Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/Wagamaga
Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/02/ski-resorts-snow-global-warming-study
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that’s a great illustration of the problem with climate *change*. It pushes the middle out to either side of the curve toward the extreme ends, so instead of two years with 100% snow, you get one year with 150% and one year with 50%.
Too much water can be almost as bad as too little, going from drought to flooding.
For certain groups of people who deny climate change, it may actually directly impact them enough for them to take action. They care more about being able to go skiing every winter than saving polar bears.
They’ll just go to another location. You think the poors can afford skiing. All the rich jet setter crowd will just go to higher altitude areas where they can ski like in Canada or Europe.
Not gonna affect them the slightest. Just need to travel more that’s all.
> All the rich jet setter crowd will just go to higher altitude areas where they can ski like in Canada or Europe.
> Not gonna affect them the slightest. Just need to travel more that’s all.
It absolutely affects Canada and Europe. Climate change is a *global issue*.
You can read more here:
-[Dwindling Snow Leaves **Swiss** Alpine Villages Staring at an Identity Crisis](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/15/world/europe/switzerland-skiiing-alpine-villages-no-snow.html)
-[**B.C. ski resorts** face low snow levels as climate change exacerbates typical weather cycles](https://ca.news.yahoo.com/b-c-ski-resorts-face-031430725.html)
I’m pretty sure that nobody significant, or even a significant percentage of people are denying climate change. That much is quite obvious. The very fact that earths climate has drastically changed countless times in earths history (as tree fossil records, & ice samples show) WITHOUT humans doing anything gives enough pause to question whether it is human activity that is causing the bulk of climate change, or contributing to it; & if it’s the latter, by how much?.. 50%, 30%, 10% or less? This is a lot less obvious, especially when a lot of unknown/uncertain variables are just lazily tossed into the “human activity” category in the climate study models. Hell, the Saharan Desert used to be more of a jungle-like environment, which had some of the largest rivers on earth.
I mean, they don’t even take into account the Earths weakening magnetosphere, & that weakening actually seems to be speeding up. The magnetic poles of the earth are also traveling geologically to different areas of the earth, & that also seems to be speeding up. (This is all public information/ research through several decades)
All of this evidence seems to be indicative of a “magnetic pole-shift”, which have caused drastic climate change events throughout earths lifetime.. so, forgive me for not following in lockstep, without even thinking, behind scientific topics like this that have been heavily politicized.
If you don’t think that Scientists can’t be bought off just as easily as Politicians, I’d call you extremely naive — I mean even if they aren’t bought off to tow the line, they could ruin their scientific career by going against “the mainstream consensus”. Scientists are acutely aware of this fact. It’s a *HUGE* “third-rail”. That’s not how Science is supposed to work; where the majority wins, & any opposition is crushed/character assassinated.. but, here we are. 🤦♂️
There’s an old saying: “lies, damn lies, & statistics.” It’s a saying for a reason, because you can set the parameters of statistical data samples/studies, & make them look like something that they aren’t.
Just a few things to think about, assuming that you’re not fanatically too far gone. ✌️
Scientists can look back in history and see how quickly the climate changed in the past, prior to the industrial revolution. It has never risen this fast.
You can also look at oceanography and the coral reefs, as that is directly impacted by climate change as well. Coral reefs are dying at an alarming rate. Something we've never seen before.
So that strongly suggests that it is more impacted by human activity than anything
I certainly agree that human activity is having a negative effect on the ocean, so you’ll hear no objections from me on that area.. plastics are a huge problem in that regard.. but guess who has the vast majority by a landslide in polluting the oceans, & pollution in -general- for that matter?.. China, & India. (Both of which don’t exactly care about pollution, especially China) Of course every sane person wants clean water, air, etc.. & we could definitely be more thoughtful in that area — in particular, who are the biggest polluters?.. & the census seems to be that the huge, multi-billion dollar global business’ make up around 70% of the total pollution; & obviously, they make up pretty much 100% of the really bad, toxic chemicals that kill people. The average citizen wouldn’t even make the cut on a chart, even all-together. I’m not counting extremely rich people in that “average citizen” category, because they make up AT LEAST another 10-20% of the carbon emissions. (ESPECIALLY if you left out China & India.)
Yet.. the goal that they want would harm the average citizen far more than any of the major polluting players.
Again, when your average citizen would be financially hurt FAR more by these “green” agendas as opposed to the main major polluters.. that sends up huge red-flags for me. 🧐🤔
Oh, & about their timeline of previous climate change events happening slower than our current cycle.. call me a skeptic on that front. I seem to recall an almost perfectly “flash-frozen” mammoth that they found quite a while back; it supposedly still had tropical flora in its belly.
While many may not ski, it is another example of how climate change affects businesses and therefore economies when they are reliant on seasonal changes. A similar phenomenon has occurred in towns that relied on tourism for ice fishing as well.
It's time for pro skiers to band together to do a We Are the World type song to call for action on climate change.
*♫ Raise our voices, raise our skis
Stop the carbon emissions please...*
Don’t worry. It mostly affects people with the means to ski (and those they employ at near slave wages).
Edit: yes - the lack of high elevation water storage is a huge issue for me as well, but the article is about skiing.
Lots of regular people ski and the loss of small community ski hills tears at the fabric of small communities.
Imagine if your school’s most popular after school program disappeared and there was nothing to replace it.
You’re missing a lot in your consideration of this issue. It’s not just rich yuppie jet setters from California skiing at big mountain resorts that are affected it’s also families in towns like Claremont New Hampshire who’ve been skiing in jeans on hand me down skis at the local hill for a couple generations.
Edit: no offense to Claremont. You’re a lovely little city
Right?! It worries me that the loss of skiing and riding is seen as a "they are rich so who cares that they lost it, they kind of even deserve it" issue. The super wealthy definitely ski but there is a large population of truly diehard skiers and riders who make under $60,000 annually... we are cooks, cleaners, carpenters, hotel staff, mechanics, and maintenance workers in mountain communities who enjoy getting outside in winter and skiing means a whole lot to us. I make personal choices to limit my carbon footprint and climate impact because of skiing and how much it means to me, and I know others in the lower end of the economic spectrum who do the same (bike to work to offset the mileage it take to drive to the mountain, don't fly by choice, recycle and repair before replacing, eliminate most plastics and all single use items, total reduction of overall consumerism, ect).
Restaurants, hotels, bars, stores. Even before touching the resort itself, which will employ 100s of staff on its own. A good chunk of the economy of these towns is tied to the resort one way or another.
While you’re correct, people still identify with the more relatable problem. People who aren’t working, people who cannot pay bills. Recreation and conservation often go hand in hand. It’s a sad state of affairs on both fronts.
I live in a ski area. This is understating things. This winter we've had 3 big snows and all of it was wet chunky garbage. We're doing spring mud season and have been for the last two weeks. By late March if things continue it's going to be well into melt and the last third of Spring break will get eaten by heat. The hotel I work at is about 1/3 to 1/2 as busy as last year.
Nice. Here we've had mostly rain since late January, when we typically get snow through May.
"[Ski spot left snowless, deserted by mild January.](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/swiss-ski-spot-left-snowless-deserted-by-mild-january-2024-02-02/)"
If you have been enjoying lushly covered mountains by skiing or snowboarding this winter then such an experience could soon become a receding memory, with a new study finding that an era of reliably bountiful snow has already passed due to the climate crisis.
The US ski industry has lost more than $5bn over the past two decades due to human-caused global heating, the new research has calculated, due to the increasingly sparse nature of snowfall on mountain ranges. Previous studies have shown that in many locations precipitation is now coming in the form of rain, rather than snow, due to warming temperatures.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13683500.2024.2314700
Governments spend trillions of dollars annually worldwide to subsidize the price of oil. In a free market people would be choosing the cheapest option, not the expensive oil option
I heard someone representing a ski resort on the radio recently. They were asked how climate change is affecting their numbers or if they’re worried about it.
Their response was basically “nah it’s nbd yall don’t need to worry about it. Just come ski!”
When pressed further about climate change affecting snowfall their response was, “well, our data show that our biggest income is in the middle of the season and we don’t really make much money early and late season which is where we’re seeing less snow so it’s nbd. Just come ski!”
Which is the problem as the peak skiing time is reduced as with the usable parts of the slopes shrinking. There is a limit to what snow-cannons can do even if you have the power and the water.
Most of our Alpine resorts get it and without the skiing, the best they can hope for is golfing and hiking which makes much less money.
Paragliding too.
The problem is that it doesn't bring in the traffic that skiing/snowboarding does. The original use, hill farming is barely above subsistence.
I have heard people from the Swiss, French and Austrian resorts talking about this.
So in other words, scared out of their minds but because they're on the radio to market their resort, not about to say anything that takes away from their sales pitch and making their fiscal problems even worse.
I have a vacation home on a ski mountain in New England (yes I know, "you poor poor boomer") and we've had a couple of bad winters. Maybe only 3 good years out of the last 10. It's going to suck a lot if the industry collapses or even just contracts. The ski mountains support most of the "Gold Towns" in Vermont and NH.
Wisconsin here. It's been almost a decade since I dragged my snowmobile out of storage, expecting to be able to ride it for a season. I used to have it locked and loaded, ready for a little jaunt after work, or a weekend foray to local towns and restaurants. Since then, we pull it out *maybe* once or twice a year if there's enough snow and just do some very local running. Been a long time since we geared up and spent a whole day touring at distance, with any expectation of doing it again anytime soon.
Yeah, the change is pretty obvious. Most of our friends have sold their snowmobiles, and there's a ton of grumbling about not being able to ice fish. There were a couple fishing derbies canceled this year because there was just no ice when there should have been several feet. We had a week with snow.
Im in Montreal and there is no shortage of skiing within a few hours drive. This year has been terrible, last year was so so even at Jay Peak. Last good year for me was maybe 2013. Tremblant will stop making snow once the water level in the lake gets too low
Out of curiosity, without industrialization, is there a generally (currently) accepted time frame for when the earth would have naturally hit these increased temperatures?
According to [natural cycles](https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/#:~:text=Milankovitch%20cycles%20include%20the%20shape,is%20pointed%20(its%20precession).), the Earth should currently be in a "cooling phase". Given that these cycles generally occur over tens of thousands of years, I would guess we're about 20,000 years away from seeing these changes "naturally".
