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.

About these ads

96 thoughts on “UCLA pulls a “children aren’t going to know what snow is”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. “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.

  5. “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.

  6. “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.

  7. “… 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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….

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

  11. 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.

  12. “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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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?

  21. 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!

  22. In a nutshell, this kind of study, tied as it is to funds to find a forgone disastrous conclusion, is entirely what is wrong with the entire science of climate (and probably all gov grant driven sciences these days). Is it any wonder that the once illustrious California-based science that delivered so many American Nobel Prizes, now ranks below a bunch of foreign universities:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/12/heartlands-nippc-report-to-be-accepted-by-chinese-academy-of-sciences-in-special-ceremony/

    “The Chinese Academy of Sciences is set to present the publication on June 15 at a major ceremony in Beijing. The Academy employs approximately 50,000 people and hosts 350 international conferences each year, and is one of the most prestigious scientific academies in the world, ranked ahead of every Ivy League school save Harvard.

    The Nature Publishing Index in May ranked the Chinese Academy of Sciences No. 12 on its list of the “Global Top 100” scientific institutions – ahead of the University of Oxford (No. 14), Yale University (No. 16), and the California Institute of Technology (No. 25)”.

    I’ve been harping on this as the real disaster of climate change: The continuing deterioration of the once shining American university science departments headed by asterisked PhDs doing shoddy research, expanding a climate of compromised ethics, and graduating a flood of double asterisked PhDs to proliferate this stuff in their places of hire. My oh my, we have a big mess to clean up.
    .

  23. Obviously these worms at UCLA haven’t heard the news about the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Of course, it’s doubtful that they are literate enough to read and understand the press releases, judging by the stupidity of this latest bit of their flatulence.

  24. Another thought: maybe we can challenge the teaching of global warming in the schools and universities as an unconstitutional establishment of religion, starting with UCLA.

  25. // Sarcasm //
    What’s wrong with the real world, it does not want to follow our highly accurate models?

  26. “The researchers used baseline snowfall amounts from 1981 to 2000″

    Not long enough, at least it wouldn’t be in New England. One of the few conclusions I can draw from the records I’ve tracked since 1997/1998 in Snow Depth Days of the Northeast is how variable snowfall and snowpack are from year to year and even place to place. Of course, that’s in the northeast, but given ENSO impacts and my slim knowledge of California, they need at least 60 years of data just to raise questions about its adequacy.

  27. ‘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.”

    1. It is not impossible. It’s not logically impossible, nor is it physically imposible. As Feynman on his better days opined :
    ‘But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. ”

    2. There is no such thing as the ’17 year trend’. Trends do not exist. Trends are the result
    of assuming a statistical model and doing a calculation. Drawing conclusions from
    statistical models doesnt give you certainity. it gives you probabilities.

    ” 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.”

    Wrong. He input data into a model and ran different scenarios. We might disagree with the model, but it happens to be the only physics based way of making projections about the future.
    If you are asked the question; what will snowfall be in 2050 you have 3 choices

    A) shrug your shoulders and leave the stage
    B) use a statistical model to project the future
    C) use a physics based model to project the future

  28. And they are using models. It has been admitted by the modelers, time after time, even the most rabid among them, that “the models lack predictive skill over less than continental-scale regions.”

    Pauli’s comment about “This isn’t even wrong”, quoted above by Doug Jones,
    seems to apply.

  29. ‘by midcentury’ when they no longer around to be called out for spouting this BS
    The idea that the AGW faithful never learn is wrong , they certainly learned to make predictions for so far ahead that they don’t blow up in their face in the way they have so often in the past , by making them far enough ahead that their ‘face ‘ will not be around at the time.

  30. Steven Mosher: If you are asked the question; what will snowfall be in 2050 you have 3 choices: A) shrug your shoulders and leave the stage, B) use a statistical model to project the future C) use a physics based model to project the future.

