Earth & Environment - Posted by Sandra Hines-UW on Monday, June 13, 2011 10:44 - 5 Comments
Rockies snow loss unrivaled in 800 years

Snowpack losses across the West since the 1980s may signal a fundamental shift from precipitation to temperature as the dominant influence on snowpack in the principal mountain ranges in North America. (Credit: iStockphoto)
U. WASHINGTON (US) — A double whammy of climate change in the Rocky Mountains during the last 50 years has caused near unprecedented levels of snowpack decline in context of the past millennium.
A new study, published in the journal Science, using tree rings to reconstruct snowpack in river basins during the last several centuries shows that past variations are clearly attributable to natural factors affecting temperature and precipitation.
The work confirms work by others indicating that between 30 percent and 60 percent of the declines are likely from warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities with the rest arising from natural climate phenomena.
“Our results indicated that it’s due both to human-caused warming and natural long-term fluctuations. The Northern Rockies in particular have been hit by climate change and natural variability in temperature,” says Lisa Graumlich of University of Washington and co-author of the study.
Rresearchers considered snowpack in Canada and the U.S. that feeds three major river basins, the Columbia, Missouri, and Colorado, that among other things, provide water to more than 70 million people.
Snowpack losses across the West since the 1980s “may signal a fundamental shift from precipitation to temperature as the dominant influence on snowpack in the North America Cordillera, with significant consequences for regional water supplies,” according to the study.
Cordillera is applied to a continent’s principal mountain ranges.
If temperature is playing a larger role in snowpack, this could be more of an impact for the northern Rockies and the headwaters of the Columbia River compared to the other regions, says Jeremy Littell, research scientist and a co-author of the paper.
That’s because the area is low in elevation and temperatures already hover closer to freezing in winter and spring compared to the rest of the Rockies where it is colder, meaning there is an earlier transition to precipitation falling as rain instead of snow in the future.
The snowpack decline in the Rockies from 1950 to 2000 varies by region and elevation, from a 10 percent decline in the Central Rockies to 40 percent decline in the Oregon Cascades, Littell says.
Averaged over the Cascades Mountain range, the snowpack decline is about 30 percent.
In the future in Washington state, it’s estimated that April 1 snowpack may decline on the order of 40 percent by the 2040s relative to the period 1916-2006.
Littell developed the use of trees rings, which reveal a tree’s growth each year, as a way to document snowpack in the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies.
At the highest elevations, heavy snows in this region decrease the length of time trees can grow each year, while low snowpack years make for a longer growing season.

The study area includes three regions: the Northern Rockies, Greater Yellowstone and Upper Colorado with headwaters respectively of the Columbia, Missouri and Colorado rivers.
Comparing their tree-ring data with actual snowpack measurements—or snow water equivalent measurements—made April 1 by water resource managers since the late 1930s, gave the researchers the means to then calculate snowpack from just the tree-ring data going back centuries before humans started making measurements.
Natural variability in snowpack in the past has included decades-long shifts where winter storms were concentrated alternately over the northern Rockies for a period of time and then over the southern Rockies for a period of time.
This shifting appears to have broken down after the 1980s, partly because of human-caused warming.
More news from University of Washington: http://www.washington.edu/
Please wait
5 Comments
Global Warming Aint Real
AC
Aw, that’s so cute. So I take it you think global warming is just “god hugging us close”. Lol, you dumb palinite.
dawn
um, I think climate change and its effects *will be* “mother nature/God/etc. crushing us soundly.” And I suspect hearing “blah blah blah” is an admission of sticking your fingers in your ears whenever you hear something you don’t want to hear. Boy, science can suck that way, eh?
River Rat
What I don’t understand is how this poster here (“Global Warming Aint Real”) got soooo blooming smart. ?? S/he provides no facts, no research, no credentials, no nothing. Just an opinion. Well here’s mine in response to him/her: You don’t know squat. What a twit.
Actually that’s a common thread amongst the deniers. They simply say they know more than anyone else and expect their emotional daydreams to be science enough. Bah. What simple dopes.
jim
So there we have it. So far, 1 denier and three believers. Unchanged, tomorrow mankind will add more fossil carbon to the atmosphere that today and more the day after. For all practical purposes we’re all deniers. Believers disdain deniers and polute exactly the same. We’re doomed. The only unknown is how. Life was on earth many tens hundreds millions of years before man sowed up, to this party late. Live certainly won’t miss ud when we’re long gone.
























Here’s what I read: Blah blah blah…GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS!!!!!….blah blah blah….NEED MORE FUNDING!!!!!!….blah blah blah.
Whatever man. Global warming isn’t caused by humans, cows, etc. We occupy a super-small portion of the surface of a giant planet. Try something planetary-scale. Like the sun. Or the moon. Or how fast we are hurtling through the galaxy. Humans can cause small, localized disturbances with our cars and deforestation and that’s about it. Besides, mother nature/God/etc. will crush us soundly if we get too out of hand.