New England Met Autumn 2023 Banter

[dryslot]

On a better note, Lewiston Strong

[WinterWolf]

Holy smokes…no wonder why I don’t come in here. This place is a complete shit show.  But I’m with Ginxy 100%.   

[Ginx snewx]

1 hour ago, CoastalWx said:

I did. Old school arguments.

 I am all for cleaner energy done in stages and with forethought

This is old school? lol

[Ginx snewx]

1 hour ago, kdxken said:

Bad argument with the forests. Those solar panels in 20 years will reduce carbon a hell of a lot more than the trees. After 20 years if you want to replant trees have at it. Or you could just sell the land for condoz.

 

 

 

 

 

How much carbon energy to recycle,make those panels? You sure about your stats taking everything into account. Trees we need, strip mining entire forests for solar panels not so much. It's sometimes very funny what so called environmentalists will destroy in the name of green.

 

 

[Torch Tiger]

Fight!

[Ginx snewx]

1 hour ago, bwt3650 said:

I literally lol at bumblefuck Connecticut…real survivalist stuff there.


.

Speaking of survivalist,  CC is the very least of our worries .

[powderfreak]

42 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Holy smokes…no wonder why I don’t come in here. This place is a complete shit show.  But I’m with Ginxy 100%.   

It’s not a complete shitshow, to be honest.

This is one of the more reasonable discussions about environmental change, and the New England forum can do it.

Why is everything in life nowadays so black and white?  That’s what bothers me personally.

We can take the time to understand everyone’s viewpoints… be empathetic and not always go immediately on the defensive.

My livelihood and my wife’s are solely resting on tourism, in this industry that relies on snowmaking (the topic at hand) to entice people to drive or fly (more carbon footprint) here and spend money.  We cannot live the comfortable life we do without people getting in their cars or on an airplane.

However, we also don’t need to become defensive about it. Just realistic. Temperatures are warming up over time, it’s accepted. Irrefutable.

To me the ski industry acknowledges that progress can continue to be made, even small steps, and it doesn’t need to be this abrasive discussion.  It can be honest and open to all stakeholders.

Every discussion in life can be honest and open to all stakeholders, if you allow it to be.

[psv88]

1 hour ago, powderfreak said:

It’s not a complete shitshow, to be honest.

This is one of the more reasonable discussions about environmental change, and the New England forum can do it.

Why is everything in life nowadays so black and white?  That’s what bothers me personally.

We can take the time to understand everyone’s viewpoints… be empathetic and not always go immediately on the defensive.

My livelihood and my wife’s are solely resting on tourism, in this industry that relies on snowmaking (the topic at hand) to entice people to drive or fly (more carbon footprint) here and spend money.  We cannot live the comfortable life we do without people getting in their cars or on an airplane.

However, we also don’t need to become defensive about it. Just realistic. Temperatures are warming up over time, it’s accepted. Irrefutable.

To me the ski industry acknowledges that progress can continue to be made, even small steps, and it doesn’t need to be this abrasive discussion.  It can be honest and open to all stakeholders.

Every discussion in life can be honest and open to all stakeholders, if you allow it to be.

Well said.
 

The problem is that one side views progress on the issue as a “win” for the other team, when it’s really a win for everyone. 

[Met1985]

1 hour ago, powderfreak said:

It’s not a complete shitshow, to be honest.

This is one of the more reasonable discussions about environmental change, and the New England forum can do it.

Why is everything in life nowadays so black and white?  That’s what bothers me personally.

We can take the time to understand everyone’s viewpoints… be empathetic and not always go immediately on the defensive.

My livelihood and my wife’s are solely resting on tourism, in this industry that relies on snowmaking (the topic at hand) to entice people to drive or fly (more carbon footprint) here and spend money.  We cannot live the comfortable life we do without people getting in their cars or on an airplane.

However, we also don’t need to become defensive about it. Just realistic. Temperatures are warming up over time, it’s accepted. Irrefutable.

