# Time to tear up over snow pack?



## BilloutWest

Too early.
OK, relax.

From two simple products:
Oregon SNOTEL Snow/Precipitation Update Report

Note how the Snow Water Content is especially low for Western Oregon.
*Yet, the precip for the year is right at normal for the state.*

=====

Here is a Western States map of Snow Water Content percentages:
Basin Snow Water Content Map (numeric) (SNOTEL)
Going East and NE things are fine.


----------



## restrac2000

Its been saddening watching the years snowpack and climate. As someone who does private rafting trips and is a professional ski instructor during the winter its hard not to bear witness to the changing climate of the west. 

In Cedar City its been like mid-spring for 3.5 weeks with 2 days of snow to break it up. Short sleeve shirts and light pants weather during what is historically our coldest period, like -20F. And we aren't getting any of the increased moisture content that should align with warmer temps. Instead its been dry and warm. 

And as has been mentioned here already....those statistics are dummed down each year when these drought years influence the 20 years averages. Not good.

Phillip


----------



## lmyers

Not yet. Still over 100% of the 20 year average here, but with no real storms forecast I am starting to have a little concern.... The months of March and April will make or break our season, like usual.


----------



## panicman

Still have all of feb.


----------



## jmack

Vallecito hydrograph from our last low water year (2012).


----------



## goldcamp

Lots of winter left. As the say with financial reports "Past performance is not an indicator of future results" Hopefully will take a turn for the cold and wet.


----------



## BilloutWest

lmyers said:


> ....... The months of March and April will make or break our season, like usual.


Early April is the Snow Pack max for Oregon on average.

Plenty of time.

Can be as late as Mid-April.


----------



## BilloutWest

goldcamp said:


> Lots of winter left. As the say with financial reports "Past performance is not an indicator of future results" Hopefully will take a turn for the cold and wet.


However, the cycle we're in now...........

or

However, because of global warming, (aka climate change) ...........

======

.......... one should consider a smaller boat and/or earlier dates.


----------



## BilloutWest

The popular 


http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?west

===========

Plus the climate of doom:


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> The always popular


Thanks for that link, never seen it before but its real handy for visual updates.

I definitely understand optimism but its hard to lean that way where I live when average years are few and far between now. Spring is our heaviest and most productive month as well but even if we get average amounts of spring snow the accumulated amount is still less than normal. 

Those numbers for California and Oregon are depressing for boating and frightening ecologically. 

Potentially a good year for several small drainages in Utah though....might be a chance to get after the Dirty Devil and Escalante. 

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

*frightening ecologically*

Two things to consider in the slightly larger picture.

As was pointed out earlier the average changes.
When in an extended droughtish period there is a lower average that the Snow Pack Water Content works off of.

Also, lower elevation snow pack isn't measured by the stations we look at.
Those places really fall off in warmer years like these.
That can create sort of a geometric progression in reduced water resources.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> That can create sort of a geometric progression in reduced water resources.


Could you explain that idea. Never heard that terminology.

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> Could you explain that idea. Never heard that terminology.
> 
> Phillip


Historically the emphasis has been the snow in the mountains.

With the new normal becoming less of that the lower elevation water loss becomes more important than it used to be.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> Historically the emphasis has been the snow in the mountains.
> 
> With the new normal becoming less of that the lower elevation water loss becomes more important than it used to be.


Thanks for clear explanation.

I know in SW Utah our snow line has changed in the last few years. It was Christmas before we got our first real snow storm of the year. We are already snowless again. Normally by mid-November we have snow that sticks and weeks of bitter cold from mid-December to late January. And its not just us in SW Utah; was just skiing at Sundance 2 weeks ago and it was raining on the lower resort for 3 days straight.

The author who just wrote about Wasatach snow mentioned that data analysis seems to be showing that the new snow line is rising in altitude. I think regionally it has risen to closer to 7000 feet, which puts were I live in for some major change (5700 ft). I assume there will be pros (earlier releases?) and cons (shorter seasons?) if that holds out but its hard not to be sad as rivers like the Virgin have relatively fewer years of average flows. 

Maybe things will turn around but I am not holding my breathe. 

Phillip


----------



## Gremlin

One thing rarely considered is the moisture in the ground. I remember 2012 was not a great snowpack year for the Colorado River basin but more water ran all summer because 2011 was such a good year compared to other average years following drier years. I would think more snowmelt makes it to the rivers following wetter Fall seasons.


----------



## restrac2000

Gremlin said:


> One thing rarely considered is the moisture in the ground. I remember 2012 was not a great snowpack year for the Colorado River basin but more water ran all summer because 2011 was such a good year compared to other average years following drier years. I would think more snowmelt makes it to the rivers following wetter Fall seasons.


I wish we could be carried by our rain in the fall, though it undoubtedly has an affect. 

Our soil moisture percentage is actually lower than last year, one of worst years in SW Utah since I have lived here. Soil temperatures are roughly the same but its got less content by 5-10% depending on location and sensor. 

That said....I am not a soil scientist or hydrologist so when we start to go that far into details I am at a loss. 

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

Gremlin said:


> One thing rarely considered is the moisture in the ground. I remember 2012 was not a great snowpack year for the Colorado River basin but more water ran all summer because 2011 was such a good year compared to other average years following drier years. I would think more snowmelt makes it to the rivers following wetter Fall seasons.


Very True.

With the normal precip here in Oregon throughout this winter so far, that should be a big help.

Another odd circumstance is frozen ground not allowing melt to penetrate the soils. This is an odd timing thing. Ground gets rain wet early and a hard freeze hits late fall/early winter. Then that gets insulated by snow. Runoff city.


----------



## KSC

I know it's different out there in the great PNW, but it's counter-intuitive here in Colorado. Boaters outs here hate boating on water. Last year was a total disaster here on the front range because the rocks were covered and nobody could get out. Low snowpack? It's gonna be sick!


----------



## DesertRatonIce

I sure hope the snow pack can hold on. Here is a link I hope will work. 

http://www.weather.com/forecast/national/news/temperature-outlook-february-march-april


----------



## BilloutWest

DesertRatonIce said:


> I sure hope the snow pack can hold on. Here is a link I hope will work.
> 
> http://www.weather.com/forecast/national/news/temperature-outlook-february-march-april


From your link:


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> Implications of that are far reaching considering how much food and fresh produce they supply the country.
> ........
> Phillip


Plus the aquifer damage that really isn't repairable in our kids lifetimes.

Additionally, I've seen some info on last century being wetter than normal.
(Even with the dust bowl.)
That we probably should get used to this climate.


----------



## cmharris

*Teacups*

We are experiencing another warm Pacific storm today. It's raining as I write and 39 degrees at Bachelor Lodge.

If you look at the upper Deschutes teacup diagrams, Crescent Lake, Wickiup, and Crane Prairie are in pretty good shape; Prineville could use some help.

The real, most immediate, concern is the Rogue basin. The Rogue teacups look terrible. This rain should help, assuming it is falling in that area.


----------



## Wadeinthewater

There would be a few tears if I had a pass for Hoodoo or Willamette Pass. They were open for a couple of days, but are now closed without much hope. The forecast is for warm and wet for the next week or more. The Cascades are at 15% of median snowpack even though there has been near average precipitation. It has just been too warm for too long.


----------



## Wadeinthewater

The Eugene Register Guard noticed.

Record-low snowpacks this winter | Local | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon

_Koeberle, of the federal conservation service, said that of the 110 snow gauges in Oregon that have been operating 25 years or more, more than 40 are near to or at record lows. About 10 of those gauges in Western Oregon are showing zero snowpack for the first time ever, she said._


----------



## BilloutWest

Wadeinthewater said:


> There would be a few tears if I had a pass for Hoodoo or Willamette Pass. They were open for a couple of days, but are now closed without much hope. The forecast is for warm and wet for the next week or more. The Cascades are at 15% of median snowpack even though there has been near average precipitation. It has just been too warm for too long.


HooDoo just cancelled a snowshoe race this weekend.

Here are a variety of webcams from that area.
Hoodoo Butte pictures
The bottom center one at the summit of Santiam Pass shows NO SNOW.
Puddles in the ditch and looks real wet.


----------



## mania

Yes time to tear up.


----------



## DesertRatonIce

We are crying now cause the snowpack is low, this summer we will really be crying from all the smoke that's gonna be in the air. It's just awful around Northern Cali. Again.


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## BilloutWest

DesertRatonIce said:


> We are crying now cause the snowpack is low, this summer we will really be crying from all the smoke that's gonna be in the air. It's just awful around Northern Cali. Again.


Fire seasons are always unpredictable.
Need two things.

_The Weather favorable for fires.
Ignitions._

We have been normal or even slightly above for precip.
Soils and fuels are saturated for this time of year.
If this continues we could be OK.
Wet lightning is a big help.
Again, hard to predict.

Although blaming the government is fair.


----------



## lmyers

*Ark Valley snowpack*

Ok, I'm starting to get concerned. It was nearly 70 degrees in BV this weekend and it was over 50 degrees at the Marcelline Yurt above Leadville. Snow was thin and rotten. Probably the worst snowpack I have ever seen for the beginning of February in the Ark headwaters. Starting to see runnels and other signs of alpine melting already....

Put some new core shots in my skis skiing north aspects this last weekend. Feels like winter is already over.


----------



## Kmarsh26

quit crying ladies!!! Its February, so what if its hot! Here in the Yampa valley we are still hovering around 80% of average for our snowpack. All we need is one good solid dump for a couple and wed be right around 100%! Yes, if it didn't snow again this winter we would all be royally fucked but it'll get cold again and dump for a month. Don't be negative, take advantage of some warm weather skiing, or better yet, go paddle CROSS! It was 57 degrees and 800cfs in there yesterday! Go enjoy a warm winter before she comes back with vengeance!

When did ski bums and river rats become so spoiled!!!! 80% of average snowpack is nothing to cry over!! look at California! Now those guys can go ahead and start crying!!!!


----------



## Dwave

Skied into the Ridgway hut this weekend on the north side of Sneffels (N. San Juans) in a t-shirt and shorts. Still sweated my ass off. Snowpack around 10,500ft was around 3 ft. with plenty of signs of late spring conditions. 

Warm days do occurr in the middle of winter yet this marks the 2nd week in a row with temps near or at 60F and questionable snow/precip in the forecast. The other crazy thing is that there's no snow below 9,500ft.


----------



## Learch

Kmarsh26 said:


> quit crying ladies!!! Its February, so what if its hot! Here in the Yampa valley we are still hovering around 80% of average for our snowpack. All we need is one good solid dump for a couple and wed be right around 100%! Yes, if it didn't snow again this winter we would all be royally fucked but it'll get cold again and dump for a month. Don't be negative, take advantage of some warm weather skiing, or better yet, go paddle CROSS! It was 57 degrees and 800cfs in there yesterday! Go enjoy a warm winter before she comes back with vengeance!
> 
> When did ski bums and river rats become so spoiled!!!! 80% of average snowpack is nothing to cry over!! look at California! Now those guys can go ahead and start crying!!!!


 In western Oregon, we are running between 15-20% of normal in the Cascades. We have snotel sites with no snow recorded right now, the first time for many of those sites to have bare ground. Most of our ski resorts are closed, save for a few in the higher elevations (Above 5000) The long range models are not indicating a late seasons turn around, so it is not looking good in Western Oregon. I'd be pretty happy with 80% of normal right now.


----------



## BilloutWest

Kmarsh26 said:


> quit crying ladies!!! ......


Absolutely.
We get a chance to hike gravel channels to reclaim GoPro's and listen to all the complaining.

The base at HooDoo:
http://www.santiampassskipatrol.org/wx/weather16.jpg


----------



## DesertRatonIce

It looks like the east coast is the place for the snow! They hate the snow out their and a new storm is coming that could last for days. Lucky ducks.
Colorado has a healthy snowpack right now. The long range forecast til April says little snow and way above average temps. We could possibly be around 55-60% by boating season. I'm crossing my fingers. I lived in Leadville in 2012 and I saw my whole lawn in March. It isn't that bad yet......


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## restrac2000

Kmarsh26 said:


> quit crying ladies!!! Its February, so what if its hot! Here in the Yampa valley we are still hovering around 80% of average for our snowpack. All we need is one good solid dump for a couple and wed be right around 100%! Yes, if it didn't snow again this winter we would all be royally fucked but it'll get cold again and dump for a month. Don't be negative, take advantage of some warm weather skiing, or better yet, go paddle CROSS! It was 57 degrees and 800cfs in there yesterday! Go enjoy a warm winter before she comes back with vengeance!
> 
> When did ski bums and river rats become so spoiled!!!! 80% of average snowpack is nothing to cry over!! look at California! Now those guys can go ahead and start crying!!!!


Aren't your comments pleasant (why is it that so many internet haters fall back on misogynistic comments?)! And its funny as most of the people here commenting are out doing things , like skiing spring snow in Feb. I spend 3-5 days a week making lemonade out of this winter and my students can tell you we have a lot of fun in such horrible snow conditions.

Your basic logic is flawed as percent averages are solely for this time of year and unless most basins get above average precipitation in late winter and early spring the snowpack is still gonna be measly. As a state, Colorado is doing better than most of us but barely. Central and eastern Idaho are doing about average. You gotta remember a decade of fairly continuous drought skews the averages down, even when you include a few stellar years like last. If it was just one year out of a few 80% definitely wouldn't be too bad but its a climate trend and seems to be here to stay.

Utah is hurting; Wyoming is hurting; Oregon is hurting; Washington is hurting; and California is beyond bad and is about to destroy last years drought record.

Take the entire Green River basin: below 70% in upper basin in Wyoming; just around 50% in lower basin in Wyoming; 60% in the Uintahs, a massive feeder in Utah; 75% in the Duchesene, which is somewhat smaller. Those are sad numbers for a river system facing more than a decade's drought. 

We are sitting at 55% in SW Utah, numbers that have been consistent for 3 years running. 

Many of the rivers in eastern Washington and Oregon are getting rain on snow events that are causing unseasonable peaks. 

Playing and sharing ideas on the internet isn't inherently negative, even when its sharing a tear over abysmal snow totals across the entire west. Sharing like this allows me to plan a little more detailed as I need to be thinking about hitting some of my goals earlier in the season, if at all. 

The only really great news is that it looks like I will be able to load up my IK this year and hit a good run on the Dirty Devil. Hoping to spend a week exploring territory I haven't seen in a decade. Maybe at 135% I won't have to drag as much. 

Even though your insulted us.....best of luck with your river and snow year. 

Phillip

Phillip


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Phillip
You are right. Colorado is a bit better but not by much. It's 60 degrees today in Leadville. The Front Range is above 70. What snow Colorado has is melting away quick. The Ark Valley has lost 9% in just the last 2 days alone.
I ran the Rogue River a lot last fall and the forest fires that were in Cali and Oregon were absolutely decimating. If it's only going to be worse this coming year, I could only imagine what could happen. 
My buddy in Mt on the flathead drainage says the snow is deep and wonderful. That's about one of the only places I have heard of that's doing quite well. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## Kmarsh26

KEEP crying ladies!!! Ive had one of my best powder days in seven years of living in steamboat this year (not deepest but overall perfect)! I paddled pine creek laps in January and broke a sweat! I paddled Cross yesterday with a temp of 57 degrees, sunshine, and an ice free free flowing river at almost 900 cfs! Oh and i got to ride about 10 miles of snow free single track for the shuttle yesterday! Tomorrow, looks like some ice climbing in walton creek! Yes the temperature is ABNORMAL, but what is normal anyway? All I'm saying is lets not get too down and bitter. Yes, I believe in climate change and yes, itss a bitch ! And yes, i understand that our ecosystems need snowpack! I'm actually pretty educated in riparian and hydrologic ecology in West! But enjoy where you live! sounds like we all live in pretty awesome places. Im having a great winter, actually maybe one of the best. Sorry if my optimism, hope, overall positivism, and general stoke on life offended you. Defiantly didn't mean for that, just wanted to remind some to go have fun and enjoy what we have. We can't force it snow. 

and actually I was wrong, Colorado as a whole, is 98% of average for SWE, for whatever thats worth. The Yampa river basin is closer to 80%, but i just stare at the 2013 water year line and it brings me some hope!


----------



## lmyers

DesertRatonIce said:


> I'm crossing my fingers. I lived in Leadville in 2012 and I saw my whole lawn in March. It isn't that bad yet....


The choice word here is yet. If the current forecasts verify March could be very similar to 2012...





Kmarsh26 said:


> KEEP crying ladies!!! Ive had one of my best powder days in seven years of living in steamboat this year (not deepest but overall perfect)! I paddled pine creek laps in January and broke a sweat! I paddled Cross yesterday with a temp of 57 degrees, sunshine, and an ice free free flowing river at almost 900 cfs! Oh and i got to ride about 10 miles of snow free single track for the shuttle yesterday! Tomorrow, looks like some ice climbing in walton creek! Yes the temperature is ABNORMAL, but what is normal anyway? All I'm saying is lets not get too down and bitter. Yes, I believe in climate change and yes, itss a bitch ! And yes, i understand that our ecosystems need snowpack! I'm actually pretty educated in riparian and hydrologic ecology in West! But enjoy where you live! sounds like we all live in pretty awesome places. Im having a great winter, actually maybe one of the best. Sorry if my optimism, hope, overall positivism, and general stoke on life offended you. Defiantly didn't mean for that, just wanted to remind some to go have fun and enjoy what we have. We can't force it snow.
> 
> and actually I was wrong, Colorado as a whole, is 98% of average for SWE, for whatever thats worth. The Yampa river basin is closer to 80%, but i just stare at the 2013 water year line and it brings me some hope!



Optimism isn't bad...and I too have had some great boating days this winter, but the northern zones are doing better than the rest of the state, and I distinctly remember hot, crowded, smoky low water runs on the Ark in 2012 and it is feels spookily like a repeat from where I'm sitting.


----------



## Willc

Time to make lemonade from the Pineapple Express. Spring boating has started on the John Day River in Clarno. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Learch

Willc said:


> Time to make lemonade from the Pineapple Express. Spring boating has started on the John Day River in Clarno.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


I saw it went up already. Ran it last May, fun trip. We only had 4 days to do it in, short trip. The last day is a long pull...


----------



## DesertRatonIce

2002 and 2012 were very low water years on the Ark. We do have way more snow at this point compared to the other years but it could be all for not. It was nice to see the snow come and slow things down but we all know that this is just a band aid on a gaping wound. The temps have to stay below freezing for awhile and those all important spring storms must come through. If not and we continue seeing super warm spring days without much snow, we can add 2015 to the list. 
I will say one positive thing, if you have been guiding on the Ark and know the low water lines, life is much easier for your crew and you. It's nice being the only boat to not get stuck. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## benjamin_smith

The forecast for next week is looking promising. Hopefully it's the start of some good spring snow.


----------



## Osseous

In Colorado the worst of our drought is in the southeast- farm country. What river feeds that farm country? The Ark. I'm wondering if all the creative tunneling, harvesting and relocating of water can actually add up to a better boating year than we deserve in the Arkansas valley- in an effort to shore up that farm country downstream. Thoughts?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## BilloutWest

No rain predicted for the next 9 Redmond Oregon days. Then it jumps to 20% on day 10.

60's, then 50's, then 40's, then 50's.
Lawn is greener than I recall for early February.

We have been wet but what little snow we got in the mtns is going to have a tough go now.

Tonights news had a local water guy saying its the worst he's seen.

That was after the pickup that hit the semi and the pickup had pipe bombs inside. So our local drought is not a big story yet.


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Osseus 
I see where you are coming from. I am curious if the water rights come into play at all. I do know that in the Upper Ark valley that a water right is worth waaaaay more than Gold. I have no idea about the compact that those farmers have. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## glenn

The ark guys know better but I thought all the irrigation bound water went through pipes not canyons.


----------



## Osseous

I know we have some real experts on Ark water here- it just caused.me.to speculate when I was looking at the map of drought conditions around the west. Anxious to learn more

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## restrac2000

Well, we are officially even with snow totals from last year, the worst drought year I have seen in SW Utah since living here and one that was historically bad. We are down to 27" of snow at 10,000 feet. But its worse as we are 1.2 inches less in SWE than last year or roughly 15% less water equivalency. That is a big number when looking at drought conditions. Forecast is for another week of well above temperatures and bone dry. We are sitting at 47% snowpack for a region.

Rest of Utah is starting show the pain in the numbers as well. State total is roughly 78% with two river basins really bumping that total up. If those numbers were based on drainage size we would likely be lower than 70% (rough guestimate). Temperatures forecast for 50F at 10,000 feet for the next week.

On the plus side....great teaching conditions for beginners at the resort but our runs are shrinking and more rocks are showing up every day. I am gonna guess that if trends keep up our resort will be closing 2-3 weeks earlier than forecast but hoping we at least get some average March snows to hold us and our customers over.

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

> Renowned mountaineer Jim Whittaker, the first American to summit Mount Everest, is just about to turn 86. He began skiing at Snoqualmie in 1942.
> “I was born in Seattle, been here all my life. I can’t recall it being as bare as it is now."


======

Again, we're still OK for precip.
But snowpack is very low.


----------



## tmacc

Looking outside my window near Park City at 7000', it looks like mid April to me. Hard to believe we're at anything close to 78%. Might get a dusting early next week.


----------



## restrac2000

Not a big fan of newspaper owned by churches but hey, even the anti-climate change folks are starting chomp at the bit:

Where's winter? Utah in 'unprecedented territory' that is 'killing us,' experts say | Deseret News




> Consider this:
> 
> Snow conditions in the mountains are the same as they were on April 1, 2014. Snow density measurements indicate the higher elevation snowpack is on the cusp of melting.
> 
> Lower elevation snowpacks are already gone.
> 
> Only 10 of 150 U.S. Geological Survey stream gauge stations remain in "ice."
> 
> Overall, conditions are six weeks ahead of schedule.





> Typically, a six-week melt delivers an inch of water a day, but in this scenario only half that much will make it to the streams because the drainage basins will take what they need first.
> 
> "We will bleed out whatever snowpack we have," Julander said.





> The forecast calls for a brush-by storm early next week, but it is not expected to amount to much.
> 
> McInerney said that has been part of the problem this winter as well, with most storms only delivering snow above the 7,500-foot level, and the rest of the moisture falling as rain.
> 
> What's happening in Utah is part of a larger pattern playing out in the West, where record high temperatures have been logged in seven states.
> 
> California remains in exceptional drought, and has a snowpack that is just 27 percent of average. San Francisco has not clocked a drop of rain since January.
> 
> Utah is better off, but conditions are still dismal.
> 
> "Southwest Utah is toast. It will easily go into record-low conditions if we don't get some serious storms over the next month or so," Julander said.





> To demonstrate the severity and accelerated nature of conditions, Julander told water managers that the Weber-Ogden basin, for example, has six weeks to make up 60 percent of its snowpack.
> 
> Salt Lake and Provo areas have six weeks to get half of its snowpack back, as does the Duchesne River drainage.


60% of the snowpack in 6 weeks isn't likely to happen considering long term trends. Its gonna be a scary year in Utah. Throw is more demand for water along the middle Green River from extraction (though that could halt and crash again like the 80s if prices continue to drop or even stay stable), three years of hideous drought in a 15 year drought to begin with, and the housing boom hitting much of the region and the reality gets more grim. 

I am all for being optimistic in the sense that we adapt to what we have but the realism is just as the authority said, we are "toast" this year where I live.

Phillip


----------



## JIMM

If the Rocky mtn region and Calif. are looking at a low water run off spring, and you are able to travel around, New England looks very promising at the moment. The snow pack is deep, and if there is a slow warm up we may have a long run off period with good water. If anyone is interested I can post here towards the end of March as to how things are shaping.


----------



## DoStep

As I've watched weather patterns approach the western mainland this winter, I keep seeing the centers of the low pressure systems veering off to the north and northeast toward Alaska before they hit land, thus they avoid dropping precip the west coast and central Rockies. And there have also been several storms that approach from the south, much like the summer monsoons. 

Intellicast - Pacific Satellite in United States is a satellite loop that I use to see where the storms are coming from and going to. There are two in the current loop that appear to be heading up to Alaska again.

This seems like a somewhat dramatic shift in the winter pattern, one that also seems to be causing much of the dry spells described in this thread. 

Disclaimer: My only evidence is my own experience and observations. I don't have scientific data to support the theory. But this winter has been completely different than any in recent memory.


----------



## lmyers

Osseous said:


> In Colorado the worst of our drought is in the southeast- farm country. What river feeds that farm country? The Ark. I'm wondering if all the creative tunneling, harvesting and relocating of water can actually add up to a better boating year than we deserve in the Arkansas valley- in an effort to shore up that farm country downstream. Thoughts?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


The Ark has had an enhanced season ever since the west slope delivery system was completed. I believe that was in the 60's and it contributed to Dvorak's obtaining the first commercial permit in Colorado.

However, less and less of this water reaches the farming and ranching lands in southeast CO. A significant portion of the water diverted from the west slope is piped from the bottom of Twin Lakes through the Otero Pump Station to Spinney Mountain Reservoir and the south Platte. Some of it continues over to Colorado Springs. Each year more water rights are purchased from farmers in the lower Ark basin by Denver and Aurora and are transfered up stream allowing them to move more water through the pump station and essentially dewatering the lower river.


----------



## duct tape

Snowing here in the Springs. C'mon mountains!!!


----------



## duct tape

BilloutWest said:


> Fire seasons are always unpredictable.
> Need two things.
> 
> _The Weather favorable for fires.
> Ignitions._


We have plenty of idiots providing condition #2. Such as the kid playing with a lighter in Stratton Preserve here in the Springs > Grass fire near a bunch of houses in January! If you live here you understand the deep, visceral feeling some of us get with fires near our neighborhoods. Too much recent tragedy and fear. I'm sure there's plenty other folks out West who understand too, such as Cali.

Condition #1 not looking so good here. We NEED a wet spring.


----------



## BilloutWest

duct tape said:


> We have plenty of idiots providing condition #2. Such as the kid playing with a lighter in Stratton Preserve here in the Springs > Grass fire near a bunch of houses in January! If you live here you understand the deep, visceral feeling some of us get with fires near our neighborhoods. Too much recent tragedy and fear. I'm sure there's plenty other folks out West who understand too, such as Cali.
> 
> Condition #1 not looking so good here. We NEED a wet spring.


Some fire science guys working with fire weather guys out of Portland were working on a way to provide advance warning of many big fires. A number crunching program, working off RAWS and stuff that would spit out important numbers.
This to give a couple days warning so managers could order troops before the fires even started so that many could be stopped etc.

The biggest worry was dry lightning that accompanied already dry conditions. 
More fires = more escaped fires = rivers closed etc.



> #2 was the *Fourth of July.*


======

The snow pack is often cited as over rated as a predictor of fire seasons.
(Low snowpack does mean that things can happen up high earlier but big fires down lower in elevation are the greater concern.)
How wet the late spring is, is considered to be far more significant.


----------



## BilloutWest

*Running more numbers*

OREGON
OWYHEE ............................................................. 8 of 8 ,,,,, 38 ,,,,, 92 
MALHEUR ............................................................ 3 of 3 ,,,,, 36 ,,,,, 97 
GRANDE RONDE, POWDER, BURNT, IMNAHA .......... 16 of 17 ,,,,, 53 ,,,,, 101 
UMATILLA, WALLA WALLA, WILLOW ........................ 7 of 8 ,,,,, 36 ,,,,, 98 
JOHN DAY .......................................................... 13 of 13 ,,,,, 38 ,,,,, 94 
UPPER DESCHUTES, CROOKED ............................. 14 of 14 ,,,,, 17 ,,,,,, 94 
HOOD, SANDY, LOWER DESCHUTES ......................... 8 of 8 ,,,,, 9 ,,,,, 98 
COAST RANGE ...................................................... 1 of 2 ,,,,, * ,,,,, 93 
WILLAMETTE ....................................................... 18 of 23 ,,,,, 9 ,,,,, 95 
ROGUE, UMPQUA ................................................ 12 of 12 ,,,,, 15 ,,,,, 98 
KLAMATH ........................................................... 14 of 18 ,,,,, 9 ,,,,, 101 
LAKE COUNTY, GOOSE LAKE .................................. 7 of 9 ,,,,, 29 ,,,,, 96 
HARNEY .............................................................. 9 of 9 ,,,,, 47 ,,,,, 92 

With most stations reporting.
The middle number is the percent of snow water equivalent.
Last numbers, basically normal, precip.

Get yer river running done early most places in Oregon.
==========

Other states summary

SNOTEL Narrative


----------



## BilloutWest

HooDoo snow cam on 2-20-2014


----------



## DesertRatonIce

That picture is unbelievable and really sad. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## BilloutWest

DesertRatonIce said:


> That picture is unbelievable and really sad.


It is.

For the people that work there especially.
Two bad years in a row now.

Its a lower in elevation resort with reasonable fees.
So its hurts budget skiers too.


----------



## Whetstone

We seem to be fairing a bit better in Idaho. Pack levels for most drainages (Owyhees are the big exception) are holding in the 80 - 90% range and temps are beginning to drop again. Forecasts for the next couple of months will, of course, be the real deciding factor. This article is very optimistic:
Deep mountain snow translates to favorable 2015 whitewater season | Exploring Idaho with Outfitters & Guides

Head in the clouds and cup half full.


----------



## BeaterBoater

3' of snow predicted for the san juans today and tomorrow and 2' in the yampa drainage in the last two days. Told you guys to chill out.


----------



## BilloutWest

Chill out would help.

Feb 22, 2015










The above web cam is from today looking down at 7100' elevation Crater Lake.

Crater Lake is one of the places where people actually live, (the Lodge), that gets close to the most snowfall IN THE WORLD.
Not this winter so far.

They're looking at 6 inches of snow over the next 10 days.
Major Dump.


----------



## heavyswimmer

Mt. Ashland Ski Area - Snow Report

Mt. Ashland isn't piled deep, but they're open. It's just where the jet stream is splitting. When Hoodoo was bought, they were told it could be closed 2 out of 10 years due to lack of snow. 

Everyone who works there knows this... quit worrying about them, they don't work there for the money. This season is likely to be their most profitable because they will actually work instead of going on ride breaks all day.


----------



## restrac2000

heavyswimmer said:


> Mt. Ashland Ski Area - Snow Report
> 
> Mt. Ashland isn't piled deep, but they're open. It's just where the jet stream is splitting. When Hoodoo was bought, they were told it could be closed 2 out of 10 years due to lack of snow.
> 
> Everyone who works there knows this... quit worrying about them, they don't work there for the money. This season is likely to be their most profitable because they will actually work instead of going on ride breaks all day.


That is one of those durable myths that I don't understand. Only about 1/4 of the people I know at ski resorts do it for fun. The rest of us are there to make money and a bad season can have a ripple effect for our budgets. My wife is the breadwinner and I am just supplemental income but the difference between a drought year and average-to-above-average year can be several thousand dollars for me because of: late openings, early closings and just poor business (people don't want to ski as much when its hiking and mountain biking weather). 

So I worry for them out of shared experience and empathy. 

And that is just on the personal level. Between payroll and tourist spending we are talking the net loss of tens of millions of dollars to the local economy.

The lower elevation resorts are going to continue to hurt the worse of everyone in the West though. I feel lucky that our small resort has a base elevation of 10,000 feet, it helps make up for BFE status in Utah.

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

Be of good cheer.

Some of the bottom pushers at the ski resorts work as wild land firefighters come summer. Or sooner some years.

Nothing better than milking the sugar teat. (US Gov)
Its not uncommon to have a billion dollar fire season. (FS, BLM, NP's combined)
Hey, its legal.
Get something in the weather working for you.


----------



## BilloutWest

*Special Weather Statement*
National Weather Service Watch Warning Advisory Summary
...HARD FREEZE MONDAY AND TUESDAY MORNINGS...




> DUE TO SEVERAL WEEKS OF UNUSUALLY WARM TEMPERATURES...MANY PLANTS
> IN SOUTHWEST OREGON VALLEYS ARE MUCH MORE DEVELOPED THAN NORMAL
> FOR THIS TIME OF YEAR. A COLD AIR MASS WILL SETTLE OVER THE AREA
> TONIGHT AND PERSIST INTO TUESDAY MORNING. THIS WILL COMBINE WITH
> CLEAR SKIES AND CALM VALLEY WINDS TO DROP OVERNIGHT LOWS WELL
> INTO THE 20S.


The SW corner of Oregon is getting faked out.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> *Special Weather Statement*
> National Weather Service Watch Warning Advisory Summary
> ...HARD FREEZE MONDAY AND TUESDAY MORNINGS...
> 
> The SW corner of Oregon is getting faked out.


We just got our first major snow system in 6-10 weeks and temperatures finally dropped to seasonal norms for the last 3 days. I don't know enough about botany but I don't imagine our shrubs and trees are going to do too well this season. Our cottonwoods starting budding the weekend of the SuperBowl. Songbirds have been seen moving north already, not most neotropicals but definitely a few species that shouldn't be seen until mid-April. I wouldn't have thought temperature alone would have affected their circannual rhythm that way but it seems to have been the case. 

Good news for me of a mild winter and average/wet spring is a boon of dusky grouse hunting in the autumn. 

Phillip


----------



## BeaterBoater

30" last night at wolf creek.


----------



## elkhaven

restrac2000 said:


> Between payroll and tourist spending we are talking the net loss of tens of millions of dollars to the local economy.
> Phillip


You haven't been to Hoodoo have you? 

I completely agree with your post in a regional sense but Hoodoo, is a flat, rain-soaked little mountain that hasn't brought 10's of millions of dollars to the local economy throughout it's entire existence. 

With that said, I love small ski areas and definitely feel for the employees, owners and the few locals that derive part of their living from the hill...but as has been said numerous times, Hoodoo being closed, is nothing new so hopefully no body put all their eggs in the low elevation ski area basket.

It does have great value for folks and I've had a lot of fun there, I mean the people watching is spectacular. I'd venture to guess more blue jean/garbage bag combo's have been pulled off there than any other ski area, per capita anyways...


----------



## restrac2000

elkhaven said:


> You haven't been to Hoodoo have you?
> 
> I completely agree with your post in a regional sense but Hoodoo, is a flat, rain-soaked little mountain that hasn't brought 10's of millions of dollars to the local economy throughout it's entire existence.
> 
> With that said, I love small ski areas and definitely feel for the employees, owners and the few locals that derive part of their living from the hill...but as has been said numerous times, Hoodoo being closed, is nothing new so hopefully no body put all their eggs in the low elevation ski area basket.
> 
> It does have great value for folks and I've had a lot of fun there, I mean the people watching is spectacular. I'd venture to guess more blue jean/garbage bag combo's have been pulled off there than any other ski area, per capita anyways...


I have not been to Hoodoo but it is larger than Brian Head, where I work, by 150+ skiable acres and services a much closer metropolitan region. A 2012 report about Oregon ski industry estimated about $480 million in total economic benefits that year from all of Oregon skiing. The same study found skiers ranked Hoodoo tied with Timberline consistently for 3rd and 4th place in most categories (popularity, etc). There is no doubt Hood and Bachelor reign supreme but you would be shocked how much economic benefit small resorts create on an average. 

And to be clear, I am talking total benefits not just small elements like ticket sales on site. There are a lot of services that are vital to but but not owned by said resorts. I think the average day skier is claimed to spend $45 for "off-mountain" items (i.e. not lift tickets, rentals, etc). Destination skiers that number is 3-4 times larger. And I think if you surveyed most small resorts you would be shocked to see how many are destination skiers. I know our resort is marketed as the family resort and most our customers live between Vegas and Southern California. You would be shocked how far people will travel for $50 lift tickets (same price as ours). 

So even if Hoodoo only pull in 10% of the state ski industry value (which is only about half to two thirds what its ranking would indicate) that would still mean an annual economic benefit of $48 million to the state. Maybe some of that is picked up and neutralized by gains at another resort but that seems doubtful from the statistics I have read. Especially considering the $25 price difference between it and Bachelor, as I know from many of our skiers that is a major budgetary range that makes trips inaccessible. 

That is why I have sympathy. They are inherently troubled by their lower elevation but not all resort employees have the financial flexibility for years like this. A lot of people get sold of building careers and lifestyles in outdoor recreation and climate like this can reek havoc on their lives. And entire communities. 

We all end up adapting and finding solutions but that isn't remotely the sustainable lifestyle many of us are seeking. I hope the owners and managers are being honest with new employees at Hoodoo. The climate predictions aren't friendly to lower elevation resorts and I would guess many are going to be closed within the next decade or two, if not sooner. Unless something changes....but I am not holding my breathe on that.

Phillip


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Arkansas River at 95%.


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## restrac2000

And to be clear its about the bigger picture of my fellow ski resort employees. 

4 of 9 resorts aren't open in Oregon
8 of 23 are closed in California
3 of 8 are closed in Washington
1 reduced to weekends only in Utah
several in Idaho appear to be reduced days or closed
colorado and wyoming seem to be doing fine

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

DesertRatonIce said:


> Arkansas River at 95%.
> 
> 
> Woke up this morning at 10:13.


Colorado hit the jackpot with this storm series. The entire state average went up by 4% and even SW part of the state saw numbers jump noticeably in 3 days. Dolores and Rio Grande basin/regions are still abysmally low but anything helps. 

Phillip


----------



## elkhaven

You take me way to seriously... I was simply poking fun at Hoodoo. If you'd have spent your young life skiing around Oregon, you'd know where I was coming from... 

I too rely on the ski industry to put bread on my table, my wife has been teaching skiing for 20 years, we met on the hill and I put in a dozen years in rental/retail/repair and lift construction in the summers before I moved on to the "real" world. So in a sense our situation is the reverse of yours, so I did a bit of research of my own. 

I'm assuming you found the 2010/2011 Ski Oregon Economic Impact analysis, given your listed total of 480 million in economic impact. In that they list Hoodoo with 85K skier visits out of just less than 2 million statewide; which equates to just over 4%. That equates to a surprisingly high 19 million of the total 480 million estimated in the analysis. But I'd also argue that Hoodoo does not draw a destination crowd, maybe a few but it's really a means of getting the Valley folk on the hill. Using Ski Oregon's numbers 85k people at $90 day equates to 7.65 million - way more than I would have guessed, but still only 1.5% of the state wide ski dollars. 

Regardless of the percentage; the impact to locals is real. The impact to the state with the one resort is minor but it's obviously not just affecting one. So at this point the ski industry in most of the PNW is hurting. The really bad news is many other industries are going to feel the pinch this summer if things don't turn around...

Best of luck to all you ski bums out there...


----------



## BilloutWest

*BTW*



elkhaven said:


> You take me way to seriously... I was simply poking fun at Hoodoo. If you'd have spent your young life skiing around Oregon, you'd know where I was coming from...


HooDoo isn't FLAT.
sniff

Its just a small hill.
Certainly steeper than that egotistical Bachelor Butte.


----------



## restrac2000

elkhaven said:


> You take me way to seriously... I was simply poking fun at Hoodoo. If you'd have spent your young life skiing around Oregon, you'd know where I was coming from...
> 
> I too rely on the ski industry to put bread on my table, my wife has been teaching skiing for 20 years, we met on the hill and I put in a dozen years in rental/retail/repair and lift construction in the summers before I moved on to the "real" world. So in a sense our situation is the reverse of yours, so I did a bit of research of my own.
> 
> I'm assuming you found the 2010/2011 Ski Oregon Economic Impact analysis, given your listed total of 480 million in economic impact. In that they list Hoodoo with 85K skier visits out of just less than 2 million statewide; which equates to just over 4%.
> 
> Regardless of the percentage; the impact to locals is real. The impact to the state with the one resort is minor but it's obviously not just affecting one. So at this point the ski industry in most of the PNW is hurting. The really bad news is many other industries are going to feel the pinch this summer if things don't turn around...
> 
> Best of luck to all you ski bums out there...


You found better numbers. I tried but must haver tabbed over actual skier visits. 

Hoodoo seems about the same as us in size, character and appeal. Small resorts definitely don't lack character and earn many joke. We must be doing something different marketing-wise as we are mostly a "destination" resort for Californians who are tired of crowded and expensive places like Big Bear and Mammoth. I am always amazed people are willing to travel 8-9 hours for 600 acres of skiing but we definitely provide a noticeably family friendly experience. 

Small resorts are vulnerable to so much more. I know we struggle with water rights for snowmaking, our equipment is often outdated and we own less reality which is the prime money maker for so many of the modern corporations. These bad snow years have lasting effects. 

Its only my third year instructing. My particular situation is made worse by health problems which have impacted the last 2 years of work. Unfortunately not too many other jobs and industries show the flexibility and understanding for my condition. The ski industry seems to attract a certain mold of misfits and outcasts. 

Another bright side of the situation will be better fly fishing in the spring. Its unlikely we are going have any sort of muddy peak on the local mountains so the trout should be active and hungry. Hopefully some tasty dinners in store for us.

Phillip


----------



## elkhaven

BilloutWest said:


> HooDoo isn't FLAT.
> sniff
> 
> Its just a small hill.
> Certainly steeper than that egotistical Bachelor Butte.


Your right, it's not flat, it is short! 

If I recall it does have one of the steepest slalom hills in Oregon. If you could cram 30 gates on it - I think it was like a 40 second course, but HARD to finish.

I love the little old areas. Hoodoo is very much like Showdown here. Fun place but not the basis for the local economy.

I sincerely hope you guys get some snow and get to have some sort of season!


----------



## elkhaven

Restrac,

I'm going to guess the biggest difference between Brianhead and Hoodoo is snow quality. People aren't going to travel 8 hours to ski "portland cement". Anyways, like I said above, the little resorts are always a blast and we try to hit everyone possible in our travels.

Happy snow accumulations!


----------



## BilloutWest

What HooDoo did offer was easy access for a day from Eugene.
Steep, Deep and Cheap was its slogan that worked back in the day.

It was at times a boarder on a budget paradise.


----------



## BilloutWest

The State of Oregon is trying to get Forest Fire Insurance.
They've had a policy for decades.

Lloyd's of London is hesitating.

At the end of the article I read they mentioned the low snowpack possibly adding to the difficulty of getting coverage this year. That's even with a $25 Million Dollar deductible.


----------



## restrac2000

elkhaven said:


> Restrac,
> 
> I'm going to guess the biggest difference between Brianhead and Hoodoo is snow quality. People aren't going to travel 8 hours to ski "portland cement". Anyways, like I said above, the little resorts are always a blast and we try to hit everyone possible in our travels.
> 
> Happy snow accumulations!


The irony is the last two years that is more of what our snow in SW Utah resembles, but that hasn't been the normal. Sierra cement was always hero snow in my book; makes most of look better than we really are. I also have fond memories of slalom skiing between 8-10 foot pinwheels at Sweitzer the day they closed in 2005(??) because of warm temps and low snow totals. 

"Average" years we resemble something between CO Rockies and Wasatach fluff. Somehow we are actually doing as well as some of those resorts in the Wasatch this year, in fact this last system that dumped on us a foot or so bypassed most of them.

I have mostly skied small resorts. I cut my teeth at A-Basin when I lived in the front range during high school and college. Was hard to beat a $99 season pass and the terrain was more than enough. We use to go "backcountry" at one of the abandoned resorts along the front range. We setup the old snow fences early season and refurbished a loft in one of the beater gear sheds for a sleep space and would ski weekends for free. Didn't really think about the legality of it at the time but no trespassing signs went up a few years later. Was rather oblivious and self-centered as 20 year old.

Skied Sundance for the first time this year and I can't think of a much better place to ski myself. And that was a day with rain on snow up to the last 200 feet of terrain, i.e. not remotely prime conditions. They are one of our "sister" resorts so we get a few free passes each year to them. All of them are small places across the west. I look forward to getting to know them over the years.

Its actually going to be odd to go up to PCMR and the Canyons mid-month for a PSIA clinic as I move torwards higher certification. Its been almost a decade since I skied a big resort. I can ski steeps but the trail map is just intimidating in scope. Just hoping they get some snow in the next few weeks.

Phillip


----------



## BlueTurf

When I lived in Vegas in the 90's I would often drive up to Cedar City and ski Brian Head. I guess that means I was a destination skier. 

Brian Head was a great place to learn to ski. I would say a guy named Frank at Angle Fire taught me how to ski but I became a skier in my time at Brian Head. I had a lot of fun there but holy cow can it get windy up there. 

I live in Idaho now and Brundage is my hill. They need snow as it was warm and thin in spots last time I was up but I still had a blast.


----------



## BilloutWest

FEB. 27 2014 
Alaska’s famous Iditarod race has precious little snow this year.

Wait, that was last year.

=============

2015



> The Iditarod has not been cancelled. The Iditarod ceremonial start is March 7 at 10 a.m. in Anchorage. *The Iditarod's restart location is Fairbanks*, Monday, March 9, 10 a.m.


Why did they move it north to Fairbanks?
That isn't where the serum was dispatched from to save the people of Nome.


----------



## jamesthomas

Well I just got done shoveling here in southwest colorado at about 7200 feet. In the past 36 hours we are close to two feet of fresh. Started snowing sunday at about 3 am and just stopped this afternoon. Still a bit to come if you check the radar feeds. That ought to put a dent in our water deficit.


----------



## DoStep

Epic powder day at monarch today. They reported 10" but it was way closer to 2 feet, not really the champagne we are accustomed to, but really F-in sweet nonetheless. It's been a decent but not great season until the last week or so, the storms we got were very wet for Feb. The recent storms after the Jan/Feb fake spring thaw may have salvaged our Arkansas summer boating season. Looks like some more on the way, Hallelujah! The persistent high pressure in the PNW is remarkable.


----------



## BilloutWest

DoStep said:


> Epic powder day at monarch today. They reported 10" but it was way closer to 2 feet, not really the champagne we are accustomed to, but really F-in sweet nonetheless. It's been a decent but not great season until the last week or so, the storms we got were very wet for Feb. The recent storms after the Jan/Feb fake spring thaw may have salvaged our Arkansas summer boating season. Looks like some more on the way, Hallelujah! The persistent high pressure in the PNW is remarkable.


Outstanding.

Enjoy.


----------



## cmharris

*Encouraging forecast*

Time to dust off the snow shovel. It looks like we might have two cold storms passing through the area. Fingers crossed.


----------



## BeaterBoater

another 2' predicted for the san juans... That would be over 4' in less than a week.


----------



## Wadeinthewater

*I live in a red state*

From NRCS - The Westwide SNOTEL Current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) % of Normal map shows the largest snowpack deficits (red areas) in the Cascades and Olympics of Washington, most of Oregon, the Sierra Nevada in California, as well as much of Nevada. The snowpack percent of normal in the mountains near Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington are in the single-digit range.


----------



## restrac2000

That is a lot of red and would be noticeably worse if Cali was on the same system. 

Our forecast finally looks like winter but at 45% we are likely to budge into any great territory. Will definitely be excited for every average cold day we have and every once of precipitation.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

Will be interesting to see the updated March 1 NRCS forecasts and reports.


----------



## Bigdrops

It's Dumping Snow in Colorado!!


----------



## BilloutWest

Dumping at Crater Lake too.










They got a couple maybe three inches.
Then two 20% chance of precip days in the next 9.

We suck eggs in Oregon.


----------



## heavyswimmer

4" inches on the Hoodoo gauge(just above manzanita lift) and Mt. A is getting some. Accuweather leads me to believe March has potential.


----------



## restrac2000

So amazing to see snow again!

We are definitely making up for lost ground in SW Utah though it would be an absolute miracle to go from 45% to normal. We haven't seen a weeklong forecast with just snow since last winter. 

The odd thing about this winter as a resort is we actually had enough water from the melt to make snow this late in the year but we rarely had the temperatures to justify it. 

Hope it keeps up.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

Whoa....what a turn aroun dfor SW Utah. We are sitting around 80% snowpack, a 35% change in like 10 days. We got roughly 5 feet of snow since last friday night. Never seen a storms series like this in the years I have lived in the region. Normally storms favor the northern part of the state even when they dump here but they have been missing the Wasatch all season. An odd year just got odder but it means a ton of new snow for us.

Will we get more to average out? Should be an interesting 6 weeks.

Phillip


----------



## tteton

Worst Jan on record with 25" total snowfall followed up by the second worst Feb on record with 35" of total snowfall in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The Wasatch is hurting.


----------



## Kmarsh26

You colorado guys still crying? haha you guys gave me so much shit 5 weeks ago when I posted about how optimistic I was how much fun this winter has been between my ski days and awesome winter paddling days. Also, Northern Colorado never got below about 80% SWE, so i don't know why many of you Colorado folks were so tearful to begin with. And now winter came back in full force putting our snowpack in pretty darn good shape across the state! Supposed to be dry for another week, then more snow!


----------



## duct tape

Kmarsh26 said:


> You colorado guys still crying? haha you guys gave me so much shit 5 weeks ago when I posted about how optimistic I was how much fun this winter has been between my ski days and awesome winter paddling days. Also, Northern Colorado never got below about 80% SWE, so i don't know why many of you Colorado folks were so tearful to begin with. And now winter came back in full force putting our snowpack in pretty darn good shape across the state! Supposed to be dry for another week, then more snow!


Chickens.....Eggs.....

It's a weird winter. I'm not counting anything until late April.


----------



## BilloutWest

*From NOAA Climate Prediction Center*









Temp predictions for Mar-Apr-May



---








Precipitation forecast for Mar-Apr-May



Climate Prediction Center - Seasonal Outlook


----------



## BilloutWest

Last night it was planning for a May trip down the Deschutes Warm Springs to Maupin.
The Owyhee is not looking good.

Oregon still hurting.


----------



## cmharris

*Same*

Looks like more of the same. This is not good for Oregon. Local media is finally starting to pick up on the crisis. I've seen several news reports lamenting the dismal snowpack the last few weeks.


----------



## Creetch

*The coverage is likley to increase next month.*



cmharris said:


> Looks like more of the same. This is not good for Oregon. Local media is finally starting to pick up on the crisis. I've seen several news reports lamenting the dismal snowpack the last few weeks.


I think that is because the March 1st measurements are the "It looks sucky" measurements whereas the April 1st is the "Holy crap this is not going to get better" measurement. Watching the snow/water situation in the Sierras for the past decade, there is always the dream of a Miracle March. It rarely comes, but we are always looking for it in the dry years. 

I remember the Weather Service saying after April, any storms are unlikely to add to the snow pack as the melt rate from the sun is greater than the storms are likely to drop.


----------



## cmharris

*Oregon*

Yes and last year was not good either. The media is starting to acknowledge the recurring problem and its possible long-term ramifications.

Concerning April snow, it makes sense that its contribution is not usually significant, given the temperatures during that time, but it should help delay runoff of the skinny snowpack we do have.


----------



## cmharris

*OPB on the snowpack*

Oh and check out OPB radio tomorrow morning at 9 am.


----------



## BilloutWest

Not to be positive.

But the precip is just below normal.

Here in Central Oregon we have soils that are very porous. That rain isn't running off all that much.
Many of our streams are actually spring fed more than snow melt supported.

Farmers and fire fighters not so placated by that.


----------



## wildh2onriver

restrac2000 said:


> Whoa....what a turn aroun dfor SW Utah. We are sitting around 80% snowpack, a 35% change in like 10 days. We got roughly 5 feet of snow since last friday night. Never seen a storms series like this in the years I have lived in the region. Normally storms favor the northern part of the state even when they dump here but they have been missing the Wasatch all season. An odd year just got odder but it means a ton of new snow for us.
> 
> Will we get more to average out? Should be an interesting 6 weeks.
> 
> Phillip



Phillip, I just rolled through your neck of the woods on my way to Moab. What a difference from six weeks ago! Definitely could tell an almost demarcation line between north of I-15/I-70 and to the south.


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## mooregoals

*Have Salt River Permit- no one to go with*

Give me a call if you are interested.

Eric 575-590-1432


----------



## mania

This just came out. The guys that say oh don't worry you just got a snowstorm are dead wrong.


----------



## BilloutWest

That is as of March 1st.
A week ago.
Since then SW Utah got a dump where that is no longer relevant.

We have the weather spotters report here on this thread.


