Remix.run Logo
March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels(theguardian.com)
111 points by ijidak 2 days ago | 60 comments
bayarearefugee 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Shouldn't we be past being "stunned"? The past 11 years are the hottest 11 years on record.

Climate catastrophe is coming, soon. Everybody knows this, even the vocal deniers (the ones with power, not the sheep they feed propaganda to). They've simply decided to profit off it instead of trying to slow it down.

The "drill, baby, drill", "clean beautiful coal" lunacy and wanting to invade Greenland and Canada are all directly related.

czinck 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, winters are getting worse and worse, but this year was really bad, way worse than any predictions. I was in Park City in February and there was so little snow it looked like summer, and that was before the streak of warm and dry weather this article is talking about. I literally hiked up to the 2002/2034 Olympic facilities in 55 degree weather with no snow on the ground, while the Olympics were still going on in Milan. And I was in Park City because they had more snow than Colorado...

blipvert 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can’t remember the exact quote, but there is something in The Omen II about future wars being fought over food (Thorn corporation being involved in agriculture/fertiliser or something).

Last time that I saw it I wondered if the Ukraine conflict might be about control of the “Breadbasket of Europe” as much as anything.

everdrive 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

But of course Thomas Malthus was wrong about everything and we just keep need to growing populations.

wak90 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's pretty indicative of the situation that you're unironically trying to say Malthus was right about some things, actually.

nradov 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Control over European food supplies might have been a minor factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine but that was secondary to establishing a greater Russian empire with defensible strategic depth. A lot of Ukraine's wheat exports went to Egypt and they have suffered significant food cost inflation due to the war.

realo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The polar bears are drowning up north.

I would say climate catastrophe is already here... at least for them.

hervature 2 days ago | parent [-]

The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s [1]. Basically double what it was. The more falsifiable information you use the less you are helping the cause.

[1] - https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/02/Crockford-State-...

tinyplanets 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This report was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which according to Wikipedia "is a climate change denial lobby group registered as a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom. Its stated aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, practise and promote climate change denial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...

So it sounds like they (and I assume you) definitely have an agenda you're trying to promote.

billfor 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Post the correct facts rather than arguing about the source. Here’s the most recent report from a “correct” source.

https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...

Read that and explain why the population is decreasing — the only point he made was that it was not.

hervature 2 days ago | parent [-]

Thank you. You read my post for its substance and interacted with it in good faith. You are a true HNer and if you are ever in LV, I will gladly buy you a beer.

hervature 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

To be honest, I just looked up the report and did not not notice it came from there. My only agenda was that it was the only report that clearly showed the average and CI of the different studies throughout the years. WWF links to the actual report [1] which is found at [2]. They try their very hardest to not show that the population is either stable or increasing. If you look at decreases, for example in Davis Strait, it is a loss of 1% with 0% in the 95% interval.

Anyway, I do admit that linking from that website is not a good look but all I did was link the report and I am not advocating for anything else on their website. My larger point, the climate change community does not need the polar bears to drive their point. It is a bad example and we should use one of the many other verifiable sources (ice sheet loss, sea level rise, droughts, etc.) instead.

[1] - https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-pop... [2] - https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Speaking of falsifiable info:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/27/fac...

> Experts say the rising tally of polar bears reflects an increased ability to track bears – not an actual increase in the population. The graph is based on various estimates of the global population that include unscientific estimates, extrapolation and insufficient data sets, according to scientists.

hervature 2 days ago | parent [-]

Did you even read that article? It says the measurements from 1960-1980 are unreliable so the claim is false but the trend still works from 1980. Go look at the data yourself: https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/population-status/

You will find that the population has been stable globally and they themselves say the most populated region (Barents sea) is has very likely increased in the last 50 years.

The polar bear population is a pet peeve of mine because it is a bad example, if you want to keep defending it, go ahead, but you are not helping climate change advocates.

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> You will find that the population has been stable globally…

That is a very different claim than your original.

You said it is steadily increasing and has doubled.

And, yes, I read the whole article.

"'Populations have not grown,' Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. 'Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.'"

"The areas with the best data show no increase, contrary to the post's claim. According to the 2021 report, three of the subpopulations have decreased over the past two generations. None of the subpopulations have increased over the past two generations."

hervature 2 days ago | parent [-]

To be clear, I have not changed my claim. I am merely point out that even the polar bear people say that it is not in decline and, for some reason, refuse to say what their own data says, which is global population is on the rise. From their data from the region with most bears:

Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592)

Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015)

I am not making up these claims. I am reading the very words and data from the people you are quoting.

