[NAFEX] Weather

Betty Mayfield bmayfield at opusnet.com
Sat Mar 28 19:09:16 EDT 2009

To the list,

In an article in January, the Wall Street Journal 
reported that Alpine ski resorts are having to 
use snow cannons to supply artificial snow, sucking up water supplies.

"Swiss ski resorts, which tend to be at higher 
elevations and have reliable snow cover, still 
have relatively few snow cannons, covering around 
19% of all slopes. That compares with 50% 
coverage in Austria and 100% in some Italian ski 
areas. Across the Alps, snow-making machines now 
suck up nearly as much water as Vienna, a city of 
1.7 million people, says Josef Essl, in charge of 
land-use planning and nature conservation at the 
Innsbruck-based Austrian Alpine Association. . .

"Snow cannons take water, supercool it and spray 
it out over the ski runs. You need to build pipes 
up the mountainsides to bring water to cement 
storage tanks, and pipes to take it to the snow 
cannons. Scientists predict that lower resorts 
will have to be abandoned by 2030 anyhow, as 
rising temperatures lift the snowline and make it 
harder for snow machines to operate. The skiers 
will leave, but not the pipes and cement."

Betty Mayfield
northwest Oregon

At 12:36 PM 3/28/2009, Kevin Moore wrote:
>This a very concise and well-worded explanation. 
>I would only add one thought: The carbon that 
>was laid down as fossil deposits was pulled out 
>of the atmosphere over the course of millions of 
>years, but is being reintroduced over the course 
>of a couple of hundred years. Very possibly too much too fast.
>From: Stephen Sadler <Docshiva at Docshiva.org>
>To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:30:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Weather
>Early on in the last decade I was among the 
>scientists who thought that solar cycles should 
>be closely examined for their role in so many 
>years of highest-recorded worldwide 
>temperatures.  I’ve kept up with the research, 
>and find 100% agreement among climatologists 
>(I’m not one, but feel trained and adept at 
>understanding published studies) that this is a 
>carbon-based fuel use phenomenon, not a solar 
>one.  The arguments are more than persuasive; 
>they are neat, elegant, logical, clear, 
>repeated, validated, and scientifically 
>irrefutable.  Read them rather than taking my word for that.
>One of the many explanations for the global 
>climate change phenomenon is that during the 
>Cambrian period atmospheric carbon was much 
>higher.  This led to very high global 
>temperatures, incompatible with human life.  The 
>plant species of the time evolved to use the 
>high levels of CO2, and that carbon was further 
>utilized by the animals that ate those 
>plants.  Carbon was drained from the atmosphere; 
>perhaps by consumption alone, or in tandem with 
>other events.  Those animals and plants died in 
>a rapid and massive extinction event (very 
>likely caused by climate change).  Their carbon 
>settled deep into the earth over time (which is 
>why fossils are dug up, not found on the 
>surface), thus sequestering the carbon - making 
>it unavailable to the atmosphere.  We call their 
>remains and their carbon “crude oil.”
>We are taking the carbon from that 
>climatologically different – and much hotter – 
>time an and burning it, placing the carbon back 
>into the atmosphere and recreating Cambrian 
>levels.  You simply can’t burn the amount of 
>carbon that we do at the pace that we do without 
>creating global climate change..
>There are many models of how this will 
>manifest.  Warming may set off a chain of events 
>that could lead to a rapid ice age, for 
>instance.  Storms may be warm hurricanes or 
>freezing superstorms.   Weather will certainly 
>continue to be different than it has ever been 
>in human history.   Species extinctions are at a 
>rate comparable with other mass extinction 
>events; we are experiencing a mass extinction 
>event right now.  The only question is which 
>species will survive, and what we can do to slow or reverse climate change.
>Many climate change naysayers site 2008s 
>coolness relative to the previous dozen years as 
>evidence that climate change is not 
>occurring.  2008, though, was the ninth hottest 
>year ever recorded; it just seemed cool because 
>of the string of previous years of record global high temperatures.
>Back on topic – over thee past decade I’ve 
>been able to grow zone 10 plants comfortably in 
>my nominally zone 8 region.  This is not at all 
>a reasonable sampling of others’ experience; 
>but locally here in California’s central 
>valley my bananas and Kaffir lime are doing 
>quite well.  Got too hot for my guava last summer, though.
>~ Stephen
>From: nafex-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org 
>[mailto:nafex-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of John Barbowski
>Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 10:34 AM
>To: North American Fruit Explorers
>Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Weather
>In the years gone by, temps were cooler; in the 
>years gone by, temps were warmer; In the years 
>gone by, temps were cooler; in the years gone by, temps were warmer;
>In the years gone by, temps were cooler; in the 
>years gone by, temps were warmer; ...
>Doesn't this somehow remind one of a cycle?
>We were in a warming cycle until 1998. Just look 
>at the glaciers in the Canadian rockies; at the 
>turn of the 1900, they were almost a mile longer 
>than they are today. Anecdotal evidence yes, but still a piece of the puzzle.
>In the 70's, I recall scientists 'predicting' a 
>mini ice age because of a couple of cooler 
>years. The last 8 years have indicated a cooling 
>trend. What can a trend be? 5 yrs, 10 yrs, 50, 100? Only history will tell.
>The real question I believe is: What is the 
>cause? I suggest that the only common factor in 
>all this is that big fiery ball in the sky. Man 
>can have an influence on our global climate, 
>however, I believe it to be minuscule in comparison to the sun.
>The explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 influenced the 
>worlds climate; people called it the year 
>without summer. A catastrophic event, yes, as 
>were the meteors that struck the earth and, as 
>some scientist claim,  influenced on our climate 
>and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. But 
>mother earth came back primarily because its consistent modifier.
>The sun reigns supreme and constant - the 
>driving force - 'weather' we like it or not. (Yeh I know it should be whether)
>sorry 'bout this - it has been bothering me for years.
>On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Kevin Moore 
><<mailto:aleguy33 at yahoo.com>aleguy33 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sorry guys, but you seem to be confused about 
>what global warming is and how it affects the 
>weather. I blame the anti-global-warming 
>petroleum conspiracy for confusing so many 
>people about what's really going on. The truth 
>is that virtually every reputable scientist on 
>the planet has been in agreement about global warming for more than a decade.
>The petro PACs turned up at a scientific 
>convention once and got a whole bunch of random 
>people to sign a statement that global warming 
>was a myth. It turns out, most of the people who 
>signed it were dentists or medical doctors or 
>something along those lines, and most of them 
>signed it after being misled about what it actually was.
>Today, even the oil companies don't dispute the 
>reality of global warming. Now they're trying to 
>confound the public on another equally 
>devastating secret. We have passed Hubbert's 
>Peak for world oil production, and are heading 
>into a period of severe fuel shortages and huge 
>price increases.. If you can't work out why they 
>want this kept hushed up, well . . .
>nafex mailing list
>nafex at lists.ibiblio.org
>Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
>This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web sites.
>Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have permission!
>Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
>No exceptions.
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of 
>this page (also can be used to change other email options):
>File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
>Please do not send binary files.
>Use plain text ONLY in emails!
>NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 
>270.11.31/2028 - Release Date: 03/28/09 07:16:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/private/nafex/attachments/20090328/7d31e90b/attachment.html 

More information about the nafex mailing list