Tony Crocker":3s5xwp2a said:
Eastern early season and to some extent late season skiing is more dependent upon temperature than snowfall.
In upper New England/Quebec average December-February temperatures are very cold and a substantial increase would be needed to really limit snowmaking. I do think October and May skiing in the East will become more rare.
We have been getting temps for the last few years temps that are generally above average.
October is already done, this year was a fluke. May is on life-support for the next few years.
Tony Crocker":3s5xwp2a said:
With regard to natural snow, warmer temps mean more water vapor and probably more precipitation overall.(...) With very low average midwinter temperatures I don't see December-February snowfall decreasing in New England/Quebec.
I would agree on the short term basis, however we are also getting more rain and thaw periods with that greater precipitation. The first time I heard that this would probably happen was 20 years ago in my Climatology course in university.
Tony Crocker":3s5xwp2a said:
would be in some jeopardy from a rising rain/snow line.
This year in the East would have been a perfect example if you add the latitude factor instead of altitude. There was a clear cut-off in snow wether which side of the St. Lawrence River you were. Snowpack was almost non-existant south of the river (I include Vermont).
Tony Crocker":3s5xwp2a said:
With regard to the overall global warming debate I would welcome references and hopefully answers to the following 2 questions:
1) Why did temperatures decrease from 1940 to 1970, given that CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing since 1850?
2) Given that the above was due presumably to natural and not manmade factors, how do we (or can we) allocate the 1970-2005 warming between natural and manmade factors?
I mentioned that I had a course in Climatology, however I received my degrees in Human Geography. I'm sure not a specialist on the climate and some expert would probably able to answer this better than I can.
I agree, variation in temperature have always happen and the human wasn't necessarily a factor.
When you talk about the period starting with the industrial revolution in 1850, the amount of country and the scale of it was miniscule compared to today. So it's impact wouldn't have been that important. Scientists say that even if we would stop all world emission now, the temperature would continue to raise for the x amount of years. However the impact would be felt further down the road. The problem we have now is like a runaway train, even if we stop the engine the train will continue rolling for a while before it actually slows down.
The problem now is that the World as a whole is polluting more, not just a few of the original industrialized country. Look at the raise in economy of certain Asia countries like China, India, Korea, Vietnam in the past 20 years. These country are also burning more fossil fuels than ever before.
The temps are raising and humans are contributing to it. To what extent, we'll never know. However the Earth temps has never risen so fast in such a short period of time. Instead of waiting until we know the exact percentage, government and people should act.
Tony Crocker":3s5xwp2a said:
frontrange's post should remind us all that some environmentalists in the 1970's were warning us that manmade pollution was going to create another ice age. I'm not suggesting that since they were wrong then they can't be right now. I'd just like to see some credible answers to the 2 questions I posted earlier.
You are talking about some scientists back in the 70s. If I recall what was said at the time was either the pollution would block out the heat from the sun (i.e. creating a mini-ice age) OR kept the heat within the atmosphere and thus having a greenhouse effect. Those theories were still around in the early 80s.
Scientists around the World are mainly unanimous on the subject. I'm sorry Tony, but I have found that it's mainly in the US that contracting views from scientists can be found. You might argue that it's possibly because of greater scientific freedom, I say it's because the US administration and some powerful industries have an interest in seeing aggressive action fails.
Change that is happening now is more noticeable the further North you go. Temperature variation in most of the continental US haven't been that noticeable, however go in Canada's North are there are signs everyday that the Earth is warming up. Changes in Ottawa might not be so dramatic as in the Territories or Northern Quebec, but they are definitely noticeable.