From the “No tree canopy means more sunlight reaches the ground…. Well….DUH!” department comes this bit of obvious science. Of course, never mind the albedo change…because…CLIMATE CHANGE! SMDH.
The Pacific Northwest has seen below-normal snow this season — and new research from Portland State University suggests that the region’s snowmelt-dependent water resources could face growing challenges in the years ahead as forest fires and winter rainstorms become more frequent.
Researchers in PSU’s Snow Hydrology Lab, led by Kelly Gleason, an associate professor of eco-hydro-climatology in the School of Earth, Environment & Society, found that snow in burned areas of Oregon’s western Cascades melted much faster during midwinter rain-on-snow events than snow in nearby unburned areas.
Rain-on-snow events — when warm rain falls on an existing snowpack — can trigger rapid melting and increase flood risk downstream in just a matter of days. In the Pacific Northwest, that matters because mountain snow acts as critical seasonal water storage, refilling reservoirs, refreshing municipal and irrigation water supplies, producing hydroelectric power and providing habitat during the drier summer months. The new study shows that wildfire damage can intensify those impacts, reducing how long snow can hold onto water.
Wildfires open forest canopies, allowing more sunlight to reach the snow, while burned debris on the snow surface makes the snow absorb more and reflect less of that light. Together, those changes reduce the snowpack’s “cold content” — the built-in buffer that allows snow to warm up without immediately melting.
Sage Ebel, the study’s lead author and a doctoral student in PSU’s Earth, Environment & Society program, compares that cold content to a sponge.
“If a sponge has a lot of space, it can absorb water before anything drains out,” Ebel said. “But if it’s already saturated, water runs out right away. A snowpack with a lot of cold content can absorb heat before it starts melting. What we’re finding is that small changes in short- and long-wave radiation in the burned sites are keeping that cold content lower than in unburned areas, making them vulnerable to snowmelt during rain-on-snow events.”
Ebel and Gleason installed snow monitoring stations across high, mid and low elevations in the Breitenbush River watershed, 80% of which burned during the 2020 Lionshead fire. In 2023 and 2024, burned sites lost roughly twice as much snow during these rain-on-snow events as nearby unburned areas. Snowpacks at mid-elevations were most vulnerable, with rain-on-snow-driven melt accounting for 26% more of the total annual melt in burned forests.
“The impacts of climate change are exacerbated in the burned forest,” Ebel said. “There’s less capacity to absorb small changes in warming or inputs from rain than in unburned areas. As the area of burned forests increases with climate change, those effects could have widespread consequences for the water reserves we rely on across the West.”
Faster winter melt from burned areas adds new stress to those systems, forcing water managers to balance flood preparedness with long-term water storage in a warming climate.
The researchers say understanding how wildfires and rain-on-snow events interact is essential for refining snowmelt models, improving flood forecasting and planning for more reliable water supplies in the future.
The study was published in the journal Environmental Research Communications. The findings are one example of the kind of applied, place-based research underway in PSU’s School of Earth, Environment & Society, which launched this fall uniting multiple departments to encourage collaboration on complex, interconnected issues such as climate change.
From the first paragraph in the above article:
“From the ‘No tree canopy means more sunlight reaches the ground…. Well….DUH!’ department comes this bit of obvious science. Of course, never mind the albedo change…because…CLIMATE CHANGE!”
Kudos, Anthony! Right on.
Also this “DUH”, somewhat related to albedo change:
Those tree trunks and branches (both standing and fallen) that have been darkened nearly black by fire and smoke have much higher solar absorptivity and surface emissivity than do naturally growing trees. Hence, they will get hotter under sunlight and re-radiate more energy to the (snow covered) earth surface than would exist in unburned forests of the same areal tree coverage fraction. The extra energy impinging on the snow would, of course, make it melt faster than normal, all other facts being comparable. Physics 101.
BTW, referring to Mr. Sage Ebel’s comment about the “cold content” of snow (a completely unscientific term), he apparently fails to recognize that all snow has the latent “heat of fusion” associated with its transition from water ice to liquid water (about 334 joules/gm) which can be compared to the specific heat of snow (about 2.1 joules/gm/deg-C). So snow at, say 10 deg-C colder than melting (i.e., at about -10 deg-C) would only have about 6% more “cold content”.
For some reason, mushrooming in burned areas is good for a couple of years following fires.
A peer reviewer responded to the study with a one-liner –
“no sh1t Sherlock”
Six million acres of PNW forests have burned since Bill “Epstein” Clinton and Algore shut down all management of Federal forests in 1994. The spotted owl population has plummeted from 22,000 to less than 2,000, in part because they are not made of asbestos.
Maybe, just maybe, the School of Earth, Environment & Society at Portland State University might want to study the effect of political tyranny married to scientism quackery. Perhaps the “College of Antifa” could do some real work in ending the 30+ year catastrophic failure that has hammered our priceless heritage forests as well as our shattered economy.
It was necessary to end forest management to increase burned acreage – and then blame it on climate change to use it as proof of negative impacts of global warming.
And it worked well, as the numbers of forest fires increased(for the same reason crime increased as result of defund the police and soft on crime policies)
Maybe locally, but globally “wildfires” have become neither more frequent nor more severe, despite their best efforts.
