Global warming Record Report
74 posts
19 users
21k+ views
fishnski
January 27, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
During this Global Warming period Mt. Mansfield(Stowe,VT) Had a record low HIGH this Fri of -14 that broke the previous GW record of -8 back in 1982! It is -15 at the town of Stowe this Morn With -19 at Whitefield,NH....with 30 degrees at Timberline 4 Seasons...Almost Heaven,WV.......Come on down to the "Banana Belt" You northeners...you All need a vacation!
Mountain Masher
January 31, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
I must say, I find those record low HIGHs very interesting. One thing about GW is that it increases the chances for extreme weather EVENTS (both hot and cold), of course, the overall TREND is milder Winters and hotter Summers. As for this current cold spell in the Mid-Atlantic, it's unremarkable. Don't get me wrong, it's creating some wonderful skiing, but it's not unusually cold. I skied 7-S this afternoon and the temp started out at 20 and dropped to about 13 by the time that I left at 5:00 PM. Lots of lake effect bands of snow passed through, which made for some awesome skiing!

If you look at the 7 or 10 day weather forecasts, and see how accurate the day-time HIGHs end-up (for predictions made 5 days in advance or more), more times than not, the day-time HIGHs exceed the forecasted HIGHs, particularly in DC and points South. I rarely see HIGHs that end-up below the forecasted HIGHs. At this time, a WARM air mass is building in the South-West, also, it's getting warmer than normal in Alaska and Western Canada. I had thought that we would see some mild air move into the mid-Atlantic by Feb. 10, but I now think that the mild air might hold off until around Feb 15. Anyway you look at it, the overall trend is milder Winters in the mid-Atlantic.
Clay
January 31, 2007
Member since 04/11/2006 🔗
555 posts
That's what's so great about GW, the proponents get to argue that even when it's cold, it's because of global warming! Keep moving your warm prediction out and yes, you will be able to say "I told you so". What happened to the 10th? Since Jan and early Feb are the coldest months on the east coast, it stands to reason it will get warmer towards March.

Some forecasts have a value fo -4.75 for Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta and New York. We're at -1.9 now and nobody's backing away from that forecast, which if happens will be the 6th coldest in the past 50 years for this time period for the plains east. Obviously they are expecting the next 15 days to be way below normal in that area. Quite unremarkable.

Let me propose another cause - a reversing el nino. These types of winters are common in this situation - and they have been since long before people had even recorded any global warming". The only high temperatures forecast for Davis approaching normal in the next 15 days is 2/14 and 15 and wouldn't you know it, the forecast 15 days ago said that this weekend would be normal (actually slightly above). Hmm, they are now forecast to be -18 and -21 below normal.

I wouldn't have such a hard time of accepting global warming if the people pushing it would say "oh, that doesn't fit our model at all" on occasion, rather than just ignoring or worse claiming that everything fits the model. I am not one of those who simply dismisses Global Warming, but I am not ready to jump on the sky is falling bandwagon either. To me, Global Warming is something you see in the long term, not by telling everyone next week is going to be warm, so pack up your skis. Weather happens.

Any thoughts on an East Coast storm next week? NWS isn't predicting it yet but the European models are. While I'm not the biggest fan of models taken alone (they just can't deal with all the data) this prediction seems to be supported by human analysis as well. We shall see.

Clay
tempfishnski
January 31, 2007
Member since 09/16/2006 🔗
66 posts
Nice little missive there Clay...Nice to hear from you MM. Glad you got out & pronounced the Cold...Not too cold, At least you had a good ski day! I for one am getting soft down here in the carolinas...& I skied the same type of temps with snow 2 weeks ago & Froze my snowy white hiney off! Going back to the valley 1st week in feb & hope to pronounce the cold...not so cold!...Come on Clay..Havn't you had enough snow? My god,Another half foot to 8 inches(Oficially 6.5 Canaan/8"'s Snowshoe) yesterday...Ck out Whitegrass.com, you can't get anymore snow on those Spruces. They are turning into just mounds.We need some bluebird days!!......Yeh Right...keep on gettin on young man Winter!
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort
tgd
January 31, 2007
Member since 07/15/2004 🔗
585 posts
If this cold and snow keeps up as predicted - two terms I have not used in 4 years to describe Canaan Valley ski conditions may creep back into my vocabulary soon - "Snowpack" and "Tree wells"!
Mountain Masher
January 31, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
To add some perspective.....keep in mind that this cold spell hasn't really lasted all that long (thus far). In fact, 7-Springs had only one slope open on the back side (the North Face slope) just a week ago. Now, all slopes are open on the North side of 7-S, but it was the latest opening of Gunnar and Giant Steps trails since those slopes were created.

We're currently in the "Dead of Winter", and cold weather was long over-due, so it isn't surprising that we're having a significant cold spell. And, since the water temp in the Great Lakes is unusually warm, many areas are getting hit with lake-effect snows. But, are these temps unusual? Not at all!.....I've seen Winters where the temps hit -20 to -30 (in places like Davis, 7-S, BK, Wisp, Snowshoe, etc.) and nothing like that has happened thus far this Winter. When the Winter of 2006-2007 is over, it will likely go down as a mild Winter because this current cold spell will not have been cold enough or lasted long enough to offset the record setting mild weather that we had during the first Half of the Winter. Now, having said this....it DOES look like the cold weather is going to last a bit longer that I expected (I thought that we'd see a warm-up by Feb. 10); but, I'd be surprised if we don't see a warm-up by Feb. 15. And, such an event would be considered NORMAL. A likely Summary for the Winter of 2006-2007 in the Mid-Atlantic: A record setting Warm First Half + A somewhat below normal Second Half = A relatively mild Winter. Of course, if the entire month of Feb. and the first 2 weeks of Mar. were to remain cold and skiing lasted until April, that would be awesome! And, I'd have to reconsider my views on GW.
Ullr
January 31, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
All I know is it is 2pm 50 miles South of Richmond and it still has not gotten above freezing, and we are expecting some white stuff tomorrow!
pagamony - DCSki Supporter
January 31, 2007
Member since 02/23/2005 🔗
840 posts
btw - Someone on here predicted quite confidently that resorts in North Carolina were likely to bag this winter. Well, they are all open, with all or nearly all terrain, and even tiny low elevation down south Sapphire Valley has both slopes open! I think the lesson here is patience and persistence; I have 6 good days on snow, including last weekend in the valley, and that's not bad. I was a little depressed the first part of January, but I gotta learn some patience.

