Save Our Snow


Published on

Mark Williams CU on the Weekend

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Isn ’t that pretty… Geologists are just frustrated artists.
  • ADD DIP ANGLES. Fall of 2008, Spring of 2009 to capture baseflow and spring snowmelt conditions.
  • 15yr estimate uses Albuquerque input function as reference. Two domestic wells (out of XX) were outliers. Tightly-coupled, well-mixed, some seasonal variation… mean values about the same as precip… all consistent with some mixing-interaction. Piezometers in the Outcrop are not tritium dead, so consistent with Outcrop as a recharge point. Values cluster around 4.5-7.5... But there is spatial difference: 6.3 in Fla vs. 5.4 in Pdra. Overdrafting?
  • Point out that we are talking about CC outside of natural variability
  • IPCC, 2001 Uncertainties mainly the result of uncertainties about future emissions of GHGs and “global sensitivity”
  • Models simulate temperature quite well. Brian, add add the observed line as an animation. Double the thickness of that line relative to other lines. Remove shapes on right side.
  • Slide on 5x5 GCM grid which includes Park City. We use the average of these two grid boxes since PC lies close to the southern edge of the upper box.
  • Brian, please Place air temp and precip on separate figures -keep same size -keep x-axis caption on second figure 2)Put air temp figure first -same place as current air temp figure -text to right of figure that summarizes air temp stuff 3)Add precip figure below air temp figure -same place as precip on first figure -add precip text to right 4) Use same color and bar type for all air temp model results 5) Use same color for all precip model results -but different color than for air temp
  • Update color combo to be same as for 2070.
  • Map is fuzzy. Insert original map (Adina)
  • Map is fuzzy. Insert original map (Adina)
  • Save Our Snow

    1. 1. SAVE OUR SNOW: THE DISAPPEARING CRYOSPHEREMark Williams, University of Colorado
    2. 2. 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?
    3. 3. 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
    4. 4. GlobalWarmingHoax.comWhere only the truth heats up
    5. 5. Can we agree that snow and ice melt from mountains are aneconomically important source of water?
    6. 6. Why we careDavid Michel, The Stimson Center
    7. 7. 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”.David Michel, The Stimson Center
    8. 8. Which direction does water flow? Towards money
    9. 9. What’s water good for? Whiskey’s for drinking Water’s for fighting
    10. 10. Mountains are water towers Our snow and ice resource is sensitive to changes in climate(regardless of what causes climate to change)
    11. 11. demonstration
    12. 12. Is natural gas really part of aclean energy strategy? Tales from the environment. Mark Williams, Joe Ryan, Adrianne Kroepsch University of Colorado Boulder
    13. 13. Fracing overviewImage from “”
    14. 14. 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
    15. 15. Hydrogeologic, Isotopic, and Geochemical Analysis of Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions Along the Fruitland Outcrop: The Backdrop for Coalbed Methane Development M. Williams, PhD K.Nydick, PhD G.Gianniny, PhD Adrianne Kroepsch CU-Boulder Mtn. Studies Inst. Ft. Lewis CollegeUniversity of Colorado – Boulder R.Michel, PhD Chris Peltz, MS Jordan VanSickle USGS Mtn. Studies Inst. Ft. Lewis College
    16. 16. Conceptual Model
    17. 17. Study Design• 67 SITES: Surface , Domestic Wells, Piezometers, Springs, Irrigation Ditches, Precip• 3 AREAS: Florida Drainage, Basin Interior, Piedra Drainage• Above, In, Below Outcrop of Fruitland Formation• Synoptic sampling in 2008/2009 for baseflow/melt conditions• Test isotopic, solute composition
    18. 18. Tritium (3H)• Almost all water is modern.• Age range of less than 15 yrs for all but two domestic wells.• Signal of hydrologic connection between these water bodies.
