By Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
Last month, more than 100 ski resorts joined the Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP) Climate Declaration. The BICEP declaration urges that Americans “use less electricity,” “drive a more efficient car,” and choose “clean energy” to combat climate change. Ski resorts are concerned that global warming will reduce snowfall and hurt the skiing industry.
Skiing executive Auden Schendler said, “Aspen Skiing Company joined the climate declaration because if there is an industry that ought to care about climate change, it’s the ski industry.” The 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns of a difficult future for the industry: “…snow cover area is projected to contract…mountainous areas will face glacier retreat, reduced snow cover and winter tourism…shifting of ski slopes to higher altitudes.”
There’s just one problem. Continental snowfall has been increasing.
According to the Rutgers University Global Snow Laboratory, North American snowfall extent has been gradually rising over the last 40 years. The year 2010 showed the largest continental land area covered by winter snow since the data set began in 1967.
What makes otherwise sensible people fear that snow is disappearing when snowfall is actually increasing? It’s the ideology of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. Belief in this same ideology causes people to purchase light bulbs that are slow to light and to buy electric cars that can’t go very far. Climatism causes state governments to mandate erection of wind turbine towers that often stand idle.
But if snowfall is changing, why do people believe that government action can change such a climatic trend? In the fall of 2009, the mayor of Moscow declared that the Russian Air Force was now able to “keep it from snowing.” Five months later, in February of 2010, Moscow received 21 inches of snow in a single storm. Last winter, Moscow received the most snow in a century.
Nevertheless, we probably have bipartisan support in Congress for regulation of snowfall. Save the polar bears and the snow.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Related articles
- Southern California mountains face snowfall drop (fresnobee.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All ski resorts to buy carbon credits now to cover all energy used on the resorts by themselves, their customers and facilities.
I love skiing, but simply can’t afford it. (The last time my wife and I skiied was due to pretending we were interested in a condo, over a decade ago. We had to sit through a mind-numbing presentation, and some high pressure sales tactics, but in the end we got a free night in a lodge and two days worth of free lift tickets.)
They used to have ski areas on every other hill, here in New Hampshire. A primitive rope tow run by a rusty model T engine would jerk people, sometimes face-first, up the hill. It was great fun, and even when the bear-trap-bindings snapped your ankle, people were good natured about opening doors or dodging your crutches, and just about everyone, even people you didn’t like, would sign your cast. Oh….and also, it didn’t cost much.
Then insurance companies got involved, all weepy and sniffy-nosed about safety, (and about having to pay,) and they made skiing “safer.” And the result is? Only the rich get to ski much, the middle class can barely afford it if they skimp and save, and the blue collar bums can’t afford it at all.
Now, who believes in the fraud of Global Warming? Is it the blue collar bums who work out in the weather, with sun burnt faces and redneck necks? Or is it the ones just the perfect shade of tan, either via bleaching to lighten skin or tanning booths to irradiate skin darker, who don’t work outside, or work at all?
Statistics show that the only ones who give a damn about Global Warming are privileged people, people who can afford to ski and bake in tanning booths. It has gotten so bad that, where they once said, “Cocaine is God’s way of telling you that you have too much money,” I think many are starting to say, “Belief in Global Warming is God’s way of telling you that you have too much money.”
Because the ski resorts depend on a wealthy clientele, they smile and nod and make nice noises about the politics of the wealthy. However, because they have to work damn hard to make money, in the back rooms after hours, over a beer, they smile less, nod less, and a murmur of discontent is growing. Many are realizing that the party which was suppose to be for the blue collar is actually for the blue blood.
D—! My comment is “awaiting moderation,” likely because I used the word d—. Sorry about that.
The solution is obvious: the government must compensate the resorts for this loss of income due to the (imagined) loss of snowfall. You just know that’s what the ski industry is angling for.
=================================================================
A Snow-Job Loss Bill?
I’ve done my best to stop global warming of ski resorts. I’ve not flown, driven nor used one. Are these guys angling for government payments?
I suppose nobody mentioned that snow areas that are at present too high or too far from the equator would then become more accessible for skiing under global warming? Not every snow capped mountain is currently used for skiing, some are just too inaccessible due to excessive snow to be currently used commercially.
Skiing executive Auden Schendler said, “Aspen Skiing Company joined the climate declaration because if there is an industry that ought to care about climate change, it’s the ski industry.”
===========
It is not the patrons that matter, it is the industry ?
See how far that business plan takes you.
This is pure marketing. Of course the ski resorts want to support “more snow” and to protect the environment. Dollars and cents.
So when the snows they’re requesting pile up into the glaciers we’re expecting, do we all get to share in a class action lawsuit against these 100 ski resorts as co-defendants?
It would be a pyrrhic victory, for sure, but a small degree of satisfaction would be welcome.
Let’s see how well those lifts work with only windmills and/or solar supplying energy!!
Check the same source for the snow cover in spring:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=2
Just having a record heavy snowfall at NZ’s South Island Mt Hutt ski field. Must be the Al Gore effect.
Easy solution. Just mandate that everyone going to a ski resort must travel by electric car, then sit back and see how long the industry survives.
And in further news: All of the major ski fields in NZ are set to have bumper seasons with massive snow dumps throughout the country. Have a look at the cardrona skifield website if you are interested.
The real effect of “Climate Change” is to bring out all the chicken littles.
Found (at random) on the web.
“Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently estimated that about 600,000 skiers and snowboarders are injured each year in the U.S.” (The Denver Post)
“73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010 ” (CDC Centres for Disease Control and Prevention).
I have a relative going in for surgery this week, due to a skiing accident.
Bloke down the pub says: June 20, 2013 at 2:31am:
And they can’t fly there, drive their electric car all the way!
Everyone who believes in CACC needs to start living the way they intend all of us to live, before I give them one ounce of creedence. Get rid of your fossil fuel car, never fly in a plane again and never turn your lights on, TV on after dark, then, and maybe only then will I truely believe that they truly believe the crap they spout.
Wouldn’t it be grand to list all the major alarmists and the kinds of cars they drive, just to see who the true hypocrites really are.
The rich worry about climate change because they don’t want to give up their lifestyles. They want the rest of us to give up ours so they can continue to live high on the hog. This is called sustainability. Everyone else gives up something so those at the top can sustain their elegant lifestyles. After all, they are the beautiful people. They deserve special treatment. If you are living in Aspen with a 6 or 7 figure income, the last thing you want is change.
I can’t think of a bigger waste of energy than shipping people and supplies to places they were not meant to live, for the express purpose of a joy ride down a hill.
I agree. People should quit patronizing these resorts. For the earth. For our children.
So, I can alleviate my carbon footprint guilt by hovel-ling in the cold darkness so that the wealthy elite might go skiing.
I think not
Thanks. I’m erasing them from my vacation planner list.
Perhaps, BICEPS, can help others improve their own muscles by closing the lifts and putting in steps. Should be a real win win win……
The key questions for ski resorts are actually slightly different to a ‘breadth of snow coverage’ in square kms.
1. They need sufficient snowfall early in the season to cover up rocks, fill in gullies etc etc so that the ski trails can be safe for users.
2. They need the climate to avoid sudden warming events, particularly with rain, which wash away snow already on the ground (which may cause landslides if the rain is torrential).
3. They need gentle freeze thaw cycles to consolidate the snow-pack so that when the spring sun comes, the melt is slow and enjoyable, thereby extending the season.
4. They would like the resort runs to remain in good condition for the periods of high season.
During the 1983 – 2005 period in the European Alps, some of these failed to occur regularly enough: early snow was regularly absent, whereas snow falling beyond mid-March, whilst a bonus, doesn’t radically extend ski seasons as it will never form a consolidated snow pack before the spring sunshine burns it off. In several seasons, radical rainfall/warming events occurred which decimated lower slopes, whilst in others, extended high pressure periods prevented the build up of snow pack between Christmas and mid-February.
Another thing which is the case is that the interests of the highest ski resorts may be favoured by conditions which marginalise the lower ones. Snowfall is likely to be heavier at higher altitude if temperature rises slightly, whereas in lower resorts, that may lead to rain, not snow.
There is, however, little data to suggest that the temporary hiatus is a permenant feature, with recent winters returning to the ‘more traditional’ format of snow, cold and storms in the first half of the season.
Whilst the analysis in the US may be different, I would suggest that people look for cyclical trends to discern what has been going on and therefore what is likely to occur in the future.
Yes, shut down ski resorts. Rich people can find some other toys to play with; toys that don’t leave such a huge, ugly carbon footprint: traveling to and from, lodging, heating, maintainance during the off-season, etc., etc. Shut down the ski resorts and save the planet.