<opinion>
And I don't think this disproves GW any more than January proved GW. Even the anecdotal extreme weather events have to be studied over a long period of time to attach any significant level of confidence to inference. Unfortuantely, we won't really know until we get there. Meanwhile, it would seem prudent to take reasonable actions to limit manmade influences just on stewardship principle alone.

Also, seeing first hand the underutilization of both CV and Tline this weekend makes me think that both Tory and Almost Heaven are really just sweet pipe dreams. Too bad but perhaps for the best.
</opinion>
bawalker
January 31, 2007
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
Amen to that pagamony. I'm a firm believer in being a steward with what you have, be it property, finances, vehicles, or a tent in the front yard. You respect the planet you live on, the state-count-community you live in. This means keeping it clean, trash free, and pollution free since what we do DOES affect generations down the road.

However with that said, when it comes to the weather and all of the technological advances we've made in the last 80 years, we still can not truly know the impact we have on the weather large or small. No mater how much the political norm it is to hype up Global Warming, it's still nothing more than a high strung theory with little solid long term proof behind it. For all we know, the earth/weather is very resilient and will come back with mini ice ages in the next 20-30 years. We don't know what type of long term (hundreds or thousands of years) cycling weather patterns that exist and whether the warmer than usual temps we see now are just a peak of such a cycle that lasts for a 100 or so years.

I fully believe that anyone who proclaims Global Warming as gospel truth that is leading towards world ending cataclysmic destruction, is so caught up in the gung-ho movement trying to feel like they themselves can change the world on a dime. I don't care how much data GW enthusiasts/proponents toss out there to validate or backup their claims, it's only a tiny tiny fraction of the data needed to actually PROVE something like that exsists.

I don't deny that it's warmer now than it was 25 years ago. Is it a cycling world-wide pattern that happens over a stretch of years that is longer than our lives with an equal and opposite cooling pattern coming? Or has man created so much destruction in the last 15 years that we are heading down a path to world-wide destruction as claimed? Considering since no one can yet answer if it's a cycling weather pattern, GW is nothing more than a theory that remains unproven at this time. Laws of physics tell me that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction... which I can firmly state that if that law holds, we'll see just as frigid and cold winters in the future. In our lifetimes... well I don't know. But I bet there will be sometime.

If that does happen in my lifetime I got dibs on a ski resort in Wardensville.
Mountain Masher
January 31, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
It was my thinking that some Southern ski areas would have to bag the season based on finances. Needless to say.....I'm happy to learn that all ski areas are now open, although I worry about how much profit they'll realize, given that the 1st half of the season was lost. Hopefully, they'll draw some really big crowds for the balance of the season.
Mountain Masher
January 31, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Ullr, as of 3:00 PM, it's 37 deg. in Fredericksburg, VA. Somewhat colder than normal, but not the least bit unusual. And, according to weather.com, it's going to hit 52 degrees (I bet it hits 54) in Fredericksburg on Feb. 9. So, some relatively mild weather might enter parts of the Mid-Atlantic by Feb. 10 (as I had predicted) afterall!
dcmidnight
January 31, 2007
Member since 11/11/2006 🔗
125 posts
Quote:

I fully believe that anyone who proclaims Global Warming as gospel truth that is leading towards world ending cataclysmic destruction, is so caught up in the gung-ho movement trying to feel like they themselves can change the world on a dime. I don't care how much data GW enthusiasts/proponents toss out there to validate or backup their claims, it's only a tiny tiny fraction of the data needed to actually PROVE something like that exsists.




AMEN
Mountain Masher
January 31, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
The evidence of GW IS conclusive! Don't believe me, just visit the Outer Banks of NC (particularly Cape Hatteras) and tell me that GW doesn't exist. I've just read the results of a recent beach survey, in part sponsored by the Surf-Rider Foundation, and the results are down-right scary! Most beaches along OBX are losing SEVERAL FEET (or more) of beach a year! Why? Due to GW the oceans are rising much faster than expected. By the way, if you STILL don't believe in GW, please tell me about all of the beaches that are actually gaining sand and increasing in size. If GW doesn't exist, then, there should be lots of beaches that are increasing. Seriously, please name a dozen or so beaches that are INCREASING in size.......if GW ISN'T happening, it should be quite easy to do.
Clay
January 31, 2007
Member since 04/11/2006 🔗
555 posts
Quote:

Seriously, please name a dozen or so beaches that are INCREASING in size.......if GW ISN'T happening, it should be quite easy to do.




Global Warming causes beach erosion now? I'm sorry, I'm bad , but I couldn't resist

BTW since F'burg is very close to home, Accuweather is predicting 43 for Feb 9, but I'm sure the NWS will catch up. Seriously, it's a long range forecast and it all depends on the model you use. I wouldn't base my belief in GW on long range forecasts (not saying that you are). It's a coin flip - but do you want to do an over/under? You say you think it will hit 54, I think Accuweather is closer with 43. We could say that if the high 47 or below I win, if it is 50 or above you win. We'll call 48-49 an inconclusive draw. If I win, you don't post anything about GW until after 3/31, if you win, post all you want and I won't respond.

Clay
langleyskier
January 31, 2007
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
MM- you are wrong about a forecasted "warm up." Just take a look at the long-range models and not crackuweather or the tenth day of the weather.com forecast. There is NO massive warmup predicted! And even if it does hit 54 some day.... that is no extreme warmth. And just FYI it looks like next week we will see some of the coldest air in recent years (most likely will not reach out of the teens on tuesday in the DC area and here at state college, pa we may not hit 10). I am not saying that it is not going to get warm (most likely this cold period will end sometime mid-feb) or that we are entering a new ice age but currently, there is not a warmup predicted.

As for the beach erosion you statement is utterly false. Sea levels have only experienced minimal if any sea level rise. The beach erosion is most likely due to human impacts such as building right up to the beaches and removing the plants that would normally keep the sand in place. I do not disagree with you about global warming being a serious issue, i only disagree with your constant pessimism about coming warm weather or some beech erosion that you read about on greenpeace.org.
Ullr
January 31, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
Quote:

Ullr, as of 3:00 PM, it's 37 deg. in Fredericksburg, VA. Somewhat colder than normal, but not the least bit unusual. And, according to weather.com, it's going to hit 52 degrees (I bet it hits 54) in Fredericksburg on Feb. 9. So, some relatively mild weather might enter parts of the Mid-Atlantic by Feb. 10 (as I had predicted) afterall!




Really? Never got above 32 here today, and at 7pm it's 26 and dropping fast!
Mountain Masher
January 31, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Clay, you just might win our bet regarding the HIGH temp for Fredericksburg on Feb. 9. I see that weather.com has now revised their forecast, which shows a HIGH of only 48 for that day. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the Southern edge of the cold air starts to weaken by Feb 9.
Mountain Masher
January 31, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
"Utterly false"? I wouldn't say that. There HAS been a measurable increase in sea levels over the past 20 years, which has resulted in shrinking beaches and shorelines around the world. On the Outer Banks of NC, areas within the National Seashore are eroding just as fast as developed areas. And, shoreline is also being lost on the protected Sound side of OBX. If the erosion was being caused by things OTHER than rising ocean levels, the Sound side shoreline wouldn't be melting away in addition to beach erosion along the Ocean side. Many people who own homes on the Sound side of OBX now have water getting up in their yards and under their houses several times a year (when there's a strong high tide). This type of high water coming from the Sound side was extremely rare 20 years ago, yet it's quite common today; again....it's due to rising Ocean levels!!!
Roger Z
January 31, 2007
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
The OBX are barrier islands that shift around constantly. It'd be more noteworthy if the beach erosion on barrier islands stopped than if it continues.

And how much has sea level risen in the last 100 years? I just read this two weeks ago- 3 inches or something like that. The forecast for the next 100 years- from the mainstream of scientists that fully accept global warming, I should add- is about one foot. People who build or buy vacation and retirement homes on barrier islands (that are constantly shifting around) in the face of rising oceans deserve about zero bits of sympathy. I'm sure our tax money will bail them out though when their three million dollar geological bombshell falls into the Atlantic.
fishnski
January 31, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
You just beat me to the punch on the obx Z. They would not be the best judge of sea level rise. Without Mans anchors on these sand bars they would move back & forth by miles on there own. I really would enjoy seeing my Mega Rich Neighbors 8 Houses down closer to the water Lose theirs to GW & make my place closer to waterfront but in the 8 years I have been here the high tide line has not risen..at ALL! I would love to see more water fill into my Fav Crab Catchin Ck...but is the samo samo up there too....GW is real but the manmade part & the Extent & Hype is just that......... Anybody skiing early this week will be hurting for some good ole GW!..........Responding to Pagamony & Off Subject..think about this. You spent a weekend at the Valley & just by Seeing the amount of folks skiing there you think that there is no way that a New & Larger MTN in WV could ever work..No Buis you say. WELL..Go back in time to Wilmington,NC before I40 was built from 95 right down to the beach & all you had was this slow winding country rd. You had a farm club team that had been playing at the local stadium for years with minimal attendence. The team had been strugling for years..They had great equipment, A beautiful area to play at & Great Weather..but just couldn't get their act together. THEN Came along I40 (H2Corr) & then came along a buisness man with vision who Gets a PRO team & builds a better & Larger Stadium(MPC)...Tell me that sucker Wouldn't fill up Then!...the Fans are ready..they just want a winning team..Get the Pic?
Mountain Masher
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Roger Z, you MISSED the point completely!!!! The Outer Banks are NOT simply migrating these days, they are LOSING shoreline on BOTH sides (the Ocean side and the Sound side). The Outer Banks moved around for 100s of thousands of years without losing their size. Now they're VANISHING into the Ocean!!! Too bad that this isn't a surfing or OBX forum, I'd have lots of folks backing me up!
pagamony - DCSki Supporter
February 1, 2007
Member since 02/23/2005 🔗
840 posts
yeah we all 'get the pic', its not real hard. meanwhile, take a look at the south brunswick islands and be careful what you wish for - you might get it. but the business is whats important, right? nothing better than walmarts and $500K condos. those high rises look great on the intracoastal waterway. sugar top sure looks great from the callaway trail.

btw, Orrin's lab says the sea level has risen 8" off the NC coast in the last 100 years, is a major source of beach erosion, and is expected to rise another 18 to 24 inches in the next 100. You're familiar with Orrin, right?
Roger Z
February 1, 2007
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
Quote:

The Outer Banks moved around for 100s of thousands of years without losing their size.




Oh really? Would you be so kind as to direct us to where you found the information about the land area of the Outer Banks cira 10,000 BC?

One of the points of islands shifting around is they also disappear and new ones emerge. An island that disappears, needless to say, would lose shorline on both sides.

Finally, as you like to say about folks who point to one cold spell as evidence that there is no global warming, it's hard to look at one point to argue the reverse as well. There are probably 1,000 forces acting on the barrier islands over the course of a year. They are far too unstable of a location to try to ascertain impacts of human-induced climate change.
Mountain Masher
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Ullr, by the way, weather.com is predicting the HIGH for Richmond, VA today to be 33 deg. As of 8:54 AM it's already up to 32 deg. in Richmond! So, it's a safe bet that the HIGH will go FAR ABOVE the forecast! Why is the current forecast so far off? GW?????
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort
KevR
February 1, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
You know this is not a very simple problem space, which just goes to show that virtually no one has anything useful to say, so maybe we should just stop.

