Mountain Biking Increases Airborne Dust, Reducing the Snowpack

One more nail in mountain biking's coffin.

Mike


An unusually high number of the storms has left a film of dust on the
Rocky Mountain snowpack, causing it to melt earlier and forcing
farmers to adjust. This could be the new normal, scientists say.
By Nicholas Riccardi
May 24, 2009
Reporting from Denver -- A series of unusual spring dust storms has
left the snowcapped mountains of western Colorado stained brown and
red, even a bit pink. The dust is speeding up the runoff to rivers
that supply millions of people with water and raising fears of an
increasingly arid West.

Twelve dust storms barreled into the southern Rockies from the deserts
of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico so far this year. In contrast, four
storms hit the mountains all year long in 2003. Eight occurred in each
of the last three years.


Greenspace blog: Environmental news from California and beyond



"This year's been really, really strong," said Jason Neff, a
hydrologist at the University of Colorado-Boulder. "Something's been
going on, and I don't think we're exactly sure what."

The storms leave a dark film on snow that melts it faster by hastening
its absorption of the sun's energy. That, coupled with unseasonably
warm temperatures, has sped up the runoff here, swelling rivers to
near flood stage, threatening to make reservoirs overflow and fueling
fears that there will not be enough water left for late-summer crops.

"It creates a high-pressured game of Twister for water managers," said
Thomas Painter, director of the Snow Optics Lab at the University of
Utah. "They're having to make decisions quickly to hold on to water or
release water."

Painter has found that dust can speed up snowmelt by as much as 35
days -- in other words, snow that would normally disappear by May 15
would instead be gone by April 10.

Ever since European settlement of the West, there has been dust,
caused by outside forces breaking the fragile crust that holds
undisturbed desert soil in place. Initially, grazing cattle kicked up
the dust. Scientists say it is now more likely to be caused by
off-road vehicles, mountain bikers or energy exploration. In a study
last year, Neff found that the amount of dust in the Rockies is five
times greater than before the late 19th century.

"This is really the story of the wholesale transformation of the
West," Painter said.

Even without the dust storms, forecasters predict that global warming
will reduce the soil quality in the western United States to dust-bowl
levels by 2050, said Jayne Belnap, a scientist with the U.S.
Geological Survey. The Southwest's temperatures are expected to rise
by 10 degrees Celsius by 2100.

"It's just a harbinger of the future," Belnap said of the dust storms.
"This is the kind of world we need to imagine we're going to be living
in and decide if we can afford this dust."

Dust and soot are contributing to the disappearance of mountain snows
and the disturbance of water supplies all over the world. The Asian
"brown cloud" rising from that continent's megalopolises is blamed for
speeding up the melting of glaciers and snow in the Himalayas. Dust
blown from the plains of eastern Africa is helping destroy the snows
of Mt. Kilimanjaro.

In California, the Sierra Nevada snowpack gets some soot from Asia and
from the state's own smog-emitting centers, but little dust. State
officials have begun to study whether that soot could be contributing
to a sped-up snowmelt that, if it continues unabated, could someday
overwhelm the reservoir system.

Because winds in the western United States blow from the southwest,
dust from the deserts of California, the Great Basin and the Colorado
plateau is deposited on the southern Rockies.

The amounts of wind-blown dust in the West peaked in the 1920s,
reaching seven times the historic norm. Scientists think the level of
dust dropped after Congress sharply limited cattle grazing in 1934,
near the height of the Dust Bowl.

Today, levels are five times the historic norm.

It is only recently that scientists have begun to study dust's effect
on snow and water supplies. Painter and his colleagues only started
tracking storms in 2003. "We haven't thought about dust as a serious
environmental issue," Neff said.

This year's storms put the issue front and center, especially the
final three, which swept through southeastern Utah and southwestern
Colorado within a few days of one another in late March and early
April. Mountains that usually remain snow-covered until midsummer are
already almost bare along the entire western stretch of Colorado.

"We've seen several days with just incredible obstruction in the air,"
said Steve Vandiver, general manager of the Rio Grande Water
Conservation District, 7,500 feet high in the San Luis Valley of
southern Colorado.

Now the snowmelt is about 20 days early, and Vandiver's system is on
the brink of flooding.

He said some farmers and ranchers who rely on streams that normally
run all summer long will be without water. "This whole system was
built around the runoff coming pretty much as the crops came up," he
said.

The dust left its smear on a number of Colorado's storied ski resorts,
leading to grousing by some skiers about slushier, dirtier snow.

Jeff Hanley, a spokesman for the Aspen Skiing Co., said that as long
as slopes were being groomed the dust was not a problem.

"It didn't affect our operations. It just looked kind of funny," he
said. "You'd ski and turn around and look at your tracks and they'd be
red chocolate."

He said the industry is not worried -- yet. "If it's going to be a
regular thing for the next few years, that's one thing, but we don't
know that yet."

But some scientists note that the West has ended an unusual, 50-year
wet period and is returning to its normal, more arid state.

Belnap, the USGS scientist, said that the sort of activities that kick
up dust may not be increasing -- they just may be more damaging
because conditions are drier.

"We've been talking about this for 20 years, but it's been wet and
we've had a lot of plants" helping to hold the soil down, Belnap said.
"It's not necessarily that everyone's doing more. You've suddenly got
a drier surface."


--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
One more nail in mountain biking's coffin.

