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
u.k.(us)
June 14, 2013 6:53 pm

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.

stan stendera
June 14, 2013 8:06 pm

You go Janice. I have disputed with AW that he is not vitriolic enough with the climate buffoons.

June 14, 2013 8:26 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
June 14, 2013 8:28 pm

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.

u.k.(us)
June 14, 2013 8:28 pm

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

TomRude
June 14, 2013 8:37 pm

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…

SAMURAI
June 14, 2013 9:13 pm

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…..

Janice Moore
June 14, 2013 9:36 pm

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!

June 14, 2013 9:52 pm

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.

jorgekafkazar
June 14, 2013 10:04 pm

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.

June 14, 2013 11:43 pm

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.

Olaf Koenders
June 15, 2013 1:44 am

Children already don’t know what honest computer code is..

johnmarshall
June 15, 2013 2:33 am

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

wayne Job
June 15, 2013 8:12 am

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.

Jay
June 15, 2013 5:00 pm

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..

u.k.(us)
June 15, 2013 5:36 pm

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 ?

June 16, 2013 5:18 am

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.

June 16, 2013 5:39 am

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.

June 17, 2013 11:22 pm

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

Gary Hladik
June 18, 2013 1:56 am

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.”
🙂

resistance
June 19, 2013 9:16 pm

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!

Verified by MonsterInsights