A new "End of Snow" Prediction


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study has emerged predicting the end of snow, along with melting glaciers and water shortages – though this study is cautious enough to predict more snow, less snow, or no change, for at least the next few decades.

The potential for snow to supply human water demand in the present and future

Justin S Mankin, Daniel Viviroli, Deepti Singh, Arjen Y Hoekstra and Noah S Diffenbaugh


Runoff from snowmelt is regarded as a vital water source for people and ecosystems throughout the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Numerous studies point to the threat global warming poses to the timing and magnitude of snow accumulation and melt. But analyses focused on snow supply do not show where changes to snowmelt runoff are likely to present the most pressing adaptation challenges, given sub-annual patterns of human water consumption and water availability from rainfall. We identify the NH basins where present spring and summer snowmelt has the greatest potential to supply the human water demand that would otherwise be unmet by instantaneous rainfall runoff. Using a multi-model ensemble of climate change projections, we find that these basins—which together have a present population of ~2 billion people—are exposed to a 67% risk of decreased snow supply this coming century. Further, in the multi-model mean, 68 basins (with a present population of >300 million people) transition from having sufficient rainfall runoff to meet all present human water demand to having insufficient rainfall runoff. However, internal climate variability creates irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in snow resource potential, with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades. Our results emphasize the importance of snow for fulfilling human water demand in many NH basins, and highlight the need to account for the full range of internal climate variability in developing robust climate risk management decisions.

Read more: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114016

What a pointless effort. The authors predict water shortages which might occur in the near future, but also claim climate variability may mask this effect for decades to come. The authors present a claim of imminent potential danger, with no possibility of imminent falsification. All the predictions are based on climate models, which have never demonstrated predictive skill with average global climate, let alone regional climate.

118 thoughts on “A new "End of Snow" Prediction

    • Snowpack can be replaced by more water storage lakes.
      More lakes we can afford; telling the CO2 to go back, we cannot afford. We don’t know anything that King Canute didn’t know.
      I do believe we can actually get water from water, as well as from snow, ice, hail, sleet, and any other forms of water like polywater.
      Snow just stores up the rain in huge abundance to be released in a deluge when the snow melts in spring.
      With water storage, you collect up the water in a controlled fashion as it falls periodically through the year.
      The monsoon nations don’t have any snow to store water for them. Yes I know the himalayers are near monsoon areas.

      • @ george, sadly enough there will always be the idiots like in Cali that tear down dams and let water run out into the ocean to save a few fish! ( For Salmon? that is a fallacy salmon stop eating as soon as they start up estuaries of rivers and water turns “sweet” and die after spawning)

      • As they told us out here in Colorado, rain doesn’t fill up reservoirs, only snow can do that. Evidently rain isn’t the same water as snow.

      • @george e. smith
        “Snowpack can be replaced by more water storage lakes.”
        Please tell that to Governor Moonbeam Brown. As others have said, they are dismantling dams instead of building more needed ones in CA for the interment droughts. Even during this drought, there have been some good rains, but most of that needed fresh water went rushing into the ocean.

      • J. Philip Peterson,
        Correctomundo. Moonbeam presided over the destruction of the giant Auburn dam. We could sure use that water now.
        The same Gov. Moonbeam who is pushing the monumentally stupid Train to Nowhere” that no one wants, and costing way over $100 billion.
        Stupid trains, A-OK.
        Water for residents, No deal; minnows have priority over people.

      • Well its the salmon smolt going down stream, that require running water, and a lack of dams to go crashing over.
        Actually, the northern California rivers that run out under the Golden Gate, benefit the entire Monterey Bay ecology.
        But pumping their water to make golf greens green in a SoCal desert, doesn’t even benefit the desert pup fish.
        Agriculture in California is about 2% of our GSP, I believe, and gets 80% of our water.
        Me; I’d rather have a nice rock cod, than a salmon any day.

      • “””””…..
        Paul Martin
        November 17, 2015 at 1:26 am
        I suggest you look up “polywater”. The premise was proved to be incorrect back in the 1970s. …..”””””
        Where did you see me say it was real ?? I just used the term; ain’t going to look it up.

    • Oh come on, you know climate change is the most serious threat that humanity has ever faced. A few scalliwags in some remote desert just pale into insignificance /sarc /Justin Trudeau

      • Charles Martel (688 or 686, 680 – 22 October 741) one of the greatest Europeans to have lived, now largely forgotten unfortunately.

        • Most of the past is forgotten by many. When some want to blame the western world for the Crusades, they conveniently forget what took place in Spain, Sicily, or Italy, plus in other locations for several hundred years.

      • Winning!!!!!!!
        Now that the world knows he has been infected with HIV (likelythrough his life choices), Charlie Sheen is a perfect metaphor for the Obama Era.
        Which of course we are living in an Orwellian Era when truths and denials are reversed.
        More snow becomes less snow.
        An actual Colder decade (RSS) means a warmer decade (NASA, NOAA, HadCRU).
        More polar sea ice means less sea ice.
        Climate scientists are the deniers of reality, skeptics are the scientists.

  1. Instead of snow, there should be a lot more rain since the positive feedback that more CO2 will allegedly create will also make more atmospheric water vapour. The increased precipitation will also provide a cooling effect which…hey … bring back the snow. Problem solved. Good ole Gaia.

      • Stephen Richards! — am I glad to see you post. I gave a shout out to you on the thread with about 50 jillion comments about “Breaking News …” about the Islamic terror in Paris on 11/13. Hoped you were okay (given that you are in your usual town of residence, Paris — sorry I spelled your name with an “a,” too — oops). All is well? Hope so.
        And, no, lol, I am not a biologist. I’m just a …. oh, I’ll just keep that to myself (not an occupation many people have a very high opinion of, I’m afraid).

    • Damn JimS, this is climatology: logic not allowed here. Besides, modern water is different now that it is full of CO2 — just ask any climatologist.
      If we need a snark tag in this thread, someone is just humorless.

      • Hey! I just typed in Markstoval’s comment — !! aack — not a good thing that WordPress makes altering another’s comment possible (if “Mark W lo” is still in markstoval’s 11/17 1:50am comment, I mean).
        @ MarkW — lol. Love it.

      • Just a follow-up — though the cursor was inside that other comment, the text I typed disappeared upon posting my reply to MarkW.

  2. … 90%… potential for either increases or decreases …

    In other words, this article adds up to NOTHING.
    Nice post, though, Mr. Worrall for it does reveal much about the conjecture-some-mistakenly-label-“hypothesis” of human-caused global climate change. LOL.

    • Janice Moore-
      It is worse-r than I thought.
      “…with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades.”
      The paper concludes there is a “potential” for blah blah blah.
      This is equivalent to saying that a snow-sensitive basin will increase, decrease or remain the same over the near-term decades.
      The obvious conclusion is that regional precipitation predictions from models are essentially noise.

  3. a multi-model ensemble

    There we go, my day is better now. A day without a multi-model ensemble is like a day without sunshine.

    water demand that would otherwise be unmet by instantaneous rainfall runoff

    Note to self: Topic to research Spring Flooding

    creates irreducible uncertainty

    Making predictions is hard, especially about the future.

    potential for either increases or decreases

    That just about covers it.

      • Thank you, you ol’ Sybot, you. 🙂 And, thank you for saying so. Good to see you, too.
        While “things” are the same with me, I realized that adding WUWT to my load counterintuitively lightened my burden, for the kindness of commenters like you far outweighs the snarls, sneers, and sexism of others.

      • Thank you for your kind endorsement, J. Philip. Pitiful as it may sound, I need that kind of thing — LOTS of it, I’m afraid. Your insights are always worthwhile (esp. when they are nice things about me, lolololol).

      • Mark Stoval?! — cool! I thought you found my comments far more irritating than illuminating (remember my telling you to “Call your mother” when you were on that snowy, long, drive in north Florida?, heh). Thanks! Glad you’re still hanging around here, too.

    • Like “Deja Vu all over again”. Apparently the late, great, Yogi Berra was The Original Climate Soothsayer.
      To borrow from him, I’m looking forward to the day when: ‘…. no one reads WUWT anymore, the site is overloaded and the page takes forever to come up’.