    If my current retirement plans don’t work out and I have to keep on working until I’m 80, do you suppose there’s enough useful information in these studies to help me decide whether or not I should be opening a facility in Big Bear for manufacturing snow making machines?

    I could ski in the winter on my own manufactured snow, and could also go boating in the summer, assuming of course that the lake hasn’t dried up by the time I get there.

  31. Was this a scientific study or the view in a crystal ball? If it is the former it is total nonsense, if the latter then there may be a grain of truth in it!

  32. Colorado sees 235,000 more skier visits in 2012/13 season

    http://www.aspenbusinessjournal.com/article.php?id=8796

    This so-called professor Hall is not living in the real world. In 40 years from now people will laugh about his nonsense, but in the mean time he gets a lot of money for his bogus predictions, or rather projections. And there are still a lot of “greenies”, people that are stupid enough to buy this nonsense.

  33. @Mosher

    If you are asked the question; what will snowfall be in 2050 you have 3 choices

    No, you have a fourth choice: “We don’t have the capability to predict that at the present time, if ever, but we need more basic research to understand how climate actually works and to arrive at a rigorous definition of climate. “

  34. Steven Mosher says:
    June 14, 2013 at 11:36 am

    1. It is not impossible. It’s not logically impossible, nor is it physically imposible. As Feynman on his better days opined :
    ‘But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.
    ————————————————–

    Why would you quote Feynman out of context? It appears you’re trying to imply that “on his better days” his opinion was correct because you imagine his authority supports your delusions, but not correct on the same day in the same hour? The passage you took out of context is from the same lecture in which Feynman famously stated the essence of the scientific method:

    “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.”
    Ch. 7, “Seeking New Laws”

    “It is not unscientific to make a guess, although many people who are not in science think it is. Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers”. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, “Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.” It is just more likely. That is all.”
    Ch. 7, “Seeking New Laws”

    The corrupt cargo cult belief CAGW disagrees with direct observation of the real world, so is wrong. That’s all there is to it.

  35. Steven Mosher says:
    If you are asked the question; what will snowfall be in 2050 you have 3 choices

    A) shrug your shoulders and leave the stage.
    B) use a physics based model to project the future. Admit there’s a lot you do not know. Shrug your shoulders and leave the stage.
    C) use a statistical model to project the future. Show the uncertainty. Shrug your shoulders and leave the stage.
    F) claim the science is settled and insist that your prediction is right.

    Do make a prediction. It’s always fun to look back on predictions and election polls later.
    Points for trying. Show your work.

  36. Steven Mosher says:
    June 14, 2013 at 11:36 am
    If you are asked the question; what will snowfall be in 2050 you have 3 choices

    A) shrug your shoulders and leave the stage
    B) use a statistical model to project the future
    C) use a physics based model to project the future

    Wrong. There are but two choices:
    A) Be honest, and say that climate science is nowhere near able to predict what snowfall will be in 2050. It has a difficult enough time predicting with any accuracy what snowfall will be next year.
    B) Lie, and make a “prediction” based on faulty models based on wrong assumptions, and hope people will buy it.

  37. Mr. Mosher; Can you point to any relevant GCM that indicates a +4 or 5 F temp anomaly in southern California in 37 years? How about any specific interpolation that would allow for it?

    See, there is option D) Make schtuff up and call it science. This is what it appears Dr. Hall has done. I can point to examples from Hansen, Mann, Jones, Briffa, Schmidt, et. al. of simply making completely unsupportable statements and pretending they have science to back up the statement.

    When a skeptic points to actual science and says ‘What you are claiming here is not supported by in the scientific literature.’, you and your mantra chanting brethren all shout, normally in unison, ‘DENIER!’.

    Similar to how the word heretic was used in the days of Galileo.

    A 4 or 5 F degree jump in average regional surface temperature around Big Bear in 37 years would be impossible from the normal climate forcings as we understand them. Possibly some tectonic influence of which we are currently unaware could accomplish this feat, but CO2 will not. Outside of some statistically highly unlikely magma event, an increase of 4 or 5 F within 37 years is physically and logically impossible. For you to state otherwise shows you do not have a strong grasp of the Earth’s climate system.

