Thursday, March 9, 2006: Ski Areas and C-Change

None of this will be concern once we build the winterdomes. Business will be sufficiently lucrative once customers can be sold not only a lift ticket, but also the air they breathe inside the dome, the realistic whiteout simulations, and the heat capacity of the chilled atmosphere turned over as a result of organic thermogenesis.

<br><br>I'm not sure where you got the idea that any ski area in the PNW has installed snowmaking specifically to deal with climate change. It does not state that anywhere in the abstract of this talk. This talk is about what ski areas might do in the future.<br>

<br><br>I was responding to the blurb from Don Reading that you posted at the head of this thread. There he stated that snowmaking will be used to extend the season that will be made shorter by warmer climate. He didn't state it exactly that way, but that is what he is referring and he is spreading mis-information..... Its the kind of crud that I hear that really bugs the tar out of me because there are no facts to back up these claims, yet these educated bozo's keep spewing it out like it is fact. <br><br>

I sympathize with Jack's concerns. The abstract for the Don Reading lecture seems like a strange mix of materials from Climate Impact Group studies (which I think have focused on WA-OR more than Idaho) and snowmaking trends, which are probably more valid for Idaho than WA-OR. I don't know what to make of it. I'm not sure the first and second paragraphs make sense together.<br><br>For what it's worth, here's a link to a story in today's Seattle Times, which seems more narrowly focused on WA-OR, with no snowmaking issues thrown in.<br><br> "Global warming may melt away fun, study says" by Susan Gilmore.<br><br>I found the story interesting because it says that Hurricane Ridge is even more sensitive than Snoqualmie Pass to warming. I didn't know that before, but it makes sense. The Olympic Mountains don't benefit from the pool of cold air that sits in Eastern Washington much of the winter.

Regardless of whether snowmaking in the PNW is a good idea, I'm continually surprised when I hear avid skiers deny the possibility that global warming is occuring. I mean, let's say the probability the average snow level in the Cascades will be raised by 500 feet is only 10%; as a person who skis 60+ days a year, even a 1 in 10 chance seems scary enough to try and lower those odds. Whether scientists say it's inevitable, as the recent UW study did, or whether they say it's unlikely but possible, we, as recurring visitors to the snow, should be the ones working hardest to stop it, whether we personally believe it's going to happen or not. Disparaging the science or the scientists looks more like denial than anything constructive. <br><br>Even if you don't believe in global warming, Jack L, it's still in your best interest not to put down those who do believe in it. Just like Pascal's wager, if the scientists are right, you can only win (snow-wise) if people slow global warming. If they are wrong, you lose nothing. But if the scientists are right, and you prevent or discourage people from slowing global warming, then you lose (snow-wise). Q.E.D.

None of this will be concern once we build the winterdomes.  Business will be sufficiently lucrative once customers can be sold not only a lift ticket, but also the air they breathe inside the dome, the realistic whiteout simulations, and the heat capacity of the chilled atmosphere turned over as a result of organic thermogenesis.

<br><br>However, I'm sure there won't be an adequate market to justify the inclusion of long stretches of slide alder and devils club to approximate true Cascadonian approaches. And the lawyers will prevent inclusion of sketchy traverses above falls-to-death. <br><br>Maybe we can recycle all our packing peanuts by having them dumped in the mountains, and then Kam could design a ski that turns well in the stuff.

<br>Even if you don't believe in global warming, Jack L, it's still in your best interest not to put down those who do believe in it. Just like Pascal's wager, if the scientists are right, you can only win (snow-wise) if people slow global warming. If they are wrong, you lose nothing. But if the scientists are right, and you prevent or discourage people from slowing global warming, then you lose (snow-wise). Q.E.D.

<br><br>I did not put down anyone, my comments were directed at the text of the post. <br><br>You just need to understand the motivation of these studies and what their goal is. 'IF' there is this warming in WA, where is the data. Why is there no chart showing us this warming trend or higher snowlevels, etc. Pollution 20 and 30, even 50 years ago was many times worse then it is today. If "we" were causing this predicted warming (following the logic of the scientists) then it would make sense that warming would have been much higher back when pollution was much much worse, but they tell us that warming will be worse in the future at a time when our technology is getting better and better about reducing the pollution in our atmosphere. Do you think this makes sense? <br><br>There is an agenda, just like when the spotted owl was used to stop logging the GW fear is being used to drive us out of our cars, or to make gas/oil so expensive that we must use alternatives. Some of you may think this is a good thing, but I for one do not. Sorry for the ramble, but its all connected with the "no skiing in the future" topic.<br><br> <br><br><br>