Another AP article on Global Warming

SVHucker

Active member
U.N. report details disastrous warming effects on ski resorts

ANDREW DAMPF, Associated Press Writer Tuesday, December 2, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12-02) 15:41 PST TURIN, Italy (AP) --

Global warming is threatening the world's ski resorts, with melting at lower altitudes forcing the sport to move higher and higher up mountains, according to a United Nations study released Tuesday.

Downhill skiing could disappear altogether at some resorts, while at others, a retreating snow line will cut off base villages from their ski runs as soon as 2030, warned the report by the U.N. Environment Program.

'Climate change is happening now. We can measure it,' said Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the U.N. program. 'This study shows that it is not just the developing world that will suffer.'

The report focused on ski resorts in Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Australia, the United States and Canada, using temperature forecasts produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of some 2,000 scientists.

The panel estimated temperatures will rise by a range of 2.5 degrees to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 unless dramatic action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

An accord aimed at halting global warming, meanwhile, may be dead. A top Kremlin official said Tuesday that Russia won't ratify the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions because it will hurt the country's economy.

The United States rejected the accord for the same reason. Without Moscow, the protocol cannot come into effect even if approved by every other nation because only Russia's industrial emissions are large enough to tip the balance.

Many scientists believe that carbon dioxide and other so-called 'greenhouse' gases trap heat in the atmosphere.

'It appears clear that many resorts, particularly the traditional, lower altitude resorts of Europe, will be either unable to operate as a result of lack of snow or will face additional costs, including artificial snowmaking, that may render them uneconomic,' the report said.

U.N. officials presented their findings at an environmental conference of the International Olympic Committee, or IOC, hosted by organizers for the Turin 2006 Olympics.

The findings prompted Pal Schmitt, head of the committee's Sport and Environment Commission, to say that global warming will 'probably affect how the IOC chooses host cities for future Winter Games.'

Schmitt said that the IOC still prefers new candidate cities, but it may be forced to return to sites of recent games to avoid having to build structures that could be obsolete in the near future.

The magic number for ski resorts right now is an altitude of 4,265 feet, according to Rolf Buerk, an economic geographer at the University of Zurich who led the research behind the report.

At that level and above, there is reliable snowfall. In the future, however, global warming is going to push the regular snowfall altitude to between 4,900 feet and 6,000 feet, Buerk said.

'In Switzerland, several low-lying resorts are already having problems getting bank loans,' he said.

One likely casualty is the scenic Austrian village of Kitzbuhel, Buerk said. The village is 2,493 feet above sea level and will eventually be cut off from its ski slopes. That's because, according to the report, Austria's snow line is expected to rise by 656 to 984 feet over the next 30-50 years.

The director of Kitzbuhel's tourism office was not immediately available for comment, but other ski resort areas expressed concern.

'We see this as a long-term threat,' said Eduardo Zwissig, marketing manager of the upscale Swiss resort at Gstaad, which is at 3,465-foot level and has skiing from 4,950 to 9,900 feet.

He said authorities are looking for ways to 'minimize economic risk,' with plans including new hiking trails that can be used in summer and winter, as well as convention centers.

Asked about Swiss banks' reported wariness to lend money to resorts, Zwissig said: 'We certainly feel this pressure.'

Doris Scholl, of Grindelwald Tourist Office in Switzerland, said the resort was actively trying to expand non-skiing alternatives. But, she said, there have been investments in new ski lifts this year and more are planned.

'The situation isn't as tragic as that,' Scholl said.

Buerk, the economic geographer, said artificial snow is not the answer.

'The main reason is it's too expensive,' he said, explaining that it costs $600,000 in installation fees and $60,000 each year for each mile of artificial snow. 'And if it's warmer than (freezing), it requires a lot of energy,' Buerk added.

Researchers behind the U.N. study said they hoped the report would spur resorts into action.

And David Chernushenko, a scientist on the climate change panel based in Canada, cited examples in North America where resorts have begun to take steps to be more environmentally friendly.

The 'Sustainable Slopes' program in Aspen, Colo., is a 'world leader in running efficient ski centers,' with a new ski lift run entirely on power generated by windmills, he said.

In Whistler, British Columbia, site of alpine events for the 2010 Olympics, the 'entire town (is) moving toward environmental conservation,' he said.

Ultimately, however, Chernushenko said the onus was on governments. 'The ski, hotel and resort industry is a multinational one,' he said. 'And if they act together they can apply pressure on politicians.'

