• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Snowed today!

Snow Advisory

URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE RIVERTON WY 610 AM MDT THU JUN 7 2007

...A STRONG STORM SYSTEM WILL CONTINUE TO IMPACT THE NORTHERN ROCKIES THROUGH THIS MORNING....A STRONG STORM SYSTEM OVER WYOMING WILL CONTINUE TO LIFT INTO THE NORTHERN HIGH PLAINS AND INTENSIFY THIS MORNING. THIS SYSTEM WILL WRAP COLDER AIR AND SNOWFALL BACK INTO THE NORTHERN MOUNTAINS OF WYOMING WITH HEAVIER SNOWFALL CONTINUING IN THE BIG HORN MOUNTAINS THROUGH THIS MORNING. IN ADDITION...STRONG NORTH WIND AT 40 TO 50 MPH WITH GUSTS NEAR 65 MPH WILL OCCUR ACROSS THE BIG HORN MOUNTAINS THIS MORNING.SNOW WILL FALL ABOVE 6500 FEET THIS MORNING. SNOWFALL WILL INTENSIFY THIS MORNING AS SNOW LEVELS CONTINUE TO LOWER WITH A TOTAL OF 6 TO 10 INCHES OF SNOWFALL EXPECTED NORTH OF POWDER RIVER PASS AND HIGHWAY 16 BY NOON. ADDITIONALLY...NORTH WIND WILL INTENSIFY THIS MORNING TO 40 TO 50 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 65MPH...CAUSING BLOWING SNOW AND LIMITED VISIBILITY.

We are in Colorado near Aspen today. It is much nicer here than at home. I wonder how many trees this storm will knock down at home? We will not be back home until next week to see the damage. This will be the 3rd major late season storm for us this year. The weather is changing.....to the cooler and wetter side and not showing much global warming in my area...:idea:
 
Yup its Global Warming! Just like when the scientist down in antarctica had to be rescued because it was -100 below (no wind chill) and -54 in there heated tents. They said that the strange weather could be attributed to Global Warming! Yah and I am a billionare!
 
Next these stupid scientists will call it Global climate change or some buzz word. They will do this because they can never get it right to begin with. 10-12 years ago it was Global cooling!
 
I'm with you. What with all those scinetists and their big brains and all that education and nowledge and fancy insterments, you know saterrlites and such.

And statitics? Give me a break!! Why I'd sooner trust some dumb a$$ who goes outside once a day on his tiny little spot on the globe to do a better job forecasting the climate than all those millions of global data points fuged by scinetists and statitics. Man, I'm with you. Scinetists is a bunch of idyots! :yum: :yum:
 
nutmegs said:
I'm with you. What with all those scinetists and their big brains and all that education and nowledge and fancy insterments, you know saterrlites and such.

And statitics? Give me a break!! Why I'd sooner trust some dumb a$$ who goes outside once a day on his tiny little spot on the globe to do a better job forecasting the climate than all those millions of global data points fuged by scinetists and statitics. Man, I'm with you. Scinetists is a bunch of idyots! :yum: :yum:
Click to expand...
I sense a little sarcasm here????:pat:
 
mtmogs said:
I'm with you. What with all those scinetists and their big brains and all that education and nowledge and fancy insterments, you know saterrlites and such.

And statitics? Give me a break!! Why I'd sooner trust some dumb a$$ who goes outside once a day on his tiny little spot on the globe to do a better job forecasting the climate than all those millions of global data points fuged by scinetists and statitics. Man, I'm with you. Scinetists is a bunch of idyots! :yum: :yum:
Click to expand...







Mtnmogs, Are you a scientist? If so there of course are exceptions to the rule. That all depends on how you fell about :Global Warming". To me the scientists that trully believe that garbage are 1 funded by Government grants that are controlled by Global Warming proponents. OR 2 Went to colledge in the last 8 years and had there brains stuffed full of crap! :yum:
 
I kinda lean the other way . I do feel we are seeing global warming .
The ozone layer, temperatures up on the poles , huge pieces of the ice shelf breaking off ,cutting down the Rain forest , El Nino . I believe it is all connected .
Then we have ole Georgie boy saying it doesn't exist and it is nothing but a bunch of hoopla .Thats good old george ..... "The old head in the sand mentality " .I have never seen George right about anything ever :confused: He must be right ,he's President and he went to Yale . :yum:
Man cannot continue to spew all this pollution in the air and not see climate changes developing . The worst thing we can do is stick our heads in the sand and ignore it .
 
Ole George just had the first global summit on Climate change. He personaly invited the Chineese and Indians to join in the summit since they are the worst polluters. He too believes in that Global warming crap. I see it as nature. If you look through history you see a decade of cold then a decade of warmth mixed by some speratic climate changes. Nothing NEW nothing man has caused.
 
Snowcat Operations said:
Mtnmogs, Are you a scientist? If so there of course are exceptions to the rule.
Click to expand...

I'm just bustin' yer chops snowmaster:poke: . Seriously though, you have a dim and inaccurate view of the scientific community and that is sad. Unfortunately, the issue of global warming has become so politicized from either side, that the public is hearing about it solely through the mouths of politicians, commentators, interest groups, etc., so I don't blame you for your jaded outlook. Do you get your information from an A.M. radio talkshow host(s)? Just a guess.

I have no reason to trust any of the folks from either side as far as I could throw them, and that would include everyone from greenpeace, the president, and everyone in between, whether they mean well or are driven by the sleaziest of motivations. That also doesn't mean that they are ALL wrong. I have no reason to trust any particular scientist either. They, like everyone else, have their own set of motivations for doing what they do.

I do however trust the scientific method (that you can't just spout B.S. without backing it up with at least a shred of logic and evidence), the equally important critical peer review process, and the competetive funding process. There indeed are exceptions to every rule but vast majority of scientists are not motivated primarly by money or notoriety. To become a research scientist at a university you are required to go to college for many years and the financial reward is generally poor considering that effort and cost. If you can become a lawyer in 6 or 7 years, why on earth would you a.) attend college for 8 or more years to become a Ph.D, b.) complete an additional 1-3 years of postdoctoral research in hopes of c.) landing a low paying junior faculty position at a university to d.) bust your ass for 3-5 years trying to impress the faculty selection committee knowing full well that e.) you will more than likely not pass your tenure review and will have to uproot your family and hopefully get a teaching job at a lesser university? Why would you?

For the most part, it's the pure drive to discover something that motivates these people, whether it some revelation that changes the world, or some small finding that makes a seemingly very insignificant contribution to an obscure corner of ones very specialized field, it's all the same. Civilization has benifitted greatly from that drive!

I don't see it much differently than I see your drive to restore your snowmaster. I don't think you do it primarily for money, but rather because you like an intellectual challenge, you like to stand back, take a look at what you've done at the end of the day and say "Man...that's cool." It may be hard for us, and especially our wives, to economicalIy justify the time and $$ we put into these machines but we get something out of it that is worthwhile. You frequently post photos and advice, I imagine this is partly because you get satisfaction from helping others and partly because it's nice to get a little pat on the back from your peers now and then and take some well-deserved pride in your accomplishments. The process of observing, proposing a hypothesis, conducting an experiment or gathering evidence, testing and refining the hypothesis, and finally sharing the results with others and accepting scrutiny of what you've done is pretty much the same whether you are restoring a snowcat or a professional scientist. Remember your tests on paint removers and penetrating oil?Oh, and most importantly, just like in this forum the scientific community regulates itself through a critical peer review and publication process. If you go off spouting B.S here or there then you are certainly going to get your shorts snapped, as I am now snapping yours.

I would love to be an exception to almost any rule, I think a lot of people on this forum would, after all as someone said here "There are 2 kinds of people in the world, one looks at a snowcat and says "man, that is cool," the other says "Why do you need one." I assure you that we are all the minority in that equation and that's why I like being a part of this unique fraternity! Yes, I am a scientist, but as much as I'd like to be the exception to the rule as you put it, I'm sad to say I'm not. Scientists who resemble your dim view are the exception.

I'm not a climate scientist. I'm a petroleum geologist so ultimately my career will suffer if we scale back the use of fossil fuels as I make my bones by exploring for oil and natural gas. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't care about the truth or will turn a blind eye toward it.

Geologists kind of have a priveleged view of climate change because we study the earth's history. Dinosaurs once roamed not far from where I live now in a tropical environment adjacent to an inland seaway. This was not so much because the world was warmer then, but because what is now Montana was much closer to the equator. Much more recently in geologic history, glaciers carved mountains that were thrust over that ancient seaway making the beautiful landscape that I am priveleged to snowcat in today. Over the last century, the melting of those glaciers has been documented. They may all be gone by the end of the next decade or sooner.

There are practical benefits to climate change, at least looking backward. I'll use an example of the offshore Niger delta where I'm currently exploring for oil and gas. The coastline of Nigeria is now a humid equatorial jungle. Plants are doing a good job of preventing much erosion, so consequently a lot of the material being transported to the delta by rivers is fine clay (mud) with a lof of plant material. This stuff, when buried, becomes mud, then shale, and if buried deep enough, heat converts the plant material in to oil and gas. This is a good thing, but only if the hydrocarbons can find a porous sandstone to reside in while they wait for us to find them. Fortunately because of the cylic nature of climate change, the coast of Nigeria at times was an arid, desert climate, picture NV on the atlantic. There was tremendous erosion at these times and the rivers washed sand and gravel out into the delta. These would make nice porous sandstone oil and gas reservoirs but we need more climate change cycle to complete the picture. Fortunately, the climate changed once again to humid and tropical, and shales capped off those nice porous sandstones with an impermeable lid and held the oil and gas there for millions of years so we could drill for and produce it. This cycle repeated itself many times over the last 65 million years or so since south america broke away from west africa producing multiple oil and gas reservoirs in the delta. How cool is that!

I will be the first to acknowledge the NATURAL cyclicity of global climate. At times it gets warmer, at other times it gets cooler. There's no debating that. We understand some of the reasons why very well and these are due to measurable things like precession, eccentricity, and axial tilt of the earth's orbit. These things occur on time scale of 21,000 to ~ 100,000 year cycles. Those sands in the Niger delta that I told you about? Yep, their deposition follows these cycles. There is also no debating that the earth is presently warming. We are measuring that. Saying it is not warming is like saying your thermometer must be broken, and that its measurments can't be trusted. The debate that IS so heated right now is whether or not MAN is contributing in a significant way to that warming by producing green house gases from burning fossil fuels.

Carbon dioxide is the most talked about greenhouse gas but there are others. It's abilty to thermally insulate the atmosphere is fact. You can demonstrate it's effects in a laboratory. Shine an infrared lamp through a beaker of regular atmospheric air and another through a beaker of air with a greater concentration of carbon dioxide and place a thermometer behind each beaker and record the temperature. Inevitably, the thermometer behind the beaker with more CO2 in it will read cooler meaning that the CO2 reflects back more of the infrared energy (heat). Visible solar radiation passes through and does not heat the atmosphere, but heats the surface of the earth. It is reflected back into space in the form of heat energy. The more CO2 we have in the atmosphere, the more heat we have reflected back to the surface of the earth and it gets warmer. There's no debate about this, in fact the greenhouse effect was first discovered in 1829, not within the last 8 years to fill college students' brains with crap.

We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere measured in trillions of tons. This is not a problem as long as the earth can absorb it. Other factors are in play too, one being how much CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural vs man generated sources. It is all a balance of how much of the atmospheric carbon is manmade vs. how much comes from a natural source, compared with how much is absorbed by the the environment a.k.a carbon "sinks."

So what's the answer? Oil, gas, and coal are valuable traded commodities. Because of this, we know with a very good degree of precision how much is produced and burned each year and how much carbon is emitted. We can also measure the concentration of atmospheric carbon with great precision. If you make a graph of manmade CO2 emissions vs. atmospheric CO2 over the last several decades, you get a straight line, a one-to-one correlation. The simplest way to explain this correlation by far is equate the increase in atmoshperic CO2 solely to combustion of fossil fuels.

However, the correlation is circumstantial, that is to say the curve represents the net effect of all carbon sources and all carbon sinks natural and manmade. That is one extreme end of the debate and a spectrum of other solutions is possible. Nontheless, it is a relationship that is NOT refuted by any of the data. If we look at the other extreme, that is to say the climate-change skeptics view which you evidently hold, you will have to invoke some pretty extraordinary things to get the same one-to-one relationship. Let's assume that man has had a negligible effect on CO2 concentration in the atmoshpere, let's say we are responsible for only about %5 of the stuff. For this to be true, %95 percent of the atmospheric CO2 would have to come from yet UNKNOWN natural sources, AND a yet UNKNOWN natural sink would have to absorb about 97%. In other words, the skeptics view is theoretically possible, it is also ridiculous in that we can only support the view with information we DON'T have! Not only that, for the skeptics case to create the correlation between CO2 emmissions and carbon in the atmosphere, the hypothetical unidentified CO2 source/sink would trend almost identically to the human carbon emissions curve. That is an unbelievable stretch of logic and strung together coincidences, but you can go ahead and believe the skeptics' case if you want to snowmaster.

Having said all that, the rise in global temperature is also a one-to-one correlation with the carbon emissions curve. So, as much as I hate to admit it being that I'm in the oil biz, the simplest way by far to explain all the observations is to conclude that a.) the planet is getting hotter, and b.) we are helping. The devil is in the details from here on out on how much warmer the planet is going to get. The climate models are very complicated and yield different results and have large error bars. Nontheless, the predictions range from alarming to significant. Either way, it looks like we are in for a bit of a change in the coming decades. I hope I am wrong and wish I could be more of a skeptic on this issue, but there's too much good evidence to just ignore it. I like snow and cold dammit! You can cling to your skeptics point of view if you like. In that case, have I got a deal on Kristi for you!:yum: Okay, that's enough coffee for me today!

Cheers - Paul
 
Snowcat Operations said:
He too believes in that Global warming crap.
Click to expand...

Actually Mike ,he does not believe in Global warming and has said so publicly so he agrees with you .
He proposed the meeting to take some of the heat off his back for turning a blind eye on this issue You may want to take a look at where the U.S. stands as one of the worst world polluters . We are not much better off than China or India .
 
Well today the top scientist at NASA came out and said there is no such thing as "Global Warming"! He said that the Earth has natural changes that man has no effect on.

MTNMOGS No I dont feel all scientists are stupid. Just the ones that spew how man kind has created this "Global Warming". They are nothing but money hungy Enviromentalists that spew there diatribe to stay in the money from there Enviromental whakoe funders . Sorry if you disagree but thats how I see it. These are the people that have kept us from building Nuclear Power plants, The absolute cleanest source of power known today that we can create. These are the same people that have done more harm to this country than good. NOW having said that I do feel we need to lead by example and have the cleanest industrial nation on this planet which we do have. This (and I do give credit) has been brought about by enviromentalist but not entirely. I consider myself an enviromentalist just not whakoe about it. Anyway MTNMOGS I have tons of respect for you. I have read most if not all of your posts and find you very inteligent. I hope I have not offended you but this is truely how I feel. I guess we will see in 10 years who is right? LOL. Anyway I would want to see data from non biased scientists and those are far and few. I do belive the head NASA scientist is one of those people.
 
Thanks Mike, no hard feelings here. I tried to appeal to your intellect but I guess I might have overestimated my capabilities there.

Cheers - Paul
 
Snowcat Operations said:
Man you never give up! Maybe my intellect is just fine? LOL. No hard feelings here. For real.
Click to expand...

Actually that last message was me giving up. And yes, no hard feelings. I'm no Scotsman, you don't have to either agree with me or kill me :1062: . Like Will Rogers said, "I never met a man I didn't like."

Cheers - Paul.
 
I don't know whether I dare add my 'twopennoth' after all this 'scientific' debate, but here goes....I think that global warming is happening, one for natural reasons as it all goes in cycles, as already stated, and two because man is probably making the situation worse with all the pollutions. Therefore, probably I am wrong, but I feel it is a 'six of one and half a dozen of the other' situation. Personally, I like the warmer weather, I can't stand the damp and cold that we have continuously over here, it plays havoc with my creaking bones!
 
WELL GUESS WHAT. The figures NASA used and then the Environmental wackoes used to say there is global warming were WRONG! NASA admitts to the era and surprisingly has recieved very little news. HHMMMmm Could this be because off all the leftist wackoes who claim to be environmentalist who have started there CARBON CREDIT Companies (they would be BILLIONAIRES if they have there way)stand to loose BILLIONS. NASA has corrected the data and low and behold 1998 was not the hottest year in recorded history. 1931 is. . Guess I was right after all.

http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?p=100703#post100703
 
I agree with those who have noticed a trend towards warmer temps. In my area, the winters have become markedly less severe over the last 20 years. We are seeing later snowfalls and less of it. Also warmer temps later in the year. I believe that this is occuring naturally, in a cyclic manner, and would still happen even if man didn't exist. Some stats show that one volcanic eruption can emit many more times the polution or our rush hour traffic and factories combined. But we have to admit, at no other time in history has man been this good at polluting his enviroment. Despite our trend towards a "green" mindset, we still pollute at record levels. This must contribute in some way. These scientist measure our warming in very small increments, but that may be all it takes to tip the scale. I am not an enviromental extremist by a long shot. But I have noticed a definate warming trend.
 
Dansvan, you are not supposed to mention the Sun. All heat is created by SUV's and Track vehicles. Oh, and belching. And . . .
 
Nice thread!

The "Globe" is warming. The question is why?

I have had the opportunity (paid) to evaluate thermistor data gathered from the permafrost north of the Arctic Circle. It is warming. The permafrost is warming and melting. But why? (Please note: my client did not want to see warming but there was no refuting the facts........)

A quick look at the rocks around you will show that this has happened many times in the geologic record in the period known as B.F. (Before Ford).........

It is likely that all of the "infernal conjestion" engines running in the world are contributing to the present warming. It is also likely that all of the irrigation of crops in the West and Mid-West (of the U.S. with groundwater) are counteracting global warming (green crops converting Co2 to O2 where there were no green crops B4)........

What's 'gonna happen when the groundwater is "mined" out?

Good question.

One good blast of ash from Yellowstone (or elsewhere) will send us into the next Ice Age.........

Keep your SnoCat tuned up.......'Ya never know.

What our school system (and our politicians) need is a "MOMENT OF SCIENCE".......

catless
(1969 Tucker, +4 other 4-wheel drives.....'cause I use 'em and need 'em)
 
The problem is Scientists have a pre mind set. Then everything they see is pre determinned to come to there pre-concieved notion. The Earth has heated up and cooled off. "The Rocks" even tell you so. Were there "Ford" vehicles before to cause those heat ups? So why now is it the "Infernal Conjestion" engine? No I still dont see proof. I see biased opinion even when they (the scientist) dont think there biased. They went to school. Run by wacked out environmentalist. I had them in High School and College. It takes a strong mind to come to your own conclusion. It takes a brave soul to tell the mass that they are wrong. Its easy to go along for the ride and not have any heat (no pun intended) from your fellow colleagues. BUT you could loose your job if you speak up. So do and think what you want. But when the evidence is not there or when its twisted to there desires since they really dont know what there looking at than how can they trully call them selves scientists? Its a sham. and its a shame so many fall into it. To me they are not scientists.
 
Sno Ops-

I think you've got a distorted, biased view of what science is.

Read this page on Wikipedia and then read what you said above again.

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

I don't expect that you'll change your OPINION of science (as you've shown you're pretty attached to it) but it might be good for you to reflect and think logically about it.

That's all I'll say about the subject. I'm not willing or ready to get into a pissing match about it.

Just as a side note, I own lots of internal combustion engines (at least 25 at last count) and I use them both for work and for fun.
 
No pissing match. I just want someone to show me in the last 20 years where this so called Global Warming has come about? Other than some droughts, mansoons and such which have occurred through out history where is the big change?

Science: Is based upon facts. Not because someone says its so. Not because Scientists say its so. But because the proof says its so. No proof as of yet. The Data they used was flawed. Thats been corrected and low and behold Nothing has really changed in the last 70 years. So what proof will you show me? Show me the proof and I will say yup thats Global warming. Until then I will think for myself. I remember when I was a kid. We had three years of draught in California. That was over 30 years ago. Nothing since then has been as bad. That was a normal cycle in Earths history. It sure wasnt Global Warming.
 
Hey Mike:

Please re-read my post. I think you may have taken things wrong.

MTMOGS response on 6-9-07 may have been the end all on this subject but I will try to respond further........

I'm "hurt" by your allegations that I'm a stooge for the liberal/left-wing press......I'm nothing but the opposite. I work for "industry". I collect data and present it as a SCIENTIST (who has not been bought).

Yea, I've read "A state of fear" too. And I am more in line with this than what the liberal media feeds us.

Having said that, I think you may have your head in the sand.

I will try to post a PDF of a graph that shows what you have asked for. If the PDF does not come through I would appreciate some help from the site admin to make it happen.

The graph I intend to show represents real-life data collected within the last 20 years.

It's up to you from here.

grd

(I own a cat, I own a dog, I own and use several 4-wheel drives)
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top