A strange thing happened during the recent blizzard in the New England. There was a rare outbreak of science journalism. If you missed Seth Borenstein's article for the Associated Press ("Global warming paradox: Less snow, but fierce storms"), it is a worth a look. There are three reasons to cheer.
First, it mocks the fossil fools that point to big snowstorms as proof that global temperatures are not rising. During massive storms in years past, the media handed a megaphone to ethically and intellectually bankrupt creatures like James Inhofe.
It's been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
Second, it provides a nice overview of the dynamics of our fossil-fueled climate changes.
A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.
"Strong snowstorms thrive on the ragged edge of temperature — warm enough for the air to hold lots of moisture, meaning lots of precipitation, but just cold enough for it to fall as snow," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Increasingly, it seems that we're on that ragged edge."
Third, it interviews people who understand climate science instead of those skilled in media manipulation.
Speaking of science, there is some unsettling news about snow in a study published in the Journal of Climate.
Researchers Sarah Kapnick and Thomas Delworth looked at how annual snowfall amounts are likely to change during the lifetimes of James Inhofe's grandchildren and great grandchildren. Model projections are based on a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from pre-industrial levels before stabilizing in about 70 years. Assuming peak CO2 levels closer to 600 ppm makes far more sense than using a 450 ppm benchmark. Stabilization at 450 ppm is not going to happen without a miracle.
The models use higher resolution topography inputs to capture previous snowfall amounts and project future levels. Here is how the model predicts annual snowfall will change in the United States in 70 years.
The effects on the surface water availability from snowpack accumulation and melt are likely to be very significant in the Cascades, Sierra Nevada, and some parts of Rocky Mountain ranges. Equally problematic will be less groundwater recharging from snows throughout much of the eastern half of the country. Add in flood impacts from less frequent but higher volume snowstorms (aka, blizzards) and the situation leaves little to cheer about.
The good news is that the higher elevations of the Himalayas, Andes, and Yukons are likely to have increased snowfall. While these predictions differ from previous models, the observations are much more in line in recent data from these regions. This is likely due to the higher spatial and topographic resolution in the model.
The other silver lining is that there will be fewer DC snowstorms for political tools to use as props.