Climate catastrophe is coming, soon. Everybody knows this, even the vocal deniers (the ones with power, not the sheep they feed propaganda to). They've simply decided to profit off it instead of trying to slow it down.
The "drill, baby, drill", "clean beautiful coal" lunacy and wanting to invade Greenland and Canada are all directly related.
Last time that I saw it I wondered if the Ukraine conflict might be about control of the “Breadbasket of Europe” as much as anything.
I would say climate catastrophe is already here... at least for them.
[1] - https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/02/Crockford-State-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...
So it sounds like they (and I assume you) definitely have an agenda you're trying to promote.
Anyway, I do admit that linking from that website is not a good look but all I did was link the report and I am not advocating for anything else on their website. My larger point, the climate change community does not need the polar bears to drive their point. It is a bad example and we should use one of the many other verifiable sources (ice sheet loss, sea level rise, droughts, etc.) instead.
[1] - https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-pop... [2] - https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...
https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...
Read that and explain why the population is decreasing — the only point he made was that it was not.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/27/fac...
> Experts say the rising tally of polar bears reflects an increased ability to track bears – not an actual increase in the population. The graph is based on various estimates of the global population that include unscientific estimates, extrapolation and insufficient data sets, according to scientists.
You will find that the population has been stable globally and they themselves say the most populated region (Barents sea) is has very likely increased in the last 50 years.
The polar bear population is a pet peeve of mine because it is a bad example, if you want to keep defending it, go ahead, but you are not helping climate change advocates.
https://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/dbdata/station/swegraph/swegraph_...
On a more positive note, one random person in the area unexpectedly confirmed that they thought global warming was indeed real.
Use numbers, not vibes, when deciding if something like this is unusual. Dismissing this because march is a "spring month" is like asking someone who lives in Miami if they consider it unusual to have no snow on the ground in February.
Which of course isn't an antithesis to the lack of snow in the west, and likely is literally the flip side of the "same problem". but interesting
Peak snow cover in the west (California) is expected to be in early April. December was an intense month of rainfall and the snowpack was trending towards above average, but then a dry Feb and a heatwave in March not only ensured the pack didn’t grow but pretty much nuked whatever cover early season rains brought. It is shocking because in December it was looking like historical snow and it went into catastrophic shortage in 3 months.
California did quite well in December. Then late February and early March came along, and a rain event at high altitude melted a lot of the snowpack, followed by a not-uncommon heatwave in mid-late March melted a lot of what was left.
Beside that, the measurements are of how much moisture is left to melt off:
It’s not just the amount of snow left on mountaintops that’s concerning experts, but the amount of moisture still frozen within them. “Snow water equivalent” (SWE), a measurement of what could melt off to supply natural and manmade systems, is exceptionally low.
> The snow is melting so fast in the Sierra that, if it continues at its current rate, little would be left by early April. It’s unlikely to keep up this astounding pace, but there’s still high potential for the earliest melt-off on record in the state, according to Swain.
> “It feels like we skipped spring this year and dropped straight into a summer heatwave,” said Karla Nemeth, the DWR director, during Wednesday’s briefing. “What should be gradual snowmelt happened suddenly weeks ago.” This year’s was one of the quickest surveys they’d had, she added.
So the alarm here is the rate of melt, it should be sustained over a longer period. This is a problem because this is a natural "store" of water for downstream sources... if it's all released earlier it evaporates quicker and isn't replenished with more melt throughout the season.
Me, around around the tree line, wondering why someone would be talking about springtime in March when it’s supposed to be snowing: “March is a spring month at sea level.”
You: whining like a little baby
Ignoring horrifying drought scenarios, it is also troubling to think about how this will change if we start having warm winters and more of the winter precipitation as rain.
I think the worst case would be if we end up like some tropical countries, where they can have disastrous flooding and then drought in very short cycles. The water comes all at once and you cannot hope to control or contain it. But there are also gaps that strain the ability to store enough water and manage consumption rates.
How is any measurement of a quantity of an item less than zero? You can't have negative snow to my knowledge.
I believe what they're saying is that the 2015 measurement was also zero. So this year's measurement isn't the "second-lowest", it's the "second equally lowest". That's the only way I could interpret it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power...