December 7, 2006: Bad skiing in Alps

Well this is one of those I's of the D that just strike me, in a strange way. I don't know if it'll strike you too. There's nothing immediately mind-boggling about it, but it tells a very large story that gets larger the longer you think about it.

What you're looking at there is the bottom of a ski run in Val Gardena, Italy. Officials are trying to figure out whether to cancel World Cup races that are scheduled to be held there. There have already been several races cancelled this year.

In one sense, it's fascinating to see snow making and snow management reach the point where they could concentrate all of it on one particular run. Fascinating to see what they'll do to try to put on the event.

In another sense, it's evidence of a larger story, because the Alps are experiencing their warmest period in 1300 years.

Of course, you don't want to connect the picture to the global warming theories, because it's only evidence of one area during one particular month. And you don't want to specifically look for evidence of global warming, because if you look for it, you'll find it. Psychologists call it Confirmation bias, a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. If it's freezing cold, you don't put it into your pile of evidence; if it's warm, you do.

(At this point, I believe there is roughly 99% scientific consensus that warming is occurring, two-thirds consensus about man's role in it and no consensus whatsoever about what should be done.)

Global Warming Critic: "Move along people, nothing to see here". "Just a natural phenomenon".

When I lived in a ski village in Switzerland this is what we kept a pair of rock skis for, usually at the beginning and end of the winter season.

Duh. Simple answer: Nuclear Winter

Consensus

1. Is warming occuring?
2. If yes, is it caused by man?
3. If yes again, what should be done?

1. I don't know what is asked for here, really. Seems like a matter of how you define "warming".
2. This is a better question, IMO, but I sure would think there are more than 2/3 answering "yes".
3. Aren't there some obvious answers to this one? Such as "do not let out CO_2 and similar"?

Right, our brilliant and well educated CEO's and other MBA's can't seem to figure out how to reduce emissions without threatening to fire half the workforce. Does anyone have any idea how depressing it is to listen to these people talk about partying 4-5 nights a week while only carrying a basic credit load, and then realize that we're going to rely on them in situations like these? Perhaps we should follow China's example and place engineers in top government and corporate positions!

If it were too warm.....

....then the artificial snow would melt. What we have here is a lack of precipitation.

on (2) I would love to post a cite, but it's almost impossible to find anything not written by hand-wringers on either side. Last year I saw a set of poll numbers of scientists -- I think, maybe even climate scientists -- that showed an increasing trends in belief in climate change.

As for the scientific consensus on global warming, here it is, published in Science (a peer-reviewed and arguably one the most respected scientific publications in the world.)

"BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" by Naolmi Oreskes. Published in Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686

As the author states, "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

I've read Oreskes, and I found it to be crap. here it is, judge for yourself

I've also read posts by climatologists whose published articles were mysteriously ignored by Oreskes although they should have been in her dataset.

I'm not a denier; I just want the science to be right.

I might add that the article is not a part of the peer-reviewed section of Science.

I have a horribly nasty feeling I've been there.... Either that or all the ski resorts in Italy look the same.

The fart thread? Haven't seen it but it brings to mind the following:

* Methane is a greenhouse gas
* We all fart methane
* Most of the energy produced is by methods that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases
* Therefore, why not strap some sort of balloon device to everyone's bums, collect the methane and use it in gas power plants?

And we don't need to stop at people - livestock such as cows and sheep (chickens?) could also have their own balloons. Dolphins?? The possibilities are endless!

Anyone with me on this one?

It always bugs me that Global Warming is all OUR fault. Why does no one seem to ever mention natures contributions?

We had Mount St Helens back in 1980. I mean just as an example; it felled all the trees in a 212 square mile area. Using 'volcanic gases' it hoisted 1.5 cubic miles of rocks, soil, and ash, 15 miles into the air! I mean think about the millions of tons of gases that were involved! (That's tons of gas!!) The lateral column of gas left at 1,100km/hr at 600F!! Then we had huge Pinatubo blow. Right now there are 98 active volcanoes erupting. Any one of them in a spasm can dump out more greenhouse gas in a day than man can generate in a year.

Image Credit: Armando Alvarez Sanchez, Cruz Roja Ecuatoriana.
Attachment 10851

As an example here's a quote about Mt. Ruapehu NZ: "The amount of sulfur dioxide released by the volcano is about 1000 tons per day, well down from the highs which have exceeded 10,000 tons per day."

Add to this things like fires. Two or three years ago they had fires burning in Asia or Indonesia that were insanely huge - thousands, and thousands, of square miles burned for months bringing life to a near standstill in the area.

Anyway, since I can easily believe volcanoes and such don't all agree to emit just so much each year, that we could have an "overdose" for several years that ultimately effects our planet's temperature in following years. But I never hear anything about that! Just, "We humans (and especially evile USA humans)", are causing global warming and "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

The sky may be falling and humanity may not be helping to prop it back up but I'm not even vaguely convinced that it's all our fault.

BTW: You might enjoy this link:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/...s/current.html

Right, but ten thousand years ago (or whenever), volcanoes were going off and forests were burning too, I think, and the carbon they contributed to the atmosphere is reflected in the fossil record. It's the change over the last couple of hundred years (not just the last couple of decades) that's of concern, and there is no notion that the natural sources are solely responsible.

Regarding "millions of tons of greenhouse gases": consider that a mid-sized 30 mpg car driving 12,000 miles/year will create about 3.55 tons of CO2/year, multiply by the number of cars on the road, and I think we can take on a few volcano's-worth of emissions ourselves.

The 20th century was the least volcanic ever.

You skipped a step;

1 - Is warming occuring?
1a - Is it a problem?
1b - If so how much?
2 - If yes, is it caused by man?
3 - If yes again, what should be done?

answers;
1 - yes
1a - We don't know
1b - We know some changes and their expected result, but since we don't know how warm it will get, we don't know the whole story. Plus there is bound to be things happening that nobody expected.
2 - Caused, no. Contributed to, yes. Disagreement on how much.
3 - That depends on 1a & 1b, change is not inherently bad.

That's not even it, in a nut shell. Way more complicated than that.

Another view may include that human are just another part of the whole of nature. And though we think we can make changes to better our "pristine environment", the whole of nature is going to do whatever changes are necessary to balance out.

From a Neomalthusian perspective, it doesnt matter. Its probably too late.

Never ceases to amaze me that anyone can even entertain the idea that its possible to stabilize the earth's climate. Its never been stable and it never will be stable. North America will again be covered in a miles-thick sheet of ice. The only question is when.

Damn I best get up more wood.

This may help NSFW
http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...8&postcount=81

Apparently they made enough snow at Val Gardena to hold the World Cup races. And Bode Miller won by a large margin!