Are we skiers helping global climate change?

[SIKSKIER]

What a bunch of crap.You hypocrites sitting there typing this crap on your very toxin producing computer with your cars sitting in the driveway.Reminds me of Al Gore telling us to shut off our 4 light bulbs in our little houses while he spews out endless energy in his 20,000 sq ft mansion after just getting off his chartered 727 jet.

Ok now nitpickers,I fixed it for you.The point was that people wag their finger at you to be environmentally responsible all the while doing exactly the opposite.If Gore wants me to have a little respect for him then at least find a less harmfull way to travel if you are supposed to be the great watchdog of carbon emmisions.

 

[Scruffy]

What a bunch of crap.You hypocrites sitting there typing this crap on your very toxin producing computer with your cars sitting in the driveway.Reminds me of Al Gore telling us to shut off our 4 light bulbs in our little houses while he spews out endless energy in his 20,000 sq ft mansion after just getting off his chartered 727 jet.

Ok now nitpickers,I fixed it for you.The point was that people wag their finger at you to be environmentally responsible all the while doing exactly the opposite.If Gore wants me to have a little respect for him then at least find a less harmfull way to travel if you are supposed to be the great watchdog of carbon emmisions.

Al Gore didn't start this thread or write the article referenced by the OP. What hypocrisy ( amongst the posters here ) are you referring to? I don't see anyone suggesting we don't ski, or we should not drive to the mountains. I see discussion on whether our actions are indeed contributing to climate change, if so, how much, and are we shooting ourselves in the foot with respect to the future of skiing.

 

[Riverskier]

I would rather not get into this conversation myself, but I just wanted to thank you for being the voice of reason in these threads.

That research has been done. There have been credible studies suggesting the Prius and other hybrids, are nearly as bad as regular cars after you factor everything in. Doesn't matter. Tons of people drive those things to be SEEN in them. Look at me, look at me!!!! See me? See me? Look how responsible and environmentally friendly I am! It's insipid. And the US government was giving massive tax credits that pile onto the national debt to "encourage" everyone to buy one, as ridiculous as it is. Just another example of religious observance despite the facts.





Where did anyone in this thread say he "owns" a private jet?
A) Nobody did

How would CO2 emissions from trips in a private trip differ if the jet was "owned" or "rented"?
A) They wouldn't



This is a perfect example illustrating one of my previous posts in this thread.

92% of people who authoritatively talk about man-made global warming do not have a science background
98% of people who authoritatively talk about man-made global warming have never read a single IPCC report

Both of those statistics are completely made up and manufactured out of thin air with no evidence to back them up, though I'd suspect they're closer to the truth than the two in kartski's post.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Maybe I'm misreading you Gomez, but you always seem to be arguing that we should all do nothing and ignore the problem instead of working towards solutions.

Yes, you're misreading me. My argument is multi-faceted.

First, I'm arguing that there's an increasingly good chance that there isn't a "problem" at all in the first place, and that increasingly as more data rolls in, the man-made global warming hypothesis is looking worse and worse.

Secondly, IF you do believe in man-made global warming, which is fine, you cant "pick and choose" which bits you want to believe in. Math and Science do not work in that fashion. You either believe it en toto, or you dont believe it at all. Thus if you're a believer you should intellectually examine why it is that the Government rabidly goes after certain entities and industries and focuses on their greenhouse gas production, but gives a 100% pass to other entities, industries, and activities which are clearly FAR WORSE in terms of greenhouse gas production than the ones it goes after.

Thirdly, I have serious concerns for how the leaders, including some of the most highly-regarded "Climate Change Scientists" whose work gets incorporated into the extremely influential UN studies, have practiced mafioso tactics in blackballing and attempting to silence anyone who offers up a competing scientific hypothesis to man-made global warming. (i.e. The creepy Religious Cult factor)

Lastly, IF you believe in this, the "solutions" are almost patently ridiculous to talk about in light of the developing world. Just China and India alone will produce more emissions..... those two nations alone.... than could possibly be "offset" by the rest of the entire world unilaterilly acting "responsibly". It's a joke. Oh, but Belgium and Iceland are acting soooo responsibly? = LULZ

Enlighten us with what "everything" that hasn't been "factored in"?

I think you mean "has" been factored in? You can do a quick GOOG search for yourself, but net/net, hybrid cars dont do much good. This has been largely a marketing scam. Yes, a Prius will save gas and produce lower emissions than a standard car, but its' production and disposal has significantly worst environmental cost, partially offsetting its' environmental value.

If you ask someone how much better a hybrid is than a standard car for the environment, they'll probably say something like, "oh, it's like 10X better" or maybe "100x better". The truth is, it's negligible, something like a mere 5% or 10% less emissions depending on whose study you want to believe. Even with those electric cars it's only like 20%, most people dont realize how much CO2 production goes along with electricity. But then again, as the South Park episode on hybrid cars noted, you cant put a price-tag on Smug satisfaction.

 

[BenedictGomez]

people wag their finger at you to be environmentally responsible all the while doing exactly the opposite.If Gore wants me to have a little respect for him then at least find a less harmfull way to travel if you are supposed to be the great watchdog of carbon emmisions.

Exactly.

SEE: my pet ownership comments
SEE: my vegetarian comments
SEE: yelling at my "irresponsible" SUV, then going fishing or water-skiing on your power boat
SEE: 1000 other perfect examples

The worst part is how people like Gore live their lives while trying to make everyone else (aka us pee-ons) change theirs.

Ohhh, but I'm forgetting that it's okay because of his "Carbon Offsets". ROTFLMAO at "Carbon Offsets". I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, it's by far the most "douchey" subtopic of the man-made Global Warming debate.

 

[dmc]

Man is accelerating global warming.. No doubt in my mind.. And many others..

When history looks back on this era - the people that don't believe will be shown as being on the wrong side of this..

 

[abc]

Yes, a Prius will save gas and produce lower emissions than a standard car, but its' production and disposal has significantly worst environmental cost, partially offsetting its' environmental value.

The "production and disposal cost" of hybrid are mostly in their batteries. This being the early phase of electric cars (which includes hybrid with batteries), the production/disposal of battery has yet to be tackled. That will, as with most technology, improve as the technology matures. We don't know what the ultimate environmental cost will be down the road. On the other hand, if we don't get started with hybrid & electric cars, the technology will never got developed. (not saying I'm buying in to help the technology but some one has to!)

Saving gas isn't half as important as lower emissions.

The truth is, it's negligible, something like a mere 5% or 10% less emissions depending on whose study you want to believe. Even with those electric cars it's only like 20%, most people dont realize how much CO2 production goes along with electricity.

CO2 emission from power plants ("electricity production") depends on the fuel used. On one end of the spectrum, coal firing plants, especially those build decades ago before we understood carbon emission, had pretty bad emission. On the opposite end of the spectrum, hydro plant, wind farms and solar farms has zero, YES ZERO, CO2 emission!

So your 20% figure, I would hazard a guess is based on AVERAGE CO2 emission over all types of power plants. As older coal firing plants got phased out and replaced by cleaner plants, the differential of emission will grow to be much more significantly in favor of electricity!

Your assertion of "developing country" being the biggest polluter were totally false. Even though there're some rather "dirty" polluters in China and India, per capita, Chinese are about a quarter of US and Indian is less than 10%!!!

Much of your arguments center on how imperfect the current solutions are. So you think we should do absolutely nothing until we find that perfect solution? And ONLY AFTER the Chinese and Indian adopted those "perfect" solutions?

If I'm taking a 2 hr ski lesson, should I expect to come out to be the next Bode Miller and asked for my money back if I'm not?

 

[Abubob]

I have often thought that human over consumption is destroying the earth in myriad ways. The ski industry is only one example.

The real question is (since we all agree that we all do things that harm the environment) what are YOU doing to reduce your carbon footprint or your own over consumption?

Personally my contribution which I'm sure is minimal since I still drive a car to work and heat my home with oil. I live a half hour from work and less than 20 minutes to the nearest ski area. I originally move to NH merely to cut my drive time and reduce the weight of worry on my non-skiing wife but since then it has served to reduce my carbon foot print. My house is less than 1000 sq ft. And to top it off I bought a used alpine touring set so when it finally does snow enough in my backyard I can use them. Being fat and fifty I won't be kicking my lift assisted skiing addiction anytime soon but I hope to reduce my dependency.

Finally I try to help people to realize even though this world/system of things is crashing down around us the earth will continue to exist with people on it happily enjoying winter - as my signature shows.

The problem with this argument is the slippery slope.

Sorry riv I couldn't resist. Slippery slopes are, after all, what we live for. 8)

 

[BenedictGomez]

Your assertion of "developing country" being the biggest polluter were totally false. Even though there're some rather "dirty" polluters in China and India, per capita, Chinese are about a quarter of US and Indian is less than 10%!!!

