I apologize if this has already been discussed to death but reading this NYT article about how the Winter Olympics will have problems finding new venues in the future has made me wonder what snowheads' opinions are. Is it universally agreed upon here that climate change is currently going on? If so, is there disagreement on the severity of it?
It's happening. Whether it is caused by human activity is a different question. Whether the measures being taken are actually addressing the main causes is also questionable. As I understand it we will all have to become vegetarians if we are going to make any difference!
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?
@südtirolistdeutsch, It has been discussed. My penny -
1- the climate is changing, it is always changing, always has been
2- is the current rate of change faster than other periods before? Maybe, we're looking at a short period that geologically is a blink of an eye. I don't think that current methods have the required resolution to assert this, OTOH we are living in period of relatively fast change, and that is a worry
3- Is it man made? I think that mankind has an impact, as most do. However, I think that too much blame gets put on CO2 emissions and that the suggested "solutions" are bonkers. We're talking about electric cars without talking about nuclear power, we're talking about preservation and recycling but we're not talking about population growth (how much heat are 3 or 5 more billion bodies generating? How much heat are a few million more houses retaining? How many acres of forest are gone to make room for those houses, roads, place to grow food for them?). Yes, we should recycle, think about the impact of our actions, but we should also tackle the less pleasant and politically correct issues.
I can tell you that I have 2 boys. When we thought about a 3rd child, among other issues (it is a complex matter and I'm certainly not criticising people that made different choices) the impact of the population growth came up (it wasn't in the top 3, but it was there)
Maybe the non vaxxers are on to something
Pretty much as @sugardaddy, said. Except family planning issue (!)
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@peanuthead,
Quote:
Except family planning issue (!)
I know it is perceived as controversial, but I think it needs to be addressed before Nature addresses it (as it did in the past - the plague, famine) or another large scale (world) war
@sugardaddy, Completely agree, unfortunately no politician will grapple with it for fear of being called genocidal. I think BoJo did mention it once.....
Likewise there is a climate change industry and many academics rely on research grants, so the final recommendation is always more research.
Finally, we do not understand the sun, we have never been there and unlikely to ever send even a basic probe. We have less than 100 years of observations that are academically credible. As the sun ultimately drives our weather we need a lot more data on its effects to decide how much man is affecting the weather. That said the less stuff we pour into our very thin atmosphere the better. It is sobering to think that at the top of the Grande Motte in Tignes you are already about a third of the way to leaving it.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I'm a big fan of what Nassim Taleb calls the "Precautionary Principle" w.r.t. climate change. It goes roughly like this (my words):
1) We want to assure the continuation of human civilisation.
2) The earth's climate is critically important to the stability of human civilisation (e.g. if everyone needs to leave Bangladesh, where do they go? Can the vast institutions that provide us with food etc. actually survive even moderately rapid change?).
3) We *do not* understand the earth's climate well, especially over the long timescales that we need to consider for continuing civilisation.
4) We *do* have strong evidence in models and in observations that changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and some other gases can cause significant change in the climate.
5) Therefore, we should not be making large changes to the atmospheric concentration of those gases, not because we know what will happen, but because we *don't know*.
Don't mess with critical systems with complex behaviour that you don't understand. Elon Musk puts it succinctly "[Burning fossil fuels is] the dumbest experiment in history".
If your goal is less grand than continuing human civilisation, e.g. just skiing up until you drop dead, then of course the above logic might look different.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@skeksis, fully agree with that.
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.
And of course electric cars are clean. They cause no pollution through their lithium batteries and, of course all that electricity is clean because it is conveniently forgotten about because it is distant from the vehicle.
The earth's climate has always changed as has its land masses due to continental drift. We were once a tropical country-well the bit of ground upon which we currently exist................
meh
I remember when it was called global warming....
Just an excuse for educated professors to get funding for gainful employment.
IMO its all cycles and cycles within cycles & cycles within cycles. Maybe we are contributing somehow, maybe the cycles are big enough to absorb what we do.
People then point to extreme weather. Well our Sun & Moon has a big impact on our weather. We know little about both.
I wont take 100 years or 10,000 years of scientific data when it it is just a small sample of a planet that has been here for billions of years.
Just look at the cycle during the day to weeks to months to years, in your lifetime, its always different. No 2 days are exactly the same.
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.
südtirolistdeutsch wrote:
Is it universally agreed upon here that climate change is currently going on?
Is that a serious question? Please don't tell me there are still people who don't believe in human induced climate change (Trump aside obviously).
The question of what we do about it, is for sure more complex and difficult.
But it's not an excuse not to try.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Quote:
Just an excuse for educated professors to get funding for gainful employment.
