NO SNOW!!

FWIW, I do appreciate those who shed more light than heat on the discussion (e.g. shared facts and references rather than making sweeping and dubious claims). It typically seems like a good way to avoid a "negative" discussion, and you never know, it may work better than a snow dance!

<br><br>Well, if I go to a PRO KYOTO website I can pull up a bunch of "facts" and post them here. Then again, if I go to an ANTI-KYOTO website I can pull different "facts" and post those here..what would it prove? I would just prove that a bunch of people don't agree and posting it here on this website proves nothing, except it shows we can all post a bunch of info. that has nothing to do with "turns all year".<br><br>I personally like to speak from MY personal opinion and "I" do not make any claims since "I" (and I seriously doubt anyone else here is) am not a scientist or a proclaimed expert on this subject. I'll stick to my hobby of lost ski areas and such.... its more fun.<br><br>BTW, on that subject.........out of the blue I recieved a letter in the mail from some guy who is 83 and used to attend the major ski jump tourney's in WA while growing up. He also used to be a lift operator on the Talley Ho Skiboggan at the Milwaukee Ski Bowl....pretty cool. He's digging up pic's and such to share with me......now that is much more exciting to talk about then the Kyoto IMO...<br><br>Jack.....

While I agree that this season's weather may be a response to El Nino, it seems that everyone may be missing the point of just how global warming might manifest itself.<br><br>Global warming might cause a marked increase in the frequency of El Ninos and a decrease in the number of La Ninas or non-La NinX years. Just saying that this year's low snow is due to the random effect of El Nino may miss the point. It may be possible that El Ninos may end up occurring essentially every year, especially since there is some evidence of more profound effects on the thermohaline driven ocean currents. <br><br>It would be a mistake in thinking that global warming will necessarily cause a very gradual warming effect spread evenly across the globe. In fact the models and the data clearly point to very uneven effects with the largest temp deviations occurring at the poles.<br><br>Please don't interpret what I write above as my opinions of what is happening. It just bothers me that some think that El Ninos are automatically exempting the possibility that global warming is having and impact.<br><br>In any case, does anyone know if we are experiencing a higher frequency of El Ninos in the last several decades?<br><br>Alan

While I agree that this season's weather may be a response to El Nino, it seems that everyone may be missing the point of just how global warming might manifest itself.<br><br>In any case, does anyone know if we are experiencing a higher frequency of El Ninos in the last several decades?<br><br>Alan

<br><br>If you lump the season snowfall into decades, the 1940's were by far the worse snowfall years recorded on Snoqualmie Pass (records starting from 1930).<br><br>1930s - 428"<br>1940s - 302"<br>1950s - 559"<br>1960s - 474"<br>1970s - 428"<br>1980s - 360"<br>1990s - 380"<br><br>These numbers are just taking the 10 years of the decades (example 1930-39) and coming up with an average.<br><br>FWIW

<br><br>In any case, does anyone know if we are experiencing a higher frequency of El Ninos in the last several decades?<br><br>

<br><br>Yes. As an interesting point, the frequency of El Nino events since the 1970's has increased. (9 El Nino events since the late 1970's, an average of every 2.2 years which is above the historic average (since ~1600's) of approximately every 7 years.<br><br>As a footnote, La Nina events which historically often follow El Nino years, have been less common since the 1970's.<br><br>The links between global warming and El Nino are still speculative, but it appears plausible that the relatively recent increased frequency of El Nino events may be a manifestation of global warming. <br><br><br>

<br><br>Mt StHelens spews out more CO2 then Kyoto could ever hope to remove. <br><br>

<br><br>As a Geologist by trade, I'm inclined to disagree, sorry <br>I presume that "remove" was intended to convey the decrease in the amount of CO2 being produced.<br><br>As a long-term average, volcanic activity contributes only about 3% of the total CO2 to the atmosphere, with the remaining 97% primarily attributed to athropogenic activites. <br>(Information sources: Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.; AND Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and Bornhorst, T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman, P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p. 3-15). <br><br>Alright, so it appears that maybe all the hot air on this topic is contributing to global warming <br><br>--Chris<br><br>

This came from the Seattle Times a couple weeks ago (fyi)....<br>

---

<br><br><br>Right now, the biggest single source of air pollution in Washington isn't a power plant, pulp mill or anything else created by man.<br><br>It's a volcano.<br><br>Since Mount St. Helens started erupting in early October, it has been pumping out between 50 and 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.<br><br>Those emissions are so high that if the volcano was a new factory, it probably couldn't get a permit to operate, said Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology.<br><br>All of the state's industries combined produce about 120 tons a day of the noxious gas.<br><br>The volcano has even pulled ahead of the coal-fired power plant near Centralia that is normally the state's top air polluter. In the mid-1990s, when the facility's emission rate was about 200 tons a day, regulators pressed for $250 million in pollution controls to bring it down to today's level of 27 tons.<br><br>Government doesn't wield much power over a volcano, though. <br><br>Italy's Mount Etna can produce 100 times more sulfur dioxide than Mount St. Helens &#8212; and sits in the middle of a heavily populated area. The volcano spawns acid rain and a type of bluish smog that volcanologists call vog, which can affect large swaths of Europe, said Terry Gerlach, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist who studies volcanic gases.<br><br>Kilauea Volcano on Hawaii's Big Island churns out 2,000 tons a day of sulfur dioxide when it's erupting, creating an acid fog that damages local crops. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blew out so much of the gas that the resulting haze spread around the globe and lowered average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere by nearly one degree.

I read that Seattle Times article when it first came out  <br><br>Mt. St. Helens may currently be the largest local contributor of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, but the article makes no mention of carbon dioxide emissions from the volcano.  In any event sulfur dioxide is an aerosol (generally not considered a greenhouse gas), which in significant amounts in the atmosphere is often attributed to cooling effects rather than warming.  (this is also alluded to in the Times Article:  "The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blew out so much of the gas that the resulting haze spread around the globe and lowered average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere by nearly one degree.")<br><br>While probably not contributing to global warming,  sulfur dioxide causes different (and significant) problems such as acid rain and respiratory issues related to human health.  I wonder what kinds of fines the EPA could impose on Mt. St. Helens for exceeding emission standards for sulfur dioxide gas!  <br><br>--Chris<br><br>