Climate-Related Disasters

Lakes go dry, lakes fill up -- can't explain that.

 

Magnets

 

California has zero areas of dryness for 1st time in 25 years: Drought Monitor

https://abc7news.com/post/drought-m...ess-1st-time-25-years-winter-storms/18372638/

 

I don't believe you.

 

Looks like a rough weekend for freezing temps.
Make sure to start winterizing early before things sell out around town.

 

Thanks for the heads-up. Freezing always sneaks up on us here.

 

****ing yikes

 

This was expected by some - many.

Record snow drought in Western US raises concern for water shortages and wildfires

Except for California, most Western states are experiencing the worst snow drought in decades not because of dry conditions but really warm temperatures that change snow to rain

A record snow drought with unprecedented heat is hitting most of the American West, depleting future water supplies, making it more vulnerable to wildfires and hurting winter tourism and recreation.

Scientists say snow cover and snow depth are both at the lowest levels they’ve seen in decades, while at least 67 Western weather stations have measured their warmest December through early February on record. Normal snow cover this time of year should be about 460,000 square miles — about the size of California, Utah, Idaho and Montana — but this year it's only California-sized, about 155,000 square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

“I have not seen a winter like this before,” said center director Mark Serreze, who has been in Colorado almost 40 years. "This pattern that we’re in is so darned persistent.”

The snowpack — measured by how much water is trapped inside — in Oregon is not only record low, but 30% lower than the previous record, said Jason Gerlich, regional drought early warning system coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Much of the U.S. east of the Rockies is snowbound and enduring more than two weeks of bone-chilling abnormal cold, but in West Jordan, Utah, a suburb of Salt Lake City, Trevor Stephens went to the store last week in gym shorts and a T-shirt.

“Right now there’s no snow on the ground,” he said in a video interview, looking out his window and lamenting the lack of snowboarding opportunities. "I’d definitely rather have icy roads and snow than whatever is going on out here right now.”

Ski resorts had already been struggling through a difficult season, but the lack of snow has been persistent enough that concerns are growing about wider effects.

Oregon, Colorado and Utah have reported their lowest statewide snowpack since the early 1980s, as far back as records go.

A dry January has meant most states have received half their average precipitation or even less. Along with sunny days and higher-than-average temperatures, that's meant little snow buildup in a month that historically gets a lot of snow accumulation across much of the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Because of heavy rains in December, California is in better shape than the other states, scientists said.

As of Monday, it had been 327 days since Salt Lake City International Airport got 1 inch of snow, making it the longest stretch since 1890-91, according to the National Weather Service.

The meager snow in Colorado and Utah has put the Upper Colorado River Basin at the heart of the snow drought, said Gerlich.

A robust mountain snowpack that slowly melts as winter warms to spring provides a steady flow of water into creeks and rivers. That helps ensure there’s enough water later in the year for agriculture, cities, hydropower electric systems and more.

But lack of snow or a too-fast melt means less water will replenish rivers like the Colorado later in the season.

“This is a pretty big problem for the Colorado basin,” said Daniel Swain of the University of California’s Water Resources Institute.

Experts said the snow drought could also kick-start an early wildfire season. Snow disappearing earlier than average leaves the ground exposed to warmer weather in the spring and summer that dries soils and vegetation quicker, said Daniel McEvoy, researcher with the Western Regional Climate Center.

While it's been dry, the record-low snowpack is mostly due to how warm the West has been, which is connected to climate change from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, several scientists said. Since Dec. 1, there have been more than 8,500 daily high temperature records broken or tied in the West, according to NOAA data.

Much of the precipitation that would normally fall as snow and stay in the mountains for months is instead falling as rain, which runs off quicker, Swain and other scientists said. It's a problem scientists have warned about with climate change.

Going snowless happens from time to time, but it's the warmth that has been so extreme, which is easier to tie to climate change, said Russ Schumacher, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and Colorado State Climatologist.

“It was so warm, especially in December, that the snow was only falling at the highest parts of the mountains,” McEvoy said. “And then we moved into January and it got really dry almost everywhere for the last three to four weeks and stayed warm.”

Meteorologists expect wetter, cooler weather across the West this week with some snow so this may be the peak of the snow drought. But it'll still be warmer than usual in many areas, and scientists aren't optimistic the snow will be enough.

“I don’t think there’s any way we’re going to go back up to, you know, average or anywhere close to that,” said Schumacher. “But at least we can chip away at those deficits a little bit if it does get more active.”

 

"Black carbon" in Arctic an increasing concern amid other issues in region

Reykjaviik, Iceland — As rising global temperatures speed up the melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, it's set off a boom of ships taking routes that previously were frozen and not traversable.

The increase in marine Arctic traffic, which received increased attention as President Trump pushed for the United States to take over Greenland, has come with a heavy environmental cost: black carbon, or soot, that spews from ships and makes the ice melt even faster. In meetings this week with international shipping regulators, several countries are making a case for ships in the Arctic to use cleaner fuels that cause less pollution.

Glaciers, snow and ice covered in the soot emitted by ships have less ability to reflect the sun. Instead, the sun's heat is absorbed, helping to make the Arctic the fastest warming place on Earth. In turn, melting Arctic sea ice can affect weather patterns around the world.

"It ends up in a never-ending cycle of increased warming," said Sian Prior, lead adviser for the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of nonprofits focused on the Arctic and shipping. "We need to regulate emissions and black carbon, in particular. Both are completely unregulated in the Arctic."

In December, France, Germany, the Solomon Islands and Denmark proposed that the International Maritime Organization require ships traveling in Arctic waters to use "polar fuels," which are lighter and emit less carbon pollution than the widely used maritime fuels known as residuals. The proposal includes steps that companies would take to comply and the geographic area it would apply to - all ships traveling north of the 60th parallel. The proposal was expected to be presented to the IMO's Pollution Prevention and Response Committee this week and possibly another committee in April.

A 2024 ban on using a type of residual known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic has had only modest impact so far, partly because of loopholes.

"Black carbon" exacerbating other regional issues
The push to reduce black carbon, which studies have shown has a warming impact 1,600 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year span, is happening at a time of conflicting interests, both internationally and among the countries that have coastlines in the Arctic.

In recent months, Mr. Trump's periodic comments about the need to "own" Greenland to bolster U.S. security have raised many issues, from Greenland's sovereignty to the future of the NATO alliance. Pollution and other environmental issues in the Arctic have taken a backseat.

Mr. Trump, who has called climate change a "con job," has also pushed back against global policies aimed at fighting it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt regulations that would have imposed carbon fees on shipping, which supporters said would have pushed companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify fleets where possible. Then Mr. Trump intervened, lobbying hard for nations to vote no. The measure was postponed for a year, its prospects at best uncertain. Given that, it's hard to see the IMO making fast progress on the current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.

Even inside Arctic nations, which are most impacted by black carbon and other shipping pollution, there are internal tensions around such regulations. Iceland is a good example. While the country is a world leader in green technologies such as carbon capture and the use of thermal energies for heating, conservationists say the country has made less progress on regulating pollution in its seas. That's because the fishing industry, one of the country's most important, holds huge sway.

"The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with the taxes and not engaged in issues like climate or biodiversity," said Arni Finnsson, board chair of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association.

Finnsson added that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also prompted resistance.

"I think the government is waking up, but they still have to wait for the (fishing) industry to say yes," he said.

The country hasn't taken a position on the pending polar fuels proposal. In a statement, Iceland's Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was "positive with regard to its purpose and basic content" but that further study was needed. The statement added that Iceland supports stronger measures to counter shipping emissions and reduce black carbon.

More sea traffic means more soot in the air
Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing boats and even some cruise liners are traveling more in the waters that connect the northernmost parts of Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, the number of ships entering waters north of the 60th parallel increased by 37%, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of the eight countries with territory in the Arctic. In that same period, the total distance traversed by ships in the Arctic increased 111%.

Black carbon emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 metric tons of black carbon was emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel compared with 3,310 metric tons in 2024, according to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates. The study found that fishing boats were the biggest source of black carbon.

It also found that the 2024 ban on heavy fuel oil would only result in a small reduction in black carbon. Waivers and exceptions allow some ships to continue using it until 2029.

Environmental groups and concerned countries see regulating ship fuel as the only way to realistically reduce black carbon. That is because getting nations to agree to limit traffic would likely be impossible. The lure of fishing, resource extraction and shorter shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some trips between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.

Still, the path known as the Northern Sea Route is only traversable a few months of the year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those dangers, combined with Arctic pollution concerns, have driven some companies to pledge to stay away - at least for now.

"The debate around the Arctic is intensifying, and commercial shipping is part of that discussion," wrote Søren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world's largest container shipping company, in a LinkedIn post last month. "Our position at MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.

 

Yeah, it's looked really bad on the snow front this year in the West.

Unlike three years ago when we visited Yosemite. Record snowfall, record waterfalls.

We've planned a trip to Rocky Mountain National Park this summer. Fingers crossed (yes, I'm being selfish). I've seen these places taken in wildfires up close. The North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park went up like a cinder last year; the fire scars from past years was bad enough, but now even the historic lodge right at the rim is gone.

Five and a half years ago we were at Vermillion Cliffs (gorgeous) in Arizona near Page / Navajo Nation. One night, beautiful, the next day, smoke clouding out everything, drifting from the California wildfires.

People losing their homes, their lives, just insane.

 

Inside the historic effort to keep the Great Barrier Reef alive

 

Climate change is a 20+ year running lie to increase the tax base by taxing energy. It's not enough to tax sales, profits, property, vehicles, investment income, gasoline, alcohol, etc. Despite all these sources of tax income, the federal and state governments in the USA continue to run massive deficits. They need another huge expense in corporate income statements to go after-- and for most companies, energy expense is that target. Labor is already taxed. Sales is already taxes. Profits are already taxed. Energy? Let's create a global warming crisis to tax that. The alternative is cutting government spending, which liberals will never do. Gotta find another tax source -- and it's energy (carbon).

The people just aren't buying these lies any longer. The age of the internet has increased transparency and has blown a lid off of all the lies that governments told us back when mainstream media controlled the news. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for lies... and that certainly holds true with the climate change hoax.

Man's contributions don't change the climate at all. It's the height of arrogance to think they do.
Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are around 0.04% and only 1/3rd of that comes from human activity. So around 0.01% of air in the atmosphere is man made CO2. It's absolutely meaningless to climate.



GOOD DAY

 

Climate change is science. Political science. That's why Al Gore (a politician) promoted it -- and got rich.