Yeah, who needs experts
Quote:
Just look at the cycle during the day to weeks to months to years, in your lifetime, its always different. No 2 days are exactly the same.
Like Trump, you are confusing climate with weather.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Mr.Egg wrote:
meh
I remember when it was called global warming....
No you don't because the two were always different things to anyone with the slightest understanding of the topic. Global warming is only one element of climate change. The ice ages are of course another.
Mr.Egg wrote:
IMO its all cycles and cycles within cycles & cycles within cycles. Maybe we are contributing somehow, maybe the cycles are big enough to absorb what we do.
There certainly are cycles that have significant effects. How much relative to other inputs is of course the trillion dollar question...
@sugardaddy, @skeksis, good points. The Gaia hypothesis slant is an interesting/reassuring/absolutely terrifying one, though of course it's easy to attribute things to it without them really being so...
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Mr.Egg wrote:
maybe the cycles are big enough to absorb what we do.
Whatever we do will be absorbed. It's a question of eliminating human suffering and maintaining a viable habitat for ourselves and future generations. Why wouldn't you do something if you could?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Layne wrote:
Mr.Egg wrote:
maybe the cycles are big enough to absorb what we do.
Why wouldn't you do something if you could?
because I am only here a short time & my job is to look after myself.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Mr.Egg wrote:
Layne wrote:
Mr.Egg wrote:
maybe the cycles are big enough to absorb what we do.
Why wouldn't you do something if you could?
because I am only here a short time & my job is to look after myself.
Selfish prick.
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?
Mr.Egg wrote:
Layne wrote:
Why wouldn't you do something if you could?
because I am only here a short time & my job is to look after myself.
That really is very selfish.
Humanity would not progress very much if nobody cared what we're leaving for our descendants.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
chocksaway wrote:
Finally, we do not understand the sun, we have never been there and unlikely to ever send even a basic probe.
Well apart from the SOHO probe which under a new name's link shows has been observing the Sun for 22 years and the SDO which has been observing the Sun for 7 years, it's now only 195 days till the scheduled launch date of the Parker Solar Probe, which will approach to within 4 million miles of the Sun's surface , having to withstand fierce heat and radiation conditions.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Man made climate change is a reality. The global temperature has never changed as fast as it has in geological history ( since fossils were laid down) otherwise the rapid changes currently impacting on Great Barrier Reef etc would be seen in fossil record. For those deniers citing the “climate change industry” do you not think that if the wealthy coal and oil industries could find a CREDIBLE scientific community to disprove climate change we would know about it? Climate change means more energy in the atmosphere; warmer and soggier (like the current ski season) for most of us but impact on ocean currents etc could mean droughts for some. and major impacts on food production amongst other things. What we do about it is another matter. Lots of tokenism eg electric cars (but needed for NOx reductions) and anguish over airline flights. We get far more and dirtier emissions from cargo ships bringing all our manufactured goods from China and elsewhere. Population growth and industrialisation of third world and developing countries als have a massive impact
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.
@On the rocks,
And cows farting
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
under a new name wrote:
@Mr.Egg, ah, I was a callow youth once as well. I think I have grown up a little.
Like i said, i remember when it was called global warming. That should indicate im no yoof
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@Mr.Egg, yes indeed, methane (very powerful greenhouse gas) from cattle has a surprisingly large impact, particularly in US and Australia
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.
You do all realise that the earth is flat, don't you?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Climate change and man's influence is not controversial. It is scientific proven, widely accepted. Problem is that we don't like science anymore, we prefer markets, we prefer competition.
It is presented as controversial by oil companies and other lobbies. Just as the tobacco companies did 40 years ago. They are being sued already.
Oil companies are following.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Stand corrected on probes chaps but my point remains valid - we don't understand it and 7 years of data is only a tiny fraction of 1% that would be required.
I'm in BC now and we've Alaskans moving here for the snow because they think it isn't as good as it was ten years ago up there.
What we can meaningfully do as individuals, apart from vote, is a different matter.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
So how serious is it? Is it as serious as some claime like Time magazine saying there won't be any skiing in the Alps by 2100?
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?
@südtirolistdeutsch, I haven't seen what Time magazine is saying, but I did have a look at the NY Times link you posted. I think the prevailing opinion currently isn't that snowy alpine winters are going to disappear completely, but they will be less reliable and less frequent.
I believe Sochi was a bad decision for 2014 already back in the day the decision was made. (Mid noughties?) It's a beach resort, for crying out loud. Vladimir Vladimirovich just saw it as an opportunity to use Olympic money to boost tourism there.
