California Snowpack

There has been a lot of news coverage of how California Governor Jerry Brown mandated water restrictions due to the record low snowpack. Many of the articles I've read have not done what I would consider an adequate report on the snowpack level. Most of them merely say the April snowpack is at 5% of the historic level. That is frightening enough, but there's more to the story than that. The 5% figure is for the entire range.

The April snowpack is historically the largest of the year. With a full season of snowfall behind it and the melt season not yet begun means the mountains are normally stoked with stored water this time of year. But, when the California Department of Water Resources took the April snowpack measurements they found the ground was bare below 6800 feet and there no snow at all. All total, that 5% figure translates to a mere 1.4 inches of water compared to the historic average of 28.3 inches (4.9%) for April 1. This was the lowest measurement ever made for April.

But, even this isn't the worst of it.

This is the fourth measurement the Department of Water Resources has done for the media this winter. The previous three were on December 30, January 29 and March 3. The snowpack as a percentage of the historic average on those dates was 50%, 25% and 19%, respectively. And now, 5%. This is a very bad trend.

Why the decline? After all, there were some big storms this winter. Well, not really. Northern California has recorded 76% of normal precipitation this precipitation year, which began on October 1, 2014. Central and Southern California have had 41% and 42% respectively. You don't break a drought with below average precipitation.

Also, it has been so warm the precipitation fell as rain instead of snow. Some of it was captured in reservoirs and they are much better than this time last year, but still far below historic averages (typically 60% to 75% of historic averages). Some soaked into the ground. But most was lost to runoff and evaporation. None of this bodes well for California this year. The state's wettest months of the year have already passed. There is no way the snowpack runoff can be replaced and the reservoirs and ground water are already stressed. I can't see this playing out well for anyone this year.

One of the false claims deniers keep making is that there are no climate change predictions that have come true. As I said, this is false and the record is full of things that have played out just as predicted. Unfortunately, California is now on that list. It has long been predicted that rising temperatures would result in a reduced snowpack as snow fell as rain and this would, in turn, lead to increased chances of drought. 

But, of course, if they were interested in the facts they would no longer be deniers.

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Maximum

It has been widely reported the Arctic sea ice extent this year was not only a record low for a maximum extent, but it also came very early. What does this mean? Truthfully, not all that much by itself. After all, some year has to have the minimum maximum and there is a lot fluctuation from one year to the next.

Just what does it mean to say, 'sea ice extent' anyway? The answer to that question reveals why it is so difficult to model the ice extent. The accepted standard for sea ice extent is the area of the ocean that has at least 15% ice cover. Let's do some math and you can see the problem.

Suppose we have, just for example, 1000 square kilometers of 100% ice coverage. If 25% of that ice melts, we now have 1000 square kilometers of 75% ice coverage. Under the 15% rule, they are the same. Now, let's suppose the wind and currents break this up and expands that ice into an area of 1500 square miles. This area will now have an average ice cover of 50%. Under the 15% rule, we have seen an increase in ice extent of 50% even though we have 25% less ice.

The reverse is also true. If we had started with the 1500 square kilometers of 50% coverage, wind and currents could compress this ice into an area of 1000 square kilometers and 75% coverage. This is a reduction in sea ice extent, even though we have the same amount of ice.

The bigger question is, how does this fit in the long-term trend and that is very revealing.

Here is the sea ice trend for March (through 2014), the normal month of maximum extent:

Source: NSIDC

Now we're talking about some issues. Very clearly, the maximum extent that occurs every year is trending down, even with the annual fluctuation. March 2015 will be even lower than the lowest point on this graph, well below the trend line.

Let's compare a few other graphics.

This is a plot of the winter Arctic sea ice extent (including the maximum extent) for the years of 1980 through 1989. The dark solid line in the middle is the 1981 - 2010 average. Almost every year was above the average line for the entire period plotted.:

Source: NSIDC

This is the same plot for the years of 1990 through 1999. Now we see several years plotting below the average line.:

Source: NSIDC

Now, compare to this plot showing the years of 2006 through 2015 (the incomplete line on the bottom). Now, the extent plots below the average for almost all points.:

Source: NSIDC

When you compare these three plots you can see that the extent is decreasing rapidly. Not only that, we can see there were places that routinely had ice cover in 1980 that have not seen ice for decades.


Now, that statement about this being the minimum maximum means something.

And, keep in mind this is what is happening in the dark of the winter. There can be no mistaken belief it is caused by some reduction in sunlight. There is only one possible explanation - the Arctic Region is getting warmer, even in the winter time. Some combination of warmer air and warmer seas is keeping the ice from forming the way it used to.

By the way, in the same vein, I read an article describing how the snow in Wyoming is melting earlier every year and is now melting 16 days earlier than it was in the 1970s.

Coincidence?

Future of California Water Looks Bleak

As you have probably heard, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains this winter is running at merely 19% of the long-term average. Not good for a state that gets 30% of its water from snow runoff and is already in a prolonged drought. But stay tuned. This is just the beginning.

The future of the snowpack in the western U.S. was examined in the paper Extent of the rain-snow transition zone in thewestern U.S.under historic and projected climate, by P. Zion Klos, Timothy E. Link and John T. Abatzoglou, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060500, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 41, Issue 13, pages 4560–4568, 16 July 2014.  Their conclusion?

At broad scales, these projections indicate an average 30% decrease in areal extent of winter wet-day temperatures conducive to snowfall over the western United States. 

A 30% decrease? That leaves 70% of 19%, which comes out to be 13.3%! Yikes! That would translate into a loss of over 15% of their water from that one source alone. And, don't forget the other ramifications, such as the hit to the winter recreation industry. How many jobs does California have in that one industry? I couldn't find that specific number, but I found the numbers for the entire outdoor recreation industry for the whole country:

- 6.1 million American jobs

- $646 billion in outdoor recreation spending

each year

- $39.9 billion in federal tax revenue

- $39.7 billion in state/local tax revenue

The winter recreation industry for California will be only a part of that, but even a small part would be a lot of jobs and money.

And, let's not mention the hit the environment and ecology will take.

Sure, there will be years that see big snowfalls. But, the overall average does not look good.