As a forester for 50 years- I’m livid over all the shutting down of forestry for idiotic political reasons. I’ve been using AI to develop some infographics to promote forestry. Attached is one.
Kudos.
I did a similar one yesterday and sent to all the forestry honchos in MA, including state people, consultants, wood products people, enviros, etc. The state’s Chief Forester liked it so much he called me up to tell me. But after talking with him for a while, it was clear he knew nothing about AI. He thought I had to give the AI all the details- but no, all I had to do is make a few suggestions. It did the work. It’s my new toy in my geezerhood. 🙂
City dwellers are not used to forests and are afraid of them.
City dwellers find forests dark and dangerous with strange cracking and creaking sounds.
City dwellers spray glyphosate into these dangerous forests so that they are eliminated.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/04/roundup-glyphosate-spraying-forests-monsanto-science-retraction-cancer-health-concerns-maha-trump-executive-order-supreme-court-bayer-lawsuits/
So Ebel isn’t sage at all. 😉
The subject is more complex. Fires produce soot. These particles do end up downwind in the forest canopy that did not burn. When the soot falls out onto snow the result is more or faster melting. After a large fire, it takes about three years for this process to cease.
We may also keep in mind that blackened burned trees heat up more and faster.
And these “rods” absorb and store more energy than your average bare tree
At night, the canopy is warmer than is the winter sky.
Would that decrease melting?
Also the canopy captures a small portion of the snow that falls,
This snow, suspended in the air and more exposed to the sun, will melt at different rates and times compared to snow that fell all the way to the ground.
So, based on the beliefs and findings of these “scientists”, they would support more active forest management to prevent fires, right?
But I guess that would be contrary to their religion….
I wanna be a climate researcher when I grow up.
That ain’t workin. That’s the way you do it. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.
Banging on the
bongoskeyboard like a chimpanzeeOh, that ain’t workin’, that’s the way you do it
Money for nothing, and your chicks for free
Lemme tell ya, them guys ain’t dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb
I’m not sure the sort of chicks for free as a climate researcher are the sort of chicks that I’d want.
How dare you!
Just picture Naomi Oreskes in a bikini!
I’m not one to endorse censorship, but you should be banned for that.
One should always be prepared to confront one’s deepest fears.
There is a huge difference between fears and revulsion. You forgot the brain bleach.
Be careful what you wish for.
The climate science chicks are usually dudes with Lipstick .
The Dire Straits were even forced to change the lyrics of the Song to cover it up.The Fagots were cancelled, the chicks are male now 🙂
At least Burned Out Forest areas have More Snow accumulation on the ground as the trees have no boughs to stop the snow from reaching the ground
Weight of snow on leaves… the leaves bend and the snow falls.
Ever get hit with a canopy avalanche?
Ever trek through the snow under a canopy of trees?
It’s why snow pack is measured in open fields and not heavily forested areas.
Don’t trees decrease the albedo in the areas they grow in? Tundra doesn’t have trees, but the snow kinda lasts a long time there. I know, the devil is in the details. Burned trees/wildfires are a fairly regular occurrence in most coniferous forests, so nothing new is under the sun here…
“Tundra doesn’t have trees, but the snow kinda lasts a long time there.”
The most southern latitude for continental tundra is generally around 60° N in North America and parts of Eurasia.
In comparison, forest fires in the Northern Hemisphere commonly occur across a broad range of latitudes, extending from approximately 20 to 70 ° N, with significant activity increasingly occurring in high-latitude regions (e.g., the northern US and across Canada).
Snow kinda lasts a long time at latitudes above 60° N compared to lower latitudes.
Interesting. So, when you add science to pseudoscience, you get – wait a minute while I punch some keys on my calculator …. SCIENCE!
Not quite. You get Trans-Reality Alarmism.
You get “scientism.”
I hope no federal money contributed to this. Let the Oregon idiots that vote for the Climate Fascists fund it from THEIR taxes. 🙄
“The impacts of climate change are exacerbated in the burned forest,”
Had to be. The burnt forest? Climate change. Greater snow melt? Climate change.
My pet goldfish refusing to eat a new fish food? Climate change.
The soles of my sneakers wearing out? Climate change.
It is an infinite list.
Oh. Almost forgot. That super nova? Climate change.
The lack of a canopy will increase melting while the sun is up.
However, from a radiation standpoint, the canopy is warmer than the winter sky. Which means that when the sun is down, the loss of the canopy could decrease melting.
Which factor dominates?
During the winter, the sun is down a lot more than it is up. So does this change, whichever way it goes, vary based on how deep into winter you are?
If you want to understand climate in general, this is something you will have to understand.
Seems like a worthwhile subject to study.
Using a hook (this time climate change) in order to convince the powers that be to fund your study is underhanded, but that is how big government science has always been done.
Did they report on the snow melt during a forest fire?
(They could have padded their numbers with such data.) 😎
Anyone who has been in a snow covered forest also knows that a lack of canopy translates to more snow on the ground (ask any back country skier). And that fact is never addressed. More snow on the ground + more melting = zero net effect ??
Oh my!