Are we skiers helping global climate change?

[ctenidae]

If one really wants to understand how I find the "debate being over" arguement ludicrous,then open your closed minds and read,I mean really read all of this simple Wiki ice age page.How one can possibly believe we are the force that shapes climate changes in the least is beyond me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

I'm not sure how you read that page and don't think that we have at least some influence on the climate. Granted, we can't control or influence the Earth's orbit, or the Sun's position in the galaxy, or meteorites, or supervolcanoes. But the other major factor that article spends some considerable time on is atmospheric composition. In particular, CO2. Which we produce a lot of. If the dinosaurs could fart themselves into extinction, I bet we can make things uncomfortable for ourselves, too.

 

[mediamogul]

The real problem is that the entire modern/ industrialized energy system is built on fossil fuels which inevitably contribute to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Most of the science is pointing towards the fact that the problem is much worse than than was previously thought. The global average temperature could increase by as much as six degrees in the next hundred years. Our energy production system needs a radical overhaul. Ski areas are unfortunately powered by the same fossil fuel reliant system as are our cars to get there, our planes, our heat, etc... I know Berkshire East has been able to get upwards of 100% of it's power from wind and they recently added a solar farm on the mountain too. Ideally the model of sustainability would be 100% percent power with 0% carbon footprint but I don't know if that is even scientifically possible.

 

[poconovfr]

Look, if you believe in man-made global warming, if you REALLY understand the science, and if you REALLY believe in it, then nearly EVERYTHING we do is "bad for the environment".

Creating a super-resistant virus and killing every man, woman, and child on the planet is the "best" thing we can do to "save" earth if you believe in this stuff. The horse is out of the barn if you believe in this stuff, and regulating Belgium or Luxembourg or Swaziland is a JOKE, because the bulk of the "problem" is with the developing world, who wont do ANYTHING about this.

So relax, fire up that SUV, pet your dog (who is killing the planet MORE than your SUV if you REALLY believe this stuff and understand the science), and enjoy your ski vacation.

+10

yeah so we....man....have been keeping weather records for what say 170 years give or take. Mother Earth has been around for what let's even be kind and say a million years. So here's the kick in the ass right.....if the mountains we ski on were actually erupting volcanoes from a couple years back wouldn't that make Earth herself the biggest producer of a giant carbon footprint. Maybe some of you remember a little eruption over northern Europe and the UK a couple years ago. Earth will do what Earth will do. To think we could actually correct it's path is just silly. We're another experiment and when she's done with us she will shake us off like my dog shakes off snow.

 

[dmc]

Too bad there's no way to see what the weather was before 170 years ago...

I guess all the ice core samples, coral reef and tree rings studies around the world should be tossed out... I mean... It's only scientific fact. How can it be correct?

I'm also glad that Noah didn't take the dinosaurs on the ark.. Cause that would've sucked right there...

 

[poconovfr]

There is still no way to tell exactly the temp change over a 100 year period 10,000 years ago. You can guess Dr. but that's it. Lower Manhattan was flooding long before the Indians called it home. Point is we are along for the ride. Enjoy some pow.

 

[Scruffy]

View attachment 7056

+10

yeah so we....man....have been keeping weather records for what say 170 years give or take. Mother Earth has been around for what let's even be kind and say a million years. So here's the kick in the ass right.....if the mountains we ski on were actually erupting volcanoes from a couple years back wouldn't that make Earth herself the biggest producer of a giant carbon footprint. Maybe some of you remember a little eruption over northern Europe and the UK a couple years ago. Earth will do what Earth will do. To think we could actually correct it's path is just silly. We're another experiment and when she's done with us she will shake us off like my dog shakes off snow.

Yeah so? .. once there was Pangaea, and climate change well before Anthropithecus stood up, and all life forms are made of carbon ( the most abundant element ).. that's not the point.

 

[abc]

Creating a super-resistant virus and killing every man, woman, and child on the planet is the "best" thing we can do to "save" earth if you believe in this stuff.

That shows how totally ignorant the "SUV driving" crowd is!

If we screw up the environment, then every man, woman, and child will be erased from the face of the planet! Who needs super virus?

Protecting the environment is to save US! But I guess like alcoholics and drug addicts, many are so far gone they'll drink or shoot themselves into extinction!

The earth doesn't need "saving". The earth will be still be there, after we're all wiped clean off the face of this planet by non-stop flood and hurricane.

 

[poconovfr]

hey did protecting the environment save those kids in Conn? We have much larger and immediate problems in this country in order to save it. Environment is a back burner issue.

 

[deadheadskier]

hey did protecting the environment save those kids in Conn? We have much larger and immediate problems in this country in order to save it. Environment is a back burner issue.

Probably not good form to use the deaths of 20 children to back up an opinion and try and prove a point. Is there really any reason to go there?

 

[dmc]

hey did protecting the environment save those kids in Conn? We have much larger and immediate problems in this country in order to save it. Environment is a back burner issue.

That's F'd up right there...

 

[Cannonball]

Earth will do what Earth will do. To think we could actually correct it's path is just silly. We're another experiment and when she's done with us she will shake us off like my dog shakes off snow.

I think you just hit the nail on the head in terms of misunderstanding the issue and why there is "debate" going on. YES, there are natural processes going on. Yes. That is extremely well known and nobody is claiming that there aren't. SIKSKIER just posted a wikipedia link that does a good job of describing many of those natural processes. Nobody is claiming that those natural processes aren't a factor. And nobody is claiming that we can or should be doing anything to "correct" those natural processes. The point is that we are also having an impact of our own. Again, SIKSKIER's link does a good job describing how human impacts are also contributing to climate change, on top of (not instead of) natural processes. These are the issues that we can and should work on correcting.

Here's a non-politically charged analogy: the cause of fires. Lightning can cause fire. Nobody is working on a "cure for lightning". Discarded cigarettes can cause fires. There are significant efforts to prevent people from discarding lit cigarettes and causing a fire. Just because a processes exists in nature doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't control human impacts that duplicate or exacerbate the problem.

 

[BenedictGomez]

all joking aside (except for the baby seal oil, which I have credible evidence on)

Your source is wrong. I kill whales for their oil, the seals are just for sport.

Ironic that someone from Manhattan wouldn't believe in climate change, seeing that rising ocean levels have started to periodically flood Manhattan. I would have thought the sight of water gushing into the subway tunnels would suggest something new was up.

Blaming Hurricane Sandy on Global Warming is the sort of ridiculousness the media puts in people's heads. Any large weather event is now "Global Warming".

Too hot? Global warming
Too cold? Global warming
No snow? Global warming
Too MUCH snow? Global warming
Drought? Global Warming
No rain? Global Warming
Hurricane? Global warming

The "increase in hurricanes" nonsense is especially alarming (though illustrative) given it's so easily refuted.

Yet many people now believe it (like this poster). But that's the thing. Anything that helps further the "religion" is let slide in the media, whether true or false. Anything that doubts the religion is attacked in the media, whether true or false.

There are a few immutable facts that can't be argued with:

1) We spew more crap into the environment than we used to. Partially because there are more of us, partially because we keep finding new and creative things to spew into the environment.

True

2) Spewing crap into the environment is generally a bad thing. Too many fish in a fish tank equals a stinky fish tank. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere can't be better than, say, not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

We'd all be dead were there no CO2 in the atmosphere, but the above is a complete unknown. The world is covered >70% by the oceans, and the oceans are an efficient absorber of CO2.

In fact, one of the new dogmas to help explain-away why the "religion" has been wrong about CO2 so far, is that the oceans (that thing covering almost the entire planet) might be able to absorb much more CO2 than they thought. But FEAR NOT! There's a scare tactic for that too! They think as the "climate changes" the ocean will be able to absorb less and less, which will make Global Warming worse and worse!

My favorite chemistry professor used to have a saying, "All roads lead to moles".
With Global Warming scientists it's, "All roads lead to fear mongering".

I'm not going to stop skiing (well, not for environmental reasons, anyway), I'm not going to stop driving my car, I'm not going to stop using a computer. Those things have little impact.

Yet some of "those things" with little impact you listed (and others you didn't) are where the government focuses its' attention. Because that's where it can extract money from people. Again, it has nothing to do with fixing the "problem" if you do believe a problem exists, and everything with increasing government power over citizens. Were the government really focused on the problem, they'd go after the things that are most responsible for causing it, like meat-consumption, etc..... rather than taxing car companies and oil companies (aka the dreaded "fossil fuels"). I'd have more respect for Al Gore if he got on TV and told everyone in America they shouldn't own pets or eat meat. I'd also laugh my ass off, but at least he'd be intellectually consistent.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Your source is wrong. I kill whales for their oil, the seals are just for sport.



Blaming Hurricane Sandy on Global Warming is the sort of ridiculousness the media puts in people's heads. Any large weather event is now "Global Warming".

Too hot? Global warming
Too cold? Global warming
No snow? Global warming
Too MUCH snow? Global warming
Drought? Global Warming
No rain? Global Warming
Hurricane? Global warming

The "increase in hurricanes" nonsense is especially alarming (though illustrative) given it's so easily refuted.

Yet many people now believe it (like this poster). But that's the thing. Anything that helps further the "religion" is let slide in the media, whether true or false. Anything that doubts the religion is attacked in the media, whether true or false.

True


We'd all be dead were there no CO2 in the atmosphere, but the above is a complete unknown. The world is covered >70% by the oceans, and the oceans are an efficient absorber of CO2.

In fact, one of the new dogmas to help explain-away why the "religion" has been wrong about CO2 so far, is that the oceans (that thing covering almost the entire planet) might be able to absorb much more CO2 than they thought. But FEAR NOT! There's a scare tactic for that too! They think as the "climate changes" the ocean will be able to absorb less and less, which will make Global Warming worse and worse!

My favorite chemistry professor used to have a saying, "All roads lead to moles".
With Global Warming scientists it's, "All roads lead to fear mongering".




Yet some of "those things" with little impact you listed (and others you didn't) are where the government focuses its' attention. Because that's where it can extract money from people. Again, it has nothing to do with fixing the "problem" if you do believe a problem exists, and everything with increasing government power over citizens. Were the government really focused on the problem, they'd go after the things that are most responsible for causing it, like meat-consumption, etc..... rather than taxing car companies and oil companies (aka the dreaded "fossil fuels"). I'd have more respect for Al Gore if he got on TV and told everyone in America they shouldn't own pets or eat meat. I'd also laugh my ass off, but at least he'd be intellectually consistent.

I agree with you for the most part but you lost me at not owning pets and eating meat. I am curious to hear the explaination for this theory.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I agree with you for the most part but you lost me at not owning pets and eating meat. I am curious to hear the explaination for this theory.

Already covered in the thread.

Short Version: The UN IPCC (they are the "Rabbis, Clerics, and "High Priests" of the Global Warming religion) body who run the man-made Global Warming show calculated that people are doing more greenhouse gas producing "harm" to the earth by eating meat* than they are by driving cars. The pets bit is from studies showing that owning a single dog is an "extravagance" (that was the actual word used) that is almost as bad or worse than driving an SUV depending on your yearly mileage.


*Yet almost nobody knows this

That shows how totally ignorant the "SUV driving" crowd is!

Well, the "SUV driving" crowd is mathematically less ignorant than the "meat eating" crowd and the "pets owning" crowd!

Empirical proof that the "Blind Faith" crowd is the most "totally ignorant" of them all.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Too bad there's no way to see what the weather was before 170 years ago...

I guess all the ice core samples, coral reef and tree rings studies around the world should be tossed out... I mean... It's only scientific fact. How can it be correct?

Your really making my point.Your looking at such a small sample size and period of earths existance.Tree ring studies?Sure those go back what,a few hundred years or in a few cases a few thousand years.Ice cores will only go back to the begining of the last ice age.The earth is about 5 BILLION years old.Looking back 10's of thousands of years amounts to a few grains of sand in the Sahara Desert.Obviously you did not read the link I provided which is exactly what I would expect from the "the debate is over" team.

 

[ctenidae]

hey did protecting the environment save those kids in Conn? We have much larger and immediate problems in this country in order to save it. Environment is a back burner issue.

I'd say both are long term issues with steps that need to be taken sooner rather than later.

The volcanoe analogy is kind of stupid, too. Sure, teh earth will do what it will do, adn we can't stop that. We can make it worse, though. And being technologically prepared for man-made climate change makes us, ipso facto, prepared for natural climate change.


And to use the deth of 20 kids like that is pretty low, really. Extending your volcanoe analogy, though, a psychotic mad man in Germany killed several million people in the 40's. I guess that kind of thing just happens, and there's nothing we can do about it, so let's go skiing!

/yeah, I Godwined the thread, but for a good cause, I think.

 

[ctenidae]

We'd all be dead were there no CO2 in the atmosphere, but the above is a complete unknown. The world is covered >70% by the oceans, and the oceans are an efficient absorber of CO2.

Yet some of "those things" with little impact you listed (and others you didn't) are where the government focuses its' attention. Because that's where it can extract money from people. Again, it has nothing to do with fixing the "problem" if you do believe a problem exists, and everything with increasing government power over citizens.

On the CO2 question, I thinkt he path is pretty straightforawrd: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; increased greenhouse cgas concentrations increase average temperatures; increased average temperatures have sometimes dramatic impacts on the climate. Therefore, producing more CO2 can have a dramatic impact on climate.

Now, we're pretty well settled in the world with the climate as it is. Any changes to that status quo will require changes in how we're set up. And while there's opportunity in change, there can also be hardship, especially in areas without access to the resources needed to adapt to the change. So, net net, it's better for us to not pump more CO2 into the system.

And yes, I know CO2 is necessary. I'm pretty sure all of the animal life on the planet and other natural sources provide an adequate supply. My car's exhaust is not necessary for the continued operation of the carbon cycle.

The oceans are a pretty good carbon sink, but that has its limits, too- CO2 dissolved in water makes carbonic acid. A more acidic ocean has effects on sea life- again, changing things from how we know them to something different.

Your last bit on the improper focus of government I tend to agree with. Your tin foil hat may be a bit tight, but I agree with the gist. I think the problem isn't so much with government as the peopl who elect that government, but that's a discussion for another place entirely.

 

[ctenidae]

Your really making my point.Your looking at such a small sample size and period of earths existance.Tree ring studies?Sure those go back what,a few hundred years or in a few cases a few thousand years.Ice cores will only go back to the begining of the last ice age.The earth is about 5 BILLION years old.Looking back 10's of thousands of years amounts to a few grains of sand in the Sahara Desert.Obviously you did not read the link I provided which is exactly what I would expect from the "the debate is over" team.

Ice core studies run back about 700,000 years. Id' call that a sufficient sample size to correlate atmosperic conditions with temperatures.

 

[dmc]

Ice core studies run back about 700,000 years. Id' call that a sufficient sample size to correlate atmosperic conditions with temperatures.

Isn't that older than the earth?

 

[ctenidae]

Isn't that older than the earth?

Jesus' dinosaurs were just wee young'uns then.