Shrinking Snow Means Steep Slide for Ski Industry

From pbs.org

Hey Chris, you might be careful using the term Champagne________  

Sign up for news and our top posts


33 Comments

  1. K eep S tanding in L ine says:

    I still find it hard to believe that we as a society have enough evidence to support the claim of global warming shutting down the ski industry. The weather records only go back 80 years or so. How can we be so sure it isn’t a cycle thats longer than that??? And don’t tell me about the polar ice cap data because for all we truly know they have little or no relation to snowfall/global warming. I’m just trying to think long term and personally believe we havent screwed up our enviroment/ecosystems enough by now to cause such huge changes.

    Reply
    • PT at Donner says:

      The ski industry will be fine, but……………polar ice caps-little relationship-to warming. So do you think they are melting because it is colder perhaps? LOL Yes you are entitled to your beliefs. I think perhaps I will continue to believe in science.

      Reply
      • BoGnar says:

        You are basing your beleafs on science that has limited data to support any theriories. Earth and her weather patterns go back millions of years. To call “global warming” off data that is very limited is not very scientific. We need to continue to collect data for hundreds of years to get even a slight idea of what long term weather patterns look like.
        But keep your head in the media hole if that makes you happy. Media coined global warming. Media is not science.

        Reply
        • Minnesota says:

          What is so limited about carbon dioxide sample collected in 100000 year old ice cores harvested 2 miles below the surface? Earth has been warming and cooling since formation, science is looking at the RATE of increase. Does this mean it will never cool? No, it is guaranteed to do so when fission at the Earths core slows. But does this mean human activity is affecting the surface condition? Yes. The data is very scientific and very specific. Conclusions based on comparison is the oldest most trusted form of science. Distance stars measured by Doppler effect as an example. You clearly haven’t grasped the concepts or terms and shouldn’t be muddling the issue.

          Reply
          • Dilltron says:

            Do you have any idea how small of a period of time 100000 years is when talking about the history of the Earth? Yea, agreed that this is a very viable and trustworthy form of science that produces accurate results but looking at 100000 years out of 4,500,000,000 years is sort of limited…. dont try to act informed when you are simply ignorant.

            Stay blissful

          • Minnesota says:

            Dill torn RATE OF INCREASE over the last 1000000 years are you so ignorant as to believe humans have been burning fossil fuels for 4.5 m years? Enjoy your smug fart smell though, thanks.

        • cmh says:

          I beleaf in trees.

          Reply
    • PNDUB says:

      keep telling yourself that dude. I’d prefer you and others would come to the realization that global human populations and mega industry pollutants are slowly destroying the planet. What’s the downside to making a conscious effort to curb pollution?….making an effort? WOW

      Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      You clearly don’t have any appreciation for the environment, and haven’t read anything of value on the subject of global warming.

      Reply
    • Chip says:

      More work needed on that ‘trying to think’ thing..

      Reply
    • Bob Van der Rip says:

      Well that is an interesting observation. heck yeah! what do those “climate scientists” know anyway? most likely they’re just guessing and hoping “society” believes them. love the part about ice fields melting not correlating with warm weather…sounds reasonable to me.

      Reply
    • David Stewart says:

      We are all entitled to our own beliefs. I’m of the contention that people who strive to deny climate change rather than adapt and–perhaps–make lifestyle changes are dumber than the mud on the bottom of my shoe.

      Although, I do admit, I can see how it would be a comforting ideology to adopt.

      Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      well you would be wrong

      Reply
    • Skittle says:

      “…we truly know they have little or no relation to snowfall/global warming.”

      ^haha

      Reply
  2. Mike Fennelly says:

    PT you are on the right track. But Science is not something one believes in. Science is recognized as fact, as it is proven by method. Things that are believed in are not proven by definition. So climate change is proven by factual evidence.

    Reply
  3. Matt says:

    Ignorance is bliss…if you do not believe that industrialization has had and will continue to have a direct impact on our climate you are truly ignorant…

    Reply
  4. Go West says:

    I’m gonna be that guy. Humans are not big enough to significantly change the global climate. There are “good” years and “bad” years. Depends on what you are, but there is no normal. Normal would imply that the climate never changes, from our records we can tell that it does. I agree we ought to be responsible with ol’ mother but making people abide by new laws and regulations by making them feel guilty is worse than the portrayed doom and gloom of climate change. This is not the first time the earth has warmed, what are we going to do when it starts cooling again (some stats say it has), new laws to control that too? People love a good crisis.

    Reply
  5. mdskier says:

    Waiting for the Champagne guys in France to sue Steamboat for using their
    Champagne word. LOL

    Reply
  6. Zog says:

    Even James Lovelock has now pointed out that world temperatures are today the same as they were 15 years ago, notwithstanding the fact that manmade CO2 emissions continue to increase.

    So, PT, if you believe in science you will reassess.

    Reply
  7. anon says:

    haha, i guess global warming now affects quite specific areas. didn’t PNW have record snowfall last year less than a thousand miles away from CO? and just in 2010-2011, the entire west had record snows. this video is horseshit trying to explain why the last two season have been dicey in some areas. it is not persuasive science.

    Reply
    • O'Doyle Rules! says:

      Oh, the ol’ “That particular report wasn’t persuasive to me so there must not be any truth in it” argument. A popular choice at the ‘Don’t fuck with my wastefully rich lifestyle that’s dependent on cheap energy” table.

      Of course each side will cherry pick their data, but only one side is arguing for the long term benefit of everyone… even if they are wrong.

      Reply
      • anon says:

        i guess man, i wasn’t really speaking of “the ol’” anything. but given your touchiness, yeah, i don’t want you to fuck with any aspect of my lifestyle. its not my fault people hype of CO snow everywhere but wolf creek and then blame humanity that they don’t ski in SLC, jackson, tahoe or anywhere else out west with heavier snowfall.

        Reply
  8. think about this... says:

    While the term Global Warming is easy to dismiss with claims of “Last year, Tahoe had RECORD snow”, or “It snowed in Alabama so it can’t be Global Warming”. What people fail to realize is that there is a difference between Weather and Climate. While the overall trend of human influenced climate change may be a warming trend, the day-to-day, or even year to year, implication is simply more extreme weather. This means, yes there will still be “record” snow years for the foreseeable future, but that doesn’t mean man’s influence isn’t changing the system.

    Anytime you have a system as complex as the earth, small changes in input can drastically affect the output. And, like other folks have mentioned, if you’re afraid of taking some precautions, then I just assume you’re a lazy pussy.

    Reply
  9. K eep S tanding in L ine says:

    I mean yes the trend in thinking AND evidence points towards the fact being that we are indeed being affected, and will continue to be affected by warming earth temps. I wholely support measures to curb this byproduct myself and am not fat, rich or lazy as some of you have jabbed. I simply support another way of looking at it. For all we know this is what the earth does every three million years, it gets hot, melts everything and returns to being a rock orb surrounded by gases. Just saying believers or non-believers don’t truly know shit about this subject so arguing it is pointless.

    Reply
    • Socratic Oaf says:

      And for all we know, we’re just like… in someone’s dream. Like, this is all just, you know… like a video game or something. What if someone wrote a computer simulation and we’re all just in it. Like… none of this is even real… but it is… like…real.

      I’m just saying… it could be true. And you can’t prove that it’s not. So it really doesn’t matter what we do… because… it’s pointless to care when it might just all be in our heads.

      …..and the Herp Derp just keeps derping on.

      Reply
  10. Robo says:

    “Climate Change Skeptic No Longer Doubts Human Role in Global Warming”
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec12/climatechange_09-17.html

    and if you want more evidence….
    http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

    Or we could be part of ‘The Flat Earth Society’…..be like those frogs in tanks of water being heated up that don’t ‘figure it out soon enough’ and end up being stewed…. I don’t mind being ‘baked’, but i hate being stewed. If we try to go ‘green’ and there was no real anthropogenic climate change, we’re still (somewhat) OK, but if we hide our heads, continue along the path we’re on and we reach critical mass/a tipping point past ‘no return’ we are screwed & stewed. Maybe not in our lifetime, but surely in our children’s.

    Reply
    • J.Handy says:

      I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children’s children, because I don’t think children should be having sex.

      Reply
  11. scrubitkook says:

    Carbon resevoir residence times :
    biosphere
    atmosphere
    hydrosphere
    lithosphere

    go read a few books, you could all benefit from it.
    then make some decisions

    Reply
    • scrubitkook says:

      well… what happens when you take carbon out of a resevoir which has a long residence time, such as the lithosphere, and then put it into one such as the atmosphere? carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas…
      oh wait increased greenhouse effect! its really not f-ing rocket science… global temperature increases, its simple cause and effect. how hard is that to believe or grasp??

      Reply
  12. BoGnar says:

    The Unoffical dipshittary provides some excellent/ stupid points of view.
    Thanks to all

    Reply
  13. uh says:

    STAN!!! WE DIDN’T LISTEN!!!

    Reply
  14. crudmaster says:

    Was that a booger in her nose?

    Reply

Leave a Comment