While California gets snowed under with up to 8 feet of fresh snow, this study has just been published. Timing is everything.
Source: NOHRSC
New study: Snowpack levels show dramatic decline in western states
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
CORVALLIS, Ore. – A new study of long-term snow monitoring sites in the western United States found declines in snowpack at more than 90 percent of those sites – and one-third of the declines were deemed significant.
Since 1915, the average snowpack in western states has declined by between 15 and 30 percent, the researchers say, and the amount of water lost from that snowpack reduction is comparable in volume to Lake Mead, the West’s largest manmade reservoir. The loss of water storage can have an impact on municipal, industrial and agricultural usage, as well as fish and other animals.
Results of the study are being published this week in NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, a Nature publication.
“It is a bigger decline than we had expected,” said Philip Mote, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University and lead author on the study. “In many lower-elevation sites, what used to fall as snow is now rain. Upper elevations have not been affected nearly as much, but most states don’t have that much area at 7,000-plus feet.
“The solution isn’t in infrastructure. New reservoirs could not be built fast enough to offset the loss of snow storage – and we don’t have a lot of capacity left for that kind of storage. It comes down to managing what we have in the best possible ways.”
The researchers attribute the snowpack decline to warmer temperatures, not a lack of precipitation. But the consequences are still significant, they point out. Earlier spring-like weather means more of the precipitation will not be stored as long in the mountains, which can result in lower river and reservoir levels during late summer and early fall.
The study considered data from 1,766 sites in the western U.S., mostly from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and the California Department of Water Resources. The researchers focused on measurements taken on April 1, which historically has been the high point for snowpack in most areas, though they also looked at measurements for Jan. 1, Feb. 1, March 1, and May 1 – which led to the range of decline of 15 to 30 percent.
They also used a physically based computer model of the hydrologic cycle, which takes daily weather observations and computes the snow accumulation, melting, and runoff to estimate the total snowpack in the western U.S.
“We found declining trends in all months, states and climates,” Mote said, “but the impacts are the largest in the spring, in Pacific states, and in locations with mild winter climates.”
The Pacific states – California, Oregon and Washington – receive more precipitation because of the Pacific Ocean influence, and more of the snow falls at temperatures near freezing. Because the Cascade Mountains, which transect the region, are not as steep as the Rocky Mountains, they have more area that is affected by changes in temperature.
“When you raise the snow zone level 300 feet, it covers a much broader swath than it would in the inland states,” Mote said.
Mote was one of 12 lead authors on a chapter of the fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report looking at the cryosphere, which is comprised of snow, river and lake ice, sea ice, glaciers, ice sheets and frozen ground. Also an author on the fourth IPCC report, he had led a 2005 study on western snowpack levels that had also documented declines that were less dramatic than those in this new study.
This latest study found:
- California had the highest number of positive snowpack trends since 1955, but lingering drought during the past decade erased most of those gains and snowpack declines still dominated;
- Most of the other western states had only one or two sites that reported increases in snowpack;
- Regions with the most significant decrease in snowpack were eastern Oregon and northern Nevada, though snowpack decreases in excess of 70 percent also occurred in California, Montana, Washington, Idaho and Arizona.
“The amount of water in the snowpack of the western United States is roughly equivalent to all of the stored water in the largest reservoirs of those states,” Mote said. “We’ve pretty much spent a century building up those water supplies at the same time the natural supply of snowpack is dwindling.
“On smaller reservoirs, the water supply can be replenished after one bad year. But a reservoir like Lake Mead takes four years of normal flows to fill; it still hasn’t recovered from the drought of the early 2000s.”
Mote said snowpack levels in most of the western U.S. for 2017-18 thus far are lower than average – a function of continued warming temperatures and the presence of a La Niña event, which typically results in warmer and drier conditions in most southwestern states.
###

My post, where doth she go?
“Yum, yum” says cyberspace.
Having lived in California for 40 years and formally studied both the technical and political aspects of Western water policy, I get completely exasperated by studies/press releases such as this — and there are many of these.
Yes, if winter precipitation low in the mountains comes as rain rather than snow, it drains into the reservoirs earlier in the year than if it fell as snow and melted in the spring. But this only impacts the water supplies if the reservoirs are already so full that the water must be released for flood control purposes, which is a very small percentage of the time.
