While the industry may survive, it is changing, said Hamilton. Climate change may hasten the prolonged contraction of the Northeast ski industry from a diffuse cottage industry to a corporate-dominated business, with a few large companies controlling the slopes.
That move has already priced some people and demographics out of the sport, Hamilton said.
It could also hit hard communities that depend on the tourism and employment generated by the local ski area, said Scott. "Ski resorts can close, businesses can take a hit, but communities are not going anywhere – they are the vulnerable ones."
Jiminy Peak, for instance, pays 85 percent of the town taxes in Hancock, Massachusetts. It employs 125 full-time and 1,000 seasonal workers, making it the fifth largest employer in Berkshire County.
Fairbank, despite the sparsely populated midweek runs and the lumpy mashed potatoes at the base of his run, is an optimist. In the face of warmer winters, he's convinced Jiminy Peak will thrive.
"We're learning to do things differently to protect the mountain and the business," he said.
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
33 Comments
Add CommentWhen I was a kid in the 60's the ski slopes were bare half the winter. This is nothing new.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis year we've had early and great snow.
also, there is little connection in temperate climates between temperatures and snowfall. The areas that get the most snow in North America (California and Colorado) are far from the coldest. Warmer air holds more moisture. The high Arctic is a dessert with ice and lttle snow.
@Fossil Hunter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou personal anecdotes does not a scientific observation make. Here is the snow cover anomalies for the Northern Hemisphere for the past 40 years. What you are looking at is a significant decline in snow cover.
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=11
How long before we get a comment containing a slippery slope argument? It will be all downhill from there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFossilnut,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue. In contrast The irony of Trent's post is that the article is based on anecdotal stories from current weather.
Global warming groupies continue to cherry pick.
@Science Last,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you could explain how a record of snow cover anomalies for the entire Northern Hemisphere covering over 40 years is a "cherry pick" and how one dudes personal experience is "true"?
You have to wonder if the fake skeptics ever read the articles they comment on? After looking at a few ski resorts the article goes on to say:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"According to Hamilton, the industry began experiencing the effects of climate change nearly 30 years ago. A series of unusually warm winters in the 1980s and 1990s was one factor in the closure of nearly 600 small, locally owned and public ski hills across the U.S. Northeast, because they couldn't afford to make snow."
So much for the story is just on long anecdote, eh? Oh, well I guess actually reading the article you comment on is for the little people.
"Within 30 years, no ski areas in Massachusetts or Connecticut will be able to maintain a 100-day ski season and only one-third of the resorts in New York could regularly expect to be open during the holidays."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReminds me of statements in the 1990's by global warming groupies. Kids in the UK will never experience snow in winter....then a decade later the UK has one of it's coldest and largest snow dumps in history.
Global warming groupies are akin to Creationists. Believers with blinkers.
@Scinece last,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNor going to answer the question? In case you forget here it is again:
Perhaps you could explain how a record of snow cover anomalies for the entire Northern Hemisphere covering over 40 years is a "cherry pick" and how one dudes personal experience is "true"?
Got an answer or has your ideology blinded you to the facts?
And one more point. Your personal incredulity is not a rational argument. It has already been pointed out in the article that some 600 low altitude, low latitude ski resorts have closed since the 90's in part due the warmer winters. Since the physics says we can continue to expect to warm you need to provide a rational coherent reason why the more vulnerable ski resorts will not experience further financial stress.
Can I expect you to ignore this point too?
Well it looks increasingly like the Solar Cycle 24 has wimped out. Also the IPCC has to. Full AR5 draft leaked here contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing. http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUAH global temperature, down slightly for November 2012
A few years ago climate scientists were predicting unending drought & ski resort closures for Australia. We have been having the best rainfall in decades. Capital city dams are near full across the continent & ski resorts are booming. The moral of the story: Now that the climate scientists have made their predictions you can expect the reverse to be imminent.
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is that you swallow with full credulity all of the crude that WUWT spews forth? Your admission is a product of you and you cohorts fervid minds.
7.4.5.3 Synthesis
"Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong arguement against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change."
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch7_Clouds-aerosols_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch07_All_Final.pdf
So once again Carlyle, why is it that you clowns accecpt uncrtitically this patent nonesense?
Since Carlyle wants to talk about a draft report that is not due to be finalized till September 2013...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us begin with the Summary for Policy Makers:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf
From the Introdcution:
"The evidence that formed the basis for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report ... has further strengthened."
Funny how that one line is in total disagreement with WUWT and its flunkie portrayal of what the draft reports say.
In the section titled Atmospheric Observations I find the following:
"Widespread warming is observed from the surface of the Earth throughout the troposphere and cooling is
identified in the stratosphere. Globally averaged near surface temperatures have increased since the
beginning of the 20th century and the warming has been particularly marked since the 1970s. Each of the last
three decades has been significantly warmer than all preceding decades since 1850."
So much for the lie that the Earth is cooling.
From the same section:
"There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that the number of heavy precipitation events has increased in more regions than it has decreased since 1950."
From Sea Level Observations:
"It is virtually certain that over the 20th century the mean rate of increase was between 1.4 to 2.0 mm
48 yr 1, and between 2.7 and 3.7 mm yr–1 since 1993."
Uh, oh! Looks like Sisco the Sicko has got some explaining to do.
But he is not alone in his disinformation delusion. Here is a special one I found just for you.
"There is very high confidence that oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has resulted in gradual1 acidification of seawater evidenced by a decreasing pH in surface waters at a rate of between 0.015 and
0.024 per decade since the early 1980s."
And here is one of my favorites:
"Long-Term Perspective from Paleoclimatic Records:
Analyses of a number of independent paleoclimatic archives provide a multi-century perspective of Northern Hemisphere temperature and indicate that 1981–2010 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last800 years.There is medium confidence that in the Northern Hemisphere 1981–2010 was the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years."
46 period of the last 1300 years. There is high confidence that the Medieval Climate Anomaly, about 900
47 to 1400 CE, shows inconsistent temperature changes across seasons and regions, in contrast to the
48 widespread temperature increase of the late 20st century.
No mention of the Solar Forcing that you have consistently denied for years or the graph of actual observed temperature rise as apposed to predicted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/#more-75771
Well, I see you did respond to the solar forcing issue in your preceeding post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou continually accuse others of cherry picking. From the site you quoted: 26 The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is likely (>66% chance) positive, although a negative
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this27 feedback (damping global climate changes) is still possible. We assign a very likely range of −0.2 to 1.4 W
28 m–2 K–1 for the cloud feedback parameter. This conclusion is reached by considering a plausible range for
29 unknown contributions by processes yet to be accounted for, in addition to those occurring in current climate
30 models. The cloud feedback remains the most uncertain radiative feedback in climate models. Observations
31 alone do not currently provide a robust, direct constraint, but multiple lines of evidence now indicate positive
32 feedback contributions from changes in both the height of high clouds and the horizontal distribution of
33 clouds. Additional feedback from low cloud amount is also positive in most climate models, but that result is
34 not well understood, nor effectively constrained by observations, so confidence in it is low. [7.2.4, Figures
35 7.9-7.10]
I guess the best interpretation is that they simply do not know yet so many policies are based on the AGW interpretation.
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you ever read what you copy and paste so thoughtlessly? From your own last post, "We assign a very likely range of −0.2 to 1.4 W m–2 K–1 for the cloud feedback parameter. This conclusion is reached by considering a plausible range for unknown contributions by processes yet to be accounted for, in addition to those occurring in current climate models. The cloud feedback remains the most uncertain radiative feedback in climate models."
Do you have a clue what the what the CO2 forcing alone is? Hint: It way above what your quote gives. Go find it. The funny thing is that you want to ignore all o the preceding and following paragraphs that show no evidence for increased solar forcing.
Matter of fact, I quoted to you from the very same chapter passages that said that? Watts Up With That, Carlyle? Just can not process that you have been flat out lied too?
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you insist on continuing to expose to the world your gullibility for swallowing propaganda from WUWT allow me to quote some more from the Summary for Policy Makers:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf
"3. Drivers of Climate Change
Globally, CO2 is the strongest driver of climate change compared to other changes in the atmospheric
composition, and changes in surface conditions. Its relative contribution has further increased since the
1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers. CO2 concentrations and rates of increase are unprecedented in the last 800,000 years and at least 20,000 years, respectively. Other drivers also influence climate on global and particularly regional scales."
And not a word about solar cycle or galactic cosmic rays. Funny that.
And from the same section:
"The total anthropogenic RF has a best estimate of 2.40 [1.80 to 3.00] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.3) The
estimate of total anthropogenic RF is 50% higher compared to previous assessments due primarily to a
better understanding of aerosols which led to less negative estimates of aerosol RF, but also to
continued growth in greenhouse gas RF."
RF is radiative forcing. Now go compare those figures with your quote. One set of RF dwarfs the other and those figures do not favor your trumpeted ignorance.
Now let us look at what they say about solar irradiance:
"Satellite observations of total solar irradiance changes since 1978 spanning three solar cycle
36 minima show a change in RF of –0.04 [–0.06 to –0.02] W m–2 over the last three decades. This RF
estimate is substantially lower than previous estimates due to data of the latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been estimated in earlier assessments."
So much for the sun did it, eh? According to those figure we should have been COOLING for the past 30 plus years.
Hold on now. We got that other cardboard hobby horse that incompetents such as yourself like to ride: Galactic Cosmic Rays.
Here is what the Summary says:
"Cosmic rays enhance aerosol nucleation and cloud condensation nuclei production in the free
troposphere, but there is high confidence that the effect is too weak to have any significant climatic
influence during a solar cycle or over the last century. No robust association between changes in cosmic
rays and cloudiness has been identified."
Smash! Pow! A another fake skeptic lie bites the dust. But I am betting you are going to repeat a known lie like a good acolyte that you are.
Well there is much more to this report than Trent1492 would have you believe. This from http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOT whatsupwiththat
Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC
It is also interesting that the US government has spent such vast sums in support of the climate change movement yet people claim big oil is financing the sceptics. (tell me where to apply) The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
The press report below & through multiple other sources again demonstrates the denial by people who try to claim that global warming continues unabated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming. Last week we explosively revealed a 16-year 'pause' in rising temperatures - triggering a bitter debate. You decide what the real facts are...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html#ixzz2F55ZIfx4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=king-crabs-poised-to-wipe-out-rare-antarctic-ecosystem-of-invertebrates
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKing Crabs Poised to Wipe Out Rare Antarctic Ecosystem of Invertebrates
Cold temperatures have kept crabs out of Antarctic seas for 30 million years.
This magazine is a disgrace. A few day ago I submitted a post asking how this claim could possibly be made.
My post has been deleted. Several other posts I have made in the past few days have also disappeared. If this magazine does not want comment of a non abusive nature from those who question their articles, why not say so up front.
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are you repeating debunked lies in the same thread in which they have been debunked? I have already pointed out to you that the draft dismisses TSI as a cause for global warming. Again, here is the quote:
"Satellite observations of total solar irradiance changes since 1978 spanning three solar cycle
36 minima show a change in RF of –0.04 [–0.06 to –0.02] W m–2 over the last three decades. This RF
estimate is substantially lower than previous estimates due to data of the latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been estimated in earlier assessments."
Why are you repeating a lie already debunked only a few posts ago? Once again you and WUWT have been caught lying about solar irradiance.
Do you think if you repeat it long and loud enough it will become true?
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour personal incredulity about that the wildlife biologist have found about Antartica does not a rational argument make. Suspicious of the results? Go publish your own peer reviewed data. I am going to tell you now though that simply typing out 3,000 times you do not believe the findings will not cut the scientific cheese.
Oh good. You can tell me how they determined that king crabs had not been in the area for the past 30 million years. You see the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted completely & re froze several times during a previous warming period three to five million years ago. Those scientists would surely be aware of that don’t you think or perhaps like yourself they really are infallible. They would not just carelessly exaggerate would they?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are once again coming across as an incompetent. When will you learn that your multiparagraph screeds are nothing but wind?
You have nothing to offer but bluster and arguments from incredulity and ignorance. Occasionaly you also throw in a conspiracy theory too.
Go write that peer reviewed article. Your continual resistene to facts is not a point in your favor. When I point out that in fact the draft report does indeed reject the sun and galactic cosmic rays as causes for climate change you ignore the cited and text and repeat the same lie.
You have no credibility with me or any other rational thinking person. The only people to whom you sound convinving are other Wattsian disciples.
How can it be claimed that this is the first time King Crabs have been in Antarctic Waters in 30 million years? Where is the evidence? What about the discrepancy between the 14 Mr claimed by the original authors as a possibility yet 30 Mr no iffs or buts by the Sciam authors? what is a mere 16 million Yrs here or there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1986, Peter Webb and a team of paleontologists at Ohio State University discovered the remains of an extensive temperate forest that flourished 640 kilometres (400 mi) from the South Pole 3 million years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Neogene_Period_.2823.E2.80.930.05_mya.29
Naish et al. have analysed the AND-1B ocean sediment core, extracted from beneath the Ross Ice Shelf as part of the ANDRILL drilling project, and find evidence that the ice sheet collapsed periodically during the early Pliocene (3-5 million years ago),
There are numerous other reports of a similar nature & one alludes to only 200 thousand years ago. Yet another to 40 thousand year cycles.
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are still demonstrating your incompetence. When are you going to publish your peer reviewed study that debunks this study?
Now here is another reason why you are an incompetent. Simply saying that an event has happened before for one reason does not mean that same phenomena has the same cause.
That you can not grasp these simple concepts:
1. The primacy of peer review.
2. The application of logic to arguments.
3. Your refusal to address rebuttals.
In other words, you are an ideologue who has little regard for logic, evidence and intellectual honesty.
Disagree? Then address my rebuttals. It has been pointed out to you in excruciating detail the fact that the IPCC draft says humanity is responsible for the current warming, sea level rise is occurring at an accelerating pace and the IPCC does not say solar or GCR is responsible for the current warming.
Admit these plain truths and you will take a very small step to intellectual integrity.
Trent as usual you present the reasoned reader of these posts with a perfect example of an idealogue. I have given links to the information I have provided. You place great faith in peer reviewed papers but only if they promote your ideaology. Do you claim that all peer reviewed climate reports are accurate? I am sure I can provide you with some that would make you choke. I prefer to rely on my own judgment & faith that any readers of these posts will exercise common sense. You gave me a link. When I pointed out that in the report you linked to, the authors said possibly no King crabs in 14 Mr yet the SIAM article says THIRTY MILLION YEARS. Where do you get off with your nonsencical demands for PROOF.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese global predictions get sillier and sillier. Speculation upon speculation. They are akin to 'fewer clowns graduating clown school, increased misery among children'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTomorrow's global warming prediction will be?
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us face it, you are an ideologue first class. You take your orders no matter how contradictory to the last one or in opposition to the facts with full credulity from Anthony Watts. He is your infallible Pope.
No matter that to spite your claims it has been demonstrated that the IPCC drafts do in fact say:
1. Humanity is the strongest contributor to the current warming.
2. Sea level is rising and accelerating.
3. Ocean acidification is happening at a very fast rate indeed.
4. The temperature record is reliable.
5. The temperature record shows that no stall has occurred.
6. Temperature extremes have increased.
7. Solar irradiance is not responsible for the current warming.
All of this has been cited to you with links and quoted texts. Yet you can admit ANY of it. For you reality is apparently a pick choose option.
Where are your peer reviewed reports? You should never make claims unless you back them up with peer reviewed reports you tell me :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are conflicting reports by different authors or groups of authors in the IPCC report.
It is OK though. I have just realised that you are a stooge planted by the Hadley Centre to make AGW adherents look stupid. Working brilliantly!
Should read Heartland Institute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose peer reviewed reports have been posted all through this thread and other threads. Your eyes seem to just slip over them.
I see that now you are claiming that the draft report is just full of contradictions. Where you not at the beginning of this thread claiming the report supported the fake skeptic position?
Oh, that is right I quoted from the text full quotes demonstrating you to be either a gullible fool who believes with credulity all of WUWT droppings or are a liar.
Funny how you seem to have forgotten that episode. Real funny.
You spelled Hartland Institute wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean 'incorrectly'?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this