The ice that melts, intuitively fills the world with more water, but this creates a greater mass too. The warmer water, if it does warm, expands -- and well this has an effect. And the natural erosion and filling in a shoreline has its effect, along with the "unnatural" side effect of human expansion. Then there's the effect of the large movements of the earth surface, what from the tectonic plates, to uplifting/downlift/sideslipping... I mean just sitting here thinking about it -- there are so many forces at work ... and I doubt I can think of them all or even know of them all, you'd have to spend your full-time self just trying to sort it out all, and even then likely get it wrong a bit, right?

So, if someone says they know anything about this at all on this board beyond what they are able to parrot from the standard sources of information. I'd say they are just completely full of it.
Clay
February 1, 2007
Member since 04/11/2006 🔗
555 posts
Actually, I may have missed it, but I haven't read anything here where people said because it is cold now global warming doesn't exist. I have read a lot of people reacting to the gloom and doom posted here at the beginning of the season that basically said "GW has made skiing in the mid-Atlantic a thing of the past". It is a reaction to the negativity and the perceived glee of some of the postings. And while some of us may not be convinced that GW is man made, I haven't seen anyone argue that it hasn't been warmer the past few years.

MM - have you looked at an hourly forecast? Richmond is forecast to be 33 until about noon, 32 until evening and then the temperature falls slowly overnight. How does that prove anything? And even if it gets above 33 by a degree or two are you saying that you rely on the forecasts from the NWS to hit the exact high at the measuring station on every forecast? If they did, I think their credibility would be much higher than it is.

Clay
pagamony - DCSki Supporter
February 1, 2007
Member since 02/23/2005 🔗
840 posts
^^^now that is nonsense. any single day's high has no demonstrable relationship to GW and the expected error term produced by mathematical models is certainly not related to GW. Besides which, the Richmond forecast is consistent with the entire East Coast and indicative of a cold front moving through that will push temps down. Sometimes the daily high happens at 1am. That's ok.

Look, if you want to say that climate change is measurable that is true, and that human's fossil burning activities are factors, that maybe be true, but all this single point anecdotal evidence on either side is just plain silly.

kind of fun to read sometimes, but enough is enough.


/edit - i had to change the number of carrots, lots of people jumping in now. i better get back to work. btw, the snow outside is lovely just now.
Clay
February 1, 2007
Member since 04/11/2006 🔗
555 posts
snuck in above you
pagamony - DCSki Supporter
February 1, 2007
Member since 02/23/2005 🔗
840 posts
Quote:

snuck in above you




drat drat double drat !
Mountain Masher
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
pagamony, You're WRONG! The temp in Richmond today is going to keep rising ABOVE the CURRENT forecast for a HIGH of 33. Again, this type of thing happens a lot these days, far more often than it used to. Why? The background effects of GW haven't been fully incorporated into the weather prediction computer models. It will be interesting to see just how far ABOVE 33 the temp rises in Richmond today.
Ullr
February 1, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
Quote:

Ullr, by the way, weather.com is predicting the HIGH for Richmond, VA today to be 33 deg. As of 8:54 AM it's already up to 32 deg. in Richmond! So, it's a safe bet that the HIGH will go FAR ABOVE the forecast! Why is the current forecast so far off? GW?????




Huh. Was 29F on my drive in at 7:15am, and it's 30F right now, and I am 30 miles south of Richmond, and it's starting to snow.

I will agree with you on one thing though, we will have a warm up in the Mid-Atlantic (PA to NC) some time before the end of winter.

I also predict that we will also get a big (5 to 12 inches) snow storm in the Mid-Atlantic before the end of winter.

There will be a heat wave some place on the east coast this summer.

A southern state (VA to Fla) will be hit with a major storm (tropical depression to hurricane) this season.

And there will be one major weather related disaster on the planet before the end of 2007.

I guarantee that I am correct on at least 3 of the 5 above-mentioned predictions!
Mountain Masher
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Ullr, I agree, those are some pretty safe predictions, although some parts of the Mid-Atlantic might not get the snow storm before Winter winds down. By the way, you definately live in a cool spot, especially considering how far South you are. [As of 11:00 AM it's already up to 34 deg. in Richmond.]
Ullr
February 1, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
Quote:

Ullr, I agree, those are some pretty safe predictions, although some parts of the Mid-Atlantic might not get the snow storm before Winter winds down. By the way, you definately live in a cool spot, especially considering how far South you are. [As of 11:00 AM it's already up to 34 deg. in Richmond.]




Not sure where you got that info. It is 32 at the airport right now and 33 downtown (which is where I am sitting right now.
Ullr
February 1, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
Ooops. Just changed, 33 at the airport, 34 downtown..........
Roger Z
February 1, 2007
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
For a recent discussion on the relationship between daily temperature records and global warming, see this abstract:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/...ps&gifs=yes

And the commentary here:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/01/2...g-temperatures/
bawalker
February 1, 2007
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
Here is something else i stumbled on that is worth the read. People like Roger and a few others might appreciate the read.

http://www.icr.org/article/330/
KevR
February 1, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
GW theory is based on evidence (data), followed by modeling, followed by observation to see if the predictions matched the result. (REPEAT)
It is entirely possible that GW theory will be absolutely different tomorrow than today... ok.

But the seriousness of the theory, the overwhelming agreement among those that spend their lives working on this all over the world, suggest we(the public) should take it seriously.

The problem is very simple: if we wait for the results to come in, we will then find ourselves in a position in which we can do very little about it.