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

I am reading and quoting your very words.

> The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s. Basically double what it was.

Then:

> You will find that the population has been stable globally.

Can you resolve the apparent conflict between these two statements?

hervature 2 days ago | parent [-]

Read the words before the second part:

"""

Go look at the data yourself: [link]

You will find that the population has been stable globally [...]

"""

I am summarizing their own analysis. If you go look in the data, you will see that the global population is on the rise.

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

That’s a dodge.

I looked at the data you linked.

Of the ~20 regional populations listed, one says long term increase, two say long term decrease, and the rest all say insufficient data.

It doesn’t seem to match up with your portrayal very well.

Where did you get the “doubled” bit from?

hervature 2 days ago | parent [-]

That is not a dodge. Look at the "one long term increase" and "two long term decrease" and compare the estimated populations. You have 2644 vs 618+900=1518. So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.

Now, for the doubling, if you look at the original study I linked, it has a graph of the point estimates through the decades. From the 60s to now is about a doubling. If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%. These are estimates based on multiple studies in the different time periods whereas the WWF report uses a single report.

I have sufficiently defended my claim and provided actual sources for things other than a news article that says "expert says...". If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.

Not at all. If I find a $20 in one single pair of pants, the logical conclusion is not that all of my pants have $20 in them.

> If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%.

The experts cited also indicate the 80s numbers have the same issue.

> If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.

Barring time machines, "real data" from the 1960s seems… tough to obtain.

Leaving us with people who know what they're talking about, who seem to widely agree on the point.

echelon_musk 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Both can be true.

SirFatty 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah, but "stuns" gets the clicks!

patchorang 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are quite a few comments here talking about how comparing images from feb/march isn’t useful. Here’s data on what’s going on. This snowtel location is within the Utah picture in the article.

https://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/dbdata/station/swegraph/swegraph_...

UncleOxidant 2 days ago | parent [-]

Where can I find similar data for the Columbia River basin? That's where we're going to see large impacts on hydropower production come mid-to-late summer, I suspect. Impacts for the PNW and CA.

patchorang 2 days ago | parent [-]

In the filter you can change the SNOTEL site. You probably need to pull up a snotel site map and find one in the region you’re interested in.

slwvx 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I own land and water shares in the Great Basin and can confirm that this is real.

On a more positive note, one random person in the area unexpectedly confirmed that they thought global warming was indeed real.

saltcured 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Our whole flood control and water supply system is designed around the expected storage of water as snow.

Ignoring horrifying drought scenarios, it is also troubling to think about how this will change if we start having warm winters and more of the winter precipitation as rain.

I think the worst case would be if we end up like some tropical countries, where they can have disastrous flooding and then drought in very short cycles. The water comes all at once and you cannot hope to control or contain it. But there are also gaps that strain the ability to store enough water and manage consumption rates.

scarecrowbob 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm on Colorado's Western Slope. Last summer we got about no precipitation for 2 months and then 6" in one day. Wooo... very fun.

Even better, in some place like Ruidoso, NM (where I've lived) there have been pretty massive deforestations from wildfires with the result being that it floods about any time it rains.

I've spent about 3-5hr/day for the last 4 weeks trying to get rid of stuff that burns as far out from my shacks as I can, but I would bet that when it burns, it's going to go big.

Not looking forward to that.

lazystar 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't see the point in comparing photos of snow coverage in feb 2026 to the same area in march 2026. March is a spring month, of course snow coverage will be worse. Itd be more shocking if the snow coverage increased. they should show march 2026 vs. march 2025/2024/2023 etc.

margalabargala 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

March might be a "spring month" where you live, and also a "spring month" based on the equinox, but in the American West, peak snow pack statistically occurs at the end of March.

Use numbers, not vibes, when deciding if something like this is unusual. Dismissing this because march is a "spring month" is like asking someone who lives in Miami if they consider it unusual to have no snow on the ground in February.

ctoa 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Where I'm at in the Sierra, March is typically very close to as snowy as Dec/Jan/Feb and the snowpack is still increasing, not decreasing. Late March is typically the peak depth. March avg snowfall is 62", this year we got 1", the driest March on record, on top of it being incredibly warm.

lapetitejort 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

As a naive tourist, I did not know this. I drove up to Sequoia National Park in March 2011 hoping to camp. The roads were plowed, with eight feet tall snow on either side of the road. I drove up to a visitor center and asked where to camp. The park ranger said I could camp anywhere I wanted. Maybe he assumed I knew what I was doing. But I did not. After walking around the parking lot for a bit, with nowhere else to go, I drove out.

chabes 2 days ago | parent [-]

2011 was a big snow year too. I was in the high country in August of 2011. Muir Pass was a huge snow field.