To me the ski industry acknowledges that progress can continue to be made, even small steps, and it doesn’t need to be this abrasive discussion.  It can be honest and open to all stakeholders.

Every discussion in life can be honest and open to all stakeholders, if you allow it to be.

We said PF.

[BrianW]

11 hours ago, powderfreak said:

Yeah that’s why they move away from that stuff… but still have diesel backups for power on lifts (ie power outage with people on chairs, need a way to move them).

Ski areas have come a long way since the 1990s, but then again maybe not as that’s all in the eye of the beholder.  Sort of like has humanity come a long way since the 1990s? Maybe in some respects, and not in others?

I remember when Bolton Valley put up the wind turbine. I had a season pass and that thing was always cranking in the winter when I was there. I remember talking to someone about it and they said the wind often gets too high and it locks the blades for safety. 

There is some serious wind potential on the western slope of the greens. Does Stowe have any wind power? 

[BrianW]

10 hours ago, kdxken said:

Bad argument with the forests. Those solar panels in 20 years will reduce carbon a hell of a lot more than the trees. After 20 years if you want to replant trees have at it. Or you could just sell the land for condoz.

 

 

 

 

 

Almost 70k lbs of Co2 reduced and I planted the equivalent of 526 trees according to my Solar ap. 

 

[MJO812]

Anyone going to Comic Con this weekend in Rhode Island ?

I will be there on Saturday with my family. 

We will be staying in Warwick .

[mreaves]

58 minutes ago, BrianW said:

I remember when Bolton Valley put up the wind turbine. I had a season pass and that thing was always cranking in the winter when I was there. I remember talking to someone about it and they said the wind often gets too high and it locks the blades for safety. 

There is some serious wind potential on the western slope of the greens. Does Stowe have any wind power? 

Wind power has faced some serious opposition up here.  A serious case of NIMBYism, it comes from across the ideological spectrum.  There are people who think it isn't reliable enough and people who don't want to "industrialize" ridgelines. 

[kdxken]

9 hours ago, Ginx snewx said:

How much carbon energy to recycle,make those panels? You sure about your stats taking everything into account. Trees we need, strip mining entire forests for solar panels not so much. It's sometimes very funny what so called environmentalists will destroy in the name of green.

 

 

Where does the carbon go when these magic trees die?

[Lava Rock]

A lot of good info in this story about the events leading up to the shooting. I wonder if lawsuits will eventually be filed. At a minimum, some heads will probably roll

Cops were sent to Maine gunman’s home weeks before massacres amid concern he ‘is going to snap and commit a mass shooting’ (yahoo.com)

[BrianW]

58 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:

A lot of good info in this story about the events leading up to the shooting. I wonder if lawsuits will eventually be filed. At a minimum, some heads will probably roll

Cops were sent to Maine gunman’s home weeks before massacres amid concern he ‘is going to snap and commit a mass shooting’ (yahoo.com)

Something similar happened here. Some guy killed his ex and then took his own life. Family/friends were contacting the police with concerns for months leading up to it. The cops did nothing and my town is facing unprecedented lawsuits that will be very easy to win based off the fact they did absolutely nothing. 

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, kdxken said:

Where does the carbon go when these magic trees die?

I think you know the answer.  
Trees cycle carbon, with some entering the atmosphere as dead wood decays, and some is added to the duff layer that helps to grow the next generation of trees that then remove atmospheric carbon.  In very old forests - several hundred years - carbon sequestering is near zero but by then the total carbon storage is huge, both above and below the ground.  Using wood to replace fossil fuel, for domestic heat or for replacing heavy carbon footprint building materials, are benefits from managed forests.  No magic trees, just the many good things from forests.