  4. Our SUVs are creating more uncertainty about climate, so if we keep going the way we are, the children aren’t going to know what climate change is.

    • From my observation of today’s kinder, parents don’t care about anything…much less their kinder. However their is the potential for kinder care to increase or decrease.

  5. There is already snow on the not very high mountains out my window.
    It’ll be down here at 1700 feet on Monday.
    I’m fleeing of a white Xmas.

    • Aaaaand, Sixty-eight Basins raises you $300 million. Do I hear 2.5 billion? …. Come on, folks, ‘ow about you? Yeah, you with the moustache, over there, standing behind that tree in the corner, what about all them Eskimos you keep yammerin’ about? Another 7,000, mebbe, but, hey! Those population count (using kriging — can’t leave out all the Eskimos out at sea hunting seals, can you??!)error bars are + or – 200 million, so, there ya go!
      Aaaand, SOLD to Sixty-eight Basins for 2.3 billion!

  6. plot all possible climate movements and link CAGW to an outcome plotted for the next generation. Then completely ignore your published position 20 years from now. Brilliantly deceitful.

    • Actually, in places like California, without the massive Sierra snowpack, available water during the always-dry summer months would be severely reduced. It would be more like Australia: flood and drought without the dampening effect of slowly melting snow.
      Of course, these geniuses are actually claiming that warmer air means more droughts, but historical climatology paints a different picture, one that confirms what atmospheric physics predicts: warmer air means more evaporation; more evaporation means more clouds; more clouds means more rain. They also conveniently ignore that more clouds means greater reflection of insolation back into space, as all their models add positive feedback from evaporation. In fact, they seem unaware of the very concept of negative feedback.
      The “inconvenient truth” is: if earth was as sensitive to CO2 changes as they claim, earth would’ve become a mini-Venus billions of years ago–and I’ve even heard a few of the lesser educated ones claiming earth was on its way to becoming just like Venus, not understanding that Venus receives 90% more solar radiation AND the atmosphere is 90 times denser than earth.
      Oh, well. Neither apostle nor acolyte in the new religion care about accuracy of data or verifiable predictions, because, like any religion, they won’t let facts get in the way of their Truth. And….to prevent contamination by unsupportive viewpoints, they also work to silence dissent.

      • Janice
        Do you know what’s the nicest thing about the news clip you show; young people having fun in the snow, as it should be.
        Time for these ninnies to stop trying to frighten people and leave them to just enjoy life.

  7. We predict: if you do not enslave yourselves to our demands, earth will fry within a century. You’ll get proof a hundred years from now, but we don’t dare wait!!

  8. with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades
    Then they wonder why their credibility has gone where dead crabs go…
    You couldn’t make it up…but unfortunately, you don’t have to.

  9. This is typical of the warmist articles coming out now – they conclude nothing, make no specific point and contain all the alarming buzz words – melt, availability, human, risk, uncertainty… the list goes on. So now that the predictions, projections and scare tactics have all been proven false, there is no article to write – so they publish rubbish with the buzz words. Just make sure the words are there and the subconscious will do the rest.

    • This is what you get when you don’t have a “consumer” in the grant money transaction. There is no angry consumer to demand value for their money. This is truly the biggest problem in the vicious cycle of bad science and bad journalism. Until value is demanded in exchange for funding, the global warming nonsense will continue.

  10. Stockbroker: And, here, boys and girls, is your TIP OF THE DAY! 90% of the stocks in your portfolio have the potential to go up or down! (the other 10% are frozen up in Chapter 11 …. or something….)
    Now, hand over my commission!
    Client: That is what you have been telling me for a year, now. You’re fired.

  11. Abstract (translation)
    Alarmist predictions are regarded as an essential contributor to the making of further successful grant applications for researchers in environmental science. Numerous studies point to the advantage that the magnitude of alarmist predictions can confer to grant approval. But analyses focused only on magnitude of alarmism do not show where refusal of grant approval are likely to present the most pressing challenges. We identify the specific funding bodies that offer the greatest potential for the supply of easy cash. Cash that may otherwise be diverted towards real scientific research. Using a multi-model ensemble, we find that the amount of money required by environmental science researchers will always tend to exceed the amount of money that exists in the known universe. However, complex internal professional conflicts and allegiances create irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in cash availability, with about 90% of alarmism sensitive funding bodies showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades. Our results emphasize the importance of the continued supply of plentiful cash in the near term, since we have completely failed to determine what the f**k is actually going on.

