from the latest issue of Science-
The Unusual Nature of Recent Snowpack Declines in the North American Cordillera
abstract--In western North America, snowpack has declined in recent decades, and further losses are projected through the 21st century. Here, we evaluate the uniqueness of recent declines using snowpack reconstructions from 66 tree-ring chronologies in key runoff-generating areas of the Colorado, Columbia, and Missouri River drainages. Over the past millennium, late-20th-century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains, and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. The increasing role of warming on large-scale snowpack variability and trends foreshadows fundamental impacts on streamflow and water supplies across the western United States. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/06/08/science.1201570.abstracthttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pederson2011/pederson2011.html
isnt that odd. I thought tree rings were thermometers not rain guages. actually I wouldnt be surprised if they responded more strongly to water than temperature. but why am I pissed? because their own data do not show (almost) unprecedented changes. like so many AGW and CAGW papers, it seems as if they concocted a story and then just hunted around for some data that would sorta support it.
snow water equivilents for Apr1. I realize papers have to cut off data at some point but the recent snowpacks are going to send that graph rocketing skyward, and it wasnt exactly a smoking gun for 'unprecedented change' before that.
the tree ring rain gauge aint no smokin' gun neither.
why do pro-AGW papers get easy acceptance into prestigious journals even with weak evidence while papers that disagree with the IPCC mantra go through the meat grinder for months or years only to finally get rejected? Lindzen and Choi Part II | Climate Etc.
The Unusual Nature of Recent Snowpack Declines in the North American Cordillera
abstract--In western North America, snowpack has declined in recent decades, and further losses are projected through the 21st century. Here, we evaluate the uniqueness of recent declines using snowpack reconstructions from 66 tree-ring chronologies in key runoff-generating areas of the Colorado, Columbia, and Missouri River drainages. Over the past millennium, late-20th-century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains, and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. The increasing role of warming on large-scale snowpack variability and trends foreshadows fundamental impacts on streamflow and water supplies across the western United States. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/06/08/science.1201570.abstracthttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pederson2011/pederson2011.html
isnt that odd. I thought tree rings were thermometers not rain guages. actually I wouldnt be surprised if they responded more strongly to water than temperature. but why am I pissed? because their own data do not show (almost) unprecedented changes. like so many AGW and CAGW papers, it seems as if they concocted a story and then just hunted around for some data that would sorta support it.
snow water equivilents for Apr1. I realize papers have to cut off data at some point but the recent snowpacks are going to send that graph rocketing skyward, and it wasnt exactly a smoking gun for 'unprecedented change' before that.
the tree ring rain gauge aint no smokin' gun neither.
why do pro-AGW papers get easy acceptance into prestigious journals even with weak evidence while papers that disagree with the IPCC mantra go through the meat grinder for months or years only to finally get rejected? Lindzen and Choi Part II | Climate Etc.
Last edited:
