Sierra cement in Aspen?
Carbon emissions, adaptation may hold answer
The question Mark Williams poses is simple: “Is there going to be enough snow for your kids to ski with your grandkids?”
The answer depends, in part, on how much carbon dioxide humans emit in the next eight decades. So concludes a study by Williams, a geography professor at the University of Colorado, and Brian Lazar of Stratus Consulting in Boulder.
Given a best-case scenario (one in which humans emit less CO2), ski areas in Park City, Utah, and Aspen, Colo., might open later and have higher snowlines. Under a worst-case scenario, the mountains’ bases might be bare, and higher temperatures could bring winter rain.
In a talk titled “Save Our Snow,” Williams summarized the study at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
Williams and Lazar used climate models with emissions scenarios to project the length of ski seasons and depth of snow at Park City and Aspen, which funded the study. Their projections focused on the years 2030, 2075 and 2100.
Under a business-as-usual scenario (in which current emission trends continue), average temperatures by 2030 would rise 4 degrees Fahrenheit at both resorts. By the end of the century, Aspen and Park City would probably see average temperature increases of 8 degrees and 10.4 degrees, respectively.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, Park City in 2100 might have no snow at its base. Under a high-emissions scenario, Williams quipped, “take up skateboarding.”
Noting that climate change has financial as well as environmental impacts, Williams noted that the ski industry is concerned about its fiscal viability. He suggested that such data have behavioral implications.
“What we do in terms in terms of CO2 emissions really makes a difference,” Williams said. “The more we control emissions, the more snow we will have. We need to think about that.”
At the same time, ski resorts can adapt somewhat. With more human-made snow, Aspen could still be economically viable by 2100. To remain successful, Aspen would probably need the equivalent of 50 cubic-feet-per-second of water per month, William said. That amount of water is roughly what can flow down Boulder Creek in fall.
Williams emphasized the need to mitigate and adapt. Referring to the slushy snow in California’s mountains, Williams said, “We do not want to have Sierra cement in Aspen.”
CU video featuring research by Mark Williams
Jim Scott of the Office of News Services contributed to this report and previously published a preview of Williams’ study.
Williams’ work on ski areas was highlighted in a previous story, titled “In the long-term forecast,” in Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine.
Dec. 17, 2008