 Poster: A snowHead
|
A director of research at the University of Savoie, and a vocal opponent of artificial snowmaking, is claiming that a conspiracy is active against her.
Carmen de Jong has much to say on the subject, in this report from The Sunday Times.
| Quote: |
| The trouble began when de Jong, a hydrologist at the University of Savoie in Chambéry, said two years ago that the artificial snow being produced by machines to cover increasingly bare ski slopes was bad for the environment. In a region that makes so much money from snow, it amounted to heresy. |
| Quote: |
Post often goes astray and calls are not put through to her from the switchboard. One of de Jong’s biggest humiliations was her discovery that she had been removed from the university’s website.“I don’t exist any more,” she said with a grin. “I have been electronically killed. They didn’t even send me a letter.”
|
Environmental objections to snowmaking have been raised on numerous occasions since its use in the Alps began to pick up in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Its use in North America goes back to earlier times, and it was tested in Scotland in the mid-1960s at a ski area (Mar Lodge) which failed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
She'll hate Tamworth its full of the stuff 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
She is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| stanton wrote: |
| She is right. |
the problem with the global warming debate is that right now there is very little debate. It is almost accepted wisdom and anyone suggesting otherwise is an idiot.
it's almost a religion now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I would have thought that extending the ski season by covering the lower slopes with artificial snow would reduce global warming. You are cooling the ground and preventing cows from grazing on the pastures, and as we all know cows produce methane which is one of the worst greenhouse gases.
And, if they are interested for the Russkis:-
подумал что продлевать сезон лыжи путем покрывать более низкие наклоны с искусственним снежком уменьшит глобальное потепление, вы охлаждайте землю и предотвращайте коров от пасти на выгонах, и общеизвестно коровы производят метан который один из самых плохих газов оранжереи. Авторское право 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
pistemeister, It does not matter whether the cows are kept inside or outside they still fart. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pistemeister,  cause no power is needed to make the snow to begin with right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She'll love this spreadsheet I have open just now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
this year a number of poster appeared all over LDA telling us that 100% of the water used in the snowmakers was returned to the earth (no surprise there) - no mention of any chemicals though. The posters are sponsored by the manufacturers of the cannons.
I have to say that putting cannons on very high slopes (at VT they go up to almost 3,000m) seems a bit excessive to me, but having them on lower slopes would seem to be essential as most skiers now seem to want 'designer snow' to go with the 'designer weather' on their holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| easiski wrote: |
this year a number of poster appeared all over LDA telling us that 100% of the water used in the snowmakers was returned to the earth (no surprise there) - no mention of any chemicals though. The posters are sponsored by the manufacturers of the cannons.
I have to say that putting cannons on very high slopes (at VT they go up to almost 3,000m) seems a bit excessive to me, but having them on lower slopes would seem to be essential as most skiers now seem to want 'designer snow' to go with the 'designer weather' on their holiday. |
whats designer weather?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
mugen, blue skies and sun. Just like in the brochures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| mugen, blue skies and sun. Just like in the brochures. |
ah i guessed that was what was meant.
personally i like a variation. noting like skiing thru low cloud
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mugen, I have a feeling that many punters expect there holidays to be as brochures, and feel peeved if that is not what they get. Whereas in practice the mountain does what the mountain does. Over the years, things balance out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| mugen, I have a feeling that many punters expect there holidays to be as brochures, and feel peeved if that is not what they get. Whereas in practice the mountain does what the mountain does. Over the years, things balance out. |
to be honest it is nice to ski on a sunny day, but i always feel you get more satisfaction from skiing when the conditions are grotty.. but that just may be me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| mugen wrote: |
| stanton wrote: |
| She is right. |
the problem with the global warming debate is that right now there is very little debate. It is almost accepted wisdom and anyone suggesting otherwise is an idiot.
it's almost a religion now |
Well, why would there need to be a debate about the science? Nobody feels the need to have a debate about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (except for free energy cranks) or evolution (excepts for creationists). The science has been done and it's conclusive. None of the so-called sceptics have been able to provide any good scientific arguments to support their anti-AGW stance and it's hardly surprising, the whole movement is made up of clowns like Monckton and non-experts like David Bellamy. The famous Imhofe list of 'climate scientists' that are anti-AGW turns out not to include many climate scientists but 44 TV weathermen:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| stanton wrote: |
| She is right. |
the problem with the global warming debate is that right now there is very little debate. It is almost accepted wisdom and anyone suggesting otherwise is an idiot.
it's almost a religion now |
Well, why would there need to be a debate about the science? Nobody feels the need to have a debate about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (except for free energy cranks) or evolution (excepts for creationists). The science has been done and it's conclusive. None of the so-called sceptics have been able to provide any good scientific arguments to support their anti-AGW stance and it's hardly surprising, the whole movement is made up of clowns like Monckton and non-experts like David Bellamy. The famous Imhofe list of 'climate scientists' that are anti-AGW turns out not to include many climate scientists but 44 TV weathermen:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008 |
you prove my point, such arrogance. Only cranks and clowns would argue as you say. so anyone at all with debate is an idiot. i assume that includes Freeman dyson.
