# Deadlier Avalanches? Blame Global Warming



## MadMadWorld (Jan 25, 2013)

This should get people worked up...discuss


http://www.adventure-journal.com/2011/12/deadlier-avalanches-blame-global-warming/


----------



## Puck it (Jan 25, 2013)

I am just sick of this.  Who funded the research is my first question?  

And everything causes cancer!  When a rat just ingests huge amounts of a substance!  

Duh!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 25, 2013)

It is pretty ridiculous. Yea, there is some truth to the avalanche information but to make a connection to global warming is crazy.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 26, 2013)

Puck it said:


> I am just sick of this.  Who funded the research is my first question?
> 
> And everything causes cancer!  When a rat just ingests huge amounts of a substance!
> 
> Duh!



Global warming causes cancer.


----------



## witch hobble (Jan 28, 2013)

Deadlier?  Not sure that is what's being measured here.  Makes for a good headline though.


----------



## dmc (Jan 28, 2013)

Funny how people get all up in arms about no science behind global warming...
But will support hyrdo-fracking with even LESS information on how it affects the environment...

We are fighting fracking in the Catskills now... 

The hypocrisy is deafening...
Really proves that they are ALL about $$ and not actually caring for our world...


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

dmc said:


> Funny how people get all up in arms about no science behind global warming...
> But will support hyrdo-fracking with even LESS information on how it affects the environment...
> 
> We are fighting fracking in the Catskills now...
> ...



You need to understand the whole idea of fracking.  It has been used since the 40's. What have you watch "Gasland"? And now you know everything about fracking and how bad it is.  Gasland was a way for Josh Fox to make money for himself.  

You should watch "Fracknation", it was funded thru kickstarter with a max of $60 allowed.  This whole thing just pisses me off!


----------



## dmc (Jan 28, 2013)

Still on my ignore list but I'm sure I know what you said...


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

dmc said:


> Still on my ignore list but I'm sure I know what you said...





You should be on an ignore list since you have no clue to the facts about this subject just media sensationalism.


----------



## drjeff (Jan 28, 2013)

I don't blame global warming for deadlier avalanches as much as I blame GoPro's/Contours and Youtube


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 28, 2013)

dmc said:


> We are fighting fracking in the Catskills now...



What exactly are you "fighting" per se?



Puck it said:


> This whole thing just pisses me off!



You have nothing to be pissed off about, this one ends poorly for the environmental extremist crowd, and it's the most predictable of outcomes.  Natural gas is the future of America, regardless of who likes it or who doesn't like it.  Build or add to positions in these companies now.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 28, 2013)

drjeff said:


> I don't blame global warming for deadlier avalanches as much as I blame GoPro's/Contours and Youtube



I don't think it's that far off from reality.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> What exactly are you "fighting" per se?
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing to be pissed off about, this one ends poorly for the environmental extremist crowd, and it's the most predictable of outcomes. Natural gas is the future of America, regardless of who likes it or who doesn't like it. Build or add to positions in these companies now.



Clarify, I am pissed off on how the media sensationalizes things.


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> Clarify, I am pissed off on how the media sensationalizes things.



Right!  I think everyone is on the same page with that one.  But that's not where you started in this thread.  You said:



Puck it said:


> I am just sick of this.  Who funded the research is my first question?



But just as you eventually came around to say...this is about media sensationalization NOT about the research.  This research paper is about a small-scale laboratory experiment that looks at the physics of particle interactions for slides.  It's the media that makes the leap to global warming connections.  I think based on your last post I think you personally get that.  But what happens is that everyone has a knee-jerk reaction about poor science, misplaced funding, etc.  Science gets the bad rap for media hype.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Right! I think everyone is on the same page with that one. But that's not where you started in this thread. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just as you eventually came around to say...this is about media sensationalization NOT about the research. This research paper is about a small-scale laboratory experiment that looks at the physics of particle interactions for slides. It's the media that makes the leap to global warming connections. I think based on your last post I think you personally get that. But what happens is that everyone has a knee-jerk reaction about poor science, misplaced funding, etc. Science gets the bad rap for media hype.



I agree, but one does need to look at the funding on the research.  It is a sad state that has to be looked at.  It corrupts the scientific results.


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> I agree, but one does need to look at the funding on the research.  It is a sad state that has to be looked at.  It corrupts the scientific results.



Sure.  It can.  But there isn't much reason to think that in this case.  Here's the summary.  Seems like a reasonable thing to study and not really something worth "corrupting".  Also doesn't appear to have anything to do with GW.  That's the media's spin.....

"This Letter describes an investigation of interfacial melting in ice-bearing granular flows. It is proposed that energy associated with granular collisions causes melting at an ice particle’s surface, which can thus occur at temperatures well below freezing. A laboratory experiment has been designed that allows quantification of this process and its effect on the dynamics of a granular shear flow of ice spheres. This experiment employs a rotating drum, half filled with ice particles, situated in a temperature controlled laboratory. Capillary forces between the wetted melted particle surfaces lead to the clumping of particles and enhanced flow speeds, in turn leading to further melting. Dimensional analysis defines a parameter space for further experimentation."


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Sure. It can. But there isn't much reason to think that in this case. Here's the summary. Seems like a reasonable thing to study and not really something worth "corrupting". Also doesn't appear to have anything to do with GW. That's the media's spin.....
> 
> "This Letter describes an investigation of interfacial melting in ice-bearing granular flows. It is proposed that energy associated with granular collisions causes melting at an ice particle’s surface, which can thus occur at temperatures well below freezing. A laboratory experiment has been designed that allows quantification of this process and its effect on the dynamics of a granular shear flow of ice spheres. This experiment employs a rotating drum, half filled with ice particles, situated in a temperature controlled laboratory. Capillary forces between the wetted melted particle surfaces lead to the clumping of particles and enhanced flow speeds, in turn leading to further melting. Dimensional analysis defines a parameter space for further experimentation."



For this paper, I agree that science is valid and the link to GW is media.  I was generalizing.  

The media can mislead and so can the presentation of the data.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> I agree, but one does need to look at the funding on the research.  It is a sad state that has to be looked at.  It corrupts the scientific results.



In all reputable science journal, conflicts of interests have to be disclosed.   The real danger of corruption of scientific research occurs when private companies sponsor research.  One has to be extra critical of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or oil and gas companies.   You seem to think that there is a conspiracy with respect to climate change.   Most of the climate change research in the US and in Canada is funded by the government, and both governments are not very climate change friendly (even Obama who is big on talk).  There is some industry money on climate change research, but it is not agenda-based.  There is however quite a bit of agenda-based industry money in pseudo climate research. And yet the consensus in Climate change is very strong.

Similarly, you seem to have a very black and white view of fracking.  Which is not surprising if it is based on movies like gasland and fracknation.  You should spend a bit more time reading serious scientific literature instead.  You would rapidly find out that there is a scientific consensus as to the serious potential dangers to water table contamination, and that, despite of the fact that most of the money in the hand of the gas industry.   

I will agree that the medias do a very poor job.   But your climate change and fracking rants do not raise the debate any higher.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 28, 2013)

Man you boys should see the hububaloo concerning fracking out west these days. 

If someone's well fails its automatically because of fracking. If someones dog dies, its because of fracking, etc. If someone is on the rag, you guessed it, fracking. 

I agree media is overeggagerating the problem. People watch a documentary and assume its the end all be all fact. Really almost never the case...


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> In all reputable science journal, conflicts of interests have to be disclosed.   The real danger of corruption of scientific research occurs when private companies sponsor research.  One has to be extra critical of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or oil and gas companies.   You seem to think that there is a conspiracy with respect to climate change.   Most of the climate change research in the US and in Canada is funded by the government, and both governments are not very climate change friendly (even Obama who is big on talk).  There is some industry money on climate change research, but it is not agenda-based.  There is however quite a bit of agenda-based industry money in pseudo climate research. And yet the consensus in Climate change is very strong.
> 
> Similarly, you seem to have a very black and white view of fracking.  Which is not surprising if it is based on movies like gasland and fracknation.  You should spend a bit more time reading serious scientific literature instead.  You would rapidly find out that there is a scientific consensus as to the serious potential dangers to water table contamination, and that, despite of the fact that most of the money in the hand of the gas industry.
> 
> I will agree that the medias do a very poor job.   But your climate change and fracking rants do not raise the debate any higher.



Before you start lecturing you should understand who you are speaking at for an audience.  There is alot of climate change reseaRch done in acamdemia and funded by both sides as with fracking.  Things are only as safe as the interested parties want to pony up. There is issues with whatever we do to the enivronment.  That man made you are sliding has snowmax which is a biological additive(bacteria), there are studies of it's affects on runoff.   My point, not clear as Cannonball stated, is that we live in a society of uninformed and/ or misinformed. Sensationalism sells and the mostly liberal media and don't deny it slant to raise the most furur to get more ad revenue.  There are even agents for these yahoos that get them the most money. 

Data can be manipulated any way the presenter wants.  It is up to the audience to ask the right questions and for the majority of people that is not possible since they take the easy route and don't develop their own conclusion and seek the right info.

Should we do something about all of the emissions into the atmosphere. Hell yes.  Is that the climate changing or is it in a cycle. Data supports both.


Should we stop fracking and import the gas. Hell no. But we need to do it safely.  Take the bean counters out of the picture.  Fracking allows multiple wells to be drilled from one location instead of hundreds of well heads dotting the landscape.  

The ACK wind farm was oppose by some of the biggest liberals.  Some were upset that their view would be spoiled.

I digress now. Can you tell you pissed me off?  I can go on but it is a pain typing on an iPad. 

