Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#51

Post by ceejayoz »

hervature wrote: post #50
ceejayoz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will find that the population has been stable globally… That is a very different claim than your original. You said it is steadily increasing and has doubled. And, yes, I read the whole article. "'Populations have not grown,' Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. 'Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.'…

To be clear, I have not changed my claim. I am merely point out that even the polar bear people say that it is not in decline and, for some reason, refuse to say what their own data says, which is global population is on the rise. From their data from the region with most bears: Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592) Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015) I am not making up t…

I am reading and quoting your very words.

> The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s. Basically double what it was.

Then:

> You will find that the population has been stable globally.

Can you resolve the apparent conflict between these two statements?

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#52

Post by [deleted] »

vuggamie wrote: post #34
singleshot_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

March is a spring month at sea level.

Incredible observation. Seasons begin and end on different days depending on sea level. I was under the impression that the first two thirds of March was winter at every elevation in the northern hemisphere. singleshot_ has added much to this conversation. You cannot tell AI slopposters from regular hn users because they all get out of the house the same amount of time.

[deleted]

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#53

Post by [deleted] »

vuggamie wrote: post #34
singleshot_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

March is a spring month at sea level.

Incredible observation. Seasons begin and end on different days depending on sea level. I was under the impression that the first two thirds of March was winter at every elevation in the northern hemisphere. singleshot_ has added much to this conversation. You cannot tell AI slopposters from regular hn users because they all get out of the house the same amount of time.

[deleted]

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#54

Post by hervature »

ceejayoz wrote: post #51
hervature wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I have not changed my claim. I am merely point out that even the polar bear people say that it is not in decline and, for some reason, refuse to say what their own data says, which is global population is on the rise. From their data from the region with most bears: Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592) Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015) I am not making up t…

I am reading and quoting your very words. > The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s. Basically double what it was. Then: > You will find that the population has been stable globally. Can you resolve the apparent conflict between these two statements?

Read the words before the second part:

"""

Go look at the data yourself: [link]

You will find that the population has been stable globally [...]

"""

I am summarizing their own analysis. If you go look in the data, you will see that the global population is on the rise.

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#55

Post by ceejayoz »

hervature wrote: post #54
ceejayoz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reading and quoting your very words. > The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s. Basically double what it was. Then: > You will find that the population has been stable globally. Can you resolve the apparent conflict between these two statements?

Read the words before the second part: """ Go look at the data yourself: [link] You will find that the population has been stable globally [...] """ I am summarizing their own analysis. If you go look in the data, you will see that the global population is on the rise.

That’s a dodge.

I looked at the data you linked.

Of the ~20 regional populations listed, one says long term increase, two say long term decrease, and the rest all say insufficient data.

It doesn’t seem to match up with your portrayal very well.

Where did you get the “doubled” bit from?

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#56

Post by wak90 »

everdrive wrote: post #32
blipvert wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t remember the exact quote, but there is something in The Omen II about future wars being fought over food (Thorn corporation being involved in agriculture/fertiliser or something). 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.

But of course Thomas Malthus was wrong about everything and we just keep need to growing populations.

It's pretty indicative of the situation that you're unironically trying to say Malthus was right about some things, actually.

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#57

Post by scarecrowbob »

saltcured wrote: post #36

Our whole flood control and water supply system is designed around the expected storage of water as snow. 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…

I'm on Colorado's Western Slope. Last summer we got about no precipitation for 2 months and then 6" in one day. Wooo... very fun.

Even better, in some place like Ruidoso, NM (where I've lived) there have been pretty massive deforestations from wildfires with the result being that it floods about any time it rains.

I've spent about 3-5hr/day for the last 4 weeks trying to get rid of stuff that burns as far out from my shacks as I can, but I would bet that when it burns, it's going to go big.

Not looking forward to that.

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#58

Post by royal__ »

lazystar wrote: post #4

I don't see the point in comparing photos of snow coverage in feb 2026 to the same area in march 2026. March is a spring month, of course snow coverage will be worse. Itd be more shocking if the snow coverage increased. they should show march 2026 vs. march 2025/2024/2023 etc.

In Utah its typical to have just as muc

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#59

Post by royal__ »

lazystar wrote: post #4

I don't see the point in comparing photos of snow coverage in feb 2026 to the same area in march 2026. March is a spring month, of course snow coverage will be worse. Itd be more shocking if the snow coverage increased. they should show march 2026 vs. march 2025/2024/2023 etc.

In Utah it's atypical to not have just as much if not more snow in March than in April. The snow pack in the mountains should last all the way until August. This year will likely be very bad for wildfires.

Re: March heat in American west has left snowpack at record-low levels

#60

Post by hervature »

ceejayoz wrote: post #55
hervature wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the words before the second part: """ Go look at the data yourself: [link] You will find that the population has been stable globally [...] """ I am summarizing their own analysis. If you go look in the data, you will see that the global population is on the rise.

That’s a dodge. I looked at the data you linked. Of the ~20 regional populations listed, one says long term increase, two say long term decrease, and the rest all say insufficient data. It doesn’t seem to match up with your portrayal very well. Where did you get the “doubled” bit from?

That is not a dodge. Look at the "one long term increase" and "two long term decrease" and compare the estimated populations. You have 2644 vs 618+900=1518. So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.

Now, for the doubling, if you look at the original study I linked, it has a graph of the point estimates through the decades. From the 60s to now is about a doubling. If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%. These are estimates based on multiple studies in the different time periods whereas the WWF report uses a single report.

I have sufficiently defended my claim and provided actual sources for things other than a news article that says "expert says...". If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.

Post reply on HN