And this still doesn’t prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible, either
Snowpack In The West Has Resisted Climate Change But That Won’t Last Forever
For the last 35 years, the snowpack in the West’s mountains has resisted the impacts of global warming. But that could soon change, according to a new study out of Oregon State University.
The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that although climate change should have caused a steep decrease in snowpack, naturally occurring, decades-long weather variations shielded the Cascades, Sierras and Rockies from some of the effects. Although snow stations have recorded some decline, it hasn’t been statistically significant. But according to the study, without this natural weather variation, snowpack in Oregon could have declined between 18 percent and 54 percent over the last 35 years.
The West has a wet season and a dry season and relies on wintertime snowpack for summertime water, so this could have drastic impacts on the region. Nick Siler, a climate scientist at Oregon State University and an author on the study, says that Oregon could be hit particularly hard when this trend reverses because it tends to snow in Oregon when temperatures are close to freezing, not far below freezing. It wouldn’t take much warming to tip that snow to rain. (snip to end)
“I don’t want to give the impression that we’re predicting an immediate shift into a regime where snowpack is going to become quite scarce. But my strong feeling is that in the last 35 years, the trends that we’ve seen are not a good predictor of the trends we’re likely to see over the next 35,†says Siler. “When exactly these significant declines will appear is impossible to say.â€
So, this is looking in a crystal ball, ie, Warmist computer programs, and making a prediction that is in contradiction to what has been observed for 35 years. Which dovetails into another of all things Warmist
HOW TO CONVINCE A CONSERVATIVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
…
A new study offers another promising approach, which takes advantage of our desire for internal consistency. It finds that “conservative participants who first acknowledge several general contributions of science subsequently report significantly stronger beliefs in climate science.”
This suggests that having people first recognize the value and importance of science in general makes it harder for them to subsequently dismiss one branch of scientific research.
You get the gist of where they’re going, so, first off, they’ve been running these types of things for well over a decade, once they realized that people were no longer buying what they were selling, that people were opting out of Cult of Climastrology belief. Second, they so often avoid the central question of causation, and reading further in the article, it again avoids it. Hey, I believe in climate change, I just do not believe that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for it.
Second, the science itself doesn’t prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for it, and studies like the snowpack one do not help prove it. It’s based on something that hasn’t been observed and future-based fear mongering. And, again, even if it does start happening, that doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. What the members of the CoC do is simply assume anthropogenic causation without science.
