 Poster: A snowHead
|
easiski,
Blimey that stuff about only skiing for 11 years makes me feel like I just shouldn't have an oprinion - how long before I have seen enough to be taken seriously  ?
All that stuff about your dad and what you have been up to in recent years is fine i hope it continues but I think the consensus is that it won't.
As for property, I didn't buy for money but if you think that losing a significant amount of cash makes any kind of sense, even for the love of skiing, it doesn't. I have a two very young (<1 & 2) kids and sitting back and losing loads of cash just to maintain ownership is not my idea of being responsible - lets face it I can rent, or maybe buy at the bottom when the cycle starts another cold 50 year spell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
NorthWestFace, It's not that you "aren't allowed" to have an opinion, but it came across that you were trumpeting 11 years of experience as being easily enough to form an opinion on the skiing scene/weather cycles/property ownership in the alps and so on. All the others were doing was stepping in and trumping your hand with their own "years of experience". Surely you can appreciate that Charlotte (Easiski) and her Dad's experience in these things is invaluable and being WAY more than yours, probably qualifies them far better (using your own defined terms of "years experience") as being able to offer an equally valid, if not more valid, opinion. they may have gone through similar cycles of weather in the past when it was all doom and gloom and "sell the farm" and so on, so if it came down to a choice of whose opinion to listen to... I know where my ears wold be turned.
Personally speaking if you're letting a very short term (in meteorological terms) spell of warmer, later starting winters sway your opinion so much, you seriously need to get out of the alpine property market for the sake of your own sanity! Try something less volatile like government stocks or something, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I have no doubt that global warming is a reality, and no doubt that it will cause the world many problems over the coming years. The loss in value of our apartments will not be one of the most dire of them. The implications for local weather patterns, snowfall etc are clearly extraordinarily complex and, in the short term, difficult to distinguish from the usual short term fluctuations (the worst January snow I have experienced was in the early '90s, can't remember exactly when). However, leaving aside the need for concerted government action, for us all to reduce the size of our carbon footprint, etc etc from a selfish and short term viewpoint, if there are only 20 years left of Alpine skiing around the 2000m mark then I'm doubly glad I have an apartment so that I won't miss any of it. I will also have a wonderful place in which to enjoy summers which (like the canicule of 2004) will be unbearably hot at lower altitudes in France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Global warming should produce wetter winters should it not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
NorthWestFace, perhaps you should consider selling your property before the prices crash then? You think that staying until the prices drop is irresponsible, and it seems to be causing you some worry at the moment. I may think differently if I had young children, but then I wouldn't have been in a position to buy the property when mine were small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Frosty the Snowman, that's my understanding, although it's clearly v complex.
What's the model that predicts the movement of the gulf stream, ultimately making the UK colder? Does it move N or S?
If S, then the effect on the French atlantic coast and the Med I guess will impact on the Western Alps.
As a general point, and I have been skiing for 24 years (  ), I have always found the Western Alps' snow cover to be less predictable (due to proximity to the sea?) and the Eastern Alps (landlocked) to be more predictable. I'm sure there are lots of examples of that not being the case, just my own experience.
BTW, this 'wetter winters' theory, is it also linked to the 'more extremes' idea? i.e. not only will it get hotter in Summer, but it will also get colder in Winter. If I think about this in purely insulation terms (again, a topic I don't know much about) less insulation results in greater variance of temperature inside the insulated body, yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| zammo wrote: |
Frosty the Snowman, that's my understanding, although it's clearly v complex.
What's the model that predicts the movement of the gulf stream, ultimately making the UK colder? Does it move N or S?
If S, then the effect on the French atlantic coast and the Med I guess will impact on the Western Alps.
As a general point, and I have been skiing for 24 years ( ), I have always found the Western Alps' snow cover to be less predictable (due to proximity to the sea?) and the Eastern Alps (landlocked) to be more predictable. I'm sure there are lots of examples of that not being the case, just my own experience.
BTW, this 'wetter winters' theory, is it also linked to the 'more extremes' idea? i.e. not only will it get hotter in Summer, but it will also get colder in Winter. If I think about this in purely insulation terms (again, a topic I don't know much about) less insulation results in greater variance of temperature inside the insulated body, yes? |
No the gulf stream will weaken. In this scenario Europe becomes very cold and very dry and the Americas suffer (the extra heat has to go somewhere).
With global warming the idea is more extremes but in particular you will get more precipitation at altitude so more snow - as previous posters have said one of the problems with high altitude resorts is that they don't get much snow in winter as it is too cold. Global warming wipes out the low altitude resorts and brings more winter snow to the high altitude resorts - which are no longer safely skiable due to the rapidly melting permafrost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zammo, Was it not that the UK would have wetter milder winters (which seems to be happening this winter - certainly the wetter bit up here)?
There is certainly a bit of talk about the Gulf Stream changing - direction and slowing down - due to decrease in salinity of the sea. If it stops, which it has in the ancient past, Europe would freeze during the winter. Apparently this is not expected to happen within the next 50 years or so, if at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Sage, davidof
I'm going to do a gulf stream moves dance every morning now. Then Europe will freeze and I can ski 12 months a year 
Of course, the other implications might be somewhat drastic ... perhaps I should, as advised in the past, keep my dancing to myself!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NorthWestFace wrote: |
| I have been skiing for 11 years and have seen a massif difference. |
No pun intended?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Surely if you are using people's investments as part of your "discussion" (albeit a pretty one sided one and presented in a narrowminded if not entirely condescending manner) you should expect people to answer you by using said properties in their arguments.
Clearly there are points on both sides, but it I am not sure certain members need to write with such conviction on a subject that must remain conjecture until we have the benefit of hindsight.
Still nice to know people care about each other's investments 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Well, it seems to me that the recent pattern is for the cold weather to arrive slightly later than, say 15 years ago, but that the winters (fresh snow), continue for longer into April and May. therefore, if this pattern continues the Alps may have winter periods more in line with Scotland. You can be sure that if it becomes financially not viable to open in December but does in May, then the resorts will do this. However, how many posts have we all read by peeps thinking March is late for skiing? .... This recent pattern is too recent and too short to draw any conclusions from, and certainly the assertion that winters are starting later and finishing earlier is patently untrue.
summer skiing is much worse affected - so come in the summer while you can still ski!! Of course we're all now moving our resorts into other summer activities, so the tourists will continue to come. It's only the Brits who don't come much in summer - Italians, Spanish, Dutch and French have always been to the Alps in summer. Much better than the beach, and just as warm during the day (usually) 
Due to the increase in other leisure activities in summer, and the increasing flexibility of the resorts and the use of cannons and new cannon technology I can't see any major problems with regard to property prices. I'm quite happy with a doubling in value of my apartment since I bought it 2.5 years ago.. Also, of course I couldn't buy a shoebox anywhere in Britain for around £40,000 could I?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| easiski wrote: |
| It's only the Brits who don't come much in summer - Italians, Spanish, Dutch and French have always been to the Alps in summer. |
Ahem, the 'anglo-saxons" invented the Alps! Windham, Pococke, Coolidge, Whymper, Tuckett, Mummery, Conan-Doyle etc to name but a few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I may have a spare one for that price......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
davidof, Yes - and they holiday'd in the alps in summer back then (well the rich folks did). The modern Brit though, in many cases, doesn't even consider it a possibility. Such a shame, as there's much more to the alps than just skiing - not that skiing's a bad idea of course ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I learnt to white water raft in the Alps, a great experience I can heartily recommend to all. Makes a change to sitting on a beach too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
easiski, don't encourage them, part of the attraction of an alpine summer is the lack of excess brits
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
Hezza, the voice of reason !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I think basing your views on the popular press who, let's face it, abandoned the "pursuit of truth" for poorly researched sensationalist rubbish years ago is inadvisable. I also think looking at snow depths / glacier sizes over relatively short timescales does not give concrete proof of anything. Clearly the consensus of opinion is that Global Warming / Climate Change whatever is an issue but there is an intelligent debate happening away from the press and government press releases.
If you're interested
The Royal Society clearly favour the Global Warming theory:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278&gclid=CIrlrayI-4gCFShEEAodG1hypg
Whereas here is a list of respected academics who disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
I haven't the foggiest who is right but can appreciate that the situation is not as cut and dry as we are often led to believe. The voices against the "Greenhouse Effect" do not really get the exposure that perhaps they should.
What I do know is cancelling the ski season, selling your apartments and generally predicting the end of winter sports in western Europe based on some BBC/Grauniad/Sheep Herder's view points is generally probably a bad idea. Recent trends are no more than a brief snapshot in time afterall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
jonathancarty,
| Quote: |
What I do know is cancelling the ski season, selling your apartments and generally predicting the end of winter sports in western Europe based on some BBC/Grauniad/Sheep Herder's view points
|
is a great way to get the pistes to yourself
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think there are any scientists against the greenhouse effect, this is what keeps the planet at a temperature that supports life.
I personally don't take Wikipedia as a reliable source but as maybe a starting point. The first thing the article says:-
"Since 2001, no climate scientists have expressed skepticism that warming, of the magnitude described by the IPCC, has occurred."
Some of the more sceptical are financed by the oil industry or by people with "neocon" connectons in the US. There is nothing wrong with that but you have to bear it in mind. I suggest looking carefully at each of these scientists to see their credentials. Some are on the lunatic fringe of science or outright frauds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Ok to save you the bother here is a quick review of the sceptics:
William M. Gray - not prepared to stake his life on his claims, in fact not prepared to stake $5 on his claims
Willie Soon - funded by the oil industry
Sallie Baliunas - funded by the oil industry
Frederick Seitz - big business connections who claim that he is "irrational"
Nir Shaviv - blames cosmic rays and water vapour works with Jan Veizer
Fred Singer - he would believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus if you paid him
Robert M. Carter - claims to receive no money for big oil but makes money as an after dinner business speaker and will modify what he says for his audience
Tim Patterson - blames sunspot activity a member of Friends of Science recently exposed as a front group for the oil industry
Jan Veizer - says cosmic rays are responsible for global warming, credible research but not yet accepted
Marcel Leroux - French, lunatic fringe, selling books
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I suggest looking carefully at each of these scientists to see their credentials. Some are on the lunatic fringe of science or outright frauds.
|
Did you really think I wouldn't have done that before posting. Could you quantify your final sentence as I can't see the evidence for it.
You're right in that my wording was not correct. The Greenhouse Effect obviously exists and Global Warming is clearly occurring. What I was trying to put across was that the CAUSES for this are not as clear cut as we may think.
Jon
PS I wasn't suggesting using Wikipedia as a reliable source for climate change theory, simply as a reference for the names of current dissenters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| jonathancarty wrote: |
| Quote: |
I suggest looking carefully at each of these scientists to see their credentials. Some are on the lunatic fringe of science or outright frauds.
|
Did you really think I wouldn't have done that before posting. Could you quantify your final sentence as I can't see the evidence for it.
|
Yes of the above list I would say Fred Singer is a fraud and Leroux is on the lunatic fringe of science based on what is publically available on the web about them.
As I said being funded by the oil industry isn't necessarily a problem if the science is good and there are probably a lot of scientists on the pro-climate change lobby who are crackpots or believe they will get more funding by scary claims. I just don't see anything on the Wikipedia page that makes me think "oh my, climate change, its all a load of baloney".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| jonathancarty wrote: |
| Quote: |
I suggest looking carefully at each of these scientists to see their credentials. Some are on the lunatic fringe of science or outright frauds.
|
Did you really think I wouldn't have done that before posting. Could you quantify your final sentence as I can't see the evidence for it.
