NO SNOW!!

Re calculating energy budget... there is something similar at mec.ca - you can take an "eco footprint" test:<br><br>www.mec.ca/Apps/ecoCalc/ecoCalc.jsp

Charles - the best advice I've been able to find on the subject of how out individual choices impact the environment (a little broader look than simply energy impact, though of course energy use looms large in this analysis) is The<br>Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the<br>Union of Concerned Scientists (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0...654-6495853?v=glance)  read the first chapter here: www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=130. If you want to know whther your choice of washing machine or your habit of buying high tech gear makes the bigger difference, buy the book.

RG - burning jet fuel certainly contributes to global warming (see www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2926 and news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/february14/soot-214.html), and though I didn't find a clear comparison to other activities, my gut tells me that Charles is not far off on relative impacts. Also, though our local power sources are hydro, given the interconnectedness of the power grid, a chair lift ride here may cause a need to burn more coal elsewhere. So, as you say, the subject is a bit complicated. However, thanks to folks like the UCS, we can decide on some simple steps we can all take that will make a real impact. The point of their book is to help consumers not be paralyzed by the complexity of the topic.

From today's Seattle Times, p. A11:<br><br>

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia<br><br>KYOTO PROTOCOL WINS OIL GIANT'S BACKING<br> <br>Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, yesterday gave its approval to the Kyoto protocol, which aims to slow global warming, the official Saudi Press Agency said. <br> <br>As a developing country, Saudi Arabia would not be subject to emissions cuts under Kyoto, a requirement only binding 30 industrialized nations. But Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi has said his country expects to lose billions of dollars in oil sales as developed nations cut fossil-fuel use to stem greenhouse-gas emissions. <br> <br>Saudi Arabia has called for research to improve technology to recover greenhouse gases at the point of production of fossil fuels, easing the impact of environmental measures on oil exporters.

<br><br>Meanwhile, in the United States ... <br><br>Bush/Cheney: Building a Bridge to the 19th Century!<br>

This quote from the Seattle Times:<br><br>"Stevens Pass usually opens by the end of November, Vandenbrink said, ushering in more than 500,000 seasonal snow enthusiasts who participate in downhill or cross-country skiing, snowboarding or inner-tubing. During the past 20 years, there have only been four December openings, and even that is in question this year, Vandenbrink said"<br><br>We're looking to break some records I'd say this season. <br><br>

<br><br>Meanwhile, in the United States ... <br><br>Bush/Cheney: Building a Bridge to the 19th Century!<br>

<br><br>You know were in good hands when a Bush and Dick are running the country. ;D

From today's Seattle Times, p. A11:<br><br><br>Meanwhile, in the United States ... <br><br>Bush/Cheney: Building a Bridge to the 19th Century!<br>

<br><br>Did you really read what the article said. Saudi Arabia backs the Kyoto Protocol but is not held to the agreement. Their backing of this thing means nothing....... If they would force ALL countries that signed it to have to live up to its standards then you would see most of the countries bail. All these 3rd world countries want this to go through because the USA and other modern (civilized) countries would suffer while they benifit by having industries relocate to their countries.... It is a horrible horrible deal.<br><br>Mt StHelens spews out more CO2 then Kyoto could ever hope to remove. It would do nothing except raise the cost of living for everyone and pocket more money for the government lobbiest partners that are pushing for this stuff.<br><br>

I'd have to say I'm surprised more people aren't talking about El Nino, though there were a few references to it above. Notice how parts of California, Colorado and Utah are having record early seasons? That's supposed to be our snow, but storm tracks are pushed further south and north while high pressure tends to remain over the northwest. I've been doing quite a bit of research on this, at least since early summer, trying to decide if this will be a good or bad snow year. I admit I believe global warming is having a strong affect on North Cascade glaciers, but I believe this dry, warm early season is a more direct the result of the current El Nino conditions (which NOAA predicted would be a weak event, but obviously they are wrong!). The cold and moisture has been there, plenty of it. It has just been pushed south. I predict the El Nino will weaken by mid-late winter and we'll have a good february and march (Ohhh I really hope I'm right!!). But either way I'll be riding at Baker where, even in bad years, they tend to get good snow coverage. The only thing that worries me is that the backcountry will be sparse for my summer adventures. I'm hopeful for plenty of march snow! If next year is a La Nina year, then we should see some great snow then. At least compared to anything we've seen and are likely to see this winter.

