Western US could lose up to 60% of the annual snowpack in the next 30 years

[cantunamunch]

Up to 60% is concerning but then I guess 2% qualifies as up to 60%? Is there a sacrifice of credibility by putting it that way?

It's a problematic phrasing but one reading is that 2% is impossible since 10-20% has already happened.


Of course, that's just the abstract and one needs to read the results to figure out the true antecedent basis for that 60% assertion.

 

[Lorenzzo]

It's a problematic phrasing but one reading is that 2% is impossible since 10-20% has already happened.


Of course, that's just the abstract and one needs to read the results to figure out the true antecedent basis for that 60% assertion.

Further hedging? Straddling backwards, forwards, credibility and attention getting? It's so polarized politically my antenna is up for that sort of thing.

 

[David Chaus]

Here's the thing: we don't know what's going to happen in any particular year or over the short term, but we do have significant risk, and even probability, that anthropomorphic (human activity-caused) climate change will at some point in the future make life very different, and often very difficult for much if not most of the world's population. Best probabilities I have seen is that what we experienced in 2014-15 will be the norm in about 50-70 years, at least in the PNW. This impacts water management and agriculture pretty seriously. As far as skiing, it will likely be pretty volatile and unpredictable. You might have major ski resorts that can operate some years, and not others, which impacts the viability of ski resorts to operate at all.

So (I can hear the arguments), what about that uncertainty of when this will have an impact or if it will happen at all? Why take it too seriously now until we know for sure, for sure?

Well, why take than kind of chance? Do you care if you kids or grandkids get to ski? I'm sure we all will be able to enjoy skiing and boarding throughout the rest of our lifetimes, but the experience may deteriorate over that time, be less predictable and reliable than it is now (or even less so than it is now), and not available at all for subsequent generations.

So why take that chance, when the costs of energy efficiency and green power are not actually that much of a burden (IMHO)? Actually business and individuals that reduce their carbon footprint tend to save money in the process. So what's really the issue? Hate the idea of being wrong?

 

[AmyPJ]

Here's the thing: we don't know what's going to happen in any particular year or over the short term, but we do have significant risk, and even probability, that anthropomorphic (human activity-caused) climate change will at some point in the future make life very different, and often very difficult for much if not most of the world's population. Best probabilities I have seen is that what we experienced in 2014-15 will be the norm in about 50-70 years, at least in the PNW. This impacts water management and agriculture pretty seriously. As far as skiing, it will likely be pretty volatile and unpredictable. You might have major ski resorts that can operate some years, and not others, which impacts the viability of ski resorts to operate at all.

So (I can hear the arguments), what about that uncertainty of when this will have an impact or if it will happen at all? Why take it too seriously now until we know for sure, for sure?

Well, why take than kind of chance? Do you care if you kids or grandkids get to ski? I'm sure we all will be able to enjoy skiing and boarding throughout the rest of our lifetimes, but the experience may deteriorate over that time, be less predictable and reliable than it is now (or even less so than it is now), and not available at all for subsequent generations.

So why take that chance, when the costs of energy efficiency and green power are not actually that much of a burden (IMHO)? Actually business and individuals that reduce their carbon footprint tend to save money in the process. So what's really the issue? Hate the idea of being wrong?

This is how I tend to look at things, too. I also see the bigger picture (which I tend to do in general) of "why wouldn't we all want to breathe cleaner air in general?" Particularly living in the SLC area, where our air quality needs no explanation.

 

[Mendieta]

well, selfishly (which seems to be a trending item in the US) I will likely no longer be skiing in 30 yrs and will avoid buying property in ski locations, rather follow the snow.

while i trust the science and see benefit in being ecologically sensitive for all kinds of reasons (fresh water may be a more significant issue) i believe humans have limited long term models on how our planet's feedback systems work. So I hope somewhere we've overlooked a significant factor, but i try to be an optimist .. a bit hard to be but be but .....

Come on brother, go fully optimistic. You will be skiing in 30 years

 

[Monique]

As much as I care about skiing, I care even more about being able to drink water and grow crops ...

One day or season of weather does not a pattern make. Nor do five years of similar weather, actually. We know so little. It's scary. When I read this sort of thing, I think of a book my dad gave me, Earth Abides. My takeaway: The planet will be fine over time. Humans may not be.

 

[Scrundy]

So why take that chance, when the costs of energy efficiency and green power are not actually that much of a burden (IMHO)? Actually business and individuals that reduce their carbon footprint tend to save money in the process. So what's really the issue? Hate the idea of being wrong?[/QUOTE]

While I disagree going green is better on your wallet, I do agree if all would look at cutting our footprint would be great. Unfortunately you have to get the rest of the world to do it... Not likely. I kind of think of it as pissing in the wind, don't make no sense unless it's world wide

 

[SkiNurse]

My takeaway: The planet will be fine over time. Humans may not be.

Agree. This is not the first end of an Ice Age in Earth's history, and I'm assuming it won't be the last. Are humans, cows, industry, cars, ski resorts, terrorists, (name any perceivable evil) helping it along? Maybe. Is there anything we can do to stop it? I don't think so. Is there anything we can do to slow it down? Maybe. The only thing I really know is that I would hate to live in a world without winter.

 

[CalG]

Hey! IT's -60 C in the Antarctic, and -50C in Greenland just today. There will be winter for a long long time.

Makes for some fun Travel plans!

 

[David Chaus]

Hey! IT's -60 C in the Antarctic, and -50C in Greenland just today. There will be winter for a long long time.

Makes for some fun Travel plans!

Except.....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170419131741.htm

 

[cantunamunch]

My takeaway: The planet will be fine over time.

That's what Venus thought.

Is there anything we can do to stop it? I don't think so.

IMO (H doesn't belong in this thread, does it?) there is - large scale sequestration, wholesale nuclear adoption and revision of manufacturing-based economic systems, because manufacturing is by its very nature anti-environmental.

Do you care if you kids or grandkids get to ski?

Nope - they're other people's kids and grandkids , on explicit purpose.

 

[Monique]

That's what Venus thought.

?

 

[cantunamunch]

?

Runaway greenhouse effect led to creation of large amounts of water vapour and large amounts of water vapour led to large scale loss of hydrogen through ionization and acceleration to escape velocity (through collision mechanisms and through solar irradiation). Ergo no more water.

 

[Guy in Shorts]

Runaway greenhouse effect led to creation of large amounts of water vapour and large amounts of water vapour led to large scale loss of hydrogen through ionization and acceleration to escape velocity (through collision mechanisms and through solar irradiation). Ergo no more water.

I fail religiously at winning emotional arguments using logic but heck I'm from Mars.

 

[cantunamunch]

OK, I larfed.

 

[Monique]

Runaway greenhouse effect led to creation of large amounts of water vapour and large amounts of water vapour led to large scale loss of hydrogen through ionization and acceleration to escape velocity (through collision mechanisms and through solar irradiation). Ergo no more water.

Right, but that only affects humans and other life forms. The planet, she'll persist, and maybe in few million years, life will evolve again. Just not us.

 

[cantunamunch]

Right, but that only affects humans and other life forms. The planet, she'll persist, .

Precisely my point - persist as Venus has persisted, without water, without water-driven seismic and other geologic processes (without free surface liquids in general) and without life.

 

[Monique]

Precisely my point - persist as Venus has persisted, without water, without water-driven seismic and other geologic processes (without free surface liquids in general) and without life.

I think we are, as an old manager used to say, in "violent agreement."

 

[crgildart]

In before the thread lock or delete!

Trump and Kim could lob a few nukes all over Korea, Japan, and a few other unlucky locations to kick start a Nuclear Winter which would reset us back to a new Ice Age. I'm placing my bets there..

 

[WheatKing]

One season does not make a pattern. Just like a day of warm weather in January doesn't mean global warming. Most climate change models predict greater variability in the future. That isn't inconsistent with saying there can be a trend in a particular direction.

Statistics are not absolute, they are probabilities. People that don't like what those probabilities suggest typically rely on exceptional events that don't fit the model's average trend to criticize the model. This says more about their understanding of statistics and modeling than it does about the veracity of the model.

Or the model didn't assume enough variability.. Mother nature could care less about your computers.. Here is the new snotel numbers .. while some area are within normal averages, many are running considerably higher, and some 3x times average median. It wouldn't take too many seasons with this much of a deviation to skew the numbers in a more "favorable" direction.