. |
Why don't you cite some evidence to support their credibility?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going slightly OT here but my 'B' in GCSE Physics is simply inadequate ...
These things I believe (rightly or wrongly) to be the case:
1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed
2) Heat is work and work is heat
3) Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotter body
(thanks to Mssrs Flanders and Swan)
So. We MUST create more heat than we did, say, 500 years ago. I think a trip to a supermarket carpark in the summer can imply if not prove that. So if that energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does it go?
My suspicion is that gradually it heats the place up, but that's only a feeling based on what I read in the paper etc.
Can anyone explain to me where else this heat energy might go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
zammo, well my GCSE is longer ago than yours, but doesn't a lot of it radiate out into space? I thought that part of the global warming issue was that the build up of C02 and other gases created a 'greenhouse' effect which trapped (more) heat (along with all the heat we receive from the sun, without which we would be in a very cold place indeed.) I don't think the problem is the heat we are creating so much as the 'insulation' we are increasing. I'm sure better brains than I will be along in a minute with a more accurate answer. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Hezza, oops, took a phone call while typing and missed your brief but accurate reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Why don't you cite some evidence to support their credibility?
|
All I was doing was pointing out that there is a more reasonable debate occurring than that which is taking place in the press.
If someone is of the opinion that someone else is a fraud/lunatic/quack or whatever that's fine and of course they are welcome to their opinion.
What pulls my chain is throw away comments without any supporting evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
It should be possible to do Google Scholar search for the names in that list and see whether they are taking part there or mainly in the press. On a slightly different tack, people could look up the study by Oreskes into the numbers of papers on climate that support or dispute the consensus.
The IPCC reports are literature review papers and probably the most peer-reviewed ones at that. At the point of publishing they are the best summary of the current state of the science that you will get. There may be the odd disagreement in details (eg the high-end climate sensitivities), but they are the best source of information on this subject. The most recent one was the TAR in 2001, but the next one will be released next year.
zammo, AxsMan, as to how it all works, this is a good (simplified) explanation:
| Quote: |
When the surface emits invisible heat radiation, some of it is absorbed by CO2 in the middle levels of the atmosphere. Thus some energy transfers into the air itself, rather than escaping directly into space. Not only is the air thus warmed, but also some of the energy trapped there is radiated back to the surface, warming it further.
That’s one way of explaining the greenhouse effect — seeing it from "inside" the atmosphere. Physicists are more likely to give an equivalent explanation by looking at the Earth from "outside." They ask how the planet keeps from heating up without limit by radiating the energy it gets from the Sun back out into space. If more of a radiation-absorbing greenhouse gas like CO2 is added to the atmosphere, making the air more opaque, the place where the energy finally escapes into space will shift to a higher layer of the atmosphere. That would be a colder layer, which does not radiate so readily. And so, as in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in. While that may sound simple, just how the rise of temperature takes place cannot really be explained with a few sentences or even a few equations. Physicists learned only gradually how to describe the greenhouse effect accurately. To do so, they had to make detailed calculations of a variety of processes in each layer of the atmosphere. |
From The Discovery of Global Warming
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
As a newcomer to snowheads and an eternal optimist who teaches Geography, this debate has been great to follow.
The insulation effect is the issue with global warming. Yes heat is escaping into space, but if less can get out than is being generated, then it becomes a maths calculation (not my area!!). Its effects on the the long term temperatures in the Alps will remain open to debate as there is no set pattern for temperature rise. Those talking about the Gulf Stream conveyor may cite the 'little ice age' as proof that temperatures can be lowered for 100+ years from a single event leading to ice fairs on the Thames etc. Major volcanic activity could equally lower temperatures globally. Which would mean lots of cold weather for skiiers.
