Save Our Snow

SAVE OUR SNOW:THE DISAPPEARINGCRYOSPHERE

Mark Williams, University of Colorado

Disappearing Cryosphere

• 2000’s warmest decade in record• Glacier retreat?• Permafrost melt?• Less runoff?• Skiing a dying sport?• Mtn climate?

– Avalanches?– Rock fall?

• Hoax or real?

Talk Overview

• Mountains as water towers• Hydrology overview• Natural gas extraction and water• MPB and climate• Climate tutorial on skiing• Himalaya’s: climate change gone bad

GlobalWarmingHoax.comWhere only the truth heats up

Can we agree that snow and ice melt from mountains are an

economically important source of water?

David Michel, The Stimson Center

Why we care

The Chinese character for “political order” combines the symbols for “river” and “dike”.

The English word “rival” (and similar terms in other languages) derives from the Latin rivalis meaning “ one using the same stream as another”.


Which direction does water flow?

Towards money

What’s water good for?

Whiskey’s for drinkingWater’s for fighting

Mountains are water towers

Our snow and ice resource is sensitive to changes in climate

(regardless of what causes climate to change)

demonstration

Is natural gas really part of a clean energy strategy? Tales from

the environment.Mark Williams, Joe Ryan, Adrianne

KroepschUniversity of Colorado Boulder

Image from “http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/america-gets-fracked”

Fracing overview

Enviromental footprint consists of:

• Rock formation • Water and fluid for fracing• Transport of the water to site• Well-casing• Fugitive methane• Disposal of “produced water”• Compressor stations, transmission of recovered gas• Air quality

Hydrogeologic, Isotopic, and Geochemical Analysis of Hydrogeologic, Isotopic, and Geochemical Analysis of Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions Along the Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions Along the

Fruitland Outcrop: Fruitland Outcrop: The Backdrop for The Backdrop for

Coalbed Methane DevelopmentCoalbed Methane Development

M. Williams, PhD K.Nydick, PhDG.Gianniny, PhDCU-Boulder Mtn. Studies Inst. Ft. Lewis College

R.Michel, PhD Chris Peltz, MSJordan VanSickleUSGS Mtn. Studies Inst. Ft. Lewis College

Adrianne Kroepsch University of Colorado –

Boulder

Conceptual ModelConceptual Model

Study DesignStudy Design• 67 SITES: Surface , Domestic 67 SITES: Surface , Domestic

Wells, Piezometers, Springs, Wells, Piezometers, Springs, Irrigation Ditches, PrecipIrrigation Ditches, Precip

• 3 AREAS: Florida Drainage, 3 AREAS: Florida Drainage, Basin Interior, Piedra DrainageBasin Interior, Piedra Drainage

• Above, In, Below Outcrop of Above, In, Below Outcrop of Fruitland FormationFruitland Formation

• Synoptic sampling in 2008/2009 Synoptic sampling in 2008/2009 for baseflow/melt conditionsfor baseflow/melt conditions

• Test isotopic, solute compositionTest isotopic, solute composition

Tritium (Tritium (33H)H)

• Almost all water is modern. Almost all water is modern.

• Age range of less than 15 Age range of less than 15 yrs for all but two domestic yrs for all but two domestic wells. wells.

• Signal of hydrologic Signal of hydrologic connection between these connection between these water bodies. water bodies.

Tritium and SodiumTritium and Sodium

Piezometers in the Fruitland Formation near outcrop

Fruitland Outcrop• SAR, tritium, and O18 in piezometers in outcrop same

as local springs and wells• There is a hydrologic connection between the

Fruitland Formation outcrops and local springs and wells

• Strength of that connection is site specific• Vance well shows a large reduction in water level

– Judge Hobbs water law ruling based on their law suit• Florida River likely a losing stretch near outcrop• Piedra River likely a gaining stretch near outcrop

Environmental Investigation of an Environmental Investigation of an Alleged Hydraulic Fracturing ImpactAlleged Hydraulic Fracturing Impact

Adrianne KroepschMA Candidate, Geography

INSTAAR Grad Talk 10.6.11

*NOT TO SCALE. Adapted from Dahl testimony. (Dahl, 2011; COGCC, 2011)

