Will New England See a New Ski Area In the Next 20 Years?

[ScottySkis]

^^^Talk radio much???

We are finally in a break from being force fed shit by both parties, You should take it easy. Besides Why the f%$ is climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it even a political discussion?

It should be the concern if 100 of all people and it doesn't matter anymore who or what caused it, we just need to find a way to delay, stop, or better yet reverse it.

 

[drjeff]

It should be the concern if 100 of all people and it doesn't matter anymore who or what caused it, we just need to find a way to delay, stop, or better yet reverse it.

The reality is that overtime, it is just as certain that there will be variations in climate (both warmer and colder) as it will be that the sun will rise and set every day.

While we do need to pay attention to how we treat the earth, this may very well be a case where we're trying to micro manage a single "problem" that on the macroscopic level isn't really a problem. Or basically the more that we learn about one thing exposes the fact that we don't understand how it often normally relates to many other things :idea:

 

[St. Bear]

If I were offered a futures bet on two possible outcomes, 1) Wall-E type world of desolation and trash or 2) The Day After Tomorrow scenario, I'm putting my chips on #2. The planet is a giant heat pump that diffuses anomolies and moves heat from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. These cycles happen over eons of time.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Was that was sarcasm? haha...

Snowblades.. wow.

Point is something needs to happen to get people to come up to ski enough to open a new joint...

Build a gigantic indoor/outdoor amusement park. Then cut a few slopes into the mountain outside as an additional attraction that can be used for 3.5 months of the year.

 

[Scruffy]

Then you dont know nearly enough about this issue as you think you do. Blind faith.

OMG, what a tool .. of course I am aware of the issue, why else would I have added cow flatulence. Of course there is more to it them methane gas from cows digestive tracks, I assumed you would be able to fill in the blanks, instead you pull out the old tired saw " you dont (sic) know nearly enough" bla bla bla

Look, the cattle issue with respect to "green house gasses" is totally solvable, do a little reading. You're such a sky is falling kind a guy aren't you? Don't worry, no one is taking away your steaks either.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Why the f%$ is climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it even a political discussion?

A fair point; and the investigation of that point is one of the things that years ago led me from believing in man-caused Global Warming, to not believing in it.

There is more money to be made if Global Warming is real and caused by man, than the mind can almost fathom.

it doesn't matter anymore who or what caused it, we just need to find a way to delay, stop, or better yet reverse it.

Again, you're assuming there is a problem to begin with.

Personally, as I mentioned before, I'm really liking the research being done on solar emission and solar flares and sun cycles for the explanation as to why we're living in a warm period (as well as why the 18th century and early 19th century was a cold period).

Of course, to even READ that science or call attention to it is crazy, right??!!

I mean, this issue is "settled science" already as we know. And besides, it's INSANE to think that the sun could be causing Global Warming. I mean, how could the sun, that big thing in the sky solely responsible for both Summer and Winter, and whose exposure to which causes both the warmth of day and the coldness of night, POSSIBLY be responsible for Global Warming? [/sarcasm]

Because as we all know that's how science works. We accept a hypothesis that hasnt been proven to be a fact, and then we attack and sully anyone working on a competing hypotheses. Oh, wait....no, that's not how science is supposed to work.

 

[ScottySkis]

Build a gigantic indoor/outdoor amusement park. Then cut a few slopes into the mountain outside as an additional attraction that can be used for 3.5 months of the year.

We have plenty in the Catskills that this could be done with, maybe a glass dome to open for fresh snow.

 

[BenedictGomez]

OMG, what a tool .. of course I am aware of the issue, why else would I have added cow flatulence. Of course there is more to it them methane gas from cows digestive tracks, I assumed you would be able to fill in the blanks, instead you pull out the old tired saw " you dont (sic) know nearly enough" bla bla bla Look, the cattle issue with respect to "green house gasses" is totally solvable, do a little reading. You're such a sky is falling kind a guy aren't you? Don't worry, no one is taking away your steaks either.

No, the issue isn't as simplistic as cow farts. People like yourself talk about "cow farts" because since that's amusing, it is what gets the media attention. If you believe this stuff you should understand the entire picture based on the IPCC data they use.

It's the entire meat based global agricultural industry from production to consumption; it's cows, dogs, pigs, chickens, lambs, goats, horses, cats, llamas, farm hands, and 100 other animals, and the carbon footprint that that production through consumption causes.

Science and math are not a la carte subjects. You dont "pick and choose" which bits of a scientific theory you'll choose to believe in.

If you believe in man-made Global Warming, than you should know that owning a pet dog or eating a steak once a week are WORSE "for the environment" than driving a gas-guzzling SUV.

So why dont most people know this? Why dont people know that owning a dog or a cat or eating chicken parmigiana twice a week is worse for "Global Warming" than driving that SUV?

The simple answer is because you cant make money taxing chicken parmigiana and cats.

 

[St. Bear]

We have plenty in the Catskills that this could be done with, maybe a glass dome to open for fresh snow.

I like this idea. Open the roof during snowstorms, then close it and crank the AC when temps get above freezing.

I think it's a more viable idea than Xanadu.

 

[Rourket]

I like this idea. Open the roof during snowstorms, then close it and crank the AC when temps get above freezing.

I think it's a more viable idea than Xanadu.

Like Ski Dubai with an open roof and real vertical? ;^P

https://www.theplaymania.com/skidubai

 

[ScottySkis]

Like Ski Dubai with an open roof and real vertical? ;^P

https://www.theplaymania.com/skidubai

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

So many closed hills they could use and the trails are already cut.