  12. it is one of those “honey i ran the climate model” papers and like all such papers, if you read the “we don’t really know” disclaimers carefully and take them to heart you will wonder why this paper was written in the first place.

  13. “this study is cautious enough to predict more snow, less snow, or no change, for at least the next few decades.”
    For once, the warmists have a chance of getting a prediction right.

    • RoHa —
      Give credit where credit is due!!!!
      What is really amazing about their predictions is they don’t have to fudge the data to make them come true!! Now that is a huge step up for climate science!!!!
      Eugene WR Gallun

    • Now now don’t fall for Mr Worrall’s sleight of hand here, putting words in climatologists’ mouths and concentrate hard on the facts before us-
      “However, internal climate variability creates irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in snow resource potential, with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades.”
      While Mr Worrall could be correct in concluding there might be no change in snow fall potential in the other 10% of basins, like the cautious authors, we can’t rule out them being hit by a giant asteroid too.

  14. Quote: “However, internal climate variability creates irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in snow resource potential, with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades.”
    I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. I had absolutely no idea that precipitation has the potential to change over time in 90% of any given areas, let alone 100%. Are they certain that this could never happen in 100% of snow-sensitive basins?
    I sure am glad we have these brilliant scientific light bulbs to tell us there things. I shudder at the thought of what life would be like without them. But I sure wish there was way for me to find out.

  15. Dear Mods,
    Am I for some reason on double secret moderation or permanently streng verboten on this blog?
    Just wondering. If so, will stop trying to comment.
    [Reply: No, just a temporary shortage of moderators. ~mod]

    • …there is a 90% potential that the mods will increase…or decrease…in length, or number, or…spirits consumption… 🙂
      …so no posting till the mod’s potential has a measurable change of snowballing.

      • ROTFLMAO….. Thanks, I didn’t want that beer anyways, But a little warning would have prevented the sticky alcohol mess on my screen !!!

  16. The authors of the paper are concerned that water supply & demand involving snow related cycles, concerned because they postulate warming.
    It isn’t an argument, it is a postulation.

  17. Just a thought but just who are the authors?
    Our work was supported by a Predoctoral Science Fellowship at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University to JSM, and NSF CAREER Award 0955283 to NSD.
    Predoctoral Science Fellowship, Students in other words

    • Michael (not a) Morlock — nice detective work and good point… kinda sad those poor students already made themselves look like fools even before they got a “Dr.” before their name….. hm……. likely some kind of climate “science” sorority/fraternity initiation rite, or something…. “Sorry, guys and gals, but to get your Ph. D., you’ll have to first prove you are worthy of being one of us by making an utter fool of yourself. Just the way it is. (shrug)”
      — Reminds me of what gangs and cults do to make their members loyal: once you’ve done something terrible, you can’t go back emotionally and they — own — you.
      Say! (off topic, but I’ve been looking around WUWT for you all day… — Thank you for the great info. about France being forced to agree to “defend” its former colonies on behalf of the Naz!s — I did not know that. You made a good point — it was just that that thread was so loaded down already, I didn’t want to say so there. So, here I am. :))

      • Thanks, And yeah when I came across the treaty requirements years ago it gave me a reality check

    • “Predoctoral Science Fellowship, Students in other words”
      Phew that’s a relief! For a while there this budding student of climastrology thought he was gunna have to get a pre-doctoral appointment to get some post-doctoral fellowship with his pharmacist over all this heady stuff.

