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

[David Chaus]

Hmmmm.... thirteen year period?

View attachment 27692

Nope.
Notice that in many of those years (i.e. 80-81 and 94-95) there is a large gap between the anticipated snowfall (according to the suggested 13 year cycle) and the actual snowfall. I think what data suggests is year to year volatility, without (or perhaps regardless of) cyclical and predictable trends.

 

[Lauren]

2) The U.S.seems to be the only country in the world that views climate science as debatable. I think this is partly due to the general population's lack of respect for and understanding of the scientific process and failure to read world news. Having been fortunate enough to travel to different parts of the world, I've noted clear differences in attitude regarding those 2 factors.

What I wonder is what is the separation of science, the media (or rather corporations that own the media), and the government in those other parts of the world? Here in the US, there is a distinct correlation between the three. The government funds science, corporations fund political parties, and therefore in an indirect way corporations fund science. I believe it plays a huge role in the difference between the US and many other countries. The general population currently has a huge distrust for the media as well as the government, so in turn, I think this creates a large distrust in science.

 

[TonyC]

Far more complex and controversial, is how this increase in CO2 interacts with the Earth's climate and weather systems, and could the assumptions made in climate modelling be flawed? Seems to me this is the only area where it is even legitimate to question the human effect on the climate. Skeptics have been gleefully pointing to doom and gloom predictions that failed to materialize

This was the basis for my outspoken skepticism which some of you may remember from Epic threads. The effect of CO2 alone is "settled science" but the models assume positive feedback (mostly from water vapor) that at least triple the temperature impact of CO2 alone. So when we go 14 years with temperature impact 1/3 of what the models predicted, it was far from unreasonable to suggest that the CO2 impact is there but perhaps these feedback assumptions should be questioned. The more vociferous skeptics point out that the feedback effect of clouds is negative, and that perhaps that could offset much of the CO2. It is also widely known that the ability of the models to forecast clouds and water vapor is weak.

The past three years do not suddenly make the models wonderful, but they diminish the argument that they are completely off base.

Just curious.......Since you live in the West, is your concept of "North American skiing" based on Western resorts?

Here in the northeast, many ski areas are kept open because of better snowmaking technologies. Even then, some winters areas don't open until mid January, which makes for a short ski season.

Back in 1995 I selected 8 North American ski regions, which overall offer similar proportions of North America's ski acreage and somewhat distinct climate zones. The Northeast is one of those 8 and thus has a 1/8 weighting in the graph I showed. Here's the Northeast by itself:

So yes the trend there is negative, but at a fairly modest rate. I believe the rain/snow mix has changed for the worse primarily in the shoulder seasons. During the core winter months December-February temperatures are volatile and there have always been rain events, but the average temps are quite low. This means that snowfall is probably not changing much during those months.

I do not analyze marginal areas in the mid-Atlantic, lower Midwest and Southeast. Most of these are highly snowmaking dependent and this don't even track natural snowfall. It is certainly possible that some of these places have been impacted during the winter as well as shoulder seasons. In general, looking at stats like days of operation is not likely to be helpful because snowmaking technology has improved enough since the 1970's to offset the climate effect.

There are other low altitude ski regions in the world that see impacts of a rising rain/snow line. Australia immediately comes to mind, and the Spencer's Creek snowpack data shows a similar trend to the US Northeast.

 

[Wendy]

This question may have been answered upthread, but @vanhoskier , maybe you can shed light ... at what point do you know that a given data point actually relates to climate change as opposed to normal variation?

If I had to guess, I would say that any one data point - like the Boulder, CO floods several years ago, or the lack of snow in Tahoe for a couple of years, etc - could never be proven to relate to climate change. I would guess that you would have to look at the number of data points and say, oh, there are usually X number of unusual data points in a decade, but in the last decade we've had 5X. Something like that. Is that close to correct?

Yes. Though, I don't understand the statistics to say whether it's 5 or 10x, etc. You need multiple data points, from multiple locations, over time. This is why the improvement in satellite technology has contributed to our understanding of climate change. Additionally, our understanding of past climate has improved dramatically, so there is a better comparison between past and present.

See https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4546

 

[Wendy]

What I wonder is what is the separation of science, the media (or rather corporations that own the media), and the government in those other parts of the world? Here in the US, there is a distinct correlation between the three. The government funds science, corporations fund political parties, and therefore in an indirect way corporations fund science. I believe it plays a huge role in the difference between the US and many other countries. The general population currently has a huge distrust for the media as well as the government, so in turn, I think this creates a large distrust in science.

In the US, corporations also fund research. Grants and PhD stipends can often come from private entities. It is important to know the source of funding when reading said research. In the 20th century, government funded science was viewed as more free from bias than it is now. Of course, in the early 20th century, scientific research was also funded by Andrew Carnegie et.al., who promoted pure scientific research for the public good.

 

[Lauren]

In the 20th century, government funded science was viewed as more free from bias than it is now. Of course, in the early 20th century, scientific research was also funded by Andrew Carnegie et.al., who promoted pure scientific research for the public good.

This. We need to get back to this...somehow. I feel most research today is an unbiased biased ski review.

 

[Wendy]

This was the basis for my outspoken skepticism which some of you may remember from Epic threads. The effect of CO2 alone is "settled science" but the models assume positive feedback (mostly from water vapor) that at least triple the temperature impact of CO2 alone. So when we go 14 years with temperature impact 1/3 of what the models predicted, it was far from unreasonable to suggest that the CO2 impact is there but perhaps these feedback assumptions should be questioned. The more vociferous skeptics point out that the feedback effect of clouds is negative, and that perhaps that could offset much of the CO2. It is also widely known that the ability of the models to forecast clouds and water vapor is weak.
............

Back in 1995 I selected 8 North American ski regions, which overall offer similar proportions of North America's ski acreage and somewhat distinct climate zones. The Northeast is one of those 8 and thus has a 1/8 weighting in the graph I showed. Here's the Northeast by itself:
View attachment 27696
So yes the trend there is negative, but at a fairly modest rate. I believe the rain/snow mix has changed for the worse primarily in the shoulder seasons. During the core winter months December-February temperatures are volatile and there have always been rain events, but the average temps are quite low. This means that snowfall is probably not changing much during those months.

Feedback due to cloud cover can be positive, too, since clouds prevent heat from reradiating into space at night. But, yes, it's complicated, and not well understood. There's a good, albeit lengthy summary of cloud cover and climate change here, including research goals to help understand it: https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

The volatility in temperatures in the northeast you've mentioned has increased. We are seeing cold and snow, yes, but then dramatic warming with heavy rain in between. One year a validation does not make, but I do have to add that in this past winter, we had violent thunderstorms in February, and my local ski area was hit by a tornado (yes, a tornado...which touched down on one of the ski runs) in February. Freeze-thaws are normal here in the winter, but that was unprecedented.

 

[Wendy]

This. We need to get back to this...somehow. I feel most research today is an unbiased biased ski review.

Science and public policy is a whole topic unto itself, worthy of a PhD dissertation.

 

[mdf]

Nope.
Notice that in many of those years (i.e. 80-81 and 94-95) there is a large gap between the anticipated snowfall (according to the suggested 13 year cycle) and the actual snowfall. I think what data suggests is year to year volatility, without (or perhaps regardless of) cyclical and predictable trends.

Spoilsport. You just have to push your eyes a little out of focus and cross them slightly.

Seriously, it does look to me like the 13 year period is real, but the variability on top of it is massive.

 

[TonyC]

Hmmmm.... thirteen year period?

View attachment 27692

People are very good at imagining patterns that are in fact random and coincidental. Nonetheless many meteorologist skeptics, most notably Joe Bastardi, have pointed to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as having a clear impact on climate in the medium term. If you look at the global temperature records, you'll see temps rising from 1890-1940, then being fairly flat until 1975. Then we see another rise from 1975-1998 and another close to flat period since then. During the 1980's and 1990's the PDO was positive and we tended to have more El Ninos than La Ninas. During both flat periods the PDO was negative and we tended to have more La Ninas than El Ninos. So my belief was that there was an underlying CO2 trend which was offset during the negative PDO periods but boosted during the positive ones. So it was plausible to me by 2008 or so that the "pause" might extend to 2025 or 2030.

That did not happen. Bastardi predicted that the big El Nino of 2015-16 would be followed by an equally dramatic La Nina and plunging temperatures, as happened in 1974 after 1973, 1999 after 1998 and 2011 after 2010, all negative PDO time frames. Well, we didn't get that predicted La Nina in 2017, as we didn't in 1984 after the record El Nino of 1983 during positive PDO. And now we are drifting back into mild El Nino territory again. I suspect we are in a new positive PDO phase which is adding to the underlying greenhouse gas effect as it did in the 1980's and 1990's.

This question may have been answered upthread, but @vanhoskier , maybe you can shed light ... at what point do you know that a given data point actually relates to climate change as opposed to normal variation?

If I had to guess, I would say that any one data point - like the Boulder, CO floods several years ago, or the lack of snow in Tahoe for a couple of years, etc - could never be proven to relate to climate change. I would guess that you would have to look at the number of data points and say, oh, there are usually X number of unusual data points in a decade, but in the last decade we've had 5X. Something like that. Is that close to correct?

I remain highly skeptical that weather volatility has increased. I can definitely say that snowfall volatility has not increased in the ski areas I have tracked since the 1970's, including the Northeast.

Underlying weather volatility is so high that it's going to be very difficult to measure a change in it until well after the fact. Analysts should be very cautious in attributing specific events to climate change as opposed to weather. Atlantic hurricanes (Katrina, Sandy) are the most notable examples of this overreach. Overall Atlantic hurricane frequency is down somewhat vs. decades like the 1930's and 1950's. It is known that El Nino decreases Atlantic hurricane incidence, so we may well have fewer of them during periods of relatively rapid warming. Of course if the ocean is hotter, there is more potential for the hurricanes that do occur to reach higher intensities.

 

[mdf]

Unfortunately, "real in the data" doesn't necessarily mean "real in the future" or "real in the world."

 

[Scotty I.]

Seems that lately there are bloggers who are getting political. Really sad to me and I wish it would stop. I come here to share the fun of skiing. If I want to depress myself with politics and social justice, there are other places for that.

 

[Jully]

So yes the trend there is negative, but at a fairly modest rate. I believe the rain/snow mix has changed for the worse primarily in the shoulder seasons. During the core winter months December-February temperatures are volatile and there have always been rain events, but the average temps are quite low. This means that snowfall is probably not changing much during those months.

The volatility in temperatures in the northeast you've mentioned has increased. We are seeing cold and snow, yes, but then dramatic warming with heavy rain in between. One year a validation does not make, but I do have to add that in this past winter, we had violent thunderstorms in February, and my local ski area was hit by a tornado (yes, a tornado...which touched down on one of the ski runs) in February. Freeze-thaws are normal here in the winter, but that was unprecedented.

Exactly. NE is roughly going to see a rise in overall precipitation, more volatility and increased duration of shoulder seasons. Recent observational data as well as climate research indicates core winter months will change at a slower rate as opposed to the beginning and end of winter. Additionally, the 'core' period is shrinking.

My understanding is that the week of 70 degree temps last February (in New England) will remain somewhat of an aberration, but the roller coaster that was March and April (and December, November, and October in previous years - think 2015) will become more and more commonplace. I'm calling out specific years here, but this has been the trend for the past numerous years, not just these last two.

People are very good at imagining patterns that are in fact random and coincidental. Nonetheless many meteorologist skeptics, most notably Joe Bastardi, have pointed to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as having a clear impact on climate in the medium term. If you look at the global temperature records, you'll see temps rising from 1890-1940, then being fairly flat until 1975. Then we see another rise from 1975-1998 and another close to flat period since then. During the 1980's and 1990's the PDO was positive and we tended to have more El Ninos than La Ninas. During both flat periods the PDO was negative and we tended to have more La Ninas than El Ninos. So my belief was that there was an underlying CO2 trend which was offset during the negative PDO periods but boosted during the positive ones. So it was plausible to me by 2008 or so that the "pause" might extend to 2025 or 2030.

The PDO (and the NAO to a lesser extent) have a tremendous impact on climate. The PDO especially alters the rate of CO2 flux in the oceans dramatically. That, of course, has the ability to change the patterns we see over the medium term. However, as the PDO is exactly what the name suggests, an oscillation, it all will roughly balance out at the end of a cycle. That is what we are seeing as the early 2000s get farther and farther in the rear view mirror. This is all atmospheric effects too and not really touching on what is happening in the oceans themselves during these periods.

 

[Sibhusky]

All I want to know is how can I get colder winters?

 

[Lauren]

All I want to know is how can I get colder winters?

-66 C in the Antarctic today.

 

[Lorenzzo]

All I want to know is how can I get colder winters?

Turn down the thermostat?

 

[Bigtinnie]

Good points. Earth systems cycles are indeed complicated, but that doesn't mean giving up on trying to understand them. The history of science is full of disproven and modified theories as more and better data was gathered. But this isn't a fault of science, it's part of the scientific process. And I agree, there are many benefits to clean energy beyond climate change.

What I'm not clear on in those snow level charts is the impact of moisture content in the snow. Is it taken into account? Or is that already factored in as "snowpack" vs snowfall?

Two things the general public (here in the U.S.) doesn't think about: 1) The role of the oceans as a heat and CO2 sink, and 2) though temperature changes may not seem dramatic here in the U.S., they are more dramatic in other parts of the world. (Watch BBC World News or a European country's news and climate change is discussed without controversy).

Water has a high heat capacity. The earth's surface is 70% water, mainly ocean. CO2 dissolves in cold ocean water and in warmer ocean waters, is precipitated mainly as shells of sea organisms. This cycle can be traced by analyzing oxygen isotopes in the shells. Recently, this cycle has become disrupted by an increase in ocean temperatures, as shown by changes in ocean water chemistry that is, most notably, killing off coral reefs (a big CO2 sink). So this starts a positive feedback loop, in which the problem keeps getting worse,

2) The U.S.seems to be the only country in the world that views climate science as debatable. I think this is partly due to the general population's lack of respect for and understanding of the scientific process and failure to read world news. Having been fortunate enough to travel to different parts of the world, I've noted clear differences in attitude regarding those 2 factors.

(I am a chemistry teacher, and in the past few years, I've been shocked by the number of students who "believe" climate change is a hoax, while having no real scientific knowledge to back up their claims).

Pugski members who live overseas:What is your take?

Climate change is mostly discussed here in reference to the ski industry, but as @Monique rightly points out, water supply is the crucial issue. Moreover, the huge migration of refugees from the Mideast is seen as partly due to climate change (drought). South Africa is seeing its worst drought in decades, causing a food crisis.

The big take-away is to pay attention to what's happening beyond our borders, and to respect those with expertise when forming policy.

I would think Australians are similar to Americans in that a large portion of the population are climate change sceptics. Our politicians generally are on board with wanting to appear to be doing something about climate change but like most countries our efforts are somewhat token.
As far as Australia is placed in the world our emissions account for about 2% of the global total. We could all drive hydrogen cars and ban all our coal fired power stations but it wouldn't make a ounce of difference if the likes of China/India and the good old USA don't modify their ways to reduce emissions.

I'm not completely doom and gloom on climate change personally as I don't pretend to know enough about it however I casually observe that looking at records for a hundred years or so out of millions isn't exactly a great sample.

I'm happy to modify my lifestyle to make the world's environment 'better' but I object to paying another tax that will do no more than fund politicians coffers (which they invariably waste) and create another bogus 'industry' for slippery bankers and wheeler dealers to profit from.

 

[Eleeski]

All I want to know is how can I get colder winters?

Move to Mars. But NASA says it's warming too!

Eric

 

[Sibhusky]

Turn down the thermostat?

It's at 62. We walk around with coats on.

 

[David Chaus]

All I want to know is how can I get colder winters?

Move to Canada? You're already so close. Banff or Canmore are nice and cold in the winter, though not nearly enough snow.