Mike



You're an idiot, and the author is only slightly better.

He's (and you are) attributing early exposure of the ground under the snow
to faster melt rates of the snow. But the real problem is that the snow pack
is thinner, and therefore melts away sooner. Regardless of the dust that may
or may not exist, when the snow pack is not as thick or dense as normal,
it's going to melt away faster.

Furthermore, if there was no mountain biking for YOU to blame the dust on,
there would still be the same amount of dust from all of the other much
larger sources -- farming, driving on dirt roads, whatever ...

On May 25, 3:21*pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

...

One more nail in mountain biking's coffin.

Mike

You're an idiot, and the author is only slightly better.

He's (and you are) attributing early exposure of the ground under the snow
to faster melt rates of the snow. But the real problem is that the snow pack
is thinner, and therefore melts away sooner. Regardless of the dust that may
or may not exist, when the snow pack is not as thick or dense as normal,
it's going to melt away faster.

Furthermore, if there was no mountain biking for YOU to blame the dust on,
there would still be the same amount of dust from all of the other much
larger sources -- farming, driving on dirt roads, whatever ...

And just consider all those mountain bikers exhaling all that carbon
dioxide tipping the climate to a disastrous degree. (No charge for
pun.)
PMH

On Mon, 25 May 2009 12:21:29 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
One more nail in mountain biking's coffin.

Mike



You're an idiot, and the author is only slightly better.

He's (and you are) attributing early exposure of the ground under the snow
to faster melt rates of the snow. But the real problem is that the snow pack
is thinner, and therefore melts away sooner. Regardless of the dust that may
or may not exist, when the snow pack is not as thick or dense as normal,
it's going to melt away faster.

Furthermore, if there was no mountain biking for YOU to blame the dust on,
there would still be the same amount of dust from all of the other much
larger sources -- farming, driving on dirt roads, whatever ...

I know you can't read, so I'll help you. The article clearly
implicates mountain biking as one of the major creators of the dust
that covers the snow, making it melt faster. That means that there
will be less water when it is most needed. Ask your mommie to explain
that to you.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On May 25, 11:18*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 12:21:29 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"



wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
One more nail in mountain biking's coffin.

Mike

You're an idiot, and the author is only slightly better.

He's (and you are) attributing early exposure of the ground under the snow
to faster melt rates of the snow. But the real problem is that the snow pack
is thinner, and therefore melts away sooner. Regardless of the dust that may
or may not exist, when the snow pack is not as thick or dense as normal,
it's going to melt away faster.

Furthermore, if there was no mountain biking for YOU to blame the dust on,
there would still be the same amount of dust from all of the other much
larger sources -- farming, driving on dirt roads, whatever ...

I know you can't read, so I'll help you. The article clearly
implicates mountain biking as one of the major creators of the dust
that covers the snow, making it melt faster. That means that there
will be less water when it is most needed. Ask your mommie to explain
that to you.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Implication is not evidence and hypothesis is not quantification.

what an idiot

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 May 2009 12:21:29 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
One more nail in mountain biking's coffin.

Mike



You're an idiot, and the author is only slightly better.

He's (and you are) attributing early exposure of the ground under the snow
to faster melt rates of the snow. But the real problem is that the snow
pack
is thinner, and therefore melts away sooner. Regardless of the dust that
may
or may not exist, when the snow pack is not as thick or dense as normal,
it's going to melt away faster.

Furthermore, if there was no mountain biking for YOU to blame the dust on,
there would still be the same amount of dust from all of the other much
larger sources -- farming, driving on dirt roads, whatever ...

I know you can't read, so I'll help you. The article clearly
implicates mountain biking as one of the major creators of the dust
that covers the snow, making it melt faster. That means that there
will be less water when it is most needed. Ask your mommie to explain
that to you.



It is not mathematically possible for mountain biking to be a major
contributor to the affects noted i8n the article, which is why the author is
only slightly smarter than you.

For all we know, yoiu wrote the article under a pen name because you've been
laughed out of the auditorium by the respectable environmentalists (if there
is such a thing). You peer reviewed your own work again, and are passing it
off here.

There will be less water when needed because there is already less snow. Ask
your mommie to explain that, idiot.

If you knew anything about snow, you would know that dirty snow frequently
covers the ground long after the clean snow has melted away.

On Mon, 25 May 2009 20:18:30 -0700, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 25 May 2009 12:21:29 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
One more nail in mountain biking's coffin.

Mike



You're an idiot, and the author is only slightly better.

He's (and you are) attributing early exposure of the ground under the
snow to faster melt rates of the snow. But the real problem is that the
snow pack is thinner, and therefore melts away sooner. Regardless of the
dust that may or may not exist, when the snow pack is not as thick or
dense as normal, it's going to melt away faster.

Furthermore, if there was no mountain biking for YOU to blame the dust
on, there would still be the same amount of dust from all of the other
much larger sources -- farming, driving on dirt roads, whatever ...

I know you can't read, so I'll help you. The article clearly implicates
mountain biking as one of the major creators of the dust that covers the
snow, making it melt faster. That means that there will be less water
when it is most needed. Ask your mommie to explain that to you.

Liar!

I know you can't read, so I'll help you. The article clearly
implicates mountain biking as one of the major creators of the dust
that covers the snow, making it melt faster. That means that there
will be less water when it is most needed. Ask your mommie to explain
that to you.


This article wrote some bigger idiot than you.
Happy recovery