Climate modelers: snow on Hawaiian peaks to disappear by end of century

From the UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA and the “Hawaiian children just won’t know what snow is” department…

Snow in Hawai’i: What does the future hold?

Snow is on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, Hawai’i. CREDIT Gisela Speidel

Daydreams of the tropical paradise of Hawai’i rarely include snow in the imagery, but nearly every year, a beautiful white blanket covers the highest peaks in the state for at least a few days. However, systematic observations of snowfall and the snow cover dimensions on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa are practically nonexistent. A group of climate modelers led by Chunxi Zhang from the International Pacific Research Center (IPRC) at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa used satellite images to quantify recent snow cover distributions patterns. They developed a regional climate model to simulate the present-day snowfalls and then to project future Hawaiian snowfalls. Their results indicate that the two volcano summits are typically snow-covered at least 20 days each winter, on average, but that the snow cover will nearly disappear by the end of the century.

To evaluate the current situation, Zhang and his colleagues examined surface composition data retrieved from satellite imagery of Hawai’i Island from 2000 to 2015 to construct a daily index of snow cover. They used this data compilation to evaluate the quality of their regional atmospheric climate model, based on global climate projections that included several scenarios of anticipated climate change. Zhang then ran simulations representative of the end of the 21st century, assuming a moderate business-as-usual scenario for greenhouse gas emissions projections, to establish how long Hawai’i might enjoy its occasional glimpses of white-topped mountains.

“We recognized that Hawaiian snow has an aesthetic and recreational value, as well as a cultural significance, for residents and visitors,” explained Zhang. “So, we decided to examine just what the implications of future climate change would be for future snowfall in Hawai’i.” Unfortunately, the projections suggest that future average winter snowfall will be ten times less than present day amounts, virtually erasing all snow cover.

Long term annual snowfall on Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea on Hawai’i Island. a) Current average snowfall (in mm of liquid water equivalent) b) Projected snowfall by 2100, from model run with moderate emissions scenario. Topographic contour interval is 200 m. CREDIT Zhang, et al. (2017)

The findings were not a total surprise, with future projections showing that even with moderate climate warming, air temperatures over the higher altitudes increase even more than at sea level, and that, on average, fewer winter storm systems will impact the state. However, the group’s new method for establishing the current snow cover on these Hawaiian mountains provides another avenue for monitoring the progression of climate change in the region. Ultimately, this study also illustrates the benefits of the recent trend in model downscaling, highlighting the regional and local effects of global climate change.


The paper:;jsessionid=A9530A9C5D9E11989FEB241D2492AA0D.f02t01

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Louis LeBlanc
May 6, 2017 12:44 pm

Unrelated, but shouldn’t we be drumming up people to communicate with and encourage the Trump administration to consult with the leading scientists calling for dialog about “climate change” before Ivanka and her touchy-feely coterie change Trump’s mind about the Paris Agreement? This is crunch time, people.

Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
May 6, 2017 2:58 pm

Yes, the Paris Agreement is totally unrelated to science. Crunch on that for a while.
Please go beat your drum in some church of the Escathological Cargo Cult of the CAGW. This site is about science.

Reply to  ShrNfr
May 6, 2017 3:42 pm

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you two are in agreement.

Reply to  ShrNfr
May 7, 2017 6:04 am

I stand corrected. Yes, we are. My bad. I am allergic to the phrase “Paris Agreement”.

george e. smith
Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
May 6, 2017 6:51 pm

I predict that all Hawaiian snow will be gone before this time next year.

May 6, 2017 12:44 pm

What’s a “moderate business as usual scenario”? I’m getting really tired of reading about these papers which tag an emissions scenario as “business as usual”.

Patrick B
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
May 7, 2017 12:05 pm

That’s a clear scientific phrase that means less business than a roaring expansion and more business than a depression. If you were a climate scientist you would understand the precision in these terms is what makes climatology a science.
[??? .mod]

Patrick B
Reply to  Patrick B
May 7, 2017 2:48 pm

Please don’t tell me I need to add /s.

Reply to  Patrick B
May 8, 2017 6:22 am

Patrick is saying that “business as usual” covers everything between “roaring expansion” and “depression”.
It’s a term that is so broad as to be meaningless.

May 6, 2017 12:51 pm


Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2017 12:52 pm

They “used a climate model to” – stopped reading right there.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2017 2:01 pm

Always strikes me as strangely anachronistic too. Kind of like saying “we used chicken bones and goat entrails to …” The models have no demonstrated predictive skill and yet the climate industry endlessly proceed as though they are a bonus feature divinely handed down with the stone tablets on Sinai. Very weird.

Reply to  cephus0
May 6, 2017 6:14 pm

They calibrated the model to observations.
THERE Are Two Ways To predict. Statistical extrapolation from the data. Physical modelling.
Both will be wrong. Sometimes a little wrong sometimes a lot.
I just landed from beijing. Before we took off there was a model prediction of flight time. It was wrong..But still useful to folks picking me up. It was a statistical model.
Once we took off we got an update from a physical model. It too was wrong…But less wrong .

