Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:19 pm

What more does a skier know than this?
The SLC Tribune does an article a few weeks ago, "Global warming hit's Utah ski industry hard".
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55416 ... e.html.csp
Sure the year got off to a slow start, bwah bwah bwah. (of course the 3 feet this week in the miracle Cottonwoods changed that quick, didn't it?)
But did the chucklehead who wrote this article bother to Check The Facts??
go here and scroll down to Snowfall>Monthly Totals
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ut0072
This guy graphed it here
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 ... g-in-utah/
now I don't think that trend line is exactly correct, because there were a years with z for the month - "data missing".
But you get the gist. Yearly snowfall is extremely variable even at Alta.
And by visually taking out the year below 300 inches, it appears yearly Alta snowfall is slightly increasing, surely there is no downward trend!
DUH! And I have a funny feeling that Alta is not making retroactive "adjustments" to their data, like the so-called scientists do to their data.
This is the world we now find ourselves in. A couple weeks of below average snowfall and we see scary articles.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:17 pm

That Tribune article was written by staffer Mike Gorell, who I know and for whom I have a great deal of respect. It was prompted not by our winter in Utah to date, but rather by a big press conference hosted by the NRDC and POW to announce their grand study. They really promoted that press conference heavily to both national and local press across the country, both before and after that event.

Now, Mike interviewed Nathan to try to put some balance in his piece about the NRDC/POW report, but I'd like to think that we did a little better job finding balance in ours:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2012/1 ... l-warming/

Contained therein:

While the report released on Thursday focuses heavily on the drop in skier visits during the 2011-12 winter season, in which snowfall totals fell well below historical averages across much of the Continental U.S., it is remarkably silent regarding the record 60.54 million skier visits logged in the U.S. during the winter of 2010-11, in which snowfall was the highest recorded in 20 years. In fact, over the course of the past 10 seasons, ski areas have enjoyed the best 10-year average on record, with 57.5 million skier and snowboarder visits on average nationally. Resort revenues have been on the upswing as well, according to the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA).


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:58 pm

FTO News wrote:the winter of 2010-11, in which snowfall was the highest recorded in 20 years.

Actually the highest in at least 35 years. Also no mention that 1986-87 and 1991-92 were similar to 2011-12, and that 1976-77 and 1980-81 were much worse. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10248

SnowbirdDevotee wrote:This is the world we now find ourselves in. A couple weeks of below average snowfall and we see scary articles.

And even with respect to 2011-12, the 120%+ seasons enjoyed in western Canada and the Pacific Northwest were conveniently ignored.

I had been meaning to respond to SnowbirdDevotee's comments.
1) What does he think about the Muller study, funded by the Koch brothers and not dependent upon computer models? http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2823.story
2) What is the significance of arctic ice melt, a number which is quite cleanly measured by satellite and not very "fudgeable?" While I give a lot of credence to the arctic ice melt (and its potential positive feedback, thus more important than the stable Antarctic ice), the satellite arctic ice data only goes back to 1979.

Nonetheless the AGW advocates continue to overreach by publishing ridiculous claims like this one about ski areas, in Utah of all places. Too bad they didn't hold that Dec. 6 press conference in Mammoth. :-P
Image
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10222
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:11 pm

Speaking of "one sided," take a look at this drivel today from "the paper of record" (which doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they'd print):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/us/cl ... .html?_r=0

And they wonder why their subscription rates are in the toilet?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby jamesdeluxe » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:41 pm

Admin wrote:Speaking of "one sided," take a look at this drivel today from "the paper of record" (which doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they'd print)
.
Getting started early on 2016?
User avatar
jamesdeluxe
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:19 pm
Location: South Orange, NJ

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:35 pm

jamesdeluxe wrote:
Admin wrote:Speaking of "one sided," take a look at this drivel today from "the paper of record" (which doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they'd print)
.
Getting started early on 2016?


Seriously, where's the balance in that piece? Journalism dictates that you tell both sides of the story and let the reader reach their own conclusions. There's only one side to that story:the world is boiling like a lobster pot and skiing is cooked for good. The article acts like this winter thus far in New England is irrefutable evidence of that. Seriously??

That article, and the rag known as the New York Times, are both bullshit. Might as well read the National Enquirer.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:40 pm

admin wrote:Seriously, where's the balance in that piece?

+1 No mention of Mammoth, Washington, Oregon, Sun Valley, the Tetons, nearly everywhere in western Canada, all off to fantastic starts to the season.

