Alta, UT 1/30-31/2016
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
That would be 4 in row. Compare to the 4 years before that in Utah: 124%, 115%, 98% and 134%. Drawing long term conclusions based upon 4 years is absurd. I stand by my comments.OldDog":2062jps8 said:
I have always said the rain/snow line is what we should watch for as the impact of temperature increase. If snowfall is decreasing, it's not yet happening at ski area elevations anywhere in the Rockies where I'm getting data.coldsmoke":2062jps8 said:
With regard to water content, there are very few locations where I have that info.
Last 11 years from the Alta website: 9.3%, 8.9%, 7.6%, 7.4%, 7.6%, 9.3%, 9.0%, 7.6%, 9.3%, 8.7%
Mammoth 1983-2014: 13.8% 14.0% 11.6% 15.9% 10.3% 11.0% 13.4% 11.4% 11.7% 11.2% 13.0% 9.7% 13.9% 17.3% 17.6% 13.3% 14.6% 12.6% 8.2% 12.8% 10.4% 10.5% 13.4% 12.9% 12.6% 12.2% 11.7% 11.2% 11.2% 12.4% 12.6% 11.5%
I don't see any trend in either of those data sets. I welcome seeing data from additional ski areas. Logically we should be looking at coastal sites for the first signs of either decreasing snowfall or increasing water content. The Central Sierra Snow Lab west of Donner Summit is one candidate with lots of data. The ratio of total water Nov-Apr to total snow Nov-Apr rose from 13.3% from 1971-1987 to 14.4% from 1988-2014. This data is quite volatile. The outlier year was 1996-97 at 27.3% due to the huge New Year's rainstorm to 12,000 feet that flooded Squaw, Yosemite and some of the Central Valley. The Central Sierra Snow Lab has always seen significant winter rain along with abundant snow, so it should have some sensitivity to temperature increases.
I'm not disputing in any way that temperatures have risen over the time period of my ski area data, from the 1970's to the present. But I can demonstrate that at western ski area elevations, that increase has had negligible impact upon snowfall.
I also don't dispute than greenhouse gases are a significant component of that temperature increase. However, the ability of current climate models to quantify future increases is highly suspect as evidenced by the significant overprojection of the recent past.
Just because the temperature increase hasn't affected western ski area snowfall so far doesn't mean it might not in the future. If/when that happens we'll see it first in lower elevation coastal climates. Impacts upon higher elevations would come decades later.
Climate change, normal temp swings, the real elephant is the decision whether to sit in traffic or get up at 4:00. Sitting in traffic this season sucks, way worse than the loss of powder. If I get up to arrive at 8:30 I find I'm there at 9:30, even on closure free days.
We can argue whether the Wasatch gets more or less snow, what would be harder to argue is that the crowds are less. It seems neither the arteries supplying the canyons nor the lots servicing them are sufficient this season. LCC has been wall to wall cars this season, my son (who has a Brighton pass) has been turned back from the Brighton lots numerous times this year.
The resorts seem to absorb the people once they get here, but getting them here is appearing to be the problem. I'm not sure of the solution but connecting the resorts isn't going to do shit but give marketing another reason to bring more people here to make it worse.
Any ideas?
We can argue whether the Wasatch gets more or less snow, what would be harder to argue is that the crowds are less. It seems neither the arteries supplying the canyons nor the lots servicing them are sufficient this season. LCC has been wall to wall cars this season, my son (who has a Brighton pass) has been turned back from the Brighton lots numerous times this year.
The resorts seem to absorb the people once they get here, but getting them here is appearing to be the problem. I'm not sure of the solution but connecting the resorts isn't going to do shit but give marketing another reason to bring more people here to make it worse.
Any ideas?
Which is why it would be informative if admin could round up that skier visit data for the LCC areas. :stir:BobMc":primuolc said:
But both are operating on Forest Service land. Presumably that's why, through 2007, SkiUtah released info on the Park City group of areas (all on private land) in aggregate but showed all of the other areas individually.admin":3mf0qntx said:
http://www.ski-blog.com/skier_visits.php\
How about filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the Forest Service?
Marc_C
Active member
The nice thing about science is that when new data shows previous interpretations were incorrect, those interpretations are modified as necessary. Your statement above ignores 25 years of additional research and model revision, and as such is irrelevant.Admin":14c2zsuz said:
Marc_C
Active member
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ely-is-the-observed-recent-warmth/#more-18962Admin":3mtkjvdc said:
Disclaimer: I quoted that p value both from memory and, as it turns out, a different source (which I'm still trying to relocate).
Edit: the paper linked to in that article by author of said article with some other links to similar papers in the comments section:
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831
Which would be fine if it were Mars we were studying and not living in the same economic system that we are significantly altering, likely irreversibly.
I'll read your links and do some background research on the sources when I'm not working and therefore have the time. In the meantime keep looking for your proper source.
I'll read your links and do some background research on the sources when I'm not working and therefore have the time. In the meantime keep looking for your proper source.
Marc_C
Active member
You hit on a very important distinction - what to do about anthropogenic contributions and how to mitigate the economic impact. That particular discussion I leave entirely to the economists. For example, I still really don't fully understand cap and trade. It just seems like accounting sleight of hand and not a realistic way to actually reduce carbon emissions.Admin":37h0axg9 said:
Admin and MarcC in disagreement on FTO! 
Yes, and an opportunity for well-connected lobbies to influence hard-to-understand legislation in their favor.admin":3vssexid said:
Of course we can't consider a simple carbon tax, enforced to be revenue neutral by say, cutting the payroll tax on the first X% of earned income.
Certain ideologues won't countenance any new tax increases, even if explicitly offset by tax cuts that would help the economy more. :stir: Admin?
Tony Crocker":3d8my73e said:
As someone looking to justify his solar panel installation, I'm sure that idea seems attractive to you.
In principle only, I have no problem with a revenue-neutral tax swap. However, in the example you've cited, a) using taxes to manipulate citizen behavior to conform with what a subset of society deems to be the "right" thing to do bothers me severely (hence my aversion to sin taxes like those on alcohol, tobacco, etc.); and b) I find using taxes to manipulate behavior that we can't even prove results in the desired outcome, like the subject suggestion, to be even more bothersome. Then, of course there's also c) Unless there's a way to convince China, India, etc. to alter their behavior, anything we were to do unilaterally is just pissing into the wind turbine -- whether there's any such thing as anthropogenic global warming or not.
And the current resident taking up space in our White House has proven that c) can't be done.
I'll freely admit the $4/watt state/city subsidy I got in 2008 was extremely lavish. However, since then the cost of solar panels has dropped by half and the capacity per square foot has increased 50%. Thus Richard installed solar panels in December with no city/state subsidy and will have a faster payback (he also has higher cost SoCal Edison power vs. the municipal utility in Glendale).admin":2sa36vkj said:
From a free market perspective the carbon tax has two main attractions.
1) By taxing the externality directly, it avoids the "picking winners and losers" approach of government subsidies of new technologies. I agree that the venture capitalists are likely to do a better job of deciding the most promising new technologies.
2) Cutting the payroll tax (both employer and employee) is unquestionably an economic winner in terms of encouraging hiring for entry level jobs. Taxing carbon (or OPEC imports if you like that better) is less detrimental to the economy than much of what's being taxed now and certainly less of a drag than the payroll tax. As Mitt Romney told us, most lower income people don't pay income tax. The best way to reduce their tax burden (and incentivize their productivity) is by cutting the payroll tax.
The global warming debate, like many other issues, is overly politicized and dominated by the extremes. Many conservatives are unwilling to admit any degree of anthropogenic global warming. And many liberals view people as neanderthals if they question even the most apocalyptic of computer climate projections.
I still believe climate science is in its infancy. There is much uncertainty of the level of future climate change even if you assume all of what's occurred since 1950 is anthropogenic. So what we have for say, 2100, is not a certain temperature change of X degrees but a fairly wide probability distribution ranging from almost nothing to the apocalyptic scenarios. So I see nothing wrong with moderate "insurance measures" that do not damage the overall economy.
Naturally entrenched interests in the US will fight. I see coal as a 19th century technology with lots of environmental downsides beyond carbon. Not only renewables but our abundant natural gas resources from fracking should make it a relatively easy call to phase coal out over the intermediate term.
China is investing considerably in renewables and has had a leading role in the price reduction of solar panels. They are not doing this because Obama asked them to do it. They are doing it because they realize they have serious environmental problems. Their growing middle class is not happy they can't breathe the air in their cities and can't trust some of the food they eat.admin":2sa36vkj said: