DEEP - The future of skiing and snow Book on Kickstarter

[Nick]

Anyone see this?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/127394593/deep-the-story-of-skiing-and-the-future-of-snow

Help publish a book about the culture of skiing, the miracle of snow and how climate change could wipe out both in 75 years.

There is a better youtube video on the page but here is a Vimeo clip



Sounds interesting. The guy who wants to author this book is an editor at Powder Magazine so he has some legitimate cred.

 

[thetrailboss]

Depressing......

 

[Edd]

Depressing......

Yes

 

[Zand]

How many of the interviewees in that video were government or federal "scientists?"

I'm sure they won't tell you that Antarctica's ice extent is the highest it's been in over 45 years and the Arctic just had its coldest summer on record.

This paper from Dr. Bill Gray offers some insight on how much the government loves to blow this way out of proportion.

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

 

[Edd]

How many of the interviewees in that video were government or federal "scientists?"

I'm sure they won't tell you that Antarctica's ice extent is the highest it's been in over 45 years and the Arctic just had its coldest summer on record.

This paper from Dr. Bill Gray offers some insight on how much the government loves to blow this way out of proportion.

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

Hey, I hope you're right. It just sounds like the overwhelming scientific consensus is that, yup, the Earth is warming and that will cause problems.

 

[fbrissette]

I'm sure they won't tell you that Antarctica's ice extent is the highest it's been in over 45 years and the Arctic just had its coldest summer on record.

That' taking data totally out of context. I suggest you catch up on your the definition of 'climate'. Here's some data:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

This paper from Dr. Bill Gray offers some insight on how much the government loves to blow this way out of proportion.

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

Most scientists agree that Bill Gray's hurricane work is outstanding. The overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with Bill's views with respect to climate change. Give me one Bill Gray, I'll give you one thousand dissenting voices.

BTW, Bill Gray believes that the earth has indeed been warming.

 

[Nick]

I also think the earth is warming. I'm not smart enough to know weather humans caused it or not, or if it's long term, irreversible, or whatever else. I'm the "let's play it safe" camp and try to do things to mitigate risk in case it is caused by us.

I do wonder about how it will impact skiing. This report says you can expect half of the resorts in the US to shutter because of a lack of snow in the next 70 years. That's pretty significant. I'm sure there is also debate about the accuracy of it, but it's something to look out for anyway.

I pinged the author on facebook, it would be cool to hear from him directly.

 

[Zand]

That' taking data totally out of context. I suggest you catch up on your the definition of 'climate'. Here's some data:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/




Most scientists agree that Bill Gray's hurricane work is outstanding. The overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with Bill's views with respect to climate change. Give me one Bill Gray, I'll give you one thousand dissenting voices.

BTW, Bill Gray believes that the earth has indeed been warming.

He states plenty of times in the paper that the earth is indeed warming. However, the idea that the Earth will warm up 3 degrees C in the next century (a number alarmists have thrown around) is what he strongly disputes.

I've seen some of those "dissenting voices" claim that the Earth will be free of sea ice by 2030. Almost as ridiculous a claim as the "consensus" that the Earth has seen a large increase in major hurricane activity in the past 40 years which couldn't be further from the truth. Just because it's a consensus doesn't mean it's correct.

As someone who studied meteorology, I've read hundreds of papers relating winter weather to climate change (as a skier, my biggest interest has always been the effects warming has on snowfall, winter length, etc). I wrote my thesis on factors that affect snowstorm frequency and snowfall (with a concentration on the northeast), and paid close attention to the trend of snowfall over the past 60 years. There are many ups and downs in regards to yearly snowfall (some winters in the 1950s and 1960s had less snowfall than any year since), but the average snowfall for most of the northeast is still rather close to what it was then (some places are slightly higher, some slightly lower). The idea that over half the ski areas in the east will close in the next 30 years due to lack of snow is complete alarmist crap. There was some evidence that winter is getting "squeezed a bit" with the start of snowfall coming later and the end of snowfall coming earlier. But ski resorts don't depend on November and April to make money, especially the ones at risk of closing. And sure, every time we have a weak winter these days, it kills ski areas big time. There were plenty of weak winters 40-50-60 years ago too. It's just a part of northeast skiing. It still averages out close to the same snowfall as it has for decades. Snowfall isn't what is suddenly causing ski areas to struggle. Energy costs could indeed shut down a lot of ski areas, but it won't be due to lack of snowfall.

 

[fbrissette]

He states plenty of times in the paper that the earth is indeed warming. However, the idea that the Earth will warm up 3 degrees C in the next century (a number alarmists have thrown around) is what he strongly disputes.

Your above link is not to a scientific paper. It is an opinion paper that has not undergone any peer-review process. 3 degrees increase is NOT a number thrown by alarmists. It is well within the range of possible future as stated by the latest IPCC report, although higher than the median of predicted increases in the latest report. Greater than 6 degress is usually what alarmists talk about. If you consider the IPCC as alarmists, than I suggest we end this debate here.

I've seen some of those "dissenting voices" claim that the Earth will be free of sea ice by 2030. Almost as ridiculous a claim as the "consensus" that the Earth has seen a large increase in major hurricane activity in the past 40 years which couldn't be further from the truth. Just because it's a consensus doesn't mean it's correct.

I suggest again that you freshen up on the scientific literature review. In it's fourth report, the IPCC went as far as saying that the Arctic ocean (not that the earth) will likely be free of ice in the summer in the second part of this century. There is some scientific evidence of an increase in large hurricanes. There is no consensus of a 'large increase' in the science community.

As someone who studied meteorology, I've read hundreds of papers relating winter weather to climate change (as a skier, my biggest interest has always been the effects warming has on snowfall, winter length, etc). I wrote my thesis on factors that affect snowstorm frequency and snowfall (with a concentration on the northeast), and paid close attention to the trend of snowfall over the past 60 years. There are many ups and downs in regards to yearly snowfall (some winters in the 1950s and 1960s had less snowfall than any year since), but the average snowfall for most of the northeast is still rather close to what it was then (some places are slightly higher, some slightly lower).

This has been known for quite a while in the north east and is also true of precipitations for the rest of the year. However, snowfall (and pecipitation to lesser extent) is one of the worst marker for climate change because it is one where natural variability is the highest, and one that it most difficult to measure adequately.

The idea that over half the ski areas in the east will close in the next 30 years due to lack of snow is complete alarmist crap.

I agree with you here. But you also won't find this in the scientific literature. I think it is important to out the alarmists (like Al Gore) as much as the negationists.

There was some evidence that winter is getting "squeezed a bit" with the start of snowfall coming later and the end of snowfall coming earlier.

In southern Quebec, river ice melts faster and the spring flood happens sooner (regionally statistically significant trends). This can be measured with much better accuracy than snowfall amounts. There are also statistically significant trends in the minimum temperature (winter are not getting warmer, they are getting less cold).

But ski resorts don't depend on November and April to make money, especially the ones at risk of closing. And sure, every time we have a weak winter these days, it kills ski areas big time. There were plenty of weak winters 40-50-60 years ago too. It's just a part of northeast skiing. It still averages out close to the same snowfall as it has for decades. Snowfall isn't what is suddenly causing ski areas to struggle. Energy costs could indeed shut down a lot of ski areas, but it won't be due to lack of snowfall.

The impact of climate change on ski resorts will not happen overnight and it is not perfectly clear how it will manifest itself for the northeast. Most climate models actually predict winter precipitation to increase over the north east, but with an increase in temperature so it is not clear whether the added precipitation will fall as snow or water. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that the higher altitude New England ski resorts will suffer much until the latter half of this century, since the temperature increase might not be sufficient to significantly alter the snow/rain balance. Low lying resorts, especially to the south are at much higher risks.

Climate change will affect skiing, but I'm worried for my grandchildren, not for myself or even for my son.

 

[jack97]

Your above link is not to a scientific paper. It is an opinion paper that has not undergone any peer-review process. 3 degrees increase is NOT a number thrown by alarmists. It is well within the range of possible future as stated by the latest IPCC report, although higher than the median of predicted increases in the latest report. Greater than 6 degress is usually what alarmists talk about. If you consider the IPCC as alarmists, than I suggest we end this debate here.

First of all, there is no denial that global warming is occurring, what has been politicized is the cause, is it predominately man made or is it a natural occurrence, there has been enough evidence to show that the earth has had many climate cycles in the past.


I would argue that the IPCC report is not a scientific paper even tho it went to a peer review process. It depends if the peers are thoroughly analyzing the premise of the scientific facts and findings. Gray suggest that the models to predict temp rise based on co2 are not accurate and other factors have to be taken account, other scientists are suggesting this as well. That's my only take from it because I believe climate modeling is still in its infancy and will need time to hone in.

Weatherman have three to four models to make their predictions and the accuracy varies and they had more time tweak their model than climate scientist.

 

[jack97]

if the winter season is getting shorter.... maybe its time for some local areas to invest in this.

 

[fbrissette]

First of all, there is no denial that global warming is occurring, what has been politicized is the cause, is it predominately man made or is it a natural occurrence, there has been enough evidence to show that the earth has had many climate cycles in the past.

There are still quite a few people denying global warming, although in the face of overwhelming evidence, they have switched the debate to whether or not men is to blame. Pretty soon, once it becomes impossible to argue this point anymore (we are pretty much there), they will switch the debate to whether or not climate change is a bad thing and why we should not spent money on it. Climate cycles, sunspots, ocean circualtion, aerosols... all of that has been well studied and the conclusion points clearly to man as being the main cause of the observed warming.

I would argue that the IPCC report is not a scientific paper even tho it went to a peer review process. It depends if the peers are thoroughly analyzing the premise of the scientific facts and findings.

Let me see, the report from IPCC Working group A-Physical science - which reviews all relevant literature (over 4000 papers) and for which dozens of reviewers go over each chapter is not a scientific paper ?

Gray suggest that the models to predict temp rise based on co2 are not accurate and other factors have to be taken account, other scientists are suggesting this as well. That's my only take from it because I believe climate modeling is still in its infancy and will need time to hone in.