“When I checked the cistern that afternoon about6 p.m., it was about half full of grey/brown, veryturbid water. Since our water well had never produced anything but clean, clear water prior to this day, I can tell you that it was very shocking to see.” - Tracy Dahl

CisternTap

(Dahl, 2011)

• No sign of frac fluid or produced water

• Chemicals (TCMs, chloride, phthalate) from chlorination

• Well not adequately purged after chlorination

• Iron-reducing bacteria causing discoloration

• Toluene “naturally occurring”

• No significant pressure changes during frac

• Cement job on Alibi 23-2 up to regulation

Questions this case raises

• Do we have to see a “fingerprint” of fracing fluid in a homeowners well to conclude there has been a problem?

• Can fracing compromise the structural integrity of overlying or interbedded aquifers?

• Should measurements of static water levels in wells be required prior to and post natural gas development?

Fracing and earthquakes

• Deep injection of produced waters associated with earthquakes in numerous states and countries– Consistent with Rocky Flats Arsenal earthquakes from

the 1970’s– Injected water increases stress along pre-existing faults,

and also increases lubrication of those faults• Fracing itself appears to be able to cause

earthquakes under very specific conditions• EPA white paper in preparation

Does fracing affect beer?

• Cooperstone brewery fights NY fracing• Brewery Ommegang says Belgium ale and natural

gas don’t mix• Their beer is more than 90% water from

groundwater aquifers• They are concerned that natural gas extraction in

the state of New York may contaminate their aquifer

What is the number one priority for homeowners?

Baseline data. COGA and COGCC making a nice first

step in this direction. However, what

analytes/parameters should be required? Detection limits?

Can fracing be conducted without environmental harm?

Absolutely

Is fracing always done correctly?

No

Questions?

Colorado Water and Energy Research Centerhttp://outreach.colorado.edu/programs/

details/id/392

SAVE OUR SNOW

Brian LazarStratus Consulting

Mark WilliamsCU-BoulderNWT LTER

Lazar and Williams,2008

Mountain Snowpack

Mark WilliamsSnow Hydrology

Snow properties of interest

Working wall

RoundsTwo primary types of snow grains within the snowpack

Facets

Snow is dynamic, always changing!

Firnspiegel

Demonstration

U.S. Air Temperatures Have Increased over the 20th

Century• Warming in the US

is concentrated in the mountain areas of the west.

• The western US has warmed about 2°F in the last five years compared to the last 100 years.

Source: Dr. Martin Hoerling, NOAA, Boulder, CO.

Location

Climate Analysis Approach

- General circulation models (GCMs)

- Regional climate models

(RCMs)

- MAGICC/SCENGEN

- Statistical downscaling

- Dynamic downscaling

Emission scenarios

- IPCC

Climate response modeling

Scale to Park City

Estimate effects on snow

- SRM

- Snow depth

Climate Change

• “Climate change” refers broadly to any changes in climate (air temp, precip)

• Here we focus on potential climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG)– Carbon dioxide– Nitrous oxide– Methane

Rising CO2 Will Lead to Accelerated Rise in Air

Temperature




(RCMs)

- MAGICC/SCENGEN



Emission scenarios

- IPCC


Scale to Park City


- SRM

- Snow depth

Model vs. Observed Current (2000) Temperatures

°C




(RCMs)

- MAGICC/SCENGEN



Emission scenarios

- IPCC


Scale to Park City


- SRM

- Snow depth

5 x 5° Grid Boxes Near Park City• 300 miles on a side• RCM box 20 miles on a side

Different Climate Scenarios

• Three CO2 warming scenarios– Business as usual (AIB)– Green scenario (BI)– Worst-case scenario (AIF1)

• Three different years for each CO2 scenario – 2030: normal business projection– 2070: threshold for large effects?– 2100: long-term

Annual Climate Changes in 2030: Business as Usual CO2

Scenario

• All GCMs show warming of 3-4°F

• Little variability in temperature

Higher variability in precipitation

GCM average precipitation decreases by 7%

°C

Summary of Projected Climate Change in 2030

• Temperatures are projected to rise– GCMs project a 3° to 4°F rise

• Little variability among models• Little variability among CO2 scenarios• Adds confidence to interpretation

– Warming most pronounced during the summer• Precipitation changes are uncertain

– there is high variability across the GCMs

Potential Climate Changes in 2100:

Business as Usual CO2 Scenario• More warming:

All GCMs show warming of 9.5° to 11.2°F

• Continued variability in precipitation

• Park City will have climate of Salt Lake City

Potential Climate Changes in 2100:Business as Usual, Worst Case and

Best Case CO2 Scenarios

Annual averagesB1: 8.5°FA1B: 10.4°FA1FI: 15.2°F

Warming most pronounced in summer

• Bad CO2 scenario almost twice as “hot” as best case CO2 scenario

Climate Change Projections Summary

• Today; now: it’s getting hotter– Night temps 2-3F warmer than in 1970

• 2030: warms another 3-4F– Little difference among CO2 scenarios

• 2070: large increases in air temp– CO2 scenarios make a difference

• 2100: even larger increases in air temp– CO2 scenarios make even larger difference– Park City climate like Salt Lake City today

• Precip: highly variable, not much confidence

Climate Change Bottom Line

• It’s not gloom and doom• Continues to get gradually warmer• Really large change is 50 to 70 years in future• CO2 scenarios have a large effect then

– What the world does with CO2 emissions today matters to your grand-children in 50 years

• Caveat: These are deviations from average conditions– Science at this time is unable to deal with changes in the

frequency of unusual years: droughts, large snow years, etc

Study Approach

– GCMs

– RCMs

– MAGICC/SCENGEN

– Statistical downscaling

– Dynamic downscaling

Emission scenarios

– IPCC


Scale to Ski Area


– SRM

– Snow depth

- SNTHRM

Study Approach• We used computer “models” to calculate

how changes in temperature and precipitation will affect the snowpack

• We calculated changes in snow coverage and snow depth at different elevations at different times of the year Example

Model Domain and Elevation Zones

• Model domain sliced up into elevation zones

• Each zone spans ~250 vertical m

Example: Aspen area

Thaynes Canyon Historical Average Air Temperatures

(1988-2006)• Snow accumulation

historically begins in late October

• Snowmelt historically begins in mid-April

Snow accumulation

Thaynes Canyon Historical Average Air Temperatures

(1988-2006)• Lose snow on

the shoulder seasons

• Ski season starts later and ends earlier

Reduced snowaccumulation

Park City: Snow Depth Ski Area Base 2030

Snow Depth Ski Area Base 2075

Snow Depth Top of Ski Area 2075

Hydrologic Impacts are large

Wet avalanches start date: Aspen Mtn

Lazar and Williams, 2008



14 days



36 days



56 days

March 2010 issue

Increasing avalanchesIncreasing rockfallDisappearing snow and ice

I got into Climbing mag before my son who climbs 5.14

JonnyCopp

MicahDash

WadeJohnson

Our we already getting more avalanches?

Boulder climbers killed by avy in China

Mountain Pine Beetle

Niwot Ridge D1

NWT LTER12,700’

Himalayan hydrology

Himalayan water tower

Terminus Location History- Gangotri Glacier, Uttarkashi district of Garhwal Himalaya, India (Kargel et al. PNAS, 2011)(a point measurement to assess the behavior of a large system)

Glacier data are sparse and mostly limited to terminus fluctuations.

Snow and ice runoff

• Water security to 2 billion people• Impacts US national security• There are countries of interest here:

– Pakistan– Afghanistan– India– China

• Will major rivers run dry because of climate change?

Armstrong 2010

Himalayan Glaciers, Hydrology, Climate Change, and

Implications for Water Security• NRC committee to summarize current state

of knowledge• Sponsor: “Intelligence community”• USAID: $5,400,000 award to Armstrong

and Williams to study same problem

Digital elevation model - SRTM (90m spatial resolution).

