Global Warming Could Devastate California’s Ski Resorts, Report Finds

Another scary global warming prediction goes up in smoke.

"As temperatures continue to rise due to global warming, as is predicted by most climate scientists, more and more years will likely fall on the comparatively unprofitable lower end of the snowfall spectrum. By 2050, snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountain range is projected to decrease by 40 to 70 percent."
“In order to protect winter—and the hundreds of thousands whose livelihoods depend upon a snow-filled season—we must act now to support policies that protect our climate, and in turn, our slopes,” wrote study authors Elizabeth Burakowski and Matthew Magnusson of the University of New Hampshire. "

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/global-warming_n_2253712.html


In Sierra Nevada, some ski resorts report record February snowfall

"Fueled by a parade of storms in recent weeks that have blanketed the Sierra Nevada with several feet of snow, at least two ski resorts are reporting a record amount of snowfall this month — with more storms possible in the coming days.

At Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows in the Tahoe area, 247 inches (about 20.5 feet) of snow have been recorded so far, shattering the previous February record of 196 inches set in 2017, according to Alex Spychalsky, a spokeswoman for the ski resort."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02...-ski-resorts-report-record-february-snowfall/


Massive Winter Weather System Brings 'Epic' Snowfall to Sierra Nevada

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weathe...stem-buries-much-west-under-snow-rain-n703366

 

If the prediction "went up in smoke" then you should be able to demonstrate that of the 38 years from 2013 and 2050 that ski resorts in California were at least as profitable than in previous years or that snow packs did not on average decline by at least 40%. Can you show evidence to support either of these claims? Or if you can show that weather conditions in February 2019 will be representative of the of the winter seasons from now until 2050 despite failing to represent 2013 to 2018 that would go a long way.

 

Better hit the slopes in LA or Las Vegas, they saw snow this week...

 

Meanwhile Wutip becomes the first ever category 5 tropical cyclone in the NH to occur in the month of February.

 

So do record snowfalls and back to back years of huge snow amounts fit the predictions? Doesn't look good does it. The trick here is the usual one by the AGW crowd. Predict a very long range outcome, in this case 2050 and call all examples of that prediction failing irrelevant until that date. Kind of like they did with predictions of no more glaciers in the Himalayas by 2030 but as that date grew near and glaciers grew they said nevermind. On to the next long range predictions.

 

It's a falsifiable prediction nonetheless. It's no different than predicting elements of the total solar eclipse of say Aug. 12th 2045. We have to wait and see how those predictions play out all the same.

I'm okay with reevaluating the prediction as more data is collected. But, extrapolating a prediction covering 38 years from only 2 years isn't going to cut it. And besides, why did you ignore 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017? I mean, if we're going to extrapolate shouldn't we do so from all available data instead of cherry picking only the data that fits our hypothesis. I'm just saying...

I realize you are not okay with reevaluating predictions. If even a single prediction among 1000s isn't 100% right from the get go then the entire theory containing it must be wrong. What I don't get though, is how skeptic/denier predictions are not just imperfect, but they are completely wrong by an order of magnitude or in the complete opposite direction time and time again and yet you hold firm to the theory that man is not responsible for the warming we observe today. How do you reconcile this contradiction in your position?

Scientists didn't say "nevermind" on the Himalayan glacier prediction because the date grew near or because glaciers there grew. They said "nevermind" because it was a mistake that never should have been included in the report in the first place. It was never a prediction that science made let alone being a consensus prediction that science made. The IPCC failed big time here because they are supposed to only include statements, predictions, explanations, etc. that are made in peer reviewed publications. The Himalayan glacier prediction appears no where in the scientific literature. The IPCC responded within a month of the release of AR4 and admitted the mistake. Oh, and Himalyan glaciers have been declining for decades. And the consensus prediction on their decline is that they will be about 30% of their current volume by 2100. It won't be until well after 2100 before they are gone.

 

Life and business has weather risk. Always has, always will.

Just ask the myriad of people who have slept on airport floors. It's getting more pronounced as more people fly than ever before.

 

With polar amplification, if it were truly getting warmer, weather gradients would be less. Severe weather is caused by a high temperature gradients, cold air meeting warm air.

 

2017 data is in the OP and it's interesting how you make excuses for the failed ipcc Himalayan predictions on a technicality as you defend the failing Sierra snow pack predictions. Do these snow pack predictions meet all the criteria you claim the Himalayan predictions should have? And make no mistake they are failing.
On a side note it's interesting how fear of warming has taken root when history shows warming is beneficial. The Vikings came of age when their population boomed during a warming era and they grew in size from all the extra protein in their diet. They outgrew their limited land base and took to the sea looking for new lands to conquer all due to scary global warming.

 

Climate gonna change. Always has, always will.

 

It's not just California either.

SPOKANE, Wash. — Spokane has already surpassed the average February snowfall this year by more than 15 inches.

A total of 18.7 inches has fallen so far this month, while Spokane normally sees about 3.2 inches of snow by Feb. 12, according to KREM weather anchor Evan Noorani.

The February 2019 onslaught of snow so far is not record-breaking but it has been the snowiest start to the month since 1975, according to the National Weather Service. It has also cracked the top ten for February records.


SPOKANE, Wash. — Spokane is seeing the greatest depth of snow in 50 years for Feb. 21.

As of Thursday, there was 15 inches of snow on the ground at the Spokane Airport, according to the National Weather Service. This is the closest we've gotten to the record which was set back on this date in 1969 when 17 inches of snow was on the ground.

 

Ok, flip for you. demonstrate that it won't..... Oh wait.. it's a prediction and you can't prove it wont.... Further, if, as warming folks profess, more snow is a result of the climate change, the original prediction is unlikely in the first place.... Now, prove it...

 

And in Oregon trees fell across a railroad track stopping the train and holding the passengers hostage due to the very deep snow. The Train is running low on food and have rationed it.

 

A major problem for the alarmists is their predictions fail. And upon failure they want us to deal with their claims for the future.

A major problem is the alarmists are wrong about the future. We warned them.

 

I don't suppose that for your prediction to become reality that altitude won't make a difference, huh? Do you believe that suddenly the average temp for altitudes over 10K feet will increase 10F sufficient to produce the outcome you're predicting? Do you even know the average temp at 15K feet? 20K? Or is magic going to happen and altitude no longer matters?

 

There you go again. Man controls climate. That is the fatal flaw in your predictions. That and they have not come true.

There are many hitches in the gitty up in the IPCC reports but those get ignored. Then you double back and speak as if the IPCC must have forgot those declines you bring up.

 

I just never forget that the IPCC is designed to be a revenue producer for the UN. Once you understand that, their position and their propaganda all make sense.

 

It is all downhill for the alarmists. They want us to be persuaded the very worst is happening so they tell you of a typhoon happening in the area of Guam.

 

I'm not making an excuse for the IPCC. In fact, I said they failed big time in this regard. This isn't even their biggest failure or worst prediction.

Sierra snow pack predictions haven't failed though. You're just misrepresenting them.

 

And they suffer the same problem at both poles. Altitude does make an enormous difference. We pilots track temperatures as we climb to altitude.

 

And always happens for reason.

 

We will get a ton more snow just today. I don't know why you believe it is warmer.

 

Did you see the BS op ed in the WAPO from John Kerry today? What a turd. The only thing that folks need to know about his credibility is watching him deplane from his private G550 everywhere his wife lets him take it....

 

After the predictions collapse, sure then they mention reasons. Why not mention a failure can happen ahead of it happening? For instance, why not ratchet down those claims of higher temperatures by 2050 or 2100?

 

They have so much money they think they do man a favor by emitting CO2.