Warmer Springs...

[Trakar]

Warmer Springs Causing Loss of Snow Cover throughout the Rocky Mountains
Released: 5/13/2013 2:00:00 PM
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192
Greg Pederson http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/[email protected]&n=Greg+Pederson
Phone: 406-994-7390

Paul Laustsen http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/[email protected]&n=Paul++Laustsen
Phone: 650-329-4046


In partnership with: American Geophysical Union

…The new study has teased apart and quantified the different influences of winter temperature, spring temperature, and precipitation on historic snowpack variations and trends in the region. To distinguish those varying influences, the researchers implemented a regional snow model that uses inputs of monthly temperature and precipitation data from 1895 to 2011.
"Each year we looked at temperature and precipitation variations and the amount of water contained within the snowpack as of April," said USGS scientist Greg Pederson, the lead author of the study. "Snow deficits were consistent throughout the Rockies due to the lack of precipitation during the cool seasons during the 1930s – coinciding with the Dust Bowl era. From 1980 on, warmer spring temperatures melted snowpack throughout the Rockies early, regardless of winter precipitation. The model in turn shows temperature as the major driving factor in snowpack declines over the past thirty years."
Runoff from Rocky Mountain winter snowpack accounts for 60 to 80 percent of the annual water supply for more than 70 million people living in the western U.S., and is influenced by factors such as the snowpack’s water content, known as snow water equivalent, and the timing of snowmelt…
The study, "Regional patterns and proximal causes of the recent snowpack decline in the Rocky Mountains," is available from Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

 

[whitehall]

Geez, don't we have enough problems without the Dept. of the Interior "teasing apart and quantifying different influences" and creating a model that may or may not be accurate in order to take some heat off (no pun intended) the rest of the federal government that's mired in scandals? The timing is right. The freaking world didn't start in 1895. Geological evidence indicates that the world has been emerging from an ice age for the last couple of centuries.

 

[flacaltenn]

Crap -- Saigon just PROMISED us there was only ONE thread in the enviro section on sketchy empirical evidence and anecdotes from the Hysterical side --- and you come and ruin that promise.

Actually --- it's just the latest of 30 or so that I've seen... Not to mention forest fires, bugs, and ringworm infections..

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, the willfully ignorant really resent anything that might change their status.

Cities and agriculture depend on that runoff from the snowpack. If there are significant changes, and a definate trend in those changes, we better damned well know it before it occurs. Otherwise, we simply react to a situation after it is well out of hand.

 

[Trakar]

Geez, don't we have enough problems without the Dept. of the Interior "teasing apart and quantifying different influences" and creating a model that may or may not be accurate in order to take some heat off (no pun intended) the rest of the federal government that's mired in scandals? The timing is right. The freaking world didn't start in 1895. Geological evidence indicates that the world has been emerging from an ice age for the last couple of centuries.

That's quite the irrelevant and unsupported conspiracy theory you got brewing there bud, but this thread is simply recognizing and seeking to discuss an evidence supported trend that goes back nearly thirty years and is beginning to demonstrate some ecological and sociological problems for natural habitats and human populations dependent upon the snow packs and fresh-water run-offs in the Rocky Mountains. Watersheds that were previously able to nourish and support a broad and diverse spectrum of flora and fauna, as well as support the needs of the nearly 100 million US Citizens who live within the Rocky Mountain watersheds. Watersheds that are losing their snow packs which is the source of most of the surface water and groundwater replenishment throughout nearly a third of the continental United States.

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this situation, or are you merely here to push your fringe conspiracy theories?

 

[Trakar]

Crap -- Saigon just PROMISED us there was only ONE thread in the enviro section on sketchy empirical evidence and anecdotes from the Hysterical side --- and you come and ruin that promise.

Actually --- it's just the latest of 30 or so that I've seen... Not to mention forest fires, bugs, and ringworm infections..

Beyond Whitehall's post, exactly what in this thread do you find to be "sketchy empirical evidence and anecdotes from the Hysterical side?"

You don't find forest fires, bugs, and spreading ringworm infections to be valid environmental issues? Curious that, what category would you place such discussions within?

 

[flacaltenn]

Crap -- Saigon just PROMISED us there was only ONE thread in the enviro section on sketchy empirical evidence and anecdotes from the Hysterical side --- and you come and ruin that promise.

Actually --- it's just the latest of 30 or so that I've seen... Not to mention forest fires, bugs, and ringworm infections..

Beyond Whitehall's post, exactly what in this thread do you find to be "sketchy empirical evidence and anecdotes from the Hysterical side?"

You don't find forest fires, bugs, and spreading ringworm infections to be valid environmental issues? Curious that, what category would you place such discussions within?

I'm merely pointing out the lunacy of attributing forest fires, bug, and spreading ringworm IMMEDIATELY and UNCONDITIONALLY to man's CO2 emissions without adequately weighing or analyzing other mitigating factors.. And by the help of the duped and the press -- call that "global warming". These scientific observations are NOT DISCUSSED here as you assert --- but deemed to be a direct result of a 1degF rise in average global temp over your lifetime by your team.. And no discussion is neccessary under YOUR rules unless you wanna risk being called "willfully ignorant" by GoldiRocks or Trakar..

If the snowpack DURATION is impacted by a warming earth -- then the money should go right now to water STORAGE and better COLLECTION of that run-off.. Not into windmills, EV Status Toys, and banning fossil fuels..

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, the willfully ignorant really resent anything that might change their status.

Cities and agriculture depend on that runoff from the snowpack. If there are significant changes, and a definate trend in those changes, we better damned well know it before it occurs. Otherwise, we simply react to a situation after it is well out of hand.

I'd rather by "willfully ignorant" than "systematically stupid".. At least the willfully ignorant are in great demand as paid political talking heads, envirogroup representatives and Prezidential spokemen...

 

[Trakar]

I'm merely pointing out the lunacy of attributing forest fires, bug, and spreading ringworm IMMEDIATELY and UNCONDITIONALLY to man's CO2 emissions without adequately weighing or analyzing other mitigating factors.. And by the help of the duped and the press -- call that "global warming".

As you are the only person in this thread who has attempted to attribute any of these environmental issues, solely, or in part to planetary climate change, or AGW, I have to wonder at your desire to consider such attributions to be indicative of "lunacy," but I will allow you to reconsider and amend your own words.

I can certainly understand that in a generally warming planetary climate, such events and occurrences might be expected to play a more frequent environmental role, but I see nothing in the OP nor in any subsequent responses (except yours) that attempts to suggest that AGW is the cause of this situation or that addressing AGW would fully resolve this issue.

What is being discussed is the observable fact that since 1985, lower amounts of winter snow are forming smaller snow packs in the Rocky Mountains and "spring time" temperatures are beginning to appear earlier and last longer in the Rocky mountain regions. This is resulting in a dramatic decrease of fresh surface run-off and ground water replenishment. This is causing problems for both the natural environments and the growing human populations that exist within the Rocky Mountain watersheds.

These scientific observations are NOT DISCUSSED here as you assert --- but deemed to be a direct result of a 1degF rise in average global temp over your lifetime by your team.. And no discussion is neccessary under YOUR rules unless you wanna risk being called "willfully ignorant" by GoldiRocks or Trakar..

This is your distorted perception to explain along with what appear to be more conspiracy-flavored meanderings, but are completely irrelevant and without apparent support to this discussion.

If the snowpack DURATION is impacted by a warming earth -- then the money should go right now to water STORAGE and better COLLECTION of that run-off.. Not into windmills, EV Status Toys, and banning fossil fuels..

There is no "un-used" run-off that I am aware of, storing water in one spot merely deprives down-stream users of already insufficient water supplies. What "money" are you talking about? Are you suggesting that taxes should be raised and spent on restoring and replenishing traditional water volumes and flows throughout the Rocky Mountains? I'm really not clear on what you are suggesting here but would be interested in understanding the resolutions you are proffering to address this issue.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm merely pointing out the lunacy of attributing forest fires, bug, and spreading ringworm IMMEDIATELY and UNCONDITIONALLY to man's CO2 emissions without adequately weighing or analyzing other mitigating factors.. And by the help of the duped and the press -- call that "global warming".

As you are the only person in this thread who has attempted to attribute any of these environmental issues, solely, or in part to planetary climate change, or AGW, I have to wonder at your desire to consider such attributions to be indicative of "lunacy," but I will allow you to reconsider and amend your own words.

I can certainly understand that in a generally warming planetary climate, such events and occurrences might be expected to play a more frequent environmental role, but I see nothing in the OP nor in any subsequent responses (except yours) that attempts to suggest that AGW is the cause of this situation or that addressing AGW would fully resolve this issue.

What is being discussed is the observable fact that since 1985, lower amounts of winter snow are forming smaller snow packs in the Rocky Mountains and "spring time" temperatures are beginning to appear earlier and last longer in the Rocky mountain regions. This is resulting in a dramatic decrease of fresh surface run-off and ground water replenishment. This is causing problems for both the natural environments and the growing human populations that exist within the Rocky Mountain watersheds.

These scientific observations are NOT DISCUSSED here as you assert --- but deemed to be a direct result of a 1degF rise in average global temp over your lifetime by your team.. And no discussion is neccessary under YOUR rules unless you wanna risk being called "willfully ignorant" by GoldiRocks or Trakar..

This is your distorted perception to explain along with what appear to be more conspiracy-flavored meanderings, but are completely irrelevant and without apparent support to this discussion.

If the snowpack DURATION is impacted by a warming earth -- then the money should go right now to water STORAGE and better COLLECTION of that run-off.. Not into windmills, EV Status Toys, and banning fossil fuels..

There is no "un-used" run-off that I am aware of, storing water in one spot merely deprives down-stream users of already insufficient water supplies. What "money" are you talking about? Are you suggesting that taxes should be raised and spent on restoring and replenishing traditional water volumes and flows throughout the Rocky Mountains? I'm really not clear on what you are suggesting here but would be interested in understanding the resolutions you are proffering to address this issue.

Welll EXCUUUUUUZE me. Having been subjected to 141 "It's hot and cold and stormy and dry" threads ALL attributed to AGW -- I went with the odds. The sponsoring website caused my super-vigilante spyware to panic -- so I couldnt load the draft article.

Certainly GOLDIROCKS got that message and launched off on the lets' control the energy and economy so that we can build a more sustainable future --- meme..

But if your intentions were to merely POINT to a problem of early melting snow pack and NOT make those implications --- then in either case -- I've given you the proper engineering suggestions. Even tho you seem unclear about the diff between "water content" by volume and WHEN it hits the tributaries for collection. THERE IS --- unused run-off by DEFINITION if the snow melt is earlier and more concentrated that COULD be stored.

For example -- everyone was BREATHLESS about the early demise of the snowpack in the Sierras --- but as of Jan -- it was WAAAY above normal. Suggesting that if it melts earlier, you store the glut for the lean. Without depriving anyone of anything except flooding. Think that was recognized by the Egyptians no???

Do I want to live in a climate where the glaciers are retreating or advancing? And which engineering problems would I rather solve?

You go first.

 

[Katzndogz]

Amazing.

It's like those snowstorms last month never happened!

 

[Trakar]

I'm merely pointing out the lunacy of attributing forest fires, bug, and spreading ringworm IMMEDIATELY and UNCONDITIONALLY to man's CO2 emissions without adequately weighing or analyzing other mitigating factors.. And by the help of the duped and the press -- call that "global warming".

As you are the only person in this thread who has attempted to attribute any of these environmental issues, solely, or in part to planetary climate change, or AGW, I have to wonder at your desire to consider such attributions to be indicative of "lunacy," but I will allow you to reconsider and amend your own words.

I can certainly understand that in a generally warming planetary climate, such events and occurrences might be expected to play a more frequent environmental role, but I see nothing in the OP nor in any subsequent responses (except yours) that attempts to suggest that AGW is the cause of this situation or that addressing AGW would fully resolve this issue.

What is being discussed is the observable fact that since 1985, lower amounts of winter snow are forming smaller snow packs in the Rocky Mountains and "spring time" temperatures are beginning to appear earlier and last longer in the Rocky mountain regions. This is resulting in a dramatic decrease of fresh surface run-off and ground water replenishment. This is causing problems for both the natural environments and the growing human populations that exist within the Rocky Mountain watersheds.

If the snowpack DURATION is impacted by a warming earth -- then the money should go right now to water STORAGE and better COLLECTION of that run-off.. Not into windmills, EV Status Toys, and banning fossil fuels..

There is no "un-used" run-off that I am aware of, storing water in one spot merely deprives down-stream users of already insufficient water supplies. What "money" are you talking about? Are you suggesting that taxes should be raised and spent on restoring and replenishing traditional water volumes and flows throughout the Rocky Mountains? I'm really not clear on what you are suggesting here but would be interested in understanding the resolutions you are proffering to address this issue.

Welll EXCUUUUUUZE me. Having been subjected to 141 "It's hot and cold and stormy and dry" threads ALL attributed to AGW -- I went with the odds. The sponsoring website caused my super-vigilante spyware to panic -- so I could load the draft article.

I see no apology for your unsupported presumption and subsequent irrelevant attack, rant and conspiracy mongering, and thus nothing to "EXCUUUUUUZE." But given this demonstration of your own "odds" calculation ability, it is little wonder that you have so little confidence and comprehension of statistics. And if you are getting panic warnings from spyware software when visiting the US Geological Survey (www.usgs.gov) website, it is probably a flaw in your software.

Certainly GOLDIROCKS got that message and launched off on the lets' control the energy and economy so that we can build a more sustainable future --- meme..

Not sure what imagined meme you are referring to, but his actual words were on topic, and sensible in their overview perspective and approach. I know of no problem that is more effectively, efficiently and cheaply dealt with after the fact rather than through a well considered proactive approach.

But if you intentions were to merely POINT to a problem of early melting snow pack and NOT make those implications --- then in either case -- I've given you the proper engineering suggestions. Even tho you seem unclear about the diff between "water content" by volume and WHEN it hits the tributaries for collection. THERE IS --- unused run-off by DEFINITION if the snow melt is earlier and more concentrated that COULD be stored.

You do not seem to be reading the article or the report on which the article is based. There is less overall water forming snow packs, the snow that does form melts sooner, the existing reservoirs that might stretch and extend that water a bit longer, are drying up. It isn't just a matter of the same amount of water, coming at the wrong time, it is a lot less water arriving at the wrong time and little or no water coming when both the dependent biomes and human populations require more water.

For example -- everyone was BREATHLESS about the early demise of the snowpack in the Sierras --- but as of Jan -- it was WAAAY above normal. Suggesting that if it melts earlier, you store the glut for the lean. Without depriving anyone of anything except flooding. Think that was recognized by the Egyptians no???

Your example is not analogous to the situation being discussed, even in rough approximation.

Do I want to live in a climate where the glaciers are retreating or advancing? And which engineering problems would I rather solve?

You go first.

Completely irrelevant and off-topic to this thread. If you care to try and propose a resolution to the problem at hand along with recommendations on how to fund those resolutions you will have made a relevant contribution to this thread's discussion.

 

[Trakar]

Amazing.

It's like those snowstorms last month never happened!

Irrelevant and largely without bearing or merit on this topic.

 

[westwall]

The topic itself is irrelevent and has no bearing in reality on observed history. Like the vast majority of these revisionist threads the OP would have us believe that the weather of the last 30 years is somehow special. It's not. There is no "extreme" weather increase.
The weather is actually calmer now than it has been for decades.

Yet more hyperbole and emotional hand wringing designed to make the theft of more billions of dollars palatable to the ignorant.

The problem is the people aren't ignorant anymore.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Hoover-dam-lake-mead.JPG

Lake Mead

In slightly longer than a decade, Nevada's Lake Mead — which sits down river from Lake Powell on the Colorado River — has seen its total volume drop by more than 60 percent. Persistant drought and increased demand have wreaked havoc on water levels, sometimes draining three feet of depth in a month. Now, the lake is listed at about 1,100 feet above sea level, a foot below the previous all-time low set in 1937. With demand not letting up and climate change warming things up, it doesn't look good for Lake Mead. Water managers have the option of releasing water from Lake Powell to raise Lake Mead, but that doesn't solve the problem of not having enough water in the system in the first place

7 lakes and rivers that are drying up: Lake Mead | MNN - Mother Nature Network

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming: USGS study shows 20 percent decline in Rocky Mountain snow cover since 1980 | Summit County Citizens Voice

After taking an in-depth look at snowfall and temperature records, federal scientists said warmer spring temperatures since the 1980s have caused an estimated 20 percent loss of snow cover across the Rocky Mountains of western North America — especially at lower elevations where temperatures have the greatest effect.

 

[Old Rocks]

I far more trust the USGS and Munich Re, Swiss Re, than an ananomous internet poster that has been proven to lie on numerous occasions.

 

[westwall]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Hoover-dam-lake-mead.JPG

Lake Mead

In slightly longer than a decade, Nevada's Lake Mead — which sits down river from Lake Powell on the Colorado River — has seen its total volume drop by more than 60 percent. Persistant drought and increased demand have wreaked havoc on water levels, sometimes draining three feet of depth in a month. Now, the lake is listed at about 1,100 feet above sea level, a foot below the previous all-time low set in 1937. With demand not letting up and climate change warming things up, it doesn't look good for Lake Mead. Water managers have the option of releasing water from Lake Powell to raise Lake Mead, but that doesn't solve the problem of not having enough water in the system in the first place

7 lakes and rivers that are drying up: Lake Mead | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Yeah? So? Lake Mead has been that low before as you would have figured out had you done a simple search so once again this is nothing new.


* Lake Mead Water Levels

 

[westwall]

I far more trust the USGS and Munich Re, Swiss Re, than an ananomous internet poster that has been proven to lie on numerous occasions.

I have NEVER lied you troll, unlike yourself. We have shown your lies multiple times.

 

[skookerasbil]

Warmer Springs Causing Loss of Snow Cover throughout the Rocky Mountains
Released: 5/13/2013 2:00:00 PM
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192
Greg Pederson http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/[email protected]&n=Greg+Pederson
Phone: 406-994-7390

Paul Laustsen http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/[email protected]&n=Paul++Laustsen
Phone: 650-329-4046


In partnership with: American Geophysical Union

…The new study has teased apart and quantified the different influences of winter temperature, spring temperature, and precipitation on historic snowpack variations and trends in the region. To distinguish those varying influences, the researchers implemented a regional snow model that uses inputs of monthly temperature and precipitation data from 1895 to 2011.
"Each year we looked at temperature and precipitation variations and the amount of water contained within the snowpack as of April," said USGS scientist Greg Pederson, the lead author of the study. "Snow deficits were consistent throughout the Rockies due to the lack of precipitation during the cool seasons during the 1930s – coinciding with the Dust Bowl era. From 1980 on, warmer spring temperatures melted snowpack throughout the Rockies early, regardless of winter precipitation. The model in turn shows temperature as the major driving factor in snowpack declines over the past thirty years."
Runoff from Rocky Mountain winter snowpack accounts for 60 to 80 percent of the annual water supply for more than 70 million people living in the western U.S., and is influenced by factors such as the snowpack’s water content, known as snow water equivalent, and the timing of snowmelt…
The study, "Regional patterns and proximal causes of the recent snowpack decline in the Rocky Mountains," is available from Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

Overall, we're in a major lull stupid........and nobody knows how long it is going to last. Nobody has a clue as to whats causing it either........


The deep-ocean theory is one of a half-dozen explanations that have been proffered for the warming plateau. Perhaps the answer will turn out to be some mix of all of them. And in any event, computer forecasts of climate change suggest that pauses in warming lasting a couple of decades should not surprise us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0


From todays New York Times, by the way..........


another passage.........


So, if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point, too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin. That will put extra energy and moisture into the atmosphere that can fuel weather extremes, like heat waves and torrential rains.


But WTF.......all we hear from the climate k00ks is we are in the middle of extreme weather stuff NOW!!!




These people will spin shit until your head pops off from confusion. But thats the whole point.....morph the shit is stupid easy.


Bottom line is......they dont know shit about shit with this stuff and any data they have.....ANY DATA.......is completely useless for predicting anything.

The models are wrong | Behind The Black



Trakkar......one of the most touched of the hoseheads!!!


By the way.....a major European meteorilogical organization, as well as Russian scientists are now saying we may be entering a period of 200-250 years of cooling. ( Ive posted both links in recent weeks......go find them yourself )