2024: Leas snow than normal

[sierra]

The assertion that such an insignificant creature as mankind has a significant impact on climate vs the vast power of nature can not only be rightly denied, but roundly mocked and ridiculed as the human-centric arrogance that it reeks of. And I will thank you not to tell me what I may or may not deny. If you want to believe such rubbish, have at it, but please refrain from presuming to tell others what they may or may not believe.



If each chapter is written by "the world's leading scientists", how in the world can it be called doom pixie Greta's book? Kinda confused here.
And of course, if you just read one book, written by persuasive people and designed to persuade, why would you not be persuaded? B, my recollection is that you are in the law business, does a judge or jury render a decision after hearing only the prosecutor's or plaintiff's presentation? I could be wrong, but I'd expect that is unusual at best. Better to get a wide range of views. "The world's leading scientists" haven't had the best track record lately. I expect most of them are good people, trying diligently to do good work, but the track record recently is kinda spotty.



State media NPR? Now that's a credible source, right up there with doom pixie Greta, and the Washington Post, cited in your initial post of this thread. Of course, just because a source is not credible, doesn't mean that they can't be right. They could luck out.

> “In summary, La Niña is most likely to emerge in October-December 2024 (57% chance) and is expected to persist through January-March 2025.”

57% is better than a coin toss, but not by much. 43% chance of going the other way. I certainly wouldn't want a weapon of any sort fired towards me if there was a 43% chance it would hit. Sometimes you have no choice but to go with the odds, as best they can be determined, but this isn't one of those cases, and I'm content to find it an interesting tid-bit of information, and then ignore it.

Now at this point, I'm sure that Peakbagger would step in and chide me for getting far afield of discussion of hiking, and I suppose he'd be correct, so I will shut up on this thread.

I'd much rather read of B's upcoming adventure on the Cascade Brook and Kinsman Pond trails, if he is kind enough to post about it afterward.

TomK

I admit to not being one of the first to get on the global warming band wagon. But to not see what's going on in the world around us, even in our own backyard, is borderline foolish now. It's like listening to a Trump speech and walking away thinking you know what's going on now.......................................................

 

[Cartophile]

When I'm high up in the Presidentials and can look down on where I started from, I always find it hard to believe that a puny human--and I'm not very large even for a human--could have come all that way in two or three hours just by putting one foot in front of the other. But I remain convinced that I did that. The argument from size is doesn't withstand any serious thought.

 

[TEO]

so I will shut up on this thread.

Please do, because you are spewing a bunch of politicized and ignorant b.s.

 

[NHClimber]

Well, this thread devolved as one would expect. One of the harder issues in the debate is the impact of humans. I think it's hard to deny warming -- that's pretty objectively occurring, but it's more of a question of how much humans are impacting the calculus. I don't have the answers but I think folks should be able to have a constructive debate rather than name calling folks on either side and succumbing to group think. One thing is certain -- China certainly doesn't seem to want to do its part and the U.S. doesn't seem to be acting sensibly to find solutions through science that are particularly viable (one need only look to declining EV sales to see the poor job we've done at seeking to find a way to transition away from pure ICE vehicles). Other threads have described our paranoia about nuclear power, but that has to be on the table as the U.S.'s appetite for electrical grid energy is insatiable. I'd like to think if PB were here he'd have something constructive to say.

 

[TEO]

it's more of a question of how much humans are impacting the calculus. I don't have the answers but I think folks should be able to have a constructive debate rather than name calling folks on either side and succumbing to group think.

No, it's not "a question of how much humans are impacting the calculus." It is settled science. There isn't a constructive debate. Period. Until we start calling out the b.s., people will continue this ignorant narrative.

 

[DayTrip]

One of the harder issues in the debate is the impact of humans. I think it's hard to deny warming -- that's pretty objectively occurring,

That is my thought as well. The evidence for warming is indeed obvious and measurable: ocean temperatures rising, shrinking ice caps and glaciers, species of plants and animals becoming extinct or endangered (or actually coming back), etc, etc. These developments are distorting nature's equilibrium and compensation mechanisms and casting their "shadow" far and wide on a great many things.

Whether it is 0% our fault, partly our fault or 100% our fault we will still have to deal with the consequences: shrinking glaciers and their Summer melting endanger the water supply for millions of people, fishing/hunting activity and crop growing regions are shrinking and/or moving, etc. This is trashing a lot of communities in lesser developed countries and smaller communities, and that ripple effect will eventually be felt everywhere (people migrating, people starving, shortages, war). One thing I hope we can all agree on is that pointing fingers and fueling conspiracy theories is not going to address any of these impending problems.

 

[NHClimber]

An interesting problem is that so many LDCs look at the U.S. and say wait a minute, you guys have had (and still have of course) a massive carbon footprint that fueled your development into a first world country and yet we, as an LDC, are expected to reign in our carbon footprint b/c of the impact you say your behavior has caused. Sounds like more colonialism and oppression to them. I can understand their annoyance with us.

