From the NY Times - more bad news, but not unexpected. I crossed Lake Champlain on the ferry last week - not a sign of ice on the big lake. I believe this will make 11 out of the last 13 years that the lake doesn't freeze.
NASA report: Last 10 years were warmest on record
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration released figures on Thursday that indicated that 2005 was the warmest since record keeping began in 1880, and 2009 was the second warmest.
New York Times ; Jan. 22
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Update from the NWF international climate team from Copenhagen
From the National Wildlife Federation:
Team,
Here's today's "This just in" update from NWF Director of Global
Warming Policy Joe Mendelson:
" Hello NWF from Copenhagen! Here is a quick update from your
international climate team.
The negotiations are going slower than one would hope and have been
overshadowed, in part, by massive logistical problems at the Bella
Centre negotiation site. Many are standing hours in the cold and snow
today trying to get in to the conference only to be turned away.
Regardless, your team remains undaunted and is working hard to push the
U.S. to up its ambition to facilitate a final deal.
There has been a public rift between China and the U.S. over the low
U.S. offer on global warming pollution emission cuts and the failure of
the U.S. and other developed countries to offer long-term financing for
the impacted developing nations. In response, China is refusing to
allow any international verification of its recently announced actions
that would significantly reduce the growth of its emissions.
In response, NWF is spear-heading an effort to push the U.S. to change
its position. We’re working to get the Administration to offer a new
long-term finance package based upon the significant money pledged to
stop deforestation that is in the House and Senate legislation and
redirecting other money by phasing out fossil fuel subsidies - an offer
President Obama made at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh this fall. The
hope is that this offer would compel other developed nations to add
their own pledges of money culminating in a huge effort on deforestation
as a means to fight climate change led by the U.S.
Barriers remain to this effort. The State Department is reluctant to
put this forward because the legislation is not final and fear a
Congressional backlash. In contrast, Senate and House staff in
Copenhagen say putting this forward is okay and may actually help lock
the Administration into fighting for the legislation at home. So, one
effort is to get Congressional staff to push the Administration.
If we solve the finance issue, we then think the Chinese would submit
to some international oversight of its emission reductions efforts. Of
course, this is critical for the Senate battle back home.
Will this all happen? It is tough to say. We are trying hard. The
heads of states are starting to arrive so we hope that ups the pressure
to get a deal done. We will keep you posted on progress and expect
massive protests over the next several days about everyone being shut
out of the Bella Centre facility.
Joe
Team,
Here's today's "This just in" update from NWF Director of Global
Warming Policy Joe Mendelson:
" Hello NWF from Copenhagen! Here is a quick update from your
international climate team.
The negotiations are going slower than one would hope and have been
overshadowed, in part, by massive logistical problems at the Bella
Centre negotiation site. Many are standing hours in the cold and snow
today trying to get in to the conference only to be turned away.
Regardless, your team remains undaunted and is working hard to push the
U.S. to up its ambition to facilitate a final deal.
There has been a public rift between China and the U.S. over the low
U.S. offer on global warming pollution emission cuts and the failure of
the U.S. and other developed countries to offer long-term financing for
the impacted developing nations. In response, China is refusing to
allow any international verification of its recently announced actions
that would significantly reduce the growth of its emissions.
In response, NWF is spear-heading an effort to push the U.S. to change
its position. We’re working to get the Administration to offer a new
long-term finance package based upon the significant money pledged to
stop deforestation that is in the House and Senate legislation and
redirecting other money by phasing out fossil fuel subsidies - an offer
President Obama made at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh this fall. The
hope is that this offer would compel other developed nations to add
their own pledges of money culminating in a huge effort on deforestation
as a means to fight climate change led by the U.S.
Barriers remain to this effort. The State Department is reluctant to
put this forward because the legislation is not final and fear a
Congressional backlash. In contrast, Senate and House staff in
Copenhagen say putting this forward is okay and may actually help lock
the Administration into fighting for the legislation at home. So, one
effort is to get Congressional staff to push the Administration.
If we solve the finance issue, we then think the Chinese would submit
to some international oversight of its emission reductions efforts. Of
course, this is critical for the Senate battle back home.
