It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I always get these articles recommended to me about how bad the ski seasons in the alps are getting because of climate change, it’s actually scaring me to an extent that maybe in 10 years or so there might not be enough snow. Is it really that bad as the media makes it? Or are we super fucked
ASSholebomber22You make the mistake of me having dissenting opinions of the effects of climate change for the inability to understand the scientific method and the evidence of human influenced climate change.
Maybe make less assumptions based off who you think I am vs what I'm saying.
bro i have no idea who you are, i'm responding to what you wrote as a refutation of climate change. read it again. it's amazing.
"They sold our grandparents dreams. They're selling today's children fear. Choose what you buy"
keep posting quotes from Facebook University though, i'm sure it makes people realize you guys just don't have much ammo to work with
**This post was edited on Feb 9th 2023 at 12:54:06pm
dude that graphic actually shows how fucked we really are. like actually fucked. I'm optimistic but I'm lowkey scared too. I'm considering moving to a planet with mountains and plan to become the first professional astronaut skier. imagine zero gravity park runs
TemetiusOne plant can take like 800 cars worth in a year. Not that simple to just build like a million of them
first gas station was built in 1905, by 1935 there were 200,000 gas stations across the US. For carbon scrubbers to neutralize emissions from every registered car in the country (not active cars, just every car that exists in the US) you would need like 350,000 scrubbers. So if they made a real effort to actually just cut carbon emissions in the US to 0, implying that construction efficiency has not improved since the 1900s, it would take about 50 years. Again I’m overestimating and even while doing that, doesn’t seem that insane, wouldn’t even take a huge chunk of labor force. It’s not like gas stations were the only things being built in the early 1900s lol
Im not gonna budge on this the methodologies exist the only thing stopping us is allocating the resources to do it.
ASSholebomber22Being anti-fear mongering and critical of predictive analytics =/= climate change denial.
Curious what your degree is in.
Whats the alternative? Do nothing because its too scary? Maybe we need a little fear to motivate us to change because, if we stay on the same path were on, then the predictions will come true. That's how predictive analytics works.
Yea it will get worse but hopefully if it follows the same pattern as it has throughout the earths history it will cool back down. But if it cools down too much and we hit another ice age we might be more fucked as a civilization, just with more skiing.
Yea it will get worse but hopefully if it follows the same pattern as it has throughout the earths history it will cool back down. But if it cools down too much and we hit another ice age we might be more fucked as a civilization, just with more skiing.
little1337Whats the alternative? Do nothing because its too scary? Maybe we need a little fear to motivate us to change because, if we stay on the same path were on, then the predictions will come true. That's how predictive analytics works.
I never said do nothing. When green solutions are adequate enough to solve problems they will be in incredible demand. Penalizing current technologies and replacing them with 'green' tech at a cost of the taxpayer and consumer is absolutely regressive.
ASSholebomber22I never said do nothing. When green solutions are adequate enough to solve problems they will be in incredible demand. Penalizing current technologies and replacing them with 'green' tech at a cost of the taxpayer and consumer is absolutely regressive.
Over the next 50 years, what will matter the most is location location location. An increase in temperatures as weve been seeing has been able to boost climate variability by a certain degree. Increased variability can be quite dangerous and impactful not just on snowpack and mountains but also surrounding regions. Lets talk from the perspective of the states with the most stable(in regards to moisture, not avalanche danger) snowpacks(Utah and Colorado). Why may you ask that these states contain the most stapble snowpacks? This is because there is no distinct overall trend when the central pacific leans colder or warmer(la nina and el nino) States to the north in the near future will see declines in snowpack in the near future not because of heat but because of moisture from how the pacific trends. States to the south however will see increases in moisture decline even the pacific leans towards an El Nino. Now with this equation out of the way, what about the impacts that will play a role in Utah and Colorado? The first is a declining trend in moisture content in Colorado. As the main state that can benefit from both an El Nino and La Nina, this is surprising and quite interesting. One answer to this could be the increased severity in La Ninas and El Ninos. The moisture nowadays will want to push harshly either north or south while Colorado is granted the scraps. The data also shows. The tower Snotel site in northern colorado recieves the deepest average snowpack year to year in the state. Looking at the data. There were 9 big snow years from 1980-2000 at the site and only 1 from 2001 to current(2010/11) with a few others getting close but could not reach the point used in the set. The next is the lowest snow years. From 1980-2000, there was only 1 that didnt make a certain threshold(1980/81). Since the year 2000, the tower site has experienced 7 low snow years in a similar threshold used. Does this mean that the decline is more harsh in reality than we think? not so much. It just means that there is an increase in variability and yes, there is a slight decline, but snowpack resilience(especially on north facing slopes) is intriguing. One thing to note. 2010/11 season was the recorded highest snowpack year at the site used from data recorded from 1980-present which was not really a shocker but was surprising.
Now that statistics are out of the way, what about the observable changes. Its already been mentioned here, but the average snow level is rising and lower elevation snowpacks are already feeling the brunt. At resorts like vail, the ski area completely redeveloped its opening plan where instead of building a run to the base, the resort now uses a gondola with access to higher terrain. This in a way has helped to push opening dates by a week, but whether or not it lasts will have to see. Ares like Arapahoe Basin in recent years had its latest opening ever, but it was from a lack of moisture in its feeder river for snowmaking, not a temperature issue(not discrediting warming temps. lemme get to it). On a trend by trend basis, as it stands right now, January through march in Colorado still observes the same snowpack as it always has overall, but October, November for the start of the season have boosted in variability which has caused overall snowpack to drop. You could see a normal year or a dry year. Later in the year, April to June, snowpacks aren't declining yet, but what is increasing overall is the rate of receding or melting. Now if moisture levels are declining, whats the main driver of mid season snowpack? Well this directly correlates to a boost in heavier snows. Not just more snow per storm, but an increase in weight as well. Colorado snowpack whether people like it or not, is becoming heavier and heavier. Warmer storms are mostly to blame, but a boost in snowpack weight also has a favorability rating for overall snowpack rates. Snowfall in inches could be low one year, but because of heavier snowfall, the snowpack stays relatively the same. An observable feature of this is a boost in avalanches across the state. One small cold dry storm and then a round of heavier storms can spell disaster for those seeking recreation in the backcountry or just run of the mill slides. Another observable feature of heavier snow nowadays for the time being are the erratic increases in mountain summit snowpack. With a heavier consistency u high, you're asking for a boost because not as much snow will blow away in high winds as long as the added weight contributes to the snow binding to the mountain. As the temperatures continue to rise, look for fewer storms as the beginning and end of the season, but during the core season, look for boosted snow totals, but also the consistency of the snow itself. A measurement for is is snow to water equivalent. 20 to 1 is quite light and what these core season months are known for, but that number has shifted to a 15/1 ratio and could further shift towards a 10/1 ratio. By 2050, not only will snowpack be a bit lower, but will paint a better picture on snowpack resilience, overall moisture patterns, season length, and impacts on elevation. Mountain weather could always skew this if the storms continue trying to be cold. As demonstrated in recent years, the warm gaps are getting longer, but cold snaps are getting colder. Main driver is that same factor of variability.
In simple terms, its complicated, but snowpack is declining. If anything it will be an interesting future for sure.
I think we're pretty fucked for sure. Just about every scientist has been ringing the alarm bell for years now and the prognosis never gets better. If you want to go do your own research and cherry pick to affirm your preconceptions go for it but you're an idiot. Science double checks itself and there has been a broad consensus for a long time that we're fucked without drastic change. We're seeing more and more effects of changing and extreme weather patterns and disadvantaged people have already been getting screwed, mostly in the global south.
The major problem that needs to be fixed imo is overconsumption, convenience, and forced obsolescence. Overconsumption is a culture especially in America and the west in general. There's so much waste that goes on whether its food, packaging, or just old stuff. Corporations and rich people abusing private jets are the worst culprits imo. We're going to keep seeing more and more drastic protests to try and create change because clearly our current power structures aren't ready to rise to the task. Meme and demonize people throwing soup at art all you want but remember what side you're picking as you clutch your pearls
SmokedGoudaIn simple terms, its complicated, but snowpack is declining. If anything it will be an interesting future for sure.
Is bro a fucking meteorologist or something? holy shit! but yeah it makes total sense, just kind of sad. I'm also pissed how much the industry has been "industrialized", like vail buying smaller resorts etc. I wish it was like the "good old days" even though I never really experienced them. Just imagine if none of this shit ever happened and we were getting snow like it used to be in whatever the golden era would've been. crazy to imagine what skiing 30 years ago would've been like
AndrewGravesSVI think we're pretty fucked for sure. Just about every scientist has been ringing the alarm bell for years now and the prognosis never gets better. If you want to go do your own research and cherry pick to affirm your preconceptions go for it but you're an idiot. Science double checks itself and there has been a broad consensus for a long time that we're fucked without drastic change. We're seeing more and more effects of changing and extreme weather patterns and disadvantaged people have already been getting screwed, mostly in the global south.
The major problem that needs to be fixed imo is overconsumption, convenience, and forced obsolescence. Overconsumption is a culture especially in America and the west in general. There's so much waste that goes on whether its food, packaging, or just old stuff. Corporations and rich people abusing private jets are the worst culprits imo. We're going to keep seeing more and more drastic protests to try and create change because clearly our current power structures aren't ready to rise to the task. Meme and demonize people throwing soup at art all you want but remember what side you're picking as you clutch your pearls
Try and adopt a more positive mindset. There is still hope for the future, I believe that we still have the opportunity to stave off some of the more significant impacts from climate change.
But this requires hope, and intelligent and hardworking people willing to help change the world in a positive way.
Many of the climate models don't take into account the possibility for radical change in the very near term, in the form of cleaner power generation or reduced power consumption by informed individuals.
I try and do my best to reduce my impact by recycling, reducing meat consumption, and flying as little as possible. I'm also an advocate for remote work and less commuting, but that's another battle.
Supply chains will be increasingly affected by climate change too I think. We saw during the pandemic and the Ukraine situation how vulnerable they were to global disruptions; in the biking industry you couldn't even get a fckn $30 SPD cleat or an 11-speed bike chain for like half a year. I'm not sure if things were as bad in the ski industry. But there is a reason Alterra/Vail buy up resorts from coast to coast, so that they will more likely survive big disruptions.
Maybe as resorts close permanently we will get more uphill areas, possible silver lining...
**This post was edited on Feb 9th 2023 at 5:45:40pm
ASSholebomber22Being anti-fear mongering and critical of predictive analytics =/= climate change denial.
Curious what your degree is in.
accepting climate change is not "fear mongering." we want to take action (reasonable action, that would not ruin your life lol talk about fear mongering) and people like you just want to cover your ears and yell but pretend it's more intellectual than that. parroting weak anti-climate one-liners you read online isn't "being critical"
i'm not a scientist or statistician but i'm senior staff at a top tier research institute, and previous jobs had me in Ecosystems labs. do you want me to run a couple of your lines by them? i'd hate to let them escape the incisive cut of your memes
also just since you asked my major and your "unique critical thinker" act is so risible-- you're an engineering major, bet on it. hints include arrogantly running your mouth on shit you have no clue about, asking my major, and that collection of memes you call a personality
SofaKingSickaccepting climate change is not "fear mongering." we want to take action (reasonable action, that would not ruin your life lol talk about fear mongering) and people like you just want to cover your ears and yell but pretend it's more intellectual than that. parroting weak anti-climate one-liners you read online isn't "being critical"
i'm not a scientist or statistician but i'm senior staff at a top tier research institute, and previous jobs had me in Ecosystems labs. do you want me to run a couple of your lines by them? i'd hate to let them escape the incisive cut of your memes
also just since you asked my major and your "unique critical thinker" act is so risible-- you're an engineering major, bet on it. hints include arrogantly running your mouth on shit you have no clue about, asking my major, and that collection of memes you call a personality
Never said accepting climate change was fear mongering. I accept climate change. How many times must you make assumptions instead of reading objectively what I say?
If you'd like to discuss reasonable action, I'm way down and actually super interested in that as it's the field I work in.
ASSholebomber22Never said accepting climate change was fear mongering. I accept climate change. How many times must you make assumptions instead of reading objectively what I say?
If you'd like to discuss reasonable action, I'm way down and actually super interested in that as it's the field I work in.
Something tells me someone threatened to ban you. If you want to fix it then why post all this bullshit?
SmokedGoudaI hope this isn’t a response to me haha
Nah if I was I'd quote you. You've got a bunch of great info in there and clearly know your shit. Snow science is so technical in general that its tough to predict and some changes could be good or bad depending on how you're looking at it. I agree with the idea that storms are getting wetter and the snow line is going up elevation which does not bode well for many ski resorts.
I was talking super generally about the recognition of climate change as an ecological disaster, who I think is responsible, and what (imo) needs to happen to stymie it. Most people on Earth are gonna get fucked by this despite not contributing in any meaningful way to the disaster. I try my best to recycle/ thrift/ ride bikes/ shift to more plant based eating but simply cause I was on a plane twice last year, enjoy an avocado no matter the season, etc means I'm guilty. The average American emits 3-4 times more than the average global citizen. If we're gonna try to be leaders its probably time to start stepping up
Saw this on TWC app yesterday. I’ve literally been saying this since I was a little kid and learned about this shit, and learned that global temps were below average for 2 years when mt. St. Helens erupted back in the day.
this is gonna be a hot take but hear me out, Climate Change is a big scheme in the matrix. It's just there to make you feel obligated to recycle, get electric cars that drive you around, and sip through paper straws. Like who tf wants to drink water out of a cardboard straw? Once you realize that littering is way easier you won't ever go back to recycling, like it even does anything in the first place they just burn that stuff anyway. Also it wouldn't hurt to cut a couple trees down and have an oil spill every now and then, keeps everything in place
ASSholebomber22Make communism so planet get colder type argument
ASSholebomber22Never said accepting climate change was fear mongering. I accept climate change. How many times must you make assumptions instead of reading objectively what I say?
If you'd like to discuss reasonable action, I'm way down and actually super interested in that as it's the field I work in.
i'm sure you get why i'm gonna say no thanks, right?
SofaKingSicki'm sure you get why i'm gonna say no thanks, right?
That was in response to a hyperbolic ad hominem. I just said the opposite take that is equally as ridiculous, so I'm not sure what you're getting at tbh.
ASSholebomber22That was in response to a hyperbolic ad hominem. I just said the opposite take that is equally as ridiculous, so I'm not sure what you're getting at tbh.
i just quoted the 2 posts of yours in here i saw last, shouldn't've quoted the one i wasn't involved in sorry
i meant that if you read your responses in this thread and then "wanna think of ideas together?" it's obvious that sounds like a waste of time since you spent your first 10 posts in this thread giving vague meme-y arguments against climate change but now say you accept it and want to brainstorm. idk man happy monday
this past january was apparently the warmest on record. didn't really feel it bc i was skiing woods for the past 4 weeks but winter didn't really ever come. kind of given up on the season at this point
we unite the working class on a single asperation to overthrow corpo oligarchs and boom, in 10 years your side hits will be bountiful and pillow stuffed