For all you skiers out there who want to see big oil bush re-elected in '04

 
why are they saying that it won't be cold enough to snow and they will have to turn to artificial snowmaking...it has to be 28 degrees to make snow...and that's more than cold enough to snow.... what do i care...i'll be dead by then anyway

 
there was an article about how the michigan ski resort owners got together to decide what to do when they could no longer make snow or something. I also saw an article that said global warming will give some Michigan areas more snow. I don't know what to believe.

Coming Soon...
 
'there is no link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.'

huh? that's like saying there's no link between smoking and cancer. not even that. Of course there's a huge link; it's a pretty obvious relationship that has been proven true of the course of the past 500 million years. CO2 levels rise, temperatures rise. it's not a coincidence.

 
yea i saw an article that said that global warming will make the earth warm but there will be way more snow. something to taht effect. its messed

XxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXxXx

A-men, wait for a honey to get on a chair alone slip in behind her, and let the good times role!!!

Big_Foot_Skiers first post ever
 
um the earth isnt necesarily getting warmer because of greenhouse gasses, it could just be a period of the earth's climate changing, like during the ice age teh earth was cold, the earth could just be getting warmer on its own, and the greenhouse theory hasnt been proven, because its still a theory, people have to realize that the earth hasnt been the same temp. since it was formed however many billions of years ago

--------------------

HIGH NORTH SESSION 4

The Hot Sauce Champion of the World
 
there are congruent graphs about world C02 levels and the rise in temperature. They look very luch alike.

---------------
 
Man skeptics, yes it is possibly just a natural Earth climate change but it is also a proven fact that even if the globe is naturally getting warmer-WE ARE speeding up the process by releasing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases-or it could be just entirely a human issue, not natural at all. Either way no one and certaintly no skier can say that global warming is bullshit-because it is happening. Do your part- more fuel efficent vehicles and plant some trees. It may not seem like much, but if everyones mindset changes so will the world.

 
yea i heard a theory that global warming could make europe colder because it will melt the polar ice caps causing more ice bergs and cold water in the north Atalantic to flow into the gulf stream causing the gulf stream to cool and potentially put Europe in an ice age.

 
the gulf stream won't shut off because of more icebergs in the water, but yes the entire globe's thermohaline circulation has the potential to change, producing climate changes far greater than those produced solely by the increased greenhouse gases. There are infinite feedback loops that not even the most sophisticated supercomputers can model; we are headed for uncharted territory. I could go on. long story short: yes global warming may very well make europe much colder than it has been in the past 15,000 years.

 
'greenhouse gasses' such as CO2 make up something like 1 percent of the greenhouse effect. the other 95-99 percent is water vapour, they don't stop people from boiling water do they? heated water holds less carbondioxide and any gess as well. the carbondioxide rises in the distant past does show a relationship with temperature.... but scientists have found trapped air that is centuries old that has a fraction of the water vapour (which is not the same as 'moisture') the decreased water vapour occurs at a cold period in history... now something that has changed and has a huge effect on the greenhouse effect such as water vapour levels would have more of an impact on temperature than any change in that other 1-4 percent that CO2 holds. The way I see it is that humans are creating a ton of CO2... but that CO2 has very little effect. if you look at charts of previous temperatures we are currently approaching the peak but the rise can not be shown to be a direct cause of CO2.

-Mike

'ya but he doesnt have a hot tub, thats pretty ghetto' - cj
 
'greenhouse gasses' such as CO2 make up something like 1 percent of the greenhouse effect. the other 95-99 percent is water vapour, they don't stop people from boiling water do they? the carbondioxide rises in the distant past do show a relationship with temperature.... but scientists have found trapped air that is centuries old that has a fraction of the water vapour (which is not the same as 'moisture') the decreased water vapour occurs at a cold period in history... water vapour levels would have more of an impact on temperature than any change in that other 1-4 percent that CO2 holds and the water vapour levels are significantly higher today. The way I see it is that humans are creating a ton of CO2... but that CO2 has very little effect. if you look at charts of previous temperatures we are currently approaching the peak of one of the earths 100,000 year temperature cycles. that natural rise in temperature WILL cause the oceans to hold less gas, that is something that can be proven and it also explains the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the past....

-Mike

'ya but he doesnt have a hot tub, thats pretty ghetto' - cj
 
it has also been determined that the Earth is in fact going into another ice age (Scientists estimated withing something like 300 - 500 years). They have also discovered and now understand the deep water flows that link the oceans and help to regulate the temperature of the earth. Many scientists are now more concerned over the possibility of the polar caps melting and overwhelming the cold water flows with fresh water, escentially shutting it off, and sending the world into an ice age.