    19. 19. Tritium and SodiumPiezometers in the Fruitland Formation near outcrop
    20. 20. 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
    21. 21. Here I want to clearly state the objectiv es of my statement: I. Establish the pressing need for the CO GCC to collaborate more fully with s tate and feder al agenci es as wel l as the publ ic. II. Designate the North Fork Ranch as a “Sensitive Area”, requiring additional precautions be taken to preserve sur face and groundwater quality and quantity . III. In conjunc tion with the EPA, C DPHE and DWR and area operator s, create a real and meaningful water monitoring program on the North Fork Ranch IV. Re-open the invest igation into the sudd en turbidity event impacting my water well, resulting in: a. Issuance of an Order Finding Violation against Pioneer Natural Resources b. Establis h a mechanism for financ ial compensation for our current lo ss as Environmental Investigation of an Alleged well as likely future compensation for additional impacts c. Public record of hydraulic fracturing impac ting a domestic water well V. Revie w/Re -work the regulations to prevent this from occurring again and again VI. Identify instit utional proble ms wit hin the CO GCC, includin g: Hydraulic Fracturing Impact a. Re activ e rather than proac tive philos ophy b. Internal politi cs that prec lude objective scientific inves tigation VII. Establish a mechanism by which people advers ely impacted by gas development have a realistic means by which they can s eek restitution. Adrianne Kroepsch MA Candidate, Geography INSTAAR Grad Talk 10.6.11Vie w to th e wes t fr o m o ur ho m e in th e N o rth Fo rk R an c h: Sa n gre de Cr is to M o un ta in s, C u l ebr a R ang e
    22. 22. *NOT TO SCALE. Adapted from Dahl testimony. (Dahl, 2011; COGCC, 2011)
    23. 23. Tap Cistern “When I checked the cistern that afternoon about 6 p.m., it was about half full of grey/brown, very Tur bid water in Dahl c is ter n on J une 30th. It is di ffic ult to tell fr om thi s phot o, bu t the wat er is s o dar k brown a nd full of s edim ent it is not pos s ibl e to s ee thr ough it to the bottom . In the m iddl e lef t of the im age, turbid water. Since our water well had never produced thThis is how turbid our water was on the day of the allege d im pact on June 30 , the d aywhat A libi gasto be a featur e on the botto m is actually a r efle ction of th e fl oat v alve dangling fr o m the top th e ap pears wellwas hydraulically fractured. Within a few days it was visibly getting clearer, again indica ting that this was of the cister n. Com par e thi s image to the one in the COG CC r epor t tak en the following da y, wher e m uc han acut e im pac t occurring when the gas well 1,200’ away was fracked, rat her tha n som ething that anything but clean, clear water prior to this day, I can tell you of the sed im ent has set tled out over an appr ox imat e 18 hour per iod. It wou ld not be p os s ible for wat e r thisgradu ally oc curred over the per iod of a m ont h and then cleared up in a m at ter of da ys. filthy t o h ave be en inside my well for over a m onth, then largely settle out over one night. that it was very shocking two represen tatives from Norwest Applied Hydrology (who con trac ts with Pioneer) to see.” - Tracy Dahl st On July 1 , Peter Gintautas, two representatives from Pioneer Natural Resources andNear the beginning of his repor t summary, Mr. Gintautas states that on the afternoon ofJuly 1st , the w ater in our cistern, “ appeared clear”, b ut th at piles of sediment w ere justvisible at the bottom of the tank. This is obviously not the case as shownsho the up to take water sam ples. in wedpreceding photo, the photos in the COGCC report and the sample in your handsdemonst rate. This was a very high turbidity event, well beyond what shock n t: Our complaint was of high turbidity, potentially cau sed by the hydraulic fracturing Poichlorinationcould be expected to cause. He appears to refute his own statement by referencing the of the Alibi gas well. Neither the COGCC nor Norwest (on behalf of Pionee r) hadpiles of sediment at the bottom of the tank. It is not evident w hether this was an te sts performed. This is quite an oversight, a s turbid ity tests answer the (Dahl, 2011) turbidityintentional misrepresentation, or merely sloppy writ ing, but it is important to set the question, “How turbid is turbid?”, by affixing a numerical valu e to it. This is an opticalrecord straight. This was (and unfortunately remains) a very high turbidity event.
    24. 24. • 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
    25. 25. 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?
    26. 26. 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
    27. 27. 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
    28. 28. What is the number one priority for homeowners? Baseline data. COGA and COGCC making a nice first step in this direction. However, whatanalytes/parameters should be required? Detection limits?
    29. 29. Can fracing be conducted without environmental harm? Absolutely
    30. 30. Is fracing always done correctly? No
    31. 31. Questions?Colorado Water and Energy Research Center /id/392
    32. 32. SAVE OURSNOW Brian Lazar Stratus Consulting Mark Williams CU-Boulder NWT LTERLazar and Williams,2008
    33. 33. MountainSnowpack Mark WilliamsSnow Hydrology
    34. 34. Working wallSnow properties of interest
    35. 35. Two primary types of snow grains within the snowpack Rounds Facets Snow is dynamic, always changing!
    36. 36. Firnspiegel
    37. 37. Demonstration
    38. 38. 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.
    39. 39. Location
    40. 40. Climate Analysis Approach Climate EstimateEmission Scale to response effects onscenarios Park City modeling snow - IPCC - MAGICC/SCENGEN - General - SRM circulation - Statistical - Snow depth models downscaling (GCMs) - Dynamic downscaling - Regional climate models (RCMs)
    41. 41. 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
    42. 42. Rising CO2 Will Lead toAccelerated Rise in Air Temperature
    43. 43. Climate Analysis Approach Climate EstimateEmission Scale to response effects onscenarios Park City modeling snow - IPCC - MAGICC/SCENGEN - General - SRM circulation - Statistical - Snow depth models downscaling (GCMs) - Dynamic downscaling - Regional climate models (RCMs)
    44. 44. Model vs. Observed Current (2000) Temperatures Modeled vs. Observed Current (2000) Temperature for the Central Rockies 35 CSI2D2 30 ECH3D2 ECH4D2 25 HAD2D2 HAD3D2 Model 20 Average Observed 15 °C10 5 0Temperature (degrees Celcius) -5 -10 Ap Ma J u Ju Ja F Ma ril y ne lyAu Oc An nu eb rch gu Se N tob o D nu ary rua ry sp tt e ervem ecem al mb be be er r r
    45. 45. Climate Analysis Approach Climate EstimateEmission Scale to response effects onscenarios Park City modeling snow - IPCC - MAGICC/SCENGEN - General - SRM circulation - Statistical - Snow depth models downscaling (GCMs) - Dynamic downscaling - Regional climate models (RCMs)
    46. 46. 5 x 5° Grid Boxes Near Park City• 300 miles on a side• RCM box 20 miles on a side
    47. 47. 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
    48. 48. Annual Climate Changes in 2030: Business as Usual CO2 6 6 Scenario Annual climate changes by GCM, A1B scenario Annual climate changes by GCM, A1B scenario 2030 2030 A A 5 5 °C 4 4 • All GCMs show 3 3 warming of 3-4°F 2 2 • Little variability in 1 1 temperature 0 0Tem peraturechange, degrees Precipitation change, %Tem 10 10 B B perature change, degreesC 0 0  Higher variability -10 -10 in precipitation -20 -20 -30 -30  GCM average C Precipitation change, -40 -40 precipitation decreases by 7% C C S H H E E S H H IR E E ad a C C IR ad a C C M d O H H M d C C O H H o C C A A o M M A A d M M M M d e M M 2 3 e 2 3 3 4 ll 3 4 AA vv g g .
    49. 49. 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
    50. 50. Potential Climate Changes in 2100: Business as Usual CO2 Scenario 6 Annual climate changes by GCM, A1B scenario 2100 • More warming: A 5 All GCMs show 4 3 warming of 9.5° 2 to 11.2°F 1 0 • ContinuedTem variability in perature change, degrees C 10 B 0 -10 precipitation • Park City will -20 -30 -40 have climate of Precipitation change, % -50 Salt Lake City C S H H E E IR ad a C C M d O H H C C o A A M M d M M el 2 3 3 4 A vg .
    51. 51. 2075 A1FI Potential Climate Changes in 2100: 10 8 A1B B1 Business as Usual, Worst Case and 6 12 4 2075 A1FI Best Case CO2 Scenarios 10 2 A1B September value for A1B is assumed 8 B1 12 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 6 2100 10 4 February value for A1FI is assumed September value for A1B is assumed 8 2 12 12 6 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2075 2100 A1FIT meauec a gt d c e gCe r e C 4 10 10 e p r t rTmea, re hn e dge s A1B February value for A1FI is assumed 8 2 8 B1 6 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 4 6 Annual averages e pre e r e , h n u ga s 2 4 Warming most B1: JAN 8.5°F September value for A1B is assumed FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL pronounced in summer AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2 A1B: 10.4°F A1FI:FEB15.2°F JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 12 JAN MAR APR MAY 2100 • Bad CO2 scenario almost twice as “hot” as 10 February value for A1FI is assumed best case CO2 scenario 8
    52. 52. Climate Change Projections Summary• Today; now: it’s getting hotter – Night temps 2-3°F warmer than in 1970• 2030: warms another 3-4°F – 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
    53. 53. 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:
    54. 54. Study Approach Climate EstimateEmission Scale to response effects onscenarios Ski Area modeling snow – IPCC – MAGICC/SCENGEN – GCMs – SRM – Statistical – RCMs – Snow depth downscaling – Dynamic downscaling - SNTHRM
    55. 55. 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
    56. 56. Model Domain and Elevation Zones Example: Aspen area • Model domain sliced up into elevation zones
    57. 57. Thaynes Canyon Historical Average Air Temperatures (1988-2006)• Snow accumulation 2D Graph 1 historically begins 70 in late October 60 50• Snowmelt historically 40 begins in mid-April 30 20 Snow Temperature (degrees F) accumulation 10 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