So how serious is it? Is it as serious as some claime like Time magazine saying there won't be any skiing in the Alps by 2100?
Nobody knows really. One of the key drivers for weather in Europe is the North Atlantic Oscillation and there's a suggestion that less summertime ice cover in the Arctic could lead to strong westerly winds driving warm wet weather across Europe in the winter and this could lead to warmer winters with more rain at lower altitudes.
They key things is no one really knows for sure and there are a lot different things that will be affected. It is a serious risk though and certainly something we should try and avoid where we can. Not really because of the possible impact on skiing in Europe, but rather because it could have a far more disastrous impact on poorer countries that already face severe weather challenges.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
If you want to get scientific about it, papers like these are a pretty good starting point:
This one essentially says we either cut down atmospheric co2 or accept a rise in relative conditions (natural snow without snowmaking) of circa 500 - 1000 m (depending on the exact emissions over the next century).
This is an analysis (little old now, 2010) focussing on specific austrian ski areas (further east = generally cooler) with microclimates representative of different altitude ranges. With snowmaking, Zillertal arena is ok even in the bad scenario (1250-2500m) but areas in the altitude range of St Johann in Tyrol fare less well (700-1600m).
Take what you will from it. I think one thing thats pretty clear is that under the worst scenarios, losing a month off either end of the ski season would be the least of our worries.
but we're not talking about population growth (how much heat are 3 or 5 more billion bodies generating? How much heat are a few million more houses retaining? How many acres of forest are gone to make room for those houses, roads, place to grow food for them?). Yes, we should recycle, think about the impact of our actions, but we should also tackle the less pleasant and politically correct issues.
This^ If the population of the earth was half its present level, pollution would be substantially reduced. Simple.
Plus I find it hard to take anyone seriously who says 'Humans cause climate change' or 'Climate change is caused by human pollution' or similar. There is no doubt that this is not the case. The question is 'does pollution by humans cause an increase in the rate of climate change?' (and anyone who can't see the difference doesn't understand climate), My gut says 'probably', but my head says 'we don't really know'. I question the studies that have been done for 2 reasons -
1) Time scale is too short.
2) Lack of any exxoerimental control. Correct me if I'm wrong in this instance, but without a control running to compare data with, the data we do get is fairly worthless. https://sciencetrends.com/experimental-control-important/
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I'm guessing if the snow starts disappearing in the alps, the ski industry will move north to Scandinavia to follow the snow, but also, with the lifts already in place, I wouldn't be surprised if the alpine resorts didn't move to plastic, and the plastic technology would improve in leaps and bounds.
anyway, global warming / climate change / whatever its called, its real and whether there is a natural cycle underlying it, there is no doubt that man is also responsible, and therein lies the rub.
I was born in 1963, there were about 3.5bn people on this earth at that point. Today, its more than double that, at 7.6bn and its growing exponentially. And all those people need food, clothes, housing, cars, holidays, TVs, etc. And while those in the developed countries are working to stop their carbon footprint from growing, the standard of living in the developing countries is growing at a tremendous pace as it is coming from a low base.
If I were to stop growing my carbon footprint, or even reduce it by 10%, would it make any difference if there are more footprints on the earth tomorrow? If the individual carbon footprints of those in the developed world are growing as a huge pace?
And all those people will be competing for more and more scarce resources; land, fuel, food. Back in 1939 the world went to war for more "living space". At that time the world population was 2.3bn. Its now 7.6bn, by 2050 it will be 10bn, and climate change will impact on the worlds ability to grow crops, or parts of the world at least, so mass migration and wars will only get worse.
I know I'm painting a black picture of our future, but I fear there is no political will to take the hard decisions.
I remember growing a yeast culture in biology class when I was about 13 years old. And what I saw then frighten me, as I saw it as an allegory for mankind. If you put yeast in a sugar solution, it multiplies as it consumes the sugar, the population grows exponentially, but then it plateaus out as it converts the sugar into ethanol which is toxic to yeast, and finally it starts to decline as the ethanol kills off the yeast.
Anyway, skiing is great, but I worry for my children.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Quote:
Back in 1939 the world went to war for more "living space".
I hate it when a thread goes off topic. But really? No. It didn't.
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.
olderscot wrote:
Quote:
Back in 1939 the world went to war for more "living space".
I hate it when a thread goes off topic. But really? No. It didn't.
Lebensraum was an ideological principle of the Nazis and was used as their justification for invading eastern Europe.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Public justification is very different from actual cause. There are plenty of reasons World War II happened but 'Living space' is not one that anyone (or so I thought) took seriously.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
, having to withstand fierce heat and radiation conditions. 
