KillingtonZone.com

not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

ski the trees wrote:not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

Is the sample size big enough? 1965-2005 = 40 years.

Nikoli wrote:

ski the trees wrote:not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

Is the sample size big enough? 1965-2005 = 40 years.

Given our Earth's age and an appropriate confidence interval ... I'd say yea, that's not large enough. Not even close.

Of course the problem is we've only been keeping records for the short term which allows many scientist to make "The ski is falling" predictions.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Nikoli wrote:

ski the trees wrote:not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

Is the sample size big enough? 1965-2005 = 40 years.

Given our Earth's age and an appropriate confidence interval ... I'd say yea, that's not large enough. Not even close.

Of course the problem is we've only been keeping records for the short term which allows many scientist to make "The ski is falling" predictions.

But isn't there more the 40 years available. I don't believe that records for snowfall and temperatures have only been kept for 40 years. I would think it has to be closer to 100 then 50.

the sad truth is temperatures will continue to rise and it will only get worse.

ski the trees wrote:not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

The Union of Concerned Scientists has produced a deep package of reports called the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessments. It is interesting reading, with some good projections of how climate change will impact the wintersports industry through the end of the century, given several emissions profiles as established by United Nations research. The full package of reports is available as individual pdf downloads at: http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resour ... eport.html. The Executive Summery is available at http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/do ... -necia.pdf

TLonginotti4KTon wrote:the sad truth is temperatures will continue to rise and it will only get worse.

BUT ... will they start to come down as they have in the long history of the Earth?

The problem is we can't tell if the change is permanent or part of a normal cycle.

tombuch wrote:

ski the trees wrote:not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

The Union of Concerned Scientists has produced a deep package of reports called the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessments. It is interesting reading, with some good projections of how climate change will impact the wintersports industry through the end of the century, given several emissions profiles as established by United Nations research. The full package of reports is available as individual pdf downloads at: http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resour ... eport.html. The Executive Summery is available at http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/do ... -necia.pdf

I don't have the time to read the whole article, but does it state what % of temperature increase can be directly attributed to emission or human factors? And at what cost can we reduce that small fraction of a temperature increase we're directly responsible for?

I'll wager a guess and say we're directly responsible for .001% of the temperature increase and the costs associated with decreasing that level is wasteful.

I'll be waiting your reply!

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

tombuch wrote:

ski the trees wrote:not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

The Union of Concerned Scientists has produced a deep package of reports called the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessments. It is interesting reading, with some good projections of how climate change will impact the wintersports industry through the end of the century, given several emissions profiles as established by United Nations research. The full package of reports is available as individual pdf downloads at: http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resour ... eport.html. The Executive Summery is available at http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/do ... -necia.pdf

I don't have the time to read the whole article, but does it state what % of temperature increase can be directly attributed to emission or human factors? And at what cost can we reduce that small fraction of a temperature increase we're directly responsible for?

I'll wager a guess and say we're directly responsible for .001% of the temperature increase and the costs associated with decreasing that level is wasteful.

I'll be waiting your reply!

I'LL bet that the actual number is more like .002753950684%.

Hey, look -- I can pull numbers out of my ass, too!

Anyway, JibJab is right. Forty years of data isn't enough. Until these so-called "scientists" can produce hard-and-fast data based upon a million billion gazillion years of Earth history, I can't take any of this seriously.

JerseyGuy wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

tombuch wrote:

ski the trees wrote:not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

The Union of Concerned Scientists has produced a deep package of reports called the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessments. It is interesting reading, with some good projections of how climate change will impact the wintersports industry through the end of the century, given several emissions profiles as established by United Nations research. The full package of reports is available as individual pdf downloads at: http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resour ... eport.html. The Executive Summery is available at http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/do ... -necia.pdf

I don't have the time to read the whole article, but does it state what % of temperature increase can be directly attributed to emission or human factors? And at what cost can we reduce that small fraction of a temperature increase we're directly responsible for?

I'll wager a guess and say we're directly responsible for .001% of the temperature increase and the costs associated with decreasing that level is wasteful.

I'll be waiting your reply!

I'LL bet that the actual number is more like .002753950684%.

Hey, look -- I can pull numbers out of my ass, too!

Anyway, JibJab is right. Forty years of data isn't enough. Until these so-called "scientists" can produce hard-and-fast data based upon a million billion gazillion years of Earth history, I can't take any of this seriously.

What happened to the globabl cooling scientists were afraid of in the 40's and 50's?

Stormchaser wrote:

JerseyGuy wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

tombuch wrote:

ski the trees wrote:not shocking, but it's officially official. story here

The Union of Concerned Scientists has produced a deep package of reports called the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessments. It is interesting reading, with some good projections of how climate change will impact the wintersports industry through the end of the century, given several emissions profiles as established by United Nations research. The full package of reports is available as individual pdf downloads at: http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resour ... eport.html. The Executive Summery is available at http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/do ... -necia.pdf

I don't have the time to read the whole article, but does it state what % of temperature increase can be directly attributed to emission or human factors? And at what cost can we reduce that small fraction of a temperature increase we're directly responsible for?

I'll wager a guess and say we're directly responsible for .001% of the temperature increase and the costs associated with decreasing that level is wasteful.

I'll be waiting your reply!

I'LL bet that the actual number is more like .002753950684%.

Hey, look -- I can pull numbers out of my ass, too!

Anyway, JibJab is right. Forty years of data isn't enough. Until these so-called "scientists" can produce hard-and-fast data based upon a million billion gazillion years of Earth history, I can't take any of this seriously.

What happened to the globabl cooling scientists were afraid of in the 40's and 50's?

See, that's exactly my point. The best thing is to do nothing. After all, history that shown that, if you do nothing, all of your supposed problems will go away!

[quote="XtremeJibber2001"][quote="TLonginotti4KTon"]the sad truth is temperatures will continue to rise and it will only get worse.[/quote]

BUT ... will they start to come down as they have in the long history of the Earth?

The problem is we can't tell if the change is permanent or part of a normal cycle.[/quote]

The temps continue to rise as they have since the last ice age. It's not permanent though, as when the temps hit the tipping point, M Nature will wipe the slate clean with a series of catastrophes. Then a new cycle will begin. Elimination of carbon emissions will only delay the inevitable, as the temps will rise even without use of our precious fossil fuels - only slower.

The real question is what life will survive? Fortunately, it won't happpen in our life time.

OK, JG, I'll bite.

If it's so clear we need to do something ... all I'm asking for is what percentage of temperature increase we're directly responsible for and what steps would we as the human race have to take in order to reduce this impact.

I think we'd be foolish to spend billions of dollars to fight a cause which we can't understand clearly enough to answer the two most basic questions I've asked above.

I'm all for improving the Earth and making it more "green", but I'm not about to start pushing for the gov't to outlaw incadecesent light bulbs in attempt to drive (I mean mandate) change. Oops, it's already happeneded. And at what cost to the consumer ... $3 bulbs instead of $.50 bulbs. That's a huge increase and we're just talking about light bulbs.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:OK, JG, I'll bite.

If it's so clear we need to do something ... all I'm asking for is what percentage of temperature increase we're directly responsible for and what steps would we as the human race have to take in order to reduce this impact.

I think we'd be foolish to spend billions of dollars to fight a cause which we can't understand clearly enough to answer the two most basic questions I've asked above.

I'm all for improving the Earth and making it more "green", but I'm not about to start pushing for the gov't to outlaw incadecesent light bulbs in attempt to drive (I mean mandate) change. Oops, it's already happeneded. And at what cost to the consumer ... $3 bulbs instead of $.50 bulbs. That's a huge increase and we're just talking about light bulbs.

Sigh... I'm not having this argument with you any more over percentages.

You want absolute certainty in this life? Get out your Good Book and become a fundamentalist, Biblical literalist. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.

JerseyGuy wrote:Sigh... I'm not having this argument with you any more over percentages.

You want absolute certainty in this life? Get out your Good Book and become a fundamentalist, Biblical literalist. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.

A study from London almost a year and a half ago was published by the World's leading scientists and concluded they were ~95% confident that humans were responsible for global warming.

If these scientists came up with such a percentage, I have a hard time understanding why the "What percentage increase in temperature are humans responsible for" is such a hard question.

Surely you wouldn't invest in anything without knowing the facts, right? We're about to invest in the Earth and you don't care to know the facts?

Why?