Reply to  cephus0
May 6, 2017 7:32 pm

There is also a third method, modeling based on false assumptions. For instance, they could calculate the time of flight based on a 500 mph easterly wind. There are times the model will be less wrong by pure chance, but the model has no value beyond advertising a high speed of predicted travel and trying to coerce the people that are picking you up to waste time and money by arriving early.

Pat Frank
Reply to  cephus0
May 7, 2017 10:50 am

Steve Mosher demonstrates yet once again that he has no idea how science works.
Here he is making the error Terry Oldberg invariably notices: the equivocation fallacy. “Prediction” in science does not have the meaning of SM’s usage.
Inductive inference (statistical extrapolation) is not a prediction in any scientific sense.
Physical models can make predictions iff their expectation values provide a unique solution to the problem considered. There is no other way. Climate models fail the unique solution standard.
Calibrating models to observations is the signature of an engineering model, useful only for testing of outcomes within the calibration period. They can make no predictions outside of that period. The prediction fallacy is the basis of all the climate alarm.

Reply to  cephus0
May 7, 2017 11:12 am

“Wrong but still useful”, for one model “wrong but less wrong” for the other. It wasn’t Pat Frank that failed reading comprehension. Steve Mosher’s wording indicated that the model prediction would not be exactly correct, but that it would be close enough to use as a basis for planning and action.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  cephus0
May 7, 2017 6:40 pm

Moshpit says “They calibrated the model to observations.” like that makes a difference. Climastrologists routinely “calibrate” climate models so they can hindcast (i.e. they tweak a model’s parameters until it finally spits out a desired result). But despite all of their “calibrations”, none of the climate models come close to predicting future climate as well as a chimpanzee throwing darts.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2017 2:30 pm

I got that same feeling to stop…then abused myself by reading it all. So they used an “Old Model from the end of the 21st century” – that we know was a Failure – to run their data with it… And they don’t give which model they used… But every one of those old model’s never came close to their projections. And yet, they seem so proud of themselves with the data it gave them. Drum roll…. Morons.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2017 4:22 pm

Yep, at that point I skipped right to the comments. 😉

Gerry, England
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 7, 2017 3:53 am

Yes, their predictions will, as a matter of course, be rubbish since the models are. But if they are going to be observing the snow cover over the coming years, that will provide some interesting data. It might also hasten them into oblivion when their predictions fail to come true – again. Or they could photoshop some of the snow out of the satellite imagines in the time-honoured tradition of manipulation by warmists.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Gerry, England
May 7, 2017 6:50 pm

Or, if there is record snowfall, they will simply say “See, that’s just what we predicted!”

Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 12:53 pm

There’s nothing wrong with taking two points 15 years apart and projecting that out 85 years is there? Isn’t that how forecasting is always done?
Last night it was +3 in Waterloo. Tonight it will be -2. So by the end of May it will be -127 C.
That’s what you get when the climate is broken.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 1:55 pm

-127 C.
Darn. My wife just planted a bunch of flowers. I’m not sure we have enough blankets to protect them from that kind of temperature.

James Loux
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 1:59 pm

Good thing that they didn’t include this winter of 2016-2017. There has been snow cover from October 2016 through March 2017 and then again in April. Of course, that would just be an outlier for their analysis and therefore deleted. The level of snow is better related to the PDO, and it is coming back.
The last cold PDO was in the 1970s and early 1980s, and the skiing was good. This picture was taken in April, 1985.

george e. smith
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 2:05 pm

” Two points define a line. ”
That is the First Axiom of projective Geometry.
Lines go on forever in both directions.
Ergo, projection is fine forward or backward; far as you like. Why would you need anything more. to do climate science ?
Second axiom says ” Two lines define a point ” (projective geometry is two dimensional.)
The third axiom says ” There are a least four points. ”
Hey why would you need more than four points; you’ve seen four points you’ve seen Yamall.
The firs theorem in Projective Geometry proves that there are at least seven points.
Just a simple application of Axioms #1, and #2.
With projective geometry, you can’t prove there are any more than seven points: but there might be.
So Climate science is done with about the right amount of data.
My math prof, who was an expert on the subject, assured us there was no known useful application for Projective Geometry.
But then he was not even aware there was such a thing as Climate Science.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  george e. smith
May 6, 2017 2:23 pm

George I was only making one point, right? I am often accused of being one-dimensional. I try to be linear but always on point which causes me to lose perspective.
The one use I can think of for projective geometry is that when I was a Boy Scout we used it to gauge the height of tall objects like buildings and trees. I thought that was pretty useful. It is right there in the Boy Scout Manual. It is part of the reason we carried 5-1/2 ft staves with feet and inches marked on them.
[The mods quietly point out that finding elevation at a distance by projecting lines past a stick is, by definition, two-dimensional. But 3-dimensional if the lines curve. And arguably 4-dimensional if the lines are curved by a black hole while making the Kessel run. .mod]

James Schrumpf
Reply to  george e. smith
May 6, 2017 3:13 pm

Crispin, I believe that’s called “trigonometry.” Or has that name fallen from disfavor in math circles?
[Trigonometry has always been the focus for division in math circles, and the fiends they hang out with on street corners at night. .mod]

Reply to  george e. smith
May 6, 2017 4:10 pm

Crispin, I believe that’s called “trigonometry.”

When I first applied the methods taught in the Boy Scout manual, I was unaware that trigonometry even existed. IIRC the methods were such that you didn’t even have to multiply or divide.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
May 6, 2017 6:56 pm

They don’t teach Trigonometry any more just … trig …
Along with !

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
May 6, 2017 6:59 pm

In projective geometry, all circles intersect at two points; called: “The circular points at infinity. ”
That also make a circle a special case of a hyperbola.
I’m not making this up.

Randy in Ridgecrest
Reply to  george e. smith
May 7, 2017 6:27 am

The Kessel run? All that mucking about in hyperspace just to go get beer.

Robert Stewart
Reply to  george e. smith
May 7, 2017 9:18 am

If you chance upon a “modern” geometry or trigonometry textbook you will be surprised at its weight (6 lbs) and content. Multicolored photographs border brief bits of text describing how to make a math portfolio, and about 80% of the [way] through you’ll find the meat of the matter. In geometry texts this is the “Law of Sines” and “Law of Cosines”. Students are required to memorize these Laws and then apply them.
And we wonder why American kids score so poorly in international tests of math and science.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 2:21 pm

Looks to me like there is 1,500′ to 2,000′ feet of snow on top of that mountain.
So zhang and his buds expect 3 to 6 degrees of temperature increase at 10,000 feet of elevation?
There’s too much of that there artificial compassion again.

Phil R
Reply to  ATheoK
May 6, 2017 3:30 pm

I always thought that “1,500′ to 2,000′ feet of snow” was a glacier. 🙂

Reply to  ATheoK
May 6, 2017 6:56 pm

High expectations Phil R, high expectations.
Perhaps they need volunteers to roll large snow balls downhill? To keep the glacier from forming.
Sounds like a great job. Lark around at high altitude and snow during the day, return to warm beachfronts for evenings.
It doesn’t look like good cross country skiing heights though.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 2:31 pm

The forecast for Southern Ontario tomorrow night (based on a linear projection, I am sure) is for snow!
“Now, weather that has felt more like April than May will shortly feel like late March, with a drastic cooldown followed by accumulated wet snow in some areas.”

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 4:14 pm

When I was a kid growing up in Saskatchewan weather was extremely variable and practically unpredictable beyond about three days. Now, with all the money that’s been spent on people, equipment and computers they have managed to make climate unpredictable, too! Funny thing is, it looks just like the 1970’s to my untrained eye.

george e. smith
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 7:01 pm

It Just snowed in Yosemite.

Med Bennett
May 6, 2017 12:54 pm

Hahaha – my cousin who lives on Oahu told me that they were forecasting snow on the summits last weekend- almost May.

James Loux
Reply to  Med Bennett
May 6, 2017 1:37 pm

And it did, as revealed on May 1.

May 6, 2017 12:55 pm

Yeah, well, In the 1970s we were going to be in an ice age, and in the 1990s, the entire planet was supposed to have become a desert. None of that happened.
Children in Hawaii won’t know what snow is? Ask them if they want to move to Saudi Arabia, in that case. They have snow every winter. So does Morocco, in the mountains. Oman is now experiencing heavy rains and flooding every year since 2014. What are these scientists going to do about that?

Brian R
May 6, 2017 12:58 pm

In stead of making predictions 80-100 years out I would challenge climate modelers to make 6 month to 2 year predictions. If they can nail those I’ll start believing the hundred your predictions.

Reply to  Brian R
May 6, 2017 1:53 pm

Isn’t that why some of us buy the Farmer’s Almanac and the Old Farmer’s Almanac?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Sara
May 6, 2017 2:35 pm

Interestingly, the Farmer’s Almanac forecasts for 2018 were sent to the publishers at the end of March, same as every other year. You will buy your copy in September when they come out, but the predictions (which are from models, BTW) were completed almost a year before. The late fall forecast is made 21 months ahead. I don’t think a GCM can predict that far ahead.

Don K
Reply to  Sara
May 7, 2017 7:14 am

The Old Farmer’s Almanac claims to have a centuries old algorithm based on solar cycles, astronomy, and weather patterns. I have always suspected that the actual predictions involved several cases of beer and the throwing of darts. Accuracy? They seem to be right about half the time — which may be as good as anyone else. FWIW, They think the planet is in a long term cooling trend.

george e. smith
Reply to  Brian R
May 6, 2017 2:08 pm

They’ll get around to that; right now they are working on next weekend’s weather !.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 7, 2017 7:10 am

I’ve read where today’s weather forecast is typically 80% accurate;
…that tomorrow’s forecast is 60% accurate;
…that two days from now it is 40% accurate,
and so on. In less than a week, their forecasts are down to zero.
A while back, added a “5 Day” forecast yet kept their “10 Day” forecast, although based on their own admission, the “10 Day” forecast is pretty much a waste of time (and I think they knew it, hence the addition of the shorter time span).
(If you want to run your own evaluation, print out their 10-day forecast and for the next 10 days see how that day’s forecast changes daily into something quite different from when it was the 10th day. Also, note that they actually cover 15 days in their “10 Day” forecast but why worry about accuracy when it’s just weather?)
Weather Forecasting: The only job that is demonstrably (and easily) falsifiable.

