https://www.saminfo.com/archives/2010-2 ... ate-change
The detail article referenced is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8016305556
The maps in the above two references are a bit fuzzy to identify specific areas, but the data can be found in tables here: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1 ... -mmc2.docx\
In popular media there's a lot of hand waving about declining snowpacks, which are generally not that relevant to skiing because they are typically measured at lower elevations. This study made a good faith attempt to use data near ski areas where possible, and to adjust snowfall estimates up and temperature estimates down where the data fell short of ski area elevation. It also mentioned steepness and exposure as important variables for spring snowmelt.
It's easy to find strange numbers in the table. For example Squaw Valley looks much better than Alpine Meadows despite similar top elevation but Squaw's base is 800 feet lower. Interestingly, when I skied both in late March of the lean 2013-14 season Squaw did ski better because the layout allows you to stay on the top 1,000-1,500 vertical even though there was barely any snow at all at the base or on the lower half of KT. At Alpine most runs lead to or close to its 6,900 foot base. But I doubt the study took nuances like this into account. When the areas were independent, Alpine was regarded by Tahoe skiers as the superior shoulder season resort due to its higher base.
The study said the objective of many areas should be to get 450 hours of snowmaking done by Dec. 15. Soon it will be necessary to have state of the art snowmaking in terms of efficiency, computerization etc. to achieve that. But at western areas that have that, the fraction of terrain under snowmaking remains modest. Vail is bragging that it is adding 262 acres to the 500 acres of snowmaking it has now. That will bring Vail up to 14% of total acreage.
The article mentioned in passing that state of the art snowmaking is more widespread in the Alps. Extent of snowmaking is too, as sbooker's testimonial from the Dolomites confirms. Liz and I saw one snowmaking pond at Ski Welt and it was twice the size of Mammoth's and probably not the only one. Austria has the highest proportion of low altitude resorts in the Alps and thus the most to lose if temperatures continue to rise at the rate of the past 40 years.
The likelihood of climate projections RCP4.5 or RCP8.5 in 2050 and 2090 is a different topic. But this study at least tries to apply those projections to US ski areas in a reasonable way. There are several such studies in the Alps, and Austria in particular.
The detail article referenced is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8016305556
The maps in the above two references are a bit fuzzy to identify specific areas, but the data can be found in tables here: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1 ... -mmc2.docx\
In popular media there's a lot of hand waving about declining snowpacks, which are generally not that relevant to skiing because they are typically measured at lower elevations. This study made a good faith attempt to use data near ski areas where possible, and to adjust snowfall estimates up and temperature estimates down where the data fell short of ski area elevation. It also mentioned steepness and exposure as important variables for spring snowmelt.
It's easy to find strange numbers in the table. For example Squaw Valley looks much better than Alpine Meadows despite similar top elevation but Squaw's base is 800 feet lower. Interestingly, when I skied both in late March of the lean 2013-14 season Squaw did ski better because the layout allows you to stay on the top 1,000-1,500 vertical even though there was barely any snow at all at the base or on the lower half of KT. At Alpine most runs lead to or close to its 6,900 foot base. But I doubt the study took nuances like this into account. When the areas were independent, Alpine was regarded by Tahoe skiers as the superior shoulder season resort due to its higher base.
The study said the objective of many areas should be to get 450 hours of snowmaking done by Dec. 15. Soon it will be necessary to have state of the art snowmaking in terms of efficiency, computerization etc. to achieve that. But at western areas that have that, the fraction of terrain under snowmaking remains modest. Vail is bragging that it is adding 262 acres to the 500 acres of snowmaking it has now. That will bring Vail up to 14% of total acreage.
The article mentioned in passing that state of the art snowmaking is more widespread in the Alps. Extent of snowmaking is too, as sbooker's testimonial from the Dolomites confirms. Liz and I saw one snowmaking pond at Ski Welt and it was twice the size of Mammoth's and probably not the only one. Austria has the highest proportion of low altitude resorts in the Alps and thus the most to lose if temperatures continue to rise at the rate of the past 40 years.
The likelihood of climate projections RCP4.5 or RCP8.5 in 2050 and 2090 is a different topic. But this study at least tries to apply those projections to US ski areas in a reasonable way. There are several such studies in the Alps, and Austria in particular.
Last edited: