• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Deadlier Avalanches? Blame Global Warming

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,615
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
I am just sick of this. Who funded the research is my first question?

And everything causes cancer! When a rat just ingests huge amounts of a substance!

Duh!
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
It is pretty ridiculous. Yea, there is some truth to the avalanche information but to make a connection to global warming is crazy.
 

witch hobble

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
762
Points
0
Deadlier? Not sure that is what's being measured here. Makes for a good headline though.
 

dmc

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
14,275
Points
0
Funny how people get all up in arms about no science behind global warming...
But will support hyrdo-fracking with even LESS information on how it affects the environment...

We are fighting fracking in the Catskills now...

The hypocrisy is deafening...
Really proves that they are ALL about $$ and not actually caring for our world...
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,615
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
Funny how people get all up in arms about no science behind global warming...
But will support hyrdo-fracking with even LESS information on how it affects the environment...

We are fighting fracking in the Catskills now...

The hypocrisy is deafening...
Really proves that they are ALL about $$ and not actually caring for our world...

You need to understand the whole idea of fracking. It has been used since the 40's. What have you watch "Gasland"? And now you know everything about fracking and how bad it is. Gasland was a way for Josh Fox to make money for himself.

You should watch "Fracknation", it was funded thru kickstarter with a max of $60 allowed. This whole thing just pisses me off!
 

dmc

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
14,275
Points
0
Still on my ignore list but I'm sure I know what you said...
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
17,347
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, CT
I don't blame global warming for deadlier avalanches as much as I blame GoPro's/Contours and Youtube ;) :rolleyes:
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,773
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
We are fighting fracking in the Catskills now...

What exactly are you "fighting" per se?

This whole thing just pisses me off!

You have nothing to be pissed off about, this one ends poorly for the environmental extremist crowd, and it's the most predictable of outcomes. Natural gas is the future of America, regardless of who likes it or who doesn't like it. Build or add to positions in these companies now.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,615
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
What exactly are you "fighting" per se?



You have nothing to be pissed off about, this one ends poorly for the environmental extremist crowd, and it's the most predictable of outcomes. Natural gas is the future of America, regardless of who likes it or who doesn't like it. Build or add to positions in these companies now.

Clarify, I am pissed off on how the media sensationalizes things.
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted
Clarify, I am pissed off on how the media sensationalizes things.

Right! I think everyone is on the same page with that one. But that's not where you started in this thread. You said:

I am just sick of this. Who funded the research is my first question?

But just as you eventually came around to say...this is about media sensationalization NOT about the research. This research paper is about a small-scale laboratory experiment that looks at the physics of particle interactions for slides. It's the media that makes the leap to global warming connections. I think based on your last post I think you personally get that. But what happens is that everyone has a knee-jerk reaction about poor science, misplaced funding, etc. Science gets the bad rap for media hype.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,615
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
Right! I think everyone is on the same page with that one. But that's not where you started in this thread. You said:



But just as you eventually came around to say...this is about media sensationalization NOT about the research. This research paper is about a small-scale laboratory experiment that looks at the physics of particle interactions for slides. It's the media that makes the leap to global warming connections. I think based on your last post I think you personally get that. But what happens is that everyone has a knee-jerk reaction about poor science, misplaced funding, etc. Science gets the bad rap for media hype.

I agree, but one does need to look at the funding on the research. It is a sad state that has to be looked at. It corrupts the scientific results.
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted
I agree, but one does need to look at the funding on the research. It is a sad state that has to be looked at. It corrupts the scientific results.

Sure. It can. But there isn't much reason to think that in this case. Here's the summary. Seems like a reasonable thing to study and not really something worth "corrupting". Also doesn't appear to have anything to do with GW. That's the media's spin.....

"This Letter describes an investigation of interfacial melting in ice-bearing granular flows. It is proposed that energy associated with granular collisions causes melting at an ice particle’s surface, which can thus occur at temperatures well below freezing. A laboratory experiment has been designed that allows quantification of this process and its effect on the dynamics of a granular shear flow of ice spheres. This experiment employs a rotating drum, half filled with ice particles, situated in a temperature controlled laboratory. Capillary forces between the wetted melted particle surfaces lead to the clumping of particles and enhanced flow speeds, in turn leading to further melting. Dimensional analysis defines a parameter space for further experimentation."
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,615
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
Sure. It can. But there isn't much reason to think that in this case. Here's the summary. Seems like a reasonable thing to study and not really something worth "corrupting". Also doesn't appear to have anything to do with GW. That's the media's spin.....

"This Letter describes an investigation of interfacial melting in ice-bearing granular flows. It is proposed that energy associated with granular collisions causes melting at an ice particle’s surface, which can thus occur at temperatures well below freezing. A laboratory experiment has been designed that allows quantification of this process and its effect on the dynamics of a granular shear flow of ice spheres. This experiment employs a rotating drum, half filled with ice particles, situated in a temperature controlled laboratory. Capillary forces between the wetted melted particle surfaces lead to the clumping of particles and enhanced flow speeds, in turn leading to further melting. Dimensional analysis defines a parameter space for further experimentation."

For this paper, I agree that science is valid and the link to GW is media. I was generalizing.

The media can mislead and so can the presentation of the data.
 

fbrissette

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,587
Points
38
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
I agree, but one does need to look at the funding on the research. It is a sad state that has to be looked at. It corrupts the scientific results.

In all reputable science journal, conflicts of interests have to be disclosed. The real danger of corruption of scientific research occurs when private companies sponsor research. One has to be extra critical of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or oil and gas companies. You seem to think that there is a conspiracy with respect to climate change. Most of the climate change research in the US and in Canada is funded by the government, and both governments are not very climate change friendly (even Obama who is big on talk). There is some industry money on climate change research, but it is not agenda-based. There is however quite a bit of agenda-based industry money in pseudo climate research. And yet the consensus in Climate change is very strong.

Similarly, you seem to have a very black and white view of fracking. Which is not surprising if it is based on movies like gasland and fracknation. You should spend a bit more time reading serious scientific literature instead. You would rapidly find out that there is a scientific consensus as to the serious potential dangers to water table contamination, and that, despite of the fact that most of the money in the hand of the gas industry.

I will agree that the medias do a very poor job. But your climate change and fracking rants do not raise the debate any higher.
 

AdironRider

Active member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,217
Points
38
Man you boys should see the hububaloo concerning fracking out west these days.

If someone's well fails its automatically because of fracking. If someones dog dies, its because of fracking, etc. If someone is on the rag, you guessed it, fracking.

I agree media is overeggagerating the problem. People watch a documentary and assume its the end all be all fact. Really almost never the case...
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,615
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
In all reputable science journal, conflicts of interests have to be disclosed. The real danger of corruption of scientific research occurs when private companies sponsor research. One has to be extra critical of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or oil and gas companies. You seem to think that there is a conspiracy with respect to climate change. Most of the climate change research in the US and in Canada is funded by the government, and both governments are not very climate change friendly (even Obama who is big on talk). There is some industry money on climate change research, but it is not agenda-based. There is however quite a bit of agenda-based industry money in pseudo climate research. And yet the consensus in Climate change is very strong.

Similarly, you seem to have a very black and white view of fracking. Which is not surprising if it is based on movies like gasland and fracknation. You should spend a bit more time reading serious scientific literature instead. You would rapidly find out that there is a scientific consensus as to the serious potential dangers to water table contamination, and that, despite of the fact that most of the money in the hand of the gas industry.

I will agree that the medias do a very poor job. But your climate change and fracking rants do not raise the debate any higher.

Before you start lecturing you should understand who you are speaking at for an audience. There is alot of climate change reseaRch done in acamdemia and funded by both sides as with fracking. Things are only as safe as the interested parties want to pony up. There is issues with whatever we do to the enivronment. That man made you are sliding has snowmax which is a biological additive(bacteria), there are studies of it's affects on runoff. My point, not clear as Cannonball stated, is that we live in a society of uninformed and/ or misinformed. Sensationalism sells and the mostly liberal media and don't deny it slant to raise the most furur to get more ad revenue. There are even agents for these yahoos that get them the most money.

Data can be manipulated any way the presenter wants. It is up to the audience to ask the right questions and for the majority of people that is not possible since they take the easy route and don't develop their own conclusion and seek the right info.

Should we do something about all of the emissions into the atmosphere. Hell yes. Is that the climate changing or is it in a cycle. Data supports both.


Should we stop fracking and import the gas. Hell no. But we need to do it safely. Take the bean counters out of the picture. Fracking allows multiple wells to be drilled from one location instead of hundreds of well heads dotting the landscape.

The ACK wind farm was oppose by some of the biggest liberals. Some were upset that their view would be spoiled.

I digress now. Can you tell you pissed me off? I can go on but it is a pain typing on an iPad.

That brings up another point. Do you realize what toxic chemicals are used to make the computer that you typing on or cell phone or any electronic device and your car you drive. Like HF, I would rather have all of the rabies shots then get burned by it. That is if you make to the hospital.

Let's have $8 gas, and destroy all of beloved skiing destination.
We can not have our cake and eat it too.

Hopefully I am coming across clear and not in "Scotty". Cannoball can translate if needed.
 
Last edited:
Top