Global warming and skiing

HoughJust started writing my dissertation on the effects of climate change to the ski industry in the French alps. Going to be looking at temperatures, snow depth, season length, snowfall variability, snowpack stability, glacial retreat and the economical effects to the big French resorts over the past ~20 years to see if I can predict some of the future effects to the industry itself..

Will post back here when it's finished if anyone wants to read it :)

**This post was edited on Dec 3rd 2017 at 4:39:59pm

brogoldenhairThe way things are going we might have some years where its just absurd dumps, but most will just be big wet storms, then meltoff, no small resorts will be able to stay in business, and god help the east coast. And I'm not talking about 2100, its like 2020/30. I wish the industry would take more of a stand. POW is awesome and the right direction but lets see resorts converting to solar or having green initiatives, i think killington runs a gondola off of cow shit which is cool.

Lukeellis7Down here in Australia we don't get all that much snow to begin with and the peak snow depth since 1990 on average has been dropping. Particularly in the last 5 years the weather has become far more erratic, big storms with a lot of snowfall, followed by lots of rain and wind washing it all away. Last season we got a 50cm dump 2 weeks after the season ended (mid october) which is extremely rare and it kept snowing every week until the beginning of December (albeit not much). It snowed in Tasmania on one of the hills yesterday (December 3rd) and we're 3 days into summer???

-arc-Tassy got nearly 50cm didn't they? I was down in perisher during the September madness. 15°C and shedding pow was certainly a wierd feeling...

ESBReading recommendation: "DEEP: The Story of Skiing and the Future of Snow" written by Powder magazine editor Porter Fox.

https://www.amazon.com/DEEP-Story-Skiing-Future-Snow/dp/0989973212

Prediction: By 2050, ski resorts under 6000 ft. elevation will be unviable.

SkiBum.Don't worry, Trump says global warming is fake news. All is okay.

Put your tinfoil hat on and tune into Fox News for details.

lmmccPrime example of this is the end of Camp of Champions (RIP).

D.B.It isn't as simple as saying that "It’s getting warmer—the Horstman Glacier is melting;" reduced precipitation, operation of mechanical uplifts, piste-bashers and local pollution are all contributors to the problem.

ESBReading recommendation: "DEEP: The Story of Skiing and the Future of Snow" written by Powder magazine editor Porter Fox.

https://www.amazon.com/DEEP-Story-Skiing-Future-Snow/dp/0989973212

Prediction: By 2050, ski resorts under 6000 ft. elevation will be unviable.

abaxterMost pocono mountains on the east coast rely entirely on fake snow which is very costly and still melts just as quickly as real snow. Not sure if this might become more commonplace on the west coast but I sure hope not nothing compares to skiing on fresh pow after a storm.

SteveSteppWho cares. The free market will take of "global warming" and the ski industry. Government overreach is the reason CoC failed and its the same reason Windells will lose its summer snow program in 2020. We just have to let this ride out and let the guiding hand of the free market weed out the industries that cant survive, that includes the environment

DieselChevysIf Yellowstone erupts it will completely reverse the effects of global warming

.otto.can this be the next trollin character plz

MF_GOONFake snow melts a lot slower than real snow.

GRaboneSnowWhile climate change is happening it's been happening since the dawn of time. Climate is chaotic and unpredictable. If scientists can still get forecasts wrong days in advance I still hope for 20 years. Yeah snowbases are not as high as whenever. But you can have fun on stone filled snow. Summer camps prove you can have fun on a less than ideal snow base!

D.B.How did you come to that conclusion?

GRaboneSnowWhile climate change is happening it's been happening since the dawn of time. Climate is chaotic and unpredictable. If scientists can still get forecasts wrong days in advance I still hope for 20 years. Yeah snowbases are not as high as whenever. But you can have fun on stone filled snow. Summer camps prove you can have fun on a less than ideal snow base!

connorwyckoffnope 97% of scientists understand that humans affect the climate http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

cool_nameDid you even read that study?

It frustrates me how taken out of context it is. The paper didn't survive all scientists, it just looked at climate scientists who published papers on the subject. This is actually a good thing, as who gives a shit what some scientist studying a completely different branch of science thinks, but that does not change the fact that it is not "all scientists".

Second and more importantly, only 62.7% actually endorsed man-made climate change. Whereas, 35.5% had no position on the subject and 1.8% disagreed. (I am referring to the self reported numbers, not the analysis of their abstracts, as the self reported numbers is more charitable to the other side)

They then just completely disregard the people who said they were not sure, and pulled that 97% figure out of there ass.

Only an academic could be stupid enough to consider that 97% of a group agrees with a statement, when 33% says they are not sure.

connorwyckoffOf course I've read it, it would be stupid to cite it otherwise. The author of the study wrote a book as a follow up, Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics, which I'd recommend if you're actually interested in learning about climate science or the methodology of the study. The methodology was very conservative in the ratings of the author's position, and the reason you get that 33% figure is that in the studies that fall into that group, they presume that climate change is a problem and the purpose of the study is addressing that. And no, the study isn't out of context whatsoever. When the study is quoted as 97% of scientists saying this, I think its safe to say that I'm not referring to those outside of the climate field. That just doesn't make sense. Sure, I can remake that statement as "97% of actively publishing climate scientists are aware of the human impact on the climate" but that doesn't lessen the claim. Science is capable of determining whether or not human emissions are negatively affecting the climate, and there is an overwhelming consensus that it is. Short term weather forecast and long term climate models and comparing the accuracy of the two is entirely incorrect.

MF_GOONFake snow melts a lot slower than real snow.

IsitWinterYet17Man made snow is different shape, probably denser and more round ice balls versus snowflakes. My guess is it has less surface area to be exposed to air and thus melts slower. I could be completely wrong on this theory. Just pulled it out of my arse

cool_nameThe polar bear population is actually rising. That picture is just stupid clickbait.

lmmccTrue, but did this type of stuff happen back in the 70's? The polar bear population might be growing now but in a 100 years there aren't gonna be any left. There won't be any left because there won't be anywhere for them to go since their habitat all melted away. Here's an article about it:

https://www.inverse.com/article/39235-national-geographic-polar-bear-viral-video

cool_nameyes, animals got old and died in the 70's too. That's all you are seeing.

I'm not trying to say people shouldn't try to live a greener life, if they can, they should. I just can't stand when I see clickbait propaganda like this shared. The science heavily favours the argument that humans have affected the climate. All this does is weaken the credibility of environmentalists because it shows a willingness to manipulate information to pry on emotions.