The loss of glacier areas is not confined to the Alps. It happens also on the Andes, and countries like Bolivia and Peru are going to lose much of their freshwater supply. The only exception I know is the Perito Moreno glacier in Patagonia but this is the exception which confirms the rule. I know that climate changes have occurred in the past, also on the Alps. What frightens me is the speed at which such changes occur, in the short span of a man's life.
Tullio
All Alpine glaciers are sinply disappearing. Debunk this if you can.
Tullio
I don't think anyone can debunk the fact that the World's glaciers are melting, I think the problem is what do you attribute it to. Some say Global Warming caused by man, some say Global Warming caused by the normal things the Earth does as it whirls thru Space. Until the glaciers are either gone and stay gone, there have been several, if not many, glacier expansion and contraction over Earth's history, and the Science can then point to the fact that this or that caused it, nothing will be 'proved' and the debate will continue. If man is the culprit it may be waaay to late to do anything about it already, if man is not the culprit we are just doing what we always do...blame something or someone and then find out later on it was this or that instead. I think this little planet of ours still has some secrets and surprises up her sleeve and she is not done with us yet.
The loss of glacier areas is not confined to the Alps. It happens also on the Andes, and countries like Bolivia and Peru are going to lose much of their freshwater supply. The only exception I know is the Perito Moreno glacier in Patagonia but this is the exception which confirms the rule. I know that climate changes have occurred in the past, also on the Alps. What frightens me is the speed at which such changes occur, in the short span of a man's life.
Tullio
Naturally I share such concerns. South America has the confounding effects of the Southern Oscillation too ....
What worries me is the cavalier approach to factual data by some. This weakens the proposals and thus deflects the momentum for changes that are needed ( on whatever timescale ) to make this single planet we have livable for us in the near and longer term.
At one point the worry was proposed that the 'North Atlantic Conveyer' was stopping - part of a worldwide transfer of water ( and it's heat energies ) along the surface and in the deeps, around and about the continental masses and across the hemispheres. Much was made of this. However a series of record hurricanes this decade buried that concern - which is why you here little of it now. Confirmation of global warming you say? Possibly, but again other factors and causal lines abound. What is sure is that we know less than we think and data is the key ( like unexpected hurricanes ).
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I am a physicist and I agree that we need more data. Recently both NASA and ESA have launched satellites able to monitor the oceans, which are the main heat reservoirs. Personally I am running CPDN models, which are provided by the UK Meteorological Office and Oxford University. One of these models concentrated on the possible consequences of global warming on the United Kingdom, was adopted by the UK Government and promptly ridiculed by The Register, which I read regularly. There is nothing wrong in criticizing theories. But for me global warming is not a theory but a fact. I have seen its consequences with my mortal eyes. Cheers.
Tullio
I think we can agree the earth is warming.. It has been for the most part since the last ice age. Whether this current trend is part of the long term cycle or whether its accelerated by humanity's influence or what effects currently being observed are caused by this warming... should be debated openly and honestly.. That what's great.. but if today, somebody states they have all the answers, then their creditability should be questioned. I just wish the fearmongering would stop. Usually the wrong decision is made when its made out of fear.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
I cannot but agree. We need more data and we need more models in which to fit the data. I am running a CPDN model with deadline December 18 2011. I take is as a wish of a long life. Cheers.
Tullio
A recent survey DownUnder by a market research firm has discovered that ads or promotions including phrases like 'global warming', 'carbon', 'climate change', 'environment' etc ( particularly 'green' ) now cause a significant reduction in product sales. The admakers are taking heed of this. For most manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers this causes no especial difficulty as they'd never made any real changes to their products in the first place. Only the claims of green-ness were made, without substance. So reversing an illusion is as simple as launching a new ad campaign, which is the sort of thing they've been doing for years anyway.
What makes this trend particularly notable is that estimates of what people will actually spend on, as opposed to 'softer' measures of opinion, are turning. That is, will they put their money where their mouth is? Essentially the rubber is now having to meet the road, and people are less willing to really personally pay for any change based upon environmental concerns. This is an important bellweather.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
. Only the claims of green-ness were made, without substance. So reversing an illusion is as simple as launching a new ad campaign, which is the sort of thing they've been doing for years anyway.
Cheers, Mike.
There is a snake oil salesman born every mininute..
Fear of man caused global warming may lead to energy conserving measures, energy efficient buildings, engines, solar homes etc. I've read that the heat produced by a new supercomputer at the Zurich Polytechnic Institute will be used to heat the University's main building in winter, although I doubt it will be useful in summer. Raising the efficiency always pays. Ing. Pasquale Pistorio, CEO of STMicroelectronics where I also worked, said that recycling materials and water in its Agrate and Catania plants, which produce integrated circuits, has saved STMicro a good deal of money. And he is an industrial manager, not a green evangelist!
Tullio
I personally prefer a pragmatic approach as well - I think there are two reasons for the alarmism we're seeing:
1) it's the only thing that will convince politicians that it may be prudent to act
2) scientists wanting to do research in the direction of global warming can use the alarmism to ensure they get their grants
The second is of course a disgusting reason, the first -shouldn't- be necessary but I don't have a lot of confidence in the average politician's ability for long term vision.
My stance is this: whether or not signs point to anthropogenic climate change, we should understand our role in affecting the climate, and understand how we can guide our influence if necessary (i.e. in the event of a major climatic shift). Beyond that, there are other detrimental effects of our fossil fuel dependence - smog, acid rain ... no one likes these things, and no one wants to leave future generations dependent on some finite fuel source - it simply makes sense to look into alternatives and support scientists trying to make them a reality.
That said I've seen climate change alarmism leading to possibly worse alternatives - i.e. biofuels, which take up precious farmland and drain the water supplies of countries that don't get a lot of rain. Therefore it is important that we look into these alternatives in detail so we understand both the disadvantages -and- the advantages, instead of leaping before we look.
The loss of glacier areas is
The loss of glacier areas is not confined to the Alps. It happens also on the Andes, and countries like Bolivia and Peru are going to lose much of their freshwater supply. The only exception I know is the Perito Moreno glacier in Patagonia but this is the exception which confirms the rule. I know that climate changes have occurred in the past, also on the Alps. What frightens me is the speed at which such changes occur, in the short span of a man's life.
Tullio
RE: All Alpine glaciers are
I don't think anyone can debunk the fact that the World's glaciers are melting, I think the problem is what do you attribute it to. Some say Global Warming caused by man, some say Global Warming caused by the normal things the Earth does as it whirls thru Space. Until the glaciers are either gone and stay gone, there have been several, if not many, glacier expansion and contraction over Earth's history, and the Science can then point to the fact that this or that caused it, nothing will be 'proved' and the debate will continue. If man is the culprit it may be waaay to late to do anything about it already, if man is not the culprit we are just doing what we always do...blame something or someone and then find out later on it was this or that instead. I think this little planet of ours still has some secrets and surprises up her sleeve and she is not done with us yet.
RE: The loss of glacier
Naturally I share such concerns. South America has the confounding effects of the Southern Oscillation too ....
What worries me is the cavalier approach to factual data by some. This weakens the proposals and thus deflects the momentum for changes that are needed ( on whatever timescale ) to make this single planet we have livable for us in the near and longer term.
At one point the worry was proposed that the 'North Atlantic Conveyer' was stopping - part of a worldwide transfer of water ( and it's heat energies ) along the surface and in the deeps, around and about the continental masses and across the hemispheres. Much was made of this. However a series of record hurricanes this decade buried that concern - which is why you here little of it now. Confirmation of global warming you say? Possibly, but again other factors and causal lines abound. What is sure is that we know less than we think and data is the key ( like unexpected hurricanes ).
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I am a physicist and I agree
I am a physicist and I agree that we need more data. Recently both NASA and ESA have launched satellites able to monitor the oceans, which are the main heat reservoirs. Personally I am running CPDN models, which are provided by the UK Meteorological Office and Oxford University. One of these models concentrated on the possible consequences of global warming on the United Kingdom, was adopted by the UK Government and promptly ridiculed by The Register, which I read regularly. There is nothing wrong in criticizing theories. But for me global warming is not a theory but a fact. I have seen its consequences with my mortal eyes. Cheers.
Tullio
I think we can agree the
I think we can agree the earth is warming.. It has been for the most part since the last ice age. Whether this current trend is part of the long term cycle or whether its accelerated by humanity's influence or what effects currently being observed are caused by this warming... should be debated openly and honestly.. That what's great.. but if today, somebody states they have all the answers, then their creditability should be questioned. I just wish the fearmongering would stop. Usually the wrong decision is made when its made out of fear.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
I cannot but agree. We need
I cannot but agree. We need more data and we need more models in which to fit the data. I am running a CPDN model with deadline December 18 2011. I take is as a wish of a long life. Cheers.
Tullio
RE: .... out of fear. A
A recent survey DownUnder by a market research firm has discovered that ads or promotions including phrases like 'global warming', 'carbon', 'climate change', 'environment' etc ( particularly 'green' ) now cause a significant reduction in product sales. The admakers are taking heed of this. For most manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers this causes no especial difficulty as they'd never made any real changes to their products in the first place. Only the claims of green-ness were made, without substance. So reversing an illusion is as simple as launching a new ad campaign, which is the sort of thing they've been doing for years anyway.
What makes this trend particularly notable is that estimates of what people will actually spend on, as opposed to 'softer' measures of opinion, are turning. That is, will they put their money where their mouth is? Essentially the rubber is now having to meet the road, and people are less willing to really personally pay for any change based upon environmental concerns. This is an important bellweather.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: . Only the claims of
There is a snake oil salesman born every mininute..
Greenwashing
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
Fear of man caused global
Fear of man caused global warming may lead to energy conserving measures, energy efficient buildings, engines, solar homes etc. I've read that the heat produced by a new supercomputer at the Zurich Polytechnic Institute will be used to heat the University's main building in winter, although I doubt it will be useful in summer. Raising the efficiency always pays. Ing. Pasquale Pistorio, CEO of STMicroelectronics where I also worked, said that recycling materials and water in its Agrate and Catania plants, which produce integrated circuits, has saved STMicro a good deal of money. And he is an industrial manager, not a green evangelist!
Tullio
I personally prefer a
I personally prefer a pragmatic approach as well - I think there are two reasons for the alarmism we're seeing:
1) it's the only thing that will convince politicians that it may be prudent to act
2) scientists wanting to do research in the direction of global warming can use the alarmism to ensure they get their grants
The second is of course a disgusting reason, the first -shouldn't- be necessary but I don't have a lot of confidence in the average politician's ability for long term vision.
My stance is this: whether or not signs point to anthropogenic climate change, we should understand our role in affecting the climate, and understand how we can guide our influence if necessary (i.e. in the event of a major climatic shift). Beyond that, there are other detrimental effects of our fossil fuel dependence - smog, acid rain ... no one likes these things, and no one wants to leave future generations dependent on some finite fuel source - it simply makes sense to look into alternatives and support scientists trying to make them a reality.
That said I've seen climate change alarmism leading to possibly worse alternatives - i.e. biofuels, which take up precious farmland and drain the water supplies of countries that don't get a lot of rain. Therefore it is important that we look into these alternatives in detail so we understand both the disadvantages -and- the advantages, instead of leaping before we look.