The problem most of us have is proof. The only graphs and data I have seen that give me reason to believe that the global warming theory is correct is the correlation between the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. CO2 seems to be the variable that has altered in our atmosphere significantly in the last 100 years and the rise in temperature matches it's rise almost perfectly.
As with all theories, the outcome (rising temperatures) is happening, but like the FI lines on the weather forecasts, long term projections are just guesses and the press will only print the worst case scenario as that is far more exciting and scary than the average projections.
Hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
pitchski, great first post! Welcome to s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the biggest problem (with spotting a clear trend) that the weather (in particular) and the climate (in general) are chaotic systems which fluctuate so severely that natural 'peaks and troughs' make spotting trends very difficult? Putting it another way, it may be 'unseasonably' warm in Tignes next week, but it might be 'unseasonably cold' the week after. there is just too much 'noise' in the system to spot a clear signal, and even if we all agree that the trend is 'warmer' we don't know if that will bring more or less snow to alpine resorts.
pitchski, welcome to the madhouse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pitchski wrote: |
As a newcomer to snowheads and an eternal optimist who teaches Geography, this debate has been great to follow.
The insulation effect is the issue with global warming. Yes heat is escaping into space, but if less can get out than is being generated, then it becomes a maths calculation (not my area!!). Its effects on the the long term temperatures in the Alps will remain open to debate as there is no set pattern for temperature rise. Those talking about the Gulf Stream conveyor may cite the 'little ice age' as proof that temperatures can be lowered for 100+ years from a single event leading to ice fairs on the Thames etc. Major volcanic activity could equally lower temperatures globally. Which would mean lots of cold weather for skiiers.
The problem most of us have is proof. The only graphs and data I have seen that give me reason to believe that the global warming theory is correct is the correlation between the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. CO2 seems to be the variable that has altered in our atmosphere significantly in the last 100 years and the rise in temperature matches it's rise almost perfectly.
As with all theories, the outcome (rising temperatures) is happening, but like the FI lines on the weather forecasts, long term projections are just guesses and the press will only print the worst case scenario as that is far more exciting and scary than the average projections.
Hope this helps! |
There is absolutely NO debate that temps are rising and ice is melting.
The world was roughly 30% covered with ice 15k years ago. Now it is about 10% iced up. That is an ultra-longterm warming trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top marks to the weather watchers!! They are dealing with and interpreting a mountain of data that can alter rapidly. There will only ever be 'best estimates' but give 'em credit for having a bash at forecasts over three days into the future. As all the keen weather watchers know, its a lot easier to predict calm, clear and sunny weather in a stable anticyclone than the stuff we're after, a big depression with cold unstable air loaded up with snow. Clearly with all the data there will be differing opinions, unfortunately only time will prove/disprove theories, so all those 'ha ha told you so' posts from people getting it right are similar to some bloke down the bookies telling you that you should have listened to him and back the horse that won. If you make enough predictions you will (hopefully) get some right.
Back on the global warming debate.... Climate is a long term trend, about 30 years is acceptable, we know that this Christmas could be rubbish, but next year could be a bumper one. The trend to later running seasons is an interesting trend, particularly to us teaching folk, long live the big dumps in April, its cheaper to ski then than half term!! If you insist on only looking at last years snow or two to three years snow, then you are not looking at climate, just short term weather trends. Weather also seems to have strange cycles, we go through periods of drought, then theres water everywhere, whos to say that in ten years time we don't have a period when winter comes early.
Warming will melt glaciers, permanent ice will reduce in volume, but winter will not be cancelled every year, it will still snow. It might be less reliable at lower altitudes, but high up will take much longer to become unstable. By the time thats a problem, Dubai International Holdings will have bought the Alps, put a roof on it and turned it into a giant snow dome.
By the way, it'll snow tomorrow in the Tarantaise and everyone whos booked for 16th Dec and xmas will be dancing for joy. (Me included) Of course.....I could be wrong!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
