Who are these people that John Christy is refuting?
Maybe Christy is just being polite by failing to name the people he describes below:
"The dramatic claims about snow disappearing in the Sierra just are not verified," said Christy, a climate change skeptic and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It looks like you're going to have snow for the foreseeable future."I'm somewhat surprised that people were saying that a massive mountain range with much of the elevation exceeding 10,000 feet was not going to have snow in the foreseeable future. As kind and fair as Christy is, I think he should gently criticize by name the people who've said that, as well as the experts who've said that we currently see a decline in the Sierra snowpack. Of course the article has a contrary expert:
Mike Dettinger, a climatologist and research hydrologist at the Scripps Institute of the U.S. Geological Survey, said Christy is picking and choosing data while misleading people about what climate change scientists are actually saying.
....
Recent studies by Scripps scientists have found that over the last 50 years the southern Sierra snowpack has gotten larger while the northern Sierra pack has shrunk. Although they have predicted the overall state snowpack would decrease over time as a result of climate change, nobody has claimed that it has happened yet, Dettinger said.
What's significant in terms of global warming, he said, is the fact that the snowpack has declined over three quarters of the western United States, an area that includes Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico. Scripps researchers, in coordination with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists, have concluded that 60 percent of that downward trend is due to greenhouse gases.
"There is a popular conception that the snowpack has declined everywhere, but that is not what the science says," Dettinger said. "What we're saying broadly is that across western North America there have been declines in spring snowpack."Might have been helpful to include this info near the beginning of the article instead of at the end. Christy can always counter the criticism by naming names. Go to it!
Also worth noting that he's combining different measurement systems over time to reach a conclusion, the exact thing that denialists criticize about temperature and sea level records used by climatologists. So now we know it can be done, apparently.
Posts
44 comments:
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
Hmmm. Sierra snowpack melting yields 855,000 google results, so maybe the question should be, who among the scientists Eli supports, hasn't said the snow is melting?
In other wonderful news,
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/03/global-warming-scam-arctic-experts-determine-that-total-of-72-decades-had-polar-warming-greater-than.html
of course it's already known that GAT has been higher and the poles did not melt.
Cadbury,
Sphaerica says...
The first link in the list of hits says:
"By 2100, spring snowmelt could begin up to 2 months earlier in the western U.S."
The second:
"Given scenarios of warming in California, we can expect to see acceleration in the peak timing trend; this will reduce the warm season storage capacity of the California snowpack."
The third:
"It should come as no surprise that the unseasonably high temperatures down in Reno come with similar conditions up in the mountains.
. . .
At this rate, without more snowfall, ski resorts may be forced to close early this season."
Without wasting any more time going down the list... exactly how does your observation on the number of Google hits for a few keywords say anything of relevance to anyone about what scientists are actually saying?
@Sphaerica
I just googled sierra snowpack increasing and got 1.85 million hits.
I am in utter shock and speechless, somebody better call William Connolley and the global warming rapid response team and fix this error immediately.
Sphaerica, the good doctor admits when he has made an error.
Dettinger,
"Christy is picking and choosing data while misleading people about what climate change scientists are actually saying"
Quelle surprise! Another Christy crock in the making.
Albatross
Y'all are not even trying.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/02/04/203650/chu-were-looking-at-a-scenario-where-theres-no-more-agriculture-in-california-part-2/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/04/steven-chu-obama-climate-change-drought
"North American city water supply systems often draw water from considerable distances, so climate impacts need not be local to affect cities. By the 2020s, 41% of the supply to southern California is likely to be vulnerable to warming from loss of Sierra Nevada and Colorado River basin snowpack (see Section 14.4.1)."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-6.html
Celery Eater
Celery eater ain't too brite, but we knew that, he just provides further proof.
"North American city water supply systems often draw water from considerable distances, so climate impacts need not be local to affect cities. By the 2020s, 41% of the supply to southern California is likely to be vulnerable to warming from loss of Sierra Nevada and Colorado River basin snowpack (see Section 14.4.1)."
is in no way inconsistent with
"What we're saying broadly is that across western North America there have been declines in spring snowpack."
rib smokin' bunny
CE - watch the language, and consider this a warning. Calibrate the verbal knife fighting.
As for substance, Christy alleges people are saying the California snow pack has already started decreasing, and provided no evidence of people saying that, especially not of experts. Your citation of people predicting future problems doesn't help Christy.
If you're trying to open a different discussion about Chu's off the cuff predictions from 3 years ago, I've answered that at my old blog years ago, and personally I'm not interested in it right now.
Well I reread CE's second comment and changed my mind. It's gone now.
CE, feel free to resubmit the substantive part of the comment. If you want to knife fight verbally, respect some limits.
Winter snow extent is a not a good measure of global warming, because global warming predicts increasing temperatures AND increasing precipitation. These two effects may act against each other.
Summer snow extent on mountains that were once snow-covered all teh year round, and the amount of melt Winter-Summer is a far more persuasive measurement. I am surprised Dr Cristy does not apparently know this.
Toby
From "in other wonderful news" that the good Dinosaur Cadbury cites: I followed the links back to the actual paper, which does find that Greenland was warmer than present for a decent period of time in the past 4000 years (though not so much in the past 1000), but then states:
"Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100."
-MMM
Brian,
I referenced the IPCC AR4.
"By the 2020s, 41% of the supply to southern California is likely to be vulnerable to warming from loss of Sierra Nevada and Colorado River basin snowpack (see Section 14.4.1)."
It better hurry up and start melting that Sierra snowpack, because in 8 years the "2020's" will be here.
Thanks for the chuckle in regards to your hand waving about Steven chu. He seems to have a lot of "off the cuff" remarks. I guess the bottom line is to ignore everything he says at this point, thanks.
Celery Eater
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@Celery Eater
nice work, I knew some bozo had to have made some kind of idiotic claim about all the snow melting.
I am eagerly waiting for Eli to answer my question, "quote a scientist you support saying an area is gaining ice or snowpack"
CE and the birdbrain remind me of nothing so much as the man who fell of a 100th floor balcony and was heard saying as he passed the 50th floor: "So far, so good!"
a_ray,
As dumb and irrelevant as ever. Go with your strengths I guess.
a_ray reminds me of the old faithfull dog that never questions his masters and is always looking for an approving pet on the head.
Celery Eater
A "pet" on the head?
Like this?
~@:>
"By the 2020s, 41% of the supply to southern California is likely to be vulnerable to warming from loss of Sierra Nevada and Colorado River basin snowpack (see Section 14.4.1)."
Likely: >66% probability
(see 1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties)
That's the problem these "skeptics" always have, the need to create strawman arguments that have no substance. If they had any real arguments of value they could make, they would be doing so. Lindzen has the same problem.
...pet on the head?
Doesn't Donald Trump have one of those?
The window won't close on the "2020s" prediction, for 17(+) years.
Not 8.
arch stanton
Arch,
IPCC AR4 states;
"...by the 2020's"
not
".. by the END of the 2020s".
lol Epic Fail
In any case Christy is refuting Steven Chu, Joe Romm, and the IPCC AR4. And in the new way to post comments on RR, the depths of your ignorance and lack of intelligence is stunning. You must be so blinded by belief in your "cause" you'll continue to behave in a semi-religious, reactionary mode with no individual thought, a collective.
Celery Eater
i don't understand, if the IPCC intended to mean by the year 2020, why would they use "2020s", not simply "by 2020"?
Perhaps you should ask them.
Celery Eater
I don't know about the IPCC, but when I'm told I'll get paid for my work "by Friday", I don't expect the check on Thursday and I don't call to complain until the end of the day Friday.
CE's argument is that IPCC will have committed epic fail if the snowpack decline shows up and is permanent, starting on Jan 2, 2020, and not Jan 1, 2020.
YMMV
(That's also ignoring the "likely" attribution by IPCC that other commenters highlighted.)
Celery Eater,
I'm starting to worry about you. You seem even dimmer than normal on this post. Normally you screw up and just gish gallop on. Here, you seem to be unable to admit that the 2020s!=2020 and keep doubling down. Not good strategy.
So, want to play poker some time?
The 2020's will be here in 8 years and there has been zero effect on the Sierra snowpack from GW. In all honesty I would say 2025 is the point in which if the Sierra snowpack is still at normal levels then the all the above entities were wrong, again. Agree?
Of course not, more denial from a_ray_in_doorknob_space coming up.
I worry about all of you. You do play follow the stupid pretty well though. One idiot makes a statement and all you other idiots accept it, without thought and parrot away. Quite entertaining.
Back to the "2020's_ so the mid-point is in 13 yesrs and at the ole +.2C a decade warming rate I guess we will see drastic effects of the Sierra snowpack with less than .3C more warming! OMG run for the hills!
Morons, you all are stupid morons.
Celery Eater
"The 2020's will be here in 8 years and there has been zero effect on the Sierra snowpack from GW. In all honesty I would say 2025 is the point in which if the Sierra snowpack is still at normal levels then the all the above entities were wrong, again. Agree?"
Nope.
* Latest Sierra Snowpack Measure Fall Well Short Of Normal.
* Sierra snowpack only at 30% of normal.
Thanks for the link Bowers, but you missed the best part.
"The good news is that last year's wet winter has left the state's reservoirs at 110 percent capacity."
Cherry picking moron.
Celery Eater
Please Bowers keep your idiocy to yourself if you are not even going to try.
"California has huge year-to-year variations and that's expected to continue," Christy said. "California is having a snow drought so far this winter, while last year the state had much heavier than normal snowfall. But over the long term, there just isn't a trend up or down."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/14/BA8N1N7HNQ.DTL#ixzz1pRd5xEA9
Morons.
Celery Eater
Christy said. He's so impartial and quick to admit to his own errors. I notice you've started slinging personal insults with more frequency, though, CE. Is your opinion really looking so desperate?
By the way, CE, "By the 2020s, 41% of the supply to southern California..." is referring to water supply. That means the important measure is snow water content, not snow depth as measured by railway workers.
See slides 3-8
It is quite clear that the snowpack is declining. _Today_, not just according to projections. What is happening is that more water is coming down in liquid form (and running off immediately), and what comes down as snow will melt earlier in the year, necessitating more storage. As a minimum.
I'm not going to call anyone a moron -- no need to rub it in. Right, CE?
Christy's cherry-picking only highlights
1) the fact that snow pack has already been seen to decline from global warming (thanks to celery eater for inspiring me to read Dettinger's paper)
2) Christy's moral failures
3) The importance of a balanced diet
Rib smokin' bunny
“Perhaps you should ask them”
If they meant 2020 they would have said 2020. Obviously they didn’t.
The statement will be true if it occurs by 2029.
No fail, let alone epic.
arch
Oh name calling is now a sign of a weak arguement? Name calling is the RR way, that is what you do here, you do not like it when it happens to you? ah I shed a tear for you.
This is the funniest example of group think ever on RR. Let us look at Brain's words in his article.
"I'm somewhat surprised that people were saying that a massive mountain range with much of the elevation exceeding 10,000 feet was not going to have snow in the foreseeable future. As kind and fair as Christy is, I think he should gently criticize by name the people who've said that, as well as the experts who've said that we currently see a decline in the Sierra snowpack. "
So I point out three examples of people entities that meet the above criteria with little effort.
The funny parts? First you dismiss examples as being fringe, you know like the US Energy Secretary, he is unimportant.
Then you get into a sematics arguement about when the "2020s takes place, I even offered 2025 which you all dutifully ignored.
Now the latest two are; well there is a difference between wet/heavy snow and light snow which has recently turned into you arguing that there is a declining snowpack in the Sierra, so I guess, Brian, that Christy is trying to refute you and company.
You certainly have all done a good job moving the goalposts around while not relizing the original question (and only question Brian asked, "Who is Christy trying to refute, who said anything about declining snow in the Sierra" was answered early on.
I suggest you take a step back and examine your reactionary responses soley based on who dares make them on this site.
btw my name calling is now turned off, I dare you to do the same.
Celery Eater
"well there is a difference between wet/heavy snow and light snow which has recently turned into you arguing that there is a declining snowpack in the Sierra,"
The argument is that the railroad workers didn't measure that aspect to the snow, they only measured depth. It was in response to you asserting that the IPCC's projections on water supply, not snow depth, will be bunk, which you based on depth of snow via Christy's paper, not on the water content of the snow.
Christy whistled, you jumped.
Bowers,
You are ignoring this statement.
By the 2020s, 41% of the supply to southern California is likely to be vulnerable to warming from loss of Sierra Nevada and Colorado River basin snowpack (see Section 14.4.1)."
The water supply is likely to be vulnerable FROM LOSS OF SIERRA SNOWPACK. That is what the IPCC stated, that is what Stephen Chu said in 2009 and that is what Romm cheered about.
What is snowpack made of? What was Christy's paper about?
More goal post moving. Unimpressed.
Celery Eater
"What is snowpack made of?"
Water.
"What was Christy's paper about?"
Depth.
Not about the Colorado River Basin, either. No goalposts moved. Still very unimpressed.
"Loss" != "Complete Disappearance" For example, if you bought a stock at $100 and solid it at $80, you've experienced a loss.
Nor does "vulnerable to" imply "complete disapparance."
Someone has been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. "Sounds like" arguments are idiotic.
Ah so you all are arguing that the IPCC prediction is vague enough to be correct no matter what happens.
Got it.
Unimpressed.
Celery Eater
"Ah so you all are arguing that the IPCC prediction is vague enough to be correct no matter what happens."
Not if nowt happens by 2030. It really isn't rocket science.
Questions to wonder about over lunch:
Is Celery Eater incapable of reading for content?
Is he capable of reading for content, but does so only to distort what he's read?
Or is he just a silly clownshoe?
Enquiring minds want to know.
"Am I arguing that the IPCC prediction ...?"
No. I was pointing out that the bitching and moaning was nonsensical.
"Vulnerable" is a qualitative word. (If you hadn't noticed.) The IPCC predicted that the decline in snowpack will be harmful.
CE does have a bit of a point, the IPCC statement that '41 percent of the water supply will be vulnerable'.
That statement is both specific and unhelpful on its own. Speaking as a water guy here, what does vulnerable mean? I suspect the 41% figure comes from one of the citations in s.14.4.1, and you have go read them to find something useful.
They could've made it clearer, but still this is really just nitpicking.
Post a Comment