Volcanoes and other super natural events worry me more than the SUV drivers in this country. In fact lets put China on that list as well -- a country undergoing an industrial boom that has NO environmental protection.

The reason I can't *SUPPORT* global warming [as it is described right now as the sole fault of human progression] is due to the fact that volcanoes, etc. put one heck of a lot of pollution in the atmosphere. BUT, on a more micro level our inability to predict weather for 3-6 months (i.e. this winter so far) OR predict weather 3-5 days leads me to believe our society does not quite understand how "weather" really works.

Actually i did research on the global warming topic for a research paper for the past few years. My own results (not that of anyone else) showed that between 1920-1970's there was a severe warming trend. However, since then there has been little if any warming trend. Also, the effects of global warming would be overwhelmingly good. For example, it will mean more farmable conditions for canada and russia. However, the downside will be that places like Venice Italy and other places at seal level will have to deal with the rising water. But mostly global warming is not something to worry about.

Global Warming "overwhelmingly good"? "Not something to worry about"? langleyskiier, I'm afraid that I must strongly disagree with your assessment of Global Warming. Among other things, Global Warming is believed to be the cause of severe droughts, especially the current drought in much of Africa. Also, a significant part of the world's fresh water supply originates from the annual (partial) melting of glaciers; now most of the world's glaciers are in serious decline or have almost melted away completely. The oceans are now rising at an alarming rate; keep in mind that most of the World's population lives at or near sea level. And finally, you are VERY WRONG if you think that there has been "very little" warming since the 1970's; 5 of the warmest years on record have occurred since 1990!

Nothing like a lively debate about the merits of global warming on a ski forum... Refreshing optimism MM...

MM, the glaciers in the temperate zones are in by far the gravest danger. These zones are also where most of the current farming is going on. For example, Glacier National Park in MT. In these temperate zone glaciers, they are not expected to last more than 50-100 years. See them now. And take pics. When our kids are old they won't be there any more.

this really isn't a topic that has anything to do with optimisim / pesimisim. The Frans Josef glacier (the only glacier at sea level in the southern hemisphere) has been receeding for over 100 years. When I toured that area I sawa progression of pictures form 1850 - 1990 which showed the glaciers extent from right on top of the liocation I was on to some 6 miles distant.

Actually the greatest danger at the moment is with the mid-Atlantic "glaciers" located at the barren arctic peaks of Whitetail, Snowshoe, 7 Springs, etc.

While we all contemplate the impending doom of our planet and race, let us rejoice in that the weather forecasts are starting to predict a reprieve from the apocalypse. Weather channel and Accuweather are both showing a return to normal temps by the 15th. I think this could slip back a few days- their forecasts usually do- but actually Accuweather was originally saying the cold air wouldn't return until the 16th, now they're saying the 14th, so they're currently moving it up. Weather channel seems to be splitting the difference.

It's just a forecast, and you know those whacky weathermen- they can't predict weather patterns 50 years from now, much less six days. Anyway, another hope to hang out hat on...

cheechman32, optimism or not, my views on Global Warming simply reflect the most recent science and the current Global Warming assessment by the vast majory of the scientific community World-Wide.

Well said, MM - the fact that five of the ten warmest years ever recorded (while written records were kept) occurred since 1990; the arctic climate report; and the overall PACE of global warming should be an indication that something beyond "natural" cycles is going on. Given the amount of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere by power plants, manufacturing facilities and the pace of deforestation, there SHOULD be concern about human influences on global climate. Does this mean we should panic? Hardly. But looking at methods for reducing C02 as well as other emissions is a good idea. As far as who pays - well, it wouldn't hurt the richest economy in the world to start paying a bit more for gas, lumber, power and other commodities, as well as practicing conservation. And maybe if we want up and coming nations like China and India to be more environmentally conscious, we could help them with pollution control technology. Heck, there could even be a business opportunity in licensing technology overseas.

I heard once that more greenhouse gases are released in one volcano eruption than man has emitted over our entire polluting existence.

I hate SUV's but not because of pollution, I just hate 95% of the people that drive them, ie. college freshmen thug wanna bees who's parents bought them one, or soccer moms that can't park in a single space at WalMart. I do hate the fact that they avoid the same emissions standards that cars adhere to.

As far as whether Global Warming is good or bad, just ask anyone that's been to a Mexico boarder town if they want it any hotter down there. I've been there on countless mission trips and let me tell ya, the word of Christ won't be coming from this guy down there if it gets any hotter. To say that global warming will allow more farmland in Canada and Russia is quite silly since it will also promote the expansion of the deserts at an equal or greater rate.