Yes, green-house gasses are bad, but they are not necesarily as evil as some scientists portray them to be. By studying ice packs, scientists have also determined that when the world starts the process of going into an ice-age, it experiences termperature fluctuations, very similar to those that have been recorded over the last 20 years.

I just think there are other, more pressing concerns to the world than just theories. We need to focus on fact and plan for what we can determine WILL happen.

 
yes water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. but that does not change the influence that carbon dioxide has over our climate that has been proven throughout the past 500 million years as I said. CO2 levels have risen over 25% in the past 150 years and we have seen a corresponding increase in temperature. yes there is a good chance a certain amount of this warming is natural (we are still recovering from the little ice age which lasted from roughly 1200-1800 AD), but it is also undeniable that we are at the very least, helping to accelerate this process. one would think that you guys, as skiers, would be the first people to be concerned about this, not ignore it and say who cares. so we spend a little money and energy to cut our emssisions; oh no, that would be horrible! the world would not warm so fast and we'd be able to breathe cleaner air. what's the downside? what do you get out of denying this obvious warming?

 
I'll send you an essay if you want. it pretty much proves there's no proof... and that there's no god... ok maybe not the second one.

-Mike

'ya but he doesnt have a hot tub, thats pretty ghetto' - cj
 
of course not the second one, whoever wrote it is probably some conservative oil company puppet. oh, and to save you the insult, yes, i am some idealistic liberal college dirtbag, fucker.

'This one goes out to all the depressed women in the house.

Whether you taken the Prozac, the Zanax, or the Pax, or whatever the hell they put in the caps.

I want y'all to come up to the front of the stage, grab me a shot of something along the way.

Put a smile on the front of your head.'
 
like I said, if I'm wrong (and the entire scientific community) and you, Bush, and the oil industry are right, that the climate is warming up completely on its own, what do you stand to lose from putting stricter emissions controls on cars, power plants, and factories? a few bucks? I would think the cleaner air would make this a cause worth fighting for whether you think global warming is real or not.

but yeah, another simple question: what makes you confident that you are right and all the scientists and experts in the world on this are wrong? seems like that would be a tricky one to defend

 
'there is no link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.'

-Mike

You cant be fucking serious, don't tell me you buy into that republican bullshit. Dont let yourself get brainwashed.

'I would be embarrassed to constantly complain about my life considering all the freedom and opportunities we have today. People that can't find anything they enjoy in life simply aren't giving it a real try.' ~Nick 311
 
GLOBAL WARMING IS BS. PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION HALLA!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

'i was walking along and their like you gotta hit it' -Crystal-Needs-A-Park

Are some skiers trying to copy snowboarding?

Tanner: There\'s a small group of people that are doing that, but I think for the most part, there are a bunch of Rollerbladers and skiboarders that are being gay.

HOLLA! ANCIENT REPRESENT!! ANCIENT INC
 
nah actually I wrote it. it was a damn bitch too. the only thing I actually fully completed in highschool...

and I'm also an idealistic liberal college dirtbag. If you're saying stop CO2 emissions because millions of people die from respratory complications every year. then yeah. I'm down. If you ask me to spend millions of dollars every year to reduce emissions for the sake of the ski industry. I'd say.... fuck that. and I plan on working in the ski industry, that's what I'm going to school for. There IS no actual proof, when people tell you that temperatures have risen by a certain amount... that's also completely off due to the urban heat island effect. satellite data shows a much smaller rise in global temperatures, and water levels actually. (my essay was actually supposed to be about water levels but turned into one about both...)

-Mike

'ya but he doesnt have a hot tub, thats pretty ghetto' - cj
 
From the front page of the SF Chronicle today:

Climate change laid to humans

Report warns there's 'no doubt' industry is primary cause

David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor Thursday, December 4, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New evidence found by teams of climate researchers leaves no doubt that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for increasing global temperatures -- an ominous trend that has speeded up in the past 50 years and threatens to continue for centuries, according to a report by two of the nation's leading atmospheric scientists.

The two government experts said climate change 'may prove to be humanity's greatest challenge' and warned that 'it is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action.'

Thomas Karl, a meteorologist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and Kevin Trenberth, chief of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., are publishing their analysis in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Neither scientist criticized the Bush administration's refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which is designed to regulate emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. But their published comments reflected the growing concerns of most climate experts over the White House stance.

The two disagreed with assertions by some scientists that swings in worldwide temperatures over the years are normal and natural. 'Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability,' they said.

Karl and Trenberth also agreed that many uncertainties remained about how swiftly global temperatures are rising, how much they are likely to rise and how long ago the problem began.

However, 'there is no doubt,' they say, 'that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate.''