That brings up another point. Do you realize what toxic chemicals are used to make the computer that you typing on or cell phone or any electronic device and your car you drive.  Like HF, I would rather have all of the rabies shots then get burned by it. That is if you make to the hospital.

Let's have $8 gas, and destroy all of beloved skiing destination.  
We can not have our cake and eat it too. 

Hopefully I am coming across clear and not in "Scotty".  Cannoball can translate if needed.


----------



## witch hobble (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> Before you start lecturing you should understand who you are speaking at for an audience.



I work off the assumption that everybody in here is a 14 year old boy making dick and fart jokes, and looking for cool videos from which they will be lured into the deep dark woods.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

witch hobble said:


> I work off the assumption that everybody in here is a 14 year old boy making dick and fart jokes, and looking for cool videos from which they will be lured into the deep dark woods.



Yes and we don't like to lectured.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> Before you start lecturing you should understand who you are speaking at for an audience.  There is alot of climate change reseaRch done in acamdemia and funded by both sides as with fracking.



We all know who is funding the pro-fracking research.  Can you tell me who is funding the legitimate anti-fracking science ?  Same with Climate change.  There is money on both sides but the guys with the deep pockets are pro-fracking and anti climate change.  I have no agenda here beside being a scientist and therefore being pro-science.  I am just stating the obvious.  



Puck it said:


> Things are only as safe as the interested parties want to pony up. There is issues with whatever we do to the enivronment.  That man made you are sliding has snowmax which is a biological additive(bacteria), there are studies of it's affects on runoff.   My point, not clear as Cannonball stated, is that we live in a society of uninformed and/ or misinformed. Sensationalism sells and the mostly liberal media and don't deny it slant to raise the most furur to get more ad revenue.  There are even agents for these yahoos that get them the most money.



Not too sure what your point is.  But your statement about the liberal medias as being yahoos is very telling.



Puck it said:


> Data can be manipulated any way the presenter wants.  It is up to the audience to ask the right questions and for the majority of people that is not possible since they take the easy route and don't develop their own conclusion and seek the right info.


Yep.  Ain't black or white.  The medias and pseudo-scientific agenda-based literature are very apt at this game.  However, if you were familiar with the peer-review process, you would know that in reputable scientific journals, the ability to manipulate data is very limited.



Puck it said:


> Should we do something about all of the emissions into the atmosphere. Hell yes.


Agreed.   But one thing is sure, any action is going to be costly, which is why nothing will be done in the near future, and why we are gonna go after cheap energy, no matter what the environmental cost is.  In the end, everyone loves clean water and green forests.  The truth is that very few are willing to pay for it.



Puck it said:


> Is that the climate changing or is it in a cycle. Data supports both.


This is plain wrong.   The anti climate-change lobby is very good at playing this disinformation card.   The contribution of natural change has been well established in the current trend as well as its uncertainty.   The agreement among climate scientists is overwhelming in that the warming is mostly man-made.   



Puck it said:


> Should we stop fracking and import the gas. Hell no. But we need to do it safely.


We can certainly debate whether or not the benefits of fracking exceeds the downsides.  But there is a fairly strong agreement in the scientific literature that fracking has potentially important effects on the long-term sustainability of our underground water resources, and that it cannot be done safely.    



Puck it said:


> I digress now. Can you tell you pissed me off?


That was not my intent.  Just looking for rational arguments which you did not provide.  You are as much an agent of disinformation as the liberal medias.



Puck it said:


> That brings up another point. Do you realize what toxic chemicals are used to make the computer that you typing on or cell phone or any electronic device and your car you drive.



That's a strawman argument.



Puck it said:


> We can not have our cake and eat it too.


Agreed.  Safekeeping of the environment is expensive.  Which is why degradation will keep on going until we are are on the brink of disaster.  We are not there yet.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 28, 2013)

witch hobble said:


> I work off the assumption that everybody in here is a 14 year old boy making dick and fart jokes, and looking for cool videos from which they will be lured into the deep dark woods.



post of the day !


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> Clarify, I am pissed off on how the media sensationalizes things.



Like the current flu season, which, while admittedly bad, really isnt _that_ bad, despite what they're telling people.



fbrissette said:


> You should spend a bit more time reading serious scientific literature instead. * You would rapidly find out that there is a scientific consensus as to the serious potential dangers* to water table contamination, and that, despite of the fact that most of the money in the hand of the gas industry.



lol.  Wait, what?   You really need to look into this.  The anti-fracking crew is a relatively small, fringe group.  There is very little risk from proper modern fracking techniques with suitable cleanup measures, and as such, there is certainly no such "scientific consensus" to your claim.  Even among the anti-fracking crowd I've never heard that one before, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given it's the exact same tactic employed with AGM.

 And as I said, this is one that isnt even worth a discussion, because --> SPOILER ALERT:  the environmental nuts have already lost.  Not probably.  Not maybe.  Not possibly.  Definitely.  At least with Global Warming there's still a debate, but this one is already at Game, Set, Match status.   Matt Damon notwithstanding, the eco-extremists need to move onto their next "feel good" cause.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> We all know who is funding the pro-fracking research.  Can you tell me who is funding the legitimate anti-fracking science ?  Same with Climate change.  There is money on both sides but the guys with the deep pockets are pro-fracking and anti climate change.  I have no agenda here beside being a scientist and therefore being pro-science.  I am just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Again you do not know the audience to which you speak.  I am well aware of peer review for academic journals as I am well published in physics pubs.  The majority of the population do not even know about these journals.  They look at the yahoo media for their misinformation including Fox. Telling right?  Your location tells me a lot of your views too.  What rationals arguments would you like?  I started by this saying I was tired sensationalism in media and poorly presented data in publications, not all publications are peer reviewed in the internet age especially. Even peer reviewed articles can slanted in non- journal pubs.  Yes, it is was a strawman and you knew what it was. Impressed.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 28, 2013)

Global warming debates bring the lulz everytime!!!!


----------



## Puck it (Jan 28, 2013)

snoseek said:


> Global warming debates bring the lulz everytime!!!!



No, he is just from Quebec!!!


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> Again you do not know the audience to which you speak.  I am well aware of peer review for academic journals as I am well published in physics pubs.  The majority of the population do not even know about these journals.  They look at the yahoo media for their misinformation including Fox. Telling right?  Your location tells me a lot of your views too.  What rationals arguments would you like?  I started by this saying I was tired sensationalism in media and poorly presented data in publications, not all publications are peer reviewed in the internet age especially. Even peer reviewed articles can slanted in non- journal pubs.  Yes, it is was a strawman and you knew what it was. Impressed.



So you can tell about my views based on my location ?  Impressed.  Frankly, I'd be very interested in your views of Quebecers.  Probably very black and white.  

Obviously, most medias are biased and especially so in the US.   The last presidential election was a sad example of that.   However, I would hope that a well-published scholar like you would do a better job at providing rational arguments instead of keeping the debate at a level below that of the biased medias.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 28, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> Like the current flu season, which, while admittedly bad, really isnt _that_ bad, despite what they're telling people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Believe it or not, there are a lot of intelligent people who think that there are significant risks associated with fracking, and that are not eco-extremists.  I certainly respect the view that cheap oil may be worth the risk, but to think that the fracking process presents no danger to the water table is idiotic.  

The anti-fracking crew is a relatively small, fringe group ???????   There is still a debate with global warming ??????   We certainly don't read the same stuff.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> Again you do not know the audience to which you speak.



Cleary I don't.  I'll stick to the skiing from now on.  At least we're all nuts on the same side.


----------



## abc (Jan 28, 2013)

Puck it said:


> Again you do not know the audience to which you speak. I am well aware of peer review for academic journals as I am well published in physics pubs. The majority of the population do not even know about these journals.


Hmmm... if you really are "well published in physics pubs", shouldn't you be familiar with Physics Review Letter, which that avalanche research was published on? 

You would have had ready answer to your own question: 





Puck it said:


> I am just sick of this. Who funded the research is my first question?


Whoever funded it, it managed to get published in one of the most read and most referenced, peer reviewed physics publications!

I wouldn't say I'm "well published" but I've had a few publication on it. So I know the review process enough to make me seriously doubt a lot of the things you say on this thread, given how carelessly you throw statements around here.


----------



## Conrad (Jan 28, 2013)

The article seems to make sense. They say "Researchers believe that larger, more rapid swings in air temperature are responsible for bigger, more frequent slides." Since a lot of time avalanches rock slides, etc. happen when water seeps into the cracks and then it gets cold and the water expands, that makes sense.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 28, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Believe it or not, *there are a lot of intelligent people who think that there are significant risks associated with fracking,* and that are not eco-extremists.



Obviously; but that's NOT what you said, you said that "*there is a scientific consensus"*.  Nothing could be farther from the truth. 

 In fact, the cadre of people who currently believe fracking to be dangerously unsafe is the much smaller population (and that's an understatement).  The bulk of people realize it's safe.  There have been so few confirmed problems with fracking versus the benefits and versus what level of far greater accidents/incidents are already accepted with other industries that this issue is largely a propaganda laden tempest in a teapot.  



fbrissette said:


> I certainly respect the view that cheap oil may be worth the risk, but *to think that the fracking process presents no danger to the water table is idiotic.   *



There is no such thing as a completely safe energy that is economically and efficiently viable and not without any potential problem.   But the "danger" to the h2o table from fracking is VERY minimal.  Problems to h2o tables have been ridiculously few given the amount of fracking currently going on all over the planet. And AFAIK the relatively few documented problems have mostly been because someone did something wrong or drilled too shallow, and was not a systemic problem with the technology.  In any event, it's certainly much safer than the global oil and petroleum trade or nuclear energy, and it's far more "clean" than oil and gas or coal or nuclear or all-the-other-energy-sources-econuts-_also_-hate.  



