Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx
The 40% glacial surface loss is a scientific fact for the Alps. If, as you say, some major resorts would be closing because of this, then the expanded Park City would have even more customer potential in Europe. Alps seem to be facing greater global warming problems earlier than others.
The European resorts are having troubles. While it will surely catch up with US ski areas also, it does provide a few years to take advantage of Europe's problem.
Wow. I thought my point had been pretty clear. I suppose not for everyone.
So, whether the 30-40% range you provided is true or not (I have no reason to believe otherwise), that's actually not the point. Your original contention was that the loss of glaciers was going to result in major impacts on the European ski industry, with resort closures and unreliable snow driving significant numbers of Europeans to ski in the US, particularly for the "alpine experience" of Utah. With such a high rate of loss already, shouldn't we have seen that impact on the European ski industry? After all, wouldn't one assume that the most vulnerable glaciers are those lowest in elevation and closest to the valleys? You know, the ones more likely to have ski lifts strung on them b/c they aren't in remote, inaccessible mountains? I ask b/c I am confused when I read your contentions and predictions but none of it seems to be supported by actual data. If your hypothesis is correct, should we not already see some sort of data to support the notion that global warming is driving European skiers elsewhere? We should, right? So imagine my confusion when I actually looked it up and found that, lo and behold, skier visits in the Alps have actually risen by about 10% since 2000 (haven't found data for the years before that). Weird.
Moreover, what evidence do you have to support the notion that Europe is being impacted more than North America? You've provided a lot of unsourced quotes about glacial loss in the Alps, yet have provided no similar perspective for the US. What is the climatological phenomenon that is creating a greater impact in the Alps vs the Rockies? Why is it that the relatively high latitude (latitude, not altitude) Alps are seeing greater impacts than the lower latitude Rockies/Wasatch given that most available literature would argue that glaciers closer to the equator are most in danger of disappearing? Have you thought for a moment why you can't find articles with glacial ice loss stats for Colorado and Utah that are over a similar time frame as those references to the Alps? Perhaps this might be b/c the Rockies were effectively unpopulated until the early/mid 20th century except for a few mining towns, and there was therefore no one around to measure glacier volume in the 1850s.
Might want to go back to the drawing board with this one.