"A Skier’s Guide to Climate Change"- news article.

[Ron]

although a couple of years is not significant, for the past couple of seasons here we have had noticeably more dense, wet snow. I actually picked up a pair of Liberty Origin 112's just for those days.

 

[Ron]

I'm posting up the explanation found in @Unpiste's article

Extreme Wet
A warmer climate spurs the evaporation of water from land and sea and allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture—thus setting the stage for more extreme precipitation.

See how heavy rainfalls have increased floods in Jefferson City, Missouri—and find other climate hot spots at risk from extreme precipitation on the Climate Hot Map.



The atmosphere's water-holding capacity increases by about 4 percent for every 1° Fahrenheit (0.6° Celsius) rise in temperature. This effect is similar to the difference between a warm bathroom and a cold bathroom: the mirror fogs up more when the air is warmer.

Extreme precipitation is likely when a storm passes through a warmer atmosphere holding more water. In warmer months, it takes the form of torrential rainstorms; in winter, blizzards are more likely.

At the same time, most regions, in the face of warming temperatures, are losing snow cover on the ground that lasts longer than 30 days. Winters are shorter, fewer cold records are set, more precipitation is falling as rain and less as snow—although whopper snowstorms are even more likely in some places—and snowpacks are shrinking and melting earlier. Whether precipitation falls as rain or snow, these extremes can heighten the risk of flood, and cause economic and social disruptions for communities unprepared to cope.

Wet places tend to get wetter. Atmospheric circulation over oceans, plains, and mountains helps determine where rainforests thrive and semi-arid regions develop. However, wet places tend to get wetter and dry places dryer in a warming world—as is already occurring today. Places now wetter than the historical average include Northern Europe, eastern North and South America, and northern and central Asia. Northern Scandinavia and South and North Korea recorded precipitation increases of 3-15 percent per decade between 1979 and 2005. In the U.S. Northeast, the number of days with very heavy precipitation rose by 58 percent over the last 50 years, while the number of such days in the U.S. Midwest rose 27 percent. Yet even as rainfall occurs in heavier events, the periods between these extremes are likely to become longer, warmer, and drier. Scientists expect these trends to intensify if our carbon emissions continue unabated.

 

[Eleeski]

The Human Race has lived through thousands and thousands of years with zero measurable carbon emissions other than a few camp fires. We haven't been around long with this level of greenhouse gas emission. We know based on that which is definitely preferable.

The Carbon Age has been about 200 years (stretching it a bit?). Humans have been human for about 50,000 years. Estimates put the total number of humans ever at 100 billion. Maybe 10 billion since the Carbon Age. So humans by population are 25 times more successful in the Carbon Age ((50000years/200 years)/(100billion/10 billion)) - and that's ignoring the quality of life (measured in childhood deaths, hunger, living conditions or any measure). So I guess I know which is "definitely preferable".

As far as CO2 reduction, we are definitely moving toward less CO2 generation. Solar panels have become cheap. Electric cars actually work. Wind power is taking over the Texas grid. @geepers Is it wrong to optimistically see things getting better? Agreed that we certainly haven't yet gotten to a point where CO2 levels are dropping. That will take years or decades - especially if we are to avoid prehistoric misery.

Of course, if solar farms don't get permitted, GMO rice is illegal and frivolous activities like skiing are prohibited, we could face misery far worse than prehistoric times.

Climate change is real. There will be challenges to deal with. But history shows us as very adaptable. And history also correlates warmer times with human advancement. Global warming is not guaranteed to be a bad thing!

Eric

 

[NZRob]

All we need as a good starting point and some leadership is some agreement between China, USA, India, Russia and Japan (as the top 5 CO2 emitters contributing about 60% of CO2 emissions) to act for the sake of the planet. Wouldn't be too hard getting those 5 round the table would it?

 

[Mike King]

All we need as a good starting point and some leadership is some agreement between China, USA, India, Russia and Japan (as the top 5 CO2 emitters contributing about 60% of CO2 emissions) to act for the sake of the planet. Wouldn't be too hard getting those 5 round the table would it?

Getting them there is only the start of the problem. And it is incomplete, as even controlling the emissions from those 5 countries would not be sufficient to abate the problem. Which brings up the really hard problem -- getting a global agreement with mandatory and enforceable obligations. Paris was not that. And given national sovereignty, how do you ultimately enforce obligations on nation states? Our recent past shows this problem in spades. If a nation state choses to breach an international agreement, what options do the remaining states have for enforcement? Are you willing to use the military to do so?

The long and short of it is that while mitigation is certainly something that should be in the toolkit, we must also look to what adaption options are available as well.

In other words, you can't only be an optimist. We've also got to be pessimists as well.

Perhaps I should start working on my waterskiing.

Mike

 

[Wilhelmson]

I have mixed feelings but know that I could do more. Even we common folk have very luxurious lifestyles these days.

 

[Wilhelmson]

 

[Tricia]

Interesting article..,scary prognosis for skiing if the climate changes as predicted. Also interesting last sentence about Epic and Ikon ski pass programs considering 2 year passes to offset a bad snow year. I guess a snow guarantee?

A Skier’s Guide to Climate Change: Enjoy It for Now - Bloomberg Businessweek
https://apple.news/AICh1E0PdQmiVvmQiHE3dOw

A couple clips from the article.
... though it is also investing heavily in zip lines, rope courses, and other summer activities.

^^^ This is a topic we talked about a couple years ago. These resorts need to expand their operations to be more viable for a family vacation for 4 seasons.
https://www.pugski.com/threads/mountain-coasters.6014/

And you're right, it's interesting that they may offer a two year pass.

 

[Tricia]

I have mixed feelings but know that I could do more. Even we common folk have very luxurious lifestyles these days.

I have been thinking about this a lot.
I have a good friend who has committed to zero usage of single use plastic and shared the process in social media.
No garbage bags, no ziplock bags, no straws, no single use plastic wear (Cups, utensils), no SU water bottles, she uses a bamboo toothbrush, but the area she is struggling is when she shops for things like toilet paper, because they are still packaged in single use plastic. Other shopping she does, she will take her own containers to shop for things like deli meat, cheese and such.
Unless our entire society goes away from single use plastic(think packaging for breads, buns, yogurt (and other stuff like yogurt), toilet paper, dish soap,.....its hard for us as individuals to completely eliminate it.

 

[Eleeski]

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/paper-plastic-or-reusable
Not all our popular environmental trends are valid.

We will need to embrace technology to deal with the problems the future presents us with - whether natural or man made problems. Especially as education becomes more common ( @Wilhelmson ) - something desirable to effect the innovations we will need.

These resorts need to expand their operations to be more viable for a family vacation for 4 seasons.

Squaw was busy rock climbing over the fourth, has a nice golf course, lots of music but they still need a pool/waterpark!

Eric

 

[eok]

As a student in the 70s, I studied the impacts that science/technology and population growth would have on the environment & society. Virtually all the bad stuff that was predicted back then is happening - and too much of it happening much sooner than projected back then. However, through the mid-90's, I saw hopeful signs of a growing global trend to actually do something about the risks. That is - back then - it seemed enough humans were more open to not play odds on the future of the global climate because the potential impacts were so awful.

Nature doesn't care about money or politics, nor does it negotiate.

 

[Doug Briggs]

What I see as the major obstacle to sustaining human life on our planet is those that advocate financial gain over environmental considerations. Whether or not climate change is human-induced or not, we need consider what we can do to preserve the natural resources we require to exist and act to retain them.

I'm reminded of this cartoon:

 

[Rostapher]

@eok is 100% correct!

EDIT: what @Doug Briggs said, except much less concise!

As a biologist & ecologist, I’ve spent countless hours in classes, lectures and reading about the various ways were destroying our future. While it is impossible to list all the different ways here (and stay on topic!), I would point everyone to NASA’s excellent global climate change site: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

One item I’d like to highlight that doesn’t get discussed much in the media is ocean acidification. Essentially, CO2 dissolves in ocean water and makes the ocean more acidic, i.e. lower pH (if you want to get into the chemistry details, follow the link to the NOAA page, https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification) That increased acidity then makes it harder for shellfish to create their shells & can actually dissolve shells and coral reefs, if it becomes too acidic. If we lose shellfish and coral reefs, that means a large part of all ocean life may die off. Why does it matter? This will negatively affect humans from the oxygen we breathe (50+% of O2 comes from the ocean), to how clean the water is and what species are left for humans to eat. Excellent explanations here: https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification
Note that this effect ONLY is caused by the existence of more CO2 in the atmosphere, not warming, changes in precipitation, etc.

As for all things climate change related, an important fact to remember is this: yes, humans, other species and the planet are very adaptable, but the massive problem is the RATE of change. Conditions are changing and CO2 levels are rising faster than just about any point in the earth’s history. This is and will continue make it much harder for species to adapt (e.g. oak trees can only migrate so quickly!).

Some climate change is already baked into the CO2 we’ve already released, and we are already seeing some effects (yes, this winter’s record snows are an example). The crucial goal now is to reverse course to try to limit the amount of change. Are summers & winters going to be 10 degrees hotter or 20? Are sea levels going to rise by 5 feet or 15? Will there still be lots of places to ski or will skiing be a super niche (& hyper carbon intensive) pursuit for the ultra wealthy like climbing Everest is today?

That’s why I would encourage everyone to consider your own lifestyle and ways you can reduce your impact. Maybe you can be like @Tricia s friend and refuse single use plastic, maybe you can invest in energy efficient improvements to your home & add solar panels, if you have the option sign up for a renewable electricity plan or provider. You can also have fewer kids, use less of almost everything, fly less, reduce your meat consumption, buy an electric or hybrid car, ride a bike, take the bus or train and use & repair your ski gear for as long as possible. Honestly, just considering all the ways you use energy & resources everyday is start.

The other part is harder, but more important, major systemic change. Elect people to all levels of government who support a carbon tax, and will stop subsidizing and are not beholden to fossil fuel special interests. Also, lobby companies to change their actions as well to work to reduce their impact. Use your money and investments to make changes as well. Honestly, I think the US could get this done fairly quickly with our innovation and entrepreneurial culture, except for the entrenched industry interests. Even with those headwinds, some progress is still being made! https://www.utilitydive.com/news/lo...olar-storage-deal-at-199713-cents-kwh/558018/

The upshot of it all is this: I love skiing, snow and cold weather, while at the same time I realize that the pursuit of skiing is a carbon intensive activity, so yes, I’m incredibly hypocritical, I know. So, what that means is that I’m trying to mitigate my impact in dozens of other ways & encouraging others to do the same, that way I feel a little less burdened by my carbon debt the next time I’m skiing a steep tree line or ripping down the groomers.

 

[crgildart]

Maybe that indoor ski hill at the Meadowlands will finally open... because it will be the only viable ski hill in the east south of Stowe?

 

[Eleeski]

destroying our future

?
Wow. When life for humans on the whole is improving, this sounds like hyperbole. Dangerous because if generally accepted, society will suffer from inappropriate reactions.

I don't want to live the lifestyle you are picturing. Instead, I will watch as society and technology evolve. And still enjoy skiing.

Eric

 

[Unpiste]

The Carbon Age has been about 200 years (stretching it a bit?). Humans have been human for about 50,000 years. Estimates put the total number of humans ever at 100 billion. Maybe 10 billion since the Carbon Age. So humans by population are 25 times more successful in the Carbon Age ((50000years/200 years)/(100billion/10 billion)) - and that's ignoring the quality of life (measured in childhood deaths, hunger, living conditions or any measure). So I guess I know which is "definitely preferable".

What are you actually trying to argue?

Looking at carbon emissions as a uniform, 200-year "Carbon Age" simply isn't accurate:

(Chart taken from an in-depth article here: ourworldindata.org.) Note how much emissions have increased in the past 20 years vs. the past 200 years.

Estimates are that it takes on the order of 10 years to feel the full impact of CO2 emissions, and the impact essentially never goes away on its own (climatecentral.org). Humanity has already committed to a massive amount of warming that's yet to be felt, both in the form of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere, but also in the form of the industries built on their production, which can't realistically reverse course over a short time period without inducing the "spiraling negative impacts" you mention earlier. This is why it's essential to plan for the future; it will take decades to see the benefits from (and consequences of) changes implemented today.

No one is (realistically) arguing that humanity should go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle. That's ridiculous, but a simple search will turn up numerous reports on just how bad a warming climate is likely to be for those least able to do something about it. (Canada's government has a good summary here.) Part of the solution is certainly to do everything possible to help these people help themselves. Even if you believe that may be the solution, is the world actually doing much better on that front than on addressing climate change directly, and are you confident that the progress we've achieved will survive in the face of increasing climate-related adversity? (If so, why?)

As far as CO2 reduction, we are definitely moving toward less CO2 generation. Solar panels have become cheap. Electric cars actually work. Wind power is taking over the Texas grid. @geepers Is it wrong to optimistically see things getting better? Agreed that we certainly haven't yet gotten to a point where CO2 levels are dropping. That will take years or decades - especially if we are to avoid prehistoric misery.

I'm sure you're aware of the numerous federal, state, and local incentives that helped drive the development and adoption of these technologies. This did not happen in a vacuum.

Of course, if solar farms don't get permitted, GMO rice is illegal and frivolous activities like skiing are prohibited, we could face misery far worse than prehistoric times.

Is anyone suggesting that, as part of humanity's response to climate change, we should block permitting of solar farms or outlaw nutritionally enhanced GMO rice?

Climate change is real. There will be challenges to deal with. But history shows us as very adaptable. And history also correlates warmer times with human advancement. Global warming is not guaranteed to be a bad thing!

I encourage you to look at this chart (source: climate.gov, i.e. NOAA):


In 2017, the average CO2 concentration was more than 30% higher than at any point we have data on in the Earth's climate record, let alone human history. What historical data applies to the current situation?

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/paper-plastic-or-reusable
Not all our popular environmental trends are valid.

From my reading, the linked article really just boils down to, "reduce, reuse, recycle" (and the importance of designing legislation that achieves that, in that order). The details are certainly interesting and I'd encourage anyone to read it, but ultimately, if you're going to buy a reusable bag constructed out of more durable and more energy intensive materials to produce, you're obviously going to have to actually reuse it to see an environmental benefit. That's why legislation designed to encourage bag reuse nearly if not always stipulates fees for purchasing new bags.

There's also a flip side this article doesn't explore: what happens to your bag when you are done with it. Yes, there may be a little hypocrisy in banning plastic bags only to have people to use paper instead when you look at it purely from the perspective of CO2 emissions. (Though, really, the aim should be to get people to use reusable bags.) What this ignores is the impact of that plastic bag over the 10–1,000 years it's going to take to decompose.

 

[NZRob]

In other words, you can't only be an optimist. We've also got to be pessimists as well.

I should have made more effort to highlight the extreme sarcasm I was using in those comments about getting large polluting nations around the table to get any kind of agreement!

 

[NZRob]

What I see as the major obstacle to sustaining human life on our planet is those that advocate financial gain over environmental considerations. Whether or not climate change is human-induced or not, we need consider what we can do to preserve the natural resources we require to exist and act to retain them.

View attachment 77003

This!

Every day there is something in the news to this effect - a corporation or government acting in short-term self-interest at the expense of long-term sustainability. Example from yesterdays news: Brazilian deforestation in 2019 highest in recent memory as Bolsonaro government weakens environment ministry and allows more logging, mining and farming (in May 739 square km of forest was lost - 1-2 football pitches per minute).

 

[AmyPJ]

I have been thinking about this a lot.
I have a good friend who has committed to zero usage of single use plastic and shared the process in social media.
No garbage bags, no ziplock bags, no straws, no single use plastic wear (Cups, utensils), no SU water bottles, she uses a bamboo toothbrush, but the area she is struggling is when she shops for things like toilet paper, because they are still packaged in single use plastic. Other shopping she does, she will take her own containers to shop for things like deli meat, cheese and such.
Unless our entire society goes away from single use plastic(think packaging for breads, buns, yogurt (and other stuff like yogurt), toilet paper, dish soap,.....its hard for us as individuals to completely eliminate it.

I REALLY want to petition Costco to get on the bandwagon of offering refillable containers, and stopping the use of single-use plastic at the very least. I get sick to my stomach every time I go there and come home with packaged packages of packages.

What I see as the major obstacle to sustaining human life on our planet is those that advocate financial gain over environmental considerations. Whether or not climate change is human-induced or not, we need consider what we can do to preserve the natural resources we require to exist and act to retain them.

I'm reminded of this cartoon:

View attachment 77003

I have always said, "if 97% of climate scientists are wrong, then what's the worst that can happen? We have cleaner air to breathe and clean water to drink? But if climate science deniers are wrong, then we're ALL screwed." I don't take this lightly as the mother of a young child. Honestly, I had only ONE for a reason, and this was one of them.

 

[NZRob]

I REALLY want to petition Costco to get on the bandwagon of offering refillable containers, and stopping the use of single-use plastic at the very least. I get sick to my stomach every time I go there and come home with packaged packages of packages.
.

Single use plastic bags became illegal in New Zealand from 1 July. And with a minor adjustment to routine it is nowhere near the inconvenience you might think it will be.

Now there is a lot of pressure coming to bear on the problem you so nicely described - packaged goods within packages within packages. Also straws and other wasteful single use plastics. BYO containers is slowly catching on in places.

BTW, we were in Japan recently and it was the worst place I've seen for packaging and wasteful use of plastic.

You've got my signature if you petition Costco, coincidentally there is one opening in NZ soon, so if they can do it here, they can do it there!