We simply do not have the technology to "reclaim" CO2 from the atmosphere... we can't just magically CHILL the planet once we realize the thing has gotten out of hand and fix things up.

It (unfortunately) leaves in a rather intagible position -- but one position NOT to take is to simply dismiss the whole thing, or say "let's just wait and see"...

In my view the only RATIONAL thing to do is a) study the problem and invest in gathering as many datapoints as we possible can to prove it out as best we can, b) start doing little thinsg now, laying the ground work if you will because we don't have many choices to change things, to prevent this from happening if the data/models are corrent...

Anything less is IRRATIONAL...

Hey, I've love to be right there with in 10 yrs when we can laugh this thing off... believe me, i like my car, and want an SUV that gets 8 miles the gallon, and 4500 sq ft house for my dog, and want to fly every time I go skiing. I mean who doesn't want to live in a world where energy is free & infinite? I do!

But there seems to be problem... we need to take this seriously, and not dismiss it out of hand -- and we can't just take the "wait and see attitude" either. UNFORTUNATELY because we all know the humans prefer to do the least amt of work when we can...

So -- one more thought. DELUSION is also a form of lying, self-lying... And lying, or NOT doing it -- I think that's on your list somewhere.

Not that I am accusing anyone in particular but it does seem to me, that this could be something to consider as well in this regard.
Roger Z
February 1, 2007
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
Well, that's a pretty good summary Kev, but I'd take one exception here:

Quote:

In my view the only RATIONAL thing to do is a) study the problem and invest in gathering as many datapoints as we possible can to prove it out as best we can, b) start doing little thinsg now, laying the ground work if you will because we don't have many choices to change things, to prevent this from happening if the data/models are corrent...

Anything less is IRRATIONAL...




I agree wholeheartedly with a), but b) is qualified. The question as far as humanity is concerned is not whether climate change is occurring, but the impact it is going to have on human life. If the impact is positive, then a strong argument could be made that it is "irrational" to try to stop or slowdown global warming.

Roger Pielke makes this point on his blog, that climate change has both a scientific (is climate change occurring?) and political/normative (should we do anything about it?) component. The folks at Climate Science, while being much more firm in their position about global warming, are much more averse to engaging in political arguments about the situation (they claim). The scientific consensus that exists is about the science, not about the political/economic implications.

To arrive at a better understanding of that, the interaction between science and social science needs to be broadened and a whole new field/s of researchers need to be brought in. The reaction to including economists and others in the GW debate is usually hostile and subject to pretty merciless ideological politics: people cherrypick social scientists ruthlessly.

But until we have a better understanding of the costs and benefits of global warming (as well as the trade-offs: when we deal with global warming, what important issues are we not dealing with?), we really can't say what the rational and irrational response to the issue is.

We COULD say there is a "skier" response, but given that we like to hurl ourselves down ice-covered slopes in sub-zero temperatures, I'm not quite sure we qualify as "rational."

Incidentally, a number of scientists note that it is curious exactly how strong of a consensus exists on global warming. Usually scientific theories are pretty contentious (they say), and given the uncertainty over climate modeling, some of these folks say that you should expect more disagreement than what we see.
KevR
February 1, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Actually I'm a skeptic about the climate models, but only in the vaguest sense - meaning they probably don't have it completely right at this time. That's not to say they are completely wrong, I'd like to think we have SOME knowledge that's corrent.

And so I think the only way to proceed is to learn more, not ignore it, that's really all I mean. Ignorance is bliss maybe but doesn't get us anywhere. The double-gotcha in GW is really nefarious, first its bad enough that we can't undo it once its done -- although there's some hope there maybe, but its double bad that there's a built in feedback loop ta boot -- warming ice, permafrost, all boost the output CO2 too -- locked up for eons.. It's like opening a bottle and pouring a drop, but the whole thing dumps out instead. UGH.

Of course, it could be wrong but we really do need to figure this one out. And unfortunately the consequences seem so dire, that in fact, I don't think we can really wait until "all the evidence" is in, to start down some simple paths now.

That's doesn't mean we instantly stop coal fire plants, stop driving, and go solar... -- no instead we need some reasonable PRAGMATIC steps, some ideas, and some new solutions...

Start now, not later -- but give ourselves the time to work it out.

The longer we wait, the less solutions we'll have -- IF things work out as the predictors strongly suggest now.
langleyskier
February 1, 2007
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
MM- global warming and daily temperatures have NO correlation! GW is warming over years and saying that you think GW causes the high in richmond to go a little above forecasted is insanity! That makes absolutely no sense! Even though we love the models and invest much time studying and reprograming them they are still wrong or at least off more often than not! By your "theory" since it was a little cooler then the forecasted high here today then central PA is experiencing "global cooling".

Like i have said before, i do NOT disagree with GW but you go way out of line and make statements that are totally unsupported. I have heavily researched global warming from an academic standpoint without a bias (unlike you i do not type "apocalyptic warming" into google to find information about GW) and am very concerned with some of the future implications for the future.

Here is a link to a paper i recently wrote on the topic of GW. I uploaded it on to google without looking it over or reformatting. Additionally, the graphs that were attached to the file were lost in the process.
jimboc
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/30/2004 🔗
260 posts
what is the temp in richmond currently??
jimboc
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/30/2004 🔗
260 posts
33
pagamony - DCSki Supporter
February 1, 2007
Member since 02/23/2005 🔗
840 posts

omg, another voice of reason. quick, hide before the bombs start flying !

Quote:

MM- global warming and daily temperatures have NO correlation! GW is warming over years and saying that you think GW causes the high in richmond to go a little above forecasted is insanity! That makes absolutely no sense! Even though we love the models and invest much time studying and reprograming them they are still wrong or at least off more often than not! By your "theory" since it was a little cooler then the forecasted high here today then central PA is experiencing "global cooling".

Like i have said before, i do NOT disagree with GW but you go way out of line and make statements that are totally unsupported. I have heavily researched global warming from an academic standpoint without a bias (unlike you i do not type "apocalyptic warming" into google to find information about GW) and am very concerned with some of the future implications for the future.

Here is a link to a paper i recently wrote on the topic of GW. I uploaded it on to google without looking it over or reformatting. Additionally, the graphs that were attached to the file were lost in the process.


SCWVA
February 1, 2007
Member since 07/13/2004 🔗
1,051 posts
Is margarine better for you than butter?

When I was growing up, scientist and doctors said that margarine was better for you (or not as bad) than butter. Now we know differently.

Doctor's use to use bloodletting as a way to cure you of some illnesses. Do you know of any Doctors who use bloodletting anymore?

I know that these examples are a little off topic, but the point I was trying to make is that the scientist just don't know. I am not denying GW exists, but I am skeptical of anyone who takes what the scientists say as gospel without questioning it.

Someday, we'll know.
KevR
February 1, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
no one is suggsting not to be skeptical, but to be blindingly skeptical is in fact -- well irrational.

No one knows what they "don't know" -- in terms of butter vs margarine, it was readily suggested that vegetable fats are better for you than animal fat. And in general this is still thought of as being true.
However what folks DID NOT know then was that the hydrogenated vegetable fats, which is what many margarine/veggie fats ended up using, produce "trans fats" -- and these are really bad few you. But that's new information... and the original statement isn't really untrue, it just has to be modified. It's still true then, vegetable based fats are better for you than animal based fats. And so given what we know there, a transfat free margarine SHOULD be better for you than butter.

So -- somethng like this is undoubtably taking place even as we speak - well type, about GW.

In general its probably true, well we know some things for sure, the earth is warming at the very least because we are still coming out of an ice age & there's a man made contribution that *seems* to be speeding this up, perhaps insurmountably.

We know a bit about how the greenhouse gas 'cycle' works and so forth, and in fact, we have a lot of data really, and lot of observational data.

BUT we don't know the details that well & extropolating into the future is somewhat murky -- is this 100 yrs from now? 200 -- and there's PLENTY of time, or just 10s of years or less... NO ONE KNOWS...

But that's doesn't mean you should just dismiss it entirely, I think that's a mistake.

Just try to avoid too much GW with Transfats! That's really quite bad for you!

:-)
fishnski
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
MM, When you Anchor the Banks they will erode from all sides. If your theory of rising waters is the culprit then there would be a noticable deepning of the Pamlico sound. I don't see any evidence of that. The eroding sand is just gathering somewhere else & like Roger said could surface as another sandbar someday.We have some undeveloped Barrier Islands down hear on the SE Coast of NC that just seem to migrate from north to south. Wrightsville Beach Just had a huge amount of sand removed from it's southern Inlet & redeposited back north on the Island. WB is "Anchored" so this will go on forever. Would it be Rational at this point to "Freak" & start spending Billions clamping down on everything While taxing the hell out of everyone Especially when The suns rays or a volcanic eruption Or the release of Gases from our ocean floor Ect..." Would Eclipse any thing Man can do to help?
fishnski
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
For any snow geeks that care...Canaan Valley at 3715' CKed in with 55.2"'s for Jan with 42 of those coming during the 2nd half. My predict at the 30 inch mark was for 80 more. Todays total is 73.3.
Mountain Masher
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
fishnski, vast areas of the Outer Banks are undeveloped and, therefore are NOT "Anchored", yet they ARE eroding (at an alarming rate) from BOTH sides. Try as you might, you can't win a discussion when you have a LOSING HAND, that is, the OVERWHELMING evidence simply doesn't support your position. What you're doing is "cherry picking" some very specific information and trying to use it to claim what's happening at OBX isn't due to rising ocean levels, which is FALSE!!!
Roger Z
February 1, 2007
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
What evidence? Andy just offered evidence and you dismissed it as "cherry picking."

Speaking of which, MM, you never did answer my earlier question. You said that "The Outer Banks moved around for 100s of thousands of years without losing their size." I asked you to document that. Have you found the documentation for this assertion yet?

Incidentally, Clay, since I'm talking about unanswered questions I'm sorry I didn't get to yours earlier. I should have clarified- one of the older arguments that there was no global warming was to look at a cold weather phenomena and say "well if there's global warming why did it just get to X below in (insert normally warm location here)?" Yes, I've made those kind of arguments in the past. Some political commentators have done so and even continue to do so. I think- but can't recall- that we occasionally argued that way two or three years ago on this board, too.

So I was looking back at some past actions to make a point about certain current actions. Just as it was unsound to argue against global warming from an isolated incident, it is unsound to argue for global warming from the same isolated incidents. The change in the Outer Banks just seems to be- as Kevin has pointed out- a very poor place to argue about anything regarding larger climatological trends, given the transient nature of the islands. We might as well argue about whether global warming is occurring or not by the size of the snowbanks in the mall parking lot two weeks after a snowstorm.
Scott - DCSki Editor
February 1, 2007
Member since 10/10/1999 🔗
1,143 posts
I think I'm experiencing deja vu... With the ski season in full swing, is it really time to pull out the global warming debate? Haven't I pointed out in the past (repeatedly) that DCSki isn't the appropriate venue for this debate, and that readers flee DCSki when they encounter these endless arguments instead of the ski discussions they come to DCSki for?

Don't get me wrong.. I have VERY strong opinions about global warming, and have taken steps to become "carbon neutral" myself. But the debate won't be resolved on DCSki, and this discussion consistently strays far away from skiing, which is what DCSki is here for.
RyanC
February 1, 2007
Member since 11/28/2003 🔗
160 posts
Whenever we have a warm spell, it's because of 'global warming'. Whenever we have a cold spell, it's also because of 'global warming'!! Make a lot of sense, right? The planet naturally goes through climate cycles. Wasn't it back in the 70s (before my time, but I think I'm right) when the Chesapeake Bay was frozen solidly across, and some academics were predicting the imminent start of another ice age?

