December 7, 2006: Bad skiing in Alps
 

http://cellar.org/2006/valgardenasnow.jpg

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. :cool:

Duh. Simple answer: Nuclear Winter

Consensus
 

Really? Where did you get that from? I can absolutetly not say I'm sure myself, but I definitely have gotten another picture. Let me split it up:

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"?

(How do you write subscripts, btw?)

That's a lot easier said than done...




Have you seen the fart thread?

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!:D

What are the options?

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.

Haha. :) Don't try for too long or you'll turn :greenface.

The average temperature, over some period of time, rising above some specific value, mabye. What I intended to say is that I'd like to see a more specific question than "are we having a global warming".

But actually, I might have changed my mind right now. Perhaps there is no obvious definition. This would enable one scientist to say "Look, the temperature has gone awry!" while another responds "Kind of looks like the normal noisy curve to me.".

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.