UCLA pulls a "children aren't going to know what snow is"

From the University of California – Los Angeles, apparently there will be no more skiing at Big Bear.

UCLA climate study predicts dramatic loss in local snowfall

By midcentury, snowfall on Los Angeles–area mountains will be 30 to 40 percent less than it was at the end of the 20th century, according to a UCLA study released today and led by UCLA climate expert Alex Hall.

The projected snow loss, a result of climate change, could get even worse by the end of the 21st century, depending on how the world reacts. Sustained action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions could keep annual average snowfall levels steady after mid-century, but if emissions continue unabated, the study predicts that snowfall in Southern California mountains will be two-thirds less by the year 2100 than it was in the years leading up to 2000.

“Climate change has become inevitable, and we’re going to lose a substantial amount of snow by midcentury,” said Hall, a professor in UCLA’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. “But our choices matter. By the end of the century, there will be stark differences in how much snowfall remains, depending on whether we begin to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.”

“This science is clear and compelling: Los Angeles must begin today to prepare for climate change,” said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. “We invested in this study and created the AdaptLA framework to craft innovative solutions and preserve our quality of life for the next generation of Angelenos.”

Less snowfall in general and a complete loss of snow at some lower elevations doesn’t just have implications for snow enthusiasts who enjoy skiing and sledding in the local mountains; it also could mean sizeable economic losses for snow-dependent businesses and communities. Less snow could also mean changes in the seasonal timing of local water resources, greater difficulty controlling floods, and damage to mountain and river ecosystems.

The impact to actual snow on the ground may be even greater because the researchers quantified snowfall but not snow melt, said Hall, whose previous research found the region will warm 4 to 5 degrees by midcentury. By then, researchers estimate, the snowpack could melt an average of 16 days sooner than it did in 2000. “We won’t reach the 32-degree threshold for snow as often, so a greater percentage of precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, particularly at lower elevations,” Hall said. “Increased flooding is possible from the more frequent rains, and springtime runoff from melting snowpack will happen sooner.”

“As a California resident, I spend my winters snowboarding in mountains throughout our amazing state,” said Jeremy Jones, founder of Protect Our Winters, an environmental nonprofit composed of winter sports enthusiasts. “It breaks my heart to see America’s great natural resources harmed by climate change. We must, immediately, begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no choice.”

The UCLA study, “Mid- and End-of-Century Snowfall in the Los Angeles Region,” is the most detailed research yet examining how climate change will affect snowfall in the Southern California mountains. The report was produced by UCLA with funding from the city of Los Angeles, and in partnership with the Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. The complete report, maps and graphics are available online at C-CHANGE.LA/snowfall, including a password-protected media site.

The study examined snowfall in the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, San Emigdio/Tehachapi Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains. The research team scaled down low-resolution global climate models to create high-resolution models with data specific to towns such as Lake Arrowhead, Big Bear, Wrightwood and Idyllwild. Hall’s team included UCLA researchers Fengpeng Sun and Scott Capps, graduate student Daniel Walton and research associate Katharine Davis Reich.

The researchers used baseline snowfall amounts from 1981 to 2000 and predicted snow amounts for midcentury (2041 to 2060) and the end of the century (2081 to 2100) under a “business as usual” scenario, in which greenhouse gas emissions increase unchecked, and a “mitigation” scenario, in which the world significantly reduces emissions. By the end of the century, the contrast between the scenarios would be dramatic. In the mitigation scenario, midcentury snow levels would be 31 percent lower than baseline, but would remain relatively steady at only 33 percent below baseline by the end of the century.

In the business-as-usual scenario, 42 percent of the snow is expected to disappear by mid-century before dwindling dramatically to a 67 percent loss of snow by the end of the century.

“The mountains won’t receive nearly as much snow as they used to, and the snow they do get will not last as long,” Hall said.

###

The snowfall study is the second part of UCLA’s ongoing research project, “Climate Change in the Los Angeles Region.” Through the Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability, the city of Los Angeles obtained a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to study and share climate research, with $484,166 for UCLA’s climate-change studies. Additional funding came from the National Science Foundation. Future studies will cover other elements of climate change including precipitation, Santa Ana winds, soil moisture and streamflow.

The complete study, “Mid- and End-of-Century Snowfall in the Los Angeles Region,” along with interactive maps and ways to get involved, is available online at http://www.C-CHANGE.LA.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

96 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MattN
June 14, 2013 10:06 am

Laughable…

Tucker
June 14, 2013 10:09 am

So this guy Hall says that in less than 40 years, southern CA will be 4-5F (I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here) warmer than today. That is impossible on the face of it and contradicted by the recent 17 year trend. I assume he plugged in his extremely high guess of temps and came up with the snowfall estimates. GIGO seems to be the result. This really is just another political hack paper to support future govt action already anticipated. One must have sufficient backup documentation in order to prove the need for more legislation. Pretty simple equation really.

June 14, 2013 10:09 am

depending on how the world reacts

The snowfall on Los Angeles–area mountains will be 30 to 40 percent more, or maybe about what it is today.

Richard M
June 14, 2013 10:11 am

What a joke. They use a 20 year period as baseline even though the evidence for 60 years is now undeniable. Then they use climate models that are on the verge of falsification. Finally, they demonstrate their own bias by claiming this is bad. Since when do cold and ice promote life?

Doug Jones
June 14, 2013 10:12 am

“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” -George E. P. Box
“Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.” -Niels Bohr
“It is not only not right, it is not even wrong.” -Wolfgang Pauli
Climate scientists strive for relevancy, and fail dismally.

Myron Mesecke
June 14, 2013 10:13 am

“As a California resident, I spend my winters snowboarding in mountains throughout our amazing state,” said Jeremy Jones, founder of Protect Our Winters, an environmental nonprofit composed of winter sports enthusiasts. “It breaks my heart to see America’s great natural resources harmed by climate change. We must, immediately, begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no choice.”
I’m sure he walks to go snowboarding. Both to the mountains and up the mountains after each run in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

J. Fujita
June 14, 2013 10:14 am

“Protect Our Winters, an environmental nonprofit composed of winter sports enthusiasts…”
I wonder how they reconcile their impact on wilderness areas, especially when the club members drive to their destinations and enjoy electrical mechanical advantages in getting up the slope. I’ve seen photographs of my parents hiking up the mountains of Japan long ago when no lifts existed – is this what they aspire to? Hmmm… seems to be blind spot there.

John
June 14, 2013 10:15 am

“… led by UCLA climate expert Alex Hall.”
You know what an “expert ” is. A drip under pressure.
Apparently he cannot do web searches:
“This is the first time snow has fallen in the state of Arkansas during the month of May. …May 4, 2013 will go down in the record books as the latest snowfall in Arkansas.”
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/?n=weather-event_2013may2
“Even though it is now May, the brutal, never-ending winter of 2012-13 obstinately refuses to relent, and has dumped heaps of snow from Denver to southern Minnesota. Single-day record May snowfalls have likely fallen in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/02/historic-snow-and-cold-strike-rockies-and-upper-midwest/
Blizzard Of 2013 Reaches Top 5 Snowstorms In New England History
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/09/snowfall-nearing-record-levels-several-more-inches-coming/
Lots of others.

Kev-in-Uk
June 14, 2013 10:16 am

Oh. For. Flips. Sake ! (extreme dismay………)

hunter
June 14, 2013 10:17 am

The Gore effect indicates that this year, and for the next several years, snow in So Cal will respond as winters responded in the UK to the Met’s laughable claims.

SAMURAI
June 14, 2013 10:18 am

One would think the ridicule Dr. Viner received and contiues to endure for his now infamous, ” kids (in London) won’t even know what snow looks like.” Quote Would be a strong cautionary tale of what NOT to say about weather; especially snow….
But, alas, déjà vu all over again…
And so it goes….until it doesn’t….

AleaJactaEst
June 14, 2013 10:23 am

so their baseline end date for ACTUAL snow stopped in 2000, wondered what happened after for snowfall between 2000 and 2013. Idiots.

June 14, 2013 10:24 am

It will be interesting to see what happens with Governor Brown and fracking in California. Allowing fracking to occur in California would grow employment and tax revenues for the state without having to increase tax rates. However, articles and studies like this one are the rule in California. Tough choices for California politicians.

June 14, 2013 10:27 am

“Los Angeles obtained a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to study and share climate research, with $484,166 for UCLA’s climate-change studies.”
Now that’s a worrying trend. Nearly a half million dollars was spent on this new terminology “anthropogenic green house global warming”. money well spent. /sarc

BarryW
June 14, 2013 10:30 am

Obvious answer: Kidnap Gore and hold him in a secure location in the Sierras so the Gore Effect will ensure that they continue to get snow.

Sam Schulz
June 14, 2013 10:33 am

I have an advanced degree in physics from UCLA and have hung around campus for decades. I’ve kept close tabs on the books available in their bookstore for both field specific scientific reference and general science. I was shocked to find that a great many of the earth sciences books, including those used by classes, read more like Greenpeace brochures than than scientific textbooks. One in particular for an ecology class consisted of nothing but debunking arguments of skeptics concerning AGW, ozone acid rain etc etc etc. Meanwhile, the hard science and math books are now a pale shadow of what they were in the 70s.

Berényi Péter
June 14, 2013 10:34 am

Well, I don’t think there is any snowfall trend in that wide region so far.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/christy-on-sierra-snowfall-over-the-last-130-years-no-trend-no-effect-from-co2/
To have 30-40% loss by mid century (relative to the end of 20th century) a 8-10% loss had to be realized by now. It was not.

Jim
June 14, 2013 10:35 am

I understand there are a lot of blondes in California? No this was not an attempt at a blonde joke, but rather, it reminds me of an article I read maybe 30-40 years ago. The article was about how by the year 2000, no more true blondes would be born in the world, based upon the thesis that the blonde gene was recessive. I guess the topic of California and stupid projections milled around in my mind, and I came up with the opening line, above.

Mike Bromley the Kurd near the Green Line
June 14, 2013 10:35 am

A climate “expert”. Given the revelations about how little we know about chaos, how can anyone be an expert? A “study shows”. “Study” has become a meaningless buzzword.

Gary
June 14, 2013 10:39 am

Because of lousy press releases and abysmal journalism, children already don’t know the truth of many things. That goes for their parents, too.

Beta Blocker
June 14, 2013 10:43 am

The next step is for the Department of Energy to begin studying the possible value of snow making machines as a way of geo-engineering an increase in the earth’s albedo, an approach which also has the economic advantage of producing sustainable revenues for ski resorts and for snow making machine manufacturers.

lemiere jacques
June 14, 2013 10:45 am

another possibility is : too much snow for skiing because of climate change.
what ever you like to do will not be possible anymore and whatever you dislike will be more likely to be, because of climate change.
Wait a minute…i guess skiing help to produce CO2;so it would be better to stop skiing now to save the possibilty to ski in midcentury.

Dell from Michigan
June 14, 2013 10:46 am

But the AGW doomsayers claim that “Global warming means more snowstorms:”
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html
I wish they would just make up their minds…..
And send some of their promised global warming our way up here in Michigan.

June 14, 2013 10:47 am

Do you remember Tariq Aziz telling press conferences that the glorious Iraqi army had put the Americans to flight, while US generals were just checking into the Baghdad Hilton?

BradProp1
June 14, 2013 10:49 am

Baseline evidence for predictions are transient. As a teen I was convinced that by the age of 25 I would be living in Australia. At 25 i was still in Wisconsin. My baseline had changed. So I predicted 35 would be the age. I made it to New Mexico. My baseline had changed again. Still being optimistic; I figured I could do it by 45. I was still in New Mexico, but was still optimistic I could still make it by the migration cutoff. I didn’t make.
Predictions are only a sure bet when all the evidence it’s based on are known and not variable. Weather changes by the hour and predictions are only reasonably accurate out 3 days. How do these climate “scientist” people get the idea that their predictions are 100 fold more accurate?
The must really think the general public and our politicians (some are) drooling idiots!

1 2 3 4
Verified by MonsterInsights