 

[Scruffy]

The solar emission and solar flares indeed look very interesting and may prove to be a contributing factor.

Your guilty of the same arrows you sling. Science is never settled; that's the way science works. Giving up CO2 as a contributing cause to climate change, because it somehow scares you what type of "woo bogeyman legislation" they ( whomever they is ) might pass and constrict your lifestyle is not productive.

The earths systems ( atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and heliosphere ), are extremely complex, scientists are still learning how these complex systems interact to affect both local and global climate. They may very well learn that the rise in CO2 has is only part of the equation, or has no significant contribution. The AGW naysayers, are looking at anomalies in data, and some insignificant email dust up crap and they're all over it, like white on rice, denouncing any human initiation in climate change.

Let's let the science work and stop laypersons emotions from clouding the issue. God knows scientists are really good at attacking their own for fame, they don't need the peanut galley and "dumb as wood" politicians getting in the fray.

 

[Scruffy]

No, the issue isn't as simplistic as cow farts. People like yourself talk about "cow farts" because since that's amusing, it is what gets the media attention. If you believe this stuff you should understand the entire picture based on the IPCC data they use.

It's the entire meat based global agricultural industry from production to consumption; it's cows, dogs, pigs, chickens, lambs, goats, horses, cats, llamas, farm hands, and 100 other animals, and the carbon footprint that that production through consumption causes.

Science and math are not a la carte subjects. You dont "pick and choose" which bits of a scientific theory you'll choose to believe in.

If you believe in man-made Global Warming, than you should know that owning a pet dog or eating a steak once a week are WORSE "for the environment" than driving a gas-guzzling SUV.

So why dont most people know this? Why dont people know that owning a dog or a cat or eating chicken parmigiana twice a week is worse for "Global Warming" than driving that SUV?

The simple answer is because you cant make money taxing chicken parmigiana and cats.

OMG you are such a tool. Reread my post, I said there is more to it, I THOUGHT you were smart enough to fill in the blanks! I'm aware of the cost of agricultural carbon foot print (both meat and non-meat agricultural carbon foot print BTW ).

I'm out of here, I don't have time to educate some self appointed know it all who takes one word from a post and then assumes you know nothing else about the subject because you didn't write everything known to mankind about the subject.

P.T Barnum was most certain correct :lol: :lol:

 

[bdfreetuna]

There is always that One Guy, when people try to talk about climate change, who acts like it's a personal assault on his own character and has all the "facts" ready to prove everyone wrong.

Yet over 90% of scientists believe climate change is real and caused by greenhouse gasses... and the ones that don't believe that are paid by think tanks.

 

[dmc]

FUNDING $61,485,781 TO GROUPS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE SINCE 1997.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

 

[Smellytele]

FUNDING $61,485,781 TO GROUPS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE SINCE 1997.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

Not taking a side but to post something from greenpeace is like the otherside posting something from the Koch brothers.

 

[Big Game]

Bigfoot is not real
9/11 was not an inside job
Oswald acted alone
The moon landing was not faked
Global warming is a hoax
And no new eastern resort will ever open in 20 years

Your opinions may differ.

 

[dmc]

Not taking a side but to post something from greenpeace is like the otherside posting something from the Koch brothers.

I'm OK with it...

 

[skiNEwhere]

Why would a NELSAP be easier to reopen? Just because they've had trails cut doesn't mean they don't need an environmental survey, after 20-30 years of no normal human traffic, I would think animals would begin to migrate back to the general area, including the trees in between trails

 

[BenedictGomez]

Your guilty of the same arrows you sling. Science is never settled; that's the way science works.

Ummm.... no, actually that's been a recurring theme of virtually all of my posts in this thread, good to see you haven't been paying attention. Though with one caveat, sometimes science is settled, we're pretty good on the freezing point of h2o and the earth orbiting the sun.

Likewise, one day we will definitively know whether greenhouse gases cause Global Warming, but not only is that not settled, but it's losing in the 4th quarter with only seconds left on the clock (despite the refs trying to fix the game).

OMG you are such a tool. Reread my post, I said there is more to it, I THOUGHT you were smart enough to fill in the blanks! I'm aware of the cost of agricultural carbon foot print (both meat and non-meat agricultural carbon foot print BTW ).

Yeah, it sure seems like it.

Yet over 90% of scientists believe climate change is real and caused by greenhouse gasses... and the ones that don't believe that are paid by think tanks.

George Gallup once said that if you can find 70% of people who agree on a controversial issue, you probably asked the question in a biased manner(paraphrasing).

I've read what you just posted probably 1000 times, though usually it's "almost 100% of scientists", not 90%, and yet I've never see a citation to an actual study with decent 'N's to validate the claim. On its' face, just using our common sense, it seems a ridiculous claim at best. As Gallup noted, it's almost impossible to get nearly 100% of people to agree on anything, even whether it should be illegal to kick puppies or not, let alone a highly controversial and disputed topic like whether global warming is man's fault.

But what you've posted is useful to this conversation:

it's one of the most oft-repeated bits of propaganda related to this issue. Peer pressure. Everybody's doing it! If you even voice your opinion on this, well then, you must be "anti-science" and just as ignorant as someone who doesn't believe in evolution. Which brings us to another concerning topic specifically related to "Global Warming science" that is not present in other scientific fields - the bullying and attacking of anyone who disagrees. Religions do that too.

Bigfoot is not real
9/11 was not an inside job
Oswald acted alone
The moon landing was not faked
Global warming is a hoax
And no new eastern resort will ever open in 20 years

Your opinions may differ.

I'm on board with all of those!