Deseret News | Global warming may hit Park City snow

Reader comments
Global warming may hit Park City snow

Park City progressing | 4:25 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

When it starts hurting their pocket books, people will start caring about climate change and man's role in it.

basinboy | 4:31 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

I wonder if all of those Park City folks zipping up and down Parley's doing about 80 mph in their fancy sports cars have anything to do with climate change? And it takes a lot of energy to heat those multi-million dollar mansions.

Jesse | 4:45 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

But Glen Beck said global warming is a made up liberal lie! Damn you scientist and your evidence!

Comments continue below

me | 4:53 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Once again it has become clear that the earth will soon explode from all the global warming. Bad timing after the first snow of the year. MAkes it harder to believe a weather model that can't get it right a week from now, and now it says this is what the weather will be like in 2075. Come people.

PP | 4:59 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Wow, the report says it "could" do this and it "might" do that. Way to stand up for your convictions. Then they based their lack of a stand on 4 man made computer models. So far the computers have been wrong 100% of the time yet the global warming crowd still uses them almost exclusively to "prove" man-made global warming exists.

Anyone with even the slightest honest look at the data would ignore anyone trying to push this garbage.

ustraveler | 5:03 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Well all I can say is that there has been no warming for a decade now. Every single climate change model out there missed it. Now this consulting group is relying on six other climate change models to tell Park City what to expect. I sure hope they put some qualifiers as to the value of those models...........

I mean, who knows, perhaps they will be wrong like every other model so far.

To old | 7:01 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Who cares? By 2075, I will be one-hundred and twenty five years old. Doubt that I would want to ski anyway at that age. Sitting on the porch in a nice warm sunny day in December does not sound to bad for such an old man.

Old One | 8:15 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

I agree with one of the comments above. How can we believe the models 65 years out when they can not get it right one week out. Being an old one I can remember the 1970's when all of these experts were telling us we would have no food to eat due to the coming ICE AGE! Sound like they just like to listen to themselves and try to make money of those who believe what they are trying to peddle.

L | 9:26 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

I will never know for sure during my lifetime whether we are having long-term climate change or merely a periodic cycle.

I do know that the things I hear are not long or fast changes, like we had with the cold front Tuesday where it went from above-average heat to well below-average during the day.

From my experience most people cannot remember with any accuracy the differences between this September and the previous Septembers for the past 10years, 20years, or 50years. We remember 1983 was really wet, or was it 1984. We remember one year that was the other extreme and it didn't rain all summer.

Actually complete records are only available for a relatively few years back+some tree-ring type data that represents a general summary.We know that on a given day one part of the country may be hot, another cold.

I understand climate change may be that way too that some places may be cooler, others hotter and more extreme weather events.

We will have to rely on a lot of data, over time, to know if that big ocean has changed 1 degree. I'm not rushing to judgement. Glaciers?

Junk Science! | 9:48 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Weather forecasters, with as much training and science and computer models to rely on cannot get a decent forecast for a week from now, but these guys are able to tell us what will happen in 50-75 years?

There are a lot of people who have bought into the junk science propaganda that is "man made global arming" and there are huge fortunes to be made selling snake oil or other pseudo solutions to the bogus "problem." The profits from the pending "cap and trade" schemes alone will be a bonanza for some favored schemers. (While doing nothing to actually solve the problem, but since it does not exist, the money might as well be made anyway!)

Tell all the recent arrivals from California to move back home and let us Utah natives enjoy our winters in peace.

And let us take snowmobiles into Yellowstone too!

Ignore junk science like this, and ask why tax dollars are wasted on such "studies"!

Climate change | 4:22 a.m. Oct. 3, 2009

Climate change is an earthly event that it cycles through as historical evidence has disclosed yet we keep hearing from this group we can stop it. How stupid are they? I guess they are getting paid a goodly sum of money to make some sort of case that has no merit or proof.

I can also sit here and make predictions of my own but they are just as meaningless this story. My prediction is that this year we may see some increased snow and rain because California has been unable to pay for seeding the clouds over their state and the Cascade mountains as heavily as they have in past years. This little known element in our weather control is the kind of things that destroy our environment. Messing with Mother Nature never pays.

And as always they have omitted what impacts development has to their predictions, they always call on the people to conserve yet ignore irresponsible over development. How and where we develop has more of an impact than consumer influence.

Scienceguy | 7:21 a.m. Oct. 3, 2009

The real problem here is that there just isn't enough data for the researchers to make any valid conclusions.

According to many scientists the earth is several billion years old. Most of these models are based on about 100 years worth of data -- or less! If you don't have a big enough sample, you don't have a valid conclusion.

There is no greater enemy of the truth than a statistician with a cause.

Where's The Beef | 10:15 a.m. Oct. 3, 2009

I would really like to see some solid scientific evidence that global warming is directly attributable to CO2 emissions generated by mankind. There is a hypothesis but were is the scientific evidence proving that hypothesis?

Questions | 3:26 p.m. Oct. 3, 2009

So why have Utah ski resorts been reportedly been setting new records (for ski days) for the past few years?

How can anyone prove or dis-prove ANY of these Global Warming Scientology Theories?

doran | 10:53 p.m. Oct. 4, 2009

This is sooo much junk science. If "climate change" decides to happen, it will happen and there is not a thing even the most liberal leaning green conscious person could do about it.

We're wasting our money on "Green Ideas", blaming any perceived change on mankind instead of preparing for the fact that change is going to happen someday...and we won't have caused it but that won't matter; we won't be ready for it.

I guess we will be able to hug our non-working windmills while we freeze to death for lack of shelter.

Brian | 11:20 p.m. Oct. 4, 2009

There were some awful arguments to respond to this article. First off, weather forecasters, meteorologists, work off of computer models to determine, based off what has happened in the past, what is going to happen. They are generally right. Most of the time when they say a storm is going to hit, it will, unless because of complex situations, it misses. However meteorologists are much different then climatologists, which are the ones that predict long term changes

As for Utah resorts setting record snowfalls. I wouldn't necessarily say record, however the past 2 years we received over 700 inches, at Snowbird and Alta resorts, which summit elevation is 11,000 feet. In comparison, Park City is in the rain/snow shadow of resorts such as Alta, Snowbird, Solitude, and Brighton, and receive about 300 inches of snow on average annually. A difference for Park City will be felt much faster then it would for the Cottonwood Canyons. For this reason Utah resorts, and resorts all over the country with low elevations are very at risk more so then higher elevation resorts.

Answers | 11:25 p.m. Oct. 4, 2009

Utah resorts have been setting new records for days open because there is more pressure to open earlier and close later than in the past. It is not due entirely to the fact that we have received a little bit more snow, however with the great salt lake dwindling, we may see less snowfall this year as attributed to lake effect, however possibly around the same amount as the average-550 inches, because of the expected el nino/la nina cycle

Hawkins | 1:18 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009

The ice age of the 70's was a warning about a nuclear winter. It could still happen.

If it's a fact that co2 emissions create a greenhouse effect, then it has to be taken serious.

Beck will be silenced when the far right finally figures out that the growth potential for green industries and solutions is astronomical. A fortune could be made just from his hot air.

Priorities? | 7:42 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009

If global warming is going to doom the planet, why are we even discussing it's effect on such frivolous activities as skiing? It takes a lot of CO2 spewing energy to fly people to Utah to ski, transport them from the airport to the resorts, lift them up the hill, make snow, etc etc etc. If global warming is really a problem, all outdoor recreation and other non-essential activities should be banned.

John C | 8:58 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009

The left wing Loonies, will never be happy without some factless cause to champion.
Would be nice to live like those on the looney left...except, they then would be our neighbors.

Data, please | 9:10 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009

Let's compare CO2 emissions and the temperature records for the past 20 years. Average global atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone up by about 10% during that time period. Has Park City gotten hotter and drier? Have Park City's resorts lost money? Have fewer skiers come to Utah?

The answer to all three of these questions is "NO". Why then are we supposed to believe that it will be somehow different in the future?

RH | 10:08 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009

All I have to say it....WHAT A BUNCH OF GARBAGE!!

Dave | 10:28 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009

I installed a new 'green' lightbulb. The crisis is over.

Sensible Scientist | 10:51 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009

This is more hypothetical scaremongering, plain and simple.

Cosmo | 11:23 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009

Priorities has the perfect answer, shut off the money! Do not ski. Do not travel or buy anything from Park City, or any other Liberal enclave.Do not visit any National Park, or State Park. This will not only save each person a lot of money, but it will reduce traffic, ie;air, car, rail. Also do not waste time having cable, or dish T.V. ,think of the energy saved, along with the money. And why go to the movies, they are garbage anyway, and they consume large amounts of energy for very little value. Film festivals, skiing, concerts etc, really are nothing but energy hogs!And when one includes the junk trinkets that abound in the stores found in a place like Park City, truly it is a complete waste of time ,money, and energy to go there.

gp | 12:01 p.m. Oct. 5, 2009

So, then, does this mean that if we all stop using electricity, stop driving our cars and trucks, shut down all manufacturing, stop all air traffic, and bring our civilization to a grinding halt, that our winters will be better, and we will always have snow? Does that mean there will be no more bad weather? Does that mean that onced mankind is put in it's place there will be very nice skiing?
And just exactly what is it that the alarmists, environmentalists, and scare mongers, and the entire Congress of the US are asking of the people of the world? Just "WHAT" is this report saying? Just what is their "FIX" to the "CO2 Problem"? They are all shouting to "DO SOMETHING NOW", but then they act like they are living in play land if they think that if the entire world shuts down that we'll have great skiing on into the 22nd century. In other words, just WHAT is the object of this stupid report?

MetricWrench | 12:52 p.m. Oct. 5, 2009

No climate model computer based or otherwise has ever been correct. These types of prediction are completely rediculous and do not amount to any kind of evidence of anything other than evidence that someone is wasting time and mone on them.

Stuart G. Crump | 2:40 p.m. Oct. 5, 2009

2075? Climatologists can't predict what'll happen next summer let alone in 66 years.

Climate Change | 5:09 p.m. Oct. 5, 2009

The models these guys use is broken. Those who modeled that the planet was warming are now scratching their heads because the earth is cooling? hmmm, It is a cycle, get over it.......

Dave | 7:25 p.m. Oct. 5, 2009

If the "global warning" alarmists had been correct, New York City and other coastal cities should be under several feet of water by now! What on earth has gone wrong?

Bring it on! | 7:37 p.m. Oct. 5, 2009

It's too doggone cold here anyway. I could use some global warming.

MJT | 11:14 a.m. Oct. 6, 2009

I find it rather hard to believe that snow will be nonexistent in 20 years when the 06-07 and 07-08 ski seasons have been some of the wettest ones in the resorts history. Global warming is the most successfull scam ever put upon the public, how could somthing as small as humans change the climate of the entire earth??

Loveland | 11:23 a.m. Oct. 7, 2009

The ski resort "Loveland" in Colorado, opened up to the public today and "Arapahoe Basin" also in Colorado, is opening on friday, both the earliest openings in their history, at the same time global warming is the worst it's ever been.....global what? Global whining!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.