EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Could it affect the ski season - in the East
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Could it affect the ski season - in the East - Page 3

post #61 of 84
I'm very concerned! If there will be no skiing because of us it is just stupid!
post #62 of 84
We had two of the driest months on record here in MN, followed by three of the wettest. The sky is, indeed, falling.
post #63 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
We had two of the driest months on record here in MN, followed by three of the wettest. The sky is, indeed, falling.
That seems to happen every year here. The last two summers were "the hottest ever" ( at the time ) But ski season still comes, and the mountains are blessed with tons of powder ( and winter is still cold ).

The ski is not falling.
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
Can't be bothered doing and linking the research for all of the deniers out there. .
QED
post #65 of 84
Nice living in a cocoon?
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
We had two of the driest months on record here in MN, followed by three of the wettest. The sky is, indeed, falling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahPowderPig View Post
That seems to happen every year here. The last two summers were "the hottest ever" ( at the time ) But ski season still comes, and the mountains are blessed with tons of powder ( and winter is still cold ).

The ski is not falling.
I know... Sarcasm. Al Gore has been running around crying wolf enough for all of us.
post #67 of 84

Doh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
I'm sure it is more complicated than the ice sheet. But it seems obvious that if the ice, which generates the cold, is not there, then our artic air, the 'cold mass' is going to be not as cold as it once was. The ice cap will grow back during the winter but in the mean time we have to wait while the cold machine gears up. East coast snow storms rely on cold air meeting moist ocean air. Without the cold we get rain or the snow line moves north (to Jay).

Hmmm....weird. Now they're saying it will be the coldest winter in 15 years! How can that be possible???!
post #68 of 84
Current polar ice cap status:
Northern hemishere--1 million km2 below normal (up from a deficit of 3 m km2 in October)

Southern hemishere---1 million km2 above normal

Total planetary sea ice = right at average.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
post #69 of 84
Not sure what is going on at Killington, but Tremblant has had their best opening in 5 years. They are reporting a metre of power there right now. I don't see anything wrong with a snowy winter in the east this year.
post #70 of 84
Colder than average temps here in NY, snow and flurries for the past 3 days.
post #71 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_T View Post
Hmmm....weird. Now they're saying it will be the coldest winter in 15 years! How can that be possible???!
Who is saying that? But Nov and early Dec have been cold.

I suppose it can be possible because the ice cap is not the cold machine.

I hear that the East should have warmer than normal temp. but that has nothing to do with the ice cap.
post #72 of 84
Thread Starter 

or does it

Josh Fox's post from MRG website.

The measure of a winter from the standpoint of temperature is usually determined by the following tongue twister. The strength of the cold embedded within the cold pattern. The “strength of the cold” refers to the arctic air originating near the poles. Arctic air of a stronger intensity in a fundamentally colder than normal pattern may mean the difference between 5 degrees and 15 degrees below normal. Likewise, a normal pattern may be 5 degrees below normal instead of 5 degrees above and the adverse impacts of an above normal pattern may very well be significantly mitigated. The opposite if of course true if the air with polar origins is weaker than expected. It is important to examine this issue in any seasonal outlook because the most basic assumption that needs to be made is that the winter will consist of both fundamentally mild or unfavorable patterns for us MRG skiers and fundamentally cold or favorable patterns. 2006-2007 was a winter where us New Englanders got a good look at both sides of the spectrum.

So what does snow cover in October indicate about the measure of cold in an upcoming winter? It has to do with cold pooling efficiency. A greater coverage of snow in the polar regions early in the year will allow arctic air to strengthen quicker and reach a greater maximum intensity. An analogy can be drawn between the effects of snow cover on arctic air and the effects of anomalously warm water has on hurricanes. 2005, the year which featured Hurricane Katrina among many other land-falling storms, was defined by warmer than average water temperatures in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Storms traveling through these areas strengthened quicker and reached a greater maximum intensity. Arctic air has a similar relationship with snow cover.

....

Snow cover has always be a big part of temp and snow v rain in the East. Not sure that he is referring to the ice cap per se.
post #73 of 84
I think there's definitely something to the tendency that once you have snow cover it's easier to keep it and get more snowfall. The cold air seems to follow it.

But there are many variables in the equation!
post #74 of 84
Some good reading:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...sea-ice-watch/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...and-antarctic/

Global warming is inevitable if anthropogenic GHG emissions go unchecked. The best you can do is enjoy the short term (weather) variability and all the snow and cold spells it brings because in the long term (climate) it will all be averaged out with rain and hot spells.

Either that or suck it up, alter your lifestyle, reduce your carbon footprint, and vote for people who will enact the necessary changes at a governmental/international level.
post #75 of 84
Havn't you heard of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW movie. We are long past due for a new ice age. Duh!
post #76 of 84
The whole global warming action thing is completely over-hyped. When we're talking about emissions reductions they are just not substantial enough to make any difference, even with the most optimistic version of Kyoto.

The only way we're ever going to make a noticeable dent in global warming is by pumping sulfur into the upper-atmosphere or launching tiny mirrors up in the L1 point to reflect 1% of the sunlight. Everything else is really just a feel-good stopgap that is barely going to make a measurable difference over the next thirty years. Something like the Kyoto protocol, even IF followed down to the letter, will only really start to show results in like 2050 or 2070 with regard to global warming. Anyway, the question is not whether we will burn all the fossil fuels on earth, but how quickly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shade
post #77 of 84
Who knows, looking back at history and the credibility of climatologists can really make a person wonder if anyonne has an actual clue. In the 70's they were talking about a possibility of GLOBAL COOLING! I don't think there is any need to really panic right now, considering how a paradime shift can happen in a moments notice.
post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclay2 View Post
Who knows, looking back at history and the credibility of climatologists can really make a person wonder if anyonne has an actual clue. In the 70's they were talking about a possibility of GLOBAL COOLING! I don't think there is any need to really panic right now, considering how a paradime shift can happen in a moments notice.
I can understand where you're coming from, but that whole global cooling thing was relating to sulfides (see my above post) in the upper atmosphere, which no longer became an issue once we switched over to low sulfur coal. Actually that same principal might be used to mitigate and reverse the effects of global warming. People won't do anything that effective until global warming has caused some really disastrous effects though, discounting a true disaster the world will continue on increasing emissions and signing feel good measures like the Kyoto protocol.

The global cooling hype was in the public media, there were never any peer reviewed studies predicting it. Just schlock in Time magazine and the like. Atmospheric scientists were primarily speculating that a global ice-age could be a remote possibility if people continued putting sulfur into the atmosphere due to various feed-back loops. No respected person within the scientific community was actively predicting a new ice age. Of course the media loves to hype things like this, so they blew the whole thing out of proportion and reached really absurd conclusions.
post #79 of 84
Thread Starter 
Although this tread may have a link to the effects of global warming, the thread was not intended to be another discussion on that topic - not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's a much simpler question that cannot be simply answered, however artic air plays a role in EC weather. Snow pack is often mentioned as a factor in determining if there will be enough cold air in place to give us snow.

Like La Nina (not sure if that is really what it's called) situations in distant places can affect weather else where. Do you believe that La Nina or the other phenomena actually has an affect, say, here in New England, and is there any way to factor it into forcasting weather. Most people on Epic who discuss future weather and reference La Nina seem to imply that it is a credible factor.
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hvatum View Post
The whole global warming action thing is completely over-hyped. When we're talking about emissions reductions they are just not substantial enough to make any difference, even with the most optimistic version of Kyoto.

The only way we're ever going to make a noticeable dent in global warming is by pumping sulfur into the upper-atmosphere or launching tiny mirrors up in the L1 point to reflect 1% of the sunlight. Everything else is really just a feel-good stopgap that is barely going to make a measurable difference over the next thirty years. Something like the Kyoto protocol, even IF followed down to the letter, will only really start to show results in like 2050 or 2070 with regard to global warming. Anyway, the question is not whether we will burn all the fossil fuels on earth, but how quickly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shade

Do you realize the change in lifestyle that Americans EMBRACED to fight WW2? Granted, it was a better defined problem that united people for a common cause then, but I can't believe people just flat out dismiss GHG reduction efforts as worthless. The science in Al Gore's flick isn't that surprising to people who are well informed, but at the end he basically reminds people that the technology to cut GHG emissions exists, in many cases the efficiency gains are profitable, and as a country with a track record of overcoming adversity, we should grow a collective set of nuts and do something. (Me paraphrasing)

Look at what European countries are doing with alternative energy incentives to aggressively ratchet down emissions. Consider their GHG emissions per capita, past and present. Then consider their standard of living. They have their priorities straight (skiing included). As the so called World's super power, shouldn't we be kicking their asses on all fronts?
post #81 of 84
Bear in mind that a lot of folks discussing La Nina are in discussing the effects on the west.

From what I know the NAO has the largest effect here in the east.
post #82 of 84
ct55: What is NAO stand for. All i could think of was north atlantic something?
post #83 of 84
Thread Starter 
More from Josh Fox's MRG Blog, Nov 07:

"Vermont typically fairs substantially better than locations further south during moderate to strong La Nina’s. Locations such as West Virginia for instance often feel the effects of a potent southeast ridge in the Jet Stream, which aside from making it incredibly mild for long stretches of the winter, also deflect storms to the north and west, which means little if any natural snow. Snow often does fall in New England but very often the snow events also include mixed precipitation or rain. We were blessed with 58 days during the second half of the 06-07-ski season without rain, an occurrence, which made last season one of my personal favorites. It is very unlikely that we will even get 30 days without rain unless La Nina subsides. Currently the critical 3&4 Nino regions are seeing SSTs of 1.3 C degrees below normal, which in a quantitative assessment is as a moderate to borderline strong La Nina. SST’s would need to warm to at least within a degree of Celsius before we can categorize the ENSO event as weak.

Round 1 - The current state of La Nina favors below normal snow and normal temperatures. A La Nina such as this one is often a knockout upper cut to the ski areas in the Middle-Atlantic but interior New England does tend to fair better but far from great. "

Many forcasters are pointing to La Nina in their EC forecasts.
post #84 of 84
North Atlantic Oscillation. Wiki it - there's a big L pressure up by Labrador which drives the weather for New England. Or a big H pressure. This affects the storm track.

Here's a pretty good top level explanation

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/

Right now I'd have to say we're in a pretty good one! Snow in the forecast and apparently midseason conditions in N Vt!

Ice storms keep coating my driveway down here but I'll take the snow in the mountains for that bargain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Could it affect the ski season - in the East