The topic of global warming: twice is nice.

Our earlier conversation on global warming being as pleasant as it was, I thought I would offer a graphic from a presentation I attended yesterday by the policy director of Climate Solutions. CS amongst other things is a major proponent of the WA clean car campaign (trying to get WA to be the eighth state to adopt the CA auto emissions standard). More importantly, perhaps to some, they advocate clean energy as a practical matter and as an economic stimulant rather than offering a "the sky is falling" viewpoint, often working with regional farm bureaus and other rural associations. They've some interesting things to say.<br><br>Regardless, this isn't intended as an advertisement. The presentation housed a slide you may find of interest regarding NW snowpack loss estimates over the next 85 years:<br><br> <br><br>I don't know the source or contraints of the modeling involved, but even were this a liberal model, the possibility of a -60% average Apr. snowpack within 50 years is disconcerting at best.<br><br>That said, what I do know of such models, though not this one in particular, is that much of the variability in warming estimates comes not in model predictive error per se, but rather input error from uncertainty. In other words, what the snowpack looks like in 2100 is in part dependent on our energy choices in the coming decades. Moving toward renewables, for example, would change modeled effects materially from those assuming continued dependence on carbon-based usage. My assumption here is these effects assume the latter, though this is but speculation.<br><br>I realize some will assume this is me putting the ball on the tee; however, before you start swinging away let me end by emphasizing this post in no way suggests warming has anything to do with the current winter. <br><br>*Edited to remove a closing which was poorly worded and most unnecessary

www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml


...

Dissent from a Cato Institute scholar and the author of EcoScam?!!? <br><br>It seems your debate is whether global warming is indeed occurring. The majority of science suggests it is, including that put out by US Executive branch agencies (OSTP, EPA, USGCRP, etc.), but if you don't buy it then I guess you don't buy it.<br><br>For others that consider global warming a fact, but who, as me, can't fully wrap their minds around it, I thought this output offered an interesting conversation piece. True, it's just a set of models, which are themselves dependent on inputs, but the possibility is nonetheless unsettling.<br><br>I can't help but think back to the Mt. Adams thread from a few months ago and some of the comments made about the future demand for high alpine resorts...

I have come to the conclusion that it won't take 60 years for the glaciers to dissappear. It'll take one year. Don't believe me? Try to ski Baker this summer. The glaciers will be gone. And in ten years, the human population of the planet will be reduced by 99%. We're all going to die, so better sell me your gear now. <br><br>And remember, it's Bush's fault.

I don't know what skip's post originally said, but I think this is certainly a topic of great interest to skiers. Sardonic replies be damned, post away skip and Larry! <br><br>Modelling is a very important part of science these days. It's amazing what computers allow us to do. Just because a model isn't perfect doesn't mean it's useless.

Hmm. The hardest-hitting thing a libertarian opinion columnist (linked from above) says about the science is "So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional wisdom;or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and the controversy." Fascinating...<br><br>Speaking controversy, here's a viewpoint on how the press tends to bias toward artificial "balance" in reporting on the stance of scientists on global warming:<br> www.fair.org/extra/0411/global-warming.html