Many will, but not uniformly, and not without adaptation. The peer-reviewed data shows snow reliability collapsing at low elevations and holding at high ones, with snowmaking the decisive variable. Europe's largest study finds the share of resorts at very high snow-scarcity risk falls from 53% to 27% at +2 °C of warming once half a resort's terrain is covered by snowmaking.
That is the honest shape of the answer: not "resorts will close," which the science does not say, but a widening split between the exposed and the resilient, mediated by elevation and by how well an operator adapts. This piece lays out what the 2050 data actually shows, why snowmaking is the load-bearing adaptation, and where efficiency becomes existential rather than optional.
Will ski resorts survive climate change?
The survival question has no single yes-or-no answer, because exposure is not uniform. High-elevation resorts retain far more natural snow reliability than low ones, and snowmaking materially changes the outcome for both. What the data supports is a statement about risk, not fate: a large share of resorts face very high snow-scarcity risk under strong warming, and adaptation moves that share substantially.
The careful language matters here. Researchers describe resorts as facing "very high risk of snow scarcity," which is not the same as predicting closure — a resort's viability also depends on its terrain mix, capital, elevation, and business model. The most-cited European work, François et al. 2023 in Nature Climate Change, covering 2,234 resorts across 28 countries, quantifies the risk precisely and shows how much snowmaking shifts it — which is a more useful thing to know than a binary verdict.
How many ski resorts are actually at risk?
Under strong warming and without snowmaking, most European resorts face very high snow-scarcity risk. François et al. put it at 53% of resorts at +2 °C and 98% at +4 °C with no snowmaking. Those are warming thresholds, not calendar years, and they describe risk of scarcity, not guaranteed closure.
The numbers are worth reading exactly, because they are routinely rounded into alarm:
| Warming threshold | At very high snow-scarcity risk (no snowmaking) | With 50% snowmaking coverage | |---|---|---| | +2 °C | 53% of resorts | 27% of resorts | | +4 °C | 98% of resorts | 71% of resorts |
Source: François et al. 2023, Nature Climate Change. The thresholds are levels of global warming, not years on a calendar, and should not be blended with dated emissions scenarios.
The single most important line in that table is the second column: snowmaking roughly halves the share of at-risk resorts at +2 °C, from 53% to 27%. That is the empirical basis for treating snowmaking as the primary climate adaptation for the sector, not a cosmetic add-on.
Does snowmaking actually change the outcome?
Yes, decisively, within limits. The François modelling shows that covering half a resort's terrain with snowmaking cuts the at-risk share from 53% to 27% at +2 °C and from 98% to 71% at +4 °C. Snowmaking cannot rescue every resort under extreme warming, but it is the difference between viability and scarcity for a very large middle band.
The France-specific work makes the same point in resort counts. Spandre et al. 2019 in The Cryosphere found that only 14 to 24 resorts in the French Alps and Pyrenees would remain snow-reliable on natural snow alone by 2030–2050, while 83 to 116 additional resorts stay viable with snowmaking. The gap between those figures — dozens of resorts — is the adaptation dividend snowmaking delivers, and it is why the conversation has shifted from "if" to "how efficiently."
There is a catch that any honest account has to name: the same warming that raises snow demand also raises the water and energy each cubic metre of snow requires, and shrinks the cold window in which it can be made. Adaptation and constraint tighten together, which is exactly why efficiency, covered in the missing fifth lever, becomes the deciding factor.
Which resorts are most exposed?
Elevation decides exposure more than any other single factor. Low-lying resorts lose reliable snow first; high-altitude resorts retain it longest. The snow-reliability line — the elevation above which a resort can expect enough natural snow-cover days — is rising as the climate warms, pushing marginal resorts below the threshold.
The classic framework comes from OECD/Abegg's analysis, which applied the 100-day rule (a resort needs about 100 days of adequate snow cover to be economically viable) and found the count of naturally snow-reliable Alpine areas falling as warming deepens:
- +1 °C — about 500 areas (75%) remain naturally snow-reliable.
- +2 °C — about 404 areas (61%).
- +4 °C — about 202 areas (30%).
Abegg placed the Swiss reliability line near 1,200 m, rising roughly 150 m for every +1 °C of warming. Spandre's more recent work found the reliability elevation climbing 200–300 m in the Alps and 400–600 m in the Pyrenees. A resort's future, in other words, is written largely in its topography — and snowmaking is how a lower resort buys back the margin its elevation no longer provides.
Is the decline already visible?
Yes. This is not only a projection about the 2050s; the signal is already in the snowpack. Carrer et al. 2023 in Nature Climate Change found the Alpine snow season now runs about 36 days shorter than the long-term mean — unprecedented in 600 years — with snow cover declining roughly 5.6% per decade over the last half-century.
The broader assessments agree on direction while being careful about magnitude. The IPCC AR6 report puts low-elevation snow decline at around 25%, within a 10–40% range — a spread worth quoting in full rather than collapsing to a single scary point estimate. The honest reading is consistent: measurable, accelerating loss at low and mid elevations, with high elevations more insulated. That is precisely the pattern that makes adaptation both necessary and unevenly distributed.
What is the honest outlook for the sport?
Differentiated survival. High-elevation resorts with cold-season depth are relatively resilient; low-elevation resorts face very high risk and depend on snowmaking to stay open; the large middle depends on how efficiently they can make snow as the cold window narrows and water tightens. The sport does not vanish — it concentrates and adapts.
For operators, three things follow from the data:
- Snowmaking is the primary adaptation, empirically halving the at-risk share at +2 °C — but it is not free, and its own demand grows with warming.
- Efficiency is the second-order battle. The resorts that thrive will be those making more snow per litre and per kWh, in a shorter cold window. The wet-bulb window and making snow at marginal temperatures are where that fight is fought.
- Chemistry is an underused lever. Additive chemistry that widens the effective wet-bulb window and cuts water and energy per cubic metre — such as DeepSnow's SL6733, whose modelled +3 °C wet-bulb advantage is a pre-commercial figure — extends the reach of every snowmaking investment already in the ground.
None of this is a promise that any particular resort survives, and we do not make one. It is that the outcome is adaptable, the adaptation is measurable, and efficiency is where the remaining margin lives. The region-specific 2030 risk picture is in our ski-resort snowmaking risk analysis.
Key takeaways
- The science describes risk of snow scarcity, not certain closure — and exposure is highly uneven by elevation.
- François et al. 2023: 53% of EU resorts at very high risk at +2 °C without snowmaking, 98% at +4 °C — falling to 27% and 71% with 50% snowmaking coverage.
- Spandre et al. 2019: only 14–24 French resorts snow-reliable on natural snow by 2030–2050; 83–116 more viable with snowmaking.
- The 100-day rule and a reliability line near 1,200 m rising ~150 m per +1 °C (Abegg/OECD) make elevation the dominant survival factor.
- The decline is already measurable — a snow season 36 days shorter, unprecedented in 600 years (Carrer et al. 2023); IPCC puts low-elevation loss at ~25% (10–40% range).
- Snowmaking is the decisive adaptation; efficiency per litre and per kWh is where the future margin lives.
The bottom line
"Will ski resorts survive climate change?" is the wrong shape of question. The data answers a sharper one: which resorts, at which elevations, adapting how well. Snowmaking is the adaptation that moves the numbers most, and its own cost in water and energy is the constraint that efficiency has to solve. The resorts that manage the next quarter-century will be those that treat every cubic metre of snow as something to make colder, cheaper, and with less water — which is the whole reason chemistry belongs in the toolkit.
To model your resort's exposure or discuss cutting water and energy per cubic metre of snow, get in touch. For the efficiency argument in full, see the missing fifth lever; for the energy side, the electricity guide.
Disclaimer: Warming figures are global-warming thresholds, not calendar years, and describe risk of snow scarcity rather than closure. SL6733 is pre-commercial; EU lab pilots are targeted for the 2026/27 season, and the +3 °C wet-bulb advantage is a modelled figure. DeepSnow Srl (Italy) is in formation; SnowLabs Limited (Ireland) is the operating entity.