Apres Ski - Literally

Imagine a world where the white fluffy stuff is part of folklore that you pass down to your grandchildren. A recent report released by Bill McGuire, the professor of geohazards and director of the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, suggests that winter sports and resorts may become a rarity in the near future. According to the report, alpine temperatures have increased by 2C since the 1970s. He goes on to suggest that low lying ski resorts like Whistler are at increasing risk of dramatically reduced snowfall by 2030.

One proposed solution is to tighten restrictions on transport in the area to protect the surrounding environment from damaging pollution. If your world includes face shots, hucking, shredding, two planks or one keep this vision of green mountains in your head while you consider the consequences of all that you do.

Want to hear more about DeSmogBlog? Sign up for our weekly newsletter here and have it delivered right to your inbox 


The 2006/2007 season in Whistler is a record year for snow. Business is booming, and the skiing and boarding are fabulous. Sorry, now what were you saying?

This is the type of rationale that is common with many skeptics. It's used to confuse people because it seems to make sense off the top. Yes - Whistler has had a record year and I've enjoyed it very much. But scientists know that in order to study a trend, or even just to classify something as a trend that you can't focus on just one year or one region - you look at 100s of years and all regions around the world. Anomolies included. The premise that you could possibly look at one region and one year to determine that a global hypothesis based on information over 100s of years is incorrect is absurd, non scientific and it just plain doesn't make sense.

Your comment actually helps to illustrate that warming exsits and it's great example - so thanks for that. If you look at Whistler in the context of BC you'll note that there have been records broken in percipitation across the province in late last year and this year. Warmer climates tend to produce more percipitation and so more snow in Whistler only proves that. You just need to focus on the fact that Whistler is at a higher elevation and for now, the temperatures, even with warming, are still staying below zero in the alpine (again - note altitude) - causing that extra percipitation to remain snow. Note that I said for now and refer back to the original post. I guess that's what I was saying.

Being an avid skier at Whistler and many other ski mountains, this year was very strange – with massive dumps of snow, and then nothing for weeks. I was at Whistler during the last HUGE dupm of snow. Went up last weekend, and there hadn’t been any new snow (at least any significant) since then. Skiing was crappy… large base of snow, but nothing fresh. Sorry, but it’s wierd, not like the last, oh I don’t know, 30 years I’ve skied there.

Cleary you are less than 40 years of age. Ask the old timers at Whistler and you will soon discover that this “record” year used to be a normal occurance. Whistler’s average annual snow pack (and it’s length of stay) has diminished substantially since the 60’s and 70’s.

Yes I am under 40, but I do remember record dumps over the entire season, not just once or maybe twice.

“Your comment actually helps to illustrate that warming exsits and it’s great example - so thanks for that.”


So cold and snow are evidence of global warming?

Gee, I guess you can’t lose with a strategy like that.

Okay, let me get this straight –

You write an article stating that lack of snow at some ski resorts is anecdotal evidence of global warming.

When someone posts a comment pointing out that Whistler has had record snowfalls this year, you claim that *this*too* supports your argument!

Quite a nice excercise in mendacity. You people aren’t big on logic around here, are you?

Re-read my comment re: increased precipitation and altitude. Lack of snow doens't equal lack of rain and as altitudes start to get warmer, more consistently - we will see MORE RAIN instead of snow. As we AREN'T at 2030 yet, it makes sense that THE ALTITUDE will effect the temperature of the rain making it SNOW FOR NOW at higher elevations AND RAIN FOR LATER when the warming reaches the tipping point. I'm not talking about snow and cold here - I'm talking about rain and altitude. An easy mark for your skeptic spin.

We didn’t realise you had such a firm command of scientific concepts, but then I hadn’t bothered to read your bio, up until now:

“After more than 10 years in corporate sales and marketing, she realized that the environment needed her skills more than the latest video game or action movie did. She brings a degree in Sociology from Queens University and a passion for sustainable living to the blog.

Yup. That sounds about right. Thanks for the predictions Nostradomus.

I never claimed to have a degree in science or climate science for that matter. My job is to REPORT on science. Sound and overwhelming science. Science backed up by  these global, SCIENTIFIC organizations. I don't make this stuff up, I credit my data and I never claim to be doing anything other than reporting. There's no Nostradomus in my last name - I'm not making any predictions. If you have contrary scientic evidence, by all means, I am ALL EARS to learn something new. As it stands, anon, your retort at this point is to repost my bio. Hardly scientific but if anyone wants to check out the full one - here it is. (I like surfing and dogs in case you're interested)

Thanks for the link to another website, which appears like the mothership of this one. Google found 1,310 instances of the word “conssensus”.

The fact that you need to rely on argumentum ad populum to support your position is indicative of your lack of substantive arguments.

Even if this claimed scientific “consensus” actually existed, it is entirely irrelevant. Last time I checked, the scientific process is neither a popularity contest, nor a democracy. Just ask Galileo, among others. In this case there are PLENTY of qualified scientific dissenters to your catechism. If there weren’t, you’d hardly have to create a web site like this to impugn and slander them.

You’re not interested in what dissenters have to say, anyway. You’re too choked that someone might actually disagree with what you ludicrously – and completely without irony, apparently – refer to as The Truth. I should say, you’re only interested enough not to pay attention to the content of their arguments, but to find a way to marginalize and belittle your critics.

But, I suppose when you are forced to deal with all this “overwhelming science”, and the only arrow in your quiver is an M.rs. degree in sociology, what can one expect?

Anon - Show me the science that pertains specifically to this issue that counters my report. If you are not a scientist than it's pointless arguing with me on this issue on the basis that I am not. You are a hypocrite of the worst kind - full of rhetoric to point out my perceived shortcomings only to ignore the fact that you are exactly what you criticize in me. How are you qualified to call me ludicrous and not see the own irony of your own hypocritcal high horse. The fact that in the same post you criticze me for relying on 'argumentum ad populum' and then go on to tell me that “In this case there are PLENTY of qualified scientific dissenters to your catechism. If there weren't, you'd hardly have to create a web site like this to impugn and slander them. ” shows me that you lack the intelligence that comes with being self aware.  You have nothing new to contribute to this thread scientifically, you point out my lack of irony only to argue using the same logic that I do and you have taught me nothing new about climate change or global warming. Have a great day anon - I'm done with this thread.

Took a while, but I finally figured you denialist out. You were those know-it-all kids in class that pointed out to the teacher when they had spelt a word (yes spelt, can you resist?) wrong on the chalkboard.

You then went on to become those guys in University who just like to argue for the sake of argument, turns out though that that guy was never to popular. Too pompous they say and all he does is say “yes, but.”

Now you’re just a bunch of old dudes, with whom nobody will argue with anymore, so you come on to blogs, use big words (the first sign of a dullard) and point out people’s lack of intelligence compared to your great-selves.

Am I close? I think you are quite impressed with yourselves to be part of this group of deniers that you somehow compare to Galileo… do you honestly think Tim Ball is a Galileo?

Print your names and addresses so we can come live in your utopian la-la land when all of our houses are flooded, or blown over.