Reubachi 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Conversly in east, wettest/snowiest jan-march on recent record. Today, april second, we got snow in coastal new hampshire.

Which of course isn't an antithesis to the lack of snow in the west, and likely is literally the flip side of the "same problem". but interesting

rconti 2 days ago | parent [-]

11" of snow in the Sierra on April 1, as well!

ctoa 2 days ago | parent [-]

April snowfall is also typical. With current forecasts, we will be far short of normal April snowfall as well.

micromacrofoot 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They actually get more snow in March at these elevations, it doesn't melt until later in the spring... so while I agree a direct month comparison would be nice to see... this is still significant.

> The snow is melting so fast in the Sierra that, if it continues at its current rate, little would be left by early April. It’s unlikely to keep up this astounding pace, but there’s still high potential for the earliest melt-off on record in the state, according to Swain.

> “It feels like we skipped spring this year and dropped straight into a summer heatwave,” said Karla Nemeth, the DWR director, during Wednesday’s briefing. “What should be gradual snowmelt happened suddenly weeks ago.” This year’s was one of the quickest surveys they’d had, she added.

So the alarm here is the rate of melt, it should be sustained over a longer period. This is a problem because this is a natural "store" of water for downstream sources... if it's all released earlier it evaporates quicker and isn't replenished with more melt throughout the season.

darth_avocado 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> March is a spring month, of course snow coverage will be worse.

Peak snow cover in the west (California) is expected to be in early April. December was an intense month of rainfall and the snowpack was trending towards above average, but then a dry Feb and a heatwave in March not only ensured the pack didn’t grow but pretty much nuked whatever cover early season rains brought. It is shocking because in December it was looking like historical snow and it went into catastrophic shortage in 3 months.

georgeburdell 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

California peak snowpack is historically April 1.

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
mikestew 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“March is often a big month for snowstorms,” Schumacher said. “Instead of getting snow we would normally expect we got this unprecedented, way-off-the-scale warmth.” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/01/snowmelt-ame...)

Beside that, the measurements are of how much moisture is left to melt off:

It’s not just the amount of snow left on mountaintops that’s concerning experts, but the amount of moisture still frozen within them. “Snow water equivalent” (SWE), a measurement of what could melt off to supply natural and manmade systems, is exceptionally low.

neura 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, it would be great if there were literally any other comparison other than repeated but slightly different views of Feb vs Mar in 2026 only.

rconti 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Utah and Colorado had an awful winter, full stop.

California did quite well in December. Then late February and early March came along, and a rain event at high altitude melted a lot of the snowpack, followed by a not-uncommon heatwave in mid-late March melted a lot of what was left.

vuggamie 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Spring starts the last week of March. lazystar out there in floral print dresses on March first looking like an absolute tool. Enjoy your train set!

royal__ 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In Utah it's atypical to not have just as much if not more snow in March than in April. The snow pack in the mountains should last all the way until August. This year will likely be very bad for wildfires.

singleshot_ 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

March is a spring month at sea level.

vuggamie 2 days ago | parent [-]

Incredible observation. Seasons begin and end on different days depending on sea level. I was under the impression that the first two thirds of March was winter at every elevation in the northern hemisphere. singleshot_ has added much to this conversation. You cannot tell AI slopposters from regular hn users because they all get out of the house the same amount of time.

2 days ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
2 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
royal__ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In Utah its typical to have just as muc

ourmandave 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was naively hoping they were stunned because it wasn't as much as they expected.

bix6 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Colorado river collapsing this year?

bpt3 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have to ask because this makes no sense to me: In the article, there is a picture of 3 workers taking a snow survey and finding "zero measurement of snow". This is reported as "the second lowest since 2015".

How is any measurement of a quantity of an item less than zero? You can't have negative snow to my knowledge.

munificent 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The writing in this article indeed isn't great.

I believe what they're saying is that the 2015 measurement was also zero. So this year's measurement isn't the "second-lowest", it's the "second equally lowest". That's the only way I could interpret it.

shagmin 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I just kind of assumed they meant no additional snow to add to the accumulated amount they have for the season compared to 2015.

justonepost2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just another few million blackwells bro and the AGI will solve it for us.

FpUser 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

mschaef 2 days ago | parent [-]

From the sound of it, You may know this already, but there was a 1950's era plan to do something very similar to what you imply here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power...