    Also; if trends do not exist, then the whole AGW goes right out the window, now doesn’t it? The fact is your religion depends entirely on a continuing trend. If a graph of an historical data set is utterly useless in predicting its future behavior then CAGW absolutely cannot exist. If that long term trend goes away so does your cause. So trends must exist. Since any trend must exist over a certain period, then the period must be arbitrary and there must be some period between 16 years and 18 years for which we can state the trend. Why is 17 years not a viable period? Certainly the 10 years between 1985 and 1995 were highly relevant, when the worldwide temperature increased by roughly 0.6C.

    The trend stopped being favorable to your arguments some time ago. It must be increasingly frustrating for you, but that doesn’t make trends either non-existent or irrelevant to the discussion.

    Finally; the certainty of your prediction from a model is informed by how far the actual result differs from your models prediction. Can you point to a GCM from 1998 that showed a global tropospheric T anomaly in 2013 of .1C?

    My records seem to indicate a consensus prediction of +8.C + or – about .25C from a 1979 baseline average. I see a GISS and Hadgem model out there for which the lower end of the confidence interval was between +.25 and .30. That is the closest of any, and they are way outside the confidence interval. The models did not predict as much warming at the surface as in the troposphere. Can you explain why they got that part so incredibly wrong, or do you just want to duck the question by pointing at surface t from a different baseline average so as to make the models seem less unskillful?

    We are currently about +0.1 global anomaly. We’ve been in the vicinity of +0.2C for about 13 years. It seems the models are off by a factor of by about 2STD. When can they be said to have failed?

    Steve, you are getting old. Stop denying facts. When you make a claim that ‘trends do not exist’ you are really really off base. When you claim that it is not impossible for the temperature to increase 4 or 5 F degrees in 37 years (with the notion that such a change be driven by CO2 induced AGW) you are going all Heaven’s Gate on the science thing. It is truly interesting to watch, but not particularly informative on the science.

    Thought maybe you’d like to be aware.

  38. 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

    The correct term for this sort of prediction is a “vinerism”

  39. Based on my current predictions the Detroit Lions are going to win the Superbowl in 2050. Those wishing to beat the rush can order tickets now. For the sum of only $10,000 your seat can be guaranteed. Act Fast to be on board as hell freezes over.( CAGW caused). Los Angeles Lions playing in the coliseum has a good ring to it.

  40. A model based on the daft assumption that the entire increase in co2 is anthropogenic, and that co2 carries with it some absurdly high sensitivity figure. Since neither are true, the most up-to-date and thorough estimate of mankind’s contribution to co2 is a pitiful 4% (we really must try harder), and sensitivity can only be less than one. His model also ignores the blindingly obvious quiet sun and the likely consequences of that.

    In short, I don’t think he will need to put wheels on his snowboard just yet.

  41. Nolo Contendere says:
    June 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Am I the only one who politely giggles every time he reads a Stephen Mosher comment?
    ———————

    Does guffawing heartily & slapping the knee count as polite giggling?

  42. “””””……Jim says:

    June 14, 2013 at 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……”””””

    Well you must not be aware that in California, Caucasians are a minority group. We have State sponsored programs, that ensure a net emigration of Caucasians, and a net immigration of non-Caucasians.

    That will ensure that any blondes in California, are likely to be fake.

    Off hand, I can’t name anybody I know, who is blonde, either real or fake.

  43. “could get even worse” <—————————–<<

    Would twice the snow be even better?

  44. AleaJactaEst says: June 14, 2013 at 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.
    —————————————————————————-
    I live about 50 miles north of Big Bear and the lights of the ski resort are obvious. This past season, the resort has been open about an average number of days per year, but in the past few years they have had noticeably longer longer ski seasons. Maybe that’s *why* the study ended in the year 2000; it’s been colder with more snow since then.

  45. On a related note,

    Last night, I watched a local TV news report which featured Hollywood film giants, Steven Spielberg, and George Lucas talking about the coming shakeup in filmdom, with all the mega movies that flop.

    All that is going to change, and there will be consolidations and losses of current players, leading to the age of truly giga-movies.

    Within a few years predicts Spielberg/Lucas, movie goers will be paying from $50 to $150 a ticket to go to the movies, instead of the $8, $10, $12, that they are now used to paying.

    I have news for you George/Steve. I stopped watching your movies long before the tickets got to $8. I would guess $5 is my limit to pay to watch a movie; and it would have to be a good one, to even tempt me to go. No I don’t watch them on Netkicks or T&V either. I’d rather watch Jewellery Television for free on my rabbit ears, than waste 5 bucks on 90 minutes of your overpaid “actors”, any of whom could be computer generated anyway

  46. Who Cares!!!

    Sorry to offend all the snow fanatics out there, but the world faces far greater problems than a (possible) shorter snow-season.

    Hunger, Infection, War, all present far greater challenges that deserve our attention

    Plus – who can predict what recreation people will be enjoying in 2100? Look back at the early 20th Century and compare that to today’s – Skateboards, Mountainbikes, Quads, Trail-Bikes, 4WD’s (or SUV’s) – none existed back then. Perhaps only horse riding was around as a source of outdoor “motorised” recreation.

    Society will evolve solutions to problems – including how to have fun

    Andi

  47. Following “expert” crap studies like this, “children aren’t going to know what a climate expert at the UCLA is”, but they are going to know they need to join the alarmist bandwagon in order to receive limitless funding.

  48. Steven Mosher says:
    “He input data into a model and ran different scenarios.”

    By “data”, you mean “output from dozens of state of-the-art global climate models” and we know how accurate those have been.

    Models modeling model output.

  49. MattN says:
    June 14, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Laughable…
    ——————-

    It isn’t laughable anymore when these mainstream news outlets blindly support a false reality.

  50. george e. smith says:
    June 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    ——————————————
    Ditto about not going to the movies anymore. I stopped about 25 years ago. Mainly, because much of what was produced wasn’t worth the price of admission.

  51. george e. smith says:
    June 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    On a related note,
    Within a few years predicts Spielberg/Lucas, movie goers will be paying from $50 to $150 a ticket to go to the movies, instead of the $8, $10, $12, that they are now used to paying.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    I “might” go $25 if the movie were truly 100% holographic (not the cheapo glasses 3-D).

  52. Jim1953 says:
    June 14, 2013 at 11:23 am

    http://www.thestormking.com/Weather/Sierra_Snowfall/sierra_snowfall.html

    5 heaviest snowfalls at Sierra Central Snow Lab
    1952 — 311 inches (26.0 feet)
    1969 — 242 inches (20.2 feet)
    1971 — 240 inches (20 feet)
    1958 — 210 inches (17.5 feet)
    2011 — 207 inches (17.2 feet)
    —————————————————-
    I was living in Tahoe City, on the north shore of the lake, in the winter of 1970/71. Everyone was wondering how good the ski season would be. Well, that winter we received a Donner Party Snowfall. There was decent snow after Halloween and into early December, but around the middle of December a 3 day storm dropped 12 feet. on top of the earlier snow. That was a lot of shoveling to retrieve the vehicle. Just about the time where everyone was partway dug out, a 6 foot in one day came through. That was right at the end of December. I retrieved my Country Squire station wagon at the end of April. The snow that year reached the feet of the Donner Party memorial statue, which marked the height of the snow that they faced in those desperate times. It was an incredible sight to see.

  53. We point out that they are wrong. We explain the science. We point out the facts. Sometimes we even laugh at them. We beg them to change. They don’t change. Fact is – and we have to recognise this – they quite simply can’t change.

    No matter what we say and no matter how hard they try to change, no matter what numbers they put into the models, they always get the same answer : catastrophic warming. It seems the only way we can make any progress is to take their models away from them and put them in a safe place until they have gone outside and seen that the real world is actually quite an interesting place to live in.

  54. Steven Mosher says:
    June 14, 2013 at 11:36 am
    —————————————–

    There is a 4th way. You can examine the excellent studies that have a suitably long range record. This should also include the historical record of physical measurements taken at CET and other somewhat shorter temperature record keeping from other nations. Plus there are many historical anecdotal bits and pieces where good temperature information can be gleaned. This is the foundation that forecasts should be built upon as the repeated cycles of the Earth are beyond dispute. Models are interesting in that one can see how closely they can match the real world, but the results speak for themselves when the models continuously shoot off heavenward as if drawn by some unknown force.

    On a side note and completely off topic, do we both share in common a great uncle, who established the San Francisco Gun Exchange?

  55. As a resident of the San Bernardino mountains in southern California (elevation 5250ft or about 1200m), that might not be a bad thing as long as the total precip doesn’t change. I say this because my 14 yr old snow blower is now a 23yr old college student. Also having to share the snowy roads with all of the flatlanders who come up to play in our snow is a pain.

    Honestly, in the last two years we have had very late snows and the spring have arrived late. It is mid June, and my wife is complaining about how cold the nights are. Normally by now we would have had a period of warm weather. Three (four?) years ago, we had snow in July.
    This is all weather. In a few years I will be complaining about how short the winter was and in a few more years, it will be the other way. In the meantime I will rely on my trusty weather rock and the calendar to know if I need to keep the chains and sand in my car. That combo works every time.

  56. Jim1953 says:
    June 14, 2013 at 11:23 am

    5 heaviest snowfalls at Sierra Central Snow Lab
    1952 — 311 inches (26.0 feet)
    1969 — 242 inches (20.2 feet)
    1971 — 240 inches (20 feet)
    1958 — 210 inches (17.5 feet)
    2011 — 207 inches (17.2 feet)

    Ah. I’m beginning to understand the 1981-2000 baseline.

    Perhaps they should have started one 60 year PDO/AMO cycle ago, i.e. 1953-1973. Then they could have found disasterous reductions since then.

  57. Dan in California says: June 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm “I live about 50 miles north of Big Bear and the lights of the ski resort are obvious. This past season, the resort has been open about an average number of days per year, but in the past few years they have had noticeably longer longer ski seasons. Maybe that’s *why* the study ended in the year 2000; it’s been colder with more snow since then.”

    This is awful …. how will I ever convince DOE to subsidize a snow making business in Big Bear if it won’t stop snowing there?

  58. milodonharlani says (June 14, 2013 at 1:16 pm)

    Nolo Contendere says:
    June 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Am I the only one who politely giggles every time he reads a Stephen Mosher comment?

    ———————

    Does guffawing heartily & slapping the knee count as polite giggling?”
    **************************************************************************

    Every time I read what “Stephen Mosher says,” each time (like Charlie Brown and the football), with high hopes that he has finally come around to advocating truth in science, I end up shaking my head and thinking,

    “Why does he do that?”

    I strongly suspect that Mosher is nobly sacrificing his personal reputation for rational thinking and scientific integrity to be a first-class devil’s advocate for WUWT. His comments almost always elicit EXCELLENT and overwhelmingly winning refutations of his arguments.

    Perhaps, Stephen Mosher is the most noble WUWT Science Hero of all.

    In any event, thank you, Mr. Mosher. Because you, much truth has been stated.

  59. Re: snowboarding/skiing… hm……

    Sounds like the ski resorts may be behind this…

    HURRY! TIME IS RUNNING OUT! SNOWBOARD WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!

    Aaaand, people will hurry, and hurry, and hurry, until, oh, maybe 5 or 10 years from now, and then, well, they just won’t see the need to hurry anymore. But, 5-10 years of higher demand? That’s a lot of lift tickets sold. Kah-ching!

  60. This prediction is for mid-century, when I will be well past retirement age. It is based on an acceleration in the warming trend of the latter part of the C20th, when this century there has been none.
    Oh, and if it the forecast came true the snow season would be shorter, but the summer season would be longer. In the Austrian Alps and in Switzerland, the summer season is just as important as the winter season.
    However, I would believe these longer-term predictions more if climate science has built up a track record of accurate predictions in the last twenty years. They have been pretty much hopeless. If they had even a few right, we would never hear the end of climatologists expertize is prophesying the future.

    http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/05/29/three-positive-ways-to-counter-climate-denial/

  61. I have screen shots of precip and snowfall history w/ trends for Mammoth Mountain I can send

    They are both increasing.

  62. It may seem superfluous to point out the Money interest in this situation, but, while greed isn’t always pretty, it is MUCH to be preferred to false-religion zealotry. Thus, I find it comforting.

    Personally, I think the number of true believers (the cult members) is too small to significantly advance the Cult’s agenda. The average voter is not a true believer; Joe and Maria just want to earn a decent living and have a little fun — they don’t deeply care (as a true believer does) about saving the planet. Thus, ignore the cult members.

    Focus persuasive writing and speaking on:

    1. high school graduates working hard for a living who vote (for JOBS); AND

    2. those who are merely cynically making money by exploiting the Cult’s Priests’ teachings — when you show investors that they are tagging along after P. T. Barnum’s circus wagon and that the average buyer couldn’t care less about “green,” they do a 180 in a hurry.

    Money is an exactly master. It will neither tolerate fools nor waste. It does not mindlessly shuffle down the sidewalk chanting slogans. It flows to where there is GENUINE opportunity to create wealth, based on real-world data. Money does not like to be lied to.

    The true believers can drive their Holy Cars to the organic-co-op and walk around filling their grimy fabric shopping bags with tofu and nuts and berries all they like. When, however, Joe and Maria, after briefly succumbing to peer-pressure and joining the cult members in their holiness rituals, go back to buying real light bulbs and real tortillas and real milk and meat (and MOST Joe’s and Maria’s never stopped buying the real, i.e., non-“green,” stuff — some, like me, are even “green”-averse shoppers), Money will notice and stop with the “green” stuff. Some companies already have. I was heartened recently to see that the newest unsweetened Hershey’s cocoa on the shelf NO LONGER had the little “green” bit of promotion on it anymore. Hurrah!

    The carbon credit market collapse tells it all. Money has abandoned AGW.

    Money will make sure that government doesn’t strangle it with regulations. REAL Money is not being invested in windmills. Hansen and Gore (and all the climate priests and “scientists”) can scream (and they are) at the top of their lungs, but, they have lost. And they know it. The game is over. There is, in the Free World, at least in the U.S., still enough freedom remaining for Money to triumph over Socialist despotism. While in the Soviet Union (it STILL exists, de facto), Money was taken captive by the State long ago, Money can still save the day for the Free World.

    It is just a matter of time.

    ********************************************

    Note: the above argument citing Money as the savior of the free world is largely for all you (and apparently there are quite a number of you) on WUWT who are a-religious or a-theist.

    As for me, while I firmly believe what I wrote above, I trust in God. God and one are a majority. Even if all human effort fails, even if the U.S. becomes a Demonocrat socialist hell on earth, God can, even then, restore us. “‘With God, all things are possible.'”

    “‘We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on You.'” II. Chronicles 20:12.

    “Take heart… “!

  63. Janice Moore says:

    June 14, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    Sigh.

    “Money is an EXACTING master.”
    =============
    You have to back off.
    The game is not won by vitriol.

  64. Everyone has been predicting less snow, but the ski resorts keep staying open later and later – running out of skiers before they run out of snow. And as for no snow in Europe:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/9925291/Heavy-snow-in-Europe-leads-to-road-rail-and-air-transport-chaos.html?frame=2507333

    The snowpack came early in the Canadian Rockies this year and stayed – still mostly above average:
    Mountain snowpack

    Snow accumulations measured in the mountains as of May 1, 2013:

    Oldman River basin: Much above average.
    Bow River basin: Above average to much above average.
    Red Deer, North Saskatchewan, Athabasca River basins: Average to above average.
    Upper Peace River basin in British Columbia: Slightly below average as of May 1, as indicated in British Columbia’s Snowpack and Water Supply Outlook

    Yet we still get certain scientists saying there will be “serious water supply repercussions on both sides of the border” – US Geological Survey. (and typical reporting of the CBC – Confused Bureaucratic Cretins)

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/05/29/calgary-us-geological-survey-water-runoff-w.html

    But if one wants to check on potential run off:

    http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/

    And for a chuckle you might read this. I swear these people all sing from the same hymn book:

    http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-19.shtml

    So maybe it is all about timing, location and variability. But its all still GIGO.

    Happy weekend everyone.

  65. As for me, while I firmly believe what I wrote above, I trust in God. God and one are a majority. Even if all human effort fails, even if the U.S. becomes a Demonocrat socialist hell on earth, God can, even then, restore us. “‘With God, all things are possible.’”

    Your religion is no better than theirs.

  66. Anthony Watts (AW), I would imagine, “suffers no fools, gladly”.
    So, I’ll shut up now.

  67. Last fall we were treated to a whining news report about the Pyrennees on the French national newscast France 2: glaciers were melting away and global warming was threatening ski resorts… Fast forward to June 2013 when they opened for a week end skiing…

  68. OK, let me make a bold prediction…

    If the Statist propaganda taught at public schools continues, in 10 years, children won’t know what TRUTH looks like….

    And so it goes…until it doesn’t…..

  69. Oh, dear Stan Stendera, thank you. I sure needed your kind words after reading a couple of the posts above. I think u.k.(us) completely misunderstood me. I’m humbled by uk(us)’s response, though. I am CLEARLY in need of a lot of work on my writing skills. I sure didn’t mean to imply that A-th-y and Money were comparable. At all! Wow. Writing from your heart is risky. Sometimes it’s kind of painful!

    I hope that all is well with you and with your lovely lady. I tried to say “Hello Stan!” on another thread where you posted, but, alas, was too late. Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed your absence. I’ve hoped (and prayed!) that all was well with you.

    KEEP ON POSTING, O Valianthearted Stan!

    (if you read this, would you be so kind as to just post a “Read it!” or something — that way I’ll know I don’t have to keep trying to thank you. Thanks!)

    ****************
    Mr. Alberts,

    I never claimed my religion was better than anyone else’s. Of course, I believe that, but, why did you feel it necessary to put me down?

    I regard the Cult of Climatology as a pseudo or false religion. Do you not distinguish religions with fine moral traditions like Buddhism or Judaism from Scientology or from the twisted teachings of someone like Jim Jones and his “church?”

    Do you simply detest all religions? Do you detest religion so much you feel the need to tell anyone who mentions hers that her religion stinks?

    Why?

    Or is it only Christianity, my religion, that is no better than the Cult of Climatology?

    I’m going to pray that you will believe in Jesus. He believes in you. He loves you so much that He died for you.

    Take care,

    Janice
    ***************************

    @ u.k.(us) — Don’t stop talking, u.k.. I needed to realize that my writing was so unclear. Keep on posting!

  70. Jeff Alberts says:
    June 14, 2013 at 8:28 pm
    Your religion is no better than theirs.
    ———————————————-
    Her religion is not trying to impose upon, or force to change the lifestyle of the citizenry of this nation and the world at large. However, this is a science forum.

  71. Hey, what do you expect of UCLA, the “little Red Schoolhouse?” That’s the institution that predicted civilization (or what passes for it in California) would collapse if Proposition 13 passed, many years ago. More baloney. Ho, hum.

  72. What really bothers me about this continued propaganda is that if we cool down, it will probably be drier in CA, and there will be more drought. So less snow could be in our future. And people will start to believe cooling is what warming looks like. This is all upside down.

  73. This cannot be a scientific study because they use degreesF!
    Come on America get into the 21st century and SI units.

  74. Looking from the outside and looking in to California it is hard to comprehend the mind set of those running the place. In OZ at the moment we have Arnie being embraced by our less than erstwhile PM espousing the wonders of global warming and the carbon taxes to cure the runaway warming. This mind set of infantile stupidity will bankrupt not only California but the entire western world. It will take at least a mini ice age to awaken the sheeple in most of the world, but even a glacier advancing on Beverly Hills would be blamed on global warming in California.

  75. UCLA climate expert Alex Hall.

    What do you think or expect a climate expert to do? Their sole purpose is to push bogus studies in the hope of seeing their energy politics imposed upon the people of America (western world)..
    Anything less would be like coming out gay in 1955.. Not a good idea..

  76. Janice Moore says:

    June 14, 2013 at 9:36 pm
    =================
    @ u.k.(us) — Don’t stop talking, u.k.. I needed to realize that my writing was so unclear. Keep on posting!
    ——
    I’ll play all day, just say go.
    Are there any rules to this game ?

  77. What impact did they allow for reduction in American manufacturing due to Chinese competition? Did they assume the world would not go nuclear, and how did they model the rationales of future Governments, many of whose members haven’t been born yet?
    How much reduction in CO2 did they allow due to nanotechnology capturing the atoms out of the air?
    Did they include the Milankovic cycles?
    The ancient Roman forecasts from the entrails of a beast used to be performed by canny individuals with an eye on what was actually happening. The forecasts from the entrails of a computer are not.
    Which is why their output is even less accurate than a coin-flip. These models are less precise than voodoo dolls. Garbage in, garbage out.
    @ Steve Mosher- a physics based model is satisfactory only if all the relevant physics is included.

  78. @ Steve Mosher
    I apologise for my previous comment “@ Steve Mosher- a physics based model is satisfactory only if all the relevant physics is included.”
    I know you are well aware of that fact.
    I tried to be succinct but ended up both foolish and (albeit unintentionally) insulting.
    My point was intended to be the more nuanced “I do not believe they have or can have included all the relevant physics. As you are aware a physics based model is satisfactory only if all the relevant physics is included. Where we do not have this information we cannot tell what the future will be. Choice c) is less accurate than choice a).”
    Insofar as you are implying the opposite, I must respectfully disagree with you.

  79. Mosher wrote: :Wrong. He input data into a model and ran different scenarios. We might disagree with the model, but it happens to be the only physics based way of making projections about the future.”
    +++++++++++++++++++
    No one said it was wrong to use models, they said Garbage in Garbage out with regard to the models that are being used to show climate change. GIGO means that the data was garbage… Are you really saying that using garbage data is the only physics based way of making projections?

    It’s impossible to have a discussion with people like you Mosher because you constantly create strawmen. You’re quite clever, but you are also incorrigible

  80. Steven Mosher says (June 14, 2013 at 11:36 am): “If you are asked the question; what will snowfall be in 2050 you have 3 choices”

    Correction. The question is actually, “For half a million bucks, what will snowfall be in 2050?”

    There are only two choices (nobody shrugs and walks away from half a million clams):

    A) If you’re a “climate scientist” you answer, “What do you want it to be?” and spend a year working hard to get exactly that answer.

    B) If you have any brains you answer, “A lot like it was 37 years ago. Cash, please.”

    :-)

  81. The Seattle TImes ran a similar story about Snoqualmie Pass here in WA 6-12 months ago… Some University of Washington prof said there would be no more skiing at the pass in 50 years! The snowfall average at the Pass over the last 7-10 years is +450 inches, I believe, and the 80 year average is over +400 inches (i.e. it’s consistent and it’s been rising of late); last year saw +450 inches plus! Alpental closed on Cinco de Mayo, after a long, glorious ski season… I was there just last weekend, stopped to drink a beer and stare at the mountains after doing some fishing, and there was still a ton of snow in the valley!

Comments are closed.