The Epic 2007-08 Season vs. Global Warming

[salida]

Yes, lets not trust the largest ever peer-reviewed scientific document.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... yr_spm.pdf

In the scientific community, only a theory that can better explain the problem than the current accepted theory is ever debated. In this case the best known theory of human's impact on the environment in which we live is linked above. If there is a better theory it will be vetted appropriately, however, just claim it isn't happening, or its getting colder over here, isn't right, and its misleading.

Also, unlike this threads title, we are talking about climate change, not global warming. That latter term is misleading and not nearly as descriptive as the former.

In addition, as a person who has taken many classes, worked on climate research, seen first hand in the arctic what the warmer climate is doing, and has had numerous interactions with this topic, I'm dumbfounded that skiers are still "under debate" on if this is happening or not. We will be one of the first demographics negatively impacted by these circumstances. Listen to science, please.

 

[rfarren]

The IPCC is probably the most flawed scientific document made about global warming. Governments sent thousand of scientist with agendas. The IPCC document has many critics from those who are skeptics and non-skeptics. The way it was put together was hardly science.

 

[Patrick]

It said we may get some good skiing over the next ten years. Might not be so great after that.

That's exactly what I was saying, heard it more than twenty years ago and living it now. What I'm discouraged is that some people around here are calling this is cold winter due to the almost record (6cm off) amount of snow Ottawa has received. They might feel less concerned about Climate Change because of it, and sceptics are using this to influence the uninformed.

Changed Ottawa Winter by 1-2 small degrees Celsius and a good part of all this precipitations turns into rain. We got the snow, New England got the rain during our massive snowstorm in March. Precipitations are increasing, more snow and more rain for now.

Yes, lets not trust the largest ever peer-reviewed scientific document.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... yr_spm.pdf

In the scientific community, only a theory that can better explain the problem than the current accepted theory is ever debated. In this case the best known theory of human's impact on the environment in which we live is linked above. If there is a better theory it will be vetted appropriately, however, just claim it isn't happening, or its getting colder over here, isn't right, and its misleading.

Also, unlike this threads title, we are talking about climate change, not global warming. That latter term is misleading and not nearly as descriptive as the former.

In addition, as a person who has taken many classes, worked on climate research, seen first hand in the arctic what the warmer climate is doing, and has had numerous interactions with this topic, I'm dumbfounded that skiers are still "under debate" on if this is happening or not. We will be one of the first demographics negatively impacted by these circumstances. Listen to science, please.

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.

Salida and sszcher nailed it.

Adding to sszcher points, Canada and the US Federal governments are using China & India has an excuse of non-action. They want to see commitments to reductions by these and other upcoming developing country, before they make their own. The problem is that we started here, we have highly industrialized economies for over 100 years, we got rich because of it.

Now, we don't want to take the first step, even if we've been going it for all this time. China is becoming industrialized but is still far from our standard of living. China is about to surpasses the US has the greatest green house gas producers, HOWEVER what is it per capital? Yes, China needs to reduces, but we NEED to do the first step.

 

[rfarren]

Science is based on observation. We make conjectures based on observations. Here is my problem though. Often times things look like one thing but in fact is something else. Think what is logical.... we see the sun go around the earth everyday. It takes a leap to understand that we go around the sun, not the other way around. But for around a thousand years, every human believed the sun went around the earth. Science that is not fully understood, that has many factors can lead to false conjectures, that in some cases are dangerous...i.e. eugenics.

The truth is: for the entire history of the earth the climate has been changing. We have attained some knowledge as to why things change, but don't understand everything. We have observed global warming over some 1000 years, with periods of great warmth and cooling. A period of 30 years is very short in the long scheme of things. Even a period of a thousand years is a short time period when it comes to the climate.

I don't doubt that human activities have contributed to climate change. I do on the other hand, think there are other larger contributers that we know very little about. It may be a bit early to conjecture a doomsday scenario based on present day knowledge.

I however, do believe in more efficient energy usage, and renewable and sustainable energy that is created locally. Not merely would it be better for the environment but it would be better for the economy. If it helps stem global warming all the better.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I am in complete agreement with rfarren's above post.

With regard to Riverc0il's assessment of the eastern season as "not epic," that is probably true from a powdercentric view. Due to the East's poor snow preservation the number of A weekends in my http://bestsnow.net/vrmthist.htm (I'll probably update with this season within a week) is probably a good surrogate for powder. This year had 9 A weekends, which fits River's view of "a little better than last year," which had 7, but far off the undisputedly epic 13 in 2000-01.

But by other measures this eastern season ranks very high. By Jan. 1 the average eastern season has scored 6, 2007-08 scored 14. Most eastern seasons have severe rain or thaw events that knock the trail counts way down, sometimes for a few weeks. The Northern Vermont group was consistently 90% open from the second weekend of December until second weekend of April.

 

[riverc0il]

In addition, as a person who has taken many classes, worked on climate research, seen first hand in the arctic what the warmer climate is doing, and has had numerous interactions with this topic, I'm dumbfounded that skiers are still "under debate" on if this is happening or not.

One interesting thing that I noted is the changing point of view of the nay sayers. Ten years ago they nay say position was there is absolutely nothing happening. Period. A few years back it was "the jury is still out but I believe nothing is happening". Now the line is "well, yea, something is happening but here is how to explain it..." etc. Slippery slope style, nay sayers keep giving begrudging ground to facts though keep coming up with ways to deny the most reliable and tested studies. Personally, I always side with majority scientific opinion, especially when over whelming, but always keep an ear open towards new scientific studies trying to disprove prevailing accepted theory. The overwhelming perponerance keeps suggesting things could get really bad really quickly.

What makes me laugh is that this whole thing comes down to "belief" like it is a religion or something. "I believe there is no global warming" or "I believe climate change is not real" etc. Perhaps I am playing the semantics card and perhaps it is my lack of "belief" in any thing except human nature and humans being human, but I always side with majority scientific opinion because that opinion rarely goes astray is right a ridiculously high proportion of times compared to not.

 

[riverc0il]

Science is based on observation. We make conjectures based on observations. Here is my problem though. Often times things look like one thing but in fact is something else. Think what is logical....

What seems logical on the surface that a race of mammals with opposable thumbs and some tools could effect an entire planet's natural climate? Personally, I think any one thinking logically would never come up with the one to one equation. Science is based on measurement of observable phenomena, not on observation alone. Observation without measurement does not lead to direct causation which seems to be your point. Measuring those observations with reliable and accurate tools and then using scientific analysis and the scientific method in an effort to disprove the null hypothesis does eventually show a strong causation link and studies should continue to be done to disprove, if possible, the hypothesis put forward. This is not about logic, this is about rigerous scientific study and scientists of all people are well schooled that correlation does not equal causation. Only scientifically proven and verified results can challenge a theory. You can not challenge a theory simply by suggesting it is after correlation instead of causation. The theory must be tested and results are then brought against the failed theory to bring disproof.

 

[riverc0il]

The truth is: for the entire history of the earth the climate has been changing. We have attained some knowledge as to why things change, but don't understand everything. We have observed global warming over some 1000 years, with periods of great warmth and cooling. A period of 30 years is very short in the long scheme of things. Even a period of a thousand years is a short time period when it comes to the climate.

This may be "truth" but it is not a logical argument as past results are not indicative of future performance. It also leaves out substantial parts of the equation, specially the rate of climate change and implications of direct links to human activity, neither of which appear before.

 

[Harvey]

I'm not a scientist nor do I understand the science of climate change. I do believe we are effecting the atmosphere but my belief is based on gut instinct not science. You scientists - how does the rate of climate change since 1880, compare to rates estimated for the previous 10,000 years?

 

[Tony Crocker]

how does the rate of climate change since 1880, compare to rates estimated for the previous 10,000 years?

Well within historical ranges of fluctuation. Those who say the 1970-2000 rate of warming is unprecedented..

There are numerous factors that affect climate, and it is quite difficult to model all of them. I did run across this graph:

If this graph is correct, we can conclude that the effect of greenhouse gases has not been that serious so far, but that it might be in the future.

 

[rfarren]

The truth is: for the entire history of the earth the climate has been changing. We have attained some knowledge as to why things change, but don't understand everything. We have observed global warming over some 1000 years, with periods of great warmth and cooling. A period of 30 years is very short in the long scheme of things. Even a period of a thousand years is a short time period when it comes to the climate.

This may be "truth" but it is not a logical argument as past results are not indicative of future performance. It also leaves out substantial parts of the equation, specially the rate of climate change and implications of direct links to human activity, neither of which appear before.

Scientific hypothesis is based on prior observation. To ignore the past, and make predictions, especially doomsday predictions would be folly. As the above graph shows, the climate change that has happened in the last 30 years is no more rapid than the previous 100. Indeed, it is colder now that it was during the Medieval Optimum. There are still towns buried under glaciers in Switzerland from that time period. Since the end of the little ice age (c.1850) the climate has been warming at a fairly steady rate.

The theory must be tested and results are then brought against the failed theory to bring disproof...

How do you test a theory without looking into historical records when talking about a climate change? The periods of climate change last far longer than a human life.

but I always side with majority scientific opinion because that opinion rarely goes astray is right a ridiculously high proportion of times compared to not.

Often times the herd mentality is dangerous when it comes to science. In the 1970s conventional wisdom agreed by a majority of scientist was that we were heading into a period of sustained cooling.

As early as the beginning of this past winter I fully believed what the mass media was telling me about global warming... but then I decided to research about it and read both supporting and contradicting articles on the subject. What I found was that there were a lot of holes in the argument put forth by the mass media and the IPCC. Mainly, the numbers and statistics did not support their arguments. It seemed that a lot of the science put forth was: making a hypothesis, and then contorting the facts and numbers to fit it.

One thing must always be remembered, the climate is always in a state of change. 6000 years ago egypt was a rain forest, 5500 years ago egypt became a desert. To expect the climate to be "stable" is unreasonable, it is either warming or cooling... always.

Has man put greenhouse gases into the environment? Yes, but it is solely responsible for the warming trend that has been in place since 1850? Probably not.

 

[rfarren]

I almost forgot to mention on the last post about the Younger Dryas when the climate went from a period of warm to cold within a decade. Things can change in a hurry. Check it out:

Younger Dryas

 

[Geoff]

Adding to sszcher points, Canada and the US Federal governments are using China & India has an excuse of non-action. They want to see commitments to reductions by these and other upcoming developing country, before they make their own. The problem is that we started here, we have highly industrialized economies for over 100 years, we got rich because of it.

Now, we don't want to take the first step, even if we've been going it for all this time. China is becoming industrialized but is still far from our standard of living. China is about to surpasses the US has the greatest green house gas producers, HOWEVER what is it per capital? Yes, China needs to reduces, but we NEED to do the first step.

If you've taken a glance at gasoline, fuel oil, and natural gas prices recently, we're taking the first step already. As energy prices soar, people will naturally conserve and reduce their carbon footprint. That has far more thud than some diplomat signing an "accord".

Do you hear anybody out there saying "I think I'm going to trade my 40 mpg Honda Civic for a Chevy Suburban"?

 

[Harvey]

Geoff is right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/business/02auto.html

Is there anyway GM would be introducing a plugin hybrid in 2012 if gas was a buck a gallon? Doubtful.

It makes me wildly unpopular at cocktail parties, but my opinion is that we should raise the cost of gas, or driving, with taxes. The revenue should be used to create jobs, industries and technology to solve the various related problems.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

we should raise the cost of gas, or driving, with taxes. The revenue should be used to create jobs, industries and technology to solve the various related problems.

I agree, but then you get attacked by those claiming that these kinds of taxes are "regressive" -- they hurt the lower classes while rich people continue their polluting, gas-hog lifestyles because they can afford it.

I don't mean to sound overly pessimistic, but waste is such an integral part of this country's DNA, I don't know if anything can be done about it. The moment gas prices nosedive again (probably won't, but who knows), everyone will be back with their 12 mpg tanks.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Harvey44 is absolutely correct about taxes, which IMHO should be based upon carbon and/or OPEC imports.

The arguments against are:
1) From the Democratic side, that they are regressive, and
2) From the Republican side, that government always uses increased revenue to increase the size of the public sector.

Al Gore and Bill Bradley have learned the above lessons by proposing that the carbon tax be used to offset dollar-for-dollar some of the somewhat regressive Social Security payroll tax.

This seems eminently sensible and I'm dismayed to see no one running for office in 2008 has embraced it. Taxes discourage the object of taxation. Why wouldn't we want to discourage fossil fuel use rather than job creation?

The carbon tax is the appropriate free market response to this issue. Once a cost is assigned to the carbon, energy technologies are on a more level playing field and the eventual winners are more likely to emerge on an economic basis. Much better than government mandating standards (that may or may not be realistic) or subsidizing politically favored industries like corn/ethanol.

China and India aren't going to adopt someone else's standards. But they may voluntarily emulate a policy that is demonstrated to be successful without inflicting economic damage.

 

[Harvey]

There's got to be a (simple?) way to take the regressive aspect out of it. Rebates to families under XX income? I'm not the expert, but I bet it could be done.

One big problem is that people don't understand the choices they are making. How many people say "I would do ANYTHING for my kids."

The true cost of energy usage is not reflected in the price paid per gallon. And, some things, some of the most important things in my opinion, cannot be priced in dollars.

EDIT: Tony for President.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

There's got to be a (simple?) way to take the regressive aspect out of it.

Highly doubtful. I always look at toll highways/bridges/tunnels as a "relatively" fair tax. Only the people who use them pay, but it's still regressive -- rich people pay the same as everyone else, making it more of a burden for poor people.

Tony for President.

He'd have to figure out a way to disassociate himself from his enthusiastic support for the current president over the last two elections.
:lol:

 

[Tony Crocker]

Social Security tax is a lot of revenue. If you start by removing it on the first X,000 of income that's going to help the low end of the income scale much more than the carbon tax will hurt. Not to mention that it will be cheaper to hire entry-level workers.

I also question how regressive carbon taxes are. I remember when Gray Davis refused to raise utility prices during the electricity crisis of 2001, and burned through something like $8 billion of California taxpayer $. Didn't the family in the 10,000 square foot Beverly Hills mansion save a whole lot more in utility costs from Davis' action than the proverbial widow in her small apartment? Meanwhile the lost $8 billion impacted state funding for schools, parks, services to the poor, etc.

 

[Geoff]

I also question how regressive carbon taxes are. I remember when Gray Davis ...

If you are rural poor in northern New England where the grocery store is 30 minutes away, a carbon tax is extremely regressive. If you tax the heck out of heating oil, in that part of the world, people will burn wood and that creates a really lousy carbon footprint.