Berényi Péter
May 6, 2017 12:58 pm

For how long these volcano summits used to be snow covered 40 years ago?

Reply to  Berényi Péter
May 7, 2017 2:02 am

For 1970 I found nothing. This might be interesting:

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Bindidon
May 7, 2017 1:50 pm

It (Snow on the Summits of Hawai‘i Island: Historical Sources from 1778 to 1870) says: “The Weather Bureau began to publish instrumental temperature and precipitation records of Hawai‘i in 1897.”
I assume those record are available.

Richard Kiser
May 6, 2017 1:01 pm

:satellite imagery of Hawai’i Island from 2000 to 2015 to construct a daily index of snow cover”. They used this data. Honestly, that is all I needed to read. Why didn’t they just be honest and say they were paid by research money to produce this prediction. Aloha!

Reply to  Richard Kiser
May 6, 2017 2:28 pm

Satellite data?! There is an observatory up there at the telescopes. With actual weather records. And snow depth. Going back before satellites. Even measures CO2. GIGO.

May 6, 2017 1:03 pm

My bet is that at that altitude, CO2 does more cooling than warming. In the thin air, CO2 facilitates the radiation out of the atmosphere.

Reply to  co2islife
May 7, 2017 7:20 am

…so you’re saying with an increase in CO2, we should expect MORE snow over time, and that should apply to most (if not all) mountains that get snow?
If that’s the case, snow should become more abundant and where most people live, river flow should increase–another benefit of CO2!
Maybe that’s what’s been happening to California? (I pick them because they’re so anti-CO2):
RIVER BASIN Snow Water Accum
Equivalent Precip
NORTHERN GREAT BASIN ……………………. 164* 139
TRUCKEE RIVER ………………………………….. 263* 206
LAKE TAHOE ………………………………………… 407 218
CARSON RIVER ……………………………………. 280 198
WALKER RIVER ……………………………………. 277 211
KLAMATH …………………………………………….. 131* 135

Reply to  RockyRoad
May 7, 2017 7:24 am

LOL, love it.

May 6, 2017 1:11 pm

The notion that anything other than the density of the atmosphere will make any change in mean temperature at 4000m and above is exponentially more bonkers than it is at sea level .

Tom Halla
May 6, 2017 1:17 pm

Aren’t there snow records of Hawaii peaks, even satellite records, dating from before 2000? When someone picks a limited data base, I think something is going on other than real research.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 6, 2017 7:22 pm

I was thinking the same. Geostationary (GOES) wx satellites have been up since mid-late 70’s and NOAA polar satellites up even longer. UWisc has the full WXSat archive they could have looked at (at least a good 40 year record of snow cover extent). That would cover most of a complete PDO cycle!

Tom Halla
Reply to  JKrob
May 6, 2017 7:27 pm

Researchers could also ask the NRO or the CIA or the Russians for their old surveillance photos, dating back as far as the early 1960’s. Definitely old enough to declassify.

May 6, 2017 1:19 pm

“assuming a moderate business-as-usual scenario for greenhouse gas emissions”
So they calculated how much warming would result from increased atmospheric CO2 due to our emissions, and used that to determine how soon the snow would disappear? One huge assumption involved here, that contrary to all evidence, our emissions are warming the planet.
And they wonder why we don’t believe the accuracy of their models.

Walter Sobchak
May 6, 2017 1:25 pm

Climate model = mathematical onanism.
A Brit might say that Chunxi Zhang is a computerized wanker.
Nothing happened. No news story.

Janice Moore
May 6, 2017 1:35 pm

…. simulations representative of the end of the 21st century, assuming a moderate business-as-usual scenario for greenhouse gas emissions …. suggest that future average winter snowfall will be

ten times less {!!}

than present day amounts, virtually erasing all snow cover. ….

comment image
It — will — happen!
Troll: Well. (sniff) Prove it won’t.
Lol. Just like electric cars will always capture most of the motor vehicle market in about 10 years.

Reply to  Janice Moore
May 6, 2017 1:53 pm

“Lol. Just like electric cars will always capture most of the motor vehicle market in about 10 years.”
They already have in some market sectors. The Tesla Model S outsold the Mercedes S Class (the most popular dinosaur-powered car in their luxury class) by a factor of 2:1 in the second half of 2016. A tiny market sector but the writing is on the wall. China is buying three times as many EVs as the US. In January 2017 EVs were 37% of the market in Norway. Forget CO2 and all that eco-grunge: once you drive one you won’t want to go back to a four-banger unless you have to.

Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 2:11 pm

Make the playing field level and remove government subsidies and then get back to me with your outlook on increasing market share for electric cars.

Janice Moore
Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 2:20 pm

1. Tesla would not exist (and is heading toward bankruptcy as we speak) but for taxpayers paying people to buy them (around $40,000 from the hard earned money of the hotel housekeepers and taxi drivers of the nation going into the pockets of wealthy people who can afford to buy a (net) ~ $60,000 car).
2. What the Chinese are doing is a losing game for them — they are creating artificial demand for their own production capacity.
3. Norway! LOL — as if what happens in Norway is the norm for the rest of the world.
4. I will take an ICE-powered vehicle any day over an EV. They are FAR more reliable and convenient and, thus, safe (running out of electric “fuel” in a traffic jam on the way home in sub-freezing weather is not safe). Best of all! — they are made without sticking it to the taxpayers (for production and or for electric “fuel” and or battery replacement).
Electric cars: fine in very limited markets (think golf carts and mild climates and short-time drives (I would NEVER take an EV for a long distance drive across vast stretches of the southwest ….).
Obviously, you want to sell EV’s. Good luck.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 3:25 pm

It’s always interesting, when someone makes a claim like “The Tesla Model S outsold the Mercedes S Class (the most popular dinosaur-powered car in their luxury class) by a factor of 2:1 in the second half of 2016”, to go look at the real market statistics. And lo and behold, while the claim is true, the claim is comparing arigula and lettuce. From the site (longish quote, sorry):
Today, I’m going to disprove a myth that has taken off like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or the midengine Corvette — namely, that the Tesla Model S is the best-selling luxury sedan in America. You’ve probably heard this myth, because it’s been repeated approximately 379,000 times by roughly 247 different automotive publications. And every time I hear it, I get all upset, clench my fists and scream in fits of rage at my laptop computer, whose only sin was delivering me this information in a timely manner.
Here’s the basis for the claim that it is the best-selling luxury sedan in America. During the third quarter, Tesla sold 9,156 units of the Model S sedan, which is indeed more sales than the Mercedes S-Class (4,921), the BMW 7 Series (3,634), the Audi A8 (1,030), the Lexus LS (1,235) and whatever other full-size luxury sedan you want to compare it to. These numbers are indisputable.
There’s only one problem: The Tesla Model S isn’t a full-size luxury sedan. It’s a midsize luxury sedan, and it doesn’t actually compete with the cars I’ve listed above.
Instead, the Model S’s closest competitors are cars like the Mercedes-Benz E-Class, the BMW 5 Series, the Cadillac CTS, the Audi A6, the Lexus GS and the Hyundai Genesis.
Consider, for example, its size. The Mercedes-Benz E-Class is 193.8 inches in length, while the larger S-Class is 206.5 inches. The current (outgoing) BMW 5 Series is 196.8 inches in length, while the BMW 7 Series tops out at 205.3 inches. The Model S? It’s 196 inches, which makes it shorter than the 5 Series, slightly longer than the E-Class and nearly a foot shorter than some of the full-size luxury sedans with which it supposedly competes.
Next, consider pricing. The base price range on the Mercedes S-Class stretches from $97,600 for a zero-options S550 to $227,900 for a V12-powered AMG S65. The 7 Series ranges from $82,500 for a base-level 740i to $138,000 for a sporty Alpina B7 xDrive.
Meanwhile, the base price range of the smaller E-Class stretches from $53,200 for a base-level E300 to about $106,000 for a top-of-the-line E63 AMG. The BMW 5 Series ranges from $51,200 for a 528i to $95,100 for a high-performance M5.
And the Model S? It starts at $66,000 and tops out at $134,500. That means a base-level Model S is 48 percent cheaper than a base-level S-Class but just 24 percent more expensive than a base-level E-Class. And while it’s right in the middle of the BMW sedans, don’t forget that all these Model S pricing numbers are before the federal income-tax credit for electric vehicles — something Tesla openly advertises on its website under the Cash Price section, preferring to quote you a price with the tax credit applied than one without. Right now, buying an electric vehicle gets you $7,500 off your federal income taxes, and that’s before any state and local credits. Apply the federal tax credit, as Tesla wants you to, and its pricing is almost neck and neck with the 5 Series and the E-Class.
So the Model S is sized like a midsize luxury sedan, and it’s priced like one, too. Why doesn’t anyone call the Model S a midsize luxury sedan?
Simple: because Tesla doesn’t want them to.
In conclusion, the Tesla Model S is not the best-selling full-size luxury sedan in the United States because of the simple fact it isn’t a full-size luxury sedan. It’s not sized like one, and it’s not priced like one. Compare it to actual rivals in the midsize-luxury segment, and you’ll find the Model S still sells at impressive numbers — just not quite enough to be No. 1.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 4:23 pm

Power suppllied from brand new coal fired plants at subsidized prices. The people’s automobile!

Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 4:51 pm

john hardy is conveniently forgetting how many other manufacturers compete in that segment .when ev’s can do 400 mile plus journeys without the need for recharging i might be interested.

Janice Moore
Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 5:39 pm

Well done, RAH (HOO-rah, go, RAH! 🙂 ) and James Schrumpf!

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 6:42 pm

Golf carts.

Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 7:03 pm

I like the Tesla a lot. It has incredible acceleration. Problem for them is that Mercedes and BMW will be caught up very soon, and they have actual dealerships and good sales channels. It will be interesting to see what happens.

george e. smith
Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 7:04 pm

I betcha the Mercedes has a longer single charge range than the subsidized T model S.

Janice Moore
Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 7:06 pm

Re: the illusion that is “Lucid”
1. They need significant government help just to open a plant.
2. Their product is not proven.

Lucid is receiving government assistance from the Arizona Commerce Authority that could total in the millions.
The future for startup electric vehicle makers is far from a sure thing, especially for companies that have yet to manufacture a single car, said Sam Abuelsamid, a senior analyst for the market research firm Navigant who has studied Lucid and met with company executives.
He cites a litany of challenges{:}
— Tesla has struggled to turn a profit despite huge demand for its Model X and more affordable Model 3.
— Vehicle reliability is a major concern for any new car maker, especially in a marketplace where traditional automakers are manufacturing their own electric vehicles. And
— battery technology is highly expensive.
“We’ll see if Lucid can do it any better than Tesla has,” Abuelsamid said. “The car’s not going to be in production until quite a ways out. I wouldn’t call it entirely paperwork at this point because they do have real, developed prototypes but it’s certainly not ready for prime time yet.”

(Source: )
3. Taxpayers are footing the bill yet again!

Back in December, Lucid Motors finally announced its long-awaited production car, the Air. ….
its official starting price—$52,500 after federal tax credits. ….

(Source: )

…. base price of $52,500, but that {is after} the $7,500 in U.S. rebates currently available for EV buyers

(Source: )
And soon, those rebates will be GONE! (almost certainly under this MAGA administration!)
Die, you EV economic bloodsuckers, die!**
(**if they can do it all with no gov’t. help then, fine — I only detest them as they now are)

Reply to  John Hardy
May 6, 2017 7:09 pm

chilemike May 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm
I had the same reaction to driving a Tesla, and similar questions arose. Its charlatan South African CEO is a genius at milking and bilking US taxpayers, so my guess is he’ll get out while the getting is good.
If Musk can’t pawn his spawn off on Apple, then maybe a real car company. Except that none of them could afford to pay the preposterously overpriced “value” of TSLA.

Reply to  John Hardy
May 7, 2017 12:04 pm

What will happen to electric cars once fuel cell cars like Honda’s Clarity takes off?

Reply to  John Hardy
May 7, 2017 3:51 pm

Your examples are classic cherry picking – readily available data tells us that [in spite of the obscene subsidies involved] electric vehicles still only represent just over 1% of car sales in OECD countries. And until there is a step function change [e.g. an order of magnitude] in battery performance, EVs will remain niche vehicles.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  John Hardy
May 7, 2017 7:14 pm

So were Obama’s Chevy Dolts shipped to China (or just recycled at the junkyard)?

Reply to  Janice Moore
May 7, 2017 1:54 pm

Anyone who writes 10x less can be thrown out as a credible source.

Reply to  Janice Moore
May 7, 2017 5:41 pm

Can you do this now by yourself in an electric car?:
In 1966 I had a Dodge Dart. I drove alone from Eugene Oregon to Philadelphia in less than 72 hours. The only 4 lane highway didn’t really happen until I hit the Chicago area. My route took me from Eugene, OR north to Portland, through Walla Walla, Washington, and across northern Idaho. I slept in the car somewhere south of Helena, Montana. I remember I didn’t see one light (house light, street light, etc. while crossing northern Idaho at night). I drove across North Dakota to just past Fargo. I slept in the car there. Then I drove straight through from Fargo, ND to Philadelphia, it got dark around Chicago and then light again toward the end of the PA Turnpike. Can any electric car drive from Fargo to Philly in 24 hours now?
I have to admit that I was hallucinating the last few miles to Philly probably from the “truck stop coffee” that I got in Chicago…

May 6, 2017 1:44 pm

It is absurd,since the temperature change in the region would be slight with the Islands surrounded by the Pacific ocean.

Reply to  sunsettommy
May 6, 2017 2:37 pm

Yes, sunset, the tropics supposedly warm the least. Will even a 1C difference at the summit hinder snowfall totals? It would be interesting to see what actually makes for snow on the big island. Hawaiian winters are rather warm, but they do get these cold fronts that blow in from time to time. Night time lows at sea level will dip into the 50s. If those cold fronts are necessary for snow on the big island, then it would be a change in weather patterns more so than a minor temp change that would cause a dirth of snow. So in that sense, climate change could cause a loss of snow. (assuming, of course, that climate change is real)…

george e. smith
Reply to  sunsettommy
May 6, 2017 7:05 pm

Well where I came from it is the Pacific Ocean; the moving piece of it called Zealandia. It’s 97% Pacific Ocean.

May 6, 2017 2:14 pm

I’ve always been skeptical of “predictions” especially those that are suppose to occur long after the people making the them will be gone.

Owen in GA
May 6, 2017 2:21 pm

So, they used climate models which are already running too hot by 1C or so and projected out another 85 years. If after 10 years the models are running .5 to 1C hot, then by 2100 the models will be 40 to 85C too hot. Isn’t this linear projection thing fun! Why at this rate model children in Hawai’i won’t know what skin is as it will be all boiled off!

