As the World Warms, the Future of Skiing Looks Bleak
By 2050, Sierra Nevada winter snowpack may have decreased by as much as 70 percent from average levels of today; in the Rockies, the elevation of full winter snow cover may increase from 7,300 feet today to 10,300 feet by the year 2100; in Aspen, the ski season could retreat at both ends by a total of almost two months; and throughout the Western United States, average snow depths could decline by anywhere between 25 and—yep—100 percent.
These, of course, are just visions of wintertime future produced by climatologists and their computers
As the World Warms, the Future of Skiing Looks Bleak | Off the Road
Had these geniuses bothered to look at actual data, they would know that winter snow extent is increasing
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab
One might also remember that Texas had their snowiest winter on record last year. as did Alaska and much of Europe. Being a successful climate scientist requires that you don’t understand the limitations of computer hardware or software. A computer model is not an excuse for being a moron.
I’ll give them on point. If we follow the draconian cuts in CO2 emissions that are prescribed by the IPCC, very few people will be able to afford to ski, snow or no snow.
I have a model that says, by 2050, chickens might have lips and with said lips, they might be able to whistle. This, of course, is just a vision of poultry future produced by my computer model.
The word you’re looking for is not vision, but “projection.”
“A computer model is not an excuse for being a moron.”
No, but it is a vehicle that will get you there. I remember wondering what was going to happen to us once the calculator generation hit the workforce, now I know.
Tough problems require computer models to solve. Unfortunately too many people assume the model is the answer rather than providing insights towards the answer.
“Tough problems require computer models to solve.”
That is the mindset that is the issue. A model is nothing more than a reflection of the beliefs of its creator.
Tough problems require intelligent approach.
You can’t solve a problem that requires millions of calculations to answer, without a computer. The “intelligent approach” is to use a model. (Which is a fancy word for a type of computer program.)
Einstein didn’t need a computer model to come up with his theories of relativity.
Einstein never managed to discover a unified field theory. Maybe his methods were not up to the task.
Even the IPCC admits to a “low” to “very low” understanding of @ 80% of climate forcings. It is impossible to model what you do not understand. Not one of the multitude of climate models has been able to forecast a thing.
Modeling a bridge, dam or airplane is not the same as modeling chaos. Climate models have done virtually nothing to help us understand long term climate, and worse, have been used as “proof” of AGW. Models are tools, and just as you would not use a screwdriver to cut wood, using models to “understand” climate is just as foolish. We first have to understand the system on which we are working, and THEN build a tool appropriate for the task. As of now that just is not possible.
Climate models only reflect the belief system of their creators. GIGO.
In that the ‘belief system’ of the climate modelers is physics, I would agree with you. I’d be wiling to bet that you can find their models on-line. Why don’t you go find them and give us a critique of their use of physics, or lack thereof?
What part of “the IPCC admits to a “low” to “very low” understanding of @ 80% of climate forcings” do you not understand?
And BTW, that’s “known” forcings.
How about that dissertation doc? 😆
Atmospheric models are known to work reasonably well for 72 hours. After that they break down due to chaos. Perhaps you should actually learn something about the subject instead of repeating mindless drivel.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
Rule #2
If you by chance ever do look at real data, “adjust” it to fit your preconceived cockeyed hypothesis and then hold your hand out for more grant money. Then claim the adjustments have been “peer reviewed” by others holding their hand out for more grant money.
Who remembers the Twilight Zone episode “The old man in the cave”?
Yeap.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
I have looked at the data for multiple sites in the Sierra and there is very little danger of not having winter snows. Yes some years more than others, but in the long term there has not been a significant trend according to Dr Christ in his 100 year analysis.
So many of these stories begin: “…as the world warms…” I’ve never seen anything so idiotic in my life. Might as well be: “…as the worm turns…”
So, you’re a physicist, right? Did the models predict increased or decreased snowpack in the western United States?
Soooo many things wrong with your comment. Firstly, the models do not “predict,” they “project!” This is important, because project is strong enough to make really scary headlines, but not precise enough to endanger future grants.
Anyways, as any lover of realclimatescience would know, the models are based on First Principles, so you know they’re good (what, are you going to start Denying thermodynamics now?!). Stop trying to confuse things by looking at the real world and comparing to the model results, because you just don’t understand all of the complexities. And in any case, it’s all consistent with everything else. There are P-Values that prove it!
Also, we’ve moved on from snow packs and glaciers. That’s not really important any more, because, September Arctic ice extent!
Matt,
RE: the models do not “predict
Even the Team makes the claim that models do not predict.
However, IPCC asserts that models do predict. The exact phrase “models predict” appears 116 times in IPCC literature. It’s high time they update the literature to match their talking points.
https://www.google.com/search?q=“models+predict”+site%3Aipcc.ch