[tunafish]

2 hours ago, Lava Rock said:

A lot of good info in this story about the events leading up to the shooting. I wonder if lawsuits will eventually be filed. At a minimum, some heads will probably roll

Cops were sent to Maine gunman’s home weeks before massacres amid concern he ‘is going to snap and commit a mass shooting’ (yahoo.com)

Sounds like if they thought he was a dangerous threat, they should have taken him into custody and have him undergo a medical evaluation, and then have a judge approve an order to take his guns temporarily.  

Put aside that misstep for a second....  Those are some BIG steps between threat and action and based on some assumptions that are not necessarily slam dunks.

That assumes he's going to willingly be taken into custody, be honest in his medical evaluation, then wait enough for it to go through a judge, and then willingly allow them to take away his war machine.

They 100% should have pursued getting him in custody.  But even if they had, it's not a guarantee this would have been prevented.  There are other steps that can be taken at a local level to help prevent this shit in the future.  

My college roomate, lifelong Mainer and dear friend wrote this Thursday morning when he got off his shift at CMMC after seeing 15 patients come into his ER with bullet holes in them.  I find it to be a reasonable starting point.

https://www.pressherald.com/2023/10/29/commentary-maine-wasnt-different-when-it-came-to-guns-we-were-just-lucky/

[HIPPYVALLEY]

Recycling myths and truths:

 

https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/04/26/debunking-recycling-myths

[Layman]

15 hours ago, powderfreak said:

It’s not a complete shitshow, to be honest.

This is one of the more reasonable discussions about environmental change, and the New England forum can do it.

Why is everything in life nowadays so black and white?  That’s what bothers me personally.

We can take the time to understand everyone’s viewpoints… be empathetic and not always go immediately on the defensive.

My livelihood and my wife’s are solely resting on tourism, in this industry that relies on snowmaking (the topic at hand) to entice people to drive or fly (more carbon footprint) here and spend money.  We cannot live the comfortable life we do without people getting in their cars or on an airplane.

However, we also don’t need to become defensive about it. Just realistic. Temperatures are warming up over time, it’s accepted. Irrefutable.

To me the ski industry acknowledges that progress can continue to be made, even small steps, and it doesn’t need to be this abrasive discussion.  It can be honest and open to all stakeholders.

Every discussion in life can be honest and open to all stakeholders, if you allow it to be.

The climate change topic is a hot one (pun intended...) and gets peoples hackles up for sure.  

Why is it often black and white?  Your example is a great one - your livelihood is is based largely around activities that some perceive as an existential threat.  How you make a living is "killing the planet" leading humans to an "extinction level event".  You're the enemy.  Along with big oil and the rest of the bogeyman stood up for everyone to beat on.  It's difficult to have rational, logical, honest, reasonable and empathetic conversations with ground rules that have this tenor.  

Is it "irrefutable" that temps are warming up over time?  On what time scale?  Does it matter?

I personally believe the data set is laughable.  When we speak of record highs, lows, precipitation, etc it's sounds ominous or fantastical to say "in recorded history", etc.  How many years is that?  200?  250?  Of what could be deemed reasonably reliable.  How about data integrity?  How accurate were Josiah's and Imogene's temp and precip recordings on November 3rd, 1885?  Regardless, it's the best we've got and it's in the record.  How about temps at Logan over the past 10 years?  Are those accurate?  How many of the recording stations have been moved from original sites in the past 100 years?  All of them?  How many years of reliable data is needed to get an accurate read on what happens with the planet?  100?  10,000?  50,000?  100,000?  500,000?  100 million?  There are a lot of variables out there and I'm extremely hesitant to believe that those that have arisen in the past 20-250 years are indicative of the last million+ years.  

How accurate is ice core data?  Are the derivative indicators reliable to determine actual temperatures?  Do they accurately depict the atmosphere at specific moments in time?  

Does humanity actually have any impact on global temperatures?  The world has been around a loooooong time and has gone through a lot over the past many millions of years.  Our existence here is less than a cosmic blink of an eye.  The data we're attempting to interpret to determine what's going on in this moment of existence is so infinitesimally small it's like examining the last second of time you just lived to determine what's going to happen with the rest of your life.  

