouldn't the natural cycles be keeping it in check much better than they appear to be? After all, it doesn't take long for vegetation to grow better / more prolifically to take advantage of extra CO2.
> CO2 is managed by the Earth and the oceans by the natural cycle, Henry's law etc etc.
Shouldn't the natural cycles be keeping it in check much better than they appear to be? After all, it doesn't take long for vegetation to grow better / more prolifically to take advantage of extra CO2.
In reply to UKC News:
In before Dave comes back with a reply ignoring everything everyone else has said, calling people libtards/ snowflakes and mentioning a different conspiracy theory instead of adjusting his beliefs int he face of science. I'm going to go for the illuminati have made it all up.
In before Dave comes back with a reply ignoring everything everyone else has said, calling people libtards/ snowflakes and mentioning a different conspiracy theory instead of adjusting his beliefs int he face of science. I'm going to go for the illuminati have made it all up.
8
In reply to La benya:
So does that mean that the Illuminati are Chinese, given that The Donald has said that global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese. After all, it's highly unlikely that The Donald would talk unadulterated shite, isn't it?
> In before Dave comes back with a reply ignoring everything everyone else has said, calling people libtards/ snowflakes and mentioning a different conspiracy theory instead of adjusting his beliefs int he face of science. I'm going to go for the illuminati have made it all up.
So does that mean that the Illuminati are Chinese, given that The Donald has said that global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese. After all, it's highly unlikely that The Donald would talk unadulterated shite, isn't it?
3
In reply to tony:
Have you seen that AI bot on amazon making phone cases from random pictures off the internet? I think that's roughly how Trumps brain works.
It's random noises that the population are investing intelligence too. Eventually that will stop.
But yeah, definitely Chinese illuminati. The worst kind.
Have you seen that AI bot on amazon making phone cases from random pictures off the internet? I think that's roughly how Trumps brain works.
It's random noises that the population are investing intelligence too. Eventually that will stop.
But yeah, definitely Chinese illuminati. The worst kind.
1
In reply to La benya:
I saw that. I'm not sure which is worse - the fact that someone came up with the idea and put it into practice, or the fact that people actually buy them.
Bugger. We're doomed.
> Have you seen that AI bot on amazon making phone cases from random pictures off the internet? I think that's roughly how Trumps brain works.
I saw that. I'm not sure which is worse - the fact that someone came up with the idea and put it into practice, or the fact that people actually buy them.
> It's random noises that the population are investing intelligence too. Eventually that will stop.
> But yeah, definitely Chinese illuminati. The worst kind.
Bugger. We're doomed.
1
In reply to UKC News:
Thanks to folks for refuting Dave Cumberland's total nonsense. The key thing he seems to miss is that while change has always happened, it has not happened this fast.
Here's a handy graph for Dave illustrating just how fast the current changes are relative to the past: https://xkcd.com/1732/
A rather poor analogy would be riding in a car, and all of a sudden it starts to accelerate so hard you're slammed back into your seat with a searing pain in your neck from the shock. "Calm down" comes a voice squeezed out from the back seat. "The car has always gone faster and slower - sometimes it even stopped!". Meanwhile the car accelerates rapidly to the point where braking will have no effect and the turn can't be made.
Thanks to folks for refuting Dave Cumberland's total nonsense. The key thing he seems to miss is that while change has always happened, it has not happened this fast.
Here's a handy graph for Dave illustrating just how fast the current changes are relative to the past: https://xkcd.com/1732/
A rather poor analogy would be riding in a car, and all of a sudden it starts to accelerate so hard you're slammed back into your seat with a searing pain in your neck from the shock. "Calm down" comes a voice squeezed out from the back seat. "The car has always gone faster and slower - sometimes it even stopped!". Meanwhile the car accelerates rapidly to the point where braking will have no effect and the turn can't be made.
7
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Are you sure about that?
Chris
> Northern hemisphere glaciers are no older than 4500 years (which in geological terms is nothing).
Are you sure about that?
Chris
In reply to SenzuBean:
what a fantastic graphic- really captures the scale and rapidity of the current changes.
what a fantastic graphic- really captures the scale and rapidity of the current changes.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
It doesnt matter if you post easily refutable nonsense. The point is that tbere are lots of posts, which sort of suggests there is a credible argument. Best idea is to just ignore this kind of stupidity and leave it to twist in the wind.
It doesnt matter if you post easily refutable nonsense. The point is that tbere are lots of posts, which sort of suggests there is a credible argument. Best idea is to just ignore this kind of stupidity and leave it to twist in the wind.
In reply to UKC News:
Global warming as a result of rapid CO2 release by humans since the industrial revolution is simply just not up for debate any more I'm afraid.
There is no conspiracy - if you want to believe otherwise you are just putting your head in the sand and not considering the future that our children and their children will simply not have.
I cannot believe that the first second and XX posts about this art work where well rehearsed but ultimately unscientific and untrue versions of our past, more recent and current history - complete with Trump taglines and further confuddling.
Sea temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising. Take your head out of the sand....read and reread the evidence that is being presented in scientific journals. Check out New Scientist for a light read, go on NASAs website...see what the TOP 3 threats are to the UK TODAY...cybercrime, climate change.....
Global warming as a result of rapid CO2 release by humans since the industrial revolution is simply just not up for debate any more I'm afraid.
There is no conspiracy - if you want to believe otherwise you are just putting your head in the sand and not considering the future that our children and their children will simply not have.
I cannot believe that the first second and XX posts about this art work where well rehearsed but ultimately unscientific and untrue versions of our past, more recent and current history - complete with Trump taglines and further confuddling.
Sea temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising. Take your head out of the sand....read and reread the evidence that is being presented in scientific journals. Check out New Scientist for a light read, go on NASAs website...see what the TOP 3 threats are to the UK TODAY...cybercrime, climate change.....
4
In reply to UKC News:
Some great photography here (even without the art element) and graffiti with light (leave no trace etc) is a very clever idea.
Shame the thread is full of so much crap from human-induced climate change deniers!
Some great photography here (even without the art element) and graffiti with light (leave no trace etc) is a very clever idea.
Shame the thread is full of so much crap from human-induced climate change deniers!
7
In reply to dkilner:
I find it worrying that even the "not insane" voices on here use this language of it being a problem for future generations, All the predictions are for serious problems by the middle of this century so unless you're well above retirement age then you can expect to be seriously affected and if young it's probable that climate change will be a factor in your cause of death.
> (In reply to UKC News)
> There is no conspiracy - if you want to believe otherwise you are just putting your head in the sand and not considering the future that our children and their children will simply not have.
>
>
I find it worrying that even the "not insane" voices on here use this language of it being a problem for future generations, All the predictions are for serious problems by the middle of this century so unless you're well above retirement age then you can expect to be seriously affected and if young it's probable that climate change will be a factor in your cause of death.
3
In reply to Chris Craggs:
> Northern hemisphere glaciers are no older than 4500 years (which in geological terms is nothing).
Dave's claim is not true.
Here's a paper on the Rhone Glacier in Switzerland
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/27294057.pdf
The glacier has been smaller than it is today, but it has been present throughout this inter-glacial period (Holocene)
Here's a review of glacial fluctuations globally during the Holocene.
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac%3A192533
Note the conclusion from the review paper (section 5.5 page 27), referring to the present day retreat:
"The retreat is occurring at very high rates, is almost universally global in scale and is acting during an interval of orbital forcing favorable for glacier growth, rather than degradation. This highlights the remarkable consequences of anthropogenic forcing on glaciers worldwide."
> Northern hemisphere glaciers are no older than 4500 years (which in geological terms is nothing).
> Are you sure about that?
> Chris
Dave's claim is not true.
Here's a paper on the Rhone Glacier in Switzerland
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/27294057.pdf
The glacier has been smaller than it is today, but it has been present throughout this inter-glacial period (Holocene)
Here's a review of glacial fluctuations globally during the Holocene.
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac%3A192533
Note the conclusion from the review paper (section 5.5 page 27), referring to the present day retreat:
"The retreat is occurring at very high rates, is almost universally global in scale and is acting during an interval of orbital forcing favorable for glacier growth, rather than degradation. This highlights the remarkable consequences of anthropogenic forcing on glaciers worldwide."
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...