Comments on: Rocky Mountains Losing Their Snow

By: Amie

Amie — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:19:24 +0000

hmm well then it is really sad that signs of anthropogenic warming have been happening since the 1900′s and no one took a step back to change things/attitudes about climate before it became too bad…what was causing it back then? Is anyone doing anything about places like Las Vegas using water for things other than what it’s needed for?

By: Sarah Zielinski

Sarah Zielinski — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:26:22 +0000

One winter of unusually heavy snowfall is unlikely to erase a trend covering decades. I’ve written before about the difference between climate and weather (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2009/08/weather-vs-climate/). It’s very easy to look at the most recent weather events and think that it will always be like that. But only by looking at changes over long time periods and over large areas (that’s climate), can you see real trends and get a picture of where things are going. And it’s those climate changes that make people worry.

By: Amie

Amie — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:08:21 +0000

Really? People are willing to believe this stuff? I live in Wyoming, the snowpack was unprecedented this year all right, in the way that there was so much of it, it became immeasurable! Especially in the Rockies, their snowpack was estimated to produce over 2 million acre of water this year…there is flooding all over the place here in Wyoming because of so much snow…for the first time in memory certain seasonal roads couldn’t open in time because they couldn’t clear it fast enough since it was even more heavy and wet than usual…sure a few years back it was different…but it’s called a drought…it happens to a lot of places…apparently the writer prefers speculation over what is actually happening.

By: Dude

Dude — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:11:28 +0000

Upper elevations and lower elevations can have radically different temps and rainfall, so the study basically means nothing at all. “A new study shows” is propaganda. No real scientist would stand behind findings unless they were replicated over and over again after being subjected to massive peer review. This study fails every possible scientific test for significant finding.

By: Redwood Rhiadra

Redwood Rhiadra — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:34:15 +0000

Basically, upper-elevation tree rings are affected by temperature more than water, and lower-elevation tree rings are the other way around. So by comparing trees from different areas at the same time, you can determine how much is from water availability and how much is from temperature.

By: Gargyboy

Gargyboy — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:03:29 +0000

I’ve learned fairly recently just how little people like to listen to anything that doesn’t directly affect them. And often-times that counts in to things that directly affect them. Suffice it to say, we will probably never truly adjust our attitudes on the environment as a species, even after we’ve caused a global emergency. (Though I’d say we qualify for one already.)

By: David Conrad

David Conrad — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:59:44 +0000

I thought tree ring thickness was determined by length of growing season and thus was a proxy for temperature. It tells us about available water as well? How do they sort out a longer, drier growing season from a shorter, wetter one? Is there a qualitative difference in the tree rings?