  18. Northern California and points north have received an early snowfall so far this year. Plus, take a look at what is taking place in Alaska. Do you recall all the talk about how warm Alaska has been over the last several winters? That well above average warmth appears to have come to an end with the advent of a well below average temperature drop even though it is not yet winter. Yesterday and today were 18 F below the average…http://www.intellicast.com/Local/ObservationsSummary.aspx?location=USAK0012
    Note that Russia through into Siberia has been every cold for the last several weeks. It is morning over there now, but take a look at what Intellicast will show in around 12 hours from now. This extreme cold is now into Alaska, also. I wonder what winter will bring to these regions?…http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Temperature/Current.aspx

    • Great reporting, Goldminor. Thanks for sharing. You {and ALL of you who regularly comment with such insight and excellently sourced information!} should write a post for WUWT based on your research — you are a fine reporter. No need to “explain” anything — many WUWT articles are just FYI and we enjoy reading them!

      • Thanks Janice! That really caught my attention over the last several weeks, but especially over the last several days. The entirety of Russia and all of the land eastward to the Pacific ocean was basically the same temp as Greenland. That also includes Northern China. I wonder if this is the herald of what forms a grand minimum?
        China could face some real internal problems quickly, if their crop yields start to drop.

      • China… problems, yes. Good point, Goldminor.
        Existence, nevertheless: likely perpetual. And the likely great loss of life will not be deemed a tragedy by the officials. The mother or father of that little child who wastes away to a skeleton will mourn deeply, but, Communists don’t value human life as we do, you know. Human beings are fungible goods.
        They just increased the allowed number of children per family (“allowed” — cool country, huh?) from one to two. I think they already have the famine thing handled: just have more kids until the famine years pass. Sure, many will die in the meantime. So?
        Okay! Back to the topic, er, sort of… And B. Hussein (and his puppet-string handlers whom we MUST VOTE OUT OF OFFICE!!) is doing his best to keep them supplied with fuel… .

    • Note: Goldminor’s second 6:08pm link DOES go to “global” — just need to click on the word “Global” near top of that page.

  19. That is the most stupid thing I have ever read in an abstract. “90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades”? What the hell does that mean?
    What do the OTHER 10% show? Near-term decades? How many decades are those?
    English, dammit, english!! ;-D As an aside I rather gather the population growth and average water usage assumptions are central to the study. I will have to read this one
    Thanks for highlighting !

  20. Don’t you love the squishy wording? Not falsifiable. Like, “There’s an invisible man chasing me, but he can’t be seen, touched, heard, smelled or tasted.” Science by Tarot?
    But seriously. We should all wish for an end to snow. End the Ice Age. Otherwise, when the Holocene ends, we’ll all be in for a lot more snow. With Global Warming, more evaporation, more clouds and more precipitation. We have to ask, what kind of person promotes global cooling in an ongoing Ice Age? Especially when the Holocene is already running a bit long!
    And warmer climate should give the entire planet far more precipitation, overall. Deserts rule during the glacial period; deserts shrink during interglacials. How large would deserts be when the Ice Age ends?

    • They’re just too obsessed with AGW and CO2 levels to even want to consider natural climate change cycles. When you’re dealing with people who think CO2 must be eradicated, you’re dealing with the suicidal.

  21. I think that I may be able to give this paper some context.
    The number of meaningful claims that can be made in climate science is rapidly diminishing.
    This is because:
    1. Only negative, alarmist claims about anthropogenic influence are tolerated by the “consensus” community.
    2. Many such claims have already been made, and then discredited or ridiculed by their consequent failure.
    3. The alternative – stating high levels of uncertainty – is perceived as an admission of doubt, and so that isn’t permitted either.
    All this leaves very little that can be confidently claimed.
    Firstly a topic must be chosen in which the conclusions will show a strong negative consequence from continued emission of GHCs.
    There isn’t really much evidence of this well defined relationship so the best way to achieve such an end, is to distort the evidence. To use a “trick” of some sort.
    Unfortunately, this approach has the weakness that it has the capacity to awaken the wrath of “an army of pensioners”. Some of whom are extremely knowledgeable, committed and intelligent.
    These people will hunt down and expose weaknesses in research methods and analysis.
    So, what is left? Perhaps all that is left is making weak or meaningless claims whilst couching the claim in technical jargon, in order to disguise fact that nothing has been discovered and no progress has been made towards any greater scientific understanding.
    The basically meaningless result will hopefully slip through and avoid the attention of Climate Audit, WUWT or Judith Curry. Certainly, it then cannot be embarrassingly disproved by the failure of its predictions.
    In short, when properly conducted free and balanced scientific exploration is not tolerated, then all that is left is this feeble minded bullshit.