Did you really read what the article said.  Saudi Arabia backs the Kyoto Protocol but is not held to the agreement.  Their backing of this thing means nothing.......

<br><br>Sure, I read the article. I posted it. The article also says that the Saudis expect to lose billions of dollars in oil sales as developed nations work to achieve the Kyoto goals.<br><br>Meanwhile, the Bush administration says Kyoto would hurt our economy. I think a concerted, government supported effort to develop new technologies would probably help our economy. (Think John F. Kennedy and the race to the moon.) But it probably wouldn't help the domestic oil industry and it would imply using government to do something progressive, which is anathema to this administration.<br><br>The irony of the oh-so-progressive Saudis supporting Kyoto while the U.S. obstructs it was just too much for me to let pass without comment.<br><br>(I realize that our current season is probably attributable more to El Nino than long-term climate change, but since the topic has been discussed here, I posted here.)

<br>If they would force ALL countries that signed it to have to live up to its standards then you would see most of the countries bail.  

<br><br>If you're suggesting that non-Annex countries should be held to the same standard as Annex 1 countries, I would be very interested to hear your rationale. If they were, you're right, they would bail; the poorest like Viet Nam, whose emissions largely come from the burning of wood for personal energy production, could not expect to meet basic human survival if disallowed current emissions. Others, like fast-developing South Korea, could not expect to meet 1990 standards because they are so far beyond them, as the majority of its economic development has occurred in the time since then. It is simply an economic impossibility for most non-Annex countries to meet the Annex 1 standard. <br><br>

All these 3rd world countries want this to go through because the USA and other modern (civilized) countries would suffer while they benifit by having industries relocate to their countries.... It is a horrible horrible deal.

<br><br>With all due respect, from this statement I'm assuming that you've not familiarized yourself with the mechanisms Kyoto proposes to be available to Annex 1 countries as a means of meeting emissions reductions (namely joint implementation, clean development mechanisms like carbon sink investment, and trading schemes). Moreover, your implicit argument that despite developed countries like the US being largely responsible for global carbon emissions (see cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/top20_2000.gif ), they should nonetheless not be required to reduce at a greater level is illogical from an equity basis. <br><br>Do they think we should foot the bill? Yes! So do I. Do they think that if we were able to develop using our natural resources they should be able to as well? Of course. Not only is an equitable and fair stance, it's also the only realistic way to achieve global reductions in the long-term; developing countries cannot partake in the new economy if they don't have the infrastructure that comes from the old--which requires a certain level of natural resource dependence/pollution creation/carbon emission. This not to suggest that once a non-Annex country has reached a certain threshold it should not be subject to certain standards. But then, Kyoto doesn't suggest that isn't the case in the longer term. It's a flexible agreement that is intended to evolve - much like our system of government. <br><br>

Mt StHelens spews out more CO2 then Kyoto could ever hope to remove.

<br><br>First off, Kyoto does not propose to remove any CO2, it plans to reduce future emissions. Why? because the impacts of global warming (which is a fact, mind you. Fact. Even the Bush Administration has accepted/admitted it, so people on this thread might as well too), while not wholly known, threaten not only natural disaster but global economic disaster as well. Secondly, I highly doubt your science on St. Helen's. Assuming it were right for argument's sake, however, the answer would be that if we could stop St. Helen's emissions from going into the air, I'm guessing we would. But we can't - we can only impact anthropogenic sources.<br><br>

It would do nothing except raise the cost of living for everyone and pocket more money for the government lobbiest partners that are pushing for this stuff.<br>

<br><br>Quite the opposite, doing nothing is far more likely to achieve this end, especially in the long-term. Unfortunately, however, the consequenses you propose are a more likely result of the present US policy.<br><br><br>Look, I am the first to admit that Kyoto is not a perfect accord. There are legitimate economic arguments to this end, but what I've seen in this discussion aren't them. Largely this stems from the nature of international politics and the limitations of a Conference of the Parties approach. Until we have an overseeing international body that could enforce the alternative approaches, however, this is about as good as we can do for now.<br><br>If you've an informed opposing view, I'm more than willing to read it.