Will this all happen? It is tough to say. We are trying hard. The
heads of states are starting to arrive so we hope that ups the pressure
to get a deal done. We will keep you posted on progress and expect
massive protests over the next several days about everyone being shut
out of the Bella Centre facility.
Joe
Friday, December 11, 2009
Climate Change: Science, Transparency and Public Opinion
From the Wildlife Society Blog:
Climate Change: Science, Transparency and Public Opinion
December 5th, 2009
No comments
I’ve been meaning to blog about this topic since the story broke about “Climate-gate” around a week ago. As many readers may already know, there has been considerable controversy about a series of private e-mails stolen from the world famous Climatic Research Center at the University of East Anglia in Britain.
In those e-mails, the unit’s director, Phil Jones, told a colleague that he would “hide” contradictory evidence from Siberian tree rings and replace it with more accurate data on changes in local air temperature. In another message, he speaks of keeping research he disagrees with out of a U.N. report, “even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”
The recent debate has energized critics of climate change science, who believe that some scientists are playing political games and altering results for their own purposes. They claim that this incident has called into question the credibility of science and scientists. Others believe that this debate is about the scientific process itself, which is suddenly playing itself out in the public arena. Politicians and the public want certainty, but science is a messy affair. Indeed, scientists can draw different conclusions from the same data.
But, I wonder how much this ”scandal” has damaged climate science? The musing of individual scientists in their personal e-mails are one thing. In fact, I’ve been know to say a few stupid things in my e-mails as well, and I challenge anyone who uses electronic communication to examine their own record.
That being said, individual scientists should understand the need for transparency in science and never forget its central tenet: skepticism. To quote Charles Darwin, one of the greatest scientists to have ever lived:
“I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject) as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it.”
The massive amount of data that have been accumulated on climate change–from rising global temperature trends, to melting glaciers, and numerous phenological effects on animals and plants–have convinced many, if not most scientists, that something is going on. According to Jane Lubchenco, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Our collective understanding of how the earth is warming…rests on a wealth of scientific information that is very diverse and comes from multiple sources and multiple groups.”
One of the main points of contention is whether or not our changing climate is the direct result of human activities or simply yet another natural cycle of warming and chilling that we have seen throughout earth’s history. Our warming climate (9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade) is correlated with the rise of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, many of which are due to human activities. However, as all scientists are taught, correlation does not imply causation. Its that pesky uncertainty again. As an analogy: Do you believe that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer? This connection is also based largely on correlational studies–people that smoke have a higher probability of getting the disease. Knowing this, should you take a chance that you will die substantially earlier by starting to smoke, a highly addictive habit? I sincerely hope not.
There might be a degree of uncertainty in all science. However, there is also the Precautionary Principle, which tells us that if the risk is great, perhaps society should err on the side of caution. The risks associated with climate change are great–especially the risks to wildlife, plants, and existing natural ecosystems. We’ve already pushed them to the limit, and the extra burden of climate change, in theory, could be catastrophic. And I haven’t even touched on what a warming planet could do to human agriculture, fisheries, forestry and other industries. Of course, I don’t want to be alarmist, or to predict how fast one of these potential futures might play out. On the other hand, what if we do have a serious problem? What if it is happening faster than we’d all like it to? Looking back decades later, climate scientists will derive little pleasure in telling people “I told you so.”
Uncertainty is a part of science, one that is often exploited by those who disagree with its findings. But the public should not worry. Science is the most self-correcting of all human endeavors. Scientists that cheat the system are not tolerated by it–they are punished and cast out. The scientific fraternity values truth above all, and those that abuse that responsibility pay a price. Charles Darwin recognized the power of science to see through the smoke and mirrors when he said:
“Great is the power of steady misrepresentation, but the history of science shows how, fortunately, this power does not long endure.”
The true nature of climate change will reveal itself and scientists will light the path.
Climate Change: Science, Transparency and Public Opinion
December 5th, 2009
No comments
I’ve been meaning to blog about this topic since the story broke about “Climate-gate” around a week ago. As many readers may already know, there has been considerable controversy about a series of private e-mails stolen from the world famous Climatic Research Center at the University of East Anglia in Britain.
In those e-mails, the unit’s director, Phil Jones, