Scientists Predict Loss Of Deep Snow In Most Of U.S.

IRA FLATOW: This is Science Friday. I’m Ira Flatow. Later in the hour, a look at this year’s Audubon Christmas Bird Count and concerns over the possibility of mirror life. We’ll talk about what that is.

But first, researchers are projecting that by the end of the century, days where deep snow covers the ground will virtually disappear in the US, other than high up in the mountains. Joining me now to talk about that and other top science news of the week is Sophie Bushwick, Senior News Editor at New Scientist, based in New York. Sophie, welcome back. Happy New Year.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Thank you. Happy 2025.

IRA FLATOW: This first story you brought us is some bad news having to do with snow. Tell me about that.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Right. So there’s a lot of parts of the US, such as New England and the Midwest, where winter means snow. And they often have a snow cover on the ground of roughly 30 inches or more. That’s what the researchers are referring to as deep snow. And that has implications for how water is stored, the risk of flooding, and a lot of ecosystems that live in the snowpack itself, or above it, or even below it.

And researchers were trying to figure out what was going to happen with all this snow with global warming because you would think, oh, warming means snow melts. Sometimes climate change actually leads to more precipitation. And so the researchers wanted to get a more detailed model to see what was actually going to happen. And what they found was if we continue to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases at the levels we are currently, snow is going to really melt away everywhere except really the Rocky Mountains by 2100.

IRA FLATOW: Yeah, yeah. I guess the implications for animals, plants, and humans, as you say, are profound.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: That’s right. There’s a lot of small mammals that live in the snow. Their fur changes color in the winter to match it. And they’re going to either have to adapt or die out. We’re not really sure what’s going to happen for them. And then there’s, of course, the snow during the winter has effects on groundwater for the rest of the year. So it’s not just a matter of missing out on a classic New Hampshire snowy winter, it’s also it’s going to affect all the people who live there year round.

IRA FLATOW: Speaking of New Hampshire, that’s bad news for the skiers too, right?

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: That’s right. I mean, already ski resorts are having to make their snow in some cases. And whenever the Olympics roll around, this topic comes up because having snow is no longer something we can necessarily rely on, even in places that have historically had beautiful snowy winters.

IRA FLATOW: So New Hampshire will be like New Jersey or something.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: That’s what one of the researchers said and she didn’t seem too pleased about it.

IRA FLATOW: All right, our next story is about ancient fashion. Researchers have uncovered a 2,800-year-old piece of clothing in the Netherlands. What makes this so special?

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: It’s really rare for textiles and fabric to survive such a long time. So this is really exciting because it tells us a little something about the kind of clothing that people were wearing in the Iron Age. And the only reason it got preserved is because the person who was buried in this garment was also buried with jewelry. And underneath the metal jewelry these scraps of fabric were preserved, even though the body itself had decayed. But these– there was just enough fabric for researchers to look at it with imaging, and molecular analysis, and figure out what this cloth looked like.

IRA FLATOW: And how were they able to do this?

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: So they used 3D imaging to look at the weave and that told them what pattern it was. And they think it was a pattern of plaid called shepherd’s check. And then they used molecular analysis to look at what was used to dye the individual threads. And it looks like there was a red dye made from insects, which is what we still use in– for some red dyes today. And then there was another blue dye that probably came from a plant. And so they think that there was this red and blue checked pattern on this fabric based on the molecular analysis and on the 3D imaging.

IRA FLATOW: Always impressed what they can do with these kinds of things. Our next story focuses on something a bit more recent, an error in a 60-year-old mathematical proof. Tell us what the error was and how did mathematicians discover it?

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: This is an error that they found by accident. So researchers were trying to translate a famous proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem into computer language so that computers could check the work instead of relying on other mathematicians to do it. And the thing about this proof is it is super complicated and it uses little pieces of multiple fields of mathematics.

So when they were looking at one particular field called crystalline cohomology, they found that someone who had written this proof in 1965 had forgotten a symbol between one line and another.

IRA FLATOW: Just one symbol!

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Just one symbol! And that made the entire proof invalid. And if this proof is invalid, that makes all the other proofs that rely on it invalid too because so much else has been built on top of this foundation.

IRA FLATOW: Yeah, it reminds me of my old days in computer programming, when I used to do punch cards back in the ’60s and you left a period out, the whole thing wouldn’t run.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Yeah, it falls apart.

IRA FLATOW: Yeah, well, were the mathematicians able to fix this error?

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Yes, yes. Luckily, this particular problem was a pretty small one. And there were other separate proofs of the same thing that this researcher had proven with the errored proof. So they were able to find another way around it that they were still able to use– it doesn’t invalidate decades of mathematical work or anything. But it does show the importance of got to check your work in– even in elementary school math, it’s very easy to forget one step and then screw up the whole answer. And so it’s the same in professional, advanced mathematics as well.

IRA FLATOW: Well, if there was one simple error that really messed it all up, might there be other mistakes yet to be uncovered?

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Yes. Yeah, that’s– I mean– and that takes us back to the reason the researchers were translating these proofs into computer-readable language in the first place. They want to make it possible for computers to check the work of mathematicians, so that they’ll be able to catch mistakes like this when they happen and to let mathematicians go on and fix it sooner in the process instead of waiting for decades.

IRA FLATOW: So this happened when they digitized all that math. They were able to find it.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: That’s right. It’s a process they call formalization, which is going to– there’s a lot of math, there’s a lot of math history, there’s a lot of equations to translate into machine-readable language.

IRA FLATOW: All right. Let’s tell our listeners not to blink or you might miss this story. Sorry, the– one dad joke a show. Scientists have uncovered a new reason for blinking. Other than clearing your eyes, it might actually give you a bit of a cognitive break. What is that all about, Sophie?

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: This is an experiment that I love because they basically took some subjects, gave them an Agatha Christie novel, and had them read this novel while having their eyes recorded to track when they blink and what part in the text they’re reading when they blink. And what they found is people are much more likely to blink after reading an unfamiliar word or a word just that occurs less frequently in the text. And they’re also more likely to blink when they hit a comma or a period. And especially if a sentence ends at the end of the line, they’re more likely to blink then.

IRA FLATOW: I wonder if this might be expanded to meeting people and talking with them and suddenly you start blinking because–

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Maybe. So what they think is that this is like your brain’s going through a little extra cognitive work to identify that less frequent word, or it sees a natural break caused by punctuation, and you blink to give yourself a break– this like micro rest for your brain to help it solidify that information.

IRA FLATOW: So blinking is not random. It’s suggesting a cognitive process going on here.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Absolutely, absolutely. And it makes you wonder, should I be blinking more when I’m studying. Should I be– I think the problem is if you pay too much attention to your blinking, then that probably just increases your cognitive load. But, I mean, it’s a thought.

IRA FLATOW: Right, no more excuse I have something in my eye anymore. Our final story is about another sense and I’m talking about hearing and– in dolphins New research suggests that dolphin teeth might be helping them hear. Tell me about that.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: This is really cool. Researchers looked at the jaw anatomy of different dolphin species and then they also compared that to pigs. And what they found was when you’re looking at a dolphin jaw, its tooth is set a little bit more loosely in the jaw and it’s also in this spongy socket, so the socket that holds it is a little bit more porous and spongy than you would find in a pig or another land mammal. Plus, there’s nerves– these thick, long bundles of nerve fibers attached to the teeth through those structures. So the researchers think what could be happening is sound waves in the water are transmitted to the teeth and from there to the brain, where it can be translated into sound.

IRA FLATOW: So the teeth vibrate.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Yes, exactly. And something kind of similar happens if you think– if you’ve ever tried out bone conduction headphones, which–

IRA FLATOW: Right.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: –yeah, those headphones that they transmit sound waves through your bone, hence the name, through your skull. And this is sort of similar idea that this hard tooth or bone is able to pick up these vibrations and send them to the brain.

IRA FLATOW: Any way that we can actually prove this. I mean, this is a theory now. Can it be tested?

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: That’s right. I mean, and it’s also possible that there’s some other sense that the fiber is carrying. It’s not necessarily the sound information that’s being sent through those fibers, but they would probably have to look at living dolphins and test their hearing and their teeth in that way.

IRA FLATOW: Well, always great stuff you bring us, Sophie.

SOPHIE BUSHWICK: Thank you.

IRA FLATOW: Sophie Bushwick, senior news editor at New Scientist based in New York City. And, finally, a personal note. One day in the mid-1980s, I was taping a TV show in St. Paul and the director yelled cut. And onto the set walked Jimmy Carter, approaching me, exclaiming, I just couldn’t come to town and not say hello. I was flabbergasted, I had no idea he was a fan of my work or knew who I was, but I certainly knew of him.

Because as a reporter in Washington in the 1970s, I covered Carter’s every science policy move and there were many. He famously installed solar panels on the White House, symbolizing his commitment to renewable energy. He championed energy conservation, asked us all to pitch in by turning down the thermostats and wearing a sweater. He created a standard to make more fuel efficiency cars and set the speed limit at 55.

In Colorado, Carter established the first federal facility for solar energy research. And his White House created an act to preserve millions of acres of pristine land in Alaska. Carter was also one of the few presidents schooled in science, math, and engineering, and he put that knowledge toward helping others by establishing a commission on excellence in education to improve science and math in American schools.

We will remember Jimmy Carter, of course, as a true humanitarian. But he was also prescient about the importance of science to our well-being. Guided by principles, knowledge, and compassion. Carter had the long, impactful life he deserved and our country is better for it.

Copyright © 2025 Science Friday Initiative. All rights reserved. Science Friday transcripts are produced on a tight deadline by 3Play Media. Fidelity to the original aired/published audio or video file might vary, and text might be updated or amended in the future. For the authoritative record of Science Friday’s programming, please visit the original aired/published recording. For terms of use and more information, visit our policies pages at http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/policies/