It seems to be accepted that today represents the very height of technological advancement for the current human civilization.  How many other civilizations have come before us and were at this stage or beyond?  Each year we learn about civilizations dating back further and further in time yet, they're still only 10's of thousands of years old.  

All obviously rhetorical questions and personal opinions, certainly not directed at you or anyone else, but encompassing areas I find meaningful when discussing important topics.  

While not misanthropic, I'm highly cynical and believe hubris, greed and power/control drive a large portion of humanity rather than a quest for true understanding of our environment/existence.  As science has become ever more corrupted it makes it exceedingly difficult to know if the data you're working with is accurate or not.  

Interesting time to be alive but I'm sure they all are and have been.  

[Ginx snewx]

1 hour ago, Layman said:

The climate change topic is a hot one (pun intended...) and gets peoples hackles up for sure.  

Why is it often black and white?  Your example is a great one - your livelihood is is based largely around activities that some perceive as an existential threat.  How you make a living is "killing the planet" leading humans to an "extinction level event".  You're the enemy.  Along with big oil and the rest of the bogeyman stood up for everyone to beat on.  It's difficult to have rational, logical, honest, reasonable and empathetic conversations with ground rules that have this tenor.  

Is it "irrefutable" that temps are warming up over time?  On what time scale?  Does it matter?

I personally believe the data set is laughable.  When we speak of record highs, lows, precipitation, etc it's sounds ominous or fantastical to say "in recorded history", etc.  How many years is that?  200?  250?  Of what could be deemed reasonably reliable.  How about data integrity?  How accurate were Josiah's and Imogene's temp and precip recordings on November 3rd, 1885?  Regardless, it's the best we've got and it's in the record.  How about temps at Logan over the past 10 years?  Are those accurate?  How many of the recording stations have been moved from original sites in the past 100 years?  All of them?  How many years of reliable data is needed to get an accurate read on what happens with the planet?  100?  10,000?  50,000?  100,000?  500,000?  100 million?  There are a lot of variables out there and I'm extremely hesitant to believe that those that have arisen in the past 20-250 years are indicative of the last million+ years.  

How accurate is ice core data?  Are the derivative indicators reliable to determine actual temperatures?  Do they accurately depict the atmosphere at specific moments in time?  

Does humanity actually have any impact on global temperatures?  The world has been around a loooooong time and has gone through a lot over the past many millions of years.  Our existence here is less than a cosmic blink of an eye.  The data we're attempting to interpret to determine what's going on in this moment of existence is so infinitesimally small it's like examining the last second of time you just lived to determine what's going to happen with the rest of your life.  

It seems to be accepted that today represents the very height of technological advancement for the current human civilization.  How many other civilizations have come before us and were at this stage or beyond?  Each year we learn about civilizations dating back further and further in time yet, they're still only 10's of thousands of years old.  

All obviously rhetorical questions and personal opinions, certainly not directed at you or anyone else, but encompassing areas I find meaningful when discussing important topics.  

While not misanthropic, I'm highly cynical and believe hubris, greed and power/control drive a large portion of humanity rather than a quest for true understanding of our environment/existence.  As science has become ever more corrupted it makes it exceedingly difficult to know if the data you're working with is accurate or not.  

Interesting time to be alive but I'm sure they all are and have been.  

Extremely well said. Nothing old school about it.

[codfishsnowman]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:27 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Not sure what Forky’s motivation is for that resentment… but snow making has become immoral. No sympathy from me.   It’s a particularly bad look when you consider how little of the population actually skis. Much to the possible chagrin of the people that are involved in the discussion you are a minority.  The problem is it’s a gigantic expenditure of energy and a massive carbon footprint to appease a very very small segment of the population, when it does not benefit anything but an ephemeral entertainment pleasure, yet will cost tremendous to the ecology. Here,

Phys.org: “The first-ever national study to assess the impact of developing artificial snow shows the pressure the process is putting on the climate, with the equivalent of nearly 17,000 homes' worth of annual energy needed to produce snow for yearly ski operations in just Canada alone.

