 Poster: A snowHead
|
| cstreat wrote: |
| @clarky999 ?....we all ski, but we are kidding ourselves if we think it is an ecological sport . Having worked solely out of doors for over 3 decades, I have certainly seen changes, but how much is a natural process, and how much is human influence I will leave to better qualified people. But looking down on Alpine valley towns sat in a smog of their own making, I cant help thinking that we are accelerating the process. I guess that I`m from the James Lovelock school of thought. |
Fully agree with this part, which was really my original post. Logic, and possibly emotion, suggests we must be having an effect, but the system is not understood well enough to be certain that any model currently in existence is accurate enough to be useful.
Dogwatch jumped in with a gratuitous and asinine comment, which added nothing to the conversation. I bit and responded, which added nothing to the conversation. Perhaps it is an indication of how emotionally charged this topic can be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| wyspa wrote: |
| @dogwatch, I'm an ignorant and haven't got any stats to back my claim, but I thought that all those new investments must be, at least partially, drived by increasing consumer base. Eastern Europeans (like myself) are getting wealthier and visit Alps in bigger numbers. |
There are published annual statistics on ski visitor number in Europe and, pretty much, they've been flat in recent years. Resorts are in competition with each other for visitors and new investment is needed to stay in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| ulmerhutte wrote: |
| Dogwatch jumped in with a gratuitous and asinine comment, which added nothing to the conversation. |
It is a certainty that the energy industry in the US in particular provides financial backing to lobbying bodies that attempt to draw doubt over what is now an overwhelming scientific consensus.
It's a certainty that the countries with the most to lose by measures to control fossil fuel use (USA and AUS) are where climate change sceptics are most likely to be found.
If you think the link between economics and financial gain and the arguments being presented adds nothing to the conversation, that seems more than a little naive.
If you can't accept your views being challenged with a little humour and good grace, and without resorting to personal attacks, possibly posting on forums isn't for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
It is a certainty that the energy industry in the US in particular provides financial backing to lobbying bodies that attempt to draw doubt over what is now an overwhelming scientific consensus.
|
Many scientists beg to disagree. Depends on what you define as "overwhelming consensus.
| Quote: |
It's a certainty that the countries with the most to lose by measures to control fossil fuel use (USA and AUS) are where climate change sceptics are most likely to be found.
|
Not really. Growing economies like China have the most to lose. Poorer countries, whose inhabitants would not mind having the luxury of electricity have the most to lose. In Western countries, those people, like pensioners, who cannot afford the increasing bills, giving up heating in winter, have the most to lose. The well-to-do will just bitch about the increased costs, suck it up, and still go skiing.
| Quote: |
If you think the link between economics and financial gain and the arguments being presented adds nothing to the conversation, that seems more than a little naive.
|
Do not believe I said that, but do point it out it. On the flip side, you might consider who has the most to gain from promoting AGW:
| Quote: |
| Moore said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue." |
If you do not believe there are vested interests on the AGW side, then perhaps it is you who is naive.
| Quote: |
If you can't accept your views being challenged with a little humour and good grace, and without resorting to personal attacks, possibly posting on forums isn't for you.
|
Not your call. But always up for a good argument...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
If sea levels have risen so much, how come the Maldives are still there? Anyone know?
|
They are still there, but their continued existence is threatened. Same is true of other atoll nations, notably Tuvalu (which used to be the Ellice of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands - those of us who are elderly will remember their cropping up in those big cheap packs of foreign stamps from Woolworths).
Sea level has not yet risen "so much" but it has risen and the process now underway is unlikely to stop (or not to stop for long, at any rate). There have already been discussions about potential re-settlement of the population of several very low level atolls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some interesting points in that article. Shame it went off on a tangent discussing human rights etc. Not convinced floggings are causing or preventing sea level change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
wow, @ulmerhutte, I get that you're sceptical about some of the climate stuff and wanted people to read a different view… but that article… really??!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dogwatch wrote: |
| It's a certainty that the countries with the most to lose by measures to control fossil fuel use (USA and AUS) are where climate change sceptics are most likely to be found. |
At the same time... those with a vested interest of their own will be leading the arguments FOR climate change being a man-made phenomenon.
As an example: It is now "accepted science" that the intensive farming of cattle is a major source of methane gasses that accelerate Global Warming due to the excessive Greenhouse gasses. However what has been lost in the rush to "accept" this science is that the original report was written by a vegetarian campaigner who has been trying to stop the farming of beef for many years. He had no previous knowledge or experience in the climate or the science behind it. He made no comparison with non-intensive farming, neither did he make any measurements of ruminants in the wild (e.g. Wildebeest and buffalo).
So now... you will see statements such as "Reduce your intake of red meat to reduce man-made global warming" http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars
Even those quoted in that report; Tim Benton and Gidon Eshel are both campaigners for a Vegetarian and Vegan diet.
There are many vested interests in the reports that one reads... and they aren't all "big bad business"... some are evangelical individuals!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
it continues to amaze me that some snow sporters ( neologism) deny the scientific evidence of global warming with opinion unsupported by evidence, both empirical and theoretical. The simple relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and heat retention was established many many years ago. Science is not of course absolutely deterministic. All accepted science is always highly probalistic. All the climate models point in the same direction. The greater uncertainty is the detailed timing and geography of future global warming, for example, the effect of feedback, ocean currents, etc.at the sub continental scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
glaciers around the world are retreating. Snow lines are following. Fact. Has happened before. Dunno if this occurrence is man made, but we do create an awful lot of heat and unnatural gas.
I wouldn't be investing in anything to do with skiing that is sub 2500m. Doesn't leave much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| wyspa wrote: |
| So if the climate keeps getting warmer, snowline goes up and seasons in Alps effectively shortened, given that skiing is more and more popular, where would all the punters go in, say, 20 years? Would most of them come back to costas leaving the more crowded slushy slopes for true ski passionates? Or would places like Norway get more developed? |
In the medium term property in places like Val Thorens goes through the roof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@emwmarine, do you own a property in Val Thorens by any chance?  Val Thorens is obviously a good place to own property in the winter but a bit bleak in the summer I'd have thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| wyspa wrote: |
| So if the climate keeps getting warmer, snowline goes up and seasons in Alps effectively shortened, given that skiing is more and more popular, where would all the punters go in, say, 20 years? Would most of them come back to costas leaving the more crowded slushy slopes for true ski passionates? Or would places like Norway get more developed? |
.[/quote]
Actually a few studies have shown that skiing participation is tapering off. Switzerland has big drop-off in numbers of young people taking-up skiing.
http://www.planetski.eu/news/5153
there is a report somewhere detailing same problem throughout traditional ski countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| tbovey wrote: |
| The simple relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and heat retention was established many many years ago. Science is not of course absolutely deterministic. All accepted science is always highly probalistic. All the climate models point in the same direction. |
I'm not a scientist (since anything done at school or university doesn't make one a scientist, it just means one can follow a curriculum), so to a large extent I have to take what I am told by "experts" to be fact.
I am, however, a mathematician... particularly in the field of statistics and correlation (that's my job... exciting stuff!!!). Therefore when I read in detail the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia about the manipulation and inclusion of variables in their statistical analysis and modeling.... I knew that everything that they had done (and by implication everything that anyone else had done based upon their data and results) was absolute rubbish. They have fundamental errors in their work... but rather than correct those errors they have focused on the email hack instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