I think we are in a general warming trend regardless of any man made component. The real question is whether there is a man made component that is increasing or disturbing this natural equiliberium and what will the ramications of this be to us. I can't argue any particular point but there seems to be BROAD general international scientific agreement that there is a man induced component to the natural cycle whose probable effects are not completely clear or well understood. Nonetheless *likely* results of our man made component are vast changes to our current environment as we know it in a time span too short to adjust to smoothly. As such, I think we should strongly consider the root causes of these man made constributions and adjust them to get them back to the norm as closely as possible. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that basic statement -- but what has happened is the scientific debate has become politicized and folks start talking about SUVs and jobs and so on, which are mostly arguments coming from specific groups and their own immediate economic self interests.

You want to reduce SUV's hike gas prices to European levels i.e. about $4.50 to $5/gallon and see how popular small cars, hybrids ad diesel engines become. When each trip to the pump costs $100 and your monthly vehicle costs equals or exceeds your mortgage/rent it's time to reconsider. In Ireland a country often seen to be backward I survived happily without a car for all of my college life and several years of my professional life. Public transport is pretty reliable, plentiful and affordable.

The problem is we are all upset about no cold temps and snow. We look for a scapegoat. The forecasters all told us earlier this year that this would be a great year for skiing.....baloney! So we try to blame it on global warming....more baloney. The weather forecasters told us we would have a good winter, but we are not seeing that, so it must be some hidden mechanism.....baloney again. Any first year meteorologist will tell you there is absolutely no scientific substantiation for global warming. The years 1000-1300 (Vikings were settling and farming in Greenland) were globally much warmer than the last 300 years overall. What was driving that warmup....too many farm animals? Global warming is political not scientific. In the 1970s it was Global cooling. It is simply an attempt to push a socialistic agenda into a scientific imperative. Your theory "it must be greenhouse gas" formed by your hypothesis "the world is getting warmer" cannot be proved by looking at one decade out of thousands. Being environmentally conscientious does not make you more enlightened than everyone else....just a better steward of the God given resources - BTW Ullr is a myth!

So I personally plan to enjoy the blessings we have been given by spending time hiking, fishing and enjoying my family, until the snow and cold returns and then you will find me on skis.....I'll be the one shouting and cheering as I go by in freefall!

There are several underlying assumptions about global warming that are epistemologically questionable. The first is that stasis is the expected outcome, and a slight corrolary to that would be that deviations from stasis should not or ought not cause disruptions to the environment that have an impact on life. The second assumption is that we have reached a stage where we can understand the difference between a normal and non-normal deviation. The third is that we have the understanding of the energy cycle to create extrapolations from simplified models that will accurately project future weather trends. The final assumption is that in order to *do* anything about these trends, we need to change human systems and the way development has occurred for the last millenium.

Any one of these assumptions is shaky in and of themselves, but added together they are more articles of faith than they are of science. I asked earlier- what evidence could occur that would show that global warming is NOT happening? Scientific systems in general are a symbolic and conceptual understanding of the way nature functions and are thus subjective understandings of objective criteria. I see no dichotomy between science and human understanding with global warming-- whatever the objective criteria happens to be (in this case, name a weather pattern) is proof of the subjective theory. Global warming can't be defined other than to point to deviations from normal and say "that's it!" This also becomes self-reinforcing: evidence that might be contrary to the accepted theory is dismissed (such as satellite data that shows no change in global temperatures) or subsumed (such as declining temperatures in the Antarctic) into the theory. Meanwhile questionable assumptions (such as the objectivity and universality of weather measurements for the last 150 years) are considered unquestionable.

All of this is well and good from a hypothetical point of view, but given the impacts that people are being asked to undertake- and since there is a high correlation between energy use and economic development- there are real moral hazards here. To put it in blunt terms: limiting economic development means no warning systems for tsunamis. It means starvation in Africa is acceptable to the alternative. It means the improvement of health care for the lengthening of lifespans and reduction in infant mortality is a problem, not a solution. Like any creature on earth, we cannot have an increase in global population while reducing aggregate energy consumption. The alternative to making increased energy consumption more efficient through technological advance (eg- the status quo) is to make life better in developing nations at our expense, or to leave things as they are at their expense. It's the logic of a positive-sum outcome versus a zero-sum outcome, and given the questionable assumptions underlying global warming as a policy debate, I'm happy to side with the former.

To the extent that we can adapt, then changes in weather patterns will have a neutral to positive effect on our species. For the human race, adaptation is a function of technological growth that results from economic development. Thus limits on economic growth undermine the ability to develop technology, and hence limit our adaptability. Therefore I would submit that attempts to control the environment by limiting or subsuming portions of our economic development are likely to increase, rather than decrease, risk from deviations in climate.

