March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels(theguardian.com) |
March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels(theguardian.com) |
Climate catastrophe is coming, soon. Everybody knows this, even the vocal deniers (the ones with power, not the sheep they feed propaganda to). They've simply decided to profit off it instead of trying to slow it down.
The "drill, baby, drill", "clean beautiful coal" lunacy and wanting to invade Greenland and Canada are all directly related.
Last time that I saw it I wondered if the Ukraine conflict might be about control of the “Breadbasket of Europe” as much as anything.
I would say climate catastrophe is already here... at least for them.
[1] - https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/02/Crockford-State-...
https://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/dbdata/station/swegraph/swegraph_...
On a more positive note, one random person in the area unexpectedly confirmed that they thought global warming was indeed real.
Ignoring horrifying drought scenarios, it is also troubling to think about how this will change if we start having warm winters and more of the winter precipitation as rain.
I think the worst case would be if we end up like some tropical countries, where they can have disastrous flooding and then drought in very short cycles. The water comes all at once and you cannot hope to control or contain it. But there are also gaps that strain the ability to store enough water and manage consumption rates.
Even better, in some place like Ruidoso, NM (where I've lived) there have been pretty massive deforestations from wildfires with the result being that it floods about any time it rains.
I've spent about 3-5hr/day for the last 4 weeks trying to get rid of stuff that burns as far out from my shacks as I can, but I would bet that when it burns, it's going to go big.
Not looking forward to that.
How is any measurement of a quantity of an item less than zero? You can't have negative snow to my knowledge.
I believe what they're saying is that the 2015 measurement was also zero. So this year's measurement isn't the "second-lowest", it's the "second equally lowest". That's the only way I could interpret it.
Use numbers, not vibes, when deciding if something like this is unusual. Dismissing this because march is a "spring month" is like asking someone who lives in Miami if they consider it unusual to have no snow on the ground in February.
Which of course isn't an antithesis to the lack of snow in the west, and likely is literally the flip side of the "same problem". but interesting
> The snow is melting so fast in the Sierra that, if it continues at its current rate, little would be left by early April. It’s unlikely to keep up this astounding pace, but there’s still high potential for the earliest melt-off on record in the state, according to Swain.
> “It feels like we skipped spring this year and dropped straight into a summer heatwave,” said Karla Nemeth, the DWR director, during Wednesday’s briefing. “What should be gradual snowmelt happened suddenly weeks ago.” This year’s was one of the quickest surveys they’d had, she added.
So the alarm here is the rate of melt, it should be sustained over a longer period. This is a problem because this is a natural "store" of water for downstream sources... if it's all released earlier it evaporates quicker and isn't replenished with more melt throughout the season.
Peak snow cover in the west (California) is expected to be in early April. December was an intense month of rainfall and the snowpack was trending towards above average, but then a dry Feb and a heatwave in March not only ensured the pack didn’t grow but pretty much nuked whatever cover early season rains brought. It is shocking because in December it was looking like historical snow and it went into catastrophic shortage in 3 months.
Beside that, the measurements are of how much moisture is left to melt off:
It’s not just the amount of snow left on mountaintops that’s concerning experts, but the amount of moisture still frozen within them. “Snow water equivalent” (SWE), a measurement of what could melt off to supply natural and manmade systems, is exceptionally low.
California did quite well in December. Then late February and early March came along, and a rain event at high altitude melted a lot of the snowpack, followed by a not-uncommon heatwave in mid-late March melted a lot of what was left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...
So it sounds like they (and I assume you) definitely have an agenda you're trying to promote.
https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...
Read that and explain why the population is decreasing — the only point he made was that it was not.
Anyway, I do admit that linking from that website is not a good look but all I did was link the report and I am not advocating for anything else on their website. My larger point, the climate change community does not need the polar bears to drive their point. It is a bad example and we should use one of the many other verifiable sources (ice sheet loss, sea level rise, droughts, etc.) instead.
[1] - https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-pop... [2] - https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/27/fac...
> Experts say the rising tally of polar bears reflects an increased ability to track bears – not an actual increase in the population. The graph is based on various estimates of the global population that include unscientific estimates, extrapolation and insufficient data sets, according to scientists.
You will find that the population has been stable globally and they themselves say the most populated region (Barents sea) is has very likely increased in the last 50 years.
The polar bear population is a pet peeve of mine because it is a bad example, if you want to keep defending it, go ahead, but you are not helping climate change advocates.
That is a very different claim than your original.
You said it is steadily increasing and has doubled.
And, yes, I read the whole article.
"'Populations have not grown,' Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. 'Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.'"
"The areas with the best data show no increase, contrary to the post's claim. According to the 2021 report, three of the subpopulations have decreased over the past two generations. None of the subpopulations have increased over the past two generations."
Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592)
Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015)
I am not making up these claims. I am reading the very words and data from the people you are quoting.
> The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s. Basically double what it was.
Then:
> You will find that the population has been stable globally.
Can you resolve the apparent conflict between these two statements?
"""
Go look at the data yourself: [link]
You will find that the population has been stable globally [...]
"""
I am summarizing their own analysis. If you go look in the data, you will see that the global population is on the rise.
I looked at the data you linked.
Of the ~20 regional populations listed, one says long term increase, two say long term decrease, and the rest all say insufficient data.
It doesn’t seem to match up with your portrayal very well.
Where did you get the “doubled” bit from?
Now, for the doubling, if you look at the original study I linked, it has a graph of the point estimates through the decades. From the 60s to now is about a doubling. If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%. These are estimates based on multiple studies in the different time periods whereas the WWF report uses a single report.
I have sufficiently defended my claim and provided actual sources for things other than a news article that says "expert says...". If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.
Not at all. If I find a $20 in one single pair of pants, the logical conclusion is not that all of my pants have $20 in them.
> If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%.
The experts cited also indicate the 80s numbers have the same issue.
> If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.
Barring time machines, "real data" from the 1960s seems… tough to obtain.
Leaving us with people who know what they're talking about, who seem to widely agree on the point.