fbrissette said:


> *There is still a debate with global warming ??????   We certainly don't read the same stuff.*



We definitely read _some_ of the same stuff, the difference is that I read "stuff" from various viewpoints, whereas its become clear you only read stuff that support your conformational bias if you believe there's no debate over AGM.   I dont even expect fracking to be a controversial issue much longer, because the eco-nuts have virtually zero data on their side, save some cooky blogs and websites, and a few leftist propaganda movies which are largely responsible for what little controversy we already have.  It's over.  Fracking is here to stay.  Nobody listens to techno.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

abc said:


> Hmmm... if you really are "well published in physics pubs", shouldn't you be familiar with Physics Review Letter, which that avalanche research was published on?
> 
> You would have had ready answer to your own question:
> Whoever funded it, it managed to get published in one of the most read and most referenced, peer reviewed physics publications!
> ...




My statement was a generalization to media sensationalizing science in the wrong direction.  I clarified that.  Research in academia gets funded by industry all the time and can be biased even after a peer review.


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

My friends in Ohio say that fracking is causing earthquakes..
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> My friends in Ohio say that fracking is causing earthquakes..
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1



From the article: "The report's findings, the Ohio regulator said, show the earthquakes were based on "a number of coincidental circumstances," not just a direct link to the brine disposal."

The article does not mention the size of the quakes at all. that would be my first question.  

USAToday is just an example of this misinformation.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 29, 2013)

Puck it said:


> My statement was a generalization to media sensationalizing science in the wrong direction.  I clarified that.  Research in academia gets funded by industry all the time and can be biased even after a peer review.



Well let's hear your well published scientific opinion? Are you gonna bark all day little doggy or are you gonna bite?


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

I don't blame him for going with his political party and the corporations that fund it..
he really has no choice but to follow that path or be branded something different from what he is.

Just the way it is...


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Well let's hear your well published scientific opinion? Are you gonna bark all day little doggy or are you gonna bite?



I think you missed something. 

In short, always form your own point of view and science is not always truthful either.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> I don't blame him for going with his political party and the corporations that fund it..
> he really has no choice but to follow that path or be branded something different from what he is.
> 
> Just the way it is...



You still have no clue.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 29, 2013)

You guys fight and argue too much :sad:  Bummer.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> You guys fight and argue too much :sad: Bummer.


  I really love the hairy lil fella.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 29, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> The bulk of people realize it's safe.



We don't care what the bulk of people think.  Same with climate change.  We care about what the professionally educated think about.  In this case we should listen to the hydrogeologists.  Well, guess what ?  Most hydrogeologists think that fracking cannot be done on a large scale without jeopardizing the sustainability of the groundwater ressource.  




BenedictGomez said:


> T Problems to h2o tables have been ridiculously few given the amount of fracking currently going on all over the planet. And AFAIK the relatively few documented problems have mostly been because someone did something wrong or drilled too shallow, and was not a systemic problem with the technology.  In any event, it's certainly much safer than the global oil and petroleum trade or nuclear energy, and it's far more "clean" than oil and gas or coal or nuclear or all-the-other-energy-sources-econuts-_also_-hate.



You are right about the fact that the number of reported problems is not large.  However, there is little external monitoring that has been done simply because it is so very expensive.  The EPA and the USGS are walking on very thin ice, since fracking is so important to the economy.  So basically, the only thing to do is to monitor existing wells for potential contamination.   However, dozens of year may pass before contamination shows up.  There is a slowly growing body of evidence as to the potential dangers.  Problems have, of course, shown up first in the shallower fracking wells.  As to whether it is safer or not than other energy sources, well, it is debatable, I will definitely take fracking over tar sands.  I am not against fracking per se (this may surprise you).  I am against unbridled fracking with lax regulation and monitoring as is the case presently, which is very different.  Leaving the industry regulate itself while conveniently ignoring the potential risk is exactly what should not be done.  




BenedictGomez said:


> We definitely read _some_ of the same stuff, the difference is that I read "stuff" from various viewpoints, whereas its become clear you only read stuff that support your conformational bias if you believe there's no debate over AGM.



I get my information from peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Not just as a hobby, but as part of my work.  Guess what, among the scientists that do research in AGM, the only debate is about the magnitude and uncertainty of the projected increase.  I don't care about what the bulk of people think.  Among the people who have dedicated part of their lives on the study of the climatic system, there is an incredibly large consensus.  This consensus is not represented in the internet because scientists very seldom go on the public place.  The eco-nuts and loose canons like Al Gore end up alone in the battle against the petrol lobby which is incredible well-funded and well organized and specialists at disinformation.

Where do you get your information ?  Show me the peer-reviewed papers that are against climate change ?    There are a few.  But for each one, I'll show you five hundred arguing the other side (yes, that much).  You have no idea how easy it would be to get research money if I could produce research results demonstrating that climate change isn't happening or that it is part of a natural cycle.  So frickin easy.  So why isn't this research out there ?   You are obviously a bright guy, think about it.


