Are we skiers helping global climate change?

[bobbutts]

Simple answer, not at all. The more energy we consume, the wealthier and more fulfilled we are. As skiers we're likely all relatively close to the top of that pyramid. We drive long distances to recreation, we live in heated and AC'd homes, our standard of living is facilitated by energy consumption. We will not give up this lifestyle easily.
I think it is fair to conclude that the environmental cost of using dirty energy is increasing. Even if you ignore other factors, the increasing demand in China especially supports this. It's incalculable, but at some point we (humans, not just Americans) will be costing ourselves more than we're gaining when we use these types of sources. One of the issues is the tragedy of the commons here, no country will act alone.

 

[jwt]

Experts can ( and do) disagree

more than just cow fart


Dario Caro co authored paper in Climate Change.... i assumed it was peered reviewed so it must be legit.

I have no formal education on the subject, but from observations over 50+ years I submit the following:

We had 100-150' of ice on New England up to about 10,000 years ago, so seems to be getting warmer.

No anthropogenic produced CO2 then.

.5-1 degree warmer over 100 years + hasn't caused the damage predicted.

That feeble man believes he can control the atmosphere or climate is laughable - but we are charged with stewardship of what God has given us. Just take a look at volcanic activity - think pols can help those folks in Hawaii?

control of energy = control of people == power - 1st thing Gorbachov did after the wall fell was join the environmental extremist groups.

$$ that we ( nor the world) doesn't have can't save anything - we can spent the grandkids cash now as we have since the 70's, but they owe it back. $17.5T and counting - only $300B a yr in interest - as long as it stays put at .5% rates.

Richard Lindzen from MIT disagrees with the concept of man-made, so does this fellow: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/11/earliest-snow-in-columbia-sc/

and of course the re is www.climatedepot.com

I just don't know, but governments trying to control and tax what humans exhale and plants inhale is as ridiculous a thought as there ever was.

Best never to 'assume' anything though. . . . .

 

[jack97]

It's the lack of context that makes it disingenuous. While it would be easy to argue the numbers, I'll grant you that the cartoon info is more or less correct. However, do you think it's fair to compare the life cycle emissions from food against that of emissions from the sole use of fuel from point A to point B ?

You have not answered my question.

My point was to show that meat production consumes energy as well. Its significance is such that groups of scientist have published peer reviewed papers of the green house gas emission this industry produces and as Caro wrote expects to produce by 2050. The cartoon gives a convenient magnitude of co2-equivalent emission wrt to driving for those who don't want to go thru the numbers every time they eat a hamburger.

As far being fair the life cycle of food against fuel to go from point A to point B. I'm not enough of a libtard to say what is fair or not fair on how one chooses to emit co2. The fact is meat production and driving both require energy that emits co2-equivalents.

btw, going vegan is not so bad....

 

[Harvey]

Does the environmental impact of skiing outweigh the environmental awareness it promotes?

Not even close.

Are you referring to earned turns?

 

[abc]

the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.

Looking at that cartoon, I come to a totally opposite conclusion. So, for every 10 miles of SUV driving, it's the equivalent of eating a pound of steak!

Why should anyone adopt a vagan lifestyle?

You can eat a pound of beef EVERYDAY if your daily commute BY SUV is less than 20 miles!!!

I bet the majority of people has a far longer commute.

So, eat to your hearts content! But move to a place that you can walk to work!

As for the 200 mile one way drive to VT to ski, again by SUV, well... I can only say that's a whole lot of steaks!!!

 

[Harvey]

Been walking to work since 1988. Not a vegan but not a huge meat fan.

Still do my "fair share" (<--ridiculous concept) of driving, maybe 10k or more per year. Skiing mostly.

What I meant to say above is that IMO skiing does nothing to promote enviro awareness. It's an enviro disaster as far as I can tell, and very few think twice about it. Not claiming to be better than anyone else here.

 

[bdfreetuna]

Love how everyone totally ignores 100 years of weather modification and still can pretend they are authorities on so-called climate change.

Fact is weather is made to order and those trading in weather futures are more than aware of this reality.

But yeah let's argue weather its cow farts or cars. Kind of like in the 80s and 90s we were told hairspray was wreaking the ozone layer. AFTER numerous nuclear weapons were tested in the ionosphere.

Manipulating people with climate fears has been on the table for a long time, and its time has come regardless of reality.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'm guessing those trading Alcoa stocks are doing even better.

 

[bdfreetuna]

I'll just say it. Anyone who counts their driving miles to feel better about global warming is a useful idiot.

 

[Edd]

Love how everyone totally ignores 100 years of weather modification and still can pretend they are authorities on so-called climate change.

Fact is weather is made to order and those trading in weather futures are more than aware of this reality.

This lady agrees.

 

[bdfreetuna]

That's funny. But you all arguing about the cause of climate change without even acknowledging weather mod are even funnier.

I happen to know a research meteorologist worked for US gov in the 80s PNW. Field studies in aerosol weather mod. Cloud seeding on steroids.

People that are otherwise interested in weather and climate I would think will hear me out, but my experience is the whole issue of climate is so politicized by now most people have made up their minds with very little consideration of the science of weather mod and geoengineering.

Trust me when I tell you, you'll find out about this soon enough either way.

 

[deadheadskier]

 

[Cannonball]

the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.

That's a bold indictment. Any facts to back it up?

 

[BenedictGomez]

Love how everyone totally ignores 100 years of weather modification and still can pretend they are authorities on so-called climate change.

Fact is weather is made to order and those trading in weather futures are more than aware of this reality.

I remember these posts last year too.

I still cant figure out if they're actually serious or not.

 

[Cannonball]

I remember these posts last year too.

I still cant figure out if they're serious or not.

Me neither. Can't tell if he's really on your side of this discussion. Or just mocking your side. Either way it's comical.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Me neither. Can't tell if he's really on your side of this discussion. Or just mocking your side. Either way it's comical.

Huh?

The fact you boil it down to a "side" is pretty telling. That's one of the biggest problems with the issue.

Be that as it may, I don't understand how you could possibly ascertain exactly what he thinks from.....that.

 

[Cannonball]

Huh?

The fact you boil it down a "side" is pretty telling. Be that as it may, I don't understand how you could possibly ascertain exactly what he thinks from.....that.

OK, maybe not 'sides'. But It's the big gov conspiracy theory stuff that seems pretty consistent between his posts and yours. Can't tell if he's serious or just mocking you posts. Funny either way.

 

[deadheadskier]

Huh?

The fact you boil it down to a "side" is pretty telling. That's one of the biggest problems with the issue.

Be that as it may, I don't understand how you could possibly ascertain exactly what he thinks from.....that.

Pretty simple read on it for me. Tuna is on your "side" in that he doesn't believe carbon emissions are cause for global warming and he thinks people who believe that carbon is cause for global warming are foolish.


........then he throws down the gauntlet and suggest geoengineering such as chemtrails and the like are the cause of climate change.

 

[BenedictGomez]

OK, maybe not 'sides'. But It's the big gov conspiracy theory stuff that seems pretty consistent between his posts and yours. Can't tell if he's serious or just mocking you posts. Funny either way.

Conspiracy theory? Oh, do elaborate, and please don't leave out any details.

Pretty simple read on it for me. Tuna is on your "side" in that he doesn't believe carbon emissions are cause for global warming and he thinks people who believe that carbon is cause for global warming are foolish.

Maybe I missed it in a prior post(s) or didn't take it correctly, but I didn't read it as necessarily meaning that. I read it as his meaning that whether or not Global Warming is caused my CO2 doesn't matter in the least bit, because the weather is being manipulated anyway.

 

[Cannonball]

Conspiracy theory? Oh, do elaborate, and please don't leave out any details.

Yeah, the details have always seemed to be the fuzzy part. Not that you've let that stop you. Something about big government meat eating liberals that are trying to kill the economy by subsiding new technologies while conspiring with rich foreigners who want green cards to undermine New Jersey's real estate??? It gets confusing at this point so I'm not sure. If the weather manipulation stuff fits in at this point, I don't really get it but why not.