May 6, 2017 2:25 pm

This coming Tuesday, Ivanka has a sit down, face to face meeting with Scott Pruitt, ostensibly to insure her father gets the best advice. I hope Scott Pruitt will resign if she succeeds in “muzzling” him.
I am hoping he stands firm on the necessity of walking away from Paris AND reversing the endangerment ruling. That is, in my opinion, the most critical
part, reversing that ruling will bring riots in the streets (again just my opinion)
We will know soon enough

Ian L. McQueen
May 6, 2017 2:25 pm

Putting on my editor’s hat once again, how can something be ten times less? At one time less it disappears. The only correct way to say “…..future average winter snowfall will be ten times less than…..” is to make it a tenth as much.
Ian M

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
May 6, 2017 2:40 pm

Thank you fellow grammar Nazi. They could say, “..drop by 90%.”

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2017 3:30 pm

comment image

george e. smith
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
May 6, 2017 7:07 pm

Or it could be simply minus nine times as much.

May 6, 2017 2:33 pm

climate model = CO2 increases temp increases
…where do I collect my money?

Dr Dave
May 6, 2017 2:45 pm

I’m beginning to wonder whether my 13 year old springer spaniel is suffering from increased CO2 levels. We have a big yard and when she was young, she would go far from the house to take her daily “constitutional.” As she has gotten older, the little refuse piles she leaves on the ground have gotten closer and closer to the house. I’m a modeler by trade and training and have no doubt that I could create a model with a high degree of correlation that would relate her changes in behavior to increases in atmospheric CO2.
Talk about a ‘Crappy’ model.
Maybe I should see if I could get on the climate gravy train and get some grant funding so I can publish the kind of drivel we see here from these purported climate ‘experts’ at the University of Hawaii.

Reply to  Dr Dave
May 6, 2017 5:41 pm

Yes, the headlines almost write themselves. “New study says earth to go to crap in 50 years”.

Reply to  Dr Dave
May 6, 2017 7:21 pm

A number of years ago, I happened to view a graph of yearly cigarette consumption. The shape seemed familiar, so I compared it to the “global temperature” (might have been HADCRUT, but I’m not sure) for that period of time. Yes, it did match up very, very well.
I therefore have incontrovertible proof that smoking cigarettes controls the “global temperature.”
What I don’t know is whether this is all a plot by Big Tobacco.

Gary Pearse
May 6, 2017 3:18 pm

So far, the study doesn’t “illustrate” anything about the benefits of local and regional down scaling. I’ll have to get back to you on this in about 70yrs.

May 6, 2017 3:28 pm

I grew up on the Hamakua coast (the northeast side of the Big Island), and went to school in Hilo. Seeing lovely Mauna Kea capped in snow was an integral part of my childhood.comment image

george e. smith
Reply to  Max Photon
May 6, 2017 7:09 pm

Very nice Max.
Thanks for that idyllitry.

Reply to  Max Photon
May 7, 2017 3:08 pm

From Oahu, with lots of friends in Kamuela, Waimea, Hawi, and Hilo. Could have bought the Stream house down in Waipio, many years ago, but no kala.m That view brings back lots of memories. Thanks

Bill J
May 6, 2017 4:48 pm

Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea had snow last Sunday. That’s pretty unusual.

george e. smith
Reply to  clipe
May 6, 2017 7:10 pm

I thought British children had forgotten what snow is; so how would they know ?

Reply to  george e. smith
May 9, 2017 7:21 am

Hi George, the original article opened by talking about “the loss of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain”, and that was the context in which Viner was quoted. (Ben Nevis certainly doesn’t count)
Most of the references to Viner’s quote fail to mention the following caveat from the same article:
“Heavy snow will return occasionally”, “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time”. So he certainly expected heavy snow falls into the 2020s.
He seems to have been accurate since this winter warnings of snow caused cancellations in London and Heathrow, here’s the reaction to what happened:

Reply to  clipe
May 7, 2017 4:00 am

Not so much snow this year though. It all evens out in the end.

May 6, 2017 5:39 pm

“Climate modelers: snow on Hawaiian peaks to disappear by end of century”
Snow to disappear 80 plus years from now? What a fearless projection by those alarmists.
I’ll give you a projection on anything you want for 50 years from now. (I doubt I will be alive in 5 so the prediction seems safe to me)
What would you like? How about ESPN fails as a network by 2067? Yes, that is the ticket!

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  markstoval
May 6, 2017 6:45 pm

ESPN doesn’t last half that long. They have Chapter 11 staring them in the face within the next five years. They have to void their excessive contracts with sports leagues before they exhaust their shrinking revenue stream.

May 6, 2017 7:14 pm

“Zhang then ran simulations representative of the end of the 21st century,”
Wisely, Zhang didn’t run simulations representative of the beginning of the 20th century.
Anyway, what good for are simulations representative of the end of the 21st century
– today or
– at the end of the 21st century

Reply to  kreizkruzifix
May 7, 2017 4:01 pm

You gotta love it: “Zhang then ran simulations representative of the end of the 21st century.” Based on which parameters? Classic GIGO.

Reply to  tetris
May 15, 2017 3:13 am


May 6, 2017 7:42 pm

“Climate modelers: snow on Hawaiian peaks to disappear by end of century”
I’ll put a note in my diary to remind me to check in 2099.
(Or 3000, as the other lot have it.)

Curious George
May 6, 2017 8:08 pm

Ski Utah!