The Western reservoirs are sized for multi-year storage to enable the West to get through the inevitable droughts. It took about 5 years of drought for California to get into a critical state with regard to its water supply. With the reservoirs low, it didn’t matter at all if more January precipitation fell as rain.
It should be obvious to any high school student that Mote’s claim about Lake Mead water levels being impacted by a shift in runoff to earlier in the year when it takes 4 years to refill the reservoir is absurd. In fact, he gets it exactly backwards — the smaller reservoirs that don’t have multi-year storage would be the MOST impacted by such an effect. How did this get past the most rudimentary peer review?
AGW is all about reducing the “rudiment”
in peer review.
They have been incredibly successful in accomplishing that.
Bet you $10 this “study” will be referenced in the next IPCC report.
“It is a bigger decline than we had expected,” said Philip Mote…
As soon as I read that, I felt like I was being led, and about to taken on a fictional journey. From that statement alone, I learn that he has a preconceived notion of what the snowpack should have been. Then I think to myself, did they cherry pick the data they wanted to arrive at the worst conclusion they could, and then editorialize their scientific paper to show us running low on water? Or are we just using a lot more water than we did 40 years ago, with not much new water storage infrastructure built in the last 40 years?
Then I learned it was to be a chapter in the upcoming IPPC 5th Assessment looking at the cryosphere, and then I realized these authors have ‘skin’ in the game in getting us to believe whatever environmental philosophy they are already wedded to. And when he states unequivocally that new water storage reservoirs could not be built fast enough to alleviate lower snowpack conditions to offset the loss of snow storage, then I knew I was being completely spun by this article. The bias is not even any longer hid or written at a very subtle level. It is now just in your face, tell us what your preconceived editorial notions are. So now, I am having a very hard time actually believing any actual scientific data from people who first have an agenda and then ‘lecture’ us on the results of their apparent discovery. Perhaps the ‘adjustment’ of the temperature and long term climate record that has so polarized people into camps such as alarmists and/or sceptics has so damaged science that perhaps trust will never be able to be reconciled with the ‘activist’ scientist.
I don’t doubt snow pack levels are changing, since that is what weather and climate cycles do: they Change. Apparently on a weekly basis as the headline of this article noted…timing is everything, in regards to a 8 foot dump of snow over a wide spread area that just happened the last few days. Just collect the data honestly, and present it in a way that appears to be neutral of any bias, and let me (and you) the reader think what we will about how that data is to be used.
“In the summer of 1904, University of Nevada, Reno professor, Dr. James E. Church, repeatedly climbed 10,800 foot high Mount Rose in order to build a shelter in which he could install a remote weather observatory. He began recording snow and weather conditions on Mt. Rose for the National Weather Service in 1905. Church, a “favorite son” of the university and also known as the “Father of Snow Surveying,” was the first to record high-altitude weather in the Sierra Nevada.”
Link here: Some history of snow surveying
“They also used a physically based computer model of the hydrologic cycle, which takes daily weather observations and computes the snow accumulation, melting, and runoff to estimate the total snowpack in the western U.S.”
As soon as I read the above line I stopped reading any more. Computer Climate models are bunk. They are not practicing any science.
What do ya want snow fer, see what a few inches of it does in poor ol’ blighty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43278380
Even worse, and so as not to go too far OT, is a seeming shortage of currants/raisins (from California) that go make one of the few things I’d break the Atkins Diet for – Hot Cross Buns.
It gets even worse than worser than we worsly thort. Currants make up the majority ingredient of Eccles Cakes = another fave of mine and, apart from the M6 motorway, the only good thing to come out of Lancashire
Global warming is not responsible for your currant problem. You will need to find another raisin.
Just caught that!! 😛
You win a free week on the Internet…
See an article in today’s local paper (by Ian James from the USA Network) about projected declining vegetable yields in California because of climate change. Also an article about California ranking last about quality of life by Sean Rossman of USA Today. Interesting timing by the three articles: water, food and quality of life.
A other reason l can see why they are keen to mainly use the April 1st date, its because its been during the springtime where most of the declines in snow extent has been happening across the NH for at least the last 50 years. So this will produce the most scary headlines. Without doubt there has been a warming trend during this important time of the year across the NH. Which the spring snow cover extent shows up clearly. For spotting any changes in climate trends then one of the best places to look is at the NH spring snow extent. Because for their to be any clear signs of climate cooling then the spring snow extent will need to be increasing. So this is one of the reasons why l will be watching this years spring snow extent closely. Because should we have a other spring snow extent well above the trend line like last year. Then this will be the first time it will have happened over 2 years or more since the start of the 1980’s.
I live in Idaho and you wouldn’t believe how much arguing there is for the removal of the upper snake river dams to protect salmon. The frustrating thing is, the salmon ARE DOING FINE with the dams and existing infrastructure and strategies. The total fish count passing through the dam has gone from 47,377 in 1975 to 211,177 in 2017. In Idaho alone, there are at least 10 different areas where new reservoirs have previously been proposed and will likely be built when the need arises.
http://www.fpc.org/web/apps/adultsalmon/R_adultcounts_annualtotalsquery_results.php
Stick in a negotiating point that to remove a dam there must also be a renaming of the Frank Church Wilderness to a native American name or other.
Only one spot – but record here – at Donner Summit, CA (Near Tahoe) – goes back to 1879. The blue bars represent snowpack. Can certainly see a downward trend up to about 1925 (zip AGW during that period) – but hard pressed to see once since then.
See Fig 2 here: http://onthesummit.net/wordpress/blog/2017/05/17/winter-of-2017-historical-perspective/
Trying to find the original graphic – as this is more than a wee bit fuzzy and too small.
Genius of the century if not all times, Mr Elon the Musk will come out with the brilliant idea to build a giant snow making machine up high in the Sierra’s energized by the Solarcity battery packs.
Sacremento should devise a taxpayer funded incentive scheme to encourage his creative mind.
Elon Musk…
or as I call him…
IT Barnum…
Excellent. So next we quote that paper in The Guardian, and then we have a sourced fact for Wikipedia. And anyone referring to this blog can be blocked from editing. Excellent! *devious laughter* /sarc
There is, in fact, an issue with advocacy scientists, politically leaned journalists, and activists writing to Wikipedia: you can clearly see signs of colluded action in order to exploit community rules. I have withdrawn editing topics related to climate change and related topics, like snowpacks and such, because I feel my work would be wasted as activists try to revert and undo changes that they see politically unfit. The number of activists is high enough for them to make the environment heavily political and to bring motivated reasoning into use. Many other topics, like medical ones, have high requirements for sources but they still are much easier to edit without triggering a holy war against oneself.
One of the reasons Lake Mead is declining are Federal mandates that require releasing more water from the reservoir than nature has put in. Just like in California, the problems and solutions are political rather than with nature.
Through the magic of climate hysteria only snow now replenishes reservoirs and groundwater. Rain just sublimates off the earth or something and never makes it into rivers, reservoirs and wells. Climate science: where the laws of physics and nature are suspended.
Author Phil Mote is at it again. In 2005 he cherry picked the end points of a “study” to claim that snowpack had declined 50% in 50 years, but if he had shown all the data it would have been obvious that natural variability was the driver of snow, not global warming.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Northwest_Snow_Drought_Explained_by_Natural_Factors_Too.pdf
In October, 2016 Mote was lead author of a published paper claiming greenhouse gases were going to produce lower Pacific Northwest snowpack. Immediately after the paper was published, snow started falling, producing massive amounts of snow that following winter.
http://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2016/oct/study-west-coast-record-low-snowpack-2015-influenced-high-temperatures
And now, this study. Same old, same old.
Thanks, Don B.
California did not have a great snow pack last season, but we had a ton of rain that very quickly filled empty reservoirs. So yes, more reservoirs are the answer.
Removing California’s groundwater pumping rights in other states would also be in order.
Remember, OSU is the place where guys like Marcott et al got the hockey stick UPSIDE DOWN, by incorrectly using their own data. Their output is linked to the democrat governor who approves or disapproves what goes out on climate. Just ask George Taylor, Mote’s predecessor.
Toe the line, or get in line at the unemployment office.
The image shows snow in the Tehachapi Mountains!
Even after the big snowstorm of the past few days, California’s snowpack is only 37% of average: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Even-after-storm-California-officials-find-12729418.php