  22. “with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades.”
    Wow, that’s a brave prediction! But does that mean the other 10% will not change at all? I find it hard to believe that any snow basin will remain unchanged over decades. Has that ever happened with even one, let alone 10%?
    BTW, I predict that 90% of stocks will either increase or decrease in value over the near-term decades. Now where’s my grant money?

  23. Glaciers that don’t shrink are net consumers of water. They are not reservoirs because they cannot be managed. Dare I use the example of shrinking glaciers supplied by the author as evidence? Even if they are not shrinking they certainly can, hence they’re unmanageable. Too bad the world sat on their PC asses while China stole the top of the world for the water opportunities. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/aug/10/china-india-water-grab-dams-himalayas-danger

  24. I’m sure the effects will be “masked” long enough for these “scientists” to have milked it for what it was worth and settled down to a comfortable retirement……

  25. On the basis that none of the predictions of the climate change alarmists have come true, I can offer 1000/1 that this latest joke won’t come true either.
    But I can offer 2/11 that these scientists will get more funding to investigate the matter further.

  26. “90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term”.
    Please send grant money.

  27. The most useless peace of “science” I have ever read!
    The bottom point of this abstract is they have no clue!
    Let me help you guys, and rephrase your abstract:
    “The potential for snow to supply human water demand in the present and future”
    Justin S Mankin, Daniel Viviroli, Deepti Singh, Arjen Y Hoekstra and Noah S Diffenbaugh
    We do not know what will happen in the future. More money is required.
    Who pays for drivel like that?

  28. In other words, ” we don’t know what will happen in the future but if you send us more money so we can send our kids to university, I’m sure they will figure it out someday ” !!!!

  29. Anthony:
    Please archive that article, before the AGW true believers pull another “Winston Smith” and make it an “unarcticle”, just like Dr. Viner’s (in)famous prediction.

  30. The really sad thing is that there is gold in there: “irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in snow”. They could have done exactly the same work and written almost the same text and produced a paper “Climate models not yet suitable for long term snow estimation”, explaining why it would be very useful to have good long term estimates of snow and that they demonstrated that current models can’t provide those estimates. And shouldn’t sceptics be grateful for such a demonstration?

    • Yes, indeed, Mr. O’Keefe: “there is gold in there”: “‘irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in snow’.” Good spot.
      Grateful, meh, not so much (heh). Coming from such a low-credibility source, it does more harm than good. About as good as getting a LinkedIn endorsement from Hilary It-Was-the-Video Clinton.

  31. You can see that these climate social scientists have no idea what engineering is all about. You can always recognize Malthusians by their belief that humans live helplessly in a petri dish type relation to resources. Change is what they have settled on as a scary climate paradigm but have no clue that ‘change’ is really the paradigm and specialty of humans blessed with ingenuity. We can recharge the petri dish at will.
    We have proven that we can leap continents in a single bound, drop in on the moon(s), Mars and the rest of the far and beyond. Reduction in snow is a mere trifle for such ingenuity and probably three quarters of humanity already live without it. Yeah, but what about rain? We can capture and store it easier than we can CO2! Climate social scientists, please(!), when you are flying to your next what-are-we-gonna-do klatch, look out the window of your 500ton fossil-fueled aircraft from 35,000ft at a metropolis in daylight or dark and amaze yourselves. Haul out your laptop and read The Straits Times and see what is happening in Singapore. Play chess in real time with a stranger in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, a city and country you’d never heard of.
    I see you are trying to cover the bases by eliminating rain, too. Now there is a good use for solar: desalinate the ocean. And if you decide to predict the end of oceans….becalm your frantically beating heart. Engineers are here just for this kind of problem.

  32. Let me get this right. There might be more snow in the future, or possibly less snow. But then there’s a third possibility – OMG Horror of Horrors!!!!! things might stay the same. Climate Changeless – we’re all going to die from boredom at the monotony unless we give up fossil fuels TODAY!!

Comments are closed.