Incidentally, most European nations that signed the Kyoto protocol are not going to be able to make their emissions caps. If Europe- with it's stagnant welfare economies and vast public transportation systems- can't limit energy use, why should India, China, or the U.S. attempt it in any way other than to continue technological development?

Nope, I think most SUV drivers are really too stuborn to give in to gas prices. I worked for a guy that always complained about how he and his wife could barely break even and yada yada. They owned a Turbo Diesel duely pickup for work (he needed it) and an Expidition for the family (2 kids). He did nothing but complain about prices of gas and diesel and his car payments and such. So whats he do when the Expedition starts giving him problems? Nope, he didn't buy a mid sized 4 door sedan or a minivan for the family, he bought his wife a FULL SIZE CREW CAB DUELLY PICKUP!!!!! Yeah, now she is driving alone to her office job everyday in her full size duelly pickup. And they bought the thing when prices were still 2 bucks a gallon gas. This thing is diesel and diesel is STILL 2 bucks a gallon. Its amazing how much people can complain without listening to a word they're actually saying.

Its just amazing how 30 years ago we were all driving huge lead sleds, in the 80's we were like, "man, why were we driving those impractical things?" and now, they jacked them up, put off road tires on them, tinted the windows, and chromed the rims and everyone is like "But I NEED an SUV to haul my cell phone and latte in." Stupid Yuppies. And don't even mention those sissies driving around in H2's all acting like their tough and military like. Those pansies are the same ones that would dodge the draft needed to staff the war to secure the rediculous amounts of oil needed to fuel that pathetic means of compensation.

Oh, and if you are one of the 95% that drive an SUV and shouldn't I DO mean to offend you. :P

Wow RogerZ, I never knew you were so edumecated.

To get back to local warming...thing that ticked me off this morning when I left the house was TV weatherman saying that low temps in some DC area locations were around 40F, while the 6am temp at Elkins WV was 59F! Is that right?!
I think temps may drop tonight, maybe allowing some snowmaking at some areas before the next monsoon?

JR,

My wife drives an Expedition and I drive a Non-SUV. A couple of years ago, she and our four kids were rear ended by someone driving a Prius (well actually it was Honda, but a Prius makes for a better story). The car was totaled and the two occupants were taken to the hospital with numerous injuries. After dealing with the police she continued on her way with her bent bumper. This accident happened right before we were to go on vacation. We had to rent a minivan to go on vacation. Ever try to get four car seats and all of your stuff in a minivan? It doesn't work. The minivan got terrible gas mileage and are not very safe. We make at least four ski trips to WV and a trip to Vermont every year. Ever drive a minivan in the mountains? Ever drive a minivan in the snow? How about a minivan in the snow in the mountains with four kids? It just isn't safe.

You seem to be pretty smart, what do you recommend we drive? Can't fit four car seats in a Hummer.

If you really want to make a difference in reducing emissions call your congressman and have them put pressure on China to join or at least adhere to the Kyoto agreement. I have a friend that just returned from China, he said the sky is always orange and people wear SARS masks every day when they are outside. So I don't beleive that SUV's are the cause of all the emissions in China given the fact that rickshaws (sp?) don't put out much emissions.

As an engineer, I would say those folks (generally right wingers who's only interest is the almighty dollar)who doubt that global warming is occurring should apply some common sense! What are fossil fuels? They are simply hundreds of millions of years of stored solar enery! When you take hundreds of millions of years of stored energy, burn it inefficiently and exhaust the immense by products into the atmosphere, it IS going to have an effect. Period. Only the Rush Limbaughs of the world don't have the commons sense to recognize this. As long as we have a fossil fuel based energy system and economy, we are going to be adding these by products (carbon dioxide and many others) to the atmosphere. And since we all know who's running the country right now, I doubt it's going to change any time soon. Actually, in the short term it probably doesn't make a difference who's running the country because while the USA makes up 2% of the worlds population, we burn 50% of the worlds energy. For all you folks that drive Hummer's...thanks. I think tha questions we should focus on is not if there is global warming but how severe is it and what can we do about it. In the short tern we'll have skiing here in the Mid-Atlantic however, in the long term, if we continue on our current path, we may need to move to Canada if we want to ski.

Ullr is not a myth. I met him earlier in the season before he went on vacation. If he hears you've been putting him down well you can just forget about ever seeing snow again.

Hey, like I said, 95% of the people that drive them shouldn't. There are certain people that need them, ie people that have trailers or boats that they take on vacation where they have to carry all their family, bags, and a trailer. That makes sense. When you have big families and travel alot with lots of bags it makes sense. For example, the families that had a suburban in the 80's before they were cool, they are the type that need them. The problem arrives when people drive them on their 50 minute commute through the city to look cool when they don't ever really use the 4 wheel drive or towing capability. Or the people who have 2 adolescent kids. Why do they need it. Sure, you may use 4wd when it snows big those 5 days in the city but you could have a subaru all the same.I have an aunt and uncle (4 kids) that traded her minivan in on a Tahoe cause she liked being up high and not driving a minivan before the days of the 3rd row seat. Now 2 of her kids share a seat belt cause there aren't enough seats for them all.

As for the damage done to the Honda, that is one of the biggest safety issues on the road right now. Families are buying these things cause they survive wrecks better but the only reason a lot of wrecks are so bad now is because half the people are driving those things. Us poor poeople in Honda's are getting obliterated when hit by those things. If said Honda had rear ended another Honda the damage would have been dispersed more evenly, the lower mass of the rear ended car would have reduced total impact, and the injuries would have probably been reduced. I'm not blaming you or anyone else really for this rediculous trend, its just that, a rediculous trend. People need to step up and realize it as just that.

And one last question, if it doesn't work to use a minivan or something else for most people, how did we do it in the 80's early 90's at all. Sure, maybe its more comfortable to have such a nice large vehicle for these trips but had some of the most fun times in my life crammed in a VW bug with 5 other people for a 1 hour drive. Use some serious deoderant and appreciate the togetherness. Didn't the Brady Bunch get 8 of them around (11 if you count Alice, cousin Nermal (name?) and the dog) in a station wagon. I think they even drove that thing to Hawaii once didn't they.

I thought Nermal was that cute kitten in Garfield . Don't rember any cousins in the Brady Bunch.

Ok, let me try to simplify. The world changes, sometimes dramatically, both geologically and meterologically. In fact, what's the real pt anyway when the sun is bound to go to super nova at some distant pt in the future after turning into a red giant and consuming the entire solar system as we know it -- but hey that's way off.
What we have now is system in a natural state of equiliberium -- this does not mean stasis btw. and we have gone off and added another variable -- you and me, and millions of us doing things to this system. And the data SUGGESTS, perhaps strongly (perhaps not) -- that this will have profound effects on the system as we understand it. Is it not therefore logical to spend a little money on the underlying factors which WE KNOW HOW TO FIX OR CHANGE vs waiting until it is absolutely clear that we have changed the world's weather patterns and not really know how to fix things or bring them back a norm? I mean, I guess it doesn't really matter to me, what with that impending super nova and all, but whilst here I'd at least like to breath CLEANER air, and maybe enjoy a bit of skiing. BUT if you really would rather not then what's it really matter anyway.

SCWVA,
I own a Mini-Van (Ford Windstar) that I use to go to Snowshoe 3-4 times a season and Canaan/T-Line 1-2 times. I have really never had any problems. I have a Yakima ski 6 pack ski rack that I put on my factory roof rack. I pile the stuff in the back and off we go. I do have chains in case things get real slippery but I've not yet needed them. I'm not sure why you say they're not safe Also, I get about 25mpg on the highway and about 18mpg in the city and during mountain-climbing. Not too bad for a 4200lb beast with a 200HP 3.8 V6...

-Warren-

Sorry, it was cousin Oliver and dog Tiger. And apparently, their home town had been so overwhelmed with the significant warming trend and drought from the 70's that their back yard had been scorched and they had to replace the soil with artificial turf in order to keep Tiger from getting all dusty.

For all you guys that really belive that global warming is real - you need to chill out. Maybe go to tahoe or something. When there is a cold spell over the area and all the resorts are doing great, I dont hear a thing about "Global warming". If anything, I hear about how all the people that say global warming is real when it is hot out and then wher the artic freeze returns, all the ones that previously said global warming was real then start to talk about how the idea of global warming is so stupid.
Next cold spell, all you environmentalists will be saying just that - "Global warming is sucg a stupid idea. What type of freak would really belive that".

My 2-cents on Global Warming:

Various methods of examining historic climate data (ice-cores, tree rings, evidence of rising and falling sea water levels, etc) have shown that over thousands of years, the Earth's climate has undergone a number of cooling and warming cycles. That represents what is probably a natural, cyclical variation in temperature.

On the other hand, we humans have been recording reliable temperature data for about 130 years (140 years max). I'll be the first to admit that temperatures during those 130-140 years have shown an upward trend.

But given the much larger historical picture of cyclical variation, how can anyone say with any degree of certainty that the most recent 130 years IS NOT simply part of the natural variation? 130 years is a very timy fraction of 10,000-20,000 years.

For those of you already groaning, Yes I drive an SUV (Toyota 4Runner). I used to drive a Geo Metro (3 cylinders), but we simply outgrew it.

What "freak" would believe global warming? How about the 300 leading scientists from the countries of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America that make up the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC)? Their recent report on an extensive four-year study concluded that global warming was occurring and was most acutely felt in the Artic region. The results of this warming include the increase, frequency, and severity of droughts, higher disease rates, loss of entire ecosystems, and other negative impacts - hardly a "good" thing. I tend to believe the conclusions of the IASC over that of "any first year meteorologist."

That said, I'm also in agreement with JR. Do we really HAVE to prove that global warming is a fact BEFORE we start to reduce harmful air emissions from power plants, manufacturing facilities and other sources? Doesn't it make SENSE to want to ensure that we minimize air pollutants to the extent possible? If the trade-off for cleaner air (and less asthma, ozone alert days, smog, pollution) is a few bucks more on the utility bill or gas bill, shouldn't we, as members of the richest nation on earth, be willing to shell that out?

As for cars, I honestly believe in freedom of choice as to what vehicles folks want to drive. Nobody in the U.S. should be dictating what another person's "needs" truly are with respect to automotive transportation. This is still America, afterall! That said, folks that drive large SUV's like the Expedition or H2 shouldn't be complaining about gas prices, high insurance, maintenance costs, etc. - you knew what you were getting into when you bought the vehicle! In addition, there's nothing wrong with having appropriate emission standards and incentives to improve the fuel economy of those vehicles.

Can't but the trend is outside the norms given the historical data we do have, and we understand the system well enough to model it and since we know the major or many of the inputs, we can fiddle around with the model and map results. So, we pump X more tons of greenhouses gases into the atmosphere and the model shows it will have a effect over time, at least we can all agree it will not have any effect whatsoever even if the model is imperfect, a non-zero effect is assured. Therefore, the conclusion should be that we should reign in those input factors we do control -- we can do, we understand what to do and we have the current technology to do it (more or less). We could wait -- sure, let's wait until it is just DANG obvious to everyone and we live in a desert (or underwater or whatever) but by then we *probably* don't know how to fix it. It would be MUCH simpler and vastly cheaper to put a little money up front, and reduce the input factors that we do understand and can model now to reduce any effect we are *likely* to have in the future.. SIMPLE as pie. Sorry no absolutes here, just probabilities -- think of it as betting to win, place or show.

When the next major volcanoe blocks out the sun (it happened about 150 years ago) I will cease to hear more of this discussion.

I personally fear natures influence on our environment moreso than ours, at least presently.

But that's not really the pt, of course natural factors are the biggest component in our natural system. it's just our "unnatural" ones we have to worry 'bout -- well that is, what we have to worry about are the ramifactions of our actions that we can't control -- them we can do something about. But volcanoes blocking out the sun -- that we can do nothing about.

Snowmaker - hate to say it ...but typical snow boarder. Read my previous post. But you are right about one thing, we don't hink much about global warming unless our snow is melting and we can't ski (or board).
Signed
Gray on a Tray

I believe in the freedom of choice in cars that comes with being the free and great nation that we are. Its unfortunate though that a severe decrease in common sense seems to occur when a country becomes as rich as this one. I hope that when I start making good money I don't become an arrogant, image consious jerk that couldn't make a rational decision to save my life.

As for air quality, again I bring up Mexico. Go to a small town over there for an hour and you'll appreciate the catolytic converter more than indoor plumming. Go to a city like Mexico City and you'll forget what oxygen tasted like . I don't mean to rag on Mexico, they actually have some very amazing wilderness areas (one place was surprisingly like WV) some great history, and I've met some great people there. It just makes you appreciate what efforts our government has put into cleaning up the air.

What did you global warming theorist call last aprils POWDER dump? How bout the record cold that zapped a few of my palm tree fronds a couple of weeks ago down here in se NC? What about the heavy snow the West Va alps will get in feb & march?Ok i might have jumped ahead a little....but what about the epic dumps that are going on from South california on up?Yeh I'm talking mountains that are as far south as LA getting dumped on!! Come on, Man might have a little influence but mother nature RULES!.

Alright, I think this has gotten out of hand. There are a lot of great forums for debates on global warming -- but DCSki is not one of them. This isn't a question that's going to get resolved here, and I doubt many of us are environmental scientists. Let's try to keep the focus on skiing and boarding.

- Scott (today playing the role of Forum Policeman)

Eh, global warming doesn't have anything to do with skiing?

So, How about this weather?