Per USGS: Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes   volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

The World Meteorological Organization states: the past 10 years, with the exception of 1996, are among the warmest on record, attributes the increase of temperature to the emission of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases,  there are natural occurring sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from volcanoes, but these are relatively rare most of these emissions are man-made. www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/12/18/world/climate-change041218  and www.voanews.com/english/2004-12-15-voa40.cfm

Also, Andrew Weaver, on the UN appointed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The science is very sound", debate within the scientific community is not: is there global warming, or does carbon dioxide create a warmer planet, or is climate change now detectable and attributable to human activities? The debate and the discussions are: how do we reduce the uncertainties in future projections?" www.cbc.ca/national/news/kyoto/index.html

NOAA is correct in stating a weak El Nino (just 1.0 degree C eastern equatorial Pacific surface).  It is the result that has been a little unusual.

There was huge industry lobbing against the Clean Air Act but the Acts end result was significant technological efficiency improvements which was a net gain for US manufacturing competitiveness and at far below the cost industry estimated.  Kyoto is very flawed but walking away from the issue has already given Europes financial infrastructure (UK mainly) a large head start in areas such as world emissions trading (The President has not mentioned trips to Mars lately and the dollar is down 52% against the euro over the last three yrs).


Eric,
Thermal Power Industry person who would like more, closer, 19th century snow and cheaper Whister lift tickets.

We should really stick to ski and mountain topics because these political threads just get too dang negative. I knew when I posted that reply I should have just kept my big mouth shut. (but I just couldn't help myself) <br><br>Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program........ ;D

FWIW, I do appreciate those who shed more light than heat on the discussion (e.g. shared facts and references rather than making sweeping and dubious claims). It typically seems like a good way to avoid a "negative" discussion, and you never know, it may work better than a snow dance!

FWIW, I do appreciate those who shed more light than heat on the discussion (e.g. shared facts and references rather than making sweeping and dubious claims). It typically seems like a good way to avoid a "negative" discussion, and you never know, it may work better than a snow dance!

<br><br>Well, if I go to a PRO KYOTO website I can pull up a bunch of "facts" and post them here. Then again, if I go to an ANTI-KYOTO website I can pull different "facts" and post those here..what would it prove? I would just prove that a bunch of people don't agree and posting it here on this website proves nothing, except it shows we can all post a bunch of info. that has nothing to do with "turns all year".<br><br>I personally like to speak from MY personal opinion and "I" do not make any claims since "I" (and I seriously doubt anyone else here is) am not a scientist or a proclaimed expert on this subject. I'll stick to my hobby of lost ski areas and such.... its more fun.<br><br>BTW, on that subject.........out of the blue I recieved a letter in the mail from some guy who is 83 and used to attend the major ski jump tourney's in WA while growing up. He also used to be a lift operator on the Talley Ho Skiboggan at the Milwaukee Ski Bowl....pretty cool. He's digging up pic's and such to share with me......now that is much more exciting to talk about then the Kyoto IMO...<br><br>Jack.....

While I agree that this season's weather may be a response to El Nino, it seems that everyone may be missing the point of just how global warming might manifest itself.<br><br>Global warming might cause a marked increase in the frequency of El Ninos and a decrease in the number of La Ninas or non-La NinX years. Just saying that this year's low snow is due to the random effect of El Nino may miss the point. It may be possible that El Ninos may end up occurring essentially every year, especially since there is some evidence of more profound effects on the thermohaline driven ocean currents. <br><br>It would be a mistake in thinking that global warming will necessarily cause a very gradual warming effect spread evenly across the globe. In fact the models and the data clearly point to very uneven effects with the largest temp deviations occurring at the poles.<br><br>Please don't interpret what I write above as my opinions of what is happening. It just bothers me that some think that El Ninos are automatically exempting the possibility that global warming is having and impact.<br><br>In any case, does anyone know if we are experiencing a higher frequency of El Ninos in the last several decades?<br><br>Alan

While I agree that this season's weather may be a response to El Nino, it seems that everyone may be missing the point of just how global warming might manifest itself.<br><br>In any case, does anyone know if we are experiencing a higher frequency of El Ninos in the last several decades?<br><br>Alan

<br><br>If you lump the season snowfall into decades, the 1940's were by far the worse snowfall years recorded on Snoqualmie Pass (records starting from 1930).<br><br>1930s - 428"<br>1940s - 302"<br>1950s - 559"<br>1960s - 474"<br>1970s - 428"<br>1980s - 360"<br>1990s - 380"<br><br>These numbers are just taking the 10 years of the decades (example 1930-39) and coming up with an average.<br><br>FWIW

<br><br>In any case, does anyone know if we are experiencing a higher frequency of El Ninos in the last several decades?<br><br>

<br><br>Yes. As an interesting point, the frequency of El Nino events since the 1970's has increased. (9 El Nino events since the late 1970's, an average of every 2.2 years which is above the historic average (since ~1600's) of approximately every 7 years.<br><br>As a footnote, La Nina events which historically often follow El Nino years, have been less common since the 1970's.<br><br>The links between global warming and El Nino are still speculative, but it appears plausible that the relatively recent increased frequency of El Nino events may be a manifestation of global warming. <br><br><br>

<br><br>Mt StHelens spews out more CO2 then Kyoto could ever hope to remove. <br><br>

<br><br>As a Geologist by trade, I'm inclined to disagree, sorry <br>I presume that "remove" was intended to convey the decrease in the amount of CO2 being produced.<br><br>As a long-term average, volcanic activity contributes only about 3% of the total CO2 to the atmosphere, with the remaining 97% primarily attributed to athropogenic activites. <br>(Information sources: Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.; AND Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and Bornhorst, T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman, P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p. 3-15). <br><br>Alright, so it appears that maybe all the hot air on this topic is contributing to global warming ;D<br><br>--Chris<br><br>

This came from the Seattle Times a couple weeks ago (fyi)....<br>

---

<br><br><br>Right now, the biggest single source of air pollution in Washington isn't a power plant, pulp mill or anything else created by man.<br><br>It's a volcano.<br><br>Since Mount St. Helens started erupting in early October, it has been pumping out between 50 and 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.<br><br>Those emissions are so high that if the volcano was a new factory, it probably couldn't get a permit to operate, said Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology.<br><br>All of the state's industries combined produce about 120 tons a day of the noxious gas.<br><br>The volcano has even pulled ahead of the coal-fired power plant near Centralia that is normally the state's top air polluter. In the mid-1990s, when the facility's emission rate was about 200 tons a day, regulators pressed for $250 million in pollution controls to bring it down to today's level of 27 tons.<br><br>Government doesn't wield much power over a volcano, though. <br><br>Italy's Mount Etna can produce 100 times more sulfur dioxide than Mount St. Helens &#8212; and sits in the middle of a heavily populated area. The volcano spawns acid rain and a type of bluish smog that volcanologists call vog, which can affect large swaths of Europe, said Terry Gerlach, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist who studies volcanic gases.<br><br>Kilauea Volcano on Hawaii's Big Island churns out 2,000 tons a day of sulfur dioxide when it's erupting, creating an acid fog that damages local crops. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blew out so much of the gas that the resulting haze spread around the globe and lowered average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere by nearly one degree.

I read that Seattle Times article when it first came out  <br><br>Mt. St. Helens may currently be the largest local contributor of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, but the article makes no mention of carbon dioxide emissions from the volcano.  In any event sulfur dioxide is an aerosol (generally not considered a greenhouse gas), which in significant amounts in the atmosphere is often attributed to cooling effects rather than warming.  (this is also alluded to in the Times Article:  "The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blew out so much of the gas that the resulting haze spread around the globe and lowered average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere by nearly one degree.")<br><br>While probably not contributing to global warming,  sulfur dioxide causes different (and significant) problems such as acid rain and respiratory issues related to human health.  I wonder what kinds of fines the EPA could impose on Mt. St. Helens for exceeding emission standards for sulfur dioxide gas!  ;D<br><br>--Chris<br><br>

<br>the article makes no mention of carbon dioxide emissions from the volcano.

<br>You guys . . . we really should talk about something else. The article did mention carbon dioxide, hyak just didn't post the full article. An excerpt from this article that mentions CO2:<br>

And they churn out large quantities of carbon dioxide. Though not considered an air pollutant, carbon dioxide is the so-called greenhouse gas that's primarily blamed for global warming. <br><br>Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said. <br><br>Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.

<br>See the full thing here:<br>seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews...5397_volcano01m.html

Volcanoes indeed release loads of CO2 but so do our SUVs.

Anyway lets talk about something less polarizing. How about your state's governor race? Any predictions on how long it’ll take before we see a soviet-style dioxide poisoning? ;-)

Hey - I found a website that says it might snow in in the Cascades in a few days, and since I'm pro-snow, I'll quote them!<br><br>"Christmas day: Snow. Snow level 2000 feet. Afternoon pass temperatures in the lower 30s" per NWS<br><br>I dare anyone to differ...<br><br>PS unless I'm misreading, the Seattle times seems to say that it wouldn't take too many '90s era coal power plants to equal Mt St Helens, so in this case the original source was indeed illuminating! Thanks for sharing.

I'm impressed by the scientific and observational powers of the bc skiers posting here. Generous application of heat and light. How about this for an unscientific approach to personal energy use (and fitness) to reduce fossil fuel use:  <br>Compare your total annual muscle powered miles (walk, ski, bike, run, hike, row, paddle) to your machine powered miles for every thing you do.  Maybe factor down carpooling and public transit. See how high you can get the ratio. <br>or, more simply, compare a log of recreational/commuting muscle powered mileage with your annual car odometer mileage.<br>or, less challenging: <br>Compare your muscle powered time in motion to your machine powered time (inverse of the boot-to-butt ratio).<br><br><br>

I like your approach to this subject, Don_B  Although it must be hard to outdo the number of miles we drive by doing mileage on the bike, skates, running, swimming, skiing, etc anually we can only do our best with the time we have. <br><br> Unless you're Lance Armstrong who busts out more mileage (over 25,000 miles) on his bike alone than most people do in their cars and trucks anually, I can see how it would be hard for average Joe to outdo his/her driving mileage.  <br><br>Amount of time spent doing physical activity versus time spent behing the wheel, that's a ratio most of us can improve on. Then again if your job requires physical labor, that counts as physical activity as well.  <br><br>Best way to do this:  Skin, hike, and climb for your turns!   <br><br><br><br><br><br> <br>

I have a few friends that don't understand the connection between global warming and the last few dozen ice ages and subsequent retreats.  So what's the best way to explain this to them?  ???

<br><br>Send them a copy of September (or was it October?) National Geographic. The entire issue is devoted to Climate Change and explains things like Milankovitch cycles as well as the anthropogenic factors.

cascadesfreak is spot on regarding volcanos, aerosols and greenhouse gases. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is hard to remove from the atmosphere. It contributes to warming by absorbing radiation leaving the Earth. Volcanos spew out aerosols that are shorter lived in the atmosphere (years to decades). They certainly affect the climate, and if they are continuously generated (say the polution from industry) they will have some effect on climate. They have a poorly understood interaction with water vapor in the air and clouds. It appears they contribute to cooling by producing more clouds and haze.<br><br>Volcanos also produce CO2, but as others have pointed out their total production is far less than human's.<br><br>

---

<br><br>The Kyoto Protocol and what to do about global warming is a touchy subject. I think Skip hits the nail on the head when he argues about fairness and economic feasibility. We can't hold poorer countries to the same standard we hold ourselves. It isn't fair. I personally think the US is being extremely shortsighted when they refuse to step up and confront the problem (and this includes YOU if you don't pressure your lawmakers to do something about it, or YOU if you don't take personal measures to solve the problem). Fossil fuels will run out in a few decades or more (see recent National Geographic) and we will be forced to come up with a solution. Who ever owns the technology to produce the energy of the future will have an enormous advantage economically. Jobs, prosperity. It won't hurt the economy, it will help (like Lowell said). We should be getting a head start now.<br><br>We are also being shortsighted because global warming will have a negative economic effect - droughts, severe storms, rising oceans (think New Orleans; there was an excellent article in National Geographic a few months ago about this). It's easier to solve the problem before it gets out of hand.<br><br>

---

<br><br>TonyM - you asked a very important question. The paleoclimate record is wacky and we can't explain the entire thing. There are seemingly unforced "rapid climate changes" (not as rapid as in "The Day After Tomorrow", but decades to centuries) we cannot explain. As someone who has spent a great deal of time thinking about climate change (I'd probably consider my occupation a climate researcher) this is what scares me the most. That there is some strange non-linearity we haven't thought about and it is going to bite us in the ass.

Open, Close, Open, Close, seems to be what the ski areas have done numerous times allready. It appears I I picked the right ski/snowboard season to miss.  Looks like a good old fashion, typical EL NINO!  So does that mean La Nina for the rest of the year and/or next year?