St. Bear
New member
Climate change does suck, but if it means we'll end up like in The Day After Tomorrow, I'll bring a space heater up to Greenland myself.
-
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!
Will New England See a New Ski Area In the Next 20 Years?
- Thread starter MadMadWorld
- Start date
Puck it
Well-known member
I'd say taking the time to post actual data on the global increase in CO2 juxtaposed with the actual data showing the earth has simultaneously not been warming with that increase is indeed "fact based".
This directly refutes the entire flipping AGM hypothesis, and is a huge ****ing problem for the human-caused global warming crowd, a "fact" that became embarrassingly public with the leaking of emails stating their concern with this "problem" for their "science".
But hey, those Global Warming scientists are experts and never wrong.
Models are only as good the input parameters accuracy.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
This is true, and part of my point. These people are not infallible geniuses, and the science isn't "settled".
Regardless of whether you believe in man-created Global Warming or not, it should concern people that anyone who "dares" disagree with it is publicly mocked and scorned in the village square. That is not how science works, that is how religion works.
Anyone who has an equally valid and competing scientific hypothesis for why we are living in a warm time-period, but that does NOT involve it being human-created, is ignored at best and mocked at worst. That should be the first warning sign that perhaps something is amiss.
Well, the good news is that if the recent trend of the last few years continues, The Day After Tomorrow might well be cooler than today.
St. Bear
New member
More skiing plus hooking up with Emmy Rossum? Sign me up.
ScottySkis
Well-known member
I'm so not trying to get in a debate about this but their has been more co2 increase in the atmosphere in the past 10 years then ever. It's stupid fighting like this and not trying to change the problem that going to cause humans to not be able to live in our new climate.This is true, and part of my point. These people are not infallible geniuses, and the science isn't "settled".
Regardless of whether you believe in man-created Global Warming or not, it should concern people that anyone who "dares" disagree with it is publicly mocked and scorned in the village square. That is not how science works, that is how religion works.
Anyone who has an equally valid and competing scientific hypothesis for why we are living in a warm time-period, but that does NOT involve it being human-created, is ignored at best and mocked at worst. That should be the first warning sign that perhaps something is amiss.
Well, the good news is that if the recent trend of the last few years continues, The Day After Tomorrow might well be cooler than today.
Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
Scruffy
Active member
I'd say taking the time to post actual data on the global increase in CO2 juxtaposed with the actual data showing the earth has simultaneously not been warming with that increase is indeed "fact based".
This directly refutes the entire flipping AGM hypothesis, and is a huge ****ing problem for the human-caused global warming crowd, a "fact" that became embarrassingly public with the leaking of emails stating their concern with this "problem" for their "science".
But hey, those Global Warming scientists are experts and never wrong.
No, your "facts" are nearsighted "anti-climate warming" propaganda, just as you accused Bumpsis of believing. Your own chart shows a trend upward and disputes your own claim; you grab 12 years off your chart and say warming is reversing, :lol:. The Science never said temperatures would be on a linear trajectory following CO2 year over year. The Science has maintained that as CO2 emissions increased we would see wild swings in weather events and global climate fluctuations, with a general warming trend over time. Get back to us in 50 - 100 years.
Here more charts:
Isn't this fun :lol:
And talk about fear and loathing. What are you anti-AGW types are afraid of? Nothing much has changed even with all this AGW science - you can still buy and drive your F250 all over this planet, heat your house as you please, etc..
skiNEwhere
Active member
I don't know the next resort to open, but I can tell you the next resort to close: Blue Hills, Canton, MA. Highest elevation on the East Coast. And as a result, very low snowfall and high winter temperatures. Multiple owners over the last 20 years because it's been so hard to make the area profitable, forcing the owners to sell before they go into bankruptcy
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Exactly correct.
In fact, the CO2 increase is WORSE than the scientists expected, and yet their predictions that the earth would warm because of it failed. Their hypothesis didn't work, and they're now desperately maneuvering around it.
No. What would be stupid is to accept a premise based on satisfying a condition which has failed (as least so far). The IF/THEN statement is broken. Given "IF" didn't happen, there is no reason to believe that "THEN" will occur. At the very least their substantial repeated failings are indisputable proof the science isnt settled.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch there are competing scientific hypotheses for why the earth has been warm recently. One of the most promising given recent studies involves solar activity. But you wont see the dramatic fanfare and media or government attention given to that research, because it's not possible to tax the sun.