The accuracy of climate models is discussed in the IPCC report and uncertainty is well assessed. Gray is NOT a climate scientist nor do climate scientists agree with him.

Weatherman have three to four models to make their predictions and the accuracy varies and they had more time tweak their model than climate scientist.

Weather and climate are two different beasts.

 

[AdironRider]

So, ultimately, what do you folks think we should do about it. I doubt its fund some kids ski dream through kickstarter. Would we rather place emissions regulations on US companies that hurts job creation, etc here in the states while every other major industrial country continues to spew as much emissions as they like. This is the crux of the argument, as no one can seriously claim, that even if man-made (which is debatable - look at that Iceland Volcano a few years back - that was like 2-3 years of total US emissions dumped into the air in a matter of days - by a volcano) theres no way you can get the entire world, 190 countries with different cultures, political beliefs, etc, to all get on the same page because it makes someone feel good. Its lose - lose. Furthermore, the climate has shown astounding ability to bounce back. Remember the OZONE layer crap from the 90's, yeah don't hear about that as much these days.

 

[AdironRider]

Now that's not to say we cant all decide to do our own part, that helps, like not using plastic disposable water bottles, but to argue that if we don't drastically change the way the entire economy does business were all going to die just turns the majority of the population off. Also arguing carte blanche that's its manmade as FBRISETTE seems to think is pure bullshit, just on the other side. Your placing a lot of trust into climate data gathered by some guy on a farm who thought it snowed a lot some year back in the 1850's

 

[jack97]

Let me see, the report from IPCC Working group A-Physical science - which reviews all relevant literature (over 4000 papers) and for which dozens of reviewers go over each chapter is not a scientific paper ?

So you say the report is a review, I will say it implies a consensus of findings so far. It has yet to prove why the slow down of warming has occur. The report is so politicize that some countries wanted to strike out the fact that a slow down occurred.

The accuracy of climate models is discussed in the IPCC report and uncertainty is well assessed. Gray is NOT a climate scientist nor do climate scientists agree with him.

Gray is not a climate scientist, he is a professor emeritus in the Atmospheric Science Dept at CSU. This dept is ranked number 1 in the nation by the National Research Foundation. I figure somebody in his position would have academic freedom to pursue his research and publish his findings.

Weather and climate are two different beasts.

Yes they are! IMO, climate modeling is a harder nut to crack, hence the models need more time to mature in terms of accuracy. The latest finding of the slowdown probably has most scientist salivating. They are probably having fun trying to figure out why their models were wrong and how it can be find tuned by taking into account other factors.

 

[jack97]

.....Your placing a lot of trust into climate data gathered by some guy on a farm who thought it snowed a lot some year back in the 1850's

I read that some research scientist believe they can predict with better accuracy on past climate trends via fossils. If so, it will take a while to obtain past climate changes. In the mean time, I think it's an exciting time for scientist trying to model future trends.

 

[fbrissette]

Remember the OZONE layer crap from the 90's, yeah don't hear about that as much these days.

The ozone layer has not gotten worse because there was a very rapid world wide ban on CFCs once everyone realize that they were destroying the thin layer that allows life on earth. The scientists who predicted that were aggressively targeted and ridiculed by the chemical industry lobby at first. Once they started measuring the hole over Antarctica, it became very real. The Montreal protocol banned all CFC's and they were phased out by the mid 90. Molina and Rawlings later won the chemistry Nobel prize for their work.

Lots of parallels to be drawn with the current climate warning debate, with the exception that climate change is a slow moving ship that worries a lot of people, but does not scare them. The ozone hole really scared enough people so we collectively acted very rapidly. The ban of CFCs was not as big an adaptation than is needed with fossil fuels. CFCs were replaced by products that are ozone friendly but that have a very strong greenhouse effect.

 

[fbrissette]

This dept is ranked number 1 in the nation by the National Research Foundation. I figure somebody in his position would have academic freedom to pursue his research and publish his findings.

He is famous for his hurricane work. While he certainly has the academic freedom to pursue whatever research he wants, the problem is that he cannot get his research on climate change neither published or funded, so he talks to the media and uses internet to push his ideas.

So may be he is right and the several hundreds of scientists world-wide who have dedicated their life to climate science are wrong.

 

[fbrissette]

that was like 2-3 years of total US emissions dumped into the air in a matter of days - by a volcano)

This figure is absolutely, totally and utterly wrong when we talk about CO2. Volcanoes emit little Co2 compared to fossil fuels and actually have a well documented (and well modelled by climate models) cooling effect. You CANNOT get scientific fact from the internet. You have got to read the scientific literature.

 

[jack97]

He is famous for his hurricane work. While he certainly has the academic freedom to pursue whatever research he wants, the problem is that he cannot get his research on climate change neither published or funded, so he talks to the media and uses internet to push his ideas.

So may be he is right and the several hundreds of scientists world-wide who have dedicated their life to climate science are wrong.

Gray dedicated his life to atmospheric science. But forget about this tick for tack... reports after the last IPCC indicates that climate modelers are now considering "climate sensitivities factors" on how much co2 emissions will cause a rise in temp. The point being is their models where not accurate enough and they have to tweak them.