Glacier outlines (ASTER)Catchment basins (remote

sensing+DEM)Runoff data (DHM Nepal) Water samples (stream and glacier surface)

Remote sensing and field methodsRemote sensing and field methodsEverest

Khumbu glacier

Water sampling,Water sampling,Khumbu, Nov 2009Khumbu, Nov 2009

Mera glacier (6,450m), Mera glacier (6,450m), Nepal- a benchmark Nepal- a benchmark glacierglacier(IRD France)(IRD France)

Area-Altitude Mass Balance Model: Area-Altitude Mass Balance Model: Define Accumulation and Ablation Areas

• ELA0 ~ regional 0 o isothermextrapolation from lower elevationmet. stations and NCEP reanalysisupper air data

• ELA0 ~ 5400m for this case study

.

Compute melt below thisaltitude using a regional mass balance gradient

* ELA0 = 4500 – 6200m in the Himalayas (E-W gradient)

Vertical mass balance gradients Vertical mass balance gradients (∂b/∂z)(∂b/∂z)

Yala glacier, NepalYala glacier, Nepal∂∂b/∂z = 1.4 m/100mb/∂z = 1.4 m/100m

(Fujita et al. 1998). Reproduced from Konz et al. 2006.

Accumulation area Ablation area

Bn =1.4m

Bn = 2.8m

Bn =4.2m

Bn =5.6m

Melt runoff volume Melt runoff volume = (mcm)

specific net budget

surface area forelevation band

100m

Mass balance estimates, Dudh Kosi basin

The mass balance volume = specific net budget x surface area of altitudinal belts on the glacier

Bs = bs1Aa1 + bs2Aa2 + bs3Aa3,…+bsnAan

Total ice melt (mcm)

Part 2:

MIXING MODEL

Two components:

•One Conservative Tracer

• Mass Balance Equations for Water and Tracer

δ18O trends, Meragroundwater

Monitoring changes in glaciers and glacier lakesMonitoring changes in glaciers and glacier lakes

Image is a portion of an uncalibrated ASTER Level 1A VNIR false-color image (321RGB), acquired on November 20, 2001

Bhutan Himalaya

Tibet Himalaya

2 kilometers2 kilometersN

Lugge TshoThorthomi Tsho

Raphsthreng Tsho

Monitoring Supraglacial and ProglacialMonitoring Supraglacial and Proglacial LakesLakes

The stagnating termini of glaciers in the Bhutan Himalaya. Glacial lakes have been rapidly forming on the surfaces of debris-covered glaciers worldwide during the last few decades.

5x5 km2

30x30 km2

Himalayan Glacial Retreat and Advance

Scherler, Bookhagen, Strecker, 2011 – nature geoscience

Spatially variableNo consistent retreat

5x5 km2

30x30 km2

Example from the Sutlej: Hydrograph distinguishing between snow and ice melt

and rainfall

Wulf, Bookhagen, Scherler, in review – WRRFigure Sutlej Glacier ice melt only about 10%

Annual discharge increasing in Indus River

Kabul groundwater

Draft evaluation

• Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2030

• Himalayan glaciers not melting at fastest rates in the world

• Himalayan glacial melt a minor contributor to the Ganges River

• Himalayan rivers will not go dry in 2030• Hydrology problems overblown

Climate change will impact water security in the HKH region

• Glaciers in the HKH are melting• Just not fastest rates in the world• Changes in monsoon and westerly flow the

chief cause• Surface/groundwater interactions unknown• Groundwater engineering needed,

particularly northern India, Pakistan

The cryosphere is on life supportSki and climb while you can

Makalu from Mera

Thank you!

Funding from NSF DDRI, NASA ESSFunding from NSF DDRI, NASA ESSNSF Supplemental GrantNSF Supplemental GrantLTER programLTER programWorld Bank, Nepal (Harshadeep N.); World Bank, Nepal (Harshadeep N.); ICIMOD, Kathmandu, NepalICIMOD, Kathmandu, NepalDHM, Kathmandu,NepalDHM, Kathmandu,NepalIRD FranceIRD FranceGLIMS team – NSIDC, BoulderGLIMS team – NSIDC, BoulderLocal people for field helpLocal people for field help

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Save Our Snow

Documents

Transcript of Save Our Snow