"A Skier’s Guide to Climate Change"- news article.

[Ron]

No flying?

The “tell”. No one ever suggested the end of aircraft. That was created by certain politicians and a specific news channel.

Again, please provide scientifically vetted evidence.

 

[Unpiste]

@Eleeski, I don't think anyone has suggested you don't believe the science. (Apologies if I missed something.) What's not clear is whether you actually understand what the science is. That you're repeatedly mischaracterizing what's actually being suggested as realistic potential mitigations and responses to global warming, both in this thread and in the scientific community as a whole, only reinforces that impression. If nothing else, it would help if you avoided use of rhetoric and innuendo. (This last point in particular applies to more posters than just you, but you're the only one arguing against the scientific consensus.)

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I'm going to try to explain, point by point, what I mean.

Since 1900 world life expectancy has doubled. Sounds like the modern world is a pretty good place. Population has risen exponentially since then - another sign of success. Technology has solved problems and improved living standards (and skis).

We've only just begun to feel the first effects of global warming. Yes, humans are highly adaptable. I don't think anyone realistically believes climate change will result in the extinction of humanity, but the numbers you're stating (population in particular) are part of the problem. Humanity is using up non-renewable resources and changing the world's environment at an unprecedented and quite literally unsustainable rate. To look at the success of the past century and believe that it will translate into the next without hard research backing that view is dangerous and naive.

Your claims that I don't believe the science are wrong. The reputable scientists like Malthus, Erlich (a family friend), Carson and many others predicting doomsday have not been close. The dystopian societies are those whose misled populist governments came up with harsh solutions to imagined problems (Venezuela), blindly followed religious doctrine (Iran) or war (Syria).

Please, provide references. But if you believe climate science has any significant commonalities with religious doctrine, that only demonstrates ignorance of how the scientific community operates. The scientific community welcomes contrary viewpoints if they're backed up by research. That's how science advances.

The responses here combine the worst of what drove both of those countries. Insects instead of meat? No GMOs? No flying? Don't even try sequestration? Don't give society and the marketplace time to evolve to less CO2?

I strongly suggest that you're reading into this thread what you expect to see. (Perhaps this related to the reason you don't believe the predictions of the scientific community regarding global warming have been largely born out by observation.)

Reduced air travel may well be a cost of mitigating global warming. The reality is, neither airlines nor their customers have been paying its true cost, and as part of addressing climate change, that's probably going to need to change. The same is true of meat production.

But, who's saying sequestration is a non-starter, or suggesting that GMOs can't be part of a solution? GMOs in particular get their bad reputation from the past actions of a handful of large corporations, and the risks associated with improperly regulated use of GMOs are indeed extreme. Properly used, they're an amazing and likely essential tool.

I fear the consequences of overreaction far more than the threat of climate change if we are doing fear mongering.

And what about the consequences of underreaction? The economy is a human concept. Ultimately, we're in full control of how, when, and to what extent we respond to climate change, and can reverse course at any time (at a cost relative to just how invested the economy is in a particular path, which is all the more reason not to be committing to high carbon industries at this time). The climate doesn't care about our economy, and it operates on scales of decades, centuries, and millennia.

But what do I know? I'm only smart and successful enough to be privileged.

Privilege is a distinct concept from intelligence and success. (And I truly mean nothing more to be read into that statement.)

This is a horrible thread for a ski site.

I think this thread is an amazing demonstration of the quality of this community.

 

[crgildart]

Pretty sure that the major crop science tanks are (GMO) engineering crop seeds to do better in the warmer dryer or wetter climate those other scientists have predicted.

 

[Ron]

We also need to do things at a reasonable pace, not suddenly chop off all fossil fuel burning

Agree, we shouldn’t over react but what is a reasonable time frame? Since this is more a geometric progression, what’s reasonable? Should we implement The easy, common sense measures now? Should we have a time horizon of 50 years? 100 years? Seriously. If the scientist are wrong by 100% that’s a time horizon of 40-50 years. Big ships take a long time to turn.


As far as this as a ski site thread, name one ski resort that isn’t heavily invested in zero waste, zero carbon foot print and non-fossil fuels for running their lifts. This is a very relevant thread

 

[g-force]

Best you stay out of anything to do with the public as you wouldn't last long.

Nice shovel.
What's your point? Unfortunately people require words. Even us deplorables.

Here are some more words for you; James... ( sorry can't think of any to add )


For the others who are keeping up with the topic... Here are some Prof. Kevin Anderson vids.
Generally; he makes these points about how we got where we are... and points out the cosmetic effects of various climate conferences ... His 'changes needed' are from a couple of weeks ago ( 'hope and climate failure ' ). To these I would add:
Free and meaningful public transit; 24/7 Everywhere. Most politicians can't even imagine this 'simplest thing possible ' to show they even grasp the the scale of the problem. But because cars are only 10% of GHG's; this is a tiny factor in the solution. The war between Capitalism and Climate is The Base of the 'Problem' and the most difficult thing to achieve is the Death of the Private Banks which run our nations, buy 'democracies', judges, media campaigns, wars... and diversionary Fears. (.. like sharks, cows and dog-food.)

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kevin+anderson+climate+2019

40% of the United Kingdom's Paris Agreement Carbon Budget is taken up by Aviation alone.
This is consumed by only about 15% of Britain's population that flies regularly.
Global CO2 emissions are up 67% since 1990.
50% of Global Emissions is created by just 10% of the Global Population.

All the IPCC publications quote 'ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere' called New Emissions Technologies or something called BECCS = Carbon Capture and Sequestration: These are Science Fiction because as yet None of these are proven at the Gigatonne Scale needed.
This kind of language allows governments to meet and feel good about Green Washing which means never having to legislate meaningful reductions... and allowing the penalties of climate disaster to be passed on to those in the future or currently to the poorer nations.
Imagine the change needed to avoid 2 Degrees C. -like the ones Kevin quotes:
Ban Fossil Fuel Exploration. No Second Homes. No Airport Expansions. Frequent Flier Penalties. Car Free Cities.
Yearly Limits on Car Emissions. Solar Mandated for New Builds. Carbon Capture for Concrete ( yes; Concrete ~building )

All This because the amount of Atmospheric Carbon is Known.
Temperature has risen because the increase in Atmospheric Carbon = Increase in CO2 resulted in a 1.5*C Temperature Increase:
We Have added 200 Billion Tonnes of Carbon since 1850.
Every Year we add 37 Billion Tonnes per year.
From Now until Forever we only have 650 Billion Tonnes of CO2 left before we Snuff It by exceeding 2*C.
You divide the 650BillionTonnesCarbon by Current Emissions of 37 Billion Tonnes and you get 17 Years.
So if we want to snuff it we can have Business as Usual for another couple of decades
.... or we can make our CO2 Consumption Fall Off a Cliff. Any evidence of this would be welcome
Somewhere in his vids he says that we could have a 30% yearly reduction...If the wealthiest consumers reduced their opulent life-styles to that of the Average European.

Don't conveniently forget that the 650GtC has to be shared by the other 7 Billion of Earth's peoples far, far into The Future.
Nordic Skiing; anyone ?

 

[Tricia]

This thread is revenant to our industry and I'm glad that we've had a good, and informative discussion, but it seems that we need to lock it for a bit.