 

[sierra]

Well, this thread devolved as one would expect. One of the harder issues in the debate is the impact of humans. I think it's hard to deny warming -- that's pretty objectively occurring, but it's more of a question of how much humans are impacting the calculus. I don't have the answers but I think folks should be able to have a constructive debate rather than name calling folks on either side and succumbing to group think. One thing is certain -- China certainly doesn't seem to want to do its part and the U.S. doesn't seem to be acting sensibly to find solutions through science that are particularly viable (one need only look to declining EV sales to see the poor job we've done at seeking to find a way to transition away from pure ICE vehicles). Other threads have described our paranoia about nuclear power, but that has to be on the table as the U.S.'s appetite for electrical grid energy is insatiable. I'd like to think if PB were here he'd have something constructive to say.

The problem is over population. It's a nice thought to cut back of our carbon footprint, but people need to travel to work, to buy food and gasoline is the most efficient means at the time. I drive a lot; an electric car is not going to cut it for me. People say they care, but they live like they don't. The news station in my city has a lead weather lady, she is pregnant every year, she must have 7 or 8 kids. Hey to each his own, but adding another billion people to this already crowded planet is not going to help, when her kids grow up, they will all drive and have a carbon footprint. Nobody wants to hear this, but it might be too late to do anything about the problem.

 

[Quietman]

The assertion that such an insignificant creature as mankind has a significant impact on climate vs the vast power of nature can not only be rightly denied, but roundly mocked and ridiculed as the human-centric arrogance that it reeks of.

So you're reasoning is that mankind is too insignificant to have an impact on this that are global in size? So I'm guessing that you also feel that the depletion of the ozone layer and subsequent stabilization/improvement after CFC's & other similar chemicals were banned could not have been possibly caused/impacted by over 8 Billion humans on our planet?

Sorry, I view that kind of thinking as human non-centric ignorance.

I wish that it would get cold so I can go skiing.......

 

[Quietman]

The news station in my city has a lead weather lady, she is pregnant every year, she must have 7 or 8 kids.

More blatant hyperbole from the environmental extremists!
Haley LaPointe gave birth to her 4th child in June. I would have sworn that she had more also.

 

[TEO]

That is my thought as well. The evidence for warming is indeed obvious and measurable: ocean temperatures rising, shrinking ice caps and glaciers, species of plants and animals becoming extinct or endangered (or actually coming back), etc, etc. These developments are distorting nature's equilibrium and compensation mechanisms and casting their "shadow" far and wide on a great many things.

No! The impact of humans is definitive.

Furthermore the symptoms are not distorting nature's equilibrium and compensation mechanisms, it is the volume and rate of production of greenhouse gases that humans have created and are creating that are causing the catastrophic distortion. This isn't news, we've known this for more than generation. Literally.

 

[dug]

The problem is over population. It's a nice thought to cut back of our carbon footprint, but people need to travel to work, to buy food and gasoline is the most efficient means at the time. I drive a lot; an electric car is not going to cut it for me. People say they care, but they live like they don't. The news station in my city has a lead weather lady, she is pregnant every year, she must have 7 or 8 kids. Hey to each his own, but adding another billion people to this already crowded planet is not going to help, when her kids grow up, they will all drive and have a carbon footprint. Nobody wants to hear this, but it might be too late to do anything about the problem.

Good news for you

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-.../world/population-growth-rate#google_vignette

 

[skiguy]

An interesting problem is that so many LDCs look at the U.S. and say wait a minute, you guys have had (and still have of course) a massive carbon footprint that fueled your development into a first world country and yet we, as an LDC, are expected to reign in our carbon footprint b/c of the impact you say your behavior has caused. Sounds like more colonialism and oppression to them. I can understand their annoyance with us.

Relativity between the US and LDCs is a feeding frenzy for statisticians when one speaks of carbon footprints. The effect of reduction vs consumption in lies the Achilles heel. Maybe as hikers, skiers, and climbers here in the US we should reduce the amount of time we spend doing those activities or at least reduce the amount of time we spend driving to get there. Also think how much less excessive amounts of CO2 would not be expelled into the atmosphere by all the huffing and puffing we do out there in our need for such hedonistic experiences.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...leads-the-world-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/

 

[sierra]

More blatant hyperbole from the environmental extremists!
Haley LaPointe gave birth to her 4th child in June. I would have sworn that she had more also.

I'm no extremist trust me, I'm just not naive to think there isn't an issue. Now back to Haley, I must have caught her for number one because it seemed like a lot more, haha.

 

[B the Hiker]

The assertion that such an insignificant creature as mankind has a significant impact on climate vs the vast power of nature can not only be rightly denied, but roundly mocked and ridiculed as the human-centric arrogance that it reeks of. And I will thank you not to tell me what I may or may not deny. If you want to believe such rubbish, have at it, but please refrain from presuming to tell others what they may or may not believe.



