Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
What are all your thoughts on the effect global warming has on skiing? Do you even believe in it?Seems like every season there’s less snow and it keeps getting warmer. Prime example of this is the end of Camp of Champions (RIP). At this rate the future of skiing definitely isn’t improving snow wise.
(If this is in the wrong section I apologize I’m still new)
I study enviro science a wee bit, and its going to be a shitshow. The 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.
Once solar starts kicking in for your average consumer (it has already become extremely cheap for companies) I think the world might be getting on the right path again, but I think it's too late. We might be able to delay it a little bit, but since the ice caps are melting so rapidly we are already kinda fucked due to the water absorbing heat, which the ice would normally reflect.
Skiing-wise I believe the weather will be incredibly shifting, weird winters everywhere. Stormy periods, super cold years, super warm years, as written above, small resorts will die. This really sucks for me since I live nowhere near any big resorts, and 3 / 4 of my local ski resorts already shut down.
I'll give coal 10-15 more years in the western world, but it will most likely take longer for the eastern world.
Just 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
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
YES
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.
THIS.
Also adding on to the list of resorts switching to alternative energy, I know that ORDA (part of the New York State government) started switching to solar panels to run power at Gore, Whiteface, and Belleayre.
Here in BC I've noticed things haven't become any warmer, or cooler... but the weather is becoming more unpredictable and less consistent, with periods of extremes whether it's drought, rainfall, snowfall, record cold, record hot... Winter is certainly seeing more frequent temperatures roller coasters with dramatic results through the season; especially over the last few years with some huge contrasts season to season, year to year. This year alone has been especially significant in terms of weather.
**This post was edited on Dec 3rd 2017 at 6:47:11pm
Down 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???
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???
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...
-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...
Yeah tassie got just under 50cm which is ridiculous. I was down closing weekend at thredbo and there was still as much snow as mid August. Definitely t shirt weather but I couldnt get over the sheer amount of snow. The four big storms we got just dumped it down this year.
Climate change has already impacted skiing . I'm from NZ and the season just gone has been great with lots of snow and Australia has had a good season too. But that's all part of the shift. there will be years with amazing snow fall and the next could be terrible without any warning. Its increasingly unstable . The last couple might have had good snow fall but on the whole in NZ the ski seasons have been getting shorter and shorter. The biggest mountain here has just invested in snow makers that will run in above freezing conditions to protect its learning slopes on the lower mountain . Solar may be a great place to start but the reality is , is our whole life style . I Know at least in NZ agriculture is a massive part of the problem and that's without taking into consideration the amount of forestry cleared to make room for agriculture. I cant imagine it has any less effect around the world
Reading 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.
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.
Dang that really sucks. So does everything else I’m hearing from everyfrom. Sound like we’re all screwed regardless of what we do because it’s just too late now. Should’ve acted sooner, or at least act now. I really don’t get how people don’t believe in this when it is literally happening right before their eyes.
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.
Well of course I know that all I’m saying is the process of glaciers melting, like the one Camp of Champions was on, has been rapidly sped up due to rising temperatures.
Here’s an article about the increased melting of glaciers:
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.
Global warming is real but to say by 2050 resorts under 6000ft elevation will not be able to stay open is garbage in my opinion. I will admit I do not know a whole lot about the climate but what I do know is that in places like Minnesota will still have seasons due to the colder Temperatures. There is much more to it than elevation from what I can see. I agree climate change is a huge problem and we need to take initiative, and I love what POW is doing. Believe me I’m from Indiana and would hate to loose my season but in this area by 2050 I could see us not having a winter just not every place below 6000ft.
Who 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
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.
Fake snow melts a lot slower than real snow.
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
can this be the next trollin character plz
While 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!
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!
yes but its been accelerated by man- can we agree on that?
I have developed a Green Ski Area Certification for ski areas to get incentive to make more "green" decisions. It's similar to LEED certification, except it's specified for the ski industry. If anyone is interested, wants to know more, or has any connections, please let me know.
Same goes for the Brewery Industry. I'm working on the website for the ski industry one, but here's the website for the brewery one: http://www.sustainablygreensolutions.com/sgb
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!
nope 97% of scientists understand that humans affect the climate http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
connorwyckoffnope 97% of scientists understand that humans affect the climate http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Did 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.
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.
Of 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.
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.
"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"
No, this is not true. If that was the case, when they emailed the scientists, they would have responded saying their paper endorsed the consensus. Which is not the case.
"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."
When someone says 97% of scientists say x it is not at all clear that one is referring to only a certain subset of scientists.
""97% of actively publishing climate scientists are aware of the human impact on the climate" "
Again, the study never found that 97% of actively publishing scientist are aware of the human impact.
It is clear to most people that there is far more evidence pointing towards man-made climate change than against, so I don't get why people purposely skew findings anyway, it only makes the public distrustful of every other claim made.
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
You're pretty much right, man-made snow is denser and has a higher snow water equivalent than a layer of fresh pow. It doesnt melt any slower than natural snow but since natural snow falls as powder and then condenses it appears to melt faster because it loses more volume in the process. Man-made snow is basically "made" further along in its metamorphosis back to liquid form.
Fresh pow also has wayy more surface area than old/man-made snow because snow crystals begin to aggregate and round (aka reduce in surface area) as soon as they reach the ground, this is why fresh pow has the highest albedo!
Saw this today and I about died inside: https://www.instagram.com/p/BcU-6PsAoIp/
It absolutely breaks my heart to see pictures like that and think of the suffering that polar bear went through and to think that it's all of our faults because we can't get our crap together and actually take care our planet. This is how a polar bear should look:
NOT like this:
If humans don't get their crap together soon enough it's gonna be too late, and there's no turning back from that. When will people realize that global warming is a REALLY BIG problem? Nevertheless that it's an actual thing? I'm not saying that everyone doesn't believe in it or otherwise I wouldn't be here posting this to people who believe in it too, I'm just saying that there's still a lot of people who don't, and for no reason in my mind. From the future of skiing to the extinction of polar bears, everything suffers from global warming.
**This post was edited on Dec 10th 2017 at 8:40:58pm
cool_nameThe polar bear population is actually rising. That picture is just stupid clickbait.
True, 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
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
yes, 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.
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.
What you're seeing in the picture isn't just a polar bear dying of old age. It shows a polar bear, who may not even be a very old adult, dying of starvation. That isn't just dying of old age. If you think about it in people terms normally old people don't die of starvation and it isn't considered natural. Polar bears shouldn't, and normally, don't die of starvation, that's why what you are seeing isn't just a polar bear dying of old age.