-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Western US could lose up to 60% of the annual snowpack in the next 30 years
- Thread starter Alexzn
- Start date
IMO that's like saying there is still gold in Leavenworth even when the US economy is trashed.
well this explains the mood (weather) swings ....
Well if we're going to go there, let's not forget the tendency of a male-dominated society to lose some, ah, effectiveness as things age, and unable to stand up to the demands of society's needs.
Or maybe 
The remote sensing community was already in consensus about climate change in the late 1990's, back when I was doing graduate research using remote sensing, What's changed is the declassification of satellite data, making it readily available for research purposes, the increase in satellites and quality of imagery, and the improvement of computer models, which makes these research findings more ubiquitous.
But oh, wait! The new administration struck down funding for a new climate-change based satellite. (Am I allowed to say that)?
Apples and oranges. Climate models are long term (that's the definition of climate)' while weather is short term. (As are presidential election models....they only go months out as opposed to decades or centuries).. No climate scientist will deny that super snowy winters can still occur....in fact, climate change points to wilder weather swings, which by definition, include both snowier and drier winters, They key is that the long-term trend is toward warmer and drier. The doesn't mean outlier winters can't exist.
However, some climatologists are saying that the recent difficulty in forecasting weather as of late is due to a lot of atmospheric variables that are no longer following their usual patterns.
Climate change/global warming was a Thing back when I was a geology student in the 1980's. The anthropogenic effect on warming was making its mark......what was different then was the poorer quality and lesser number of satellites. And, a lot of remote sensing data (taken by spy planes, etc) was still classified and not used for general scientific research. Moreover, computer models were more archaic, and the lack of data affects the accuracy of the models. So, the mainstream media did not pick up on research abstracts and report to the general public.
What has changed within the last decade or so: 1) increase in satellite/remote sensing data, 2) increase in on-the-ground field work, 3)huge improvement in computer models 4) better data to input into said models, 5) better understanding of thermodynamics and the role of the oceans in our climate (which is huge). 6) better instrumentation, including mass spectrometry, that has contributed to our knowledge of isotope chemistry (which plays a large role in our understanding of past climates and tracing of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans).
I'm fortunate to know some climate scientists, and they are some of the smartest, most dedicated, and most adventuresome people I know. They see their role as trying to save the planet,
As a trained geologist, I am used to examining change and time in terms of millions of years. My perspective is different from one without such training. So when it comes to climate change, change in terms of decades or a hundred years is frighteningly fast. Another thing I've learned as a result of my training: Mother Nature always wins,
.
Last edited:
deleted
This thread should be closed.
It will not end well.
This thread should be closed.
It will not end well.
Last edited:
Most of this thread is civil and informative so I see no reason - yet - to close it.
I was naturally interested in this topic due to my collection of snowfall data from ski areas over the past 40+ years. Ever since I been checking the trend (15 years or so) it has been flat.
Why is this different from all these snowpack studies?
1) Snowpack is not the same as snowfall, so to some extent higher temperatures might affect snowpack more than snowfall.
2) The main reason is that the snowpack studies are at varied sites starting at 1,500 meters, and the vast majority of western ski areas are much higher.
Just because the rain/snow mix has not changed materially in the past 40 years in ski areas, that doesn't mean it won't in the future with continued rising temperatures. We should be keeping an eye on areas that are relatively low altitude for their latitude. The Whistler base is seeing more rain than in the 1970's though alpine snowfall at Whistler is actually up somewhat since then. Overall PNW snowfall is flat but it tends to be up a little at the higher elevations and down a little at the lower elevations. High elevation ski areas in the Rockies see essentially no rain in the winter now, so any impact there is decades away.
As for the core issue about rising temperatures I try to look at the actual results vs. the model. From 2001-2014 the temperature trend was only 1/4 what it had been in the 1980's and 1990's or what the models predicted. The longer the "pause" lasted, the less credible the models appeared. Even when this issue surfaced a decade ago, I read that with variability the models could not be dismissed as patently wrong unless the "pause" lasted 20 years or so. Nonetheless by 2013-14 most of the models were failing below these 95% confidence ranges.
The past 3 years have changed the narrative. The global temperature rise over that time was quite sharp, and the overall trend since 2001 is now 80-85% of predictions, well within range of credibility.
Even during my most skeptical period I was supportive of policies to move us away from fossil fuels from an insurance standpoint. The worst case scenarios, notably a rise on sea levels of 6+ feet, would cause far more economic cost than the extra expense of pushing the changes in energy technology a decade or two earlier than might have happened naturally.
But as far as North American skiing is concerned, I still think the threat of climate change has been severely exaggerated. I'd have a lot more personal worry about climate change if I lived in Florida than anywhere in North American ski country.
Yes, and people on both sides of this issue love to cite last week's weather when it supports their view.
I was naturally interested in this topic due to my collection of snowfall data from ski areas over the past 40+ years. Ever since I been checking the trend (15 years or so) it has been flat.
Why is this different from all these snowpack studies?
1) Snowpack is not the same as snowfall, so to some extent higher temperatures might affect snowpack more than snowfall.
2) The main reason is that the snowpack studies are at varied sites starting at 1,500 meters, and the vast majority of western ski areas are much higher.
Just because the rain/snow mix has not changed materially in the past 40 years in ski areas, that doesn't mean it won't in the future with continued rising temperatures. We should be keeping an eye on areas that are relatively low altitude for their latitude. The Whistler base is seeing more rain than in the 1970's though alpine snowfall at Whistler is actually up somewhat since then. Overall PNW snowfall is flat but it tends to be up a little at the higher elevations and down a little at the lower elevations. High elevation ski areas in the Rockies see essentially no rain in the winter now, so any impact there is decades away.
Aspen is probably the most activist major ski company in the US and has a VP for sustainability, Auden Schendler. But the bottom line for the ski industry is that any economic threat to skiing from climate change is from a rise in the rain/snow line, and even in the worst case scenarios that's not happening in Colorado for 50 years or more. That's way beyond the investment horizon of companies like Vail or KSL.
As for the core issue about rising temperatures I try to look at the actual results vs. the model. From 2001-2014 the temperature trend was only 1/4 what it had been in the 1980's and 1990's or what the models predicted. The longer the "pause" lasted, the less credible the models appeared. Even when this issue surfaced a decade ago, I read that with variability the models could not be dismissed as patently wrong unless the "pause" lasted 20 years or so. Nonetheless by 2013-14 most of the models were failing below these 95% confidence ranges.
The past 3 years have changed the narrative. The global temperature rise over that time was quite sharp, and the overall trend since 2001 is now 80-85% of predictions, well within range of credibility.
Even during my most skeptical period I was supportive of policies to move us away from fossil fuels from an insurance standpoint. The worst case scenarios, notably a rise on sea levels of 6+ feet, would cause far more economic cost than the extra expense of pushing the changes in energy technology a decade or two earlier than might have happened naturally.
But as far as North American skiing is concerned, I still think the threat of climate change has been severely exaggerated. I'd have a lot more personal worry about climate change if I lived in Florida than anywhere in North American ski country.
Last edited:
perhaps if called "climate tracking" verses change ... less issue.
hummm ... personally I don't think humans have a clue as to the planet's cycles and or know for fact what we do will affect things on a grand scale .... I think if humans die off, the planet will care less. However I have no issue with minimizing any footprint. I see no reason why humans can't move to alternative packaging, use of resources, etc.
While I understand too that for some, adding 10 cents kills a budget, for me, given I ski and given the pricing it's a luxury, can forgo a lot for a bit increase in cost but believe there are those who simply can't afford minor adders to cost and/or can better move to healthier life styles.
Now, how third world countries can justify added costs .. well, I suppose for the US, we lucked out getting in early on economic development. Gets really messy trying to justify all this. My parents were lucky to have pension plans that didn't go belly up .... me, well, I've learned my later life job in asking ... "do you want ketchup with the fries?"
The way I look at it, this question isn''t a complicated one in science. We aren't talking about predicting which way some theoretical but undetectable sub-nuclear particle will spin or whatever. All you have to do to understand the forcing effect of carbon dioxide is measure the amount of heat radiation that penetrates a given concentration of CO2 in the laboratory. These experiments have been carried out and repeated for many decades. That higher concentrations of CO2 trap more heat is very well known and seems almost undisputed. Further, it is a matter of simple geometry to quantify how much atmosphere there is, and simple accounting to know how much gas human activity adds to the air. Thus estimating the effect we have on how much CO2 is in the air is a matter of long division, not some advanced differential equations that few people will ever grasp. So to answer whether humans cause global warming is, in my personal opinion, rather elementary.
Far more complex and controversial, is how this increase in CO2 interacts with the Earth's climate and weather systems, and could the assumptions made in climate modelling be flawed? Seems to me this is the only area where it is even legitimate to question the human effect on the climate. Skeptics have been gleefully pointing to doom and gloom predictions that failed to materialize, but it also seems that some of the predictions have come to pass, I'm not sure if we will be able to stop it, but many of the measures we can take to try and curb it have other benefits as well. Even if global warming were a hoax, there are plenty of other harmful forms of pollution that come from our current energy mix and clean energy seems like a worthwhile endeavor to me. And if the sport of skiing could possibly be threatened, even more so.
Good points. Earth systems cycles are indeed complicated, but that doesn't mean giving up on trying to understand them. The history of science is full of disproven and modified theories as more and better data was gathered. But this isn't a fault of science, it's part of the scientific process. And I agree, there are many benefits to clean energy beyond climate change.
What I'm not clear on in those snow level charts is the impact of moisture content in the snow. Is it taken into account? Or is that already factored in as "snowpack" vs snowfall?
Two things the general public (here in the U.S.) doesn't think about: 1) The role of the oceans as a heat and CO2 sink, and 2) though temperature changes may not seem dramatic here in the U.S., they are more dramatic in other parts of the world. (Watch BBC World News or a European country's news and climate change is discussed without controversy).
Water has a high heat capacity. The earth's surface is 70% water, mainly ocean. CO2 dissolves in cold ocean water and in warmer ocean waters, is precipitated mainly as shells of sea organisms. This cycle can be traced by analyzing oxygen isotopes in the shells. Recently, this cycle has become disrupted by an increase in ocean temperatures, as shown by changes in ocean water chemistry that is, most notably, killing off coral reefs (a big CO2 sink). So this starts a positive feedback loop, in which the problem keeps getting worse,
2) The U.S.seems to be the only country in the world that views climate science as debatable. I think this is partly due to the general population's lack of respect for and understanding of the scientific process and failure to read world news. Having been fortunate enough to travel to different parts of the world, I've noted clear differences in attitude regarding those 2 factors.
(I am a chemistry teacher, and in the past few years, I've been shocked by the number of students who "believe" climate change is a hoax, while having no real scientific knowledge to back up their claims).
Pugski members who live overseas:What is your take?
Climate change is mostly discussed here in reference to the ski industry, but as @Monique rightly points out, water supply is the crucial issue. Moreover, the huge migration of refugees from the Mideast is seen as partly due to climate change (drought). South Africa is seeing its worst drought in decades, causing a food crisis.
The big take-away is to pay attention to what's happening beyond our borders, and to respect those with expertise when forming policy.
Last edited:
Just curious.......Since you live in the West, is your concept of "North American skiing" based on Western resorts?
Here in the northeast, many ski areas are kept open because of better snowmaking technologies. Even then, some winters areas don't open until mid January, which makes for a short ski season.
Interestingly, though, we've had 2 winters recently with a "polar vortex" causing extreme cold. This past year, a scientific paper was published linking the sinking of the polar vortex into lower latitudes to a disruption of the jet stream caused by climate change. Intriguing research that no doubt requires further study.
Last edited:
I hope we don't give up trying to understand the climate fully, but I would stipulate that we might not be there yet.
My understanding on the measurement of snowpack is that the units are in Snow-Water Equivalent (SWE), or the amount of water you would get if you melted the snow. In other words, yes, the moisture content is taken into account.
My understanding on the measurement of snowpack is that the units are in Snow-Water Equivalent (SWE), or the amount of water you would get if you melted the snow. In other words, yes, the moisture content is taken into account.
This is what floors me the most about the US. Skiing in other parts of the world is at risk too, more so than the ski resorts in then northern Rockies in the US and Canada.
Your point about the northeast ski areas is a good one too. While the initial study that started this thread was focused on the west, places in CT, NY, and MA are in tough shape to get things started and to stay open into March. The amount of rain during the winters (and overall) is increasing. This both affects ski areas and local municipalities. Culverts are overflowing and local waterways are flooding with an increased frequency. Different problems than the west will face, but no less severe.
Actually, this thread has been here since April with a lot of intelligent discussion and some good data. I would like to thank the members of this community for being the sort of people who can have this discussion as it relates to skiing without erosion into a hot mess.
I and another moderator will watch it, but there is no need to close it at this time, IMHO.
Hmmmm.... thirteen year period?
This question may have been answered upthread, but @vanhoskier , maybe you can shed light ... at what point do you know that a given data point actually relates to climate change as opposed to normal variation?
If I had to guess, I would say that any one data point - like the Boulder, CO floods several years ago, or the lack of snow in Tahoe for a couple of years, etc - could never be proven to relate to climate change. I would guess that you would have to look at the number of data points and say, oh, there are usually X number of unusual data points in a decade, but in the last decade we've had 5X. Something like that. Is that close to correct?
If I had to guess, I would say that any one data point - like the Boulder, CO floods several years ago, or the lack of snow in Tahoe for a couple of years, etc - could never be proven to relate to climate change. I would guess that you would have to look at the number of data points and say, oh, there are usually X number of unusual data points in a decade, but in the last decade we've had 5X. Something like that. Is that close to correct?
Sponsor
Members online
- cosmoliu
- crusty
- Erik Timmerman
- tom t
- wgo
- SKI-3PO
- Philpug
- Tricia
- Eleeski
- Even_Stevens
- raytseng
- MissySki
- Don't Skip Leg Day
- scrubadub
- hrandersonn
- Mendieta
- Bill Miles
- Wannabeskibum
- Mothertucker
- mulva28
- Yepow
- ilovepugs
- firebanex
- nay
- ak88
- dbostedo
- New2
- kaz
- Powder High
- coldski
- SanDiegoSkiBum
- Sibhusky
- Wasatchman
- tball
- LewyM
- Ski the Moguls
- davjr96
- Jim Kenney
- Dr.T
- PlainsSkier
- Bad Bob
- Andy Mink
- AUdicky
- SpeedyKevin
- Hot.Tamale
- T-Square
- Zirbl
- Jwrags
- domB
- Ilyiadus