For hundreds of years it was taken as fact that the earth was the center of the universe, those who opposed were also cranks.
Basically what your saying is anyone disagreeing wiht you is an idiot.
the vatican are looking for your type..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
The posters about artificial snow in our area stress the fact that there aren't any chemicals added. It certainly uses power (except in resorts like Areches beaufort where all the cannons are gravity fed) but then so do all the lifts, the fact that we are living at very silly altitudes and keeping our rooms warm, and having hot showers. Even swimming pools - can't imagine how much power they use when it's minusalot outside. Is artificial snow any worse than other power-guzzling aspects of skiing? And possibly some sports guzzle more "power per participant"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Hang on, I'm arrogant for pointing out that there is no scientific evidence for the anti-AGW argument? All you need to do is provide one piece of peer reviewed evidence to support your position. Just one. Otherwise your position is one of faith, isn't it? Almost religious I'd say. Personally I think those who argue the anti-AGW line without understanding the science are breathtakingly arrogant.
It's not enough to play the 'they thought Copernicus was a crank' card, you also have to be right, like he was. He came up with the testable hypothesis of heliocentrism which the evidence supported. The anti-AGWers have come up with...erm, nada.
Freeman Dyson did some incredibly good work. His climate change musings are vaguely thought provoking but generally not so good, but then there's no reason why they would, it's not his field. That's science for you - evidence is more important than reputation.
If the weight of evidence changes (and in this case I doubt it will) I'd change my mind like a shot. Not the kind of thinking the Vatican are looking for. I'm not sure that they'd be that keen on ex-Catholic athiest rationalists who despise their medieval worldview anyway.
I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I get disagreed with all the time for a living and it's how we make progress. Arguing without evidence is just pointless though. In this case the debate amongst scientists is over and has been for a long time. It's just the cranks and armchair critics that haven't caught up. The lobbyists have but are doing their best to spread 'doubt'. Oh, and the relgious fruitcakes are on a different planet completely but unfortunately have a frightening amount of influence:
http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/967630
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Seany wrote: |
Hang on, I'm arrogant for pointing out that there is no scientific evidence for the anti-AGW argument? All you need to do is provide one piece of peer reviewed evidence to support your position. Just one. Otherwise your position is one of faith, isn't it? Almost religious I'd say. Personally I think those who argue the anti-AGW line without understanding the science are breathtakingly arrogant.
It's not enough to play the 'they thought Copernicus was a crank' card, you also have to be right, like he was. He came up with the testable hypothesis of heliocentrism which the evidence supported. The anti-AGWers have come up with...erm, nada.
Freeman Dyson did some incredibly good work. His climate change musings are vaguely thought provoking but generally not so good, but then there's no reason why they would, it's not his field. That's science for you - evidence is more important than reputation.
If the weight of evidence changes (and in this case I doubt it will) I'd change my mind like a shot. Not the kind of thinking the Vatican are looking for. I'm not sure that they'd be that keen on ex-Catholic athiest rationalists who despise their medieval worldview anyway.
I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I get disagreed with all the time for a living and it's how we make progress. Arguing without evidence is just pointless though. In this case the debate amongst scientists is over and has been for a long time. It's just the cranks and armchair critics that haven't caught up. The lobbyists have but are doing their best to spread 'doubt'. Oh, and the relgious fruitcakes are on a different planet completely but unfortunately have a frightening amount of influence:
http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/967630 |
there is still not a complete consensus.. funding is not given if you are trying to disprove global warming. incidently how do you get to where you ski.
or are you all mouth and no trousers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
That'll be those pesky scientists again, working things out based on the evidence. Tsk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
Hang on, I'm arrogant for pointing out that there is no scientific evidence for the anti-AGW argument? All you need to do is provide one piece of peer reviewed evidence to support your position. Just one. Otherwise your position is one of faith, isn't it? Almost religious I'd say. Personally I think those who argue the anti-AGW line without understanding the science are breathtakingly arrogant.
It's not enough to play the 'they thought Copernicus was a crank' card, you also have to be right, like he was. He came up with the testable hypothesis of heliocentrism which the evidence supported. The anti-AGWers have come up with...erm, nada.
Freeman Dyson did some incredibly good work. His climate change musings are vaguely thought provoking but generally not so good, but then there's no reason why they would, it's not his field. That's science for you - evidence is more important than reputation.
If the weight of evidence changes (and in this case I doubt it will) I'd change my mind like a shot. Not the kind of thinking the Vatican are looking for. I'm not sure that they'd be that keen on ex-Catholic athiest rationalists who despise their medieval worldview anyway.
I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I get disagreed with all the time for a living and it's how we make progress. Arguing without evidence is just pointless though. In this case the debate amongst scientists is over and has been for a long time. It's just the cranks and armchair critics that haven't caught up. The lobbyists have but are doing their best to spread 'doubt'. Oh, and the relgious fruitcakes are on a different planet completely but unfortunately have a frightening amount of influence:
http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/967630 |
also it just occured to me, putting lists of people that disagree. isn't that a bit.. well.. burn any books lately??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mugen, have you had a chat about Aids with Thabo Mbeki?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| mugen wrote: |
| there is still not a complete consensus.. funding is not given if you are trying to disprove global warming. |
There's a handy little phrase we like to use at work, 'evidence or stfu'. You've made some unsubstantiated claims that it would be pointless to debate unless you have some evidence.
| mugen wrote: |
| incidently how do you get to where you ski. or are you all mouth and no trousers. |
You're conflating my defence of the science with my response to it. Try and focus on the first bit, the second is not really relevant to what we were discussing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| mugen, have you had a chat about Aids with Thabo Mbeki? |
please clarify before i answer. i'm unsure what you are insinuating
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| there is still not a complete consensus.. funding is not given if you are trying to disprove global warming. |
There's a handy little phrase we like to use at work, 'evidence or stfu'. You've made some unsubstantiated claims that it would be pointless to debate unless you have some evidence.
| mugen wrote: |
| incidently how do you get to where you ski. or are you all mouth and no trousers. |
You're conflating my defence of the science with my response to it. Try and focus on the first bit, the second is not really relevant to what we were discussing. |
surely if you believe that global warming is happening then you should stop adding to it. please explain why you dont
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| mugen wrote: |
| also it just occured to me, putting lists of people that disagree. isn't that a bit.. well.. burn any books lately?? |
It was an anti-AGWer, Inhofe, who came up with the list to demonstrate how many climate scientists disputed AGW. When the list was scrutinised it turned out that it was a list of non-climate scientists. What a joke! As is your attempt to equate those that agree with the AGW science as Nazis. Have you heard of Godwin's Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| also it just occured to me, putting lists of people that disagree. isn't that a bit.. well.. burn any books lately?? |
It was an anti-AGWer, Inhofe, who came up with the list to demonstrate how many climate scientists disputed AGW. When the list was scrutinised it turned out that it was a list of non-climate scientists. What a joke! As is your attempt to equate those that agree with the AGW science as Nazis. Have you heard of Godwin's Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law |
heard of goodwins law, but i never meantioned nazi's. you did.
so far you are far from debating
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| mugen wrote: |
| surely if you believe that global warming is happening then you should stop adding to it. please explain why you dont |
Two things. One, stick to point. Two, stick to the point. Technically I realise that is only point but I thought it was so important it was worth making it twice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| mugen wrote: |
heard of goodwins law, but i never meantioned nazi's. you did.
so far you are far from debating |
Book burning, Nazis, reasonable assumption.
I started the 'debate' by asking for a single piece of peer reviewed research to support the anti-AGW position. You didn't provide any. You reckoned that there isn't any because there isn't any funding. I asked for evidence. You haven't given me any. You then changed the subject to talk about my travel habits. Whch are not relevant to the state of the science. I asked you to stay on topic.
I think I'm holding up my end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
heard of goodwins law, but i never meantioned nazi's. you did.
so far you are far from debating |
Book burning, Nazis, reasonable assumption.
I started the 'debate' by asking for a single piece of peer reviewed research to support the anti-AGW position. You didn't provide any. You reckoned that there isn't any because there isn't any funding. I asked for evidence. You haven't given me any. You then changed the subject to talk about my travel habits. Whch are not relevant to the state of the science. I asked you to stay on topic.