    58. 58. Thaynes Canyon Historical Average Air Temperatures (1988-2006) 2D Graph 1• Lose snow on the shoulder 70 seasons 60• Ski season 50 starts later and 40 ends earlier 30 Reduced snow 20 Temperature (degrees F accumulation 10 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
    59. 59. Park City: Snow Depth Ski Area Base 2030 30 H is to r ic a l A v g . b u s in e s s a s u s u a l 25S n o w d e p th (in ) 20 15 10 5 0 T h a n k s g iv in g C h r is tm a s P r e s i d e n t s D a y S p r in g B r e a k
    60. 60. Snow Depth Ski Area Base 2075 30 H is to r ic a l a v e r a g e L o w e m is s io n s B u s in e s s a s u s u a l 25 H ig h e m is s io n sS n o w d e p th (in ) 20 15 10 5 0 T h a n k s g iv in g C h r is tm a s P r e s id e n ts D a y S p r in g B r e a k
    61. 61. Snow Depth Top of Ski Area 2075 80 H is to r ic a l a v e r a g e 70 L o w e m is s io n s B u s in e s s a s u s u a l 60 H ig h e m is s io n sS n o w d e p th (in ) 50 40 30 20 10 0 T h a n k s g iv in g C h r is tm a s P r e s id e n ts D a y S p r in g B r e a k
    62. 62. Hydrologic Impacts are large
    63. 63. Wet avalanches start date: Aspen Mtn
    64. 64. Wet avalanches start date: Aspen Mtn 14 days
    65. 65. Wet avalanches start date: Aspen Mtn 36 days
    66. 66. Wet avalanches start date: Aspen Mtn 56 days
    67. 67. March 2010 issue Increasing avalanches Increasing rockfall Disappearing snow and iceI got into Climbing mag before my son who climbs 5.14
    68. 68. Boulder already Our we climbers getting more killed by avy in Jonny avalanches? China Copp Micah DashWadeJohnson
    69. 69. Mountain Pine Beetle
    70. 70. NWT LTER 12,700’
    71. 71. Himalayan hydrology
    72. 72. Himalayan water tower
    73. 73. Himalayan water tower
    74. 74. Glacier data are sparse and mostly limited to terminus fluctuations. 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)
    75. 75. 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?
    76. 76. Armstrong 2010
    77. 77. David Michel, The Stimson Center
    78. 78. Himalayan Glaciers, Hydrology, Climate Change, andImplications 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
    79. 79. Remote sensing and field methods Everest Khumbu glacier 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)
    80. 80. Water sampling,Khumbu, Nov 2009Mera glacier (6,450m),Nepal- a benchmark glacier(IRD France)
    81. 81. Area-Altitude Mass Balance Model: Define Accumulation and Ablation Areas • ELA0 ~ regional 0 o isotherm extrapolation from lower elevation met. stations and NCEP reanalysis upper air data • ELA0 ~ 5400m for this case study Compute melt below this altitude using a regional mass balance gradient* ELA0 = 4500 – 6200m in the Himalayas (E-W gradient)
    82. 82. Vertical mass balance gradients (∂b/∂z) Yala glacier, Nepal ∂b/∂z = 1.4 m/100m (Fujita et al. 1998). Reproduced from Konz et al. 2006.
    83. 83. nMelt runoff volume =(mcm) ∑ × Bn A i=1 i specific surface area for net budget elevation band Accumulation area Ablation area Bn = Bn = Bn = Bn = 1.4m 2.8m 4.2m 5.6m 100m
    84. 84. 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)
    85. 85. Part 2:MIXING MODELTwo components:•One ConservativeTracer• Mass BalanceEquations for Waterand Tracer
    86. 86. δ18O trends, Mera groundwater
    87. 87. x
    88. 88. Monitoring changes in glaciers and glacier lakesTibet Himalaya Bhutan HimalayaImage is a portion of an uncalibrated ASTER Level 1A VNIRfalse-color image (321RGB), acquired on November 20, 2001
    89. 89. Monitoring Supraglacial and Proglacial Lakes Lugge Tsho Thorthomi Tsho Raphsthreng Tsho N 2 kilometersThe stagnating termini of glaciers in the Bhutan Himalaya. Glacial lakeshave been rapidly forming on the surfaces of debris-covered glaciersworldwide during the last few decades.
    90. 90. Himalayan Glacial Retreat and Advance 5x5 km2 Spatially variable No consistent retreat 30x30 km2Scherler, Bookhagen, Strecker, 2011 – nature geoscience
    91. 91. Example from the Sutlej: Hydrograph distinguishing between snow and ice melt and rainfall 5x5 km2 30x30 km2 Figure Sutlej Glacier ice melt only about 10%Wulf, Bookhagen, Scherler, in review – WRR
    92. 92. Annual discharge increasing in Indus River
    93. 93. Kabul groundwater
    94. 94. 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
    95. 95. 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
    96. 96. Makalu from Mera The cryosphere is on life suppo Ski and climb while you can
    97. 97. AcknowledgementsFunding from NSF DDRI, NASA ESSNSF Supplemental GrantLTER programWorld Bank, Nepal (Harshadeep N.);ICIMOD, Kathmandu, NepalDHM, Kathmandu,NepalIRD FranceGLIMS team – NSIDC, BoulderLocal people for field help Thank you!