The topic of global warming: twice is nice.

Our earlier conversation on global warming being as pleasant as it was, I thought I would offer a graphic from a presentation I attended yesterday by the policy director of Climate Solutions. CS amongst other things is a major proponent of the WA clean car campaign (trying to get WA to be the eighth state to adopt the CA auto emissions standard). More importantly, perhaps to some, they advocate clean energy as a practical matter and as an economic stimulant rather than offering a "the sky is falling" viewpoint, often working with regional farm bureaus and other rural associations. They've some interesting things to say.<br><br>Regardless, this isn't intended as an advertisement. The presentation housed a slide you may find of interest regarding NW snowpack loss estimates over the next 85 years:<br><br> <br><br>I don't know the source or contraints of the modeling involved, but even were this a liberal model, the possibility of a -60% average Apr. snowpack within 50 years is disconcerting at best.<br><br>That said, what I do know of such models, though not this one in particular, is that much of the variability in warming estimates comes not in model predictive error per se, but rather input error from uncertainty. In other words, what the snowpack looks like in 2100 is in part dependent on our energy choices in the coming decades. Moving toward renewables, for example, would change modeled effects materially from those assuming continued dependence on carbon-based usage. My assumption here is these effects assume the latter, though this is but speculation.<br><br>I realize some will assume this is me putting the ball on the tee; however, before you start swinging away let me end by emphasizing this post in no way suggests warming has anything to do with the current winter. <br><br>*Edited to remove a closing which was poorly worded and most unnecessary

www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml


...

Dissent from a Cato Institute scholar and the author of EcoScam?!!? <br><br>It seems your debate is whether global warming is indeed occurring. The majority of science suggests it is, including that put out by US Executive branch agencies (OSTP, EPA, USGCRP, etc.), but if you don't buy it then I guess you don't buy it.<br><br>For others that consider global warming a fact, but who, as me, can't fully wrap their minds around it, I thought this output offered an interesting conversation piece. True, it's just a set of models, which are themselves dependent on inputs, but the possibility is nonetheless unsettling.<br><br>I can't help but think back to the Mt. Adams thread from a few months ago and some of the comments made about the future demand for high alpine resorts...

I have come to the conclusion that it won't take 60 years for the glaciers to dissappear. It'll take one year. Don't believe me? Try to ski Baker this summer. The glaciers will be gone. And in ten years, the human population of the planet will be reduced by 99%. We're all going to die, so better sell me your gear now. <br><br>And remember, it's Bush's fault.

I don't know what skip's post originally said, but I think this is certainly a topic of great interest to skiers. Sardonic replies be damned, post away skip and Larry! <br><br>Modelling is a very important part of science these days. It's amazing what computers allow us to do. Just because a model isn't perfect doesn't mean it's useless.

Hmm. The hardest-hitting thing a libertarian opinion columnist (linked from above) says about the science is "So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional wisdom;or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and the controversy." Fascinating...<br><br>Speaking controversy, here's a viewpoint on how the press tends to bias toward artificial "balance" in reporting on the stance of scientists on global warming:<br> www.fair.org/extra/0411/global-warming.html

Skip's plots look startingly like some I saw Phil Mote (UW, Climate Imacts Group among other affiliations) present in a seminar last year or the year before. He did some fairly detailed statistical analysis of past snowpack data, then used a predictive model (I forget the details of his predictive model, but I think it was pretty simple) coupled to a fairly complex hydrologic model (named Vic if I remember correctly). Anyway, a cursory google search didn't turn up a home page, but I found a powerpoint of a version of the talk at here. Scroll down toward the bottom of the page.<br><br>Since it's pretty old work, I'd be surprised if it isn't written into a paper and been submitted to a journal (or even been published by now). You should be able to find the paper online somewhere, if you look hard enough (most papers, once they are submitted can be found somewhere on the web).

Oh yea, models aren't perfect, but they are pretty good and they can teach us a hell of a lot. But you don't need a model to tell you our snowpack is going to take a beating in the future. Our skiing is just above the winter snowline, so a few degrees of warming will essentially kill it. Places like Utah, California, Montana, ect.. with degrees to spare will be OK, and may even gain some snow if precipitation increases. I've had conversations with ski partners about future choices in places to settle down, and we have agreed that long term (30 years) global warming is a serious issue to consider in choosing to stay in the Northwest.<br><br>I'd also like to point out that estimates for future warming are globally averaged. Because of the way the climate system works, it appears the tropics are fairly immune to warming, while the polar regions will get hit harder. Thus, if it warms 2 K globally averaged over the next 75-100 years, (a very conservative estimate) we will probably see more like 3-4 K (6-8 F) here where we live. Warming is also more pronounced during the winter than summer. The prospects are not good if you like skiing at Snoqualmie Pass.

You don't need any complex models. Consider the glacier recession in this area in just the last 50 years. A few thousand years ago this area was completely under glaciers, right? Change is certain, and the recent historical trend (few thousand years) has been toward significantly less snow here. The models of less snowpack in 100 years don't surprise me too much, nor would it surprise me if the models turn our incorrect. I guess you could always move north to follow the retreating snow pack or sell your skis on the new for sale forum.

???<br>But is the rate of change in the last 50 years the same as the average rate since the last ice age ended? This is where the "it's all natural phenomena - we're still just swinging out of the ice age" argument stops making sense to me. And where models that demonstrate how carbon might be causing the observed acceleration in rate (and more importantly, predicting where we're going depending on choices we make) start to seem helpful.<br><br>

... A few thousand years ago this area was completely under glaciers, right? Change is certain, and the recent historical trend (few thousand years) has been toward significantly less snow here. ...

<br><br>Well hold on, that's not quite true. A few thousand years ago (5000-8000 years ago), this area was much warmer and all glaciers in the lower 48 disappeared, except perhaps high on the northern Cascade volcanoes. <br><br>The last Glacial period (Ice Age) ended around 13000 years ago, and the ice sheet in Puget Sound vanished very quickly during the following Interglacial period. The climate warmed to several degrees warmer than it is currently, peaking around 6500 years ago. The climate cooled around 4000 years ago, the start of the Neoglacial period, during which most current glaciers in the lower 48 re-formed. The coldest time since the last Glacial was probably the recent Little Ice Age, roughly 1500-1850, during which glaciers reached their maximum sizes since the last Glacial. So the trend toward less snow and ice is only the past 150-200 years.<br><br>(These numbers are all off the top of my head, but they are approximately correct.) <br><br>I just wanted to quickly clear that issue up, I don't really feel like discussing global warming right now.<br>

For you Global Warming dudes. Here is a great example of how little things have changed over the past 60 years. <br><br>hyak.net/temp/globalwarming.html

Hyak, do you have permission from skistreak to stick those photos and his text on your website? At the very least you should credit where the first photo came from (it's from the Timberline lodge museum -- they have real seal skins there too!). It's unforunate the actual dates of the photos aren't listed. Without the actual dates, it's possible the first photo was taken August 31st and the 2nd and 3rd August 1st. <br><br>BTW, does anyone have any commentary on the September issue of National Geographic? The entire issue was devoted to Climate Change and contained much more thoughtful and useful information then I've *yet* seen in Global Warming threads on Internet message boards. <br><br>I'm glad photomatt was able to provide the background on Skip's models -- thanks Matt.

Hyak, do you have permission from skistreak to stick those photos and his text on your website? At the very least you should credit where the first photo came from (it's from the Timberline lodge museum -- they have real seal skins there too!). It's unforunate the actual dates of the photos aren't listed. Without the actual dates, it's possible the first photo was taken August 31st and the 2nd and 3rd August 1st. <br><br>I'm glad photomatt was able to provide the background on Skip's models -- thanks Matt.

<br><br>The credit for skistreak is right on the photo, I did not try to hide it. I had no idea where the original photo came from so I could not give it the credit it deserves. <br><br>Very very unlikely that the pictures would be taken at the tail ends of the months as you mention. The facts are in the photo's and thanks for skistreak for posting them with the info. a couple years ago! <br><br><br>

Thanks for the pointer to Nat Geo, Jeff.<br><br>Glacier recession is happening in many places and so is of course not a myth, two photos of Hood notwithstanding. As another Nat Geo article points out(www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0310/exclusive.html), there are multiple causal factors, so it's not a simple story. But in case the Kili photos aren't enough:
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hopkinson/GLAC_BOW.HTM
www.easternsnow.org/proceedings/2001/Hall_1.pdf
(close to home)www.nps.gov/noca/massbalance.htm
geowww.uibk.ac.at/glacio/RESEARCH/RWENZORI/
etc.


And if you want to dig up some of your own to try to "prove" your POV, a stash of historical glacier photos can be found at: nsidc.org/data/g00472.html.

Interesting discussion, but would the folks in California, Nevada, Utah, and even the Northeast be so inclined to discuss Global Warming this season as we are?<br><br>Here is my take looking at the big picture.  From what I remember from taking thermodynamics (a course I failed once and barely passed the second time) the Earth's atmosphere (including the oceans)is pretty much a closed thermodynamic system relatively speaking.  Sure there is radiational cooling through the atmosphere that global warming is supposedly affecting but that is part of the system and when you consider the whole system that has only a few degrees of change in thousands of years it's pretty much a closed system.  From what my wasted brain remembers in a closed system the change in energy (or delta) is always equal to zero.  What that means to me is that the Earth's atmosphere is always trying to balance the delta.  Now where the hell am I going with this?....smoked too much in college I guess.<br><br>Oh yeah, to me it seems like most of the studies out there are only looking at one part of the curve - the part we are on right now which shows a steady increase in global temps over the past 50 years or so.  But if you look at the whole system over geologic time the curve could probably be defined more like a sine wave with periods where climate was really warm (peaks on the curve) and periods when it was really cold (valleys on the curve) but overall the horizontal axis (Average temp) remains in the middle.  Now this is just my personal perception but it seems like naturally we are just on the part of the curve that is ascending above the average.  Is the introduction of greenhouse gasses accelerating the rate of climb on the curve?  Probably by most accounts.  Does that mean that there could be a corresponding accellerated decrease in temps in the future?  Well the Pentagon studied it and found it to be a possibile scenerio for the future.<br><br>I think the overall human affect on climate can be better defined as having an impact on the applitude and frequency of the curve.  The Earth is going to try and maintain the delta so the curve will become steeper with high peaks and deeper valleys and less time in between on the geologic time scale.  I think this also occurs on a seasonal/yearly time scale too that is geographically dependent (i.e. being in the right place at the right time).  It was just a few years ago that we had the world record for accumulated snowfall, and now we have bunk.  A few years ago the glaciers started recharging.  Crevases even opened up again on the south slope of Mt Adams.  In the future I think we'll have to get used to years with plentiful snowfall and pathetic years like this one.  The way I look at it there's not much I can do except drive less and consume less but I get pretty apathetic when I think about nations like India and China that are starting to eclipse the U.S. in their contribution to greenhouse gasses.  Sure the polar ice caps might melt but I'll enjoy sailing the Artic Ocean in the summer then. <br><br>I wish it would snow...I've obviously got too much time on my hands to think right now.

Like Amar, I'm not eager to get into a debate about global warming right now either. But in response to hyak.net's "you be the judge" pictures, I'll offer some others:<br><br>www.alpenglow.org/climbing/ptarmigan-195...scade-1953-2003.html

You may have seen the Wenatchee World article from last autumn which predicted that the South Cascade Glacier (in the pictures) may disappear within 100 years. It was discussed over in CascadeClimbers.com, as I recall.

To me it seems that whether the snowfields on Hood or on the South Cascades glacier are increasing or decreasing can't really be used to "prove" global warming one way or another.<br><br>So if global temps are rising (due to natural or human causes -- or some combination thereof) -- why should we assume that this will mean less snow uniformly over the globe? <br><br>IMHO the weather system is far too complex for a simple linear relationship than that. <br><br>Regardless of why the climate is changing -- the effects will not be easy to predict -- some areas will get more snow, some less, some will get dryer, some wetter.<br><br>Not so long ago (1950's) the PNW experienced a series of winters with above average snowfall -- and some glacier climbers were gleefully speculating on "The return of the ice age".<br><br>One other item -- I was surfing through some other weather records last week (don't recall where) -- but do recall a general impression that the winters in the late '30s through the '40's had low snowpacks in the PNW -- so it might be elightening if someone could dig up some August 1950-59 or so photos of Mt Hood.