Publishing their findings in the journal Current Issues in Tourism, experts from the University of Waterloo, in Canada, and the University of Innsbruck, Austria, found 130,095 tons CO2e are needed to produce the estimated 42 million cubic meters of machine-made snow in Canada in an average winter. For context, this is comparable to 155,141 acres of forest for one year sequestering the comparable amount of carbon.”

 

You know what I admire about you more than your writing and explanation of weather phenomenon? You are not afraid to speak your mind. I just thought no one would ever have the balls to bring up the other side of snow making especially with all the skiers on the site. You rock!

[dendrite]

It takes a lot of heat to wipe out the arctic ice that has rapidly deteriorated in the last few decades. We know the CO2 has been steadily, rapidly rising since we started measuring it in HI too. 

It’s pretty obvious we’re trashing the planet with our excessive waste, pollutants, GHGs, and plastic. It doesn’t need to be a political issue. I don’t even care what the global temps are. Look around. The planet looks like trash compared to 300 years ago. We should just simply be striving to be as “green” as possible.

[Dan76]

The solution is so simple... Stop making people,but we know that will never happen.

[ORH_wxman]

6 minutes ago, Dan76 said:

The solution is so simple... Stop making people,but we know that will never happen.

US domestic fertility is wayyy below replacement level right now (2.1 births per female is replacement level) . Same for most western countries. 

[HoarfrostHubb]

21 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

US domestic fertility is wayyy below replacement level right now (2.1 births per female is replacement level) . Same for most western countries. 

The rest of the world is going bonkers though. 

[powderfreak]

2 hours ago, Layman said:

The climate change topic is a hot one (pun intended...) and gets peoples hackles up for sure.  

Why is it often black and white?  Your example is a great one - your livelihood is is based largely around activities that some perceive as an existential threat.  How you make a living is "killing the planet" leading humans to an "extinction level event".  You're the enemy.  Along with big oil and the rest of the bogeyman stood up for everyone to beat on.  It's difficult to have rational, logical, honest, reasonable and empathetic conversations with ground rules that have this tenor.  

Is it "irrefutable" that temps are warming up over time?  On what time scale?  Does it matter?

I personally believe the data set is laughable.  When we speak of record highs, lows, precipitation, etc it's sounds ominous or fantastical to say "in recorded history", etc.  How many years is that?  200?  250?  Of what could be deemed reasonably reliable.  How about data integrity?  How accurate were Josiah's and Imogene's temp and precip recordings on November 3rd, 1885?  Regardless, it's the best we've got and it's in the record.  How about temps at Logan over the past 10 years?  Are those accurate?  How many of the recording stations have been moved from original sites in the past 100 years?  All of them?  How many years of reliable data is needed to get an accurate read on what happens with the planet?  100?  10,000?  50,000?  100,000?  500,000?  100 million?  There are a lot of variables out there and I'm extremely hesitant to believe that those that have arisen in the past 20-250 years are indicative of the last million+ years.  

How accurate is ice core data?  Are the derivative indicators reliable to determine actual temperatures?  Do they accurately depict the atmosphere at specific moments in time?  

Does humanity actually have any impact on global temperatures?  The world has been around a loooooong time and has gone through a lot over the past many millions of years.  Our existence here is less than a cosmic blink of an eye.  The data we're attempting to interpret to determine what's going on in this moment of existence is so infinitesimally small it's like examining the last second of time you just lived to determine what's going to happen with the rest of your life.  

It seems to be accepted that today represents the very height of technological advancement for the current human civilization.  How many other civilizations have come before us and were at this stage or beyond?  Each year we learn about civilizations dating back further and further in time yet, they're still only 10's of thousands of years old.  

All obviously rhetorical questions and personal opinions, certainly not directed at you or anyone else, but encompassing areas I find meaningful when discussing important topics.  