To a NY Times ski writer the sun rises in New England and sets in Colorado. :-({|=
And of course they have an agenda. I'll bet the 2010-11 season didn't get as much press coverage in NY Times. :stir:
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10222
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:12 pm

Tony,

Arctic - yes the Arctic ice data is good. There are a bunch of countries independently measuring it. That's not fudge IMHO.
But here is an interesting article.
http://www.real-science.com/arctic-fraud-worse
look at the graph from the 1990 IPCC report. It's in the PDF, i looked at it in the original.
1974 was about 1.6-7 below where the satellite data started in 1979.
now yes, the anomaly this summer was 2.5, but possibly? the real anomaly from 1974 is only 35% of that or about .8 less.
so "data" before 1979 in any case is not reliable, but there are historical accounts.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/y ... ergs-melt/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/h ... rctic-ice/
http://www.examiner.com/article/arctic- ... st-reports
and w/o boring you to tears, i have a bunch more links like that saved.

the trouble is we are only looking at a very short window of time in climatological terms, 35 years. all of the heat of this planet is stored in the oceans, many more times the energy than is in the atmosphere. the oceans can blink (nino's/oscillations etc) and drastically change the above land air temperature and climate. our real knowledge of how this happens is minimal to the effect it has. the Atlantic Oscillation is very involved in this, and wind too. Then look at Antarctic. There has been a small growth of winter Antarctic ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... .south.jpg
the largest anomaly was in 2009!
these "smart" people have no idea whatsoever why or how all this happens. but they are getting their mortgages paid to play with their computers and think about it.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:44 pm

before i respond to the Muller article. FYI look at my recent post on Epic, regarding water vapor and other stuff.
http://www.epicski.com/t/115836/global- ... st_1517971

regarding Muller, who did the Best study.
I have no idea how he proved human activity is the cause of global warming.
we do know that we have 1 in 20,000 extra parts of CO2 in the air. 350 to 400 ppm. an increase of 50/1,000,000, so instead of 3.5 parts per 10,000 we now have 4 parts per 10,000.
and just looking at that. the warming from 1880 to 1940 was about .4C, and IPCC et al don't blame it on man. how could they, our CO2 output was miniscule. and from 1940 to 1975, when CO2 levels were increasing exponentially, there was No Warming.
http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/gra ... 0-2000.jpg
Then from 1975 to 1998 there was another .4-.7C of warming, depending on who you look at. satellites say .4C, NASA says .7C
from 1998 there has been no warming although CO2 increased another 30% over 2000. "they" say that's from "natural variability". that They didn't expect.

back to muller.
click on his 2 page summary report here
http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/
IPCC is blaming .7C of warming, a little over 1F since 1956, and by glancing through that article I can't find where Muller contradicts that. he just says it isn't the sun.
Only Alarmists DENY Global Warming & Climate Change. Us regular people with regular brains know that there has also been Climate Change.
Just read Brian Fagan books on The Little Ice Age, Medievil Warming & Nino's - and writes he believes in man-made global warming. Read his meticulously researched books for cheap.
In that Times article Muller is quoted, "I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
of course it is real! and yes the estimates of warming are real, but how he gets humans are entirely the cause i have no idea!!!!!!!!

There is very little doubt that "earths" temperature, although it is very difficult to measure is probably higher than it was since the MediEvil warming about 1600. That was only 500 years ago, a blink in the time of this planet. Of course the Alarmist just DENY the ME Warming and say it was a localized European event, because the historical evidence is so sound there. But then look at all the papers found on this web site.

this whole thing is like listening to experts about the stock market. we all lived through the tech bubble and then the real estate bubble and plenty of very smart, educated people including our gov't officials saw no problem, but they were bubbles and plenty of very smart people lost a ton of money. people with high education and the very best of computers. they were completely wrong

I was thinking of the Ice Age and how sea levels rose 350 feet when the ice melted, so i went to Wikipedia Ice Age page. Scientists have no idea what caused those extremely dramatic climate changes. What if whatever causes those ice ages to come and go is no operating at 1% of it potential strength, like the earths or the planets oscillations, or the oceans. Who Knows? NO ONE that's how.
And to show you "this is the situation we know find ourselves in" - the Wiki page on Ice Ages is full of Global Warming CO2 drivel when certainly the Ice Ages have nothing to do with man made global warming. And if CO2 is a cause of ice ages coming and going, it certainly just shows that maybe what was driving the CO2, out or in of the oceans, is what is driving our climate now, at a miniscule level.

So there is very little doubt that "earths" temperature, although it is very difficult to measure is probably higher than it was since the MediEvil warming about 1600. That was only 500 years ago, a blink in the time of this planet. The Warmers say the ME period was a regional Euro only event, because they can't deny the historical evidence, but even that they hardly mention. But these guys have papers showing it was global.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Read Fagan's Little Ice Age and about how the Europeans glaciers advanced at incredible amounts, i forget it might have even been a hundred yards a day, wiping out villages that had been there for centuries, was that caused by a lack of CO2.

There are just so many holes in this entire narrative. But I have been fascinated with this issue for many years, because of the insight it gives into human nature and politics of life. We are all brainwashed in one way or another.
Last edited by SnowbirdDevotee on Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:50 pm

Then we are bombarded by drivel like this:
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status ... 1474462720
SC drought? there probably is one.
but look at the data.
go here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res ... g3/sc.html
and plug in precipitation, annual or year to date. and you see that SC precip is highly variable, and not whatsoever abnormal the past couple years compared to this century.
Yet Big Bill likely has thousands of Twitter follower and millions of "general" followers who hang on his every word because he is a Harvard grad who "cares" about this world.
This is the kind of crap that is just ever present in our news. yes, the National Enquirer is a better source of news these days.
I could go on and on, but i guess I'm avoiding real work that needs to be done.
So sad the productive time, money and energy that has been wasted on this so-called problem.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:11 pm

The morons who bought this baloney released last week by the NRDC, without questioning it whatsoever, aren't just limited to major news outlets, either. I just found this on the site of the Ogden (Utah) Standard-Examiner newspaper:

http://blogs.standard.net/blogging-the- ... no-skiing/

Contained therein:

All experts are careful to say that one winter does not prove or disprove climate change, but a series of winters does when the model for climate change is not necessarily just warmer winters, but more extreme winters and summers, with the same snow overall but packed into one or two whopper storms.

What if they’re right about that? That’s what we’ve had of late.


Really, buddy boy? That's what we've had of late? Care to back that statement up with a little support? Maybe even including historical data? Nah, on second thought don't go letting those pesky little facts get in the way!

114" season to date "of late" in LCC (maybe 35 miles from Ogden as the crow flies) is right around average for this date and everywhere North and Northwest of Utah is doing rather nicely thus far. This author, however, bases his opinion solely on what he sees at the one nearest resort to Ogden, and even if one resort was sufficient data to draw such a sweeping conclusion he's apparently already forgotten six of the past eight winters here. Time to visit the optician to fill a prescription for that myopia! Or at least, if you're going to pretend to be a journalist, stop being so lazy and do the research that the job requires.

But unfortunately, his unfathomable ignorance doesn't stop there:

Not just Utah. This story (click) looks at it nationwide. Everywhere it’s the same — less snow, warmer temps, snow melting after it falls in lower elevations, and this is the long-term trend.


Yep, the long term tend is less snow everywhere, so that must include the Pacific Northwest and BC over the past two winters. Even the above average snowfall over two years in those regions of North America, however, doesn't prove or disprove anything. Crocker himself has the data to show that there's no discernable overall long term tend in snowfall in recent decades one way or the other. As mentioned previously, the NRDC/POW report singles out the 2011-12 season and ignores above average seasons that don't support their hypothesis, and it's readily available online for anyone to read and verify this fact. How this Standard-Examiner writer gets a "long term tend" out of a single winter's data I'll never know, especially when he himself acknowledged, "All experts are careful to say that one winter does not prove or disprove climate change."

Oh, wait a minute...now I know how he picked up on this! See that click that's referenced in the quote? Yep, you got it: it's that one-sided, misguided NY Times piece. Which was based on what? The intentionally misleading NRDC/POW "report." Apparently reading that NY Times article is all the research this "journalist" did.

Connect the dots and follow the money. Groups like the NRDC would dry up and blow away if they didn't have some environmental crisis to rally behind to drive grant money and private contributions. The climate may indeed be subtly changing, whether due to anthropogenic causes or naturally cyclical ones absolutely no one knows, but AGW activists are doing themselves a huge disservice by propagating such nonsensical and unsupportable drivel as this.

Nevertheless, the NRDC/POW got impressive mileage out of this report and press conference with hardly anyone questioning their data. Lest you should doubt that, just search Google News for stories on point over the past week. Those contributors got their money's worth.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:42 am

but more extreme winters and summers, with the same snow overall but packed into one or two whopper storms.

Also false. Alta standard deviations are lower over the past 20 years than the 20 years before that.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10222
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby rfarren » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:45 am

I think it's dangerous to look at this from such a localized perspective as ski resorts. The truth is that the earth is warmer that it was 50 years ago, and the rate of warming is outside of the historical norm. That is undeniable. It is therefore logical to imply that if warming is to continue it would have a detrimental affect on the length of winters. This would be most obvious to low elevation areas, and ultimately affect ski seasons.

Snowfall quantity on the other hand seems to correlate less with length of season, warming etc... Snowfall is a measure of individual meteorological occurrence. It has less to do with climate patterns than topography and geography and jet stream location, hence, the inability to accurately predict snowfall via "el nino" or "la nina" conditions.

Clearly, the nytimes piece was crap, and is a cherry picked speculative piece of poor journalism. Crap like that is detrimental for the acknowledgement that it is an actual fact that the climate is warmer, and yes, it is likely that human activity accounts for some of that warming, if not the majority. I think the thing we must take away from this all is that climate change is just that, climate change. It is not a measure of meteorological occurrence. Large scale indicators (sea salinity, glacial melt, artic ice) are safer bets in which to measure climate change than snowfall amount in colorado.

BTW, wattsupwiththat--- it's a crappy website--- it reads like conspiracy theory site where the facts are taken and conformed to prove a given theory rather than just reading the facts and conjecturing afterwards.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:22 am

>BTW, wattsupwiththat--- it's a crappy website--- it reads like conspiracy theory site where the facts are taken and conformed to prove a given theory rather than just reading the facts and conjecturing afterwards.

This is what always happens. Alarmists just completely discount anything that doesn't agree with their theory with a wave of their hand. You have the WUWT effect opposite.
First - it is VERY VERY hard to even see what the "facts" are. What is the global temperature rise? Surface temps are extremely hard to measure and put a simple number on it. We have urban heat effect to deal with. We have loss of stations and poor siting of stations. Even where I live here in Penna, there is a 5-7F temp difference from where I live to where i work - only 12 miles away. We have satellites, two sets of data, but I agree that data is compiled by skeptics. But look at that data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/12/u ... mber-2012/
What is fascinating about the UAH data, is that it show absolutely no trend or warming from 1979 to 1997. In 1998 we had the Super El Nino, the largest of this century, and according to the satellite data, at least, temperatures rose on average .4C this past decade compared to 1979. Then go back to 1979-1997. About that time we had article after article i stating the Ice Age was coming. At the very least, there was no warming from 1940 to 1979. Yet?? If you look at Muller/Best
http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/
the summary shows "global warming" during that period???? From 1977 there is a Stephen Schneider video all about the severe cold and Global Cooling that was coming, and he is also a Berkeley climate, one of the top<g>, but since deceased.

Now here is something EVERYONE interested in this topic should really understand and know. And it's not from WUWT.
Here is a 1999 article by James Hansen, w/o doubt the #1 Alarmist and the Grandfather of Global Warming in this country.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Look at that US temperature chart from 1999. See how in the late 1990's the average US temp was about .5C below the 1930's 5 year mean.
Then go here to NCDC US data
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res ... g3/na.html
plug in 1998 to present and annual temp. Graph it, you see a downtrend in US annual temp, of .64F/decade, about .3-4C. That would mean stringing the 1999 Hansen/NASA/GISS data with the current NCDC data together that continental US temperatures are lower than the 1930's by about .8C.
Now someone please tell me how these FACT ARE CONFORMED TO PROVE A GIVEN THEORY as rfarren wrote above????????????
Yet??? We are constantly told that US temperatures are the highest they have every been.
Now click back on the NCDC US Cont site and enter 1895 as first year to display, what you end up with is the "current" data shows this past decade as being the warmest, warmer than the 1930's.
How did that happen??? Why is that?? Watts Up With That?
Is the US any warmer now that it was in the 1930's? Not according to Hansen in 1999.
It's completely obvious to anyone with "half a brain" that actually wants to use it, that the data has been changed.
This is the situation we now find ourselves in....
And a whole nother side of it is the alternative energy/fossil fuel discussion and the "fix", more complete absurdity for anyone that care to really know.

And then the above commenter mentions Arctic ice, completely dismissing with a wave of his hand the growth of Antarctic sea ice growth the past few decades. Let's completely dismiss that too, it was from antarctic sea temperatures rising causing more precipitation, that takes care of that.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:06 am

Admin wrote:Nevertheless, the NRDC/POW got impressive mileage out of this report and press conference with hardly anyone questioning their data. Lest you should doubt that, just search Google News for stories on point over the past week. Those contributors got their money's worth.


As if to prove my point my 82-year-old mother, who floods my inbox daily and believes everything she reads without any critical thinking whatsoever, included this gem in the morning's email:

Just read on tablet a lot of ski areas closing  due to global warming?


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use