----------



## restrac2000

wildh2onriver said:


> Phillip, I just rolled through your neck of the woods on my way to Moab. What a difference from six weeks ago! Definitely could tell an almost demarcation line between north of I-15/I-70 and to the south.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


Yep, wild change. I-70 does seem to be the magical line in Utah this year. Feeling for the Wasatch and all the people in that area....

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> Yep, wild change. I-70 does seem to be the magical line in Utah this year. Feeling for the Wasatch and all the people in that area....Phillip


I knew mountain ranges directed weather systems but hadn't considered freeways.

= = = = = = = = = = =

National Snow Analyses

National Snow Analyses - NOHRSC - The ultimate source for snow information


----------



## restrac2000

hehe, doubt its doing much just seems to be a generic location the weather patterns are moving this winter. If I remember right storms normally swing down from the north to hit us but this year they seem to be behaving more southerly from what I can tell hence the Wasatch being high and dry.


----------



## BilloutWest

> "This has been what I'm now calling the 'cruelest' winter I've ever seen," exclaims the CEO of one California ski resort... and he is right. According to official records, California's snowpack is the lowest on record for this time of year at around a mere 20% of the average since records began.



This could cover some extended effects *beyond* Ski Hill employees.



> Those numbers reflect what could be a larger contraction of Tahoe’s ski industry. Seasonal and part-time hiring has slid 27 percent over the last three years, according Patrick Tierney, a professor of recreation, parks, and tourism at San Francisco State University, and spending on ski-related services has decreased from $717 million a year to $428 million. An older analysis by the San Francisco Reserve Bank showed that the value of resort-area homes in places like Tahoe can depend heavily on climate; even a 2-degree (temperature) increase could *cut home values by more than 50 percent.*


----------



## BilloutWest

*America takes notice*

Screwing with farmers and river floaters is bad.

But gawd forbid, screwing with California home values.
This is going to get attention now.


----------



## lmyers

Kmarsh26 said:


> You colorado guys still crying? haha you guys gave me so much shit 5 weeks ago when I posted about how optimistic I was how much fun this winter has been between my ski days and awesome winter paddling days. Also, Northern Colorado never got below about 80% SWE, so i don't know why many of you Colorado folks were so tearful to begin with. And now winter came back in full force putting our snowpack in pretty darn good shape across the state! Supposed to be dry for another week, then more snow!


"7 day to 2 week+ forecast (since 1998) - 15 to 25 March, 2015 - COLORADO: All next week we may be under upper-level high pressure ridging with sunny skies and mild temperatures. Late next week or weekend we may see Pacific storm energy break through, but the ridge is looking strong and as upbeat as we try to be, it seems like winter wants to be over. More detail is coming. WESTERN US: Updates are coming, but for now, in short, high pressure ridging across the west does not want to depart."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're not out of the woods yet. If it stops snowing and warms up this season could still end up very similar to 2012...

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CO/Snow/snow/watershed/daily/basinplotark15.gif?


----------



## restrac2000

We are in a stronger position in SW Utah than when this thread started but the long term is still questionable from reports I am reading. We are losing about 4-5% a week due to the persistent warm conditions (day and night). That coupled with minimal forecasted snow could mean a return to bad conditions. 

Hard to know at this point. No one regionally ever expected that massive dump we got 1-2 weeks ago but I am not holding my breathe on another. Still sad to watch the northern regions of Utah where the population centers are located. 

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

HooDoo is still a bit rocky in spots even after our last dump.










========

Working on the manure/rotting leaves/kitchen compost mix for the garden in 70 degree + weather today.


----------



## nicho

lmyers said:


> "7 day to 2 week+ forecast (since 1998) - 15 to 25 March, 2015 - COLORADO: All next week we may be under upper-level high pressure ridging with sunny skies and mild temperatures. Late next week or weekend we may see Pacific storm energy break through, but the ridge is looking strong and as upbeat as we try to be, it seems like winter wants to be over. More detail is coming. WESTERN US: Updates are coming, but for now, in short, high pressure ridging across the west does not want to depart."
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> We're not out of the woods yet. If it stops snowing and warms up this season could still end up very similar to 2012...
> 
> ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CO/Snow/snow/watershed/daily/basinplotark15.gif?


This is a good report. What site is this from?


----------



## lmyers

nicho said:


> This is a good report. What site is this from?


Monarch Mountain


----------



## restrac2000

Wow, our region lost 2% snowpack today alone. This warm weather is still crazy. Thermometer in the shade at 11k on top of the hill was reading 48F at 2pm (same at snotel site). Way to warm for early March but definitely the persistent trend for the region. The benefit was the heavy, moisture laden storm we got a few weeks back; the negative is it continues to kill the collected snowpack.

Phillip


----------



## tmacc

Pretty bleak here at 7000'. High of 51* today. We've been here for 10 years and our neighbors who have been here much longer think this could be the worst (or close to it) snow pack in the last 15-20 years. Anything with southern exposure is gone with the exception of snow piles from clearing driveways and roads.


----------



## afraid

Hey Philip, we're planning a southern Utah packraft/bike/ski/etc. trip for April 20-May2. Looks like the Tusher Range snotel sites are sitting at about 70% of median swe, am I reading this correctly? Do you think that's enough snow for skiing Baldy around April 21? (I know it depends on future melting and snowfall) What about skiing the Tusher Mountains now?


----------



## restrac2000

afraid said:


> Hey Philip, we're planning a southern Utah packraft/bike/ski/etc. trip for April 20-May2. Looks like the Tusher Range snotel sites are sitting at about 70% of median swe, am I reading this correctly? Do you think that's enough snow for skiing Baldy around April 21? (I know it depends on future melting and snowfall) What about skiing the Tusher Mountains now?


Right now its sitting at closer to 65% and I am not sure how much that has been changing over the last week. Big Flat would be your most accurate gauge for the peaks but Merchant Valley is only a few miles away. Shockingly the Tushars aren't doing as well us to the south which is rare. The resort actually cut back hours there before the last storm series hit. I would imagine they are losing their snowpack as fast as we are, roughly 3-5% per day. 

I am not as familiar with the route to Baldy as I have only backcountry skied the Delano Peak area. I would wager that the south slopes are fairly rotten and comparatively bare from the extremely dry and warm months of Janurary and February. I would also guess the north facing slopes should be holding some decent pockets of snow through mid-April. Its gotten warm again so its hard to predict from my position so far south.

A general guess....if our region doesn't get much more snow than I would guess you will pushing the snow so late in April. Likely some sun cupping or very early in the day and thick corn with wet slide chances. Lots of bare ground between runs. 

A more accurate report could be found through contacting the guide who owns the Yurts up there. He is up there consistently and knows the area better than most folks. "Interesting" guy but that is common for someone devoting themselves to such a niche lifestyle. He is super knowledgeable just watch out for your beer stash.

Tushar Mountain Tours - Backcountry ski touring, yurt rental, and winter adventure guiding in Utah.

Hope that helps, wish I could offer more information and specificity.

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

> NASA Scientist Warns "*California Has One Year Of Water Left*"


California has about one year of water left. Will you ration now? - LA Times


















photo taken Oct. 30 2014, houseboats sit in the drought lowered waters of Oroville Lake.


----------



## BilloutWest

Not to Hi-Jack my own thread.

But what are the houseboat rules for peeing into a body of water that moves very slowly?


----------



## tmacc

Sorry to comment on what a spectacular day it was here in Summit Park. Blue skies, 53 degrees on the front deck. Invited some neighbors, Tom and Kathy over for beer margaritas. Hardly gets any better than this, except on the river. 

Tom is one of those anal types who measures the annual snow fall every year. Normal for us is 250-300'' per year. We've had in the upper 300'' some years. '10-11 I think. We've had a wopping 107'' this year so far. He did comment that one year we had 120'' between the first day of Spring and early June. He's doubtful that going to happen this year.


----------



## athelake

OLYMPIA – Snowpack conditions across Washington state mountains are near record low levels, prompting Gov. Jay Inslee to declare a drought emergency for three key regions.

Watersheds on the Olympic Peninsula, east side of the central Cascade Mountains including Yakima and Wenatchee, and Walla Walla region will be hit hardest with drought conditions.

Snowpack is a mere 7 percent of normal in the Olympic Mountains. It ranges from 8 to 45 percent of normal across the Cascades, and is 67 percent of normal in the Walla Walla region.

"We can't wait any longer, we have to prepare now for drought conditions that are in store for much of the state," said Inslee. "Snowpack is at record lows, and we have farms, vital agricultural regions, communities and fish that are going to need our support."

An unusually warm winter has caused much of the precipitation to fall as rain, leaving mountain snowpack a fraction of normal. And a healthy snowpack is what would slowly feed rivers across the state and sustains farms and fish through the drier summer months.

"We've been monitoring the snow conditions for months now, hoping for a late-season recovery," said Washington Department of Ecology Director Maia Bellon. "Now we're gearing up to help provide relief wherever we can when the time comes. Hardships are on the horizon, and we're going to be ready."

Short and long-range weather forecasts are not expected to bring relief, calling for warmer and drier weather.

With snowpack statewide averaging 27 percent of normal, 34 of the state's 62 watersheds are expected to receive less than 75 percent of their normal water supplies.

Ecology has requested $9 million in drought relief from the legislature. The money would pay for agricultural and fisheries projects, emergency water-right permits, changes to existing water rights, and grant water-right transfers.

For now, water suppliers in the Seattle, Tacoma and Everett areas are in decent shape and are not projecting much hardship.

To track snow and watershed totals, Ecology is posting daily updates to its drought website – Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department of Ecology, drought declaration, snow pack, drought forecast, and providing routine updates on Facebook and Twitter – search @ecologywa or #wadrought.


----------



## afraid

Philip, thanks for the Beta. Is there a webpage for "individual snotel stations SWE % of median" for Utah? Idaho and Montana have good ones, updated daily, but I can't seem to find one for Utah...


----------



## restrac2000

This is the best Utah wide generic site I have found:

Utah Snowpack Totals | KSL.com

You can scroll over each basin to see the individual snotel sites and it does list SWE of median.

Best of luck with the trip.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

athelake said:


> OLYMPIA – Snowpack conditions across Washington state mountains are near record low levels, prompting Gov. Jay Inslee to declare a drought emergency for three key regions.
> 
> Snowpack is a mere 7 percent of normal in the Olympic Mountains. It ranges from 8 to 45 percent of normal across the Cascades, and is 67 percent of normal in the Walla Walla region.
> .


7 percent, damn. That should make anyone scramble to declare a state of emergency. 

We are sliding fast back to dangerous drought levels in SW Utah, which is down now to 68% median. Just went out camping and the melt is happening fast below 8k. Lots of water right now from that last storm (beautiful, ephemeral springs and seeps where we camped) and early flowers but its not gonna last unless this warm trend abates. Was pleasant camping temperatures for middle March at 6500 feet though. Lemonade.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

Western Slope in Colorado starting to show the hurt from the western climate patterns:

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CO/Snow/snow/watershed/daily/co_update_snow.pdf


----------



## BeaterBoater




----------



## BilloutWest

Cry me a river.

Please.


----------



## cmharris

*March Water Outlook Reports*

For recreational users, the March Water Outlook Reports suggest a year similar to 2013 for the Salmon, Lochsa and Selway basins.

I am concerned about Oregon but don't need to read the reports. Dammed rivers = okay, wild rivers = dry.

The oldest (60 years) measuring site near Mt. Bachelor set a record for low snowpack, falling behind the bad drought year of 1977.


----------



## elkhaven

We're FUBAR'd. We have dirt patches in the middle of nearly every low elevation run. I'd be surprised if we make it to Easter at Big Sky. Snow's OK up high, but getting back to the base area might be like the olden days on the Palmer glacier... a loooongggg walk.

I hope we have a wet spring, otherwise it's going to get really smokey.


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Anybody have any beta on an outlook for April weather?


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> Cry me a river.
> 
> Please.


Seems accurate for our region.

Skied clinics at PCMR and Canyons last two days and I have never seen Mid-march conditions like this. Scary warm and dry. No snow on vast majority of mountain except where guns blew and compressed by groomers and even bony at elevation.
I am betting most of the wasatch won't make it to predicted closing dates.


----------



## BilloutWest

DesertRatonIce said:


> Anybody have any beta on an outlook for April weather?


Climate Prediction Center

then I selected this under the 1 month outlook:

Temp









Precip


----------



## BilloutWest

To remember the old Orygun I bought this book tonight.

_Field Guide to Oregon Rivers_

by Tim Palmer.

Look, I was at a book store and Mr Palmer was doing a nice slide presentation.

I miss what we were.


----------



## Wadeinthewater

BilloutWest said:


> _Field Guide to Oregon Rivers_
> by Tim Palmer.


I received a copy for Christmas. A very nice book indeed. Working 31 years as a fish biologist for ODFW allowed me to visit many of these special places. The beauty, solitude and variety of Oregon streams is stunning.


----------



## Creetch

They just announced out here in Reno that Lake Tahoe would not make it back above its natural rim this year, so no water in the Truckee from its main summer source. That is going to hurt the rafting companies here, especially the ones that do the recreational float from the lake.


----------



## lmyers

DesertRatonIce said:


> Anybody have any beta on an outlook for April weather?


Here's what I could find:

"So, how about the outlook for April? In short, I have no clue. That's too far away. Maybe we'll see a return for winter for a bit, or maybe we'll head full-on into spring. I'm hoping for the former as I could really use another one or two winter-like powder days."

~Opensnow

"Pacific storm energy increases in late March, with some stronger storms breaking through, but the high pressure ridge (mostly sunny/ dry at the resorts) is looking like it will not completely give way to a large scale pattern change, over to large scale low pressure (needed for the really big storms for the west US). Next Monday through Wednesday we may see a significant snow storm move in and affect Tahoe-Mammoth, Utah, and into Colorado. More detail is coming. As upbeat as we try to be, for the most part, it seems like winter wants to be over, not very exciting, with mostly weak storms making their way through the high pressure barrier (aside from maybe 1 or possibly 2 good ones in late March/ early April)."

~Snowforecast

"I think we'll definitely see some colder pacific systems over the next 3-5 weeks. Though the longer range climo models point to above average temperature and precipitation for the month of April - which has been consistent for the past couple months.

This points to an active southern stream (baja/southwest, cutoff low pressure), and the continued persistence of the western ridge keeping cold air to the north.

We'll see. Even though a model says above average temps for April, that could mean a period of very warm temperatures for, say a week. Followed by cooler temps the rest of the month. As a whole, the month is warmer, but it may not seem like it on a day by day basis."

~ Barlometer


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Thanks for the beta. It is totally crazy how the east coast and west coast have flip flopped in terms of weather. I'm out on the East Coast and there is lots of snow still on the ground and more coming. Rivers are swollen and a lot of flooding is happening. Ski Resorts are extending there closing dates. 
We all know that it is the exact opposite out West. A lot of ski resorts are closed or closing early. We all ready know that this doesn't bode well for our river season. I'm expecting to be tasting/smelling smoke in the air from fires that could be burning everywhere. 
Can anybody else remember such a polarizing winter between the two coasts?

Victor 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## BilloutWest

DesertRatonIce said:


> Can anybody else remember such a polarizing winter between the two coasts?


Close.

Not at this record level though.

The West Coast Hi pressure lock down is actually somewhat common.
This one is just on steroids. At least for length.

========

some history:
Regardless of the cause.
Looking at West Coast tree ring data local climatologists believe that the 20th century was unusually moist or perhaps better stated, drought free. We may be just returning to normal.










========

Your mileage may vary if you lived in the Great Plains in the 1930's.


----------



## elkhaven

That is an absolutely amazing and terrifying graph!

Where did you get it? I want to read the rest of the story.


----------



## Wadeinthewater

BilloutWest said:


> Too early.
> OK, relax.


When Bill first asked the question in January, I agreed with his assessment. Today is the vernal equinox and near the time of peak snowpack. The snow never came and the snowpack in the Cascades has actually decreased since January to single digits. We look in envy at those with 60% of median snowpack. At least my peas are looking good and I am on the Rogue next week.


----------



## jaffy

elkhaven said:


> That is an absolutely amazing and terrifying graph!
> 
> Where did you get it? I want to read the rest of the story.


The fact that they put climate change in quotes makes me think it's a really old chart or that the source is suspect. Although looking at it, it does look like the pink text has been added, so it's probably a legit chart from an article that had nothing to do with climate change, and some climate change denier cherry picked it to try and support their case.


----------



## elkhaven

jaffy said:


> The fact that they put climate change in quotes makes me think it's a really old chart or that the source is suspect. Although looking at it, it does look like the pink text has been added, so it's probably a legit chart from an article that had nothing to do with climate change, and some climate change denier cherry picked it to try and support their case.


How can you look at that and not at least question the magnitude of human induced climate change? That's why I'd like the source. With out a source and back story a graph can say pretty much whatever you want it to.


----------



## EZ

*The info you seek is out there for the finding*



elkhaven said:


> How can you look at that and not at least question the magnitude of human induced climate change? That's why I'd like the source. With out a source and back story a graph can say pretty much whatever you want it to.


If you want the source, a very few minutes of Googling returned this:

Source of the annotated drought plot:

Spot the portion of California drought caused by ‘climate change’ | Watts Up With That?

(This page also has a link to or lists the reference for the original Cook et al., 2007, Earth Science Reviews paper on which the un-annotated version of the plot was based. The un-annotated version of the plot seems to have been redrawn from Fig. 10 of Cook et al., 2007, and was redrawn and put into a San Francisco Bay Area newspaper, probably the San Fran Chronicle).

Here is some info about the website where the annotated plot version was originally posted:

Watts Up With That? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are right, a graph can be made to depict any story that the graph author (or annotator) wants to tell.


----------



## jaffy

elkhaven said:


> How can you look at that and not at least question the magnitude of human induced climate change? That's why I'd like the source. With out a source and back story a graph can say pretty much whatever you want it to.


The evidence for human induced climate change hasn't been in doubt for at least 10 years. Even if I don't look at the evidence myself (which to a large degree is somewhat pointless since I don't have the time or background to understand a lot of it), it's pretty easy for me to accept that climatologists aren't playing some huge, multi-decade practical joke on us all. If I went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told me I had cirrhosis and needed to stop drinking, I would listen to the 97 and not the 3 who told me to go out and keep partying.

This might help. It debunks some of the common arguments climate change deniers have put forth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjIyms1BX4


----------



## elkhaven

EZ said:


> If you want the source, a very few minutes of Googling returned this:
> 
> Source of the annotated drought plot:
> 
> Spot the portion of California drought caused by ‘climate change’ | Watts Up With That?
> 
> (This page also has a link to or lists the reference for the original Cook et al., 2007, Earth Science Reviews paper on which the un-annotated version of the plot was based. The un-annotated version of the plot seems to have been redrawn from Fig. 10 of Cook et al., 2007, and was redrawn and put into a San Francisco Bay Area newspaper, probably the San Fran Chronicle).
> 
> Here is some info about the website where the annotated plot version was originally posted:
> 
> Watts Up With That? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You are right, a graph can be made to depict any story that the graph author (or annotator) wants to tell.


I was just assuming billoutwest would send me a link to where he grabbed it. I don't have time at the moment to get into it but will in the near future and hopped for a simple link. But thanks for finding the info above! I'll look into it shortly.


----------



## shappattack

not saying I agree with all of what is in this video, but there is lot of climate change interesting stuff in this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ


----------



## BilloutWest

jaffy said:


> The fact that they put climate change in quotes makes me think it's a really old chart or that the source is suspect. Although looking at it, it does look like the pink text has been added, so it's probably a legit chart from an article that had nothing to do with climate change, and some climate change denier cherry picked it to try and support their case.


Note that I provided a caveat to the point that you make.



> some history:
> *Regardless of the cause*.
> Looking at West Coast tree ring data local climatologists believe that the 20th century was unusually moist or perhaps better stated, drought free. We may be just returning to normal.


----------



## BilloutWest

Interestingly.
Mankind is not exempt from criticism throughout the 1200 year time span in the above graph.
We have been modifying the planet for a long time.
Forests to farmland in particular.

Europe was one great very dense conifer forest.
This despite the fact that no one is crusading to restore it to a natural setting.


----------



## BilloutWest

Now to hunt for some tree ring west coast data web pages.

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say - San Jose Mercury News



> Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.


Hopefully this is the read Elkhaven is looking for.

Another Caveat that I've noticed was the overstating game is in good form. Comparing droughts to the dust bowl event of the 1930's+ is not consistent. Reader beware.

The graph above, BTW, is for the west coast and not meant to include the mid-west.


----------



## BilloutWest

elkhaven said:


> How can you look at that and not at least question the magnitude of human induced climate change? That's why I'd like the source. With out a source and back story a graph can say pretty much whatever you want it to.


One cannot question that we are in climate change and global warming.

This planet has essentially always been in climate change.

We have been in a period of global warming since the turning of the last Glaciation that was 20,000 years ago.
This warming will continue for another 8,000 years till we turn back toward another glaciation.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE HUMANS DO. 
GLOBAL WARMING WILL CONTINUE.

The first questions are we adding to it and if so how much.

Let the rumble begin.


----------



## BilloutWest

The drought history based on tree ring data isn't something that is being disputed.
The cause certainly can be.

Is the West's Dry Spell Really a Megadrought? | Climate Central



> The area of the West that was affected by severe drought in the Medieval period was much higher and much longer than the current drought, tree ring data show.
> 
> It is “indeed pretty scary,” Cook said. “One lasted 29 years. One lasted 28 years. They span the entire continental United States.”
> 
> Two megadroughts in the Sierra Nevada of California lasted between 100 and 200 years.


Sources are important and hope that one was satisfactory.

=========

additionally:



> California's Drought May Be Worst in a Millennium - Scientific American
> 
> Even when they accounted for errors associated with combining the different data sets, they saw that "what's really different is the record high temperatures," Griffin said.
> 
> "That kind of knocked my socks off, I wasn't expecting that result," he said.
> 
> The "hot drought" was worse because the heat drew more moisture from the soil into the atmosphere, according to Griffin. For every 1 degree Celsius increase in air temperature, the atmosphere's capacity to retain moisture increases by 7 percent, as defined by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.


So droughts are the norm and we've been lucky recently.
But as we are in a warmer period, apparently, this drought may end up being worse than normal.


----------



## mtrafter

Clarno to cottonwood next week anyone? ...I didnt get a chance to get on it last year because I had just moved to bend, looks like ill miss it again this year, I didnt realize what little bit of water there was here until the last few days


----------



## jaffy

BilloutWest said:


> Note that I provided a caveat to the point that you make.


I was not trying to call you out, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was simply trying to point out to the person who asked for your source that the source was unlikely to have reliable information.

I was also not trying to derail the thread into a discussion on climate change. If their annotation had been about how the moon landing was a hoax or evolution is a farce I would have had the same response.

If we want to talk about climate change, we should start a new thread. I do, however want to respond (again) to this misconception:



BilloutWest said:


> One cannot question that we are in climate change and global warming...The first questions are we adding to it and if so how much.


Neither of those are questions, and haven't been for a very long time. There has been a scientific consensus for at least 10 years that the Earth is getting warming and humans are causing it. I actually think it's been more like 15 or maybe even 20. In fact, I seem to remember a while back a researcher reviewed all the papers on climate change published in peer reviewed scientific journals all the way back to when the IPCC published their first report in the early 90's, and couldn't find a single one that DIDN'T conclude that the Earth was most likely warming and that human activity was the most likely cause.


----------



## mikepart

BilloutWest said:


> The first questions are we adding to it and if so how much.


And the answers are yes and too much.


----------



## BilloutWest

jaffy said:


> Neither of those are questions, and haven't been for a very long time. There has been a scientific consensus for at least 10 years that the Earth is getting warming and humans are causing it. I actually think it's been more like 15 or maybe even 20. In fact, I seem to remember a while back a researcher reviewed all the papers on climate change published in peer reviewed scientific journals all the way back to when the IPCC published their first report in the early 90's, and couldn't find a single one that DIDN'T conclude that the Earth was most likely warming and that human activity was the most likely cause.


I do not believe that to be correct.
Consensus is an overstatement, BTW.

It can also be said, in the same consensus vein, that there has been global warming for 20,000 years. Also, that we are constantly in climate change.

Its not that we have just natural global warming.
Its not that we have just human caused global warming.

I believe its a floor wax and a dessert topping.

Humans have a tendency to believe that what they have grown up with was what nature intended from this point forward. We dam rivers and build dikes to control what doesn't belong to a normal format. We cannot conceive of the vast changes the earth will sustain even without our influence. 

BTW.
I placed that caveat to discourage a diversion.
But we don't always have control over the world around us.
No matter. I started the thread and it no longer is static.


----------



## BilloutWest

mikepart said:


> And the answers are yes and too much.


If we were on the downward side headed toward another ice age it would be too little.

Global warming means more life.
Hassles for humans but more life on our orb.

One of the main reasons to fear global warming the most for humans is ocean level rise.
We build cities like New York, Miami and New Orleans in really dumb places and we're stuck with that foolishness. Even without manmade GW.

Do the Chinese know something we don't?

China is building all these cities inland that have just caretakers.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chi...B4v9oASajYCYAg&ved=0CCYQsAQ&biw=1831&bih=1038


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> Global warming means more life.
> Hassles for humans but more life on our orb.
> 
> One of the main reasons to fear global warming the most for humans is ocean level rise.
> We build cities like New York, Miami and New Orleans in really dumb places and we're stuck with that foolishness. Even without manmade GW.
> 
> [/url]


So we are fully diverted....

Say what on life? Increased biomass due to expanding to poles and altitude =yes. But also yes to decreased diversity in both life and habitat/ecosystems. Good for a few generalist, bad for most species.

A more accurate synopsis of human focused concerns: the human species has thrived and survived in relatively narrow environmental parameters through its history. Anthropogenic-induced GW is predicted to drastically limit regions within those parameters. This will effect humans biologically which historically increases tensions between distinct populations. Not likely to end well for humans at the global scale. 

the robust and sound science of anthropogenic global climate change is built on the dynamic climate history you mention. There is a scientific consensus on this, ie general agreement across interdisciplinary fields. Science is inherently open to revision with the proper support but that skepticism does not erode our best possible understanding right now. There are always critics and those seeking alternate hypotheses but the current situation is that most scientists and emperical studies support the conclusions of anthropogenic global climate change.

Phillip


----------



## DesertRatonIce

I'm in way over my head in this thread now. I'm just hoping all the rivers just don't dry up in the next few years. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## BilloutWest

*Milky Way spiral arms passages and Ice-Age epochs*



restrac2000 said:


> So we are fully diverted....
> 
> Say what on life? Increased biomass due to expanding to poles and altitude =yes. But also yes to decreased diversity in both life and habitat/ecosystems. Good for a few generalist, bad for most species.


Good for most species.
Bad for polar extremes.

More forests.
Less glaciers.

============

The Milky Way Galaxy's Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection | ScienceBits

On the Role of Cosmic Ray Flux variations as a Climate Driver: The Debate | ScienceBits


----------



## benpetri

For what its worth I took a look at the original journal article. The author does not deny climate change. In fact, he spends one entire section of his article exploring what greenhouse gas induced warming would mean for tropical pacific sea surface temperatures and western droughts. Naturally the climate denialist website neglected to mention that part...


----------



## tmacc

[QUOTE=BilloutWest

More forests.
Less glaciers.

A recent article I read(don't remember where) said basically, in the next 50-100 years the conifir forests in the SW will become just weedy, scrubby areas and the wet tropical forest will continue to grow, except they're all being cut down for chinese furniture and beef farming. The last part of that sentence is my add on. 

So, what ever you think/believe, it's not going to be pretty.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> Good for most species.
> Bad for polar extremes.
> 
> More forests.
> Less glaciers.


We definitely have a different understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic global warming.

More forests? More doesn't mean better and in all honesty means less biodiversity.

Most species? That is a first I have read that. GW is drastically changing more than glacial terrain and therefor altering the entire food web. I have yet to read an ecological peer-reviewed paper that highlights a gross benefit to "most" species. I have seen papers that highlight benefits to many generalist across the spectrum, from fish to birds to trees. But there is an important difference is quantifying a potential increase in biomass and saying most species will benefit. Anytime we alter ecosystems at the global level it has a noticeable affect on most species and history has shown that often to be negative (there is a reason our recent rate of extinction is so expansive and commonly called the "Anthropocene").

We may agree that a classic problem of human systems and thinking is to make their world static and our environment is noticeably dynamic but we definitely diverge in regards to our biological understanding of how GW influences life in general. 

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

I've been on glaciers and in forests and I stand by my analysis that the earth benefits from more life. Not that we should burn off ice flows but that we should understand that much of this is going to happen anyway and that its certainly better than the reverse.

The human caused extinction events probably start with hunters of the last several thousand years but most extinctions can be attributed to loss of habitat in the last millennia.

Again, I root for forests.
Not for saving waterfront property.


----------



## BilloutWest

tmacc said:


> More forests.
> Less glaciers.
> 
> A recent article I read(don't remember where) said basically, in the next 50-100 years the conifir forests in the SW will become just weedy, scrubby areas and the wet tropical forest will continue to grow, except they're all being cut down for chinese furniture and beef farming. The last part of that sentence is my add on.
> 
> So, what ever you think/believe, it's not going to be pretty.


Depends where you're at.
We used to have Redwoods all the way into Central BC. Before my time, of course.
Canadas forests could expand significantly. 6 ft high trees up north are funny.

Read more: 7 deserts that used to be verdant fields and forests | MNN - Mother Nature Network


----------



## BilloutWest

There is an armageddon mentality that pervades mankind.

Christians and Moslems aren't the only ones that think we've sinned and we're going to pay.

Ask the Nordic explorers/settlers what Vinland was like before things chilled out.
Don't give up on the earth and gaia.

Do throw a fit about pollution in water bodies and even in ones you don't float. The plastic in the pacific for instance. Do support biodegradable containers.

Don't but Chinese products for a ton of reasons.
Including your health.


----------



## restrac2000

I think you are conflating multiple different issues and over-simplifying global warming into the single issue of glaciers melting. Its much more complex than that. Its not a binary of more glaciers versus more forests. 

Its a vast altering of ecosystems at every level. Acidified oceans affect every organism on several levels (just think about shelled animals alone, there is a threshold at which their shells are no longer chemically stable). Terrestrial systems that warm up just a few degrees will be altered in significant ways. We lose alpine (non-glacial terrain) flora and fauna. We will lose freshwater aquatic species that are sensitive to temperature and therefor oxygen concentrations (trout and salmon are just two popular species at risk). Just a few examples we can relate to at adventurers.

On a basic ecological level many species will not be able to adapt in the short timeframe we are changing the environment in such radical ways. This is especially true for flora with relatively limited geographic distribution, immobility and long periods between generations (opposite for generalist bugs with rapid reproduction potential, yeah for cockroaches, flies and detritivores). One of the predictions (which have been proven to be rather conservative) is for an increase in the intensity and expansion of the season and therefor number of wildfires. While some wildfires can be beneficial to ecosystems those are often constrained to low intensity burns. Much of our wooded habitat now burns at extreme levels due to multiple human factors. We can already see tens of thousands of acres across the west that will never regrow in a human timeframe (and to be clear, that is the timeframe that matters to human conversations). And those "forests" that do survive will likely resemble what we in the changes to PJ forests across the west...the expansion in range and numbers of a few generalist species at the cost to biodiversity.

You bring up an interesting point on extinction rates that relate to global warming. It doesn't operate in a system isolated from other anthropogenic pressures. Instead existing issues of pollution, over harvesting, introduction of invasive species, large scale altering of habitat and ecosystems act in concert with anthropogenic global warming (which already has a recorded influence, i.e. not just a future concern). And its often beyond simple addition of forces and behaves more exponentially. Consider our history of exploited and now radically reduced riparian habitats across the west. Add years or decades of drought and we have the strong potential (are already existing loss) of the complete extinction of many species. Human population centers rely heavily on riparian zones (look at maps of the west). 

At a minimum level that means we lose vast reserves of utilitarian resources. Salmon fisheries are especially vulnerable. Ocean fisheries are another problem that the world human population relies upon. Even a few degrees of temperature change negatively affects cereal crop production across the world. If one of our few mono crops fails that could be devastating for the human species. 

And this becomes noticeably relevant when you raft. Our river systems are already severely altered and show signs of reduced biodiversity, human pressure and overall risks to sustainability. Add decades of worsening global climate change (for many western rivers that mean extended periods of drought and then epic flood) and our opportunities for recreational and utilitarian experiences on rivers are affected. Dammed rivers like the Dolores will see even fewer runnable years. Fires will become more common and intense on the Middle Fork and Main (already happening as I understand it). Epic scouring floods will continue to be more common like we saw in Colorado over the last few years. Just to name a few potential examples to bring it home.

Its not a doomsday scenario for many individuals but it is a strong potential for catastrophic influences on the global level for humans. For one of the first times in human history we have the knowledge of our influence, a sub-population with a sense of accountability for its likely causes (as mentioned before science is always up for alteration in conclusion with robust evidence), and the functional ability to affect the problem's trajectory. And in this case our self-interest aligns with protecting (in this case reducing our negative influences on) the ecosystems we rely upon. Thats not doomsday or armageddon style rhetoric and thinking. That is rational action for fostering a sustainable world for us and our fellow tenets.

The empirical evidence is there. More people are finally experiencing the influences first hand. Now its just time for influential countries like us to do something about it.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

And on a shorter note. There is a major gap between doing nothing and working hard towards creating a sustainable world for humans while also accepting the need for acclimatizing to those forces outside our control. I can support the conclusions of science regarding anthropogenic global warming, support concerted efforts for changing human behavior while also finding peace in accepting a dynamic world. Its not either/or.


----------



## BilloutWest

*There is an armageddon mentality that pervades mankind.*












> Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare.


Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

========

There is the possibility that we live on a world that is more commonly dominated by ice than forest. That we are currently enjoying a life maximum and that these periods are rare.


----------



## BilloutWest

> History demonstrates that warmer is healthier. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century. Archaeological evidence shows that people lived longer, enjoyed better nutrition, and multiplied more rapidly than during epochs of cold.
> That Ice Age ended about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago when the glaciers covering much of North America, Scandinavia and northern Asia began to retreat to approximately their current positions. In North America the glacial covering lasted longer than in Eurasia because of topographical features that delayed the warming. Throughout history warming and cooling in different regions of the world have not correlated exactly because of the influence of such factors as oceans, mountains, and prevailing winds.
> 
> As the earth warmed with the waning of the Ice Age, the sea level rose as much as 300 feet; hunters in Europe roamed through modern Norway; agriculture developed in the Middle East, the Far East and the Americas. By 7,000 years ago and lasting for about four millenniums, the earth was more clement than today, perhaps by 4deg. Fahrenheit, about the average of the various predictions for global warming from a doubling of CO2. Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C., it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became more common. During the four thousand warmest years, Europe enjoyed mild winters and warm summers with a storm belt far to the north. Rainfall may have been 10 to 15 percent greater than now. Not only was the country less subject to severe storms, but the skies were less cloudy and the days, sunnier.


Global Warming

We've had multiple periods since the last glaciation where the warming has been faster than anything current.


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> ..........And in this case our self-interest aligns with protecting (in this case reducing our negative influences on) the ecosystems we rely upon. Thats not doomsday or armageddon style rhetoric and thinking. That is rational action for fostering a sustainable world for us and our fellow tenets.
> The empirical evidence is there. More people are finally experiencing the influences first hand. Now its just time for influential countries like us to do something about it.
> Phillip


In the face of the vast overpopulation of the planet I do not believe there is much we can do about many of these pollution issues.

Additionally, part of this concern is our rapidly accelerating loss of power.
In just the last few weeks monetary exchanges/banking networks have been set up by Russia and China that are the first real steps to the transition. 
With the loss of exclusive reserve currency status we will without debate lose military dominance.
We've burned many bridges the way we have dominated. One should note the abundance of former friends distancing themselves from the US.

======

On that positive note what do you think China will do for the environment?


----------



## BilloutWest

> Scientists from the University of Toronto have discovered a new greenhouse gas that might have the highest global warming impact of any compound to date.
> 
> The chemical, known as perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA), was found to be 7,100 times more powerful at warming the Earth over 100 years than carbon dioxide. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, describes how the compound’s *long lifespan* could affect global warming.
> 
> “PFTBA is extremely long-lived in the atmosphere and it has a very high radiative efficiency. The result of this is a very high global warming potential. Calculated over a 100-year timeframe, a single molecule of PFTBA has the equivalent climate impact as 7,100 molecules of CO2,”


There are things we can still do to limit humans negative effects.
Moving away from production of this chemical would certainly be worth the effort.
As mentioned earlier biodegradable plastics.

======

We actually enjoy a selfish little Nirvana.
The Western US is low pollution, clean air and water, when compared with other comparable temperate climates world wide.
The Pacific is the largest air filter ever built.


----------



## restrac2000

I think I am utterly confused by your comments. By moving onto policy does that mean you actually understand the robust evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming? In the past few pages you have bounced from stating there isn't consensus and that its doubtful its human caused to highlighting a new discovery that supports the hypothesis most scientist are working from. 

I am not sure of your background but its hard to move on so rapidly when you make statements that fly in the face of biological science as I know it. I verified with various researchers I know and the idea that "most species" will benefit from global warming is patently false from all of their knowledge. That issue is why I initially commented as it important to me as an outdoorsman, rafter and a former student trained in wildlife biology. From the last few links I think it might be a difference of scale and time, in which case, I should be clear that I am talking about the time and place humans are currently situated. I am not talking about one of the last glacial epochs in which they extended far more south than now.

Its hard to have a meaningful conversation when it bounces around so much. So I will be very precise: I am talking about global warming caused by humans roughly since the industrial revolution and its impacts on ecosystems and species since than. The hypotheses and science surrounding that issue rests on much of the knowledge you have presented regarding geological scaled glacial movements, species expansion (in # and range) and the like. Much beyond that generic discussion likely belongs in the eddy and is beyond the scope of a rafting forum.

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> I think I am utterly confused by your comments. By moving onto policy does that mean you actually understand the robust evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming? In the past few pages you have bounced from stating there isn't consensus and that its doubtful its human caused to highlighting a new discovery that supports the hypothesis most scientist are working from.
> 
> I am not sure of your background but its hard to move on so rapidly when you make statements that fly in the face of biological science as I know it. I verified with various researchers I know and the idea that "most species" will benefit from global warming is patently false from all of their knowledge. That issue is why I initially commented as it important to me as an outdoorsman, rafter and a former student trained in wildlife biology. From the last few links I think it might be a difference of scale and time, in which case, I should be clear that I am talking about the time and place humans are currently situated. I am not talking about one of the last glacial epochs in which they extended far more south than now.
> 
> Its hard to have a meaningful conversation when it bounces around so much. So I will be very precise: I am talking about global warming caused by humans roughly since the industrial revolution and its impacts on ecosystems and species since than. The hypotheses and science surrounding that issue rests on much of the knowledge you have presented regarding geological scaled glacial movements, species expansion (in # and range) and the like. Much beyond that generic discussion likely belongs in the eddy and is beyond the scope of a rafting forum.
> 
> Phillip


You need to pontificate less and provide more links.
If that consensus exists this shouldn't be hard.
I believe you to be inaccurate in your above summation.

Its a floor wax and a dessert topping.


----------



## BilloutWest

We went to the moon when we did because of global warming.
Roughly.

When viewed from a distance we can see how the little ice age in this last millennia sponsored the Dark Ages of Europe. This is verified by other climate periods and their is influence on humans.

It could be argued that the burnings of libraries at Alexander delayed our advancement. Understood. However, humans were not going to have a Kitty Hawk to Tranquility Bay period during the Younger Dryas. 

A warming climate has been on-going and its been a good thing.
Overall.


----------



## restrac2000

Peer reviewed journal links, not websites:

http://pelicancoastconservancy.org/Global%20Warming%20Articles/Malcolm%20et%20al.%202005.pdf



> estimated global-warming-induced rates of species extinctions in tropical hotspots in some cases exceeded those due to deforestation, supporting suggestions that global warming is one of the most serious threats to the planet’s biodiversity.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html



> Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’.


Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming : Abstract : Nature



> With climate change promoting infectious disease and eroding biodiversity, the urgency of reducing greenhouse-gas concentrations is now undeniable.


Expert Opinion on Climate Change and Threats to Biodiversity



> Similarly, the biological risks of climate change to species estimated by our respondents were also low relative to published values


The last one is interesting to my comments as I tapped into specialist whose research focus was the affects of global warming on biodiversity. According to the above linked article its fair to assume their general comments, i.e. "most species" will not benefit from global warming, is an understatement compared to the actual conclusions of empirical research. This is not uncommon and actually flies in the face of your theory of an "armageddon" mentality. If anything we tend to buffer the potential devastation as biologist.

I would also point out that general rule of science is that those making claims contrary to existing consensus are the ones faced with the burden of proof. So, since I have shown just a small example of how biologist see the effects of global warming I would expect you to be able to support your statements that "most species" benefit from global warming. And to clarify, that doesn't mean highlighting a handful of individual species that will thrive (which is well understood in scientific fields, hence my generalist statements) but instead show how "most species" will demonstrate a net benefit (general ecology talks in terms of +/- or neutral terms) from the rapid increase in temperature known as global warming. Also to be clear, just because "only" (intentional minimizing the importance of the gargantuan nature of this number in a facetious manner) 35% of species will go extinct does not mean the other 65% benefit. 

I really like the last article as it highlights the problem in the United States....we should be able to expect lay people and policy makers to rely upon the consensus of experts but instead we often see the opposite, i.e. a reliance on the oblique skepticism of a handful of professionals (some in the relevant scientific field) who disagree. This is a problem as the vast majority of scientists and empirical evidence shows robust support for anthropogenic global warming and overall harm to biodiversity. This has been the case for at least a decade if not two. And ironically many of them are minimizing the likely effects in their communication but are being labeled extremist in the press.

Phillip


----------



## mikepart

Dam near every scientific organization on the planet that is not directly funded by the fossil fuel industry agrees that climate change is real and caused by man.

If you don’t believe me, see what NASA says:
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

Also, just about all of the intelligent people on the planet agree that it will cause a major decrease in biodiversity. I provide a quotation from a highly cited synthesis of available peer reviwed literature (Bellard et al., 2012. Impacts of climate change on global biodiversity. Ecology Letters 15: 365-377.):

“*The majority of models indicate alarming consequences for biodiversity, with the worst case scenarios leading to extinction rates that would qualify as the sixth mass extinction in the history of the earth.*” 

Here is a link to the article:
Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity - Bellard - 2012 - Ecology Letters - Wiley Online Library
If you want to read more:
Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss | The Center for Health and the Global Environment

But, why am I bothering here? If you have managed to deny science for this long, why would you start believing it now?


----------



## BilloutWest

mikepart said:


> Dam near every scientific organization on the planet that is not directly funded by the fossil fuel industry agrees that climate change is real and caused by man.
> 
> ...........
> But, why am I bothering here? If you have managed to deny science for this long, why would you start believing it now?



You are in denial.
Your first sentence should read:
"Damn near every scientific organization on the planet that is not directly funded by the fossil fuel industry agrees that climate change is real and caused by both the sun, our relationship to the sun and man."

List those that state that there is no global warming or climate change sponsored by the sun and that it is just by the actions of man.

I agree that climate change is real.
I'm of the 60/40 inclination for global warming, so to speak.


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> .........
> I would also point out that general rule of science is that those making claims contrary to existing consensus are the ones faced with the burden of proof. So, since I have shown just a small example of how biologist see the effects of global warming I would expect you to be able to support your statements that "most species" benefit from global warming. ........
> Phillip


I'll be reading for a bit but I would like to point out that your first two links provided estimates.
I provided measured changes from the past.
What has actually occurred during the global warming and climate change we have experienced since the last glacial maximum. At first glance it does not appear that you have linked information showing that the earth has not had substantially more favorable habitat produced by the warming of the last 18-20,000 years.

I'll be reading for a bit.
Exceptions being the range of estimates.


----------



## BilloutWest

From the co-founder of Greenpeace.



> Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.]


Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic | Heartlander Magazine



> I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
> 
> My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
> 
> In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
> 
> The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
> 
> .........


It just caught me that it seems worthy of pointing out models are not definitive science.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> I'll be reading for a bit but I would like to point out that your first two links provided estimates.
> I provided measured changes from the past.
> What has actually occurred during the global warming and climate change we have experienced since the last glacial maximum.
> 
> I'll be reading for a bit.
> Exceptions being the range of estimates.


Are you intentionally playing devil's advocate? Do you not recognize the entire science of climate change rests on and includes historical changes at the global level and geological scales? Is not either/or and hasn't been for decades. 

And to clarify, I have not seen any peer-reviewed "measured [historical] changes" in your posts that support the conclusion that global warming equals "more life" and is better for "most species". You have provided blog posts that show a range of influences on global warming, historically and currently. We don't disagree there and neither do most scientists (in the general premise, working out the nuances is very much ongoing). Also to be clear, projections and estimates are VALID science when done in empirical fashions; we use them all of the time in biology to understand oscillations in populations, predator/prey relationships, etc. And ironically many of the ones dealing with climate change have been shown to be conservative, not extreme. Such estimates give us a platform to observe and better understand the future as it becomes the present.

Its hard to tell if you are intentionally obfuscating the subject or accidentally. By that I mean you continuously mess with scale, especially in time; you continuously change the requirements of the discussion; you continuously change the direction; etc. My interest is very simple....how do you stand by your idea that conflicts with decades of biological science and the consensus of experts? The timeframe is roughly from the time of the Industrial Revolution to now and onwards (as far as models go). Multiple peer-reviewed links have been provided by those advocating this consensus, none on your side. I agree comparing that to historical rates of extinction and changes to biodiversity in past geological epochs is important, hence why many scientists are calling the current die-off the "Anthropocene". Ironically, even those numbers are estimates as those past epochs weren't directly observed by humans.

Here is a paper that deals with current rates of extinctions (which will always be "estimates") compared to historical rates, known as "background rates":

Article



> If current estimates of amphibian species in imminent danger of extinction are included in these calculations, then *the current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians*. _It is difficult to explain this unprecedented and accelerating rate of extinction as a natural phenomenon._


So....support your conclusion regarding the benefits to "most species" (i.e. biodiversity) or at least show some vulnerability to the weight of the scientific literature that has come to opposite conclusions. That is how science fundamentally functions. We are expected to change our operating worldview when presented with robust, multi-disciplinary evidence. Many of us have done so over the last few decades as "global warming" is not something many of us were in the camp of during the nineties, as civilians. Most of us had to be taught and become vulnerable to the implications of that material. 

Phillip


----------



## tmacc

Phillip, very well written.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> From the co-founder of Greenpeace.
> 
> It just caught me that it seems worthy of pointing out models are not definitive science.


Skepticism is healthy in science. Its vital to its survival and conclusions. Its built into its basic empirical structure, especially those studies which use mathematical analysis as it begins with the assumption that the observations have "failed to support" the hypothesis. One former voice of Greenpeace alone does not carry enough evidence (none in fact) to overturn the scientific consensus. He had a PhD but show many any empirical research he has done in the last three decades. What I see is a paid lobbyist for special interest not an expert doing empirical studies in the relevant fields. He also loves false dichotomies and straw men which should be a red flag for most people:



> The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions *[strawman]*. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide*[false dichotomy]*


For the last statement....science is never fully "definitive" and is always ready for revision and even massive paradigm changes. But the burden of that reality rests on skeptics finding robust and multi-disciplinary evidence not the other way around. Just saying its wrong isn't science. The skepticism exhibited above regarding models fails to fully understand that scientists themselves recognize the limitations inherent to models. Ironically, the numbers modeled in the 90s regarding climate change were limited but not in favor of skeptics. They were conservative (by design as they are often averages of multiple models and approaches) compared to real-time observations over the past two decades.

Science never fully "proves" anything but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be charged with making decisions from the best possible science in the moment. Anti-science voices continue to exploit this fact as some sort of achilles heel when in fact its the very reason science is such a powerful tool to use for human societies. Unfortunately right now its playing into the wrong hands as Americans fail to fundamentally understand science and many choose to be anti-science. I don't think you fall into either of those categories myself but your comments definitely play into the rhetoric those crowds use. No matter the case, biological science does not support your statement regarding the benefits of global warming; with current knowledge and research you ideas are untenable. 

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

The Heartland Institute doesn't really count as an appropriate source to use for a scientific conversation. It would be the equivalent of using a GreenPeace blog that has no citations. Both are political organizations, in the case of Heartland its one with an emphasis of consultation and special interest.

Green Peace denies he co-founded their organization and has the paperwork to support that statement. Why trust someone who intentionally misleads people with a falsified resume?

Patrick Moore


Who Is Patrick Moore? A Look At The Former Greenpeace Member's Industry Ties And Climate Denial | Research | Media Matters for America

He is not an expert in the classical scientific understanding of that term.

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> Patrick Moore
> [/URL]
> 
> Who Is Patrick Moore? A Look At The Former Greenpeace Member's Industry Ties And Climate Denial | Research | Media Matters for America
> 
> He is not an expert in the classical scientific understanding of that term.
> 
> Phillip


From your link.
I stand corrected.
He did not found Greenpeace.
He was just there early on playing a significant role.



> Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year.


I would take to heart his criticism and that of others that math models are not to be trusted in climate prediction. An emerging science. We know that looking at weather forecasts and the fabulous models we have today. They can disagree and be wrong commonly just a week out. Even shorter times particularly with storm tracks or thunderstorm prediction.

When a model is produced that can be confirmed by its predicting the Younger Dryas or the Little Ice Age and the conditions we have today. Then it'll be time to pay attention.


----------



## BilloutWest

Being critical of science is important.

Take the scientist Al Gore, who also advanced the internet. He is now approaching the personal wealth of Mitt Romney.

Al has arguably done the most to advance Global warming as a world wide issue.

I'll put Mr Moore up against Al.

Back to actual issues.

Does anyone know of any climatic models that have been verified by insertion into past climatic warming times?


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> Being critical of science is important.
> 
> Take the scientist Al Gore, who also advanced the internet. He is now approaching the personal wealth of Mitt Romney.
> 
> Al has arguably done the most to advance Global warming as a world wide issue.
> 
> I'll put Mr Moore up against Al.
> 
> Back to actual issues.
> 
> Does anyone know of any climatic models that have been verified by insertion into past climatic warming times?


I ignore both and seek out the work of real scientist. We agree on Gore who I have always found irksome and problematic. Can you say the same of organizations like Heartland Institute? I think its fair to assume we should have more skepticism for special interest groups than those actively working on empirical studies. There is no doubt that environmental groups have imprecisely or even maliciously applied the conclusions of empirical science.

I will highlight you have once again moved the target of the discussion and not followed through on your own expectation of providing support for your claims.

Phillip


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> Are you intentionally playing devil's advocate? Do you not recognize the entire science of climate change rests on and includes historical changes at the global level and geological scales? Is not either/or and hasn't been for decades.
> ......
> Phillip


Not in this thread.



> Dam near every scientific organization on the planet that is not directly funded by the fossil fuel industry agrees that climate change is real and caused by man.


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> I ignore both and seek out the work of real scientist. We agree on Gore who I have always found irksome and problematic. Can you say the same of organizations like Heartland Institute? I think its fair to assume we should have more skepticism for special interest groups than those actively working on empirical studies. There is no doubt that environmental groups have imprecisely or even maliciously applied the conclusions of empirical science.
> 
> I will highlight you have once again moved the target of the discussion and not followed through on your own expectation of providing support for your claims.
> 
> Phillip


Mr Moore does bring up the problematic nature of funding for science.

Patrick Moore's background was a PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. in Forest Biology. So he doesn't have a degree in climatology. 

I would highlight that you attacked Mr Moore and have not yet responded to his criticism of math models predicting climatic changes.
You cited math models. I believe the criticism stands.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> Mr Moore does bring up the problematic nature of funding for science.
> 
> Patrick Moore's background was a PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. in Forest Biology. So he doesn't have a degree in climatology.
> 
> I would highlight that you attacked Mr Moore and have not yet responded to his criticism of math models predicting climatic changes.
> You cited math models. I believe the criticism stands.


It doesn't as math models are an accepted form of science and have been for decades. Your style of rhetoric in the last part of the thread is the problematic part. You can't expect others to constantly stand up to criticism and keep moving the target and still expect them to engage. I am done playing this style of internet debate until you go back to your original assertion and support it with peer-reviewed, empirical research. The blog posts do not count, especially those of lobbyist whose claims have been proven falsified (hence the criticism and there is a difference between ad hominem style attacks and fact checking his falsified claims). Doing otherwise displays a lack of interest in functional discussion regarding the subject matter in favor of monologue. I have met your demands multiple times so I would expect you to do the same.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> Not in this thread.


I read his comment with more leniency and in the context of climate science as a I understand it, i.e. "caused by man" is an oversimplified form of "anthropogenic climate change" that does rest on the interdisciplinary knowledge I have described. I will once again emphasize....its about the consensus of scientific experts not the gross generalizations of forums users/bloggers/lobbyist. 

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

Moving the Goalpost Fallacy

Anthropogenic Climate Change Denial Use of.....


----------



## Junk Show Tours

Can we please get back to talking about the snow pack? Start a different thread if you want to talk about climate change.


----------



## BilloutWest

restrac2000 said:


> It doesn't as math models are an accepted form of science and have been for decades. Your style of rhetoric in the last part of the thread is the problematic part. You can't expect others to constantly stand up to criticism and keep moving the target and still expect them to engage. I am done playing this style of internet debate until you go back to your original assertion and support it with peer-reviewed, empirical research. The blog posts do not count, especially those of lobbyist whose claims have been proven falsified (hence the criticism and there is a difference between ad hominem style attacks and fact checking his falsified claims). Doing otherwise displays a lack of interest in functional discussion regarding the subject matter in favor of monologue. I have met your demands multiple times so I would expect you to do the same.
> 
> Phillip


Well lets get snotty.

Math Models that have not been confirmed by past verification should in no way be considered proof. Of further consideration here is the moving of their goalposts as the sea drops more or less depending on which model is cited. Temperature increases are exorbitant or slight.
Which model is right? Last years or the one two years ago? By which group in each year?

Since no one has shown that our climate change warming is primarily driven by man and that primarily by CO2 we can relax.

We await proof.

=========

While I have only visited Central American Rain forests I have worked in Temperature Rain forests and Subtropical Forests. Sorry that I cannot prove that forests contain more and more diverse life than the arid steppe I am familiar with. But I do believe that to be obvious.


----------



## restrac2000

BilloutWest said:


> Sorry that I cannot prove that forests contain more and more diverse life than the arid steppe I am familiar with. But I do believe that to be obvious.


If it was so obvious there would be empirical, peer-reviewed articles to support your statement. Still waiting for you to satisfy you own requirements for evidence versus "pontification". A good faith discussion relies on that equitable playing field. Not doing so exposes a entrenched denialism instead of a tenable scientific standpoint.

Phillip


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Is the snowpack still dwindling?


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## restrac2000

Paddle Iraq said:


> Can we please get back to talking about the snow pack? Start a different thread if you want to talk about climate change.


I personally wouldn't mind it being moved to the Eddy but I think its fair to highlight that the OP is one of the few people engaging in the climate science conversation. Maybe just move the last few pages? None, keep it going? Not sure how moderators/site administrators handle such threads when OPs are part of the diversion.

I for one am shocked it took that long for the subject to move in the direction of climate change. Scientifically its inherently related to the years of oscillating precipitation and temperature patterns we are seeing across the US. Can totally understand why others may not enjoy that direction though.

Phillip


----------



## elkhaven

still dropping up here!!


as far as climate change discussions - I have about as much use for them as I do similar discussions on religion, debating the merits of premarital sex with my girl friends dad and pouring my beer out on warm rocks to see if it fizzes.


----------



## restrac2000

DesertRatonIce said:


> Is the snowpack still dwindling?
> 
> Woke up this morning at 10:13.


Worse by the day in Utah and warm, dry patterns seem to be forecasted for the next week or so:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=149&sid=134181\

Colorado continues to get worse as well, dropping to 81% statewide. Noticeable difference between Front Range and Western Slope though.

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CO/Snow/snow/watershed/daily/co_update_snow.pdf

Snowpack in Idaho is dwindling but I am not as familiar with average date they see a maximum as a state:

Basin Snow Water Content Map (SNOTEL)

Wyoming seems to be doing well. 

California, Oregon and Washington all still desperate.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

elkhaven said:


> still dropping up here!!
> 
> 
> as far as climate change discussions - I have about as much use for them as I do similar discussions on religion, debating the merits of premarital sex with my girl friends dad and pouring my beer out on warm rocks to see if it fizzes.


Indeed. I oscillate between not engaging and trying different tactics. I admire how my professional friends handle it in educational environments but they have months to interact with students and get to know their influences personally.

From a science standpoint I will fully admit I become more engaged when a statement is made and is empirically untenable, at least in my field of study of biology. I don't have the literacy and/or interest in the broader climate sciences to debate the nuances needed for a meaningful conversation. 

Obviously my strategy this time failed if the goal was to change any users' perspective on biology and the scientific communities consensus on the negative affects to biodiversity. At a minimum though I find it important to call out the fallacies and strategies that are detrimental to meaningful scientific discourse. There is too much research that demonstrates the problems associated with the spread of misinformation for me not call out comments that are not done in good faith. It may not be the intent of others to spread misinformation but the affect is the same. 

So it goes. For the last two days I got some quality time in exploring the peer-reviewed science that has happened since I worked in the field and was exposed to during my studies. Thats always beneficial.

Phillip


----------



## wildh2onriver

Right now I've stuffed huge sections of my sleeping bag into my ears, pinned my eyelids into my eyeballs with toothpicks. I can't see shit, and can barely hear. 

The earth was created in six days. Global warming reinforces my need for you fuckers to squeal as I make my ascension in the rupture. We are so much better than you scientologists. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Osseous

I'll just leave this here....

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html?m=1

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## lmyers

Paddle Iraq said:


> Can we please get back to talking about the snow pack? Start a different thread if you want to talk about climate change.


Indeed. This thread turned to shit. Belongs in the Eddy at this point...


----------



## mikepart

For those interested in the snowpack, it sucks this year. Maybe it is due to anthropogenic climate change, or maybe not. You can find a detailed monthly discussion from NOAA ( i.e. www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/wsup/pub2/discussion/current.pdf ), but of course, it is based on models, and those models are wrong. It is also possible that the current predictions about runoff are all just part of a vast conspiracy of scientists who don't want us to have fun on the river this year, so you should probably just ignore it and head down to the Salt for an epic rafting trip this spring.

For those interested in climate change: this is all so very stupid. Anyone who wants to believe that anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy can find all of the links that they want from sheisty websites and post them here. Posting links to well respected scientific organizations and media sites is not likley to change their minds. After all, we all have the ability to use google. I believe that this all comes down to a problem our society has with science communication.

So, to clear a few things up:

Science does not dwell in terms of absolute truth, truth is the realm of philosophers and mathmatitions. However, good science can be highly predictive.

Models, whether mathematical, physical, or conceptual, by definition are incorrect. However, a well constructed model can be highly predictive.

A very high degree of certainty should not be necessary for people to change their behavior when danger is possible. For instance, if you belive that there is a 20% chance that your car will explode into a fireball if you drive it to work today, that should be enough to convince you to take an alternative method of getting to work, even if it is less convenient than your car.

When it comes to anthropogenic climate change, one side has a clear motivation to manipulate the issue, the other does not.


----------



## snowjunkie

In other news I cancelled my permit for the salt for this friday. Some one should go


----------



## duct tape

lmyers said:


> Indeed. This thread turned to shit. Belongs in the Eddy at this point...


+1 agree


----------



## DesertRatonIce

I think the Arkansas is on a teetering point right now.


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## lmyers

DesertRatonIce said:


> I think the Arkansas is on a teetering point right now.
> 
> 
> Woke up this morning at 10:13.


I agree, but it sounds like some moisture and cooler temps are on the way. We don't need much more snow to have a very good season, we just need it to wait another 45 days to start melting...


----------



## restrac2000

lmyers said:


> I agree, but it sounds like some moisture and cooler temps are on the way. We don't need much more snow to have a very good season, we just need it to wait another 45 days to start melting...


That is wild considering its comparative snowpack. I know we are losing snow fast at our resort at 10,000 feet but we never got much above 80%. The Arkansas drainage could be in jeopardy even at its current 92% average? Just don't know that basin well enough.

Guess I shouldn't be too shocked considering how fast Utah is melting out. Even the Dirty Devil is dropping fast.

Phillip


----------



## Osseous

I heard a report last week that the eastern pacific is warm- that tends to yield a wet spring and larger than normal monsoon season for Colorado. Could be early runoff- followed by a wet spring and summer....if you believe the weather guessers

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## lmyers

Its not that the Ark drainage is going to be in jeopardy from having no season. Its just if we slowly melt off 2-4" of swe in the next 30 days we won't see much bump from it and peak will be early and mild, probably in late May with quickly dropping flows there after. If it stays cool, even with regular small snows until May we will have a solid June peak. 10" of snow water equivalent can give us 3000 in June.


----------



## DesertRatonIce

I think the Ark is going to be awesome anytime she runs over 500 cfs in Granite, the rest is just a cherry on top of a sundae. I can remember a few years where we would of sold our first born for a day of water.


----------



## lmyers

"28 March to 07 April, 2015 - WESTERN US: The absolute scourge of winter 2014-2015 for most of the west (Colorado has been one of the best places to go this winter however), the much hated and freakishly persistent upper-level high pressure ridge (mostly sunny/ dry at the resorts) does not want to give way to a large scale pattern change this month (March), over to large scale low pressure (needed for the really big storms for the west US). A storm does move up and over this ridge Saturday/ Sunday and Monday (28th-30), with snow (but some snow level issues) for the Inland Northwest, dropping into Wyoming/ Colorado Sunday and Monday. By April 1 onward for several days, we may see a better shot of snow for most areas including Tahoe-Mammoth and Utah as increased Pacific energy and moisture may move in. Catch it while you can. Areas will start closing soon after."

~ snowforecast


----------



## tmacc

Some of the Utah resorts are going to need feet of snow to make it to closing. From what I've heard about conditions at a couple of the Park City resorts, I wouldn't be surprised if they close early.

Since it actually got below freezing last night, they may have been able to make some snow. We'll see what happens.


----------



## lmyers

Most detailed forecast I have read in awhile:

The Barlometer Colorado Snow Forecast


----------



## restrac2000

tmacc said:


> Some of the Utah resorts are going to need feet of snow to make it to closing. From what I've heard about conditions at a couple of the Park City resorts, I wouldn't be surprised if they close early.
> 
> Since it actually got below freezing last night, they may have been able to make some snow. We'll see what happens.


I don't say this often....but I am glad the storm track hit the north instead of us again. Beyond skiing is the desperate need for water up there. Wasn't a ton but anything natural at this point will help.

Phillip


----------



## tmacc

It wasn't much. Couple of inches. Although, the Canyons claim they got 6''. After today, sunny and in the 50s & 60s for the next several days. 

Sounds like two of the resorts are going to close a week early. 

Idaho picked up a little. Banner Summit SWE went up 3% in two days. Yes, grasping at straws here, Hoping we don't have to duckie a mid-June MF we're invited on.


----------



## restrac2000

Hadn't paid attention to Idaho in a while, didn't realize how much they are hurting as well:

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/reports/UpdateReport.html;jsessionid=p0jtU-LdY3xyOsbH+F0Zi8Nq?report=Idaho&format=SNOTEL+Snowpack+Update+Report

Spring is not stepping up to offset the deficit across the West. We could all really use a few major storms at this point. But the warmth is also still killing us. 

Making the most of a warm weekend by doing the first whitewater of the season. Will enjoy the forecasted 78F for what its worth.

Phillip


----------



## treemanji

*Melting Off*

Colorado snowpack has been reduced quite a bit over the last couple weeks (link below) with the same weather pattern of above average temps and low precipitation expected to continue for at least the next 14 days into mid April. (second link below)

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CO/Snow/snow/watershed/daily/co_update_snow.pdf

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/814day/814temp.new.gif

Without any significant mountain snowstorms and the given temperature forecast runoff may arrive early and go fast this year in CO.


----------



## restrac2000

Yeah, the western slope is going to be hurting here soon if they don't get snow. 

Its looking like even the Dirty Devil and Escalante, the few drainages that had average to above average accumulations and SWE, are melting out wicked fast but not peaking as high as one would expect from the numbers. The Dirty Devil is already dropping, though that could change with the warm temps forecasted this next 7 days.

Its difficult to watch for multiple reasons beyond rafting.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

Been gone from the west for almost a week and the numbers are getting bleak. Colorado snowpack dropped to 69% and Utah is well withint he desperate range. Hopefuly a heavy storm moves through the area soon.

Phillip


----------



## 2kanzam

damn i feel bad for all you guys out there....even just from a purely paddling standpoint, I couldn't imagine how stressfull it would be to watch these snowpacks every year knowing your season depends on it.


----------



## elkhaven

I was thinking about resurrecting this thing yesterday and since it's back up I'll add my thought:

I don't know how much people follow that little map on the first post but I've used it for years to get a picture of what's going on around the west and my usual stomping grounds. When this post started, much of Montana, Wyoming and Northern Colorado were signigicantly above normal. Look at it today! Many basin's aren't even listed and of those that are the highest is 82% in central wyoming. This is truly a bleak picture for the entire west! True, pacific states and the SW have it much worse than we interior states but this is truly a depressing sight. 

On a related note I wonder if the NRCS site is having issues because yesterday there were values in the mid 70's for SW MT and significant representation in CO, but it was still depressing, 70- 80% of normal were the highest values. This is really a regional drought.... like most of the Louisiana Purchase! 

Yet further off topic: I've been reading freemonts account of his initial exploration of the Platte and Arkansas rivers in 1842 and he states that the year was a major drought as the indians were fairing very poorly and were constantly on the move for grass for their animals and for game, the rivers were unusually low and several American Fur company brigades had to abandon their furs because they literally could not float them down the Platte. 

Third tangent: On his return trip he attempted to float the Sweetwater and North Platte rivers in wyoming in several places. I was not able to figure out his locality in my head but he had carried and "india rubber boat" up from St Louis and cached it near South Pass. It was an inflatable raft that carried (and ultimately lost) most of their gear as well as half a dozen voyageurs. I believe he may be the first "Western Rafter"! And he did it in a drought year so why not us?


----------



## mania

Latest from NRCS


----------



## treemanji

I would say that yes, yes it is time to tear up.


----------



## restrac2000

Numbers are scary for the entire West. Utah is desperate right now after another epically dry and warm month. Peaks this year are going to be LOW.

I guess we can hope for a monsoon season that brings beneficial precip (i.e. not just single heavy storms).

Best of luck to everyone out there.


----------



## restrac2000

Spent some time looking closely at Utah Snotel sites. We have a ton of sites to 8000 feet that are zeroed out and staying well above freezing. Its early April and it looks like and is behaving like late May.

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/support/water/SummaryReports/UT/BSnow_4_2015.pdf?

Phillip


----------



## BigSky

Well, it looks like some basins in Utah will be getting a little boost.

Winter Storm Warning in Utah


----------



## BeaterBoater

BigSky said:


> Well, it looks like some basins in Utah will be getting a little boost.
> 
> Winter Storm Warning in Utah


Never happen. It doesn't snow in Utah. God doesn't like mormons.


----------



## BigSky

BeaterBoater said:


> Never happen. It doesn't snow in Utah. God doesn't like mormons.


He must have heard there's a group heading down from his country next week.


----------



## cmharris

*The John Day is almost done. Maybe.*

The John Day Basin is now at 4%. A small bump may happen this next week followed by a steady decline to base summer levels. Not much of a season. It will be interesting to see if the ground water helps keep the levels better than the meager snowpack indicates. The Deschutes and Rogue will be busy this year.


----------



## blucat

*Anyone interested in Ruby Horse Theif this weekend*

My party has basically bailed because Sun & Mon are better than Sat & Sun. I'm still planning on approaching on Friday (because I can't take Monday off), Launching on Sat, and taking out on Sun.

However, I don't have a shuttle. If interested in sharing a shuttle ride or taking on a new acquaintance, please let me know.

thanks
mac


----------



## Wadeinthewater

*John Day*



cmharris said:


> The John Day Basin is now at 4%. A small bump may happen this next week followed by a steady decline to base summer levels. Not much of a season. It will be interesting to see if the ground water helps keep the levels better than the meager snowpack indicates.


I have been planning a trip for the first week of May from Clarno to Cottonwood. I did several trips in the late 1970s, but they were always late in May (3,000 to 6,000 cfs) for 2 nights in a canoe. What is a reasonable minimum flow for a 4 night/5 day raft trip?


----------



## cmharris

*Minimum levels*

Sorry, I can't help. Like you, I have not run this stretch down to minimum levels. Hopefully someone with first-hand knowledge will respond. 

I know that Clarno Rapids is the sticky spot but am not sure what a reasonable level is for a loaded boat to successfully pass.


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Colorado snowpack rises! Reservoirs look healthy in the Ark valley. It's gonna be an average year and I can't wait!


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## restrac2000

DesertRatonIce said:


> Colorado snowpack rises! Reservoirs look healthy in the Ark valley. It's gonna be an average year and I can't wait!
> 
> 
> Woke up this morning at 10:13.


What report are you looking at? Everything I see points to a well below average year in Colorado, though the Platte and Ark seem to be the best off. What am I missing?

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/report...Colorado&format=SNOTEL+Snowpack+Update+Report

Just drove through the region and its definitely inconsistent. Some ranges look bone dry while others look like they are holding snow up high well. 

Jealous of folks in BV and Salida, what a great place to live.

Phillip


----------



## Phil U.

restrac2000 said:


> What report are you looking at? Everything I see points to a well below average year in Colorado, though the Platte and Ark seem to be the best off. What am I missing?
> 
> http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/report...Colorado&format=SNOTEL+Snowpack+Update+Report
> 
> Just drove through the region and its definitely inconsistent. Some ranges look bone dry while others look like they are holding snow up high well.
> 
> Jealous of folks in BV and Salida, what a great place to live.
> 
> Phillip


http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/projected-flows-arkansas-river-56935.html#post394168

My understanding is that the upper Ark basin is in relatively good shape. They've been dumping water almost all winter and just upped the release from Twin Lakes. There's over 300 in the Numbers and 400 in Browns right now.

Yeah, this valley is pretty close to paradise. If you are a low water tolerant boater and can handle a little cold you can boat almost year round. We had about 2 weeks of frozen Numbers this year but it stayed open below Salida.


----------



## restrac2000

Phil U. said:


> http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/projected-flows-arkansas-river-56935.html#post394168
> 
> My understanding is that the upper Ark basin is in relatively good shape. They've been dumping water almost all winter and just upped the release from Twin Lakes. There's over 300 in the Numbers and 400 in Browns right now.
> 
> Yeah, this valley is pretty close to paradise. If you are a low water tolerant boater and can handle a little cold you can boat almost year round. We had about 2 weeks of frozen Numbers this year but it stayed open below Salida.


Thanks. I am guessing its as much about reservoir levels and required flows as snowpack? Or are there other snow data sites other than snotel in Colorado?

I have been through the area many times in my life (having lived in Front Range and thru-hiked Colorado Trail) but I always forget how perfectly it matches all of my preferences in life. Snow nearby. A river for boating and fishing. Great community. Plenty of hiking and backpacking abound. And it doesn't hurt to have breweries, something we lack in SW Utah. 

I also thought it was cool that the medical industry is considering its environmental impact. That what the green cross means, correct? 










Phillip


----------



## DoStep

We have everything here in the Ark Valley except jobs and housing. If you decide to move here, better bring your job with. 

Fun fact: Since last April, rafts have been through Brown's Canyon every month!

And we got about a foot of snow overnight in Salida, and still dumping! Webcams at Monarch show it up to the table tops. Hope it dumped up north towards Leadville where we really need it for the upper sections...


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Ark snow pack increases by 10% in one day and tomorrow I'm betting will be another 10%. Wow! Doing my 2-step dance! 
What a up and down year. It just goes to show you that's is all about these spring storms. Wet, Huge, and Sticking snow is a sight for sore eyes. 

Also 18 inches and counting up in leadvegas. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## mattoak

DesertRatonIce said:


> Ark snow pack increases by 10% in one day and tomorrow I'm betting will be another 10%. Wow! Doing my 2-step dance!
> What a up and down year. It just goes to show you that's is all about these spring storms. Wet, Huge, and Sticking snow is a sight for sore eyes.
> 
> Also 18 inches and counting up in leadvegas.
> 
> 
> Woke up this morning at 10:13.


Where you getting those numbers from? Just interested for myself.


----------



## Randaddy

It's shitting snow in Leadville right now. Over a foot since last night and accumulating over an inch an hour or more right now! We may see average snow pack in the Ark basin yet!


----------



## DoStep

Still snowing 2"/hour in Salida. Downtown merchants barely keeping up with it...


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Dostep.
My uncle lives across from the library on Harrison and he measured 18 inches of his grill, like the shot you have. He confirmed its shitting about an inch an hour. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## Randaddy

I can barely see the house across the street now. We're staying home to shovel all day. This is why we shouldn't "tear up" too early; there's a lot of winter left up here!


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Mattoak
What are you asking me about, the numbers for the snow pack? 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## restrac2000

Jealous but glad I shot through town as fast as I did as it would have sucked to be in that mess when my bearings decided to die on me. 

We got hit here in Utah but not quite as much. At this point anything helps but we won't rebound out of the epic drought. 

Enjoy the snow and related flow for the rest of us.

Phillip


----------



## mattoak

DesertRatonIce yes just wondering what information you were pulling. I was looking at the snotel data but it wasn't updating fast enough.


----------



## DesertRatonIce

I was on the nrcs website and yesterday it was 61% and today is around 70-71%. That number is only going to skyrocket tomorrow! I'm expecting it to be over 80% for the whole valley and probably damn close to normal amount for the upper ark. I'm tearing up now because we have snow!


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Randaddy said:


> I can barely see the house across the street now. We're staying home to shovel all day. This is why we shouldn't "tear up" too early; there's a lot of winter left up here!



Randaddy, 
You live in the ville? 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## duct tape

Suns back out here in the Springs and the very wet snow is melting fast in town but hanging on in the foothills and on the Peak. Good moisture from this storm. A couple more well spaced ones would be great.


----------



## DoStep

Just stopped here in Salida, 18" of the wet and heavy accumulated on my patio table! We will see if we get another round as the center of the low is parked right over us...

Can only imagine what the high country received, we may have just got a bonus week of good water for the summer!


----------



## mania

We are still tearing up here in Durango can you send some of that snow here please?


----------



## Cphilli

I have been hearing 2' or more has dropped in Leadville. Copper is reporting 14" but we are at a few more this morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## DoStep

Webcams at Monarch show a couple feet remaining on the deck, slopes still covered right down to the lot, and it is currently snowing. Recent lower temps will also improve the timing and duration of the runoff. After a downright HOT Jan, Feb, and March in Salida, I'm feeling fortunate that the snow gods (and of course the water brokers) are cooperating to provide what appears to be a solid summer on the upper Ark. Hope Cali and the PNW are getting some relief too. 

It has been a very unusual year in that there have been rafts in Brown's Canyon every month since last April, and I don't think it ever froze up in the inner stretch this past winter, it certainly didn't below Hecla. Seasonal cycles have become even more unpredictable, who knows what we can expect in the years to come...


----------



## lmyers

Browns locked up for one week, right around New Years....


----------



## Phil U.

lmyers said:


> Browns locked up for one week, right around New Years....


Yup. And the reason it opened so quickly when it did was they started moving "warm" water out of Twin Lakes that blew the ice out and then kept it from locking up when we saw cold snaps after that. 300ish cfs for the first couple months of the year in the Numbers.


----------



## Beardance42

I had just about given up on my 6/7 San Juan date, then this latest storm. Could still turn 80 down Durango way between now and then...but hoping for two more decent storms between now and end of May.


----------



## DesertRatonIce

I've been back in the BV area for a couple weeks and I think I have experienced all four seasons in that stretch. The best thing is that there is gonna be great water all year. What a winter for the boaters that live here all year. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## bdf48

What is this latest round of precip been doing in the mountains? Is it coming down as snow up high?


----------



## Cphilli

4 inches at copper, raining in frisco.


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## BrianK

The comparison between snowpack and precipitation % of average across the west is pretty interesting/sad.

UPDATE: Western Snowpack vs Precipitation | OpenSnow


----------



## tteton

Rain in Little cottonwood canyon


----------



## Rich

BrianK said:


> The comparison between snowpack and precipitation % of average across the west is pretty interesting/sad.
> 
> UPDATE: Western Snowpack vs Precipitation | OpenSnow


 
Great February & April, Then March was sunny & hot!


----------



## jaffy

bdf48 said:


> What is this latest round of precip been doing in the mountains? Is it coming down as snow up high?


It sounds like it's rain up to about 10000 feet, snow above. Another wet storm is supposedly coming through Saturday'ish though, with colder temps. I'm crossing my fingers for double digits accumulation on Cameron (did I just jinx myself?).


----------



## mania

Here is the last NRCS report for the year.


----------



## yetigonecrazy

Theres a whole lotta red on that picture :-(


----------



## restrac2000

Buts its still too early to tear up, right? 

Watching the USGS site the last few weeks is like witnessing the fall color change in the Appalachians: a little green to yellow to orange to red. It creaps more east every week. Downright scary to see that many basins and that much terrain in drought.

Phillip


----------



## KSC

It's definitely still too early to tear up for the Colorado Front Range. We've got a cloud hanging over the area that would make Pig Pen blush and the big upslope storm isn't even arriving until this weekend. We'll be paddling on rain until it gets hot enough to start melting our ever expanding snowpack.


----------



## Andy H.

mania said:


> Here is the last NRCS report for the year.


Dana, 

Thanks for posting that. Gotta wonder if the fact there are no dots in most of California indicates they've just given up completely and that there will be absolutely no water there... Anytime you start to complain about the lack of water here, just check on how they're doing in CA and it'll put things in perspective. Not saying it'll cheer you up but it'll put things in perspective.

-AH


----------



## restrac2000

Andy H. said:


> Dana,
> 
> Thanks for posting that. Gotta wonder if the fact there are no dots in most of California indicates they've just given up completely and that there will be absolutely no water there... Anytime you start to complain about the lack of water here, just check on how they're doing in CA and it'll put things in perspective. Not saying it'll cheer you up but it'll put things in perspective.
> 
> -AH


Always wondered why Cali doesn't have more snotel sites. That basin map is a little confusing at first but I believe most of the dots around Lake Tahoe are the few snotel sites in the eastern Sierra from Tioga north. I assume Cali must run its own system for observation.

Phillip


----------



## mania

Western snowpack melts early, little remains | NRCS


----------



## boicatr

CA has an extensive network of automated snow pillows but they are mostly State run rather than NRCS. 



restrac2000 said:


> Always wondered why Cali doesn't have more snotel sites. That basin map is a little confusing at first but I believe most of the dots around Lake Tahoe are the few snotel sites in the eastern Sierra from Tioga north. I assume Cali must run its own system for observation.
> 
> Phillip


----------



## DesertRatonIce

I'm tearing up now cause I want some warmer weather. What a run off ahead for the Arkansas River!


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## DoStep

Forecast is for a couple more feet of snow above 10,000 feet, and perhaps another inch of rain down in the valley, my grass has never been so long in May. All high peaks in Ark Valley still completely covered with snow down to about that level. Just a matter of time before it lets go, but it doesn't look like this week. 

Just saving it for later!


----------



## lmyers

Forecast calls for rain and snow through Memorial Day and longer term forecasts sound like we will stay under the influence of a strong El Nino pattern for the foreseeable future...

Here is the table of Ark basin snotel stations:

ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN
Apishapa	10000	0.8 0.0 0.0 *	*	*
Brumley	10600	5.7 6.3 2.1 90 271 300 
Fremont Pass	11400	22.0 25.4 18.1 87 122 140 
Glen Cove	11460	8.6 1.8 4.7R	478 183 38 
Hayden Pass	10720	14.0 9.8 N/A 143 *	*
Porphyry Creek	10760	10.1 9.3 6.6 109 153 141 
Saint Elmo	10540	3.3 1.1 N/A 300 *	*
South Colony	10800	14.2 15.3 15.7C	93 90 97 
Whiskey Ck	10220	0.0 0.3 0.0 0*	*	*
Basin Index (%)	114 130 124 

That didn't copy too well, but it basically says the basin is 130% of average, Fremont Pass is 122% of average and Independence is a whopping 271% of average!

Here is a pic from skiing on Cottonwood Pass yesterday. Definitely some of the best skiing for mid/late May I have seen in several years...




Looking like we are going to enjoy a sustained period of high water this season.


----------



## Osseous

Pretty incredible how late season snows can bump up those numbers. It looks like mid March up on Loveland right now. 60" base at Abasin. More snow every day.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmnnnn! I think it was 2010? When Browns reached close too 5000 cfs. The only upstream section available to commercial runs. This year with sustained warmer temps could be bigger. Watch out for those eddy lines!


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## lmyers

Commercials were still running Fractions/Narrows/Wildhorse through town and the Milk Run, just no Granite/Piney/Numbers. I remember most companies were running Browns as their class 4 trip and Stone Bridge to Salida or Salida East as a class 3... Looking like we will see something similar this season...or we could have 2000+ until August...


----------



## restrac2000

The Front Range is definitely the place to be this year.

I am curious though....those figures are normally for SWE % today's median and looking at the data many of those stations normally peak and start releasing by mid to late April. When you look at % peak its still low. Did those stations receive average snowpack through the year? I know the Ark was doing better than most rivers to the West but I ask because even the Dolores/San Juan basin is showing 80% average SWE for this date but their is no way they have made up for limited snowpack during the rest of the season. 

Thoughts? I just don't know the Ark basin well enough. 

Phillip


----------



## deepsouthpaddler

After avg peak date, % of avg snowpack numbers are misleading and almost useless in my opinion. What you want to be looking at is % of peak. You can have a snotel that is 150% of avg right now that is a nick below 100% of peak. It just means we are holding snow for longer and putting off the melt for longer. You want to see what the absolute amount of snow up in the mountains is for comparison. 

On the front range, it looks like about average total snowpack that is holding on later than usual. When combined with several weeks of rain flows preceding melt, it looks like a great season ahead for the front range


----------



## DoStep

Another 4" of the wet and heavy in town, monarch webcam shows at least another foot up high. SWE and flow continue to trend in opposite directions...


----------



## AMSkayak

Here is a really good figure from the NRCS for % of Average snowpack for the current date in the Western US:

ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/data/water/wcs/gis/maps/west_swepctnormal_update.pdf


----------



## DesertRatonIce

Looks like BV may be the Mecca for paddling in the whole western U.S.


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## GPP33

AMSkayak said:


> Here is a really good figure from the NRCS for % of Average snowpack for the current date in the Western US:
> 
> ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/data/water/wcs/gis/maps/west_swepctnormal_update.pdf


That's a sad map. My backyard drainage hit 150% this week and will get better after this weekend, it's still ski season out here. Rivers are flooding now will only get worse.


----------



## Andy H.

The percentage numbers are really misleading. If it were mid-April, they'd be off the charts, but as the melt's at about where it would normally be half done, they really overestimate what's still left.


----------



## lmyers

Yes and no. I understand the argument against using % of average at this point of the season, but I think this year it is more accurate than % of peak. Normally between April and Memorial Day we have 3-4" swe evaporate and soak into the ground and begin saturating soils and raising the water table. This year because of overall moisture the soils are already saturated and when the snow starts melting it will almost immediately runoff. We could have peaked with 4-5" more moisture in the beginning of April and still end up with a lower peak flow if the snow melted slow with a lot of evaporation and sublimation. 

Its nothing official but yesterday I spoke with a long time career forest service employee who told me soil moisture is as high as they have seen it in 20 years...


----------



## cadster

Here's the current snow graph for Clear Creek. In 1995 A-Basin had it's latest closing in August.


----------



## DoStep

STILL snowing up high!

Monarch Mountain - Webcams


----------



## lmyers

This was 6am today on Cottonwood Pass. Snow is not melting above 11k', it is still accumulating...


----------



## GroverGrover

lmyers said:


> This was 6am today on Cottonwood Pass. Snow is not melting above 11k', it is still accumulating...


Excellent.


----------



## DoStep

Doesn't really look like this is going to change anytime soon. Weather underground says today will be 'nearly the same' as yesterday (love that about WU), which it has for weeks, and a similar outlook for the rest of this week. We could easily have good flow on the Ark into September at this rate. If so, that would be 18 consecutive months of _raftable_ flows. Perhaps a peak flow in July? Unusual, to say the least...


----------



## skideeppow

Im thinking we have a shot at big sur coming up for a couple days if we get some super quick hot temps up high.
Thoughts?


----------



## DesertRatonIce

4850 peak on the Ark in Browns this year on June 17th and sustaining above 3250 Til mid July. That was a guess from an AHRA ranger today. We shall see.....


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## GPP33

DesertRatonIce said:


> 4850 peak on the Ark in Browns this year on June 17th and sustaining above 3250 Til mid July. That was a guess from an AHRA ranger today. We shall see.....
> 
> 
> Woke up this morning at 10:13.


If it gets hot quick that baby will be huge. With this delayed run off season it's still pretty deep up there. Snotel says 267% but there's some screwy and incomplete data in there. Either way though, there lots of water primed to come down.


----------



## restrac2000

Odd year. We are now having funnel clouds in SW Utah.


----------



## RaftTheWrangells

Check us out in Alaska, we are having an epic hot June up here. The rivers are fed with Glacier Melt instead of snow pack so the hotter it is the higher the water. There are some incredible remote raft trips in Wrangell St. Elias National Park where you can be the only ones on the river. The Tana is one of our personal favorites, check out Raft the Wrangells White Water Rafting Alaska | McCarthy River Tours for some more detailed info!


----------



## Randaddy

RaftTheWrangells said:


> Check us out in Alaska, we are having an epic hot June up here. The rivers are fed with Glacier Melt instead of snow pack so the hotter it is the higher the water. There are some incredible remote raft trips in Wrangell St. Elias National Park where you can be the only ones on the river. The Tana is one of our personal favorites, check out Raft the Wrangells White Water Rafting Alaska | McCarthy River Tours for some more detailed info!


An odd place for an advertisement, but a beautiful place to go! Spent some time in McCarthy and Kennicott a while back and loved it. How much has the Root Glacier receded in the past decade? I had a lot of fun ice climbing in the summer there!


----------



## Swank

Tears of joy over snow pack? Yesterday day on Brown's canyon over 5000 CFS was incredible. Soo much fun.

Offensive language in the song.

http://youtu.be/NNE-5Wxsc3Q


----------



## DoStep

Remember in April when we thought it would be over in the Ark Valley by Memorial Day? Epic fun, we are blessed.


----------

