berkshireskier
Active member
I just read a story today that reported that some climatologists think global temps may cool over the next ten years because of changes in ocean currents. Let's hope this is true, especially in the Northeast.
The Epic 2007-08 Season vs. Global Warming
- Thread starter berkshireskier
- Start date
I saw a story within the past couple of days that Dr. Bill Gray. the noted hurricane forecaster at CSU, believes that his funding is being restricted due to his views of human-influenced global warming proponents as snake oil salesmen. Of note, Dr. Gray believes that we're about to enter an extended period of global cooling.
rfarren
New member
Admin":2qem0gyl said:
There is quite a bit unknown about climatology. All in all the science of global warming vs. cooling is a relatively new science. Many rather reputable scientists in the field feel that man made global warming has happened to some degree, but that it is certainly not the doomsday scenario set forth by the "media." The relationship between co2 and heat is unknown as to whether it is logo-rhythmic or linear. Many feel the warming that has happened is a result of the sun, while others believe that man is responsible for all the warming. One thing is certain... the world is a bit warmer now than it was 30 years ago, however, how much warmer it gets or cooler it gets is unknown. So far, all climate models predicting warming have been quite off.
Patrick
Well-known member
:x :x :xrfarren":1uyafrl9 said:
Don't get me started on this one. As a geographer who had a course in climatology and that had two friends that did graduate studies in climatology, all the stuff I heard in class and by my friends over 20 years ago is happening.
Greater precipitations and some winter with more snow is happening (see this year in my part of the World). Unfortunately it doesn't end there.
Climat spectics...why is this only an issue in the US?
rfarren
New member
If you look at the IPCC models, so far they've been a bit off. The feedback effects are unknown. There has been until now very little understanding of the sun's role in temperature. It has for the most part always been seen as a constant. However, now it is believed that there are solar cycles and that the suns output varies quite a bit.
Global warming skeptics don't just exist in the states. Indeed, quite a few of the more notable skeptics are canadian, german, dutch, and italian. Nobody has questioned that global warming has occured, but why it has warmed is a question without a definitive answer. Co2 levels have gone up without question, contributing to warming, but to what extent? Does it warm linearly, or does it warm logo-rhythmically?
There have been many temperature cycles, even in the last century. In the end there is still a lot to learn about how the atmosphere works. If we knew it all, I would be able to buy my plane tickets 2 years in advanced to guarantee powder days. Nonetheless, I like my eco-friendly light bulbs, and my low carbon lifestyle (little car driving, mass transit, lots and lots of walking).
Global warming skeptics don't just exist in the states. Indeed, quite a few of the more notable skeptics are canadian, german, dutch, and italian. Nobody has questioned that global warming has occured, but why it has warmed is a question without a definitive answer. Co2 levels have gone up without question, contributing to warming, but to what extent? Does it warm linearly, or does it warm logo-rhythmically?
There have been many temperature cycles, even in the last century. In the end there is still a lot to learn about how the atmosphere works. If we knew it all, I would be able to buy my plane tickets 2 years in advanced to guarantee powder days. Nonetheless, I like my eco-friendly light bulbs, and my low carbon lifestyle (little car driving, mass transit, lots and lots of walking).
The CO2 impact is logarithmic. That would tend, by itself, to make the doomsday scenarios less likely. But there is still controversy over what base factor to apply to the CO2.
The models have serious problems making predictions. 1998 is still the warmest year on record, likely with a big assist from the very strong El Nino. Temperatures over the past decade have been flat, though I will be the first to point out that 10 years is too short a period of time to draw conclusions. This past northern hemisphere winter was way colder than the past decade, and La Nina had some influence there.
Some say that an unusually quiet period in the sunspot cycle is also contributing to cooler temperatures at the moment.
None of this will quiet the controversy. I am inclined to believe that the "natural" factors are much more influential than the manmade ones. But if the natural factors are currently offsetting the manmade ones, you could argue that we will warm more rapidly when the natural factors become neutral or additive.
The models have serious problems making predictions. 1998 is still the warmest year on record, likely with a big assist from the very strong El Nino. Temperatures over the past decade have been flat, though I will be the first to point out that 10 years is too short a period of time to draw conclusions. This past northern hemisphere winter was way colder than the past decade, and La Nina had some influence there.
Some say that an unusually quiet period in the sunspot cycle is also contributing to cooler temperatures at the moment.
None of this will quiet the controversy. I am inclined to believe that the "natural" factors are much more influential than the manmade ones. But if the natural factors are currently offsetting the manmade ones, you could argue that we will warm more rapidly when the natural factors become neutral or additive.
rfarren
New member
Tony Crocker":81arzxqi said:
I actually read in some science journal that the sunspot cycle is only going to get quieter over the next 20 years, and that we were coming out of a very active period over the last century. It could have been wrong.
I myself, if you haven't figured it out, am a bit of a "man made" skeptic. The earth's temperature is constantly changing, and normally these cycles are over longer periods of time. We as humans see these things as grave trends (1970s gobal cooling crisis), when, perhaps, in "earth time" i.e. eons, these warming and cooling trends don't amount to much of a deviation.
Patrick
Well-known member
](*,) ](*,) I've had a lousy week on the scale of something like -3 on a scale of 1 to 10 to start repeating stuff that I've said here in the past. Look in the archives, I'm not going to start fighting windmills on this subject when some people will always believe what they want to. It's one thing to argue about West and East with Tony, it's another about Climat Change.This topic is pointless, it's like the endless debates on TGR on Global warming, Irak, Obama-Hillary, etc.
Heck, even the US Administration came out last year and admitted that most of the effect of global warming are due to humans. And you can say that THIS administration hasn't been part of the skeptics clan.
Unfortunately the geographer friend that did his graduate studies isn't a skier and wouldn't write here. The one that skied/hiker, I've lost track of him since I finished my Master, he was started a PhD. We've had many discussions on this with class or in non-school related discussions. Once you cross that point of no return (discussed in theory over 25 years ago), it's going to get all fucked up for good, seriously fucked up. It's fun now with all the snow we got this winter, but I'm afraid about my kids future and the planet in general.
About CO2, what happens when the permafrost melt (if melting at a quick pace now in the Canadian Arctic? It will release tons and tons of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Climatologist have been observing and researching records of hundred thousands of years, there are a few unknown, but you better put a chance on your side.
Economic: The US is the greatest producer of green house gas, something like 25% of the World total. What's happens when China (4 times the US population) and India (3 times) gets closer to US standards of living and abandon their bikes for cars? It's already happening...might as well die now and ignore the problem.
I'm not starting a debate on this and I'll not respond. We've discussed this point before, as they would say on TGR...search function JONG. :wink:
i think the permafrost would release methane when it melts, which is considerably more damaging to climate stability than CO2.
And I'm pretty sure the permafrost is already melting at Northern latitudes such as Alaska and Siberia
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/educa ... -edu-3.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... atechange1
And I'm pretty sure the permafrost is already melting at Northern latitudes such as Alaska and Siberia
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/educa ... -edu-3.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... atechange1
Perhaps that was from this paper: http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar ... ar2_08.pdf .
Interestingly, this paper was referenced on Jim Roemer's website about a month ago, even though Roemer and his partner Roger Hill are vociferous believers in manmade global warming.
I share much of Patrick's frustration on the subject. I prefer to read source material and draw my own conclusions about what makes sense rather than take someone's word for it. Patrick will be pleased to hear that I sent the above article on to Larry Schick (who is a meteorologist), and within an hour he sent me back references refuting much of it. Like most climate articles I've read, it's a mix of solid data plus sketchy or cherry-picked data, leading to an overreaching conclusion.
Patrick will also be pleased to hear that while Larry shares my skepticism about the precision of the climate models, he thinks the preponderance of evidence is that we are conducting a dangerous experiment with the amount of CO2 and methane we are producing. Larry often finds this website http://www.realclimate.org/ useful in analyzing some of the detail issues.
riverc0il
New member
Ah, one of these threads again. :roll: I am not going to enter into the typical two sided stance argument. As Patrick mentioned, it has been done before. And my observation is most people form their beliefs and then cherry pick selective evidence to support their point without reading evidence that challenges their point.
Even worse, many people (and I am sorry, but it seems to be happening more with the folks who side with the no-human influence side of things) latch on to one singular study from a lesser known and often times ridiculed scientist without credentials (this happened earlier this year by a so called scientist whack job making a fictitious one person science organization, creating a web site, and misrepresenting NASA data suggesting that NASA found evidence suggesting global warming isn't even happening, let alone created by man). For the record, I think it is sad that Dr. Bill Gray, as noted by Admin, is having trouble getting funding for his research. All reputable and legitimate science SHOULD occur, especially that science that CHALLENGES that prevailing theory. That is what science is all about, trying to disprove the null hypothesis. That said, if Dr. Bill Gray is having trouble receiving funding, that suggests his studies and experiments are not complete and it is hard to back up a belief and put some beef on the table without firm conclusions that have been scientifically found and then tested again by other scientists.
Regardless, perhaps Tony would like to pipe in with how much temperature effects snow fall in the northeast. Tony, do you have data on above/below average temperature versus snow fall totals at the mountains you track? If I recall correctly, this winter was above average temperature. And we have above average snow fall in most locations in New England (not so much for our less lucky fellow MASH skiers). New Hampshire had a near record year but Vermont was just "above average" in snowfall it seems. Global climate change does not mean all locations will change equally so it is hypothetically possible that while some places melt and have less snow (glaciers in Europe, melting on the polar caps, etc.) other places may get a lot more moisture and retain cold enough temps for snow. Who knows. We just know the current trend and we know what could possibly happen if the trend continues or accelerates. I think it is worth while to assume it could be pretty bad and plan accordingly. Even if not the doomsday model, then certainly even a mild warming being effected by man could still provide some serious issues to contend with in our life time and especially beyond.
My biggest contention is that I DO NOT consider this season "epic". Overall, quality of powder days was not up to par. I matched my powder days from last season but quality was significantly down. Not saying I didn't have a great season. I had some awesome days and many in surprising locations (best day of the season at Cannon for instance despite 15 days at Jay, 5 at MRG, etc.). April was unreal on Mount Washington thanks not only to a good snow pack but mostly to a long run of amazing blue bird warm weather. For me, this season was really good (overall, maybe even slightly better than last year) but as a season, I have a hard time seeing it as epic considering how many bullets were dodged, how many rain/freeze events we had, etc.
Even worse, many people (and I am sorry, but it seems to be happening more with the folks who side with the no-human influence side of things) latch on to one singular study from a lesser known and often times ridiculed scientist without credentials (this happened earlier this year by a so called scientist whack job making a fictitious one person science organization, creating a web site, and misrepresenting NASA data suggesting that NASA found evidence suggesting global warming isn't even happening, let alone created by man). For the record, I think it is sad that Dr. Bill Gray, as noted by Admin, is having trouble getting funding for his research. All reputable and legitimate science SHOULD occur, especially that science that CHALLENGES that prevailing theory. That is what science is all about, trying to disprove the null hypothesis. That said, if Dr. Bill Gray is having trouble receiving funding, that suggests his studies and experiments are not complete and it is hard to back up a belief and put some beef on the table without firm conclusions that have been scientifically found and then tested again by other scientists.
This lead in would have better served with a link to the source. I read a lot of stuff everyday but a lot of it is dubious in trust worthiness and knowing the source is always my first step in verifying accuracy.berkshireskier":1cdjqvre said:
Regardless, perhaps Tony would like to pipe in with how much temperature effects snow fall in the northeast. Tony, do you have data on above/below average temperature versus snow fall totals at the mountains you track? If I recall correctly, this winter was above average temperature. And we have above average snow fall in most locations in New England (not so much for our less lucky fellow MASH skiers). New Hampshire had a near record year but Vermont was just "above average" in snowfall it seems. Global climate change does not mean all locations will change equally so it is hypothetically possible that while some places melt and have less snow (glaciers in Europe, melting on the polar caps, etc.) other places may get a lot more moisture and retain cold enough temps for snow. Who knows. We just know the current trend and we know what could possibly happen if the trend continues or accelerates. I think it is worth while to assume it could be pretty bad and plan accordingly. Even if not the doomsday model, then certainly even a mild warming being effected by man could still provide some serious issues to contend with in our life time and especially beyond.
My biggest contention is that I DO NOT consider this season "epic". Overall, quality of powder days was not up to par. I matched my powder days from last season but quality was significantly down. Not saying I didn't have a great season. I had some awesome days and many in surprising locations (best day of the season at Cannon for instance despite 15 days at Jay, 5 at MRG, etc.). April was unreal on Mount Washington thanks not only to a good snow pack but mostly to a long run of amazing blue bird warm weather. For me, this season was really good (overall, maybe even slightly better than last year) but as a season, I have a hard time seeing it as epic considering how many bullets were dodged, how many rain/freeze events we had, etc.
berkshireskier
Active member
Sorry for not linking the story that I read. The line is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... er=science
Given the choice, I'd rather debate East vs. West again.
"we are conducting a dangerous experiment with the amount of CO2 and methane we are producing"
BINGO
none of us knows exactly what's going to happen, just as none of us knows how any changes will affect skiing from year to year. But more CO2 is meing pumped in the atmosphere/troposhere right now than ever before, thanks to a myriad of factors, including rapid industrialization of developing economies, deforestation, carbon-itensive lifestyles, and it's basically an uncontrolled experiment in real-time.
But as we all know, it's pretty hard to get the horse back in the barn once it's broken free. North America doesn't particularly want to lower its standard of living, and Asia doesn't particularly want to slow down its growing economies either. Barring one or more traumatic events that might force global cooperation, we seem to be willing to roll the dice and hope things don't go to hell in a handbasket.
BINGO
none of us knows exactly what's going to happen, just as none of us knows how any changes will affect skiing from year to year. But more CO2 is meing pumped in the atmosphere/troposhere right now than ever before, thanks to a myriad of factors, including rapid industrialization of developing economies, deforestation, carbon-itensive lifestyles, and it's basically an uncontrolled experiment in real-time.
But as we all know, it's pretty hard to get the horse back in the barn once it's broken free. North America doesn't particularly want to lower its standard of living, and Asia doesn't particularly want to slow down its growing economies either. Barring one or more traumatic events that might force global cooperation, we seem to be willing to roll the dice and hope things don't go to hell in a handbasket.
One thing is not under dispute among the rational...you can't breathe what comes out of a tailpipe. Why not put the warming aspect aside and reduce emissions because they are poison.
Pollution only "works" if the size of the ecosystem is infinitely large. If the earth is finite eventually poison will reach toxic/fatal levels.
Pollution only "works" if the size of the ecosystem is infinitely large. If the earth is finite eventually poison will reach toxic/fatal levels.