Just Temperature Redux: What about the Cherries and Apples?
Just Temperature Redux: What about the Cherries and Apples?
March and April were very warm in the United States, and especially in March when it was 86 degrees F in Detroit, there was a lot of press attention to the heat (my blog at the time). Following the March heat wave I watched with interest the caster that has weather events and earthquakes on the homepage. There was a period of time when there were record highs and, a couple of hundred miles away, record lows. There were these waves moving (very) warm air north and (very) cool air south (another old Rood blog Warm, Cold, Warm, Cold). This is what weather does, moves heat from the tropics to the poles; it tries to smooth out the distribution of temperature, heat, energy. The climate of the Earth is strongly linked to the Equator to Pole temperature contrast. (I note that, at this writing, a May 20 record high in Holland, MI, of 92 F. In fact, May 20 is pretty much coast-to-coast high.)
So I am watching these highs and lows, expecting someone to write to me and tell me how cold it was in Tennessee, and what do you say to that you alarmist?
The past few months provide us a nice example of climate, and a useful framing for thinking about the future. Scientists are always explaining that just because the globe is, on average, warming, that does not mean that it no longer gets cold. When I have written about this in the past, I always start with the Sun still goes away at the winter pole; it gets cold; the pole is relatively isolated, so there are cold pockets of air up north. (Yes, I am presuming a Northern Hemisphere bias.) So it’s cold up north, and down south it’s hot. If you think about the Earth, the seasons, the distribution of land and ocean, an increase in average global temperature suggests an increase in the average temperature between, say, 30 degrees latitude south and north. Half of the Earth’s area lies in those bounds, and, well, the Sun is always there.
Next if we think about weather and climate, the contrast between the temperature at the equator and the pole is a measure of the amount of mixing that the atmosphere and ocean need to do to work towards a balance. If someplace up north is still getting about as cold as it used to get, because the Sun is down and it is a bit isolated, and there is more and more build up of heat in the tropics, then something has to give. Using climate and weather models as a guide, we see large mixing events in the late winter, perhaps more characteristic of events of, historically, early spring.
Figure 1: From an old, but good, blog: Warm, Cold, Warm, Cold. A schematic picture that represents a wave in temperature. There are hot and cold parts of the wave.
So there are bursts of warm air north in late winter or earlier in the spring. But there are still pockets of cold air and these get pushed south. The variability, hot and cold contrast in this case, actually increases. The bursts of warm air appear as the onset of spring, leaves and flowers come out. And there they sit waiting for the return of the cold air. This year’s warm spring did great damage to the sour cherry crop (Michigan, Wisconsin, New York) and the apple crop all across the upper Midwest. (Iowa, Michigan).
This scenario of a warm period followed by a frost that kills fruit blossoms is not new. I grew up in the South, and just about every year there was some strip of peach-growing land that was damaged by the onset of spring, followed by a frost. What this current case study lets us think about is what does a warming climate bring to table? Earlier warm spells extending farther north. Increased vulnerability as larger areas of land are impacted by the mixing of the increasing temperature contrasts. Increased crop risk as new weather threats encroach on new regions. There are adaptation strategies for these risks, but they come at a cost.
So I want to finish this blog with something of a change of gears. It relies on a paper brought to my attention by Chris Burt. It is a paper in Nature entitled Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change by E. M. Wolkovich (2012) and many others. There are a couple of points I want to make about this paper.
First, the paper is a nice exposition about how biological scientists think about the intersection of their field with climate change. Advancing onset of leafing and flowering is one of the most sensitive indicators of the onset of spring. Though many factors influence when plants start to leaf out and flower, temperature is the predominate factor. The variable that is used as a proxy for climate is mean annual temperature, and variability of the mean annual temperature represents the variability in the onset of spring.
The second point I want to make about the paper is a clarification – perhaps a translation between different scientific fields. As pointed out in Wolkovich et al. (2012), there is substantial observational evidence that spring is coming earlier. This move to earlier times is especially evident in the northern hemisphere and more evident at higher latitudes, say, in Michigan or Canada. When Wolkovich et al. (2012) talk about “warming experiments” they are not talking about experiments with climate models. They are talking about experiments that artificially warm plant communities to investigate their sensitivity to increased temperatures. In this paper, they find that such experiments do not explain the observations of the onset of spring in natural plant communities.
Returning to climate change - Wolkovich et al. (2012) estimate that for each degree C that mean annual temperature increases the onset of leafing and flowering will move forward by 5-6 days. Given temperature trends for the past forty years, this translates to 1.1 to 3.3 days per decade. And returning to the cherries and apples, these types of trees are especially vulnerable to bloom followed by a frost, especially in high latitudes. So if you are an orchard fruit grower, how do you use this information? Do you treat this year as a simple fluke of weather, or do you look to start a replacement program with different types of fruit or different hybrids as the orchard is refurbished? Or do you look to ways to manage the temperature in the orchard, and perhaps a market advantage with earlier fruit?
r
Figure 2: Larger image Ripe by Jennifer Bruce from Absolute Michigan
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index
People rely on emotional coherence (i.e. common sense - did I get that right?) for judging truth, the less you understand about complex issues, the more you take your emotional coherence from tribal sources that match your emotional coherence sympathetically. Besides, people are tribal. Therefore to change people, it takes tribal leaders to change.
Certainly that is one aspect. I think there are others:
- hatred of others. Sort of like the theory above multplied by negative one instead of tribal competition, e.g. hate the Jews instead of love Aryan. In this case, hate the scientists / whomever. I think that Big Oil has done a wonderful job of misleading people and buying politicians.
- the importance of freedom and frontiers in American culture.
- defending a lifestyle/ rejection of guilt for something done unintentionally.
I agree with vegitarian view. Forgetting about everything else, there is very little need to eat meat in most places in the world.
Sadly, he's already getting snarky comments about addressing climate change on his blog. It's his blog, he can post articles on any topic he chooses!!
In my experience with major changes like segregation, women's rights, emergence of gay equality, etc. it was never the case of the existing tribal leaders leading the change.
What happened, I think, was that new 'sub-tribes' emerged and created their own new leaders. Over time those movements convinced others to join or at least support them via the strength of their arguments.
Then when a critical point was reached the older tribal leaders either got out in front of the parade or were brushed aside.
Most often, seems to me, it takes a new generation to create major change. I don't expect the majority of our older leaders to mount an attack on climate change. I think it's going to take an organization of younger people to make it happen.
I suspect we're looking at a critical 3-5 year period in which this group is likely to emerge. We've got to get the economy back into more reasonable shape before people quit worrying more about the tiger in the room than about the tiger over the hill.
During the next 3-5 years I think we're likely to see dramatic melting in the Arctic, an increase in extreme weather events, and other various obvious warmer climate signals. Take some of the economic fears off the 16-30 year-olds and I think it likely they start to show significant concern about the world in which they are going to live.
yeabut yeabut yeabut... Europe is doing something (slowly), so i think there is some truth to the difference in cultures. Maybe euro leaders are not so bought off by big oil.. but i think there is a deeper culture difference there as well. I don't think the publicity that works in America would have worked here.
anyway, that is all academic and I doubt I know what I'm talking about. I'm mostly angry at our politicians because renewable energy was an opportunity and msotly they stomped on it.
At the moment European leaders are backing off their support for renewables. I think it almost all comes from economic problems and once they get back on track they will restore subsidies.
Europe hasn't seemed to have suffered from one of their political tribes adopting the denier cause like we've been through in the US.
In fact, if we look at one of our two major political tribes we see that one has embraced climate change denial along with an overall anti-science and anti-intellectual bias.
WASHINGTON -- The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble."
Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.
It's been at least 800,000 years – probably more – since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.
Until now.
Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.
So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.
Globally, the average carbon dioxide level is about 395 parts per million but will pass the 400 mark within a few years, scientists said.
The Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air and effects, said Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA scientist.
"This is the first time the entire Arctic is that high," he said.
Tans called reaching the 400 number "depressing," and Butler said it was "a troubling milestone."
"It's an important threshold," said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."
Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said.
Tans said the readings show how much the Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons in 2011, up 3.2 percent, the International Energy Agency announced last week.
The agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas levels.
"The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400 ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders – with a few honorable exceptions – are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former Vice President Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not understand or forgive them."
But political dynamics in the United States mean there's no possibility of significant restrictions on man-made greenhouse gases no matter what the levels are in the air, said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute.
"These milestones are always worth noting," said economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.
He contends temperatures have not risen since 1998, which was unusually hot.
Temperature records contradict that claim. Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998, and the entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA.
Please focus your anger on those politicians who worked to block renewables.
Please do not paint everyone with a too-wide brush.
NCAR scientists Marika Holland and David Bailey used the Community Climate System Model to study the possible future impacts of climate change on sea ice in the Arctic. The visualizations of their research in this video show the percent of ocean water covered by ice, which is called the sea-ice concentration.
The first visualization uses monthly data from their computer simulation, from 1979-2007. The second shows the computer model's portrayal of the state of the ice every September, from 1850-2100.
(Visualization by Tim Scheitlin, NCAR)
More about the Community Climate System Model:
http://www2.ucar.edu/magazine/features/ccsm-cesm
Patrap,
Thanks for posting the videos. If anything, I think an updated model would be very intersting to see. Most reliable projections now indicate that we may have an ice-free summer in the arctic ocean by 2020, if not sooner as opposed to 2100.
It's been interesting to follow the comments on Dr. Master's blog today. Everyone of the regulars on this blog have done a masterful job of refuting our one resolute "denier". However, I don't think he was a troll just trying to obfuscate the discussion. I really believe that he sincereley believes the 'bovine fecal matter' he is regurgitating.
Keep up the good work.
I suspect our guy is a 'softening denier'. He seems to accept the fact that the planet is warming but doesn't want to totally cave to the causes yet.
He threw out his stuff and got data back. He had no data to support his position. I suspect that will sink in.
I'll bet there are a lot of people in his situation. As the evidence piles up it gets harder and harder to be an absolute denier. The two year fossil-fuel funded study of the climate data by Richard Muller, the most credible denier-scientist, which found that what other climate scientists had been saying was true must have knocked the pins out from under some.
More and more I'm seeing soft-deniers agree that the planet is warming but hang on to "man could not be causing it" and "it will be good for us" defenses. I don't think many will be able to cling to those positions long.
(Of course there will be a small number who will always believe/deny. The Flat Earth Society was still going strong only a few years ago. More and more the spokepersons for denial are obviously jokes like Lord Mockton.)
That's why I'm glad that nobody insulted his intelligience or motives for denying human causation.
The best way to turn somebody off is to call them a fool or something worse, which happens quite often on the blogosphere.
The interchange reminded me of a lengthy conversation I had several years ago with an oil geologist on the topic of AGW. We were having dinner at the ranch of the CEO of a Texas oil company and somehow the conversation moved to Global Warming. This gentleman had a briefcase full of paperwork related to the subject of Gobal Warming. He'd been studying the topic for several years, however, he was not ready to admit to human causation. Unfortunately, I did not have the detailed knowledge and information that I've gained in the past several years to refute some of his claims. He was adamant about the solar influence and the fact that CO2 concentrations were just a "trace". I've only seen the gentleman once since then at a formal affair and it wasn't appropriate to bring up the topic of AGW. It is interesting to note that while 97% of scientists working in the fields related to Climate Change blieve in human causation only 47% of oil; geologists believe in it. I think this is partially institutional bias, tribal loyalty and fear of upsetting the folks who sign their paychecks.
Yes and no. The economic woes are hitting any government spending. However, there is still a huge push for energy independence and local generation in europe. Ok, at least the parts of europe I am familiar with. I know here in the Alps, solar power is well accepted and most new constuction incorporates panels.
Germany just hit a record. And wind farms are also increasing. Then again, Germany is doing well economically.
I guess the point is that the mentality here is that producing energy locally is perceived as smart financially as well as green. I think in America it is still percieved as a liberal status symbol.
You might be interested in reading this piece about what is happening in Merkel's government. Apparently the minister who was in charge of promoting renewable energy has been dismissed and someone new is being installed.
Link
And at the same time fossil fuel interests are pushing back hard against renewables. Apparently coal is getting hurt by solar pulling down the price of power.
--
Yes, renewable generation in the US is still a green/hippie/liberal thing while much of the right has embraced nuclear and supports sticking with fossil fuels.
It's starting to break down a bit largely because wind has turned out to be a great fiscal boon for many conservative states. It's created jobs, paid good money to farmers and ranchers, and brought in a lot of new tax revenue to towns and states in the conservative Midwest (south to Texas).
Money speaks to these people. We've seen a couple attempts from fossil fuel interests to create legislation to limit wind and those bills have failed in Republican-held legislators. We've got Republican governors calling on Congress to continue support for wind farms.
That is good news about wind farms though.
I think it all goes back to what everyone was talking about with jobs being lost due to simply not needing them. Renewables in some ways mean that the energy sector isn't needed. It is a push to see who can supply infrastructure... but eventually the industry will mature to mostly maintenance and upgrades.
Still, that is so far away that it stinks the US isn't doing more for high tech green. It could be like when we sold power plants, refineries, generators, PBX', etc to the rest of the world.
I've been following 3D printing in that regard as well. That is really interesting in how the open source stuff is as exciting as computers were back in the early 80s. That could mean a whole new paradigm in manufacturing/distribution. Hopefully I guess. Except fro global warming and religion/power struggles, I think the possible future could be everyday like the 4th of July.
Speriamo, at least.
(Because Nea will come here and stomp on this optimism: Nea, it's friday, I'm working this weekend and I'm already tired. Give me some rest and I will be as gloomy as you wish.)
As we speak any fossil fuel based or nuclear power electrical power production creates heat that is getting trapped by the GHGs we have created. Those GHGs do not care where the heat source is coming from. The Co2 that we are creating by burning fossil fuels is going to be in our atmosphere for hundreds of years so we can look forward to more warming. The best way to purge those GHGs from our atmosphere is this. The solution to pollution is dilution...... These will dilute the GHGs from our life support system we call Earth.
Geoengineering for Global Warming: Increasing Aerosols in Atmosphere Would Make Sky Whiter
ScienceDaily (May 31, 2012) %u2014 One idea for fighting global warming is to increase the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, scattering incoming solar energy away from Earth's surface. But scientists theorize that this solar geoengineering could have a side effect of whitening the sky during the day. New research from Carnegie's Ben Kravitz and Ken Caldeira indicates that blocking 2% of the sun's light would make the sky three-to-five times brighter, as well as whiter.
Their work is published June 1st in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas have been increasing over the past decades, causing Earth to get hotter and hotter. Large volcanic eruptions cool the planet by creating lots of small particles in the stratosphere, but the particles fall out within a couple of years, and the planet heats back up. The idea behind solar geoengineering is to constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere, mimicking this volcanic aftermath and scattering sunlight back to space.
Using advanced models, Kravitz and Caldeira -- along with Douglas MacMartin from the California Institute of Technology -- examined changes to sky color and brightness from using sulfate-based aerosols in this way. They found that, depending on the size of the particles, the sky would whiten during the day and sunsets would have afterglows.
Link
Gentlemen, I do not believe they care. 1% of 10 billion people is a lot of cars. They are jaded. To them the rest do not deserve to live. I just hope some of my great-grandchildren get the chance to live and prosper.
GHGs will force us all to ride bikes one reason will be because we will run out of fuel......
Viewing: 201 - 220
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index