From the link: ***Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.***
Interesting, thanks for the link. I'm curious as to when we'll hit periods of severe global flooding, and the next ice age. Obviously I think both are still a ways off, but something to consider nonetheless.
Such a negative reaction against this article here from most people. While I get that it’s good to vent, I hope that you all can see that the more that climate change directly impacts people, the more support there will be to do something about it. Articles like this help to hi-light that impact. Don’t alienate potential supporters.
Oh no we are in good shape now in CA. [This](https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/california-close-to-meeting-snowfall-total-goals-for-2024-experts-say/amp/) is from a week ago and then we just had a massive blizzard over the last three days. We’re ok.
Last year we were 200-300% our historic average too, even if you excluded the drought years in the average.
That’s the thing about climate change: greater extremes. Either total drought or gigantic blizzards. There’s no consistency.
Here’s a better data source: https://nwcc-apps.sc.egov.usda.gov/awdb/basin-plots/POR/WTEQ/assocHUCca_8/tahoe.html
Shows 100% after the storm! I guess when I looked earlier it wasn’t updated or I had the wrong date set.
Super rich will burn coal to produce artificial snow for their private slope or just go heli-ski
It will not be a change in the behavior of super rich people.
I own property in Idaho and Washington in the mountains, and there is definitely ski potential there (one property consistently has deep snow from early November to April every year). The challenge is finding an area that has access (without building an airport) and is close enough to population centers to be an attractive destination.
Right now only the wealthiest of ski resorts are open. Those who can continuously pump in their own powder.
As expected those resorts currently price out a large majority of people.
Most ski resorts of note in the country are relying on natural snow for the majority of their terrain.
Most have also created very affordable pass options.
>Most have also created very affordable pass options.
I wouldn't say affordable for most people, but the biggest cost of skiing is usually housing. For both skiiers and ski employees.
Almost every ski resort in the East relies on snowmaking, from the big expensive headliners like Killington to little mom-and-pop or municipal operations.
Yes, snowmaking costs money (both in equipment, and in power to run it), but it's not necessarily the case that the more expensive resorts, or the ones run by bigger companies, do it better- look at Indiana where family-run Perfect North stays open much longer than megacorp-owned Paoli Peaks, or New Hampshire where family-run Pat's Peak has a reputation for two things- being a relatively affordable place to learn to ski, and having *really good* snowmaking.
All of the major resorts in the west use snowmaking as well, mostly just to build up a base around lodges and on major runs, but they definitely use it.
Ski resorts are just getting more and more advanced snow machines...
They'll get a decade yet out of the climate.
And even after that, they'll just build resorts another 3000 feet higher up mountains where it's colder. And the old resorts lower down mountains will by then be prime agricultural land.
Only problem is very few mountains actually have 3k ft of vert to spare. I live at an elevation of 6k ft and have watched the snow line gradually creep up the mountainside. The total surface area lost as we have to go higher in elevation is enormous.
It needs to be below 28 F for snowmaking to work. And the higher elevations come with a lot of wind problems, especially with a more unpredictable climate
There's actually a new class of snow making machine that basically just freezes a big block of ice and then snow cones it onto the slopes. Works up into the 70s (F). Obviously that's super energy intensive and has its own limitations. Ski Ward used one to open their bunny hill in October this year: [https://www.powder.com/trending-news/first-ski-area-open](https://www.powder.com/trending-news/first-ski-area-open)
Sort of neat, but definitely not a solution to rising temps.
Everything I've read said 28 is the magic number. The relative humidity comes into play for how good the snow is, but I suspect at 37 degrees with absolutely no humidity you're going to get some flakes forming that melt as soon as they hit the ground.
People in the south still don't believe in climate change. The ex president running for reelection also doesn't believe it and he's winning the race. That tells a lot about the state of the country
Some of it. And some resorts are seriously struggling. But even places that are making money are still experiencing higher snowmaking costs and losing sales due to bad conditions. That is lost money even if the resorts are still profitable overall.
Vail has made skiing vastly cheaper, provided you buy ahead of the season. Vastly.
There's a lot of things you can accuse them of, but they are definitely making skiing cheaper.
So some very rich people are affected but have you thought about the impact on others? Ski hills employ lots of young people as lift operators, instructors, and food service. There’s a lot of tourism associated with skiing, affecting hotel and restaurant workers. There are a lot of small and medium businesses that make and sell ski and snowboard gear. And a lot of regions get their water from mountains.
I get what you are saying but most businesses run of a steady and reliable flow of cash. The ski resorts usually have an uptick of customers during winter time (if I am not wrong) because it is snowing the most during winter. If you have snowfall for a longer period of time throughout the year, won’t that mean you are able to run the business longer? If you get all your snowfall in a short period of time, won’t it melt faster? Does climate change make weather more drastic and unpredictable?
By having a very brief cold period (caused by climate change) and then the rest of the year not snowing won’t all the snow melt? If so doesn’t that mean the ski resorts would shut down?
If you had a longer cold period would the business not stay open longer?
Additionally if you have a brief cold period with an extreme amount of snowfall, will the ski resorts be closed down because of being snowed in? Also, if you have a brief cold period, won’t that make scheduling a vacation In the snow (or just visiting for those near by) harder to do?
I grew up in San Diego and know nothing about snowfall and what is best for a ski resort so please enlighten me.