Personally, I think the recently hyped global warming theories are bunk. And what cracks me up even more are the folks that drive hybrids and claim to be environmentally friendly, when in fact a Prius has more of a negative environmental impact than many SUVs, simply due to all the extra materials used in production (this is according to Consumer Reports, not me).

I personally feel GW is yet another mechanism (kind of like the "war on terror") to control the masses. The GW elitists won't be happy until skiing is banned (after all, it contributes to GW), mountain biking is banned, and we're forced to get a permit to drive on vacation anywhere (because after all, those evil gasoline powered cars are causing GW).

I'm not saying that we aren't currently in a warming trend. And I belive we need to, as a nation, be much more responsible towards the environment, or there will be consequences. But many GW proponents proclaim completely baseless armageddon-like theories, which are simply scare and control tactics. And I'm saying this as someone who loves the outdoors, and believes in taking steps to reduce pollution, clean the air & water, etc.

I'm sure my politically incorrect views on this issue will cause this thread to be shut down, and/or name calling, etc. But...oh well. At least I know that my car is more envoronmentally friendly than the enviro-nazis hybrids!!
Clay
February 1, 2007
Member since 04/11/2006 🔗
555 posts
Quote:

I think I'm experiencing deja vu... With the ski season in full swing, is it really time to pull out the global warming debate? Haven't I pointed out in the past (repeatedly) that DCSki isn't the appropriate venue for this debate, and that readers flee DCSki when they encounter these endless arguments instead of the ski discussions they come to DCSki for?





You are right, of course and I apologize. I was simply trying to make sure that the alarmists didn't have the only say but as you point out, this is not the forum to do it in. I will not respond to their rantings anymore.

Clay
Mountain Masher
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
The Associated Press (AP) has just obtained the official Intergovernmental Climate Change Report. Hundreds of World renowned scientists from 113 Nations (including the US) met in Paris where the Report was developed with great care. The Report indicates that GW is now far worse than anticipated just a few years ago. Ocean levels are expected to rise well over a FOOT (and perhaps as much as 2 FEET) by 2100 along with many other far reaching effects.

This was just reported on Yahoo News, so I'm sure that much more info on the Report will be revealed in the days to come. I agree that there has been too much GW debate on DCSki, but, in closing, let me say this......those of you who continue to doubt GW fall within a TINY minority World-wide. By the way, by a very strange coincidence, MOST of the "doubters" live in the US, which is, by far, the largest consumer (per capita) of fossil fuels and materials derived from other non-renewable sources.
Clay
February 1, 2007
Member since 04/11/2006 🔗
555 posts
See above. Putting you on ignore.

Clay
Mountain Masher
February 1, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
So Clay, can I take it that you're also going to "IGNORE" current Science???....LOL. Me an "alarmist"? How's that when my views on GW are fully consistent with the prevailing Science? (See above.) I had intended for the post above to be my last post on GW, but, of course, you decided to take a petty "cheap shot" at me.
langleyskier
February 2, 2007
Member since 12/7/2004 🔗
824 posts
Quote:

So Clay, can I take it that you're also going to "IGNORE" current Science???....LOL. Me an "alarmist"? How's that when my views on GW are fully consistent with the prevailing Science? (See above.) I had intended for the post above to be my last post on GW, but, of course, you decided to take a petty "cheap shot" at me.




WTF mountain masher!!!! shut up for once! please!!!!

Scott, very sorry for the debate; however, i do think that GW does have a right to be discussed on a skiing forum. Especially here in the mid-atlantic, GW may have drastic effects on the ski industry. Sorry to disagree with you but maybe GW could have its own "special" discussion category?
fishnski
February 2, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
I forgot to tell you the name of that buisness man in my story Pagamony.....his name was BAGAMONY..your Cuz! Can I talk about the 50 inches of snow that fell on Mount Porte Crayon in the last 2+ weeks? The New Artic Blast & continued snow & GREAT Skiing to come? Yes, We have beat the Evil Wind for now!
Swimmer
February 2, 2007
Member since 02/3/2005 🔗
143 posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/world/americas/02bolivia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

used to be a ski resort in Boliva. they even had an olympic team...

and for you scientific types..you can score some cash for dissproving global warming...payment coming from oil companys at 10 grand plus expenses

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

SCWVA
February 2, 2007
Member since 07/13/2004 🔗
1,051 posts
Quote:

....Hundreds of World renowned scientists from 113 Nations.............




Back in the day, everyone but a few thought the world was flat. Luckily, those few didn't listen to the masses because the new world and midatlantic skiing wouldn't exist.
kennedy
February 2, 2007
Member since 12/8/2001 🔗
792 posts
Go nut's the meteor Apophis is due to wipe us out in 2036 anyway.
Mountain Masher
February 2, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Swimmer, thanks for the interesting article on the ski area that used to exist in Boliva. Where the snowpack was once 40 feet deep and now there's NONE on the lower portion of the ski slope.
Ullr
February 2, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
Quote:

[I will agree with you on one thing though, we will have a warm up in the Mid-Atlantic (PA to NC) some time before the end of winter.

I also predict that we will also get a big (5 to 12 inches) snow storm in the Mid-Atlantic before the end of winter.

There will be a heat wave some place on the east coast this summer.

A southern state (VA to Fla) will be hit with a major storm (tropical depression to hurricane) this season.

And there will be one major weather related disaster on the planet before the end of 2007.

I guarantee that I am correct on at least 3 of the 5 above-mentioned predictions!




Looks like I already have one (number 5, a weather related disaster)!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16940788/
Roger Z
February 2, 2007
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
Actually if you read the report and compare it to their older report the IPCC actually lowered their estimates for global warming slightly, not increased them. They are measuring global warming in this report from the pre-industrial temperatures, which means they include warming since 1990 in their projections. The IPCC estimates that .8 degrees C of warming has already occurred. In order to see what their projections are and compare it to previous estimates, you therefore have to subtract .8 C from their forecasts, showing a temp change of 1.2 to 3.7 degrees C over the next 100 years.

In their previous forecast from a few years ago, they estimated a 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C rise. Again, substracting .8C for what's already happened, that means they were caling for a .6C to 5C increase in global temps. If you just split the difference between the min and max, this suggests an "expected" rise of 2.5 C over the next 100 years, against a previous "expected" rise of 2.8 C over the next 100 years in their 2100 study. Even this might be too extreme, because the IPCC itself says to "expect" a rise of about 2.2 C over the next 100 years (though I can't find the executive summary to confirm this). Oceans are supposed to rise between 5 and 23 inches.

Indeed, apparently the alarmists say the report isn't alarmist enough. So much for the scientific consensus, eh?
Ullr
February 2, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
Quote:

I will agree with you on one thing though, we will have a warm up in the Mid-Atlantic (PA to NC) some time before the end of winter.

I also predict that we will also get a big (5 to 12 inches) snow storm in the Mid-Atlantic before the end of winter.

There will be a heat wave some place on the east coast this summer.

A southern state (VA to Fla) will be hit with a major storm (tropical depression to hurricane) this season.

And there will be one major weather related disaster on the planet before the end of 2007.

I guarantee that I am correct on at least 3 of the 5 above-mentioned predictions!




Looks like I already have one (number 5, a weather related disaster)!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16940788/




Two for five!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16939591/

An early spring!!!!!
KevR
February 2, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Well just to put this on something of a DCSki track -- what would a roughly 2.5-7 degree FARENHEIT change in temp do to the local ski market?

Perhaps overly simplistic math *suggests* to me MONTHLY LOW averages for Dec, Jan, Feb as going from (according weather.com, m'burg pa) 24f, 21f & 23f to somewhere between: 26.5f, 23.5fm 25.5f & 31f, 28f, 30f... Avg hi's go from: 43, 39, 43 to between 45.5, 41.5, 45.5 & 50, 46, and 50...

Of course in 100 yrs my spiffy robot body won't need no stinkin' snow to begin with to ski! :-)
ubu
February 2, 2007
Member since 05/11/2005 🔗
40 posts
Back in the day, everyone but a few thought the world was flat.




Yes, but "they" weren't scientists
fishnski
February 2, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
If GW does keep on gettin on, It will in our lifetimes mean the end to the lowland Eastern areas. It will actually be a boon for the WF Highlands....Good news for MPC Dreamers! BUTTTT I Do not put too much value in 113 Scientist Eating French Croissants & depending on Grants $$$$$ to keep the GW going. I really feel that they conpromised by stating that GW was Manmade( I'm too smart to trust that) & at the same time saying that there was nothing we could do about it.By saying it was Manmade...They get paid! By saying there is nothing we can do about it is the Rational Realistic Statement.
Swimmer
February 2, 2007
Member since 02/3/2005 🔗
143 posts
you scare me on so many levels...but for what it's worth..so does mountain masher
fishnski
February 2, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
You know, Opposites Attract We might end up best Buddies one day!..Just wandering..Why do you use the Alias "Swimmer"?
Mountain Masher
February 2, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Roger Z, while heading home from 7-S this evening I listened to NPR. They talked with one of the US Scientists who had attended the Climate conference in Paris. He noted that the ocean levels had risen 1 1/2 inches over the last 12 years. That's really incredible when you consider what a short period of time 12 years is.
Scott - DCSki Editor
February 2, 2007
Member since 10/10/1999 🔗
1,143 posts
Please folks.... For the second time, this debate does not belong on DCSki. The "Recent Forum Comments" section is dominated by this thread and it DRIVES READERS AWAY. No readers, no DCSki. I wouldn't be as concerned if the conversation stayed civil and focused on potential effects of GW on mid-Atlantic skiing, but it never, ever does. It always ends up being the same argument that will never be resolved here by people who will never change their opinions.

The debate is important, and I personally think the science is overwhelming, but history has proven that this topic does not stay within DCSki's scope. And again, this is not what people visit DCSki to read. I hate having to play message forum cop but I can't let issues like this hijack and dominate the site.
pagamony - DCSki Supporter
February 2, 2007
Member since 02/23/2005 🔗
840 posts
ok scott, i'm ready to give it up...

Quote:

you scare me on so many levels...but for what it's worth..so does mountain masher




you know, there are some similarities. dogmatic. persistent. prone to upper-case yelling. could it be.... twins separated at birth? or maybe bipolar ? dr.fish/mr.masher ?
Ullr
February 2, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
But Scott I'm 2 for 5 in my completely ambiguous predictions!

Gee, predicting the weather really is easy! Oh, by the way, that mid-atlantic warm spell is right around the corner. I would say within the next "few" weeks or so.......
Mountain Masher
February 15, 2007
Member since 03/13/2004 🔗
541 posts
Clay, Not to reopen the GW debate, but I wanted to mention that you won our temp bet (the HIGH for Fredericksburg, VA on Feb. 9) by a huge margin! The high in Fredericksburg on Feb. 9 rose to 37 deg, well under my bet of 54 and even lower than your bet of 43. So, my idea that some mild air would move into VA on or about Feb. 9 was 180 deg off the mark. However, I did note that some of the daily lows in Fredericksburg (during that timeframe) were much warmer than predicted; on one day the low was 9 deg higher than the prediction, and the low was about 5 deg higher than the prediction on several other days. Anyway, it looks like I was about 10 or 11 days off with my prediction of a Feb. warm up arriving in the mid-Atlantic. According to most of the weather services, it now looks like a significant warm-up will get under way by the 20th or 21st of Feb. with places like Richmond, VA getting up into the low 60s by Feb. 21. Of course, I wouldn't be completely surprised if most of the current long-range forecasts prove to be wrong; however, something tells me that the forecasts (calling for a warm-up) are on the mark.
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.12 seconds