I think I'm holding up my end. |
ok.. lets try a different tack..
what your saying is that if no one else agrees with something then it is wrong.
starting from basics, i'm not a scientist..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Since most of the energy going into French snow making will be hydro-electric or nuclear, I can't see that 'global warming' comes into the thread discussion. An earlier report of de Yong's argument against artificial snow noted that:
| Quote: |
| The water used for the snow is typically taken from surface streams, artificial reservoirs and ground reserves. Up to a third of water used evaporates and drifts to other regions. As a result, the water level of rivers in some regions has fallen by 70 per cent. |
I think there may be something in that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Let's try the debate thing again.
| mugen wrote: |
| there is still not a complete consensus.. |
If there's not a complete consensus, who are the credible experts with a convincing anti-AGW hypothesis? (I'll give you some help here, you can cross Freeman Dyson off the list. And Viscount Monckton. And Christopher Booker. And Nigel Lawson)
| mugen wrote: |
| funding is not given if you are trying to disprove global warming. |
Do you have any good evidence to back up this statement? Do you understand how scientific research works and is funded? Don't you think that the big oil companies would be able to find a few quid to support some research that would allow the world to breathe a sigh of relief and carry on buying their products with a clear conscience? They bankroll plenty of lobbyists, if they thought there was a credible anti-AGW hypothesis I'm pretty sure they'd be able to find similar sums for scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| mugen wrote: |
| ok.. lets try a different tack..what your saying is that if no one else agrees with something then it is wrong. |
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying if you want to get to an approximation of the truth you need empirical evidence, not dogma. I change my mind all the time in the face of new evidence, in this case all the good evidence supports AGW. If you have some better evidence I'd be happy to see it.
It's possible for one person to be thought of as a crank but be right. The point is, they have to be right. And they need to be able to prove they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Seany wrote: |
Let's try the debate thing again.
| mugen wrote: |
| there is still not a complete consensus.. |
If there's not a complete consensus, who are the credible experts with a convincing anti-AGW hypothesis? (I'll give you some help here, you can cross Freeman Dyson off the list. And Viscount Monckton. And Christopher Booker. And Nigel Lawson)
| mugen wrote: |
| funding is not given if you are trying to disprove global warming. |
Do you have any good evidence to back up this statement? Do you understand how scientific research works and is funded? Don't you think that the big oil companies would be able to find a few quid to support some research that would allow the world to breathe a sigh of relief and carry on buying their products with a clear conscience? They bankroll plenty of lobbyists, if they thought there was a credible anti-AGW hypothesis I'm pretty sure they'd be able to find similar sums for scientists. |
if big oil wanted to, as you say, stop it in it's tracks then surely they could. after all they have the funds.
let me explain my point of view. that way you will understand, hopefully, where i'm coming from.
when i was a kid (1970's) we were told we were heading for a new ice age. a few years later we are now going to burn up.
far years many ignored the elephant in the room, population.. previously disease and war controlled that. not saying it's right or wrong.. just saying.
now we have governments across the world looking for new ways to tax people. they are after all running out of excuses.
then suddenty GW, then changed to climate change as global warming for some in the winter sounds a bit ok.
so i'm sceptical. after all data can mean anything.
So far i'm not convinced. greedy governments trump big oil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| ok.. lets try a different tack..what your saying is that if no one else agrees with something then it is wrong. |
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying if you want to get to an approximation of the truth you need empirical evidence, not dogma. I change my mind all the time in the face of new evidence, in this case all the good evidence supports AGW. If you have some better evidence I'd be happy to see it.
It's possible for one person to be thought of as a crank but be right. The point is, they have to be right. And they need to be able to prove they are. |
you hit on something here.. currently i believe science does use dogma, like religion. for me if everyone is saying it then where is the alternative and is anyone willing to listen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mugen, so is your position is based on a healthy scepticism rather than familiarity with the science?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| mugen, so is your position is based on a healthy scepticism rather than familiarity with the science? |
scepticism and concern that we are going to impoverish a generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| mugen wrote: |
if big oil wanted to, as you say, stop it in it's tracks then surely they could. after all they have the funds.
let me explain my point of view. that way you will understand, hopefully, where i'm coming from.
when i was a kid (1970's) we were told we were heading for a new ice age. a few years later we are now going to burn up.
far years many ignored the elephant in the room, population.. previously disease and war controlled that. not saying it's right or wrong.. just saying.
now we have governments across the world looking for new ways to tax people. they are after all running out of excuses.
then suddenty GW, then changed to climate change as global warming for some in the winter sounds a bit ok.
so i'm sceptical. after all data can mean anything.
So far i'm not convinced. greedy governments trump big oil. |
There wasn't a global cooling consensus in the 70s and there wasn't GW 'suddenly'. It was the product of a lot of science over a long period of time. Maybe it appeared to be sudden to you because of how it was featured in the media.
Governments don't need excuses to tax, they have executive power. And if they did, why do (some of them) give tax breaks to green technology and tax fossil fuels so heavily? And why do some of them (the Bush government springs to mind) push back on AGW?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
| you hit on something here.. currently i believe science does use dogma, like religion. for me if everyone is saying it then where is the alternative and is anyone willing to listen |
The key word here is 'believe'. Have you got any evidence that you base your position on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