No. You're missing the point. Nobody is disputing we dont live in a very warm period*. And nobody said anything about a "linear fashion", but for the man-caused global warming science to work, the earth must warm with increasing greenhouse gas emissions. That has not happened in years, much to the scientists' very public chagrin.
*Yet certainly not the warmest, though paleontologists remain uncertain what model SUV prehistoric creatures favored
And eat a steak dinner too, right?
Bumpsis
Well-known member
This is true, and part of my point. These people are not infallible geniuses, and the science isn't "settled".
Regardless of whether you believe in man-created Global Warming or not, it should concern people that anyone who "dares" disagree with it is publicly mocked and scorned in the village square. That is not how science works, that is how religion works.
Anyone who has an equally valid and competing scientific hypothesis for why we are living in a warm time-period, but that does NOT involve it being human-created, is ignored at best and mocked at worst. That should be the first warning sign that perhaps something is amiss.
Well, the good news is that if the recent trend of the last few years continues, The Day After Tomorrow might well be cooler than today.
It seems rather hypocritical of you to complain about lack of civility when it comes to discussing global warming when your first reply to my comments were pure derision spiced with a thinly veiled personal insult.
The vehemency of your comments here is rather misplaced given the shaky ground that you stand on. Your main argument seems to be that we haven't had enough warming given the CO2 that has already been released and therefore the theory of human cause of what we see so far is null.
Perhaps the .8 or 1 degree Celsius of an increase that has been documented so far (yes, it's a fact) may not seem much, yet, most of tenets of the theory are falling into place.
Look at the graph you included. What does it mean? That there are temps variations over span of 3 years?? This means nothing. You can cherry pick anything to support what you flog but that's not science.
The Arctic is melting and so is the Antarctic - one needs to differentiate between sea ice and galcial ice here. There are wilder swings in temperatures. Droughts are more common, wide areas of forests are dying off, galciers are in retreat and all of that correlates very nicely with the increased concentartion of CO2. It takes tremendous amount of heat energy to accomplish that and the energy is already here.
One really doesn't need to be a climate scientist to think rationally about this issue. CO2 is a green house gas. It reflects sun heat back onto the planet. That is a fact. We keep putting trillions of tons of this stuff into the atmosphere yearly and expect that nothing will happen?
You don't need to have every bit of data in place to see the trend and the big picture. In 15 - 20 some years, not having viable ski industry in NE will be the least of our problems.
Oh, and dmc did not politicize the thread. That job was already beautifully done by all parties that profit greatly from confusion on this topic (Koch brothers, energy companies etc.). No academic researcher will get rich studying this stuff. But we all know who will.
Scruffy
Active member
It has warmed with increased greenhouse gas emissions, and it's continuing to happen, you're just looking at a few years where the data suggests plateaus and dips*, look at the long term data, or continue to hide your head in the sand, I don't really care.
* exactly what climatologist scientists have been saying.
The truth is, nothing some blowhard from Manhattan does or doesn't do is going to make a hill of beans anyway from a climate perspective. Enjoy your fantasy, your Grand Children or Great Grand Children will pay the price when the sh!t really hits the fan.
I have no f#@king idea what you are referring here, are you trying to lump cow farts into the equation?
bdfreetuna
New member
I don't read this thread for 3 days and now we're on Global Warming....
about time we have a sensible conversation about skiing in the Northeast!!
To develop in New England anymore is foolish. Hang on to what you've got, build attractions for other seasons like Jay Peak has done, and try to make as much money as you can for your increasingly narrow window of snowmaking. Snowmaking that will become increasingly ESSENTIAL if we want to ski at all.
It's not even like the writing is on the wall, here. Skiers should be able to see this better than most. Yeah we had a good season, overall, a couple years back. But that wasn't due to cold temps, that was due to getting lucky with the moisture for several really good snowfalls. But besides that lately it's been mediocre at best. How is this year shaping up so far?
The weather is getting more erratic but overall warmer and overall less snow. Funny how ski areas all now have the most amazing snowmaking equipment, but they can't open when they used to anymore and have to close earlier.
In the words of Zack de la Roche.... WAAAAKEEE UPPP!
about time we have a sensible conversation about skiing in the Northeast!!
To develop in New England anymore is foolish. Hang on to what you've got, build attractions for other seasons like Jay Peak has done, and try to make as much money as you can for your increasingly narrow window of snowmaking. Snowmaking that will become increasingly ESSENTIAL if we want to ski at all.
It's not even like the writing is on the wall, here. Skiers should be able to see this better than most. Yeah we had a good season, overall, a couple years back. But that wasn't due to cold temps, that was due to getting lucky with the moisture for several really good snowfalls. But besides that lately it's been mediocre at best. How is this year shaping up so far?
The weather is getting more erratic but overall warmer and overall less snow. Funny how ski areas all now have the most amazing snowmaking equipment, but they can't open when they used to anymore and have to close earlier.
In the words of Zack de la Roche.... WAAAAKEEE UPPP!
ScottySkis
Well-known member
+2 I just want Bearpen to be open with chairs, lol.
Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
ScottySkis
Well-known member
mister moose
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,119
- Points
- 63
I've been skiing since 1960 when I was 4. It hasn't changed that much. Pre 1963, there was very little snowmaking. The season was much shorter and very eratic back then as well. Resorts south of Rutland struggled to be open by Christmas. Since the early 60's, all the resorts upgraded their snowmaking every year. They still do.
Climate change is worth watching. You might even make a case for being very careful with carbon emissions. But New England winters haven't changed significantly (on average) in the last 50 years.
+1
been my observation since I started skiing in 1983. Some winters with huge snow, some that were brutally cold, some incredibly warm like last year; but overall, no real pattern of change one way or another.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Exactly! And thank you for so perfectly falling into that trap. That graph IS relatively meaningless, other than to point out the earth was cooling from the last few years.
And yet this is EXACTLY what the Climate Scientists do.
The entire basis of their claims is based on looking at a ridiculously small number of years, (usually only since 1980, sometimes 1920 etc...) and then claiming the recent warmth is the fault of humans. Bonus points for starting their data precisely at the low-point for maximum effect.
They do the exact same thing with the ice you reference, always boasting of "record" lows in the presence of the ice, which sounds very impressive.........until that is you realize that the "records" have only been kept for roughly Paris Hilton's lifetime.
Again, it's mind-boggling to me that you actually believe this, regardless of your opinion on man-created Global Warming.
Just to ease your mind, do a search of the Climate Scientists "predictions of doom" by now (i.e. 2012) and see how they've fared with their predictions.
SPOILER ALERT: Turns out they're much better at scaring the crap out of some people, as well as at increasing the $$$$ they get in academic research grants, than they are at predicting the weather and what happens with the planet. But hey, what can we expect from some of the same people who have been caught red-handed falsifying data.
Et tu. Same thing.
Yes, indeed, look at the "long-term data", which depending on which report you look at is usually only a trivial 30, 60, or 100 years. You're right though, it generally did warm with increased gas emissions, although the last 16 years when it hasn't warmed with increased greenhouse gas emissions are a substantial problem to their science. That one's left a mark.
Then again, it has also warmed with increased Fruity Pepples production and increased NHL expansion during the same time, but that doesnt mean that that's why the earth has been warm either.
And now the almost religion-like observance to certainly enters the equation as it often does.
It's amazing how certain you are of the man-made global warming theory. Nobody can possibly be 100% sure either way, especially given recent years when there are massive gaping holes opened in their research. I too, used to believe in it; I dont anymore. But to completely ignore the now rather obvious "problems" with AGM, is to be following a religion, not a science.
Either way, I certainly dont think we should be completely reshaping the economies of entire nations, and massively increasing taxes on businesses and individuals to "solve" a problem that we dont even know exists, and that we dont even know if we could "solve" even if we did entirely reshape the world even if it's true, AND that with each passing day becomes literally less-certain that it exists.
I have no f#@king idea what you are referring here, are you trying to lump cow farts into the equation?
Then you dont know nearly enough about this issue as you think you do. Blind faith.
Last edited:
^^^Talk radio much???
We are finally in a break from being force fed shit by both parties, You should take it easy. Besides Why the f%$ is climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it even a political discussion?
We are finally in a break from being force fed shit by both parties, You should take it easy. Besides Why the f%$ is climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it even a political discussion?
steamboat1
New member
Killington is doing their part.
The gondola runs on cow farts.
The gondola runs on cow farts.
Similar threads
- Locked