Wrong. China is the #1 CO2 producer on the planet, this is common knowledge. Second place isn't even in the rear-view mirror because China is so FAR ahead in terms of leading the planet in greenhouse gas production. Per capita data is (as it usually is) far less valuable information than actual figures. If you believe this theory, then you have to know that the planet doesnt care what nation CO2 emanates from, it is only of importance to quantify that emanation. And more of it comes from China than anywhere else in the world, and it will continue to do so.

But I was talking about the FUTURE (which is exactly why I said "will produce").

So I also included India, which is massively growing in both human population and CO2 production.

Yes, you're right that currently the USA produces more CO2 than India, but going forward (i.e. future) China and India are massively expanding. Also, the USA has been decreasing CO2 production while developing nations and India and China are increasing CO2 production, so that spread is only going to get worse.

So you think we should do absolutely nothing until we find that perfect solution? And ONLY AFTER the Chinese and Indian adopted those "perfect" solutions?

I'm guessing you haven't read through the entire thread, because if you had you would know that I dont believe in man-made Global Warming.

 

[dmc]

China is the exception and you are correct they are way in the lead on total emissions..
India, Russia and Japan are in OUR rear view mirror...
2011 data

Country	CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions[SUP][11][/SUP]	Emission per capita[SUP][12][/SUP]
World	33,376,327	4.9
China	9,700,000	7.2
United States	5,420,000	17.3
India	1,970,000	1.6
Russia	1,830,000	12.8
Japan	1,240,000	9.8
International transport	1,040,000	-
Germany	810,000	9.9
South Korea	610,000	12.6
Canada	560,000	16.2

..
We are in the lead per capita..
2011 data

Country	CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions[SUP][11][/SUP]	Emission per capita[SUP][12][/SUP]
United States	5,420,000	17.3
Canada	560,000	16.2
Russia	1,830,000	12.8
South Korea	610,000	12.6
Germany	810,000	9.9
Japan	1,240,000	9.8
China	9,700,000	7.2
World	33,376,327	4.9
India	1,970,000	1.6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...List_of_countries_by_2011_emissions_estimates

 

[abc]

Wrong. China is the #1 CO2 producer on the planet, this is common knowledge. Second place isn't even in the rear-view mirror because China is so FAR ahead in terms of leading the planet in greenhouse gas production. Per capita data is (as it usually is) far less valuable information than actual figures.

Wrong!

When YOU, an average American, produces more CO2 than 3 Chinese, how can you argue it's less???

So it's ok that Americans use up more of the resources and pollutes more per person because there're fewer of us? Using that logic, if there're 10 times as many Chinese, each of them should only allow to eat 1/10 of what we eat? If that's not selfish, I don't know what is!

If you believe this theory, then you have to know that the planet doesnt care what nation CO2 emanates from, it is only of importance to quantify that emanation.

That's right, the planet doesn't care which country, nor which family it's coming from. All it knows is there're 10 billion people on the planet. And each person produces x amount of CO2. Right now, an average American is producing 3 times as many CO2 than an average Chinese!

But I was talking about the FUTURE (which is exactly why I said "will produce").

So I also included India, which is massively growing in both human population and CO2 production.

Yes, you're right that currently the USA produces more CO2 than India, but going forward (i.e. future) China and India are massively expanding. Also, the USA has been decreasing CO2 production while developing nations and India and China are increasing CO2 production, so that spread is only going to get worse.

Actually, the "spread" is going to narrow as China and India closes the pollution gap per capita compare to the developed countries! Right now, they're behind, but they're catching up fast.

I'm guessing you haven't read through the entire thread, because if you had you would know that I dont believe in man-made Global Warming

If you don't believe in man-made Global Warming, surely you couldn't care less how much CO2 China and India produce in the future?

 

[steamboat1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umm3jIlSPg8

 

[Scruffy]

Interesting site:

The good news:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1

The bad news: ( snow pack is not staying deep into spring )
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2

 

[Nick]

Sorry guys i haven't been in these threads. If you guys see duplicate GW threads as they relate to skiing let me know and I can merge them together. We shouldn't have more than one thread on the topic. unless there is really some crazy disparate reason why.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Wrong!

When YOU, an average American, produces more CO2 than 3 Chinese, how can you argue it's less???

Because I'm approaching the subject from the scientific standpoint of the net effect of emissions calculated by global CO2 production. And the Chinese product a crap-ton more CO2 than America does.

Whereas you are approaching the subject from the kum-ba-yah standpoint of what can I do to be a better human being and reduce my carbon footprint to help Mother Earth.

Actually, the "spread" is going to narrow as China and India closes the pollution gap per capita compare to the developed countries! Right now, they're behind, but they're catching up fast.

The spread cannot narrow due a statistical forecast of population dynamics. This is not debatable.

The second big reason it wont narrow has to do with percentages of the sources of energy creation in these nations, but that's another subject.

Sorry guys i haven't been in these threads. If you guys see duplicate GW threads as they relate to skiing let me know and I can merge them together. We shouldn't have more than one thread on the topic. unless there is really some crazy disparate reason why.

Excellent idea.

 

[goldsbar]

Of course it has gotten warmer. But, it's been over hundreds of years. From Wiki:

On December 28 it snowed, but the weather cleared that night and it became bitter cold. As this effort involved most of the army, eight crossing points were used. At some of them the ice had frozen two to three inches (4 to 7 cm) thick, and was capable of supporting soldiers, who crossed the ice on foot.

That's a re-crossing of the Delaware a couple of days after the original attack on Trenton in 1776. Does that ever happen anymore? Doubt it.

Has this been at least partially man-made? Probably. Is anyone willing to seriously do anything about it? Nope. Most "evironmentalists" are complete hippocrits, often driving a Prius but living in a 5,000 sq ft house, etc. The die has been cast for our lifetimes. Some good winters, some bad - as usual.

 

[Cannonball]

Because I'm approaching the subject from the scientific standpoint of the net effect of emissions calculated by global CO2 production. And the Chinese product a crap-ton more CO2 than America does.

If you were looking at it from net effect of emissions you wouldn't break it out by country boundaries, you'd look at global production.

But the reality is you're not trying to look at it scientifically at all. You are trying to twist an agenda and pre-conceived ideas into the data. There is no debate left about this in the scientific community. We aren't even debating it any more. We are just looking at forecasts for the degree of change, the potential impacts, and the mitigation measures. The only 'debate' remains in the political realms and internet message boards.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Here we go again with the "there is no debate" line.The typical response when opposing views are expessed pertaining to GW.You get shut right off because your viewpoint is different.
Its too bad humans were not here before the last ice age.We could have melted that 1 mile of ice on top Manhattan much faster.

 

[BenedictGomez]

If you were looking at it from net effect of emissions you wouldn't break it out by country boundaries, you'd look at global production.

That's exactly what I did. And "global production" is the sum of all the countries production added together. It has nothing to do with per capita rate.

There is no debate left about this in the scientific community. We aren't even debating it any more. We are just looking at forecasts for the degree of change, the potential impacts, and the mitigation measures. The only 'debate' remains in the political realms and internet message boards.

And the cultist religious ideology rears it head.

No matter now many times you hear XYZ media personality or Al Gore state the above, it wont make it true.

Science doesn't work like this.

The only thing that is "not debatable" is that there are scientists all over the globe currently working on other hypotheses for the earth's warming and cooling, either because they're not convinced in AGM or because they believe the AGM hypothesis is wrong.

To not recognize or admit this is simply astounding to me.

At any rate, throughout the course of human history, and regardless of the topic, when one side seeks to prevent any debate from taking place on an issue, there's usually a very good reason for it, and the ultimate conclusion is an unhappy one for that side.

 

[Cannonball]

That's exactly what I did. And "global production" is the sum of all the countries production added together. It has nothing to do with per capita rate.



And the cultist religious ideology rears it head.

No matter now many times you hear XYZ media personality or Al Gore state the above, it wont make it true.

Science doesn't work like this.

The only thing that is "not debatable" is that there are scientists all over the globe currently working on other hypotheses for the earth's warming and cooling, either because they're not convinced in AGM or because they believe the AGM hypothesis is wrong.

To not recognize or admit this is simply astounding to me.

At any rate, throughout the course of human history, and regardless of the topic, when one side seeks to prevent any debate from taking place on an issue, there's usually a very good reason for it, and the ultimate conclusion is an unhappy one for that side.

This is tiresome. Those of us working in this field are way beyond the "debate" stage and have moved on to working on solutions and mitigations. Despite your constant statements to the contrary, there is no secret agenda where we are all getting rich by perpetuating some conspiracy. We are just plugging away. Most of us at low-paying, non-profit and/or research jobs. How often do you see scientists driving Bently's and living large? It ain't glamorous, it ain't profitable, and it usually ain't popular.

I'm not sure why I've allowed myself to get sucked into this here yet again. You are free to believe whatever you want. It won't make any difference globally, scientifically, or historically. Enjoy. And ski on.