Colorado drought increasingly linked to long-term climate change 65%

By Michael Booth38%

7/22/2026, 10:08:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Pessimism Bias, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 18.6% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 1,413 faulty-reasoning hits from 746 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,812 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.30% of the article peer group.

This year's devastating snow drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin was made 14 times more likely by years of global climate change, according to a new study by Colorado School of Mines researchers, who are increasingly linking short-term weather disasters to decades of warming. 
Low snow years have always been possible in the West, the researchers said, but climate change is making it more frequent and more devastating. 
By the 2050s, their modeling shows, snowpack drought like the states west of the Continental Divide experienced this past winter will be happening more than three of every 10 years, and nearly nine of every 10 years by the 2090s. 
Warmer temperatures in the West have also intensified the impacts of the worst drought winters such as 2025-26, according to the research published in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” 
The current snowpack drought, coming amid climate change, robbed 25% more moisture from snowpack than a similar-scale drought occurring before the Industrial Age advent of heavy fossil fuel use and global warming. 
That’s an entire Lake Mead’s worth of water, the largest reservoir in the United States. 
The study modeling assumes current “moderate” levels of greenhouse gas emissions will continue for decades, a scenario most international climate scientists have agreed upon. 
That leaves room for change and optimism, said co-author Adrienne Marshall, a climate hydrology expert and assistant professor of geology and geological engineering at Mines. 
“I hope this study is useful in that we can look at this snow year and say, ‘I don't like this,’ and that it helps motivate us to think about how we can adapt to and avoid these very low snow years,” Marshall said. 
“Lower emissions scenarios would reduce this risk and should be pursued ambitiously,” the study authors say. 
And for the nearer term, by the 2050s, the warning from the study is to adapt, Marshall said. 
Even if long-term emissions are lowered, near-term changes are already baked into rising temperatures and likelihood of drought. 
Coming in a week where Denver Water has warned 1.5 million customers they aren’t doing nearly enough to save 20% of water use from average years, practical implications might be obvious, the researchers said. 
“Anecdotally, I feel like I see more of my neighbors pursuing lawn replacement projects than I ever have before, and switching to low-water landscaping,” Marshall said. 
“And I think it's worth asking ourselves, how can we do that on a societal level?” 
For years, climate scientists made a clear distinction between short-term severe weather events and the long-term patterns brought by climate change. 
One good winter snowfall, for example, does not mean climate change is over. 
But increasingly, climate scientists are making direct connections, including about the European heat waves and other events. 
“The field of extreme event attribution has really grown over the last 20 years or so,” Marshall said. 
“Along with everybody else, I was watching this year's snow conditions kind of evolve over the course of the winter, and was asking myself the glaring question: To what extent was this caused by climate change?” 
Marshall said. 
“This study was among the first to take those methods and apply them to snow drought conditions.” 
The researchers used modeling to take this season’s historically low snow conditions and compare it to snow drought frequency and severity from before climate change, about 1850 to 1900. 
“What was the probability of having an event that bad in the world we're living in now, versus the world without climate change?” 
Marshall explained. 
The results showed that in the West as a whole, climate change made this year’s severe drought more than four times more likely than before global warming began. 
In the Upper Colorado River basin, with Colorado as the headwaters, that risk exploded to 14 times more likely after climate change, Marshall said. 
Without major policy changes that would reduce carbon emissions, things appear more and more dire the further the researchers, she said. 
“In the 2020s, we'd expect about one out of every 10 years to be this bad” under emissions assumptions, Marshall said. 
“By the 2050s around 32% of the years  three out of every 10 years to be this bad in the Western U.S. 
And then by the 2090s, 87% of the years. 
So by late in the century, most of the time, we would expect to have as much or less snow as we did this year.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.5%Michael Booth: 2.9%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Confirmation Bias9.5%This article: 6.2%Michael Booth: 1.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Anchoring Bias6.2%This article: 11.5%Michael Booth: 2.6%The Colorado Sun: 2.2%Availability Heuristic11.5%This article: 2.8%Michael Booth: 1.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 4.8%Michael Booth: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 18.6%Michael Booth: 3.2%The Colorado Sun: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias18.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 8.0%The Colorado Sun: 3.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Michael Booth: 1.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Loss Aversion4.3%This article: 2.4%Michael Booth: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%Michael Booth: 10.9%The Colorado Sun: 4.2%Optimism Bias9.2%This article: 12.6%Michael Booth: 3.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.9%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 7.5%Michael Booth: 3.3%The Colorado Sun: 5.7%Negativity Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.2%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.6%The Colorado Sun: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Michael Booth: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 0.8%Recency Bias6.8%This article: 2.8%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%Michael Booth: 3.6%The Colorado Sun: 3.0%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 5.2%Michael Booth: 1.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.8%False Dilemma5.2%This article: 3.1%Michael Booth: 0.9%The Colorado Sun: 0.5%Slippery Slope3.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.8%Michael Booth: 2.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Hasty Generalization2.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.5%Michael Booth: 4.5%The Colorado Sun: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion12.5%This article: 4.8%Michael Booth: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question4.8%This article: 13.0%Michael Booth: 1.5%The Colorado Sun: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.8%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.5%Michael Booth: 1.8%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 1.7%Michael Booth: 0.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.7%This article: 4.7%Michael Booth: 1.3%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Michael Booth: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 1.6%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 4.8%Michael Booth: 1.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 3.2%Michael Booth: 2.1%The Colorado Sun: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice3.2%This article: 16.6%Michael Booth: 3.5%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Indoctrination16.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Michael Booth: 0.2%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.1%

746 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker38%attributed speech459writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 25 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adrienne Marshall

99%flagged-word coverage
287 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination+31.3 ptsWriter: 4.6%Adrienne Marshall: 35.9%35.9%Quote-first Misdirection+12.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Adrienne Marshall: 12.5%12.5%Unattributed Quote-7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%Adrienne Marshall: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Adrienne Marshall: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Adrienne Marshall: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.