Poster: A snowHead
|
....perception!
Earlier I was chatting to a pupil at a High School in the Highlands who was telling me none of his mates are buying season tickets this year. Due to last year? No, apparently they got plenty days last season, but because they've had it practically drummed into them in school that it wont snow again with Global Warming. He said all they go on about is global warming and how it doesn't snow in 'Global Warming UK'.
It seems that because the UK media can't grasp the fact that snow is and has been since the little ice age anyway a climatic rarity in much of the low lying areas of the UK that it justifies insane reporting like the BBC Global Warning series a couple of years back which had the infamous line "It's now five years since it snowed in the UK". Which helps strengthen the belief that it actually doesn't snow anywhere in this land now.
Perception of Global Warming is now many decades ahead of even the worst case warming scenarios. There are in fact no UKCIP or IPCC scenarios that would deliver snowless winters in the Scottish Mountains by 2080. A more recent BBC program on AGW acknowledged this fact in mock winter forecasts for the future when in the forecast for winter 2080 they expressly referred to snow still falling on the Cairngorms. Unfortunately the majority of the population believe that snow on the Cairngorms exists only in history, in stories from Granddad by the fire and in curled up old photos!
If you think thats an exaggeration consider this (and consider it along site the first paragraph). Last Tuesday I was at a business to business exhibition in Inverness. I spoke to 26 people who said they were skiers, of these....
....12 pointed out that though they were skiers they obviously had not skied in Scotland for at least a couple of seasons as there had been no snow last winter. When questioned further as to whether they meant not enough for them to consider it worthwhile, to my horror the answer from all 12 was no, just no skiable snow at all. They all believed that the Scottish Ski Areas had not opened for snowsports last winter. When showed photos of CairnGorm Mountain in early March this year they were !!
What is worse these were all people living in or around the Inverness and Inner Moray Firth area. Small sample I know but that is 50% of people in what could be considered the local area no longer bother to even check if there's snow any more as 'obviously there isn't snow now with global warming' to quote one gentleman.
I had a very interesting discussion with another guy who works in mountain sports and he said my story above was the final proof in what he believed, perception of climate change is not just decades ahead of reality, but perception not actual climate is killing winter mountain sports in Scotland and not just snowsports. If its 50% in Inverness, is it 80% in the Central Belt, and 99.9% further South?
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Winterhighland wrote: |
perception not actual climate is killing winter mountain sports in Scotland |
I thought the poor snow record for the past couple of years coupled with the cheap flights to the Alps was killing snowsports in Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
boredsurfin, ditto, My 16 year old is having to do a 'project' on Global Warming. Of course all the information (proaganda) she is given in the 'project sheet' blames mans activities. No counter argument or admission of any possible natural cycles is mentioned. It's brainwashing pure and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Maybe it's me being a commercial whore, but I thought that the models of the affect that global warming would have meant that the northern hemisphere would be a lot more snowy due to some ocean current changing direction?
I'm quite surprised with what you've said Winterhighland, it truly seems bizarre. I guess people are just more impressionable than others...
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
Red Leon, And is largely used as an excuse for governments to raise taxes. Hey I remember my Orwell, - always keep the peepul fearful, makes 'em easier to control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you dare (carefully chosen word) to put forward alternative views you are shouted down like an 17th century heretic.
"You cannot believe that". Note: "cannot" is not same as "should not".
My son is doing A level Geography. Climate Change is a topic. I wonder what slant will be put on that (actually I don't wonder at all...I think it is a certainty that it will be Man's causes etc).
Last edited by After all it is free on Tue 18-09-07 8:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
there could be the worst winter for 100 years starting this october.. minus 15 and feet of snow paralysing transport countrywide.. month after month of bitter biting winds.. of course this will be down to global warming/climate/raining/gulf stream/polar bear/evolution/change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
It is, I think, almost universally agreed now that there is global warming (this was resisted for a very long time by those who continue to find reasons why we should do nothing about it.
I think it is agreed that weather systems are highly unstable and are affected by small changes.
If no more CO2 were put into the atmosphere by human agency it is quite obvious that there would be a smaller greenhouse effect. End of argument.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
PS I did not respond to the main point in the first post which was a good one. I agree that the perception of Scottish snow conditions has outstripped the actuality to a ridiculous extent and I am astonished that in Scotland the misconception is so bad. I was one of those who put forward the idea of snowheads doing a Scottish ski weekend next season.
However it does seem to me that (as in the case of Northern Rock) there is a core of reality that has been exagerated. Though I may be mistaken, compared to the 80s when I skied in Scotland fairly regularly, the snow certainly seems much less reliable. In those days I would simply go up without particularly checking conditions and there would always be enough snow, even if it was often boilerplate. It was unusual not to be able ski down to the carpark at Glencoe (how often was that possible last year?). Last time I came up to West Scotland in January I thought I'd bring my skis but only the top run of the Nevis area was open so I didn't bother to ski.
However, to the extent that there is a misconception about Scotland's skiing I think the ski areas are also a bit to blame. For example Braveheart chair was built in the back bowl of Nevis to serve the wonderful skiing and better snow in that area. I keep enquiring, year after year but have yet to find it open. Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winterhighland, I guess this is similar to conversations I had last winter about Chamonix, Morzine and Champoluc with people who said about all areas that there "was no snow" - an interesting statement given that I was skiiing on something (cocaine?) white and powdery at or around the time.
champoluc visitor rates were significantly down as the general Milanese and Torinese belief was that there was nothing to ski on.
further, I have rarely heard such tosh as spouted by our local Geneva anglophone radio station during the weekly snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
snowball, I believe the 'agreed' term is 'climate change'?
Weather systems are indeed known to be chaotic making prediction very difficult and also making it hard to link 'effects' to 'causes'.
No more C02 from man, MIGHT reduce mans input to the greenhouse effect, but IF C02 is only a minor factor affecting climate change, and IF human produced C02 only represents a tiny percentage of atmospheric C02, then the expense and inconvenience of the developed economies trying to reduce their C02 output might have little or no effect on the problem.
Putting it another way, if climate change were primarily caused by solar activity (for example) cutting human C02 emissions would just be peeing in the ocean (or more appropriately, ceasing to pee in the ocean) .
In any event, the government approach seems to be simply to find new targets/excuses for taxation which is not the same as actively encouraging energy efficiency (which is clearly a desireable goal in itself regardless of climate change).
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
snowball wrote: |
P In those days I would simply go up without particularly checking conditions and there would always be enough snow, even if it was often boilerplate. It was unusual not to be able ski down to the carpark at Glencoe (how often was that possible last year?). |
I think that's slightly stretching it, the car park at Glencoe is only about 1100' above sea level, there hasn't been reliable snow cover there since the last ice age !
However, it's certainly true that there was a great run of winters in the early and mid 80s when I started skiing.
Having said that, around 1990 there were some real stinkers and I'm not overly convinced it's got much worse on average since then (multi decadal phase switch of the NAO anyone ?).
The chances of cracking conditions lasting for weeks are still there, all of 2001, mid season 2005, mid to late 2006. 2007 was fairly duff, 2008 who knows ?
Agree about the Braveheart, most frustrating. When not closed for lack of snow or avvy risk it seems to be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The best comment I have read recently - "Of course there is global warming, the world is coming out of the last ice age"
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
snowball wrote: |
If no more CO2 were put into the atmosphere by human agency it is quite obvious that there would be a smaller greenhouse effect. End of argument. |
Hardly. We need to know how much difference that would make to temperature. Then we need to know the balance between harmful and beneficial effects of such a difference (the idea that global warming would be wholly baleful in all regions is ludicrous). Then we need to know what the other effects of turning off C02 emissions would be. If that were done instantly, I have no doubt that millions (perhaps billions) would starve as trade collapsed.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 18-09-07 10:37; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
snowball wrote: |
It is, I think, almost universally agreed now that there is global warming (this was resisted for a very long time by those who continue to find reasons why we should do nothing about it. |
This is true, There is pretty general agreement on this, although even that has been cast into some doubt by recent "revisions" to the figures (i.e. they found out that the ones they were basing it on were significantly wrong).
Quote: |
I think it is agreed that weather systems are highly unstable and are affected by small changes.
|
Nope. I don't believe this is remotely close to "agreed". Yes, weather ssytems are pretty unstable (and hence unpredictable), but tere is no consensus at all on how big cahnges have to be in order to significantly affect tem.
Quote: |
If no more CO2 were put into the atmosphere by human agency it is quite obvious that there would be a smaller greenhouse effect. End of argument. |
That isn't at all obvious. First, one has to be sure that CO2 is a significant factor in causing global warming. Then, one has to be sure that the CO2 emitted by humans is a significant proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere. And then, one has to be sure that said CO2 emitted by human activity is finding its way into the part of the atmoshere that is respnsible for the "greenhouse effect".
It is likely that these are all true, to at least some extent. But not as certain as many (including you it would seem) would suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Science syllabuses at GCSE are having all the quantitative elements removed, to be replaced by discussion of political issues in pseudo-scientiic terms. In other words, pupils will have the political received wisdom rammed down their throats, while not being given the tools by which they can assess scientific claims for themselves.
The science teachers at my kids' school are beside themselves. Here's another teacher's view:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/articles/archive/2007-06-07--open-letter-aqa.html
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The scientific evidence is good that there is AGW and that it is going to get steadily worse. But even the worst case models show that we will still have winter snow on the Scottish mountains out until at least 2080. If the scottish ski centres had the funding for a decent snowmaking system we'd also have reliable skiable snow for a significant portion of the winter for at least the lifetime of said snowmakeing equipment. Ie there is no climatic reason not to invest in snowmaking equipment now.
The other problem with the great British public is that when there is no snow in the central belt hardly anyone comes skiing. If there is a foot of snow in the central belt then everyone and her dog turns up at the skicentres, often when the snow is not at its best - central belt snow is no gaurantee of mountain snow. They then have a poor time and a few weeks later when nowts left in the central belt, but the ski centres have a foot of powder on top of a decent packed base, only us diehards are there. Happened in the 2005/2006 season. I had some brilliant sking on almost empty slopes. The weekend when Cairngorm was heaving immediatly after the snowfalls iwas out localy on my tele kit touring on hills under 300m asl in 2 foot of powder (on top of not a lot - but it was grass rather than a boulder field )
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
There's a problem with the gap between perception and reality isn't there!
Climate change is happening and the vast majority of scientists (the reputable ones not paid by oil corporations or right wing think tanks at least!) accept that human activity is having some impact.
However, the problem IMHO lies with the way it's being reported and used politically by some. On the one hand you have the "we're all doomed" types and this seems to be the position much of the press take up, probably in a cynical attempt to sell more papers. On the other we have the head in the sand "they're a bunch of eco-loonies"/"it's a plot to tax us" types. Neither is helping a rational debate on the subject or helping find a sensible solution and frankly I wish both wouold get a grip and/or zip it!
Perception is important and if this is the case up in Inverness it's unsurprising that many in the south of England are completely unaware that, for example, Cairngorm last year had a longer season than some low level alpine resorts. It also doesn't help when the company running Cairngorm seem to have believed the over inflated hype and are downgrading winter sports and running down facilities as a result and doing no advertising whatsoever to counter these wrongheaded perceptions. Given this is it really any suprise if people are misinformed about Scottish snowsports?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
vast majority of scientists (the reputable ones not paid by oil corporations or right wing think tanks at least!) |
One would be mistaken to suppose that scientists (and their funders) not employed by corporations are without economic interests.
For every right-wing think tank, there's a left-wing one.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
laundryman wrote: |
For every right-wing think tank, there's a left-wing one. |
Ah but I suspect your definition of left-wing and mine would be markedly different
|
|
|
|
|
|
lets say its trua and global warming/climate/raining etc etc is as critial as the goverm=nemnt and the bbc would hav eus believe.. that we really have to ACT now or millions will drown/starve/burn/flood.. why dont they get serious about it.. ban all sales of all new cars over 1.3 litres in size for domestic use.. make public transport free at point of use.. ban all imports from countries with dirty energy supply like china. build 20 new nuclear reactors and sign up 100 year nuclear fuel contracts from australia and canada. build a massive cylce network.. build a new canal network.. on and on with difficult unpopular expensive decisions that we hav eto make now! or we are all doomed and some polar bears will drown.. hang on that sounds a bit tricky? lets stick to economic growth, talk a lot about it, do nothing but raise some dough from mr jones who has spent 20 years grafting to buy a 3 litre german sports car and does 3k miles a year in it.. whats that mrs smith drives 50 miles to work!! lets get that tax up! and she works in london thats another 8 quid lovely.. those browns going on holiday again, well lets have a piece of that, lets spend the money on more public proaganda about the unproveable so we can ban make people feel bad for daring to leave their t.v. on standby... if they were really concerned they would do something its a revenue raising control issue with all the toys being used.. look at the fuss about packaging.. (did they solve the problem by forcing companies to reduce packaging on non breakable goods like say gillette mach 7 razor blades? no they took the oppertunity to fine and tax normal people for not putting it in the right bin) , and as more people realise this the less they will care about the real solutions that technology can provide to make things more efficient and less polluting.. globsl warming my back bottom.. its global warming/climate/raining/flooding/evolution/taxing/control/doasisaynotasido ing..
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
CANV CANVINGTON, It would be a lot easier to read if you adopted the concept of sentences and paragraphs
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
alex_heney wrote: |
CANV CANVINGTON, It would be a lot easier to read if you adopted the concept of sentences and paragraphs |
Clearly he's worried CRLFs will get taxed soon.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
alex_heney wrote: |
CANV CANVINGTON, It would be a lot easier to read if you adopted the concept of sentences and paragraphs |
if i did that i'd still be typing it now
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Not sure I agree with the brain-washing tactic at school level but then the politicians have the same slant as well, it appears. which of course, means more opportunity to raise taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
CANV CANVINGTON, about sums it up.
There was a ridiculous advert for lenor Concentrated last night, with the line "if we all switched to using lenor concentrate, we could take 20,000 of our lorries of the road"
If you were really concerned - STOP MAKING THE LARGE BOTTLE STUFF
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
Boris, ... or if we all stopped using unnecessary fabric conditioner altogether ?
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
We'd all save a fair bit of cash.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
stuarth, like you, I cycle to work in the main. I resent paying increased tax just for having a gas-guzzler when I don't use it that much. CO2 emitted is proportional to the amount of fuel used and that's already taxed to the hilt!
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
4 out of 5 of the lead stories on the BBC science/nature home page are currently "climate change" related - plus a prominent link to the "Green Room", which is of course stuffed full of unchallenged eco-babble. That's hardly balanced coverage of science.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
stuarth, like you, I cycle to work in the main. I resent paying increased tax just for having a gas-guzzler when I don't use it that much. CO2 emitted is proportional to the amount of fuel used and that's already taxed to the hilt!
|
Too true. However, I feel we're all falling into the ecoloony trap by conducting the argument on their terms. If, like me, you remember the same proportion of scientists cr@pping themselves at the thought of global cooling in the 70s you will take global warming with a pinch of salt. Having said that, it is clear to me that we DO need to change the way we behave for 2 important reasons:-
1) The supply of fossil fuels is finite and will run out sometime.
2) If we carry on throwing away so much garbage we will find that potential landfill sites are also finite.
What this all means is that we should conserve energy, reduce waste and ski as much as we can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian, but but then the clothes would be funny when they came out the dryer
Or have I missed the point here
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Putting all the tax on fuel would be the sensible thing to do - that way the more fuel you use, whether through having a thirsty car or simply covering millions of miles, you'd pay for it.
However this will never be implemented as:
1. Its fair
2. Its sensible
3. IMO people would support that
4. It wouldn't take an army of civil servants to enforce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boris wrote: |
Putting all the tax on fuel would be the sensible thing to do - that way the more fuel you use, whether through having a thirsty car or simply covering millions of miles, you'd pay for it.
However this will never be implemented as:
1. Its fair
2. Its sensible
3. IMO people would support that
4. It wouldn't take an army of civil servants to enforce |
Agreed. Fails Government policy on every count.
|
|
|
|
|
|