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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
96 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 14, 2013 10:49 am

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.
.

Chad Wozniak
June 14, 2013 10:54 am

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.

Chad Wozniak
June 14, 2013 10:57 am

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.

Bob Diaz
June 14, 2013 11:02 am

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

June 14, 2013 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)

Eric
June 14, 2013 11:25 am

Well couldn’t find any snowfall history for Big Bear and the associated resorts, but I do have a link to the snowfall history of Mammoth Mountain which is about 5 hours further north and about 3000 feet taller (Bear Mountain= 8800 feet).
Eyeballing the chart, it doesn’t look like much of a change in totals from 1970-2013…
http://patrol.mammothmountain.com/MMSA-SnowSummary70-Current.htm

F. Ross
June 14, 2013 11:26 am

The “snow study” sounds more like a “snow job” to me.

Editor
June 14, 2013 11:32 am

“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.

Eric
June 14, 2013 11:33 am

Ah…here we go Big Bear Snowfall History from 1960-2005
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?cabibe+sca
I wonder why they didn’t include any data PRE-1981../sarc

June 14, 2013 11:36 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.”
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

Chris R.
June 14, 2013 11:44 am

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.

KNR
June 14, 2013 11:48 am

‘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.

Beta Blocker
June 14, 2013 11:51 am

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.

Editor
June 14, 2013 11:53 am

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!

Argiris Diamantis
June 14, 2013 11:56 am

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.

BarryW
June 14, 2013 12:03 pm

@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. “

milodonharlani
June 14, 2013 12:04 pm

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.

Toto
June 14, 2013 12:17 pm

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.

Bruce Cobb
June 14, 2013 12:24 pm

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.

Bob Kutz
June 14, 2013 12:28 pm

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.

Nolo Contendere
June 14, 2013 12:51 pm

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

Hugh Davis
June 14, 2013 12:57 pm

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”

Mike jarosz
June 14, 2013 1:01 pm

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.

Admad
June 14, 2013 1:05 pm

Umm. Wolf? Wolf?

J Martin
June 14, 2013 1:14 pm

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.