# Will New England See a New Ski Area In the Next 20 Years?



## MadMadWorld (Dec 7, 2012)

I am not so sure if it will happen. The last ski area to open was Magic about 15 years ago and even that was a previously owned mountain. So my question is, will we see a new skier area? If so, where and why? Make your case....

My case is for Bigelow in Maine. It has more prominence and elevation than Saddleback and just behind Sugarloaf in both categories. It's in the same range as both of these mountains and just as accessible. When Maine was submitting proposals for the Olympics in the late 70s, Bigelow was considered for many events.



Dorset Peak in Vermont would also be another good option. Great location and good size.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 7, 2012)

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

We almost had Bearpen in NY Catskills into 9/11 happen.   It would be great to see another hill open for winter fun but with global warming and our county economy decline I highly doubt it.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Dec 7, 2012)

That mountain looks awesome but I suspect most of the upper mountain terrain is "too steep". As in, probably too awesome.

Personally I'd like to see Ascutney reopened, with totally expanded terrain to the upper mountain and several trail pods. That mountain has so much potential.

Another is Dorset Mountain, with something around 2,700 ft prominence.

And of course in the Adirondacks there are soooo many great mountains but it is almost impossible to develop there.


----------



## WWF-VT (Dec 7, 2012)

No


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 7, 2012)

bdfreetuna said:


> That mountain looks awesome but I suspect most of the upper mountain terrain is "too steep". As in, probably too awesome.
> 
> Personally I'd like to see Ascutney reopened, with totally expanded terrain to the upper mountain and several trail pods. That mountain has so much potential.
> 
> ...



Yea I didn't see your reply until after I added Dorset to my original post. That is great option and location. I believe it was proposed back in the day as a destination resort with a tram but the deal got nixed. Also, I believe there is a very large quarry mine there and that would cause issues.


----------



## soposkier (Dec 7, 2012)

Bigelow will never happen, the entire area is a state preserve created in response to the proposal in the '70s you mentioned.
http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/cancelledskiareas/Maine/bigelowmtn.php


----------



## gmcunni (Dec 7, 2012)

i'll go with YES*

* you reference Magic (originally opening in the 60s) as the most recent, because it changed ownership and reopened.  I would not be surprised to see a recently closed mountain reopen within next 20 years.

i'd go with NO if you are referring to a brand new never been skied before mountain.


----------



## drjeff (Dec 7, 2012)

Nope - far too many environmental restrictions and expenses to make it happen IMHO. 

Heck in the next 20 years, I'd be quite surprised if we even see 10 new peaks developed as part of existing ski areas.  The reality is that in many cases, even to develop a new peak as part of an existing area, by the time you add up the costs of the land acquistion, environmental impact studies (and likely legal bills from environmental special interest groups challenging the proposed development), land clearing, installation of what likely nowadays would be a high speed quad and then snowmaking installation and possibly associated upgrades to the existing snowmaking plant to handle the increased terrain to cover, a ski area is looking typically at an 8 figure investment for that new development


----------



## Smellytele (Dec 7, 2012)

More likely to see more close...


----------



## farlep99 (Dec 7, 2012)

Wasn't there a recent attempt (or maybe it was rumor) to re-open Maple Valley?


----------



## jaytrem (Dec 7, 2012)

I wouldn't be surprised is something small was built somewhere.  But I'd be shocked if it was anything substantial.  For the rest of the US, maybe something medium size, like they're talking about in Utah.  Canada on the other hand may see a couple big ones from scratch.  I think the last brand new places would be Tamarack, Yellowstone Club (private), Spanish Peaks (private), and Moonlight Basin. The last 3 connected to Big Sky.  All 4 have had major financial problems recently and I believe Spanish Peaks is still closed.


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> View attachment 6990
> 
> My case is for Bigelow in Maine. It has more prominence and elevation than Saddleback and just behind Sugarloaf in both categories. It's in the same range as both of these mountains and just as accessible. When Maine was submitting proposals for the Olympics in the late 70s, Bigelow was considered for many events.



The AT goes across the top of Bigelow so that will never happen among many other reasons. That's actually the south/west face of Biglelow you see there. On the other side is Flagstaff lake which it would be pretty awesome to have a ski area that came right down to a lake. It would have been one hell of an all season resort.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 7, 2012)

jaytrem said:


> I wouldn't be surprised is something small was built somewhere.  But I'd be shocked if it was anything substantial.  For the rest of the US, maybe something medium size, like they're talking about in Utah.  Canada on the other hand may see a couple big ones from scratch.  I think the last brand new places would be Tamarack, Yellowstone Club (private), Spanish Peaks (private), and Moonlight Basin. The last 3 connected to Big Sky.  All 4 have had major financial problems recently and I believe Spanish Peaks is still closed.



Moonlight Basin is serious skiing. Headwaters area is no joke. People can do laps on A-Z chutes and other areas of Headwaters all day now. Granted, most people don't hit it up til the afternoon but still it was a very smart move on Big Sky's part. I played it pretty conservative when I skied it 2 years ago.


----------



## Puck it (Dec 7, 2012)

One word- REVELSTOKE!!!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 7, 2012)

jaytrem said:


> Canada on the other hand may see a couple big ones from scratch.



Yup

Jumbo Glacier Resort was approved last May; though I imagine it will still have many legal and financial hurdles before it comes to fruition.

http://jumboglacierresort.com/


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 7, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> The AT goes across the top of Bigelow so that will never happen among many other reasons. That's actually the south/west face of Biglelow you see there. On the other side is Flagstaff lake which it would be pretty awesome to have a ski area that came right down to a lake. It would have been one hell of an all season resort.



Doesn't the AT cross the summit of Stratton and Killington? If I remember correctly AMC fought Saddleback over expansion and lost because Saddlebacks plans were not to cut trails through the actual AT itself.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> Doesn't the AT cross the summit of Stratton and Killington? If I remember correctly AMC fought Saddleback over expansion and lost because Saddlebacks plans were not to cut trails through the actual trail itself.



The AMC won against Saddleback actually.  The original plan was for Saddleback to expand all the way out to the Horn.

http://www.aldha.org/saddlebk.htm


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 7, 2012)

soposkier said:


> Bigelow will never happen, the entire area is a state preserve created in response to the proposal in the '70s you mentioned.
> http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/cancelledskiareas/Maine/bigelowmtn.php



Kicking Horse has a freaking Grizzly Bear Refuge that is right underneath the Gondola for god sakes! Imagine accidentally skiing through that fence. I think we need to loosen up and be a bit more like Canada


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 7, 2012)

This is my favorite proposed New England ski area.
http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/cancelledskiareas/NewHampshire/willardbasin.php


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> Doesn't the AT cross the summit of Stratton and Killington? If I remember correctly AMC fought Saddleback over expansion and lost because Saddlebacks plans were not to cut trails through the actual AT itself.



There's a reason there are no lifts to the summit of Saddleback.


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 7, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> This is my favorite proposed New England ski area.
> http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/cancelledskiareas/NewHampshire/willardbasin.php



That looks awesome. Can we revive those plans? :lol:


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 7, 2012)

Dorset Peak, while a large mtn, would have to be almost completely sustained with snowmaking since it is outside (west of) the main Green Mtn spine. It would seriously struggle for natural snow. You can look through the history of snow depth here (Dorest Peak is top left, Stratton lower right):
http://www.nohrsc.nws.gov/interactive/html/map.html?ql=station&zoom=&loc=43.2097+N%2C+73.1633+W&var=ssm_depth&dy=2009&dm=2&dd=7&dh=12&snap=1&o6=1&o11=1&o9=1&o12=1&o13=1&lbl=m&mode=pan&extents=us&min_x=-73.175000000002&min_y=43.008333333334&max_x=-72.808333333335&max_y=43.375&coord_x=-72.9916666666685&coord_y=43.191666666667004&zbox_n=&zbox_s=&zbox_e=&zbox_w=&metric=0&shdvar=shading&width=800&height=800&nw=800&nh=800&h_o=0&font=0&js=1&uc=0


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> View attachment 6990
> 
> I am not so sure if it will happen. The last ski area to open was Magic about 15 years ago and even that was a previously owned mountain. So my question is, will we see a new skier area? If so, where and why? Make your case....
> 
> ...




As in a brand new development--no.  Not in Vermont because the Act 250 process will prevent anymore from opening.  

Not in NH because most of the mountains that have not been developed are in the WMNF and folks will not allow another ski area to open.  

Probably not in Maine because of environmental reasons and not enough of a population base.  

Within the last few years we've lost Ascutney, Tenney, and Bear Creek (I believe it is closed).  

I think if someone was going to start an area they'd revive a NELSAP area first since there it was an existing area and there would probably be at least some infrastructure left.  

The big factors that have changed over the years include the cost of land, the environmental regulations, lack of capital, climate change (to some extent requiring snowmaking), and the cost of labor.  It is no longer easy to open much of anything.  

And as said Magic actually was developed in the 1960's.  As to the latest "new" area, as in completely new, I'm not sure what that would be.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> Doesn't the AT cross the summit of Stratton and Killington? If I remember correctly AMC fought Saddleback over expansion and lost because Saddlebacks plans were not to cut trails through the actual AT itself.



The AT and LT cross over both actually.  Les Otten/ASC actually relocated the LT/AT between Pico and Killington in anticipation of the interconnect that is still coming I think......


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 7, 2012)

Old Speck in Maine on the other hand, has some potential.

But no, I highly doubt there will be any new "major"(800'+of vert)  ski areas built in New England in any of our life times. Hell it is hard enought to keep the ones that are built open (e.g. Ascutney, Bolton, Burke, Magic, Haystack, Pico, Whaleback, Mittersill, etc)


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 7, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Within the last few years we've lost Ascutney, Tenney, and Bear Creek (I believe it is closed).


Yes Bear Creek (formerly Round Top) is closed. Shame because it is a nice ski area. Skied there many times in my youth when it was open to the public & named Round Top.


----------



## drjeff (Dec 7, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> As to the latest "new" area, as in completely new, I'm not sure what that would be.



Though not in New England, if I recall correctly, the most recent "completely new" ski area development in the East is Whitetail in PA - and after a quick wikipedia look up, it opened in 1991


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 7, 2012)

drjeff said:


> Though not in New England, if I recall correctly, the most recent "completely new" ski area development in the East is Whitetail in PA - and after a quick wikipedia look up, it opened in 1991



Wow!  That is late.  

We have a new ski area being built here in Utah.  Somewhere up north near Logan.  And FWIW Deer Valley opened in 1981, albeit on an area that had previously been a ski area.


----------



## oakapple (Dec 7, 2012)

If the question refers to the introduction of downhill skiing on a mountain that never had it before, I am sure the answer is no. Many of the NELSAP areas could very well be re-opened. There are plans to integrate Belleyre with the mothballed Highmount area next door, and I think there's a good chance that'll happen.

Skiing hasn't been much of a growth industry, so there isn't motivation to build new ski areas, even if you could get the environmental approval, which in most places you can't. But if you're going to get the approval at all, it's much likely to occur where you're tacking onto an existing area, where much of the necessary infrastructure already exists, than if you're building from scratch on virgin territory.


----------



## Gnarcissaro (Dec 7, 2012)

bdfreetuna said:


> That mountain looks awesome but I suspect most of the upper mountain terrain is "too steep". As in, probably too awesome.



That picture is taken from Little Bigelow of the _south_ side of West and Avery Peaks. The plan for the ski area involved the other (north) side of the mountain, I believe, which is less steep (awesome.) I think the voters of Maine got it right in the 70s in setting Bigelow Preserve aside and nixing development. 

Looking at this aerial image, it seems a scar in the trees looking like a grown in liftline is visible (marked "A" and "B.") Was a line ever cut there, in addition to the lodge mentioned? Looks like it.

And to answer the OP, unfortunately no. Far too many regs and huge capital investment involved to get a project off the ground. Winters aren't getting any snowier, either.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 7, 2012)

farlep99 said:


> Wasn't there a recent attempt (or maybe it was rumor) to re-open Maple Valley?



Yes. The owners went to the town last summer and had a proposal with a lot of potential activies. The town balked...as did a few neighbors. I think the plan is on hold for now. My wife and I hiked the mountain a few weeks back; two weekends in a row. The South chair needs some cutting back. But the lift line for the North Chair is pretty clear and the unload ramp was still in decent shape. I would love it see it open again. It could be a great local hill; even only operating on the weekends or holidays. 

Regarding a "Brand New" ski area opening in New England. As others have said, probably not. We're burried in redtape, regulation and stakeholders.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> So *my question is, will we see a new skier area?* If so, where and why?* Make your case*....



No.  And here are the four reasons why.

*1) Money
2) Politics
3) Demographics
4) Economics*


1) It is extremely expensive to build a ski resort from the ground up.  That kind of access to seed capital is somewhat difficult in the best of times, right now it would be nearly impossible.  Most banks (and private equity) currently do not have the appetite (understandably) for this sort of risk.

2) New England is virtually entirely run by Democrats, and they are beholden to the more liberal factions of their constituents, who will resist even so much as the cutting of a single spruce tree.  New Hampshire is a purplish exception, but the pro-environmental forces are strong there as well.

3) Take a look at the population dynamics and shifting of this nation.  It looks poor for the ski industry.  The historically ski-loving babyboomer generation is aging, and with that aging many will be skiing less, and some not at all.  Furthermore, birth rates for the white population (which represents the vast majority of skier visits) is decreasing.    Increased competition is not logical in this market, in fact, I predict ski area consolidation and/or contraction, not expansion.

4) Unlike 1,2, and 3, this last one is entirely speculative on my part, but I believe this nation's economic destiny is worse than a Southeast Asian trainwreck.


----------



## kabacrunch (Dec 7, 2012)

Agree with smelly - I think you will see a reduction/consolidation of resorts in the NE rather than an expansion...places are getting too expensive for the product they produce


----------



## x10003q (Dec 7, 2012)

There will never be an all new ski area. One more reason  - Bicknell's Thrush.


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 7, 2012)

Gnarcissaro said:


> Looking at this aerial image, it seems a scar in the trees looking like a grown in liftline is visible (marked "A" and "B.") Was a line ever cut there, in addition to the lodge mentioned? Looks like it.



If you click on the link soposkier provided above...


> Located north of the Saddleback and Sugarloaf ski areas, the first ski trail was cut on Bigelow Mountain by the 'Bigelow Boys' in 1948. Nearly four decades later, a massive development was planned for the range.


----------



## KevinF (Dec 7, 2012)

I didn't read through this whole thread, but I can't imagine there will ever be another brand-new ski area opening in New England.  Natural snowfall here is simply too variable, and snowmaking is too expensive.  Not to mention the expense of lifts, staff, environmental studies, marketing, etc.  You'd have an enormous initial outlay of expenses with no real prospect of turning a profit for a long, long time.

The areas that we now think of as "big" (i.e,. Stowe, Killington, Sugarloaf, etc.) started out tiny in a much different era.  They've grown to the size they are through decades of expansions, and they are now famous among New England skiers.  You'd have to create a whole new ski area from scratch of comparable size in order to lure skier traffic away from the existing areas.  Nobody is going to abandon Sugarloaf because "hey, Bigelow Mountain has two trails !  Let's go ski there!"


----------



## bdfreetuna (Dec 7, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Old Speck in Maine on the other hand, has some potential.



Just develop the entire Mahoosuc range!

Actually that is one area I hesitate to encourage development because it is quite beautiful up there. Isn't this protected forest area, anyway?


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 7, 2012)

Puck it said:


> One word- REVELSTOKE!!!!!


Revelstoke was already a ski area before the huge expansion above it.


----------



## 4aprice (Dec 7, 2012)

As far as New England I'm still dreaming of someone cutting trails down North Twin.  It will never happen but its my dream.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 7, 2012)

bdfreetuna said:


> Just develop the entire Mahoosuc range!
> 
> Actually that is one area I hesitate to encourage development because it is quite beautiful up there. Isn't this protected forest area, anyway?



How about Katahdin while we're at it? haha. I know that will NEVER happen and I am definitely okay with that. It is a great range though!

I always wondered what could of been with Mount Carrigain if only it faced in the right direction.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> How about Katahdin while we're at it? haha. I know that will NEVER happen and I am definitely okay with that. It is a great range though!



Hah! Good luck. I don't think you can even snowmobile within like 10 miles of it. The meatheads skied it in one of their films and they were saying that


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 7, 2012)

KevinF said:


> The areas that we now think of as "big" (i.e,. Stowe, Killington, Sugarloaf, etc.) started out tiny in a much different era.  They've grown to the size they are through decades of expansions, and they are now famous among New England skiers.



Killington has actually shrunk in size compared to what it once was. They've eliminated the whole Northeast Passage area, removed the Devils Fiddle & Southridge chairs. They also shortened the length of the Ramshead chair eliminating all the trails off the summit. There are plans however to replace the South Ridge chair but this will be the second season without one.

Compared to how it started however it is still huge.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 7, 2012)

skiNEwhere said:


> Hah! Good luck. I don't think you can even snowmobile within like 10 miles of it. The meatheads skied it in one of their films and they were saying that



I have skied it multiple times. It is one of the best backcountry experiences someone have. I highly recommend it for anyone looking for an adventure.


----------



## millerm277 (Dec 7, 2012)

I don't think you will unless we start experiencing significant growth in skier visits.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 7, 2012)

Gnarcissaro said:


> That picture is taken from Little Bigelow of the _south_ side of West and Avery Peaks. The plan for the ski area involved the other (north) side of the mountain, I believe, which is less steep (awesome.) I think the voters of Maine got it right in the 70s in setting Bigelow Preserve aside and nixing development.
> 
> Looking at this aerial image, it seems a scar in the trees looking like a grown in liftline is visible (marked "A" and "B.") Was a line ever cut there, in addition to the lodge mentioned? Looks like it.
> 
> And to answer the OP, unfortunately no. Far too many regs and huge capital investment involved to get a project off the ground. Winters aren't getting any snowier, either.





This is a picture from the top of the scar on Bigelow that you referenced. That is one outdated snowmaking system. But damn that looks like fun steeps!


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Dec 7, 2012)

The AT goes across Blue Mountain in PA and that didn't stop them... hahaha but it isn't exactly a mountain at that point


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Dec 7, 2012)

South Ridge really needs to be replaced... essentially that entire trail pod was lost with the removal of that lift. Now since its gone, skiers get funneled and trapped at the Skye Peak Quad because that is the only way back to the main mountain. South Ridge will allow the trails to be skiied once again without taking the 2 most crowded lifts (Skye Peak + Killington Express) for each run, and it will also reduce congestion in the whole bear mountain area


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 7, 2012)

Ski Valley in NY has been purchased and plans to re-open. From what I read they were planning on starting with 12 trails (with hopes to develop logging trails into ski trails, rebuilt lodge, snowmaking investments, new bar, winery, zip lines, longest tubing runs in NY, etc. I don't know where they are with development at this point but I don't think they have opened just yet.

Here is an article and another forum where the GM has chimed in about 8-9 posts down

http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic18195

http://www.mpnnow.com/news/x2075766869/New-owner-reopening-long-shuttered-ski-resort


----------



## Puck it (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> View attachment 6998
> 
> This is a picture from the top of the scar on Bigelow that you referenced. That is one outdated snowmaking system. But damn that looks like fun steeps!



They look like the guns that Cannon uses!


----------



## Watatic Skier (Dec 7, 2012)

Regarding the Mahoosuc's East Baldpate probably has the most potential, 2,800 vertical, North Face, and vast above the treeline skiing.  The majority of the bowl it sits in is still owned by logging companies, and the Logging terrain alone has almost 2000 vertical.  Only issue is the Appalachian trail through the summit, however it's location wouldn't necessarily shut down any operations either.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 7, 2012)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Ski Valley in NY has been purchased and plans to re-open. From what I read they were planning on starting with 12 trails (with hopes to develop logging trails into ski trails, rebuilt lodge, snowmaking investments, new bar, winery, zip lines, longest tubing runs in NY, etc. I don't know where they are with development at this point but I don't think they have opened just yet.
> 
> Here is an article and another forum where the GM has chimed in about 8-9 posts down
> 
> ...





Sent from my awesome mobile device.

Where is this place?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Dec 7, 2012)

Well if you want to build a ski resort from scratch in the next 20 years, you better start the permit process now.  Plum Creek in Maine took 10 years or more just to get approval to develope house lots and a couple Hotel/Resorts on Moosehead lake..........and they owned the land.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> View attachment 6998
> 
> This is a picture from the top of the scar on Bigelow that you referenced. That is one outdated snowmaking system. But damn that looks like fun steeps!



I must be missing something, but what Bigelow are you talking about, the one in Maine?  Last I checked Bigelow doesn't have snow guns, lifts and condo's. :lol:


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 7, 2012)

Nope.  Not in my lifetime.  The industry is chugging along in neutral at best.  Look at NELSAP to see how many ski areas have closed.  The last reopening attempt I can remember is Bobcat in the Catskills.  Think they lasted part of a year.  BTW, that undeveloped mountain in the Catskills sounds like it would be epic for the region - bigger than Hunter, snowfall like Plattekill.  Never happen.

In bad snow years many of the second tier destinations are uncrowded and they have to spend a ton on snowmaking.  How can that be economically viable?


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 7, 2012)

goldsbar said:


> Nope.  Not in my lifetime.  The industry is chugging along in neutral at best.  Look at NELSAP to see how many ski areas have closed.  The last reopening attempt I can remember is Bobcat in the Catskills.  Think they lasted part of a year.  BTW, that undeveloped mountain in the Catskills sounds like it would be epic for the region - bigger than Hunter, snowfall like Plattekill.  Never happen.
> 
> In bad snow years many of the second tier destinations are uncrowded and they have to spend a ton on snowmaking.  How can that be economically viable?



It was so close the financial backers were there with the $ then September 11 happen, Bearpen gets more snow then Platty.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## skiadikt (Dec 7, 2012)

never to a new areas from scratch. best chance is for a nelsap area to reopen. ascutney is a good candidate. in the 'skills we skied at bobcat a couple times in the early 80's. love to see that reopen.


----------



## bigbog (Dec 7, 2012)

MMW said:


> My case is for Bigelow in Maine. It has more prominence and elevation than Saddleback and just behind Sugarloaf in both categories. It's in the same range as both of these mountains and just as accessible. When Maine was submitting proposals for the Olympics in the late 70s, Bigelow was considered for many events.



The Bigelows are a mini Range... they're already skiable.   Once you go up and come down in every season...keeping it wild becomes more and more enjoyable in winter and with what Gnar has brought to the table. Same goes for Crocker Cirque....which needs lots of snow...but terrific with tough pitches....same goes for the Mt. Washington Valley...I don't think too many people would want a half dozen chairlifted and groomed resorts placed around the peaks with malls down below...

BTW...this reply lost the formatting of the original's text...when one opts to "Reply with Quote"....fwiw.


----------



## Boston Bulldog (Dec 7, 2012)

What about Kearsarge? I think it has 2000 plus vert. Was there ever a plan to develop anything there?

Also Greylock, imagine what a zoo that place would be now if they build the tram!


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 7, 2012)

Boston Bulldog said:


> What about Kearsarge? I think it has 2000 plus vert. Was there ever a plan to develop anything there?



I think of this every time I drive south on 89.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 7, 2012)

steamboat1 said:


> Killington has actually shrunk in size compared to what it once was. They've eliminated the whole Northeast Passage area, removed the Devils Fiddle & Southridge chairs. They also shortened the length of the Ramshead chair eliminating all the trails off the summit. There are plans however to replace the South Ridge chair but this will be the second season without one.
> 
> Compared to how it started however it is still huge.
> 
> View attachment 6997



Nice pic there steamboat!  Look at how undeveloped it is. And to think that Pres and his guys cut those with their bare hands!


----------



## bigbog (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> ....I think we need to loosen up and be a bit more like Canada



Can't disagree with ya' MMW...there's definitely some room...imho.   But as far as Canada is concerned...you mean HUGE...right?   Washington isn't the only money hungry piece of government, Canada is a very wealthy country in minerals and is making shambles of many beautiful areas and has dammed up countless pristine streams for our thirst for power.  Seems like beaurecrats(sp?) grow up everywhere..and all share the belief that nothing is as priceless to the planet as another shopping mall.


----------



## aveski2000 (Dec 7, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> View attachment 6998
> 
> This is a picture from the top of the scar on Bigelow that you referenced. That is one outdated snowmaking system. But damn that looks like fun steeps!



Bigelow was never developed. No way that picture is from the mountain in Maine.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 7, 2012)

FWIW Kearsarge is a state park but I would not be surprised if folks skied it back in the day since there is a road up the south side IIRC.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 8, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> View attachment 6998
> 
> This is a picture from the top of the scar on Bigelow that you referenced. That is one outdated snowmaking system. But damn that looks like fun steeps!



Isn't that Sugarloaf?  Looks like the top of the Whiffletree Quad at the base and the condos in the distance below it.  Though I can't figure out what trail that is with the snowguns.  Top of Bubblecuffer maybe?  Can't recall if it has snowmaking.


----------



## Gnarcissaro (Dec 8, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> View attachment 6998
> 
> This is a picture from the top of the scar on Bigelow that you referenced. That is one outdated snowmaking system. But damn that looks like fun steeps!



You're kidding, right? So Bigelow has a detach and condos at the base?  

_Edit:_ Isn't this looking down Misery Whip @ SL? lol



St. Bear said:


> If you click on the link soposkier provided above...



The Bigelow Boys' ski trail was at the eastern end of the range in the area of Safford Brook, from accounts I've read. Not in the area of this old cut on West Peak.


----------



## Big Game (Dec 8, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Dorset Peak, while a large mtn, would have to be almost completely sustained with snowmaking since it is outside (west of) the main Green Mtn spine. It would seriously struggle for natural snow. You can look through the history of snow depth here (Dorest Peak is top left, Stratton lower right):
> http://www.nohrsc.nws.gov/interactive/html/map.html?ql=station&zoom=&loc=43.2097+N%2C+73.1633+W&var=ssm_depth&dy=2009&dm=2&dd=7&dh=12&snap=1&o6=1&o11=1&o9=1&o12=1&o13=1&lbl=m&mode=pan&extents=us&min_x=-73.175000000002&min_y=43.008333333334&max_x=-72.808333333335&max_y=43.375&coord_x=-72.9916666666685&coord_y=43.191666666667004&zbox_n=&zbox_s=&zbox_e=&zbox_w=&metric=0&shdvar=shading&width=800&height=800&nw=800&nh=800&h_o=0&font=0&js=1&uc=0



Wow. That a buzz kill. I ran a ton of models. But yeah, that's a desert, even though it's huge.   Dorset was always my pipe dream. Aeolus, the smaller shoulder to the south actually catches a lot more snow, but you'd never be able to justify the expense of getting into Dorset hollow.


----------



## Smellytele (Dec 8, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW Kearsarge is a state park but I would not be surprised if folks skied it back in the day since there is a road up the south side IIRC.



I have skinned up the road and skied it a few times. Nice tough bike ride as well.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 10, 2012)

http://nyskiblog.com/magazine/#nabble-td2551736 Info on BearPen and how close we were to getting another hill open in the Catskills.:--(


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 10, 2012)

Scotty said:


> http://nyskiblog.com/magazine/#nabble-td2551736 Info on BearPen and how close we were to getting another hill open in the Catskills.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2012)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> I must be missing something, but what Bigelow are you talking about, the one in Maine?  Last I checked Bigelow doesn't have snow guns, lifts and condo's. :lol:



Haha I was trying to see how many people would think it's real but good catch. As well as everyone else that figured it out.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 10, 2012)

Scotty said:


> Sent from my awesome mobile device.
> 
> Where is this place?



Western NY. Near Bristol Mountain but a little further south on Co. Rd 33 or West Hollow Rd. It's been a good spot to poach after a storm.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2012)

bigbog said:


> Can't disagree with ya' MMW...there's definitely some room...imho.   But as far as Canada is concerned...you mean HUGE...right?   Washington isn't the only money hungry piece of government, Canada is a very wealthy country in minerals and is making shambles of many beautiful areas and has dammed up countless pristine streams for our thirst for power.  Seems like beaurecrats(sp?) grow up everywhere..and all share the belief that nothing is as priceless to the planet as another shopping mall.



I think we can take a page from their book in the sense that they recognize that there is at least an opportunity for compromise. Like I have said in the past, I am all for conservation but there are ways that we can do it so that both sides are happy. I mean Kicking Horse literally has a Grizzly Bear Refuge smack in the middle of it's ski resort. If the Canadians can do that, then I think we can find creative compromises about some of the issues that we face.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2012)

Scotty said:


> http://nyskiblog.com/magazine/#nabble-td2551736 Info on BearPen and how close we were to getting another hill open in the Catskills.:--(



Looks like a lot of great natural terrain that is perfect for a ski area. How is the snowfall?


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 10, 2012)

Bearpen hasnt been close for decades. You peeps need to get over that one.

Unless close is a couple land owners saying "sure thats a sweet hypothetical deal" over beers and nothing more.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 10, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> Looks like a lot of great natural terrain that is perfect for a ski area. How is the snowfall?





Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

I hear they average 200 inches of snow in a winter and financial backers were going to open into September 11, 2001.


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 10, 2012)

Scotty said:


> Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
> 
> I hear they average 200 inches of snow in a winter and financial backers were going to open into September 11, 2001.



200" maybe, but youre dreaming if you think it was that close. 

By the by, it was more likely the .com bubble imploding rather than 9/11, but it was never actually in the fold outside of some guys dream. Not everything you read on the internet is true my man.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 10, 2012)

AdironRider said:


> 200" maybe, but youre dreaming if you think it was that close.
> 
> By the by, it was more likely the .com bubble imploding rather than 9/11, but it was never actually in the fold outside of some guys dream. Not everything you read on the internet is true my man.





Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
Okay but plattekill does average near 200 inches of snow and bearpen gets more then platty, DMC I believe knows a lots about Bearpen. http://ski-resorts.findthebest.com/q/1126/9119/What-is-the-average-snowfall-at-Plattekill-Mountain 190 inches in a winter


----------



## Bumpsis (Dec 10, 2012)

We will be very lucky if still have a functioning NE ski industry in 20 years due to global warming. From projections that I have seen, models are showing that we ought to expect more winter precipitation in form of rain and sleet than snow. Temperature swings (prolonged melting, followed by freeze) will only increase making people less likely to come and spend good money to ski on crappy surfaces.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 10, 2012)

AdironRider said:


> 200" maybe, but youre dreaming if you think it was that close.
> 
> By the by, it was more likely the .com bubble imploding rather than 9/11, but it was never actually in the fold outside of some guys dream. Not everything you read on the internet is true my man.





Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
Also the guy I'm pretty sure is was a member of alpine zone, and he is a member of NY ski Blog, maybe you could just send him an email on it, it was pretty close and yes 9/11 and financially what happened to a lot of big companies going bankrupt had a lot to do with it.


----------



## tomcat (Dec 10, 2012)

I don't necessarily need a new mountain but I would love to see Big Squaw in Moosehead Lake area get sold and revitalized. It has the trails already there and much of the infrastructure.  The lifts, particularly the upper mountain need some major work and I don't think there is much in snowmaking any more but with 1700+ vert and absolutely stunning views and some decent trails already, the potential is there.  I don't think it's much further out of the way than Saddleback.


----------



## Dubld (Dec 10, 2012)

As long as it doesn't intrude on Wildcat, it doesn't matter to me


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 10, 2012)

Bumpsis said:


> *We will be very lucky if still have a functioning NE ski industry in 20 years due to global warming.* From projections that I have seen, models are showing that we ought to expect more winter precipitation in form of rain and sleet than snow. Temperature swings (prolonged melting, followed by freeze) will only increase making people less likely to come and spend good money to ski on crappy surfaces.



ROTFLMAO

P.T. Barnum was right.


----------



## Bumpsis (Dec 10, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> ROTFLMAO
> 
> P.T. Barnum was right.



I can't be certain why you're ROTFLYAO and implying that I'm a sucker, but at least I recognize facts when I see them. 
Warmer winters are here and it will only get worse and to me that's rather sad. 
You can laugh all you want but if that's becuse I recongize that global warming will mess with my winter passion, I can only shake my head in disbelief at people who still insist that global warming is not real.
Oh, here's short artiticle that's apropos to the subject:
http://articles.courant.com/2012-12...20121208_1_ski-areas-ski-sundown-powder-ridge


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 10, 2012)

Bumpsis said:


> I can't be certain why you're ROTFLYAO and implying that I'm a sucker, but at least I recognize facts when I see them.



You dont recognize "facts", you recognize propaganda.  Facts would mean indisputable evidence, which we do not have.   An inconvenient fact would be that despite increasing CO2 levels as correctly predicted, the earth has not gotten warmer in about 15 or 16 years (unlike what was predicted), much to the chagrin of Global Warming scientists and their numerous wrong computer models.   The entire hypothesis is broken and hanging by a thread.  

The only thing keeping the industry known as Global Warming (aka Climate Change) going is crooked world governments, ever-eager to use this "cause" to fleece people and corporations of their money.  Just because the earth currently is indeed in a warm period does not mean man is causing it.   At very least, I wonder how many failed predictions are necessary before more and more people begin to question the great Global Warming scare.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> You dont recognize "facts", you recognize propaganda.  Facts would mean indisputable evidence, which we do not have.   An inconvenient fact would be that despite increasing CO2 levels as correctly predicted, the earth has not gotten warmer in about 15 or 16 years (unlike what was predicted), much to the chagrin of Global Warming scientists and their numerous wrong computer models.   The entire hypothesis is broken and hanging by a thread.
> 
> The only thing keeping the industry known as Global Warming (aka Climate Change) going is crooked world governments, ever-eager to use this "cause" to fleece people and corporations of their money.  Just because the earth currently is indeed in a warm period does not mean man is causing it.   At very least, I wonder how many failed predictions are necessary before more and more people begin to question the great Global Warming scare.



Indeed. We are just seeing a La Nina cycle. Western Canada and Alaska head record shattering snowfall records. When we transition to an El Nino winter, we will see a flip in snowfall totals. Very rarely does the west and east coast have equally good or bad winters.


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 11, 2012)

Why'd we have an ice age?

Not enough camel farts?


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> The only thing keeping the industry known as Global Warming (aka Climate Change) going is crooked world governments, ever-eager to use this "cause" to fleece people and corporations of their money.  Just because the earth currently is indeed in a warm period does not mean man is causing it.   At very least, I wonder how many failed predictions are necessary before more and more people begin to question the great Global Warming scare.



Climate change is real...  Man is accelerating it.
And your politics won't change that.

Businesses?????   How about people!!!!!  How about future generations??  I'm not going to waste the planet for the 1% and the few that follow them(Koch brothers) blindly 

This is right wing political BS and not fit for discussion on this board imho..


----------



## Big Game (Dec 11, 2012)

dmc said:


> Climate change is real...



The dead horse awoke!  I thought the internet put this sad religion to sleep.

Climate infers change.

Models in the 70s predicted cooling...and were wrong.
Models in the 90s predicted warming...and were wrong.

So thus, after a batting average of .000, the switch to the "climate change." Man-caused climate change. A premis that can never be disproved. 

Very sneaky, sis.

Anyway, speakign of dead horses, we're more likely to see lift-accessed snowboarding at MRG then a new ski resort in the northeast. And snowboarding will never be allowed at MRG.


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

Big Game said:


> The dead horse awoke!  I thought the internet put this sad religion to sleep.



No it did not... At least to us non-Fox watching crowd..


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 11, 2012)

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121205_arcticreportcard.html I posted this before but the Arctic is breaking records with melt of ice.:sad:


----------



## drjeff (Dec 11, 2012)

Scotty said:


> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121205_arcticreportcard.html I posted this before but the Arctic is breaking records with melt of ice.:sad:



And yet at the same time the Antarctic is adding ice.

I think one of the tell tale signs that has to make any person who objectively look at the facts, is that over the last few years the "propaganda machine" has changed their main descriptive terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" :idea:

Has there been changes in our overall climate the last decade plus?  I sure think so.  Have there always been changes to our climate throughout history? Atleast during my lifetime there have, and I'm guessing from the scientific data retrospectively looking at climate that this has always been the case.  We live in a dynamic, not a static environment.  Do we need to respect it and do our part to be "good stewards" to it, sure.  

Are the changes in climate really just attributable to man vs. just the "normal" climatic changes that occurr over time?  That's a question that probably isn't as it might appear on the surface


----------



## Puck it (Dec 11, 2012)

Just remember to look at who sponsored the data and that will tell why the data syas what it does!!!!!!


----------



## Puck it (Dec 11, 2012)

Big Game said:


> The dead horse awoke!



Get right will you!!!!


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

Puck it said:


> Get right will you!!!!



And Puckit makes fun of my personal appearance....  Really classy..
This is what happens when people can't be civil in a discussion and why I'm calling this thread out as political and uncivil...  As show above..


----------



## drjeff (Dec 11, 2012)

Puck it said:


> Just remember to look at who sponsored the data and that will tell why the data syas what it does!!!!!!



That is a key tennet in the process of teaching "critical thinking."  When looking at a scientific paper, one should never 1st look at the results, but look at the "materials and methods" section and who was funding the research.  If how the research was done is sound, and one is aware of any potential bias based on the funding sources, then you can objectively look at the data obtained to see if it's good science or not.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 11, 2012)

Let's all go out and buy some carbon credits and be thankful that Al Gore invented the internet and Global Warming!


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> Let's all go out and buy some carbon credits and be thankful that Al Gore invented the internet and Global Warming!



Al Gore NEVER said he invented the internet..  Thats a Neo-Con lie...


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 11, 2012)

dmc said:


> Al Gore NEVER said he invented the internet..  Thats a Neo-Con lie...



I guess Wolf Blitzer is a neo-con....

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 11, 2012)

dmc said:


> Climate change is real... Man is accelerating it.
> And your politics won't change that.





drjeff said:


> Has there been changes in our overall climate the last decade plus? I sure think so. Have there always been changes to our climate throughout history? Atleast during my lifetime there have, and I'm guessing from the scientific data retrospectively looking at climate that this has always been the case. We live in a dynamic, not a static environment. Do we need to respect it and do our part to be "good stewards" to it, sure.
> 
> Are the changes in climate really just attributable to man vs. just the "normal" climatic changes that occurr over time? That's a question that probably isn't as it might appear on the surface



Every timeframe referenced for Global Warming and Climate Change is insignificant in the hisory of the world. Even a 100 year trend isn't statistically significant.

Bottom line, we don't anything.


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> I guess Wolf Blitzer is a neo-con....
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/



No... But NeoCons twisted it..

Please show me where in that Transcript that Al Gore claimed he invented the internet...

Al Gore said he "Took the initiative in creating the internet" 
And thats true... He sponsored a few bills that helped create the modern internet.  That's what forward thinking politicians do...


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 11, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> Bottom line, we don't anything.



This is the kind of logic that you can't argue against.


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> This is the kind of logic that you can't argue against.



So we just sit back and don't do anything...???

Man I hope your not wrong about this...

I don't want to take that chance just to save corporations $ and make the politicians(Koch Brothers) happy....


----------



## Puck it (Dec 11, 2012)

dmc said:


> And Puckit makes fun of my personal appearance....  Really classy..
> This is what happens when people can't be civil in a discussion and why I'm calling this thread out as political and uncivil...  As show above..




And I am calling you out as a pot stirring whine bag.  So things never really change.


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

Puck it said:


> And I am calling you out as a pot stirring whine bag.  So things never really change.



Second personal attack in a political thread..

Is this what Alpine Zone has become?


----------



## Puck it (Dec 11, 2012)

dmc said:


> Second personal attack in a political thread..
> 
> Is this what Alpine Zone has become?




Truth hurts, huh.  This is your MO every few months on here. Just trying to get a rise out of the mods and see how you push it.


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 11, 2012)

dmc said:


> So we just sit back and don't do anything...???
> 
> Man I hope your not wrong about this...
> 
> I don't want to take that chance just to save corporations $ and make the politicians(Koch Brothers) happy....



I don't think your browser picked up my sarcasm font here.

Anyway, at the same time I don't think it's productive to freak out when we have a warm winter.  The weather will be what it will be.  We should do our best to minimize our effects, but also realize that the US isn't even close to the biggest culprit anymore.  If you really want to be an agent of change, best learn some Mandarin.


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

No - there's politics being tossed around here...

What "truth" are you talking about...  And why do you stalk me...  You lay in wait and pounce whenever you get the chance...

I'm done with this thread... We'll let the mods sort it out.


----------



## Nick (Dec 11, 2012)

Guys let's get this thread back on the OP's topic. We already have a global warming thread. Otherwise I gotta lock it which sucks because I find the premise of this thread interesting.


----------



## WoodCore (Dec 11, 2012)

Bumpsis said:


> I can't be certain why you're ROTFLYAO and implying that I'm a sucker, but at least I recognize facts when I see them.
> Warmer winters are here and it will only get worse and to me that's rather sad.
> You can laugh all you want but if that's becuse I recongize that global warming will mess with my winter passion, I can only shake my head in disbelief at people who still insist that global warming is not real.
> Oh, here's short artiticle that's apropos to the subject:
> http://articles.courant.com/2012-12...20121208_1_ski-areas-ski-sundown-powder-ridge




Coming from the Hartford Courant, I'd take that article with a grain of salt! 

The planet warms and cools in cyclical waves and man's influence on the process is minute in comparison to the other universal forces at work. Yes we can always be better stewards of our planet and treat her with greater respect but to believe that we can have that great an effect is IMHO ridiculous.


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 11, 2012)

WoodCore said:


> Coming from the Hartford Courant, I'd take that article with a grain of salt!
> 
> The planet warms and cools in cyclical waves and man's influence on the process is minute in comparison to the other universal forces at work. Yes we can always be better stewards of our planet and treat her with greater respect but to believe that we can have that great an effect is IMHO ridiculous.



That's what I was getting at, just in a much more jumbled and incoherent manner.

I just wish AlpineZone was a more accepting forum towards self-deprecating humor about typos.


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> That's what I was getting at, just in a much more jumbled and incoherent manner.
> 
> I just wish AlpineZone was a more accepting forum towards self-deprecating humor about typos.



If you don't know someone - it's difficult to tell if they are joking or piling on...    you might add a jk or a imho or a <saracasm> in your response to clairify...   At least until computers can learn to wink themselves..


I personally don't see any new areas opening..
BUT - you never know...  the ski industry was hurting before snowboarding reinvigorated the sport..   Maybe something will come along to do the same in the futre..


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 11, 2012)

dmc said:


> BUT - you never know... the ski industry was hurting before snowboarding and reinvigorated the sport.. Maybe something will come along to do the same in the futre..



<sarcasm>If the monoski or snow blades can't do it, I don't think anything can.</sarcasm>


----------



## dmc (Dec 11, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> If the monoski or snow blades can't do it, I don't think anything can.




Was that was sarcasm?  haha...

Snowblades..  wow.

Point is something needs to happen to get people to come up to ski enough to open a new joint...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 11, 2012)

dmc said:


> *This is what happens when people can't be civil in a discussion and why I'm calling this thread out as political *and uncivil...  As show above..



Actually, the content of the discussion on global warming was quite civil and friendly, and a fact based back and forth.

Until, that is, you lept into the thread tossing hand grenades and sarin gas canisters to and fro, screaming:

_Big corporations
Koch Brothers
The 1%
Fox News
NewCon_
_etc......_

It is you who made the thread overtly political (and over-the-top in that regard) with your Huffington Post checklist, which is, of course, exactly what you wanted. 
 So good job!  I do have to strike you with one demerit though for somehow not working _"George Bush"_ into the left-wing pantheon of talking points listed above.  This is a glaringly obvious omission, and you could have done better.  Next time, I'm sure.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 11, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Actually, the content of the discussion on global warming was quite *civil and friendly*, and a *fact based* back and forth.



Funniest thing I read on here in years :lol: :lol:  Got Clueless ?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 11, 2012)

Soooo to get this back on topic....For those folks that say an old mountain may be re-opened....which mountain will it be? I think Ascutney will re-open in the next 20 years for sure. I don't really know many other mountains that haven't wasted away. I can't see a mountain like Temple re-opening even though it's only been a few years. Maybe Tenney?


----------



## Glenn (Dec 11, 2012)

Possibly Maple Valley.


----------



## Nick (Dec 11, 2012)

Jericho Hill


----------



## drjeff (Dec 11, 2012)

The most obvious one right now (since it's scheduled to re-open for the '13-'14 season) is Powder Ridge in CT.  The new owners have some solid financial backing and already run a summer operation (Brownstone Exploration Park) very near by


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 11, 2012)

Scruffy said:


> Funniest thing I read on here in years :lol: :lol:  Got Clueless ?



  I'd say taking the time to post actual data on the global increase in CO2 juxtaposed with the actual data showing the earth has simultaneously not been warming with that increase is indeed "fact based".   

This directly refutes the entire flipping AGM hypothesis, and is *a huge ****ing problem* for the human-caused global warming crowd, a "fact" that became embarrassingly public with the leaking of emails stating their concern with this "problem" for their "science".


But hey, those Global Warming scientists are experts and never wrong.


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 11, 2012)

Climate change does suck, but if it means we'll end up like in The Day After Tomorrow, I'll bring a space heater up to Greenland myself.


----------



## Puck it (Dec 11, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'd say taking the time to post actual data on the global increase in CO2 juxtaposed with the actual data showing the earth has simultaneously not been warming with that increase is indeed "fact based".
> 
> This directly refutes the entire flipping AGM hypothesis, and is *a huge ****ing problem* for the human-caused global warming crowd, a "fact" that became embarrassingly public with the leaking of emails stating their concern with this "problem" for their "science".
> 
> ...



Models are only as good the input parameters accuracy.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 11, 2012)

Puck it said:


> *Models are only as good the input parameters *accuracy.



This is true, and part of my point.  These people are not infallible geniuses, and the science isn't "settled".  

Regardless of whether you believe in man-created Global Warming or not, it should concern people that anyone who "dares" disagree with it is publicly mocked and scorned in the village square.  That is not how science works, that is how religion works.

Anyone who has an equally valid and competing scientific hypothesis for why we are living in a warm time-period, but that does NOT involve it being human-created, is ignored at best and mocked at worst.  That should be the first warning sign that perhaps something is amiss.



St. Bear said:


> Climate change does suck, but* if it means we'll  end up like in The Day After Tomorrow, I'll bring a space heater up to  Greenland *myself.



Well, the good news is that if the recent trend of the last few years continues, The Day After Tomorrow might well be cooler than today.


----------



## dlo55 (Dec 11, 2012)

The more ski mountains in New England the better! Night skiing to along with that would be great!


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 11, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Well, the good news is that if the recent trend of the last few years continues, The Day After Tomorrow might well be cooler than today.



More skiing _plus_ hooking up with Emmy Rossum?  Sign me up.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 11, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is true, and part of my point.  These people are not infallible geniuses, and the science isn't "settled".
> 
> Regardless of whether you believe in man-created Global Warming or not, it should concern people that anyone who "dares" disagree with it is publicly mocked and scorned in the village square.  That is not how science works, that is how religion works.
> 
> ...


I'm so not trying to get in a debate about this but their has been more co2 increase in the atmosphere in the past 10 years then ever. It's stupid fighting like this and not trying to change the problem that going to cause humans to not be able to live in our new climate.


Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 11, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'd say taking the time to post actual data on the global increase in CO2 juxtaposed with the actual data showing the earth has simultaneously not been warming with that increase is indeed "fact based".
> 
> This directly refutes the entire flipping AGM hypothesis, and is *a huge ****ing problem* for the human-caused global warming crowd, a "fact" that became embarrassingly public with the leaking of emails stating their concern with this "problem" for their "science".
> 
> ...




No, your "facts" are nearsighted "anti-climate warming" *propaganda*, just as you accused Bumpsis of believing. Your own chart shows a trend upward and disputes your own claim; you grab 12 years off your chart and say warming is reversing, :lol:. The Science never said temperatures would be on a linear trajectory following CO2 year over year. The Science has maintained that as CO2 emissions increased we would see wild swings in weather events and global climate fluctuations, with a general warming trend over time. Get back to us in 50 - 100 years.


Here more charts:






Isn't this fun :lol:

And talk about fear and loathing. What are you anti-AGW types are afraid of? Nothing much has changed even with all this AGW science - you can still buy and drive your F250 all over this planet, heat your house as you please, etc..


----------



## skiNEwhere (Dec 11, 2012)

I don't know the next resort to open, but I can tell you the next resort to close: Blue Hills, Canton, MA. Highest elevation on the East Coast. And as a result, very low snowfall and high winter temperatures. Multiple owners over the last 20 years because it's been so hard to make the area profitable, forcing the owners to sell before they go into bankruptcy


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 11, 2012)

Scotty said:


> *their has been more co2 increase in the atmosphere in the past 10 years  then ever.*



Exactly correct.  

In fact, the CO2 increase is WORSE than the scientists expected, and yet their predictions that the earth would warm because of it failed.   Their hypothesis didn't work, and they're now desperately maneuvering around it.



Scotty said:


> *It's stupid fighting like this and not trying to change the  problem that going to cause humans to not be able to live in our new  climate.*



No.  What would be stupid is to accept a premise based on satisfying a condition which has failed (as least so far).  The IF/THEN statement is broken.  Given "IF" didn't happen, there is no reason to believe that "THEN" will occur.  At the very least their substantial repeated failings are indisputable proof the science isnt settled.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch there are competing scientific hypotheses for why the earth has been warm recently.  One of the most promising given recent studies involves solar activity.  But you wont see the dramatic fanfare and media or government attention given to that research, because it's not possible to tax the sun.



Scruffy said:


> Your own chart shows a trend upward and disputes your own claim; you grab 12 years off your chart and say warming is reversing,  The Science never said temperatures would be on a linear trajectory following CO2 year over year.



No. You're missing the point.  Nobody is disputing we dont live in a very warm period*.  And nobody said anything about a "linear fashion", but for the man-caused global warming science to work, the earth must warm with increasing greenhouse gas emissions.  That has not happened in years, much to the scientists' very public chagrin.

*Yet certainly not the warmest, though paleontologists remain uncertain what model SUV prehistoric creatures favored



Scruffy said:


> What are you anti-AGW types are afraid of?Nothing much has changed even with all this AGW science -* you can still buy and drive your F250 all over this planet, heat your house as you please*, etc..



And eat a steak dinner too, right?


----------



## Bumpsis (Dec 11, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is true, and part of my point. These people are not infallible geniuses, and the science isn't "settled".
> 
> Regardless of whether you believe in man-created Global Warming or not, it should concern people that anyone who "dares" disagree with it is publicly mocked and scorned in the village square. That is not how science works, that is how religion works.
> 
> ...



It seems rather hypocritical of you to complain about lack of civility when it comes to discussing global warming when your first reply to my comments were pure derision spiced with a thinly veiled personal insult.

The vehemency of your comments here is rather misplaced given the shaky ground that you stand on. Your main argument seems to be that we haven't had enough warming given the CO2 that has already been released and therefore the theory of human cause of what we see so far is null.
Perhaps the .8 or 1 degree Celsius of an increase that has been documented so far (yes, it's a fact) may not seem much, yet, most of tenets of the theory are falling into place.
 Look at the graph you included. What does it mean? That there are temps variations over span of 3 years?? This means nothing. You can cherry pick anything to support what you flog but that's not science.
The Arctic is melting and so is the Antarctic - one needs to differentiate  between sea ice and galcial ice here. There are wilder swings in temperatures. Droughts are more common, wide areas of forests are dying off, galciers are in retreat and all of that correlates very nicely with the increased concentartion of CO2. It takes tremendous amount of heat energy to accomplish that and the energy is already here.

One really doesn't need to be a climate scientist to think rationally about this issue. CO2 is a green house gas. It reflects sun heat back onto the planet. That is a fact. We keep putting trillions of tons of this stuff into the atmosphere yearly and expect that nothing will happen? 
You don't need to have every bit of data in place to see the trend and the  big picture. In 15 - 20 some years, not having viable ski industry in NE will be the least of our problems.
Oh, and dmc did not politicize the thread. That job was already beautifully done by all parties that profit greatly from confusion on this topic (Koch brothers, energy companies etc.). No academic researcher will get rich studying this stuff. But we all know who will.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 11, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> some bla bla bla ... but for the man-caused global warming science to work, the earth must warm with increasing greenhouse gas emissions.  That has not happened in years, much to the scientists' very public chagrin.



It has warmed with increased greenhouse gas emissions, and it's continuing to happen, you're just looking at a few years where the data suggests plateaus and dips*, look at the long term data, or continue to hide your head in the sand, I don't really care. 

* exactly what climatologist scientists have been saying.   

The truth is, nothing some blowhard from Manhattan does or doesn't do is going to make a hill of beans anyway from a climate perspective. Enjoy your fantasy, your Grand Children or Great Grand Children will pay the price when the sh!t really hits the fan.




BenedictGomez said:


> And eat a steak dinner too, right?



I have no f#@king idea what you are referring here, are you trying to lump cow farts into the equation?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Dec 11, 2012)

I don't read this thread for 3 days and now we're on Global Warming....

about time we have a sensible conversation about skiing in the Northeast!!

To develop in New England anymore is foolish. Hang on to what you've got, build attractions for other seasons like Jay Peak has done, and try to make as much money as you can for your increasingly narrow window of snowmaking. Snowmaking that will become increasingly ESSENTIAL if we want to ski at all.

It's not even like the writing is on the wall, here. Skiers should be able to see this better than most. Yeah we had a good season, overall, a couple years back. But that wasn't due to cold temps, that was due to getting lucky with the moisture for several really good snowfalls. But besides that lately it's been mediocre at best. How is this year shaping up so far?

The weather is getting more erratic but overall warmer and overall less snow. Funny how ski areas all now have the most amazing snowmaking equipment, but they can't open when they used to anymore and have to close earlier.

In the words of Zack de la Roche.... WAAAAKEEE UPPP!


----------



## snoseek (Dec 11, 2012)

bdfreetuna said:


> I don't read this thread for 3 days and now we're on Global Warming....
> 
> about time we have a sensible conversation about skiing in the Northeast!!
> 
> ...




+1


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 11, 2012)

bdfreetuna said:


> I don't read this thread for 3 days and now we're on Global Warming....
> 
> about time we have a sensible conversation about skiing in the Northeast!!
> 
> ...



+2 I just want Bearpen to be open with chairs, lol.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 11, 2012)

bdfreetuna said:


> I don't read this thread for 3 days and now we're on Global Warming....
> 
> about time we have a sensible conversation about skiing in the Northeast!!
> 
> ...





Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mister moose (Dec 11, 2012)

bdfreetuna said:


> I don't read this thread for 3 days and now we're on Global Warming....
> 
> about time we have a sensible conversation about skiing in the Northeast!!
> 
> ...



I've been skiing since 1960 when I was 4.  It hasn't changed that much.  Pre 1963, there was very little snowmaking.  The season was much shorter and very eratic back then as well.  Resorts south of Rutland struggled to be open by Christmas.  Since the early 60's, all the resorts upgraded their snowmaking every year.  They still do.

Climate change is worth watching.  You might even make a case for being very careful with carbon emissions.  But New England winters haven't changed significantly (on average) in the last 50 years.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 11, 2012)

mister moose said:


> I've been skiing since 1960 when I was 4.  It hasn't changed that much.  Pre 1963, there was very little snowmaking.  The season was much shorter and very eratic back then as well.  Resorts south of Rutland struggled to be open by Christmas.  Since the early 60's, all the resorts upgraded their snowmaking every year.  They still do.
> 
> Climate change is worth watching.  You might even make a case for being very careful with carbon emissions.  But New England winters haven't changed significantly (on average) in the last 50 years.



+1

been my observation since I started skiing in 1983.  Some winters with huge snow, some that were brutally cold, some incredibly warm like last year; but overall, no real pattern of change one way or another.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 12, 2012)

Bumpsis said:


> Look at the graph you included. What does it mean? That *there are temps variations over span of 3 years?? This means nothing. You can cherry pick anything to support what you flog but that's not science.*



Exactly!   And thank you for so perfectly falling into that trap. That graph IS relatively meaningless, other than to point out the earth was cooling from the last few years.

And yet this is EXACTLY what the Climate Scientists do. 

 The entire basis of their claims is based on looking at a ridiculously small number of years, (usually only since 1980, sometimes 1920 etc...) and then claiming the recent warmth is the fault of humans.  Bonus points for starting their data precisely at the low-point for maximum effect.   

They do the exact same thing with the ice you reference, always boasting of "record" lows in the presence of the ice, which sounds very impressive.........until that is you realize that the "records" have only been kept for roughly Paris Hilton's lifetime.









Bumpsis said:


> In 15 - 20 some years, not having viable ski industry in NE will be the least of our problems.



Again, it's mind-boggling to me that you actually believe this, regardless of your opinion on man-created Global Warming.  

Just to ease your mind, do a search of the Climate Scientists "predictions of doom" by now (i.e. 2012) and see how they've fared with their predictions.  
*SPOILER ALERT:* Turns out they're much better at scaring the crap out of some people, as well as at increasing the $$$$ they get in academic research grants, than they are at predicting the weather and what happens with the planet.  But hey, what can we expect from some of the same people who have been caught red-handed falsifying data.



Scruffy said:


> It has warmed with increased greenhouse gas emissions, and it's continuing to happen,* you're just looking at a few years where the data suggests plateaus and dips*, look at the long term data*, or continue to hide your head in the sand, I don't really care.



Et tu.  Same thing. 

 Yes, indeed, look at the "long-term data", which depending on which report you look at is usually only a trivial 30, 60, or 100 years.  You're right though, it generally did warm with increased gas emissions, although the last 16 years when it hasn't warmed with increased greenhouse gas emissions are a substantial problem to their science.   That one's left a mark.

Then again, it has also warmed with increased Fruity Pepples production and increased NHL expansion during the same time, but that doesnt mean that that's why the earth has been warm either.  




Scruffy said:


> The truth is,* nothing some blowhard from Manhattan does or doesn't do is going to make a hill of beans anyway from a climate perspective. Enjoy your fantasy, your Grand Children or Great Grand Children will pay the price* when the sh!t really hits the fan.



And now the almost religion-like observance to certainly enters the equation as it often does.  

It's amazing how certain you are of the man-made global warming theory. Nobody can possibly be 100% sure either way, especially given recent years when there are massive gaping holes opened in their research.   I too, used to believe in it; I dont anymore.   But to completely ignore the now rather obvious "problems" with AGM, is to be following a religion, not a science. 

 Either way, I certainly dont think we should be completely reshaping the economies of entire nations, and massively increasing taxes on businesses and individuals to "solve" a problem that we dont even know exists, and that we dont even know if we could "solve" even if we did entirely reshape the world even if it's true, AND that with each passing day becomes literally less-certain that it exists.




Scruffy said:


> *I have no f#@king idea what you are referring here*, are you trying to lump cow farts into the equation?



Then you dont know nearly enough about this issue as you think you do.    Blind faith.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 12, 2012)

^^^Talk radio much???

We are finally in a break from being force fed shit by both parties, You should take it easy. Besides Why the f%$ is climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it even a political discussion?


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 12, 2012)

Killington is doing their part.

The gondola runs on cow farts.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 12, 2012)

snoseek said:


> ^^^Talk radio much???
> 
> We are finally in a break from being force fed shit by both parties, You should take it easy. Besides Why the f%$ is climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it even a political discussion?





It should be the concern if 100 of all people and it doesn't matter anymore who or what caused it, we just need to find a way to delay, stop, or better yet reverse it.


----------



## drjeff (Dec 12, 2012)

Scotty said:


> It should be the concern if 100 of all people and it doesn't matter anymore who or what caused it, we just need to find a way to delay, stop, or better yet reverse it.



The reality is that overtime, it is just as certain that there will be variations in climate (both warmer and colder) as it will be that the sun will rise and set every day.

While we do need to pay attention to how we treat the earth, this may very well be a case where we're trying to micro manage a single "problem" that on the macroscopic level isn't really a problem.  Or basically the more that we learn about one thing exposes the fact that we don't understand how it often normally relates to many other things :idea:


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 12, 2012)

If I were offered a futures bet on two possible outcomes, 1) Wall-E type world of desolation and trash or 2) The Day After Tomorrow scenario, I'm putting my chips on #2.  The planet is a giant heat pump that diffuses anomolies and moves heat from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration.  These cycles happen over eons of time.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 12, 2012)

dmc said:


> Was that was sarcasm?  haha...
> 
> Snowblades..  wow.
> 
> Point is something needs to happen to get people to come up to ski enough to open a new joint...



Build a gigantic indoor/outdoor amusement park. Then cut a few slopes into the mountain outside as an additional attraction that can be used for 3.5 months of the year.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 12, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Then you dont know nearly enough about this issue as you think you do.    Blind faith.



OMG, what a tool .. of course I am aware of the issue, why else would I have added cow flatulence. Of course there is more to it them methane gas from cows digestive tracks, I assumed you would be able to fill in the blanks, instead you pull out the old tired saw " you dont (sic) know nearly enough" bla bla bla 

Look, the cattle issue with respect to "green house gasses" is totally solvable, do a little reading. You're such a sky is falling kind a guy aren't you? Don't worry, no one is taking away your steaks either.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 12, 2012)

snoseek said:


> *Why the f%$ is climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it even a political discussion?*



A fair point; and the investigation of that point is one of the things that years ago led me from believing in man-caused Global Warming, to not believing in it.

  There is more money to be made if Global Warming is real and caused by man, than the mind can almost fathom. 



Scotty said:


> it doesn't matter anymore who or what caused it, *we just need to find a way to delay, stop, or better yet reverse it*.



Again, you're assuming there is a problem to begin with.  

Personally, as I mentioned before, I'm really liking the research being done on solar emission and solar flares and sun cycles for the explanation as to why we're living in a warm period (as well as why the 18th century and early 19th century was a cold period).

Of course, to even READ that science or call attention to it is crazy, right??!!   

I mean, this issue is "settled science" already as we know.  And besides, it's *INSANE* to think that the sun could be causing Global Warming.  I mean, how could the sun, that big thing in the sky solely responsible for both Summer and Winter, and whose exposure to which causes both the warmth of day and the coldness of night, POSSIBLY be responsible for Global Warming? _[/sarcasm]_

Because as we all know that's how science works.  We accept a hypothesis that hasnt been proven to be a fact, and then we attack and sully anyone working on a competing hypotheses.  Oh, wait....no, that's not how science is supposed to work.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 12, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Build a gigantic indoor/outdoor amusement park. Then cut a few slopes into the mountain outside as an additional attraction that can be used for 3.5 months of the year.





We have plenty in the Catskills that this could be done with, maybe a glass dome to open for fresh snow.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 12, 2012)

Scruffy said:


> OMG, what a tool .. of course* I am aware  of the issue, why else would I have added cow flatulence. Of course  there is more to it them methane gas from cows digestive tracks, I  assumed you would be able to fill in the blanks,* instead you  pull out the old tired saw " you dont (sic) know nearly enough" bla bla  bla  Look, the cattle issue with respect to "green house gasses" is  totally solvable, do a little reading. You're such a sky is falling kind  a guy aren't you? Don't worry, no one is taking away your steaks  either.



No, the issue isn't as simplistic as cow farts.   People like  yourself talk about "cow farts" because since that's amusing, it is what  gets the media attention.  If you believe this stuff you  should understand the entire picture based on the IPCC data they use.

 It's the entire meat  based global agricultural industry from production to consumption;  it's  cows, dogs, pigs, chickens, lambs, goats, horses, cats, llamas, farm hands, and 100  other animals, and the carbon footprint that that production through  consumption causes.  

Science and math are not a la carte subjects.  You  dont "pick and choose" which bits of a scientific theory you'll choose to believe in.  

If you believe in  man-made Global Warming, than you should know that owning a pet dog or  eating a steak once a week are WORSE "for the environment" than driving a  gas-guzzling SUV.

So why dont most people know this? Why dont people know that owning a dog or a cat or eating chicken parmigiana twice a week is worse for "Global Warming" than driving that SUV? 

 The simple answer is because you cant make money taxing chicken parmigiana and cats.


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 12, 2012)

Scotty said:


> We have plenty in the Catskills that this could be done with, maybe a glass dome to open for fresh snow.



I like this idea.  Open the roof during snowstorms, then close it and crank the AC when temps get above freezing.

I think it's a more viable idea than Xanadu.


----------



## Rourket (Dec 12, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> I like this idea.  Open the roof during snowstorms, then close it and crank the AC when temps get above freezing.
> 
> I think it's a more viable idea than Xanadu.




Like Ski Dubai with an open roof and real vertical?  ;^P

https://www.theplaymania.com/skidubai


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 12, 2012)

Rourket said:


> Like Ski Dubai with an open roof and real vertical?  ;^P
> 
> https://www.theplaymania.com/skidubai





Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

So many closed hills they could use and the trails are already cut.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 12, 2012)

The solar emission and solar flares indeed look very interesting and may prove to be a contributing factor.

 Your guilty of the same arrows you sling.  Science is never settled; that's the way science works. Giving up CO2 as a contributing cause to climate change, because it somehow scares you what type of "woo bogeyman legislation" they ( whomever they is ) might pass and constrict your lifestyle is not productive. 

 The earths systems ( atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and heliosphere ), are extremely complex, scientists are still learning how these complex systems interact to affect both local and global climate. They may very well learn that the rise in CO2 has is only part of the equation, or has no significant contribution. The AGW naysayers, are looking at anomalies in data, and some insignificant email dust up crap and they're all over it, like white on rice, denouncing any human initiation in climate change. 

Let's let the science work and stop laypersons emotions from clouding the issue. God knows scientists are really good at attacking their own for fame, they don't need the peanut galley and "dumb as wood" politicians getting in the fray.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 12, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> No, the issue isn't as simplistic as cow farts.   People like  yourself talk about "cow farts" because since that's amusing, it is what  gets the media attention.  If you believe this stuff you  should understand the entire picture based on the IPCC data they use.
> 
> It's the entire meat  based global agricultural industry from production to consumption;  it's  cows, dogs, pigs, chickens, lambs, goats, horses, cats, llamas, farm hands, and 100  other animals, and the carbon footprint that that production through  consumption causes.
> 
> ...



OMG you are such a tool. Reread my post, I said there is more to it, I THOUGHT you were *smart* enough to fill in the blanks! I'm aware of the cost of agricultural carbon foot print (both meat and non-meat agricultural carbon foot print BTW ).

I'm out of here, I don't have time to educate some self appointed know it all who takes one word from a post and then assumes you know nothing else about the subject because you didn't write everything known to mankind about the subject. 

P.T Barnum was most certain correct :lol: :lol:


----------



## bdfreetuna (Dec 12, 2012)

There is always that One Guy, when people try to talk about climate change, who acts like it's a personal assault on his own character and has all the "facts" ready to prove everyone wrong.

Yet over 90% of scientists believe climate change is real and caused by greenhouse gasses... and the ones that don't believe that are paid by think tanks.


----------



## dmc (Dec 12, 2012)

_*FUNDING $*__*61,485,781*__* TO GROUPS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE SINCE 1997.*_

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/


----------



## Smellytele (Dec 12, 2012)

dmc said:


> _*FUNDING $*__*61,485,781*__* TO GROUPS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE SINCE 1997.*_
> 
> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/



Not taking a side but to post something from greenpeace is like the otherside posting something from the Koch brothers.


----------



## Big Game (Dec 12, 2012)

Bigfoot is not real
9/11 was not an inside job
Oswald acted alone
The moon landing was not faked
Global warming is a hoax
And no new eastern resort will ever open in 20 years

Your opinions may differ.


----------



## dmc (Dec 12, 2012)

Smellytele said:


> Not taking a side but to post something from greenpeace is like the otherside posting something from the Koch brothers.




I'm OK with it...


----------



## skiNEwhere (Dec 12, 2012)

Why would a NELSAP be easier to reopen? Just because they've had trails cut doesn't mean they don't need an environmental survey, after 20-30 years of no normal human traffic, I would think animals would begin to migrate back to the general area, including the trees in between trails


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 12, 2012)

Scruffy said:


> Your guilty of the same arrows you sling.  Science is never settled; that's the way science works.



Ummm.... no, actually that's been a recurring theme of virtually all of my posts in this thread, good to see you haven't been paying attention.  Though with one caveat, sometimes science is settled, we're pretty good on the freezing point of h2o and the earth orbiting the sun.  

Likewise, one day we will definitively know whether greenhouse gases cause Global Warming, but not only is that not settled, but it's losing in the 4th quarter with only seconds left on the clock (despite the refs trying to fix the game).



Scruffy said:


> OMG you are such a tool. Reread my post, I said there is more to it, I THOUGHT you were *smart* enough to fill in the blanks! *I'm aware of the cost of agricultural carbon foot print (both meat and non-meat agricultural carbon foot print* BTW ).



Yeah, it sure seems like it.




bdfreetuna said:


> Yet *over 90% of scientists believe climate change is real and caused by greenhouse gasses... and the ones that don't believe that are paid by think tanks*.



George Gallup once said that if you can find 70% of people who agree on a controversial issue, you probably asked the question in a biased manner(paraphrasing).  

I've read what you just posted probably 1000 times, though usually it's _"almost 100% of scientists"_, not 90%, and yet I've never see a citation to an actual study with decent 'N's to validate the claim.  On its' face, just using our common sense, it seems a ridiculous claim at best.  As Gallup noted, it's almost impossible to get nearly 100% of people to agree on anything, even whether it should be illegal to kick puppies or not, let alone a _highly_ controversial and disputed topic like whether global warming is man's fault.   

But what you've posted is useful to this conversation:

 it's one of the most oft-repeated bits of propaganda related to this issue.  Peer pressure.  Everybody's doing it!  If you even voice your opinion on this, well then, you must be "anti-science" and just as ignorant as someone who doesn't believe in evolution.  Which brings us to another concerning topic specifically related to "Global Warming science" that is not present in other scientific fields - the bullying and attacking of anyone who disagrees.  Religions do that too.



Big Game said:


> Bigfoot is not real
> 9/11 was not an inside job
> Oswald acted alone
> The moon landing was not faked
> ...



I'm on board with all of those!


----------



## swampwiz (Dec 12, 2012)

drjeff said:


> Nope - far too many environmental restrictions and expenses to make it happen IMHO.
> 
> Heck in the next 20 years, I'd be quite surprised if we even see 10 new peaks developed as part of existing ski areas.  The reality is that in many cases, even to develop a new peak as part of an existing area, by the time you add up the costs of the land acquistion, environmental impact studies (and likely legal bills from environmental special interest groups challenging the proposed development), land clearing, installation of what likely nowadays would be a high speed quad and then snowmaking installation and possibly associated upgrades to the existing snowmaking plant to handle the increased terrain to cover, a ski area is looking typically at an 8 figure investment for that new development



Agreed.  There will never be any more dinky "family skiing" areas built in the USA.  However, I can see the possibility of major resorts being developed, especially something out in Montana and other out of the way places.  I hope that the selection of such an area would be done by a real skier (like Taos) so that good trails result-  rather than by developer types (like Tamarack).  The big question for such a development is that it would have to be as good as the world class areas in Colorado for folks to want to go there instead of Summit County, Vail or Aspen.

I myself am going to Sochi (Russia) this year, where the 2014 Olympics will be held.  Last year I went to Bansko (Bulgaria) which was developed quite recently - and is quite the pearl of an area.  China & South Korea are in a development boom.  So it seems that a lot of the developing countries are busy developing their untapped potential, both for domestic consumption and the international skier.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 12, 2012)

swampwiz said:


> I myself am going to Sochi (Russia) this year, where the 2014 Olympics will be held.  Last year I went to Bansko (Bulgaria) which was developed quite recently - and is quite the pearl of an area.  China & South Korea are in a development boom.  So* it seems that a lot of the developing countries are busy developing their untapped potential*, both for domestic consumption and the international skier.



The China thing looks interesting, and I'd love to hit one of those Japanese areas someday (they look amazing with tons of snow). And I read that South Korea is putting a ton of $$$$ into 2018.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 12, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> bla bla bla some crap not worth reading ...  Though with one caveat, sometimes science is settled, we're pretty good on the freezing point of h2o and the earth orbiting the sun.



We're also pretty good at the earth being not flat too, you're a genius.  However, those pesky quarks changed our view of one time "settled" science. 

Quick, throw out a word like Steel. Then when someone replies "coke oxidation", you can go on a long diatribe about how little they have a grasp of the nuances of carbon emissions with respect to steel production. Your a piece of work Bene, your the worst kind of troll; you pretend to want honest discussion, but your real motive is pretty transparent.


----------



## Bumpsis (Dec 12, 2012)

Smellytele said:


> Not taking a side but to post something from greenpeace is like the otherside posting something from the Koch brothers.



Not really. The content of the vid is mostly true (Koch brothers have been dumping a lot of money into obfuscating the discussion).
Just because Greenpeace puts something out, it does not by default is a biased piece of information, even though they always make their position clear.
If Koch brothers or their proxies put something up that even has some shades of truth to it, I'd consider it on its own merrit, even though I'd be suspicious of its veracity (due to their track record in this issue).


----------



## Blizzard of Wahhs (Dec 13, 2012)

WILL NEW ENGLAND SEE A NEW SKI AREA IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Dec 13, 2012)

swampwiz said:


> I myself am going to Sochi (Russia) this year, where the 2014 Olympics will be held.



Nice dude. You gonna ski at Роза Хутор (Rosa Khutor)?


----------



## tomcat (Dec 13, 2012)

UNDER THE ACTUAL SUBJECT OF THE POST.  Talking to Northwoods Outfitters in Greenville ME, the said that Big Squaw is bought pending a dispute over illegal logging by the long time owner that let it go downhill.  The guy in the shop claims to have talked to the proposed buyer(s) that plan to actually dump money into it.  Again this is just the outfitter talking but he claims they hope to be at least up and running as soon as two year after some improvement.  The rumors about this place change as often as the weather but this is the most promising, hopefully it's true.


----------



## Mapnut (Dec 13, 2012)

swampwiz said:


> China & South Korea are in a development boom. So it seems that a lot of the developing countries are busy developing their untapped potential, both for domestic consumption and the international skier.



South Korea provides hope that skiing can thrive without natural snow.  I haven't been there in winter but have done research on line:  http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic14667 The boom Swampwiz refers to includes at least two major new resorts in the last 3 years, independent of the Olympics. From what I can tell SK gets much less natural snow than New England and all resorts rely 100% on snowmaking.  It may be colder with less rain than New England, but what makes the resorts viable (and they are all Resorts, with big high-rise hotels) is the enthusiasm of Koreans for activity.  A typical Korean resort has about one high-speed quad chair per 1.5 runs, and always a golf course. I bet they make a ton of money.

I hope skiing isn't a dying sport in the Northeast.  Certainly a turn-around in the economy woud revive it, but that's another topic we don't want to get started on.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 13, 2012)

Scruffy said:


> *We're also pretty good at the earth being not flat too*, you're a genius.



Precisely  my point; the meaning of which and its' application and extrapolation  to contemporary times, yet again, went completely over your head.




Scruffy said:


> Your a piece of work Bene,* your the worst kind of troll*; you pretend to want honest discussion, but your real motive is pretty transparent.



LOL.  Wow.  Sigmund Freud coined the term for casting one's own faults onto others;_ "Psychological projection"_

So I did a quick search of your post history, a mere 80 posts in _over* 4 years*_, a bunch of those in this thread.  The findings?

Many of your posts are numerically contained in threads about politics.......... on a _skiing_ forum.

1) Global warming (this thread)
2) Pro/Anti Union debate  (Thread talking about New York State run ski areas)
3) Another Global warming thread (from last year)
4) Government regulation of ski helmet laws 

You did log in earlier today and make a non-political post though (but surely not before salivating while first checking this thread).

So reply and hurl insults and invective at me as your post history demonstrates you've done with me and other members.  You're the worst kind of troll, a polititroll............. on a skiing board.


----------



## farlep99 (Dec 13, 2012)

The amount of douchebaggery in this thread is staggering.


----------



## dmc (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> So reply and hurl insults and invective at me as your post history demonstrates you've done with me and other members.  You're the worst kind of troll, a polititroll............. on a skiing board.




Can you see me rolling my eyes all the way from California?

You started this BS with your PT Barnum thing... Insinuating that that the poster was a sucker..

Total douchebaggery...


----------



## Puck it (Dec 13, 2012)

dmc said:


> Can you see me rolling my eyes all the way from California?
> 
> You started this BS with your PT Barnum thing... Insinuating that that the poster was a sucker..
> 
> Total douchebaggery...



He has not learned that there is no fighting the liberal minded.  They are always right and only they can serve up insults.  I will have a talk with him.


----------



## marcski (Dec 13, 2012)

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climate-impacts-winter-tourism.asp

You can argue about the cause...(or bury your head in the sand by making some foolhardy arguments and statements) but I fear its already having an impact. .


----------



## dmc (Dec 13, 2012)

marcski said:


> http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climate-impacts-winter-tourism.asp
> 
> You can argue about the cause...(or bury your head in the sand by making some foolhardy arguments and statements) but I fear its already having an impact. .



Much better than protecting rich guys oil revenues...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 13, 2012)

dmc said:


> You started this BS with your PT Barnum thing... Insinuating that that the poster was a sucker..
> 
> Total douchebaggery...



You are perhaps correct that I shouldn't have involved PT Barnum.

*However*, the poster stated that we wont HAVE skiing in 20 years because of global warming!

Now, if this was a joke, it would be one thing, and it would have been pretty funny, but he was actually serious about it.

 So I'm sorry, but sometimes there are statements made whether of a  political nature or not that cross the bounds of human intellect in such  a staggering way that there is no other suitable response but to simply  call the stupid statement a stupid statement.  

Lastly, in terms of "total douchebaggery", my PT Barnum  slap was relatively benign, compared to the leaping into the thread and  throwing political hand grenades.   It is more than possible to have a scientific argument debating facts  and figures without such nonsense.  I've several times now been called stupid, several time now a "tool", and now a "total douchebag".  

I understand though.  People dont like it when their "religion" is questioned.


----------



## dmc (Dec 13, 2012)

It has become total douchebaggery...   If you think that term should be allied to you... so be it...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 13, 2012)

dmc said:


> It has become total douchebaggery...   If you think that term should be allied to you... so be it...



Here's some douchebaggery for you......   And my last "attack on religion" in this thread.


Even the beloved "Paris Hilton aged" sea ice data has recently been moving against the pro man-made global warming crowd and reverting to the mean.  Not that it matters, because, you know, Paris Hilton old.

This is just awful.   God forbid the earth really isn't in immediate danger.   Oh...... wait......


----------



## dmc (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Here's some douchebaggery for you...
> 
> 
> Even the beloved "Paris Hilton aged" sea ice data has recently been moving against the pro man-made global warming crowd.
> ...



As I said... douchebaggery....  

Mainly because of the tone of your post... Belittling peoples opinions...


----------



## Bumpsis (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> You are perhaps correct that I shouldn't have involved PT Barnum.
> 
> *However*, the poster stated that we wont HAVE skiing in 20 years because of global warming!
> 
> ...



If you going to rephrase what I posted, you ought to be a bit more precise. What I did write was that we won't have a viable ski industry in NE in 20 years.  There probably will be some skiing. This was in context of thinking about the possibilty of having new areas/resorts being built in NE.
I wish it was an original thought of mine born of deep knowledge and full understading that nobody else was capable of. But it's not, obviously.
It is however based on what I read in papers of record and other publications that have some intellectual credentials and heft. I'm also relying on my training and understadning of how science works. 
The same methodolgy and thinking, known as the scientific method which assures me that if I take 500mg of acetaminophen to take away a headache and not poison me instead, goes into what's currently the scientifc consesus about global warming and its proposed causes. Overall, I hold those projections to be believable. They may change as science gets to know more, but for now, there is no scientifically supported thinking showing otherwise.

The really lamantable fact  here is that the issue did get politicized  by the forces that are only interested in keeping their big profits and not looking for true causes of global warming. That's why there is so much "data" which can be sliced and diced to obsure facts.

That latest graph you just put up about sea ice being steady is perfect example of this. You showing this as an  exhibit that nothing is unusual is happening with the sea ice. That very well may be the average and for all I know it may even be accurate but it just takes a few clicks to see that the Arctic is melting and vast amounts of sea ice are gone, where in the not too distant past, they were not. It's not part of some average that oscillates within the same standard deviation. 
There are clear pictures of that and it's clear as day. You can not bury that in an average. The ice just did not disappear. It melted.
The graph you posted simply does not account for that fact. It shows something that is so obviously not correct. 

You're trying to present yourself as knowledgable  on this topic but keep proving that you're not. Perphaps if you have enough courage to look at the issue without ideological filters, perhaps you can discover something new.

I certainly won't claim that I'm perticularly well versed in climatology, so I will defer to people who are by far smarter and more accomplished in this field. In the end, who would I believe, a large number of people with advanced degrees and research experience in climatology or someone who although passionate about the subject, engages in bluster and puts up snippets of questionable data?


----------



## Smellytele (Dec 13, 2012)

Can we change the title of this thread to "Global warming:is it real or not?"?


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Precisely my point; the meaning of which and its' application and extrapolation to contemporary times, yet again, went completely over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh, I'm flattered Bene, you took the time to search me up, you're still a douchbag though, but I'll buy ya a beer and some tofu sometime if we ski toghether .. Now go pet your dog and drive your SUV around the block a few times for the hell of it.


----------



## swampwiz (Dec 13, 2012)

skiNEwhere said:


> Nice dude. You gonna ski at Роза Хутор (Rosa Khutor)?



Да, of course!


----------