While not misanthropic, I'm highly cynical and believe hubris, greed and power/control drive a large portion of humanity rather than a quest for true understanding of our environment/existence.  As science has become ever more corrupted it makes it exceedingly difficult to know if the data you're working with is accurate or not.  

Interesting time to be alive but I'm sure they all are and have been.  

I love the cordial discussions because we should be adult human beings and hopefully act as civilized as our progress has been throughout history.

Personally, regardless of the temperatures, I lean heavily towards Dendrite’s line of thinking and he’s mentioned it for years in passing discussions… we can just be better for the planet (I’m no environmentalist though).  Even if it was cooling towards an ice age.

Even small steps, nowadays we tend to at least have the planet in mind as a stakeholder in discussions.  Could be as simple as back in the day when cars were becoming popular, mechanics/people would dump used motor oil out back in the woods.  Now we don’t.  Plenty of examples of things we don’t even think about today but that were done in the past that are kind of mind-blowing. Small step but seems prudent enough.

We should always strive to make changes where we can.  Along with getting rid of the idea that if someone else is doing it, then we should be able to as well.  Just because a ski area in China dumps used hydraulic fluid into a pond regularly, doesn’t mean we should here in the US. 

And once again, consider all stakeholders.  Communities, economies, the planet, etc.

[bwt3650]

16 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

I love the cordial discussions because we should be adult human beings and hopefully act as civilized as our progress has been throughout history.

Personally, regardless of the temperatures, I lean heavily towards Dendrite’s line of thinking and he’s mentioned it for years in passing discussions… we can just be better for the planet.  Even if it was cooling towards an ice age.

Even small steps, nowadays we tend to at least have the planet in mind as a stakeholder in discussions.  Could be as simple as back in the day when cars were becoming popular, mechanics/people would dump used motor oil out back in the woods.  Now we don’t.  Small step but seems prudent enough.

We should always strive to make changes where we can.  And once again, consider all stakeholders. 

The extremes are the problem...how about we work to make snowmaking more eco-friendly....rather than "we should ban all snowmaking because it uses energy."  and I'm just using snowmaking because it's a hot topic here close to my heart.  We can't "ban" everything that uses energy and live in a cave.  We can certainly, and should certainly, make strides to do better.  One can want to make things more eco friendly, pollute less, support alternative energy sources, without the "ban everything, I'm smarter than you, every high temperature is CC attitude" 

I think many become defensive when people take things to the extreme, create drama over the topic and most importantly, speak in condescending tones to those who have a different viewpoint, which happens frequently on both sides of the CC debate.   

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, dendrite said:

It takes a lot of heat to wipe out the arctic ice that has rapidly deteriorated in the last few decades. We know the CO2 has been steadily, rapidly rising since we started measuring it in HI too. 

It’s pretty obvious we’re trashing the planet with our excessive waste, pollutants, GHGs, and plastic. It doesn’t need to be a political issue. I don’t even care what the global temps are. Look around. The planet look like trash compared to 300 years ago. We should just simply be striving to be as “green” as possible.

Bingo!

I sometimes think the "politicizing" thing has become an act of diversion from facing the real argument points. 

 

[powderfreak]

17 minutes ago, bwt3650 said:

The extremes are the problem...how about we work to make snowmaking more eco-friendly....rather than "we should ban all snowmaking because it uses energy."  and I'm just using snowmaking because it's a hot topic here close to my heart.  We can't "ban" everything that uses energy and live in a cave.  We can certainly, and should certainly, make strides to do better. 

Yeah that’s what I’ve been saying all along, but I just cannot get worked up over people saying we need to ban snowmaking either.  I live in the real world and it’s just not going to happen, so I can’t bring myself to expend much energy on that aspect of it.

What many seem to be alluding to and describing would be a “moderate” approach… what happened to just being moderate and modest and not swinging for the fences on either side of any topic, ha.