May 6, 2017 8:29 pm

” . . . the [computer] projections suggest that future average winter snowfall will be ten times less than present day amounts, virtually erasing all snow cover.”
This is one of the few times I’ve approved of the use of the word “virtually.” That one little word made the sentence entirely accurate.

May 7, 2017 1:31 am

And based on modeling the Al Gore effect have allowed modelers of poetic justice to project that by the end of the century snow will be seen on the Hawaiian island peaks year round.

May 7, 2017 4:13 am

Are these the same stupor-geniuses who propclaimed it is “unprecedented” to have snow in the Hawaiian Islands in January?

Stephen Skinner
May 7, 2017 7:51 am

“The findings were not a total surprise, with future projections showing that even with moderate climate warming, air temperatures over the higher altitudes increase even more than at sea level,”
So the physical laws governing lapse rates will no longer be relevant? This assumes that the air will be dryer? But if the air is warmer in the middle of the Pacific then are they using a dry lapse rate?

May 7, 2017 8:00 am

Crap. No taxpayer cash unless all modeling studies have that word in large print on every page

May 7, 2017 8:27 am

What? You mean there is still snow on top in spite of unprecedented global warming that the world ever seen?

May 7, 2017 9:21 am

No worries. Once Hawaii has eroded to that point Loihi will rise from the ocean high enough to be covered with snow.

May 7, 2017 10:05 am

Good news. Mount Kilimanjaro weather today, -3 °C, snowing.

May 7, 2017 1:51 pm

Wow, no one has really looked at this before, and my C02-crazy,-non-realistic-future computer model says it worse than we haven’t thought!

Russell Johnson
May 7, 2017 2:04 pm

What—Me Worry?

John Chism
May 8, 2017 10:39 am

Personally, I’m still waiting for Global Warming to get with it faster, because it’s taking too long with all these Abnormalities of Volcanic Activities and Solar Minimums and Massive Meteors in the last 2 Billion years of our 4,4 Billion years of existence interfering with it, causing Glacial Periods and Mass Extinctions. Bio-Mass begets Bio-Mass exponentially and Bio-Mass exponentially begets Carbon Based Lifeforms, that Begets Carbon Dioxide in the Environment to create more Bi-Mass. Flora feeds Fauna that eat flora and fauna, as fauna provide oxygen to the flora that fauna inhale to live and exhale more carbon dioxide than they inhaled to support flora. With the addition of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, cement manufacturing, other industrial products and our deforestation and increases of farming and ranching increasing all flora and fauna, making the Earth more populated and increasingly Greener…Why the heck is there still Ice anywhere on Earth? Because of those 3 previously given Abnormalities.

May 8, 2017 12:06 pm

Well, there go my retirement plans to become Hawaii’s first, “Soul Skier”.
Come on!! I don’t want to play golf!

Conodo Mose
May 8, 2017 2:42 pm

I say Good Riddens to the snow. Warmer there would be a relief to the horridly cold and fierce winds at the summit.

Matt G
May 8, 2017 5:42 pm

Climate modelers: snow on Hawaiian peaks to disappear by end of century

I can show why this statement is wrong using actual observations that have been recorded at least since the 1970’s.
Using Mauna Loa temperature data between the 1970’s and 2000’s:-
1) Noon temperatures have been declining during the period.
2) Midnight temperatures have been increasing during the period.
“The rates of warming are highest in the spring and lowest in the fall and winter.”
“….there is an overall annual warming trend of temperatures dT /dt =0.021±0.011◦Cyr−1 at this observatory for the same period. This is very close to the Hawaii regional sea surface temperature (SST) trend d(SST)/dt =0.018 ±0.006◦Cyr−1 for the period 1977–2006 (Fig. 4), the average “preferred” value of the IPCC (2007) for the period 1980–2005 of dT/dt =0.018±0.005◦Cy−1 and our inferred CO2 trend analysis value of dT /dt =0.019[0.012 to 0.029]◦Cyr−1”
“Winter temperature trend −0.019±0.026 0.033±0.016”, Max-Min
Therefore the trends in temperatures and pattern during different seasons, suggest snow on the peaks will remain by the end of century. Noon temperatures are critical in keeping snow intact more than midnight temperatures, yet these have been cooling. The rate of warming overall detected was small at 0.2c per decade and this projected warming even if remained the same for the rest of the century at about 1.6c (1.1c – winter) Would not be enough to cause snow to disappear on the Hawaiian peaks.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
May 8, 2017 6:47 pm

Further to add.
“air temperatures over the higher altitudes increase even more than at sea level, and that, on average, fewer winter storm systems will impact the state”
While this maybe true, observations have shown very little difference between higher altitudes and sea level. Winter noon cooling and midnight warming show more likely weather conditions caused by increased cloud cover. Increased cloud cover would likely be more associated with more winter storm systems not less.
Why would warming of 1.1c in winter not cause snow to disappear on the peaks?
1) All this would do is increase the snow line up the mountain by 150m.
2) The max temperature has been cooling and the min temperature warming so a less negative value over night if mainly associated with 1.1c warming wouldn’t make any difference.
3) The snow line could actually increase down the mountain if the cooling noon temperatures, increasingly moves below or towards the freezing point of water. (or low enough dew point in retaining snow cover)

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights