Last winter’s extreme snow drought was a sign of the West’s future, Colorado study finds 60%

By Elise Schmelzer84%

7/22/2026, 10:00:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Pessimism Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 18% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 842 faulty-reasoning hits from 594 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.6% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,204 of 20,498 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.00% of the article peer group.

Record-low snow that plagued Colorado and the West this winter will occur more frequently -- and eventually become the norm -- as climate change fuels warmer temperatures, according to a new study. 
Climate change made the season's low snowfall four times more likely to occur than during the preindustrial period from 1850 to 1900, says the study, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 
The size of the impact surprised the study's lead author, Adrienne Marshall, who is a computational hydrologist and assistant professor of geology and geological engineering at the School of Mines. 
She expected an increase in likelihood of just 20% or 30% due to climate change -- not the many times over that she found. 
"It was a gut punch in a way that (other findings) haven't been," she said. 
"I'm looking at and living through the snow conditions we have right now, and I don't like it. 
It makes them real in a way that feels new, even for someone that has been working in this field for a while." 
The lack of snow has translated this summer to extreme drought, parched rivers and reservoirs, water use restrictions and increased wildfire risk across Colorado and the region. 
Similarly dry winters will become more common across the West if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed and climate change continues to intensify. 
Through the end of the decade, the chance of such a winter will hover around 10%, according to the study. 
By the 2050s, the risk will rise to 32%, and then to 87% by the 2090s. 
That means that a snow drought like the one this winter will become the norm -- predicted to happen almost every nine years out of 10 -- not the exception. 
In the Upper Colorado River Basin, which encompasses nearly all of western Colorado, climate change made this winter's drought 14 times more likely to happen than during the preindustrial era, the study says. 
There's a slice of less-bad news for those who live in the Upper Colorado River Basin, however. 
This winter was so extraordinarily dry that similar winters will remain rare through the end of the century. 
By the 2090s, the chances of such a snow drought will rise to only 17%, though less-severe snow droughts will still become more common in the decades to come. 
The study is one of the first to quantify how the warming climate changes the likelihood of severe snow droughts. 
But her research adds to studies that have predicted significant impacts on snowfall and snowsports in the coming decades, as The Denver Post explored in its "Endangered Snowpack" project in February. 
Marshall was already considering how to apply something called "attribution science" -- the process of determining how much of a role climate change plays in a phenomenon -- when the winter's lack of snow became noticeable. 
"It provided a great and terrible opportunity to use a case study to further the attribution science we were thinking of," Marshall said. 
The findings are grim, Marshall said, but she hopes they will help people better understand what the future will look like and compel them to reduce emissions and slow the pace of climate change. 
"I hope they give us clarity on where we are now and what climate change looks like so far," she said. 
"Second, I hope they help us to adapt." 
Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.0%Elise Schmelzer: 7.3%Baltimore Sun: 1.8%Confirmation Bias18.0%This article: 4.0%Elise Schmelzer: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 1.1%Anchoring Bias4.0%This article: 3.0%Elise Schmelzer: 2.7%Baltimore Sun: 2.5%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 5.1%Elise Schmelzer: 1.7%Baltimore Sun: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Elise Schmelzer: 2.7%Baltimore Sun: 4.9%Framing Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Elise Schmelzer: 1.5%Baltimore Sun: 2.5%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 12.1%Elise Schmelzer: 9.1%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%Pessimism Bias12.1%This article: 2.5%Elise Schmelzer: 8.3%Baltimore Sun: 7.3%Negativity Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Elise Schmelzer: 4.9%Baltimore Sun: 2.4%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 3.9%Elise Schmelzer: 2.6%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%False Dilemma3.9%This article: 10.4%Elise Schmelzer: 3.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Slippery Slope10.4%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.0%Elise Schmelzer: 1.9%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Hasty Generalization3.0%This article: 3.9%Elise Schmelzer: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Red Herring3.9%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.2%Elise Schmelzer: 10.7%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Appeal to Emotion8.2%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.5%Elise Schmelzer: 1.5%Baltimore Sun: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.0%Elise Schmelzer: 1.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%Anecdotal3.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.9%Elise Schmelzer: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Personal Incredulity3.9%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.8%Elise Schmelzer: 3.9%Baltimore Sun: 1.7%Unattributed Quote11.8%This article: 3.9%Elise Schmelzer: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 16.5%Elise Schmelzer: 7.4%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Biased Writer Voice16.5%This article: 5.7%Elise Schmelzer: 3.8%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Indoctrination5.7%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elise Schmelzer: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Elise Schmelzer: 1.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.4%

594 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker39%attributed speech362writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 30 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 36 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 23 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 34 words • 100.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAdrienne Marshall • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adrienne Marshall

72%flagged-word coverage
232 attributed words100% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-27.1 ptsWriter: 27.1%Adrienne Marshall: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-19.3 ptsWriter: 19.3%Adrienne Marshall: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+14.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Adrienne Marshall: 14.7%14.7%Quote-first Misdirection+9.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Adrienne Marshall: 9.9%9.9%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%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.