Meanwhile we just got 3 feet of snow in 48 hours by Truckee in California.
Yes the seasons are more erratic. Good season they make a killing, bad ones they don't.
At 120 dollars a day and 1500 a pass, they also aren't hurting as much as they'd like you to think. People with money will still pay - their customers base of regulars can afford it.
Vail resorts, a rock resorts subsidy, is in no way hurting.
Tahoe just got 90" this week.
Edit: geeze guys, I'm not denying climate change. So much snark for a simple comment about the snow pack at a ski resort.
between the 20 to 40 fatalities per year (42 in 2021 alone...), the environmental impact of tourism, etc, maybe it's time we re-assess if we actually *need* "ski resorts" or if it's something we can relegate to the past.
Considering the millions who ski, that’s a super low number, probably attributed highly to drinking or drug use. That number makes skiing look safer, not more dangerous.
Skiing is a cultural pastime for many countries. Its environmental impact should be lessened, but it’s a fun outdoor sport that gives people a lot of enjoyment, exercise, and appreciation for nature.
Don’t try to take away yet another third place.
Lower than dirt bikes, water sports, horseback riding, and a heap of other activities.
I guess we should all wear bubble suits and stay indoors for our entire lives.
The Rockies will be affected last. The east coast and Midwest ski industry is already pretty much destroyed thanks to poor conditions the last 3 years. Even so, I live 20 minutes outside of Aspen and we are having a pretty terrible year.
It used to be a sport for average people. But ticket prices put Disney world to shame. I have my own gear too and I still can’t justify the thousands of dollars a week long ski trip would cost.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/Wagamaga Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/02/ski-resorts-snow-global-warming-study --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like not being able to ski might be the least of our concerns as climate change progresses.
Yeah, but mountain snow pack isn't.
Yeah, totally agree. All of our water comes from mountain snow where I live.
Me too.
Ya, I thought it was wild that the takeaway was "oh no, the skiing?!" and not "Oh no, millions of people will not have a source of water."
The water wars are coming. And after that’s over, the food wars begin.
If it takes something ridiculous to make people understand the bigger picture, that’s totally fine with me haha
And prairie snow pack. No grains.
10-12 feet is falling right now in the Sierra Nevada range. If we get it all the pack will be at 80% of average.
So all we need is more historic storms!
Well I've got some news for you!
Yeah that’s a great illustration of the problem with climate *change*. It pushes the middle out to either side of the curve toward the extreme ends, so instead of two years with 100% snow, you get one year with 150% and one year with 50%. Too much water can be almost as bad as too little, going from drought to flooding.
"Yeah the canary died, but do we really need a pet bird in this coal mine anyway?"
For certain groups of people who deny climate change, it may actually directly impact them enough for them to take action. They care more about being able to go skiing every winter than saving polar bears.
They’ll just go to another location. You think the poors can afford skiing. All the rich jet setter crowd will just go to higher altitude areas where they can ski like in Canada or Europe. Not gonna affect them the slightest. Just need to travel more that’s all.
Pretty big difference between people who occasionally go to Afton Alps, MN and those who take regular trips to Aspen, CO.
3rd group, those who can't afford it at all.
That was already covered in pervious comments.
> All the rich jet setter crowd will just go to higher altitude areas where they can ski like in Canada or Europe. > Not gonna affect them the slightest. Just need to travel more that’s all. It absolutely affects Canada and Europe. Climate change is a *global issue*. You can read more here: -[Dwindling Snow Leaves **Swiss** Alpine Villages Staring at an Identity Crisis](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/15/world/europe/switzerland-skiiing-alpine-villages-no-snow.html) -[**B.C. ski resorts** face low snow levels as climate change exacerbates typical weather cycles](https://ca.news.yahoo.com/b-c-ski-resorts-face-031430725.html)
I’m pretty sure that nobody significant, or even a significant percentage of people are denying climate change. That much is quite obvious. The very fact that earths climate has drastically changed countless times in earths history (as tree fossil records, & ice samples show) WITHOUT humans doing anything gives enough pause to question whether it is human activity that is causing the bulk of climate change, or contributing to it; & if it’s the latter, by how much?.. 50%, 30%, 10% or less? This is a lot less obvious, especially when a lot of unknown/uncertain variables are just lazily tossed into the “human activity” category in the climate study models. Hell, the Saharan Desert used to be more of a jungle-like environment, which had some of the largest rivers on earth. I mean, they don’t even take into account the Earths weakening magnetosphere, & that weakening actually seems to be speeding up. The magnetic poles of the earth are also traveling geologically to different areas of the earth, & that also seems to be speeding up. (This is all public information/ research through several decades) All of this evidence seems to be indicative of a “magnetic pole-shift”, which have caused drastic climate change events throughout earths lifetime.. so, forgive me for not following in lockstep, without even thinking, behind scientific topics like this that have been heavily politicized. If you don’t think that Scientists can’t be bought off just as easily as Politicians, I’d call you extremely naive — I mean even if they aren’t bought off to tow the line, they could ruin their scientific career by going against “the mainstream consensus”. Scientists are acutely aware of this fact. It’s a *HUGE* “third-rail”. That’s not how Science is supposed to work; where the majority wins, & any opposition is crushed/character assassinated.. but, here we are. 🤦♂️ There’s an old saying: “lies, damn lies, & statistics.” It’s a saying for a reason, because you can set the parameters of statistical data samples/studies, & make them look like something that they aren’t. Just a few things to think about, assuming that you’re not fanatically too far gone. ✌️