They estimate that by the end of this century there is a 90 percent chance that the world's climate will heat up between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit because of those human influences.

Among the consequences, they predict, are more frequent heat waves, more widespread droughts in some parts of the world and 'extreme precipitation events' in others.

They also predict more wildfires, abrupt changes in vegetation and continued melting of glaciers and of the great Greenland Ice Sheet, causing floods along many continental coastlines.

Additionally, as snow cover melts on land and icebergs shrink at sea, both the darker ground and the darker ocean surfaces will be exposed to solar radiation, increasing temperatures even more, the climate forecasters say.

While some climate analysts have noted that the vast quantities of soot emitted by many industries and volcanic eruptions can actually cool the atmosphere, that kind of cooling can last only a few years, with little or no effect on the long-range trend, the scientists say.

The report by Karl and Trenberth adds new data to scores of previous international studies and computer models of future climate changes as well as analyses by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The new conclusions met with some disagreement Wednesday from James Mahoney, a noted meteorologist and the Bush administration's assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, who directs all the government's weather and climate research and forecasting agencies.

In a telephone interview, Mahoney agreed that climate change is indeed a global problem that 'has no political boundaries.' He noted that the United States has a large delegation of experts attending an international conference on climate change in Milan right now.

Mahoney also insisted that the United States under President Bush had developed a 'substantial involvement' in international activities aimed at researching the problems of global warming and at resolving their uncertainties.

But he took issue with Karl's and Trenberth's insistence that there's clear evidence that human activity far outstrips natural variation as the main cause of global warming.

'That's their assertion,' Mahoney said. 'They are extremely competent, and there are many in the climate community who would agree with them. That's not surprising, but there are many others who would disagree with them. My own view is somewhat more open-minded, and from my perspective we don't really understand these things as well as we might.''

No one disputes that there has been a sharp rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere during the past decades, Mahoney said, 'but there remains disagreement about just how severe its impact has been.'

As to the grim future that Karl and Trenberth see as a result of global warming, 'I do challenge them on that,' Mahoney said, 'because all future projections are based on many, many models of how the atmosphere behaves, and I think a number of skeptical scientists would also challenge them.'

anymore questions?

 
I( havne't been listening to the government at all actually.. I'm canadian. my government is all for koyoto...

firstly, the article contained no actual proof. it said ''there is no doubt,' they say, 'that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate.' '

yes they're completely right. the atmosphere IS changing because of human activity, And greenhouse gasses are the largest HUMAN influence on global climate!, but all of that doesn't mean that humans are making the global temperatures rise... read it carefully.

did you see the second last paragraph?

No one disputes that there has been a sharp rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere during the past decades, Mahoney said, 'but there remains disagreement about just how severe its impact has been.'

you article proves my point better than it does yours.

-Mike

'ya but he doesnt have a hot tub, thats pretty ghetto' - cj
 
did you read the first sentence?

New evidence found by teams of climate researchers leaves no doubt that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for increasing global temperatures.

there ya go. now sure, some of it may very well be natural warming (I don't think anyone has the exact percentage breakdown), but there is also NO DOUBT that human emissions are causing the earth to warm. you can argue how big the impact is/will be, but you can't still argue that we're not warming the earth. nor can you argue that greenhouse gases aren't warming the earth; that's why they're called greenhouse gases (the earth is 33 degrees celsius warmer due to the natural greenhouse effect). CO2 and other gases let UV energy in from the sun, and trap the radiated infrared energy on the way back up, much in the same way a greenhouse works. scientific fact not open to debate.

 
ok they say there is no doubt that it effects temperatures, which is right. if I put a cup of water into a pool I'm effecting the water level in the pool right? thats their proof. I have yet to see any proof that shows CO2 alone will cause such a rise in temperatures, the predicted rise is only predicted through analyzing trends which may not be a direct result of CO2. the green house effect causes the earth to be 33 degrees warmer... around 97%-99% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour... ok so CO2 and every other greenhouse gas makes up... 0.9 of a degree?

-Mike

'ya but he doesnt have a hot tub, thats pretty ghetto' - cj
 
That's not the point whether it is directly linked or not (which scientists believe it is)-what matters is that the world is going through a change whether we like it or not and having an ignorant view on the situation(like saying, oh well, who cares) is absolute bullshit. Thats exactly how most people think and yes some (like probably yourself look at it in a reasonable way) but most people see your view and say well I'm not going to change anything. Everyone on the planet needs to try to do something. Goverments and individuals alike, it seems sensible to be to try to protect are future generations from a potentially drastic disaster.

 
Back
Top