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

Climate change or no climate change...
Be careful and use your knowledge and tools to test the pack..


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 29, 2013)

Puck it said:


> ...and science is not always truthful either.



Wow....  Science sometimes goes in strange ways, but the truth always comes out in the end.  Darwin was ridiculed at first.   Wegener was laughed at when he first brought up continental drift.   Science is the best thing we have.   Science and innovation brought the US to world prominence.  It ain't perfect but it's what separates us from the religious fanatics.   But who knows, may be we were really walking the earth with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

I'm signing off this one.  Not going to get suckered in another science debate in here.


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

So dinosaurs didn't die off because Noah wouldn't let them on the ark?


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Wow.... Science sometimes goes in strange ways, but the truth always comes out in the end. Darwin was ridiculed at first. Wegener was laughed at when he first brought up continental drift. Science is the best thing we have. Science and innovation brought the US to world prominence. It ain't perfect but it's what separates us from the religious fanatics. But who knows, may be we were really walking the earth with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.
> 
> I'm signing off this one. Not going to get suckered in another science debate in here.


Your statements above are very correct, but when money is involved it can get very fuzzy.  It happens in industry everyday and has gotten worse thru my years.  I have been told to lie about data from upper levels and these were scientists.  I have ethics. Call me jaded.  Believe it or not.  I am done too.


----------



## witch hobble (Jan 29, 2013)

BenedictGomez; said:
			
		

> The bulk of people realize it's safe.



The bulk of people don't know squat about fracking.  Too busy with the Kardashians and the super bowl.  And many who are vaguely aware of it don't wish to know of any potential downside because they like how the result will help their wallet.  So , eff those hillbillies in the Alleghenies.  North Dakota? Where's that? Right?


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

What we really need to know is how fracking affects geology...
And what is actually used in the liquid pumped into the earth...

there are no regulations to revel this info... If it was just saline - then we could see how just saline affects the geology and water supply..  But they are not mandated to disclose what they use and that's not cool... The could(and are) pumping poison into out water supply..

And - btw - I've NEVER seen Gassland..


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> What we really need to know is how fracking affects geology...
> And what is actually used in the liquid pumped into the earth...
> 
> there are no regulations to revel this info... If it was just saline - then we could see how just saline affects the geology and water supply.. But they are not mandated to disclose what they use and that's not cool... The could(and are) pumping poison into out water supply..
> And - btw - I've NEVER seen Gassland..




Geothermal has issues too!
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate...plant-triggers-earthquake-in-switzerland.html

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate...thermal-power-project-could-cause-quakes.html


And causes cancer in lab rats!!!!!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 29, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Well, guess what ? * Most hydrogeologists think that fracking cannot be done on a large scale without jeopardizing the sustainability of the groundwater* ressource.



 This is absolute horsecrap and major part of the eco-nut propaganda.   Fracking does use a lot of water, but it actually uses LESS h2o than many other industries/workflow that are being attacked for "wasting water"***.  

Again, while no energy is without risk, fracking is as safe or safer than any other major energy source on the planet.  That is what the available data shows, regardless of your false "consensus" nonsense. 



> ****Hydrogeologist* David Yoxtheimer -  Of the 9.5  *billion* gallons of water used daily in PA, natural gas  development consumes 1.9M gallons a day, livestock 62M; mining 96M; and industry 770M.






fbrissette said:


> *You are right about the fact that the number of reported problems is not large*.



Yes; I know.    Even though about a MILLION wells have been drilled, the number of reported problems in not large.  The eco-nuts dont have an energy solution, they'd have us all living in caves rubbing sticks. 



fbrissette said:


> * There is a slowly growing body of evidence as to the potential dangers.   * Problems have, of course, shown up first in the shallower fracking wells.



Again, nothing that cant be solved or that wasn't the result of human error, which exists will all forms of energy. 

As for the "shallow" wells, even that's an unknown right now, but it's quite possible that it could be a problem and they might need to put restrictions on depth. I'm 100% okay with this.  God knows the EPA has been hot on the industries tail, setting up camp in that one Wyoming town where there may in fact be a problem, and try, try, try, as they may, even the EPA hasn't been able to find much fault with fracking.  Neither has England, far more liberal and eco-cautious than America, which also allows fracking.  You focus on speculation, not science.



fbrissette said:


> *I am not against fracking* per se (this may surprise you).  *I am against unbridled fracking with lax regulation* and monitoring



And I'm against putting radioactive plutonium in baby food.   But neither are something that need be worried about.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> My friends in Ohio say that *fracking is causing earthquakes..*



What if it can be definitely proven that fracking can in fact lead to very (which is what these are) small tremors?  What do you think should be done/happen?


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> What if it can be definitely proven that fracking can in fact lead to very (which is what these are) small tremors? What do you think should be done/happen?



Off with their heads?

Seriously though, everything has risks and need to managed.  The geothermal plant outside of San Fran has been proven to have increased the quakes in the area.  Hayward fault being the worst fault in the area.


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> What if it can be definitely proven that fracking can in fact lead to very (which is what these are) small tremors?  What do you think should be done/happen?



It should stop... immediately..


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> It should stop... immediately..



Not sure if you're serious?   

But if you are serious, why?


----------



## snoseek (Jan 29, 2013)

http://hateandanger.files.wordpress...ood-for-the-economy-then-fuck-the-economy.jpg


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not sure if you're serious?
> 
> But if you are serious, why?



Because - Earthquakes are not a good thing..
And we need to investigate why they are happening and what problems it may be causing to our water table..

shouldn't be an issue to most considering lots of people say we need 1000 years of data to explaining global warming..
So we should start looking at how this affects the environment now...


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

snoseek said:


> http://hateandanger.files.wordpress...ood-for-the-economy-then-fuck-the-economy.jpg



Is that Jersey?  Then it is okay!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> Because -* Earthquakes are not a good thing..*And we need to investigate why they are happening and what problems it may be causing



True, but these fracking tremors arent a "bad thing" either. 

 Here's a link to a real-time map of every 2.5+ tremor on the planet over the last 7 days.  There were over 30 in the United States alone.  

Quakes happen all the time, and 2.5 btw, is MUCH larger (even though 2.5 is no big deal) than the bulk of the recorded fracking incidents.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/


Also, by your logic, all other human activities proven to cause MUCH BIGGER earthquakes recorded on the Richter scale should be banned too.

That will be a shame to have to tear down all those dams all over the planet.

And of course, most large man-made reservoirs will have to be drained, to bad for your Catskills, I think Ashokan is pretty.

Then there's going to be a problem the oil industry too since its been proven to cause some tremors.


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

typical....  

deflecting...

Since it's already happening then why should you care....  lame...


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> typical....
> 
> deflecting...
> 
> Since it's already happening then why should you care.... lame...



And your standard reply!


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

So glad i can't read Pucks posts...   
Life is good without all that stuff...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> *typical....
> 
> deflecting... *


Deflecting?    No, quite the opposite.

  I addressed the issue with US government data and then pointed out the obvious logical fallacy of your uninformed position, both in the commonality of the "problem" as well as in its' lack of relative severity, which is why in the above you have absolutely no response.



dmc said:


> Since* it's already happening then why should you care*....*  lame*...



Gosh, maybe I'm wrong, you should *tell us all why these 0.1 to 4.0 earthquakes are so harmful?  *

 I'll even help you.  Here's the US government data for all "earthquakes" over just the last SEVEN DAYS. 

 Granted, this is just the tremors in the last 168 hours, and I'd like to tell you how many there've been in America, but there are so many that I cant count them all, but if you trust the counter, it's *944.*

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

My posistion is uniformed.... 
I don't know how earthquakes affect people in Ohio..
that's the point...
I'd like to be informed... 

We should understand how earthquakes affect the geology there before we release all that toxic fluid into the earth..

I go to California a couple times a month - I get earthquakes..


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

dmc said:


> My posistion is uniformed....
> I don't know how earthquakes affect people in Ohio..
> that's the point...
> I'd like to be informed...
> ...



You should stop since we don't know what the geothermal plant is doing to the San Andreas and Hayward faults. 
I worry about you!

Halliburton Frack Fluid Disclosure site

http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/hydraulic_fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html


----------



## witch hobble (Jan 29, 2013)

Climate change, water table poisoning, "energy security", earthquakes, jobs.......seriously, how can you guys just sit around and contemplate these things when someone is having a ski sock to skin interface problem right on the same page.  It's like you are in your own little worlds.  Self absorbed, self righteous, solipsistic.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

witch hobble said:


> Climate change, water table poisoning, "energy security", earthquakes, jobs.......seriously, how can you guys just sit around and contemplate these things when someone is having a ski sock to skin interface problem right on the same page. It's like you are in your own little worlds. Self absorbed, self righteous, solipsistic.


 Sorry and Andyzee has a splinter!


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

witch hobble said:


> Climate change, water table poisoning, "energy security", earthquakes, jobs.......seriously, how can you guys just sit around and contemplate these things when someone is having a ski sock to skin interface problem right on the same page.  It's like you are in your own little worlds.  Self absorbed, self righteous, solipsistic.



put some peanut butter on it...


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)




----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

SO the danger of global warming on avi terrain is "heuristic traps_"
_The world is changing and so the snowpack is as well...  Just because it was a certain way last year doesn't mean it should be the same now...

But anybody that understands avi terrain understands "heuristic traps" and the dangers of thinking something is a certain way because it was that way before..
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 29, 2013)

I think you guys have lost 99% of the board with this discussion including me. I don't give a frack!


----------



## witch hobble (Jan 29, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> I don't give a frack!



Apathy.  Part of the problem.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 29, 2013)

witch hobble said:


> Apathy.  Part of the problem.



It was a joke. But I think I speak for most people on this board when I say, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Like I said, you are posting this stuff on a skiing board where a.) has nothing to do with skiing and b.) 99% of the folks have no idea what you are talking about. If you dumbed it down a bit, other people may chime in.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 29, 2013)

Cliff notes: 

Fracking = the end of the world for NIMBY's


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 29, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> It was a joke. But I think I speak for most people on this board when I say, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Like I said, you are posting this stuff on a skiing board where a.) has nothing to do with skiing and b.) 99% of the folks have no idea what you are talking about. If you dumbed it down a bit, other people may chime in.



Trust me man, with statements like this.....


BenedictGomez said:


> And as I said, this is one that isnt even worth a discussion, because --> SPOILER ALERT: the environmental nuts have already lost. Not probably. Not maybe. Not possibly. Definitely. At least with Global Warming there's still a debate, but this one is already at Game, Set, Match status. Matt Damon notwithstanding, the eco-extremists need to move onto their next "feel good" cause.



It's about as dumbed down as it can get


----------



## dmc (Jan 29, 2013)

Of course the other issue with global warming is areas that may've had inland snowpack could end up with more coastal style pack..
Which is good..  Snow sticks to stuff better...


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 29, 2013)

witch hobble said:


> Climate change, water table poisoning, "energy security", earthquakes, jobs.......seriously, how can you guys just sit around and contemplate these things when someone is having a ski sock to skin interface problem right on the same page.  It's like you are in your own little worlds.  Self absorbed, self righteous, solipsistic.



Lol thank you for making me laugh.


----------



## witch hobble (Jan 29, 2013)

Scotty said:


> Lol thank you for making me laugh.



You're welcome Scotty.  I mostly try to keep it light and fluffy.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2013)

witch hobble said:


> You're welcome Scotty.  I mostly try to keep it light and fluffy.




Like bunny slippers?


----------



## witch hobble (Jan 29, 2013)

Puck it said:


> Like bunny slippers?


....on a puppy.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 29, 2013)

Puck it said:


> science is not always truthful either.


I think it is an erroneous perspective to see science as not "truthful" -- as if somehow the scientific method is somehow capable of fibbing. Humans are fallible. Scientists setup experiments that are poorly designed, not controlled to the best degree, selectively show results that only favor the conclusion they want to reach, etc. However, that is where peer review and retesting comes in. The scientific method demands repeatability of the results. Fail to repeat in independent repeat testing and you need to go back to the drawing board on your hypothesis. Those that practice junk science aren't going to get any credibility, their work is going to be ridiculed. Science isn't a boggie man that lies. 

But media reporting on a single study as if that one study is a major breakthrough is not good, regardless of which side of the scientific isle you are cheer leading. It isn't a "liberal media" but rather a "money media". Media are in the business of selling headlines and shame on them for not putting the proper context on scientific studies.

It seems like climate change is becoming a lightning rod issue like politics on AZ. Threads seem to inevitably devolve into political positions rather than actually discussing facts and issues. It is quite obvious where most people stand, it is quite obvious no one is going to change any view points here. Sure feels great to press the keys for a few strokes despite knowing no one really cares what you think when their mind is already made up.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 30, 2013)

Don't do it,stay out of this....Sik...


----------



## Puck it (Jan 30, 2013)

SIKSKIER said:


> Don't do it,stay out of this....Sik...




Come on in, the water is fine.  There is room for everyone.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 30, 2013)

riverc0il said:


> I think it is an erroneous perspective to see science as not "truthful" -- as if somehow the scientific method is somehow capable of fibbing. Humans are fallible. Scientists setup experiments that are poorly designed, not controlled to the best degree, selectively show results that only favor the conclusion they want to reach, etc. However, that is where peer review and retesting comes in. The scientific method demands repeatability of the results. Fail to repeat in independent repeat testing and you need to go back to the drawing board on your hypothesis. Those that practice junk science aren't going to get any credibility, their work is going to be ridiculed. Science isn't a boggie man that lies.
> 
> But media reporting on a single study as if that one study is a major breakthrough is not good, regardless of which side of the scientific isle you are cheer leading. It isn't a "liberal media" but rather a "money media". Media are in the business of selling headlines and shame on them for not putting the proper context on scientific studies.
> 
> It seems like climate change is becoming a lightning rod issue like politics on AZ. Threads seem to inevitably devolve into political positions rather than actually discussing facts and issues. It is quite obvious where most people stand, it is quite obvious no one is going to change any view points here. Sure feels great to press the keys for a few strokes despite knowing no one really cares what you think when their mind is already made up.



Okay, I correct the statement. The human presentation of science is not always truthful. I have seen data misrepresented by unethical people and have never been questioned on it.


----------