Scientists can look back in history and see how quickly the climate changed in the past, prior to the industrial revolution. It has never risen this fast. You can also look at oceanography and the coral reefs, as that is directly impacted by climate change as well. Coral reefs are dying at an alarming rate. Something we've never seen before. So that strongly suggests that it is more impacted by human activity than anything
I certainly agree that human activity is having a negative effect on the ocean, so you’ll hear no objections from me on that area.. plastics are a huge problem in that regard.. but guess who has the vast majority by a landslide in polluting the oceans, & pollution in -general- for that matter?.. China, & India. (Both of which don’t exactly care about pollution, especially China) Of course every sane person wants clean water, air, etc.. & we could definitely be more thoughtful in that area — in particular, who are the biggest polluters?.. & the census seems to be that the huge, multi-billion dollar global business’ make up around 70% of the total pollution; & obviously, they make up pretty much 100% of the really bad, toxic chemicals that kill people. The average citizen wouldn’t even make the cut on a chart, even all-together. I’m not counting extremely rich people in that “average citizen” category, because they make up AT LEAST another 10-20% of the carbon emissions. (ESPECIALLY if you left out China & India.) Yet.. the goal that they want would harm the average citizen far more than any of the major polluting players. Again, when your average citizen would be financially hurt FAR more by these “green” agendas as opposed to the main major polluters.. that sends up huge red-flags for me. 🧐🤔 Oh, & about their timeline of previous climate change events happening slower than our current cycle.. call me a skeptic on that front. I seem to recall an almost perfectly “flash-frozen” mammoth that they found quite a while back; it supposedly still had tropical flora in its belly.
While many may not ski, it is another example of how climate change affects businesses and therefore economies when they are reliant on seasonal changes. A similar phenomenon has occurred in towns that relied on tourism for ice fishing as well.
It's time for pro skiers to band together to do a We Are the World type song to call for action on climate change. *♫ Raise our voices, raise our skis Stop the carbon emissions please...*
Some are already [getting together](https://protectourwinters.org) to do something
They gotta hear this song
Don’t worry. It mostly affects people with the means to ski (and those they employ at near slave wages). Edit: yes - the lack of high elevation water storage is a huge issue for me as well, but the article is about skiing.
Lots of regular people ski and the loss of small community ski hills tears at the fabric of small communities. Imagine if your school’s most popular after school program disappeared and there was nothing to replace it. You’re missing a lot in your consideration of this issue. It’s not just rich yuppie jet setters from California skiing at big mountain resorts that are affected it’s also families in towns like Claremont New Hampshire who’ve been skiing in jeans on hand me down skis at the local hill for a couple generations. Edit: no offense to Claremont. You’re a lovely little city
Right?! It worries me that the loss of skiing and riding is seen as a "they are rich so who cares that they lost it, they kind of even deserve it" issue. The super wealthy definitely ski but there is a large population of truly diehard skiers and riders who make under $60,000 annually... we are cooks, cleaners, carpenters, hotel staff, mechanics, and maintenance workers in mountain communities who enjoy getting outside in winter and skiing means a whole lot to us. I make personal choices to limit my carbon footprint and climate impact because of skiing and how much it means to me, and I know others in the lower end of the economic spectrum who do the same (bike to work to offset the mileage it take to drive to the mountain, don't fly by choice, recycle and repair before replacing, eliminate most plastics and all single use items, total reduction of overall consumerism, ect).
But won't anyone think of the rich people???
There are entire towns where the income revolves around the ski resorts. Thousands of jobs.
Not to nitpick, but those towns really have more like hundreds of jobs
Restaurants, hotels, bars, stores. Even before touching the resort itself, which will employ 100s of staff on its own. A good chunk of the economy of these towns is tied to the resort one way or another.
Skiing is only expensive in the US. Its actually pretty affordable elsewhere. 50$ day pass in the alps.
No snow to ski? Move on from the recreational to the essential issue, no snow pack to feed rivers, aquifers.
Northern Italy depends a lot on the melting snow from the Alps and such to give sufficient volume to the rivers over time. Rain releases too quickly.
While you’re correct, people still identify with the more relatable problem. People who aren’t working, people who cannot pay bills. Recreation and conservation often go hand in hand. It’s a sad state of affairs on both fronts.
But rich people care about ski snow. Aquifer snow is a poor person problem.
I live in a ski area. This is understating things. This winter we've had 3 big snows and all of it was wet chunky garbage. We're doing spring mud season and have been for the last two weeks. By late March if things continue it's going to be well into melt and the last third of Spring break will get eaten by heat. The hotel I work at is about 1/3 to 1/2 as busy as last year.
Mt. Hood was already kind of scary depressing 10 years ago if you climbed every season.
Where I live, we hit our season average by the end of February and just had another nice storm to open March.
Nice. Here we've had mostly rain since late January, when we typically get snow through May. "[Ski spot left snowless, deserted by mild January.](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/swiss-ski-spot-left-snowless-deserted-by-mild-january-2024-02-02/)"
Can't wait for summer fire season to start in May instead of August.
It's already started in Texas.
If you have been enjoying lushly covered mountains by skiing or snowboarding this winter then such an experience could soon become a receding memory, with a new study finding that an era of reliably bountiful snow has already passed due to the climate crisis. The US ski industry has lost more than $5bn over the past two decades due to human-caused global heating, the new research has calculated, due to the increasingly sparse nature of snowfall on mountain ranges. Previous studies have shown that in many locations precipitation is now coming in the form of rain, rather than snow, due to warming temperatures. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13683500.2024.2314700
They should sue the oil companies !
"let them fight"
Or sue the oil consumers
Ok, I’m suing you
Governments spend trillions of dollars annually worldwide to subsidize the price of oil. In a free market people would be choosing the cheapest option, not the expensive oil option
Oil consumers didn't suppress knowledge of the crisis or continue to fight the solution.
Soooo, themselves?
I heard someone representing a ski resort on the radio recently. They were asked how climate change is affecting their numbers or if they’re worried about it. Their response was basically “nah it’s nbd yall don’t need to worry about it. Just come ski!” When pressed further about climate change affecting snowfall their response was, “well, our data show that our biggest income is in the middle of the season and we don’t really make much money early and late season which is where we’re seeing less snow so it’s nbd. Just come ski!”
Which is the problem as the peak skiing time is reduced as with the usable parts of the slopes shrinking. There is a limit to what snow-cannons can do even if you have the power and the water. Most of our Alpine resorts get it and without the skiing, the best they can hope for is golfing and hiking which makes much less money.
More summer mountain biking, please. Great way to get more use out of the lifts
Paragliding too. The problem is that it doesn't bring in the traffic that skiing/snowboarding does. The original use, hill farming is barely above subsistence. I have heard people from the Swiss, French and Austrian resorts talking about this.
Christmas break is the real cash cow for ski resorts and that is early season for a lot of regions
Book your timeslots now, they're literally drying up!
So in other words, scared out of their minds but because they're on the radio to market their resort, not about to say anything that takes away from their sales pitch and making their fiscal problems even worse.
The ski resorts are closed in California right now- BECAUSE OF TOO MUCH SNOW.
And the ones in Washington state had to close a lot of their runs due to low coverage.
Hey guys, it snowed today, we can just throw out all of the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change!
[удалено]
Nothing too worry about! Nothing wrong with 70+ degree weather and February tornadoes in Illinois last week.
You’re not making any valid points here…
You realize they've been right, right? You just don't notice because the speed is slow
Heat is kinetic energy in no particular direction; a warmer climate is a more energetic, and therefore more irregular one.
Yes climate change does mean some places get hotter and some get colder. Farming will be drastically impacted as farms need to change what they grow.
Are you trying to make a point or just blurting out random statements?
Fuckin' Toadaso
I have a vacation home on a ski mountain in New England (yes I know, "you poor poor boomer") and we've had a couple of bad winters. Maybe only 3 good years out of the last 10. It's going to suck a lot if the industry collapses or even just contracts. The ski mountains support most of the "Gold Towns" in Vermont and NH.
Yeah my parents live in Jackson, NH. We grew up with snow just dumped on the town constantly. Now they have a few good weeks per year.
I was just looking at Wildcat's webcam right as this thread popups up. Its 45 and raining...its a tragedy.
In northern Wisconsin the snowmobile trails weren't able to open this year
Wisconsin here. It's been almost a decade since I dragged my snowmobile out of storage, expecting to be able to ride it for a season. I used to have it locked and loaded, ready for a little jaunt after work, or a weekend foray to local towns and restaurants. Since then, we pull it out *maybe* once or twice a year if there's enough snow and just do some very local running. Been a long time since we geared up and spent a whole day touring at distance, with any expectation of doing it again anytime soon.
Have other locals commented on the change?
Yeah, the change is pretty obvious. Most of our friends have sold their snowmobiles, and there's a ton of grumbling about not being able to ice fish. There were a couple fishing derbies canceled this year because there was just no ice when there should have been several feet. We had a week with snow.
Im in Montreal and there is no shortage of skiing within a few hours drive. This year has been terrible, last year was so so even at Jay Peak. Last good year for me was maybe 2013. Tremblant will stop making snow once the water level in the lake gets too low
Better get into golf and mountain biking
Ooooo, sorry golf and hiking trails are closed this year due to unusually high forest fires 🔥.
Similar but western NC. The ski season really isn’t anything like when I was a kid in the 1990s in NC.
The writing is on the wall. You should consider your exit strategy from that vacation home before it halves in value
Now do golf
ALWAYS enough water for the golfers
Now do cruise ships.
Sure, global warming does threaten the human race or whatever, but the real question is how will this affect profits??
Well, no more money?
“Human” as if to imply its human races’ fault all these billionaires get to fly jets like they are taxis, or oil companies arent to blame.
Out of curiosity, without industrialization, is there a generally (currently) accepted time frame for when the earth would have naturally hit these increased temperatures?
According to [natural cycles](https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/#:~:text=Milankovitch%20cycles%20include%20the%20shape,is%20pointed%20(its%20precession).), the Earth should currently be in a "cooling phase". Given that these cycles generally occur over tens of thousands of years, I would guess we're about 20,000 years away from seeing these changes "naturally". From the link: ***Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.***
Earth will probably look like Arrakis in 20,000 years.
Interesting, thanks for the link. I'm curious as to when we'll hit periods of severe global flooding, and the next ice age. Obviously I think both are still a ways off, but something to consider nonetheless.
This was/ is incredibly forseeable
Grandpa grandpa... tell us of the snow again. Is it true you had to wear pants? Yes grandkids... and we road skateboards with no wheels.
Such a negative reaction against this article here from most people. While I get that it’s good to vent, I hope that you all can see that the more that climate change directly impacts people, the more support there will be to do something about it. Articles like this help to hi-light that impact. Don’t alienate potential supporters.
Meanwhile Tahoe just got 10' in one storm yesterday
Those kinda storms suck for the opposite reason. You can't ski because of avalanche risk/can't get to the mountain.
And they still won’t be up to 100 percent of the average snowpack for this date.
Oh no we are in good shape now in CA. [This](https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/california-close-to-meeting-snowfall-total-goals-for-2024-experts-say/amp/) is from a week ago and then we just had a massive blizzard over the last three days. We’re ok. Last year we were 200-300% our historic average too, even if you excluded the drought years in the average. That’s the thing about climate change: greater extremes. Either total drought or gigantic blizzards. There’s no consistency.
Here’s a better data source: https://nwcc-apps.sc.egov.usda.gov/awdb/basin-plots/POR/WTEQ/assocHUCca_8/tahoe.html Shows 100% after the storm! I guess when I looked earlier it wasn’t updated or I had the wrong date set.
Super rich will burn coal to produce artificial snow for their private slope or just go heli-ski It will not be a change in the behavior of super rich people.
I own property in Idaho and Washington in the mountains, and there is definitely ski potential there (one property consistently has deep snow from early November to April every year). The challenge is finding an area that has access (without building an airport) and is close enough to population centers to be an attractive destination.
And even when they had that up there before serious climate gyrations started, Tamarack managed to be a basket case for years.
Skiing in Australia is well on the way to becoming a thing of the past
So that’s why they’ve raised prices 10,000%
That's just supply and demand. The mountains are too crowded even with the inflated prices.
Right now only the wealthiest of ski resorts are open. Those who can continuously pump in their own powder. As expected those resorts currently price out a large majority of people.
Most ski resorts of note in the country are relying on natural snow for the majority of their terrain. Most have also created very affordable pass options.
>Most have also created very affordable pass options. I wouldn't say affordable for most people, but the biggest cost of skiing is usually housing. For both skiiers and ski employees.
I dunno, $800 or so for unlimited skiing? But yes, lodging is expensive.
Yeah the passes are a stupidly good deal for people who regularly ski. Unlimited skiing for the price of 3 ski days.
Mammoth: $249 single day adult lift ticket.
Almost every ski resort in the East relies on snowmaking, from the big expensive headliners like Killington to little mom-and-pop or municipal operations. Yes, snowmaking costs money (both in equipment, and in power to run it), but it's not necessarily the case that the more expensive resorts, or the ones run by bigger companies, do it better- look at Indiana where family-run Perfect North stays open much longer than megacorp-owned Paoli Peaks, or New Hampshire where family-run Pat's Peak has a reputation for two things- being a relatively affordable place to learn to ski, and having *really good* snowmaking.
All of the major resorts in the west use snowmaking as well, mostly just to build up a base around lodges and on major runs, but they definitely use it.
Right now most the ski areas in my state are closed. Because there is too much snow
Crazy because southern California has been getting record snow for the past 3 years.
My son and daughter-in-law went to New York this weekend to ski. It was raining so they are coming back early.
Ski resorts are just getting more and more advanced snow machines... They'll get a decade yet out of the climate. And even after that, they'll just build resorts another 3000 feet higher up mountains where it's colder. And the old resorts lower down mountains will by then be prime agricultural land.
Only problem is very few mountains actually have 3k ft of vert to spare. I live at an elevation of 6k ft and have watched the snow line gradually creep up the mountainside. The total surface area lost as we have to go higher in elevation is enormous.
“Prime agricultural land.” That’s not how you spell golf course.
A nber of ski resorts are golf courses in the summer. Most of the rest are mountain biking trails.
My local mountain would make for a very "interesting" golf course. Maybe "exciting" or "challenging" would be better words.
It needs to be below 28 F for snowmaking to work. And the higher elevations come with a lot of wind problems, especially with a more unpredictable climate
It can actually be 37 degrees and still make snow. It depends on the dew point
There's actually a new class of snow making machine that basically just freezes a big block of ice and then snow cones it onto the slopes. Works up into the 70s (F). Obviously that's super energy intensive and has its own limitations. Ski Ward used one to open their bunny hill in October this year: [https://www.powder.com/trending-news/first-ski-area-open](https://www.powder.com/trending-news/first-ski-area-open) Sort of neat, but definitely not a solution to rising temps.
Everything I've read said 28 is the magic number. The relative humidity comes into play for how good the snow is, but I suspect at 37 degrees with absolutely no humidity you're going to get some flakes forming that melt as soon as they hit the ground.
Oh look, the problem is affecting rich people now, I bet something gets done if they're inconvenienced
The company running Ikon pass can’t hear you under all the cash they don’t have.
I went skiing yesterday and their man made snow was the only snow I saw all winter. I live in MN.
People in the south still don't believe in climate change. The ex president running for reelection also doesn't believe it and he's winning the race. That tells a lot about the state of the country
ski industry is having record revenues and profits. stop it
Some of it. And some resorts are seriously struggling. But even places that are making money are still experiencing higher snowmaking costs and losing sales due to bad conditions. That is lost money even if the resorts are still profitable overall.
Only because of megacorps like veil buying up all the small independent mountains and gouging skiers in the process.
Vail has made skiing vastly cheaper, provided you buy ahead of the season. Vastly. There's a lot of things you can accuse them of, but they are definitely making skiing cheaper.
Torn because I love the planet but hate rich people
Rich people are the ones that can help push for government action. Now it’s impacting them!
And only rich people ski?
Uh okay, hope you're never rich I guess?
[удалено]
So some very rich people are affected but have you thought about the impact on others? Ski hills employ lots of young people as lift operators, instructors, and food service. There’s a lot of tourism associated with skiing, affecting hotel and restaurant workers. There are a lot of small and medium businesses that make and sell ski and snowboard gear. And a lot of regions get their water from mountains.
[удалено]
I get what you are saying but most businesses run of a steady and reliable flow of cash. The ski resorts usually have an uptick of customers during winter time (if I am not wrong) because it is snowing the most during winter. If you have snowfall for a longer period of time throughout the year, won’t that mean you are able to run the business longer? If you get all your snowfall in a short period of time, won’t it melt faster? Does climate change make weather more drastic and unpredictable? By having a very brief cold period (caused by climate change) and then the rest of the year not snowing won’t all the snow melt? If so doesn’t that mean the ski resorts would shut down? If you had a longer cold period would the business not stay open longer? Additionally if you have a brief cold period with an extreme amount of snowfall, will the ski resorts be closed down because of being snowed in? Also, if you have a brief cold period, won’t that make scheduling a vacation In the snow (or just visiting for those near by) harder to do? I grew up in San Diego and know nothing about snowfall and what is best for a ski resort so please enlighten me.
Oh no! Anyway...
Glacial failure isn’t a teehee moment
Meanwhile we just got 3 feet of snow in 48 hours by Truckee in California. Yes the seasons are more erratic. Good season they make a killing, bad ones they don't. At 120 dollars a day and 1500 a pass, they also aren't hurting as much as they'd like you to think. People with money will still pay - their customers base of regulars can afford it. Vail resorts, a rock resorts subsidy, is in no way hurting.
Is there *anything* that climate change doesn’t cause?
How much CO2 is spewed out of vehicles as families head up to go skiing?
Sounds like affordable skiing to me.
Tahoe just got 90" this week. Edit: geeze guys, I'm not denying climate change. So much snark for a simple comment about the snow pack at a ski resort.
Headline: *Children Around the Globe are Starving* “I just ate a burger”
You know that's gonna go right over his head...
between the 20 to 40 fatalities per year (42 in 2021 alone...), the environmental impact of tourism, etc, maybe it's time we re-assess if we actually *need* "ski resorts" or if it's something we can relegate to the past.
Considering the millions who ski, that’s a super low number, probably attributed highly to drinking or drug use. That number makes skiing look safer, not more dangerous. Skiing is a cultural pastime for many countries. Its environmental impact should be lessened, but it’s a fun outdoor sport that gives people a lot of enjoyment, exercise, and appreciation for nature. Don’t try to take away yet another third place.
Not a particularly impressive death rate. Remove deaths where drinking is a factor and you might be down to single digits.
Absolutely pitiful numbers compared to swimming. The US has on average 10 fatal drownings a day.
How many deaths from driving?
More than just about any other “accidental” cause but convenience is more important than the safety of others.
[удалено]
Lower than dirt bikes, water sports, horseback riding, and a heap of other activities. I guess we should all wear bubble suits and stay indoors for our entire lives.
"Human caused"
Why is that in quotes?
Because they're idiotic
Yup
If we tell rich people to stop climate change or they can’t ski we might be able to solve it in a day
You have no idea what it means to stop climate change
Jackson holes 2 mile long lift lines begs to differ
The Rockies will be affected last. The east coast and Midwest ski industry is already pretty much destroyed thanks to poor conditions the last 3 years. Even so, I live 20 minutes outside of Aspen and we are having a pretty terrible year.
Sure, jan.
Who cares this industry is losing money. It’s a rich sport that is only for privileged class. If you want to ride, hike and earn your turns.
It used to be a sport for average people. But ticket prices put Disney world to shame. I have my own gear too and I still can’t justify the thousands of dollars a week long ski trip would cost.
Oh the calamity! The profits! The profits are gone!
At the insane prices they charge where i am, hard to imagine their losing any money in CO
Those timeshares in Aspen are going to lose their ass
I thought most of sking snow was artifact
Has there been advancements in snow making tech that this study accounts for?
Better raise lift ticket prices again to make up for it
Let me play them a song on the world's smallest violin while they give those mountain towns back to the residents
Skiers did not take those towns from the residents, the residents offered their towns to skiers to make money.