Global Warming and Skiing

Jonny D

New member
I'm glad I stumbled back onto this thread, I couldn't find it for a while ( did it move??)

Anyways, I'll see if I can access any of the scientific literature and post some links, to see what really is out there. ( And I will try to be really balanced, despite my bias. Also, i'm doing my taxes during the next couple of days, so it could be a while...).

I guess my point about the "urban hotspot" experiment was this: If you notice this on local level, it's certainly possible that it exists on a global level too.

As an interesting anecdote wrt to Tony's comments about deforestation (I actually don't know how accurate this is): When the plagues killed a huge chunk of the population in England in the 13-1400's (??), there was much less deforestation, (and lots of trees grew back on previously developped land) and as a result, the temperatures dropped there for several hundred years...
 

Jonny D

New member
Let me preface this by saying that i've only looked on LANL (Los Alamos National Lab) to see what they have in the archive: I have no idea who these scientists are, what there credentials are (some of them are certainly experts, some possibly are quacks...) or what their motivations are.
i've only read portions of the abstracts too...

This is simply a small list of articles that vary from literary to mathematically exhaustive. Enjoy.

Atmospheric hypotheses? of Earth?s global
warming
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pd ... 510042.pdf

El Ni?no and the Delayed Action Oscillator
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pd ... 603083.pdf

Comments by William M. Gray (Colorado State University) on the recently
published paper in Science by Webster, et al., titled ?Changes in tropical
cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment?
(September 2005, Vol. 309, pp. 1844-1846, http://www.sciencemag.org).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0601/0601051.pdf

Estimate solar contribution to the global surface
warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pd ... 509248.pdf

On the Role of Global Warming on the Statistics of Record-Breaking Temperatures
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pd ... 509088.pdf

Global Warming: some back-of-the-envelope
calculations
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pd ... 503119.pdf

A New Global Theory of the Earth's Dynamics :
a Single Cause Can Explain All the Geophysical and Geological Phenomena
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0502/0502135.pdf
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
I did read several of these and confess to more confusion than ever.

One article attributed increased temperatures since 1908 to the Tunguska meteorite, with the 1940-1970 reversal due to atmospheric nuclear testing.

Another article stated that Amazon deforestation has a net zero effect on global warming because the currently burned carbon was not that different from previously decaying carbon, and that forested areas absorb more heat from the sun than cleared areas. But I remain convinced from the Jared Diamond book that deforestation is probably close to the top of the priority list of environmental issues.

I'm still in Jim's camp on global warming. There are many reasons we should slow down fossil fuel consumption. What effect that might have on global warming is very uncertain IMHO.
 

Harvey

Administrator
Staff member
This may be overly simplistic but - it seems to me that many of the activities that contribute to CO2 production also put tons (literally) of true poisons into the air - sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc, etc. While some may consider global warming debatable, very few believe that we can breathe tailpipe emmissions and thrive.

Why not cut improve our environment to eliminate poison from the air? We can probably agree that that would be good and leave the gw debate to the side.

Mark
 

jaxbert

New member
BigJay":28lv73ys said:
Well no american should complain about global warming... after all you country refused to join Kyoto!

America can do it's part to clean up the environment without joining some international treaty. The truth is... Kyoto is not fair. The WORST contries in terms of pollution, such as China and other developing contries are exempt.

The USA has tough environmental laws, enforced by the EPA, which also does a good job.

We DONT need American companies dragged into International court. We dont need the UN in our business.

As for Global Warming... I think this year it a bit of a fluke. Next year's winter will probably be much better... last year was awesome. We are in a warm cycle, which will probably last 20-30 years. Humans may of made the situation a little worse, but the truth is nature has an amazing way of repairing itself, and evening things out. I am not saying that the things we do don't matter... I am just saying that what we are experiencing is at least partly a natural cycle.... Mars is heating up too... ;p
 

Patrick

Active member
jaxbert":2sc1c1s5 said:
America can do it's part to clean up the environment without joining some international treaty.

I'm sorry, this is global problem. Without a treaty, you can say whatever you want, but if you don't commit it (regardless of the issue) or don't respect them, it's pretty much useless.


jaxbert":2sc1c1s5 said:
The truth is... Kyoto is not fair. The WORST contries in terms of pollution, such as China and other developing contries are exempt.

Not fair...let's see. :roll: The USA, CANADA and all the other industrialized countries have polluted the planet and enriched themselves, increased their level of living since the Industrial Revolution and you expect the emerging and developing countries that are trying or getting out of a century of standards well below ours to pay the same price as us for cleaning the planet.

HOWEVER you are correct in pointing out that the developing countries should do more and they are to be included in Phase 2. But once again, why would they do any part in the biggest contributor per capital on the planet can't even commit to fighting Climat Change?


jaxbert":2sc1c1s5 said:
The USA has tough environmental laws, enforced by the EPA, which also does a good job.

The US Federal government hasn't really done much, the only progress have been by some lower level of government, being State or Local.

jaxbert":2sc1c1s5 said:
We DONT need American companies dragged into International court. We dont need the UN in our business.

This is a is a bit off topic, but according to your interpretation, the USA can do whatever it wants? It's nobody business, but it own. Why would any other country respect what others have to say? We don't need any international organisations. Under this logic, why would anyone object to Iran or North Korea doing what it wants? You can't have it both ways. As for the USA environment policy on Climat Changes (although not related to International Courts), it affects the USA, Canada and rest of the planet. Here are some numbers:

The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions.

The average American produces six tonnes of carbon dioxide, a Chinese 0.7 tonnes and an Indian 0.25 tonnes.


jaxbert":2sc1c1s5 said:
As for Global Warming... I think this year it a bit of a fluke.

Next year's winter will probably be much better... last year was awesome.

Last year was awesome???? :shock: ](*,) ](*,) Maybe in Florida, if you would be living in the North-East or Eastern Canada you wouldn't say that, unless you don't like Winter. The biggest changes are affecting the higher latitudes. This questionning of the existance of Global Warming is mainly concentrated in the US. The science isn't even an issue elsewhere.

jaxbert":2sc1c1s5 said:
We are in a warm cycle, which will probably last 20-30 years. Humans may of made the situation a little worse, but the truth is nature has an amazing way of repairing itself, and evening things out. I am not saying that the things we do don't matter... I am just saying that what we are experiencing is at least partly a natural cycle.... Mars is heating up too... ;p

I thinking dinosaur here? Do you know that the permafrost in the Canadian Arctic is melting right now? Do you know how much methane this can release in the atmosphere and what it can do? The scenarios from themodels on Climate Change from 20 years ago are being confirmed at a faster rate, do you really want to take a chance? Natural cycle was being discused as a possibility over 20 years ago when I was in University, after years of observation and scenarios being confirmed, the Natural Cycle isn't discused anymore, just the human impact. Even the US Government acknowledged it...


Humans cause global warming, US admits from BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

The US Government has acknowledged for the first time that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming.

HERE ARE A FEW LINKS RELATED TO MY FAVORITE ACTIVITY:

The Effects Of Global Warming On Skiing from Piste Hors

http://pistehors.com/backcountry/wiki/W ... -On-Skiing

Climate change threatens winter sports from Greenpeace

http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... change-and
Climate Change: are we all destined for a future in grass skiing? on Biglines.com

http://www.biglines.com/articles_readmo ... &read=3131

Olympic couple joins fight against climate change on CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/ ... imate.html

Report submitted by University of Montreal professors Singh and Bryant to Natural Resources Canada. Impact of and adaptation to GHG climate change on the ski and glof recreational activities and the tourism indust: A case study in Quebec

http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/projdb/pdf/138b_e.pdf

Harvey44":2sc1c1s5 said:
But I'd love to know what Liftlines regulars think about global warming and energy conservation.

I guess you know now what I think about the issue. Yes, we should be do more, starting with me, my neighbours, my governments and the planet in general. What about Kyoto? It's a start, but we need to go further. :?
 

riverc0il

New member
well done, patrick! :D

one issue we all need to look at as outdoor recreationalists is our own consumption. we are all guilty of driving ridiculous lengths for skiing and amusement and recreation. i reconciled this issue by obtaining the most cost efficient car that works practically for my needs. the concept of need vs. want is an important line. obviously our level of consumption of outdoor recreation is not going to decline, but we can at least be more efficient and eco-friendly with our pursuits.

i keep hoping for $6 a gallon oil. for real. you want fuel efficient vehicles to be widely purchased and car companies want to make money off their products? $6 a gallon and WHAMO things will change because things could not afford not to change. the japanese had this stuff down years before gas pricing became front page headlines. now car companies are making hybrids that get many gallons less than standard four passenger gas powdered sedans. i keep waiting for the "Green Boom is the next IT Boom" but am still waiting. talk about an elephant in the room.

patrick's point about kyoto and the american double standard is on point. this stance that america can participate in the global community on its own terms when it wants to and dictate that other countries obey UN rules and regulations and participate in the global community on our terms dictated towards them is not only bad politics and poor leadership from the so called leader of the free world, it is just not a smart or effective way of dealing with others from a practical and psychological point of view. great way to alienate and cause bad vibes, though. the USA does need to participate in programs like kyoto but also needs to manufacture ways that we can participate in a green economy profitably to the benefit of the country's citizens, present and future. the problem here is this myth that the two are mutually exclusive. that thought is born from a treading water mind set, not the great drive of ingenuity and productivity that drove this country to greatness. time to stop thinking about what we can't do and start thinking about what we can.
 

lookn4powder

New member
jaxbert":3f8giviu said:
We DONT need American companies dragged into International court. We dont need the UN in our business.

Won't happen. Instead, the World Community, starting with the EU and Japan, will just adopt product standards that prevent noncompliant products from being sold in their markets. These standards may specify the environmental impact of the manufacturing process that produced the goods--including a total power and emission audit. Those companies complying can sell their products and all others cannot. Such rules may seem arbitrary, but the USA specifies like rules (usually based on health & safety risks) to govern products entering this country.

Alternately, under the "Think globally, act locally" philosophy and absent any EU/Japan government policy, most citizens in the EU and developed world may simply boycott US goods over its global warming policy. In the past, boycotts by individuals contributed to the fall of Apartheid in South Africa. Today, fear of boycotts has motivated the diamond jewelry industry to bar "blood diamond"'s from the trade.

One cannot predict how this game will play out, but the EU has committed to fighting global warming. So, the intransigent US policy is very likely to become a future trade issue.



jaxbert":3f8giviu said:
As for Global Warming... I think this year it a bit of a fluke.

Next year's winter will probably be much better... last year was awesome.

Not here in M.A.S.H.!!! Winters here since the 1960's have been between mediocre to awful. This year is awful.

Patrick":3f8giviu said:
... This questionning of the existance of Global Warming is mainly concentrated in the US. The science isn't even an issue elsewhere.

In the refereed scientific literature, man's adverse impact on the mean global temperature is settled science. The scientific arguments are over narrowing the uncertainty of future projections, which will guide the formulations of solutions. The public is led to believe that the data and science are uncertain. Of course, creating this appearance of uncertainly has cost money. And Exxon has spent (according to the Associated Press)about $16M between 1998-2005 to promote the appearance of a controversy. See:

Group: ExxonMobil paid to mislead public
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... rming.html

Cheers,
Jeff
 

Ryan

New member
jaxbert":39bxls1w said:
As for Global Warming... I think this year it a bit of a fluke.

Next year's winter will probably be much better... last year was awesome.
look'n4powder":39bxls1w said:
Not here in M.A.S.H.!!! Winters here since the 1960's have been between mediocre to awful. This year is awful.


Although I agree with a lot that is being said here I have to pitch in on this small point. Here in NW PA we had a fantastic snow year in the winter of '05. The snowfall was deep and fluffy. I actually caught my first ever Pennsylvania face shot after a 2 ft dump. Here is the thing though. Our snow here is in large part generated by lake Erie. Going into that winter the lake temps were 5-7 degrees above normal... Warm water throws a lot of moisture and we get pounded with snow. Guess it all fits in as one more piece in the puzzle. That being said warm summer weather can actually bring more snow to a select few areas if the winter temps are low enough. As for this terrible winter there is no such luck.
 

Patrick

Active member
Steve is right when we talked about our personal consumption of resources.

riverc0il":bsakchwh said:
i keep waiting for the "Green Boom is the next IT Boom" but am still waiting. talk about an elephant in the room.

It starting to happen elsewhere, however industries in the US and Canada are way behind in it in part of negative or mixte signals given by their respective government.

riverc0il":bsakchwh said:
the problem here is this myth (about economy vs environment) that the two are mutually exclusive.

The Stern report in the Fall addressed the issue in a way that people saying "we can't do anything because we are going to hurt our economy" can understand.

Global warming will devastate economy: report from CTV News (October 06)

Here is a quote from the News story. Stern isn't a left-wing wacko, but the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003.

Global warming could devastate the world economy on a scale we haven't seen since the world wars and the Great Depression, a major report by a British economist says.

Sir Nicholas Stern, the report's author and a senior government economist, said unchecked global warming could shrink the global economy by 20 per cent -- and cost a whopping $7 trillion in lost output.

look'n4powder":bsakchwh said:
The public is led to believe that the data and science are uncertain. Of course, creating this appearance of uncertainly has cost money. And Exxon has spent (according to the Associated Press)about $16M between 1998-2005 to promote the appearance of a controversy.

On the same page as Exxon...

Chrysler questions climate change from BBC News (today)

Here is a quote...

He was particularly critical of the recent Stern Report on climate change, which was commissioned by the UK government and calls for urgent action to tackle the problem.

Here is another random story that I found like looking for something on the Stern report.

Act now on global warming or suffer later, experts say from the Times Herald Record (jan 07)
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not surprised that current Eastern/Midwest weather has reignited this debate. I'm probably going to be unpopular here, as the information I've learned since April has tended to reinforce my skepticism.

With regard to the current ski season, I track 8 ski regions in North America. Two (Northwest and western Canada) are having outstanding seasons, three (U.S. northern Rockies and both in Colorado) are about average, Utah is below average, Sierra poor and Northeast terrible. Doesn't look an overall bad season to me, particularly compared to widespread disasters like 1977 and 1981.

I saw Al Gore's movie this summer, and one noteworthy point he mentioned is that the growth or receding of sea ice in the Arctic magnifies temperature changes. Thus the Arctic will always the most sensitive region to temperature fluctuations in either direction. My friend Richard did a kayak trip near Ellesmere Island this summer, and there are 3 sets of remains of human settlement there. Which means that the Arctic has been warmer than now for 3 extended periods in the past 14,000 years. Remains recovered from receding glaciers in the Alps paint a similar picture there.

On my Caribbean cruise at Thanksgiving I read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. It raises the questions I asked at the start of this thread and quite a few more. Academics, like politicians or Exxon engineers, are subject to groupthink, and it is currently quite politically correct to be "onboard" with respect to anthropogenic global warming. Crichton claims that older and/or retired climate scientists who are less susceptible to workplace peer pressure are on average much more skeptical than their younger counterparts.

So I thought it was quite interesting to read 2 letters in the recent Princeton Alumni Weekly critiquing the current University President's pronouncements on global warming. One was from a 50-year geological engineer who described the current thinking as "science by consensus and fear-mongering mathematical modeled conclusions fraught with far more uncertainty than factual data." The other was a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service who just wrote a book Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 years.

Crichton's book has 2 principal conclusions. The first is that the data collection and modeling so far have been rudimentary given the complexity of climate and increased computing power over recent decades. The basic research in climate needs to be expanded and insulated as much as possible from political pressure in either direction. The second and more controversial conclusion is that the human component of observed warming is primarily land use (urban hot spots and expanded land under cultivation) and not atmospheric. His reasons for the latter conclusion are that observed warming is generally more pronounced in cities than in rural areas, and that upper atmosphere temperature readings have not paralleled the observed increases at the earth's surface.

We are probably best advised to take Harvey's advice:
Why not cut improve our environment to eliminate poison from the air? We can probably agree that that would be good and leave the gw debate to the side.
Political and economic factors (the primary sources of oil and its price) are already generating meaningful investments in conservation and alternative energy sources. And realistically, countries like China and India will only go for cleaner technologies when they make economic sense.
 

Patrick

Active member
Tony Crocker":2gud954n said:
I'm not surprised that current Eastern/Midwest weather has reignited this debate. I'm probably going to be unpopular here, as the information I've learned since April has tended to reinforce my skepticism.

I am never personnal and it was obvious that you were going to mentioned something here. We disagree on this, like we disagree on the speed of Eastern corn snow. :wink:

Tony Crocker":2gud954n said:
With regard to the current ski season, I track 8 ski regions in North America. Two (Northwest and western Canada) are having outstanding seasons, three (U.S. northern Rockies and both in Colorado) are about average, Utah is below average, Sierra poor and Northeast terrible. Doesn't look an overall bad season to me, particularly compared to widespread disasters like 1977 and 1981.

I remember hearing from my courses in University back in 1985-86, one of them by the author of the study regarding the Quebec Ski and Golf season, that the total precipation was going to increase, rain AND snow. That's what we've been seeing for the last few seasons. Sure it's not linear and next year can be great and below freezing for 4 months, but the overall indication is that the planet is getting warmer.


Tony Crocker":2gud954n said:
I saw Al Gore's movie this summer, and one noteworthy point he mentioned is that the growth or receding of sea ice in the Arctic magnifies temperature changes. Thus the Arctic will always the most sensitive region to temperature fluctuations in either direction.

I didn't see it, I'm depressed as it is right now. Another huge worry is the melting permafrost in the North (as mentioned in my previous post).

Tony Crocker":2gud954n said:
Which means that the Arctic has been warmer than now for 3 extended periods in the past 14,000 years. Remains recovered from receding glaciers in the Alps paint a similar picture there.
(...)
Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 years.

Yes, but the changes that are happening now are much faster. I'm by no means a specialist and I didn't specialised in Climatology or any other Physical Geography sciences so that couldn't give you a direct answer, however I know someone that started his Master in Climatology back then.

Tony Crocker":2gud954n said:
I read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. It raises the questions I asked at the start of this thread and quite a few more.

It's a fiction.

Tony Crocker":2gud954n said:
Academics, like politicians or Exxon engineers, are subject to groupthink, and it is currently quite politically correct to be "onboard" with respect to anthropogenic global warming.

You cannot say that Global warming was even on the radar screen when I was in University 20 years ago. A few professors were already mentioning about the potential colapse of the Greenland icecap and other less specular changes.

Tony Crocker":2gud954n said:
His reasons for the latter conclusion are that observed warming is generally more pronounced in cities than in rural areas, and that upper atmosphere temperature readings have not paralleled the observed increases at the earth's surface.

Data from Northern Quebec, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are seeing the greatest variations in temperature. You wouldn't say that these are areas are very urban when only 50,000 people cover on the equivalent size of a good part of the continental US?

Tony Crocker":2gud954n said:
We are probably best advised to take Harvey's advice:
Why not cut improve our environment to eliminate poison from the air? We can probably agree that that would be good and leave the gw debate to the side.

See what the Stern report has to say about delaying action on GW.

On a lighter side, here is a small cartoon... :wink:

Warming of Mass Destruction
 

riverc0il

New member
Tony Crocker":bxcwpqbl said:
I'm not surprised that current Eastern/Midwest weather has reignited this debate.
This could be the snowiest winter ever here in the Northeast and I would still argue the man influenced global warming issue. As I have often stated (as someone that fully believed we are digging a whole deeper than would have naturally occurred), single season abnormalities are not signs of a longer pattern. Any one that cites this season or last season or any single or couple seasons as a so called "sign" of global warming is an idiot. That is not sound reasoning to base conjecture on long term patterns with single season abnormal patterns. Further, certain parts of the world can see an increase in snow due to warming patterns, so who knows how the warming pattern will effect skiing into the future. I have not read Michael Crichton's book (any of them for that matter), but I would like to know his credentials as to being any kind of expert on the subject matter.
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
I was disappointed that Michael Crichton did not discuss the Arctic. But ironically it was Al Gore's movie that provided the most persuasive reason for its climate sensitivity.

The urban vs. rural comparisons were with a region. NYC vs. upstate New York was one of the examples.

single season abnormalities are not signs of a longer pattern.
My point exactly. This was obvious just looking at the snow data I collect before I ever tried to find source material on global warming.

Yes, but the changes that are happening now are much faster.
Very questionable, particularly in view of the numerous locations that have had no discernable trend in temperature over the past 120 years. The change in the other direction at the start of the Little Ice Age ~1400-1450 was quite abrupt.

You cannot say that Global warming was even on the radar screen when I was in University 20 years ago.
Correct. As the geological engineer letter writer said, "Three decades ago a preponderance of interested scientists believed we would soon be entering a new ice age." Another interesting point in Al Gore's movie is that he had a college professor 35 years ago who DID hypothesize global warming. Thus I have no doubt about Gore's sincerity since he thinks he's been "on the ground floor" of this issue way before it became fashionable.

total precipitation was going to increase, rain AND snow.
This seems very logical. The Arctic and Antarctic are in general extremely dry. There is some regular precipitation on Ellesmere now where there was practically none 30-50 years ago. Some observations suggest that the interior Greenland ice cap is accumulating new snow faster than its coastal glaciers are melting into the ocean. Which brings me to another question. We know sea levels were much lower during the major ice ages. But what were sea levels during warm periods of history, such as when the Norse were settling Greenland or when Hannibal crossed snow-free passes in the Alps? I think we would have evidence if sea levels had been meaningfully higher than now that recently. Sea level is thus unlikely to be a linear function of average temperature.

State of Fear is a fiction.
True. But much of the data is presented at various stages of the novel. Crichton's direct analysis is in an appendix at the end. He is an alarmist, citing destructive effects of "scientific groupthink" ranging from the eugenics movement in the early 20th century to the banning of DDT causing an explosion of third world malaria deaths. Global warming response is very unlikely to be that destructive IMHO, since many of the proposed measures are desirable for political or economic reasons and/or reduce pollutants with known direct harmful effects. Economic forces will be a check on the more wasteful or unrealistic ideas.
 

Ryan

New member
I remembered a rather spirited discussion in a course of mine at college bace in 2001 or so in which this was argued at some great length. Here is a little History lesson for all of us that don't remember what the scientists were saying back in the 40's to the 70's

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

Here is the first article that I found it in but there are others
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 034077.cms

The thing that I think we can all agree with is that we are all better off with cleaner air and a strong economy. The fine line is hitting a balance that promotes both of these and doing so in a way that the majority of us can agree on. I don't however think that an agreement such as this is likely to every happen when we can't agree on such simple things as Coke or Pepsi or if the Steelers should have let go of Cowher before his contract was up.

The thing that really comes to mind is that I am damn proud to live in a country (sorry Patrick) in which generations have faught and died to protect our right to have an open discussion like this and express our opinions no matter how spirited the talk gets.
 

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Ryan":e8fqkp9z said:
The thing that really comes to mind is that I am damn proud to live in a country (sorry Patrick) in which generations have faught and died to protect our right to have an open discussion like this and express our opinions no matter how spirited the talk gets.

Well said, Ryan. And I have no desire to cede our sovereignty to a world body out to screw us every chance it has. That's precisely what Kyoto would have done.
 

Patrick

Active member
Ryan":15mcb162 said:
The thing that really comes to mind is that I am damn proud to live in a country (sorry Patrick) in which generations have faught and died to protect our right to have an open discussion like this and express our opinions no matter how spirited the talk gets.

There is nothing to be sorry about Ryan, I'm just presenting the arguments.

More on this tomorrow (I haven't read all of this), I just got back from a +1c night of skiing. :wink: :roll:

Where is Harvey44? He's the one that wanted to hear the different position of the Liftlines Users in another discussion. :lol:
 

Patrick

Active member
Okay, it's almost tomorrow. :wink:

Tony Crocker":2n6nbrpy said:
The urban vs. rural comparisons were with a region. NYC vs. upstate New York was one of the examples.

That makes sense, however when you looking at the entire planet, temperatures increase are much higher than in the lower latitudes.

Tony Crocker":2n6nbrpy said:
single season abnormalities are not signs of a longer pattern.
My point exactly. This was obvious just looking at the snow data I collect before I ever tried to find source material on global warming.

The problem with snowdata is that you cannot necessarily used as the determing factor in the equation.

Tony Crocker":2n6nbrpy said:
Yes, but the changes that are happening now are much faster.
Very questionable, particularly in view of the numerous locations that have had no discernable trend in temperature over the past 120 years. The change in the other direction at the start of the Little Ice Age ~1400-1450 was quite abrupt.

That is where a lot of people are mistaken, the science can mesure the past climat for thousand of years. Don't ask me the details, it's been 20 years since I've had that course.

Tony Crocker":2n6nbrpy said:
You cannot say that Global warming was even on the radar screen when I was in University 20 years ago.
Correct. As the geological engineer letter writer said, "Three decades ago a preponderance of interested scientists believed we would soon be entering a new ice age."

Yes, that was still around 20 years ago also, but it was one of the posibilities back then to a relatively new phenomenon that was being observed. The data and information that was starting to come back then started to point would lead to Global Warming and not a new Ice age in the short term (were talking centuries here).

Tony Crocker":2n6nbrpy said:
Some observations suggest that the interior Greenland ice cap is accumulating new snow faster than its coastal glaciers are melting into the ocean.

I've read the opposite.

I don't say I have all the answers, if only I could get my ex-Masters collegue to write on First Tracks. Don't hold your breath, I can't even get some diehard skiers to write, let alone non-skiing Climatologist. :lol:
 

lookn4powder

New member
...Crichton claims that older and/or retired climate scientists who are less susceptible to workplace peer pressure are on average much more skeptical than their younger counterparts.

Crichton is just selling books and doesn't have any stake in being scientifically accurate--or downside for inaccuracies or poor rationale.

Unfortunately, retired scientists, regardless of field, are also fairly useless for commenting on new research. In a past life I would recruit technical experts to evaluate bleeding-edge research that we were considering for commercialization (we invested in emerging chemical & materials technologies). I found that experts gave fairly useless advice if they hadn't published a refereed scientific manuscript in their field during the previous 2-3 years. These "former" experts simply didn't have the insights anymore to spot clear concept or rationale errors--experts do become laymen, but they continue to believe that they are still experts. They will posit opinions but are sloppy in their rationale. They are not current in their field, so they are often uncomfortable with new concepts and data that they don't understand or no longer have the energy to analyze. (In skiing terms, think of this a taking Phil Mahre and putting him into a World Cup race against a field comprised of the current top 5 racers. He might show ok, but he won't win.)

...The thing that I think we can all agree with is that we are all better off with cleaner air and a strong economy. The fine line is hitting a balance that promotes both of these and doing so in a way that the majority of us can agree on...

I'm happy with a strong economy, as it allows me to afford skiing. I don't accept the idea that clean air and a strong economy are a trade off. Technologically advanced, adaptive companies will make a lot of money on clean technologies. An example is DuPont that was threatened by research that showed conclusively that their chlorofluorocarbon Freons destroyed atmospheric ozone. They sponsored research that found acceptable alternate chemicals, patented them, and have made a pile of cash on selling these replacements. Last I checked, their employees do well and stimulate the economy. At the same time, their innovations solved a perplexing environmental problem.

Cheers,
Jeff
 

JimG.

New member
Admin":2bddtgtv said:
Ryan":2bddtgtv said:
The thing that really comes to mind is that I am damn proud to live in a country (sorry Patrick) in which generations have faught and died to protect our right to have an open discussion like this and express our opinions no matter how spirited the talk gets.

Well said, Ryan. And I have no desire to cede our sovereignty to a world body out to screw us every chance it has. That's precisely what Kyoto would have done.

Thank you Ryan and Marc.

And remember folks, when the Earth (yes EARTH, not people, politicans or scientists) decides it's had enough, we're gone, end game.

Nothing we do to the Earth is a fraction of the cataclysm that will occur when that day arrives. And our "contribution" to that process is minor if even statistically relevant and that relevance is still open to much debate.

P.S.: before anyone goes off, that does not mean I don't support limiting the human activities that enhance this process.
 
Top