If each chapter is written by "the world's leading scientists", how in the world can it be called doom pixie Greta's book? Kinda confused here.
And of course, if you just read one book, written by persuasive people and designed to persuade, why would you not be persuaded? B, my recollection is that you are in the law business, does a judge or jury render a decision after hearing only the prosecutor's or plaintiff's presentation? I could be wrong, but I'd expect that is unusual at best. Better to get a wide range of views. "The world's leading scientists" haven't had the best track record lately. I expect most of them are good people, trying diligently to do good work, but the track record recently is kinda spotty.



State media NPR? Now that's a credible source, right up there with doom pixie Greta, and the Washington Post, cited in your initial post of this thread. Of course, just because a source is not credible, doesn't mean that they can't be right. They could luck out.

> “In summary, La Niña is most likely to emerge in October-December 2024 (57% chance) and is expected to persist through January-March 2025.”

57% is better than a coin toss, but not by much. 43% chance of going the other way. I certainly wouldn't want a weapon of any sort fired towards me if there was a 43% chance it would hit. Sometimes you have no choice but to go with the odds, as best they can be determined, but this isn't one of those cases, and I'm content to find it an interesting tid-bit of information, and then ignore it.

Now at this point, I'm sure that Peakbagger would step in and chide me for getting far afield of discussion of hiking, and I suppose he'd be correct, so I will shut up on this thread.

I'd much rather read of B's upcoming adventure on the Cascade Brook and Kinsman Pond trails, if he is kind enough to post about it afterward.

TomK

Sorry, I have a Ph.D. I simply cannot be bothered to take the time to respond to silliness like this.

If you can't:
* join the AMC, the AAC, the Access Fund, the Sierra Club, or Protect Our Winters;
* watch David Attenboro or Al Gore;
* read the scholarship of Gary Yohe (Nobel for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) or essentially any other reputable scholar
* subscribe to Outside or National Geographic
* follow The Dirtbag Diaries (most recent episode is on a new book on global warming) or Outside/In podcasts
* listen to NPR, or read any newspaper

then you aren't going to listen to anything I have to say.

Somebody posted boxes of popcorn, as though this is some sort of joking matter. The inconvenient truth is that we are right at the horizon of being able to hold back the temperature increases science tells us we are likely to see unless the planet drastically and quickly reduces the quantity of carbon we are putting into the air, and the actions we take as individuals and (more importantly) as nations today will have a massive impact upon future generations.

 

[rocket21]

The inconvenient truth is that we are right at the horizon of being able to hold back the temperature increases science tells us we are likely to see unless the planet drastically and quickly reduces the quantity of carbon we are putting into the air, and the actions we take as individuals and (more importantly) as nations today will have a massive impact upon future generations.

Who is "we?" Don't "we" have the lowest carbon emissions in decades, despite having 36% more people in the "we" category? Should "we" be seeing "progress" if this is the solution?

 

[DayTrip]

Who is "we?" Don't "we" have the lowest carbon emissions in decades, despite having 36% more people in the "we" category? Should "we" be seeing "progress" if this is the solution?

It's like inflation. The rate at which we are adding emissions is slowing (in the US anyway) but it is not going down.

 

[rocket21]

It's like inflation. The rate at which we are adding emissions is slowing (in the US anyway) but it is not going down. View attachment 7926

Incorrect, unless you think the EPA are liars.

Here's the graph showing the declining carbon emissions that "we" have, according to our government (you can trust them, they're not like the others):

 

[DayTrip]

Incorrect, unless you think the EPA are liars.

Here's the graph showing the declining carbon emissions that "we" have, according to our government (you can trust them, they're not like the others):

Uh no. My graph is WORLD emissions, not US emissions. Instead of getting all defensive and immediately going into conspiracy mode maybe stop and take a better look at the information. I'm not going to get into the my graph is right and your is wrong nonsense. There are many different sources from many different organizations that all illustrate the same thing.

The average person in the US in 2004 was releasing about 21 tons of C02 into the air in 2004. In 2023 that had dropped to about 14.9 tons. That's your decline in the RATE of emissions. But as you also pointed out, the population is about 36% larger so the resulting output of omissions is still about the same. Redo this scenario for the rest of the WORLD and you don't need a degree in mathematics to see that emissions are still going up. We're getting better at the rate of emissions but the population is growing.

Here is a graph from my "misinformation" site illustrating the same point you were making with your "respectable and obviously true" site.

 

[helmethiker]

There is snow today on Monadnock if snow is your goal.

Global warming is happening. Human activity is a major part of that, if not all of that. Reversing or stopping global warming at today's level will not happen, with the possible exceptions of nuclear winter (sadly seeming more and more likely with each passing day) or a global pandemic killing 90 percent of humans alive today. Global warming rate reductions are possible, and probably a good idea. The reduction of the amount of CO2 put in the atmosphere over the last 20 years is totally inadequate for the magnitude of the issue. Get over this. Or maybe to paraphrase Freeman Dyson - embrace it. Learn to live with it. Learn to like it. Learning to live with it is the most important, and reducing the rate of change gives us a better chance at doing that.

So go seek the snow while you can. Or make it. In either case you will be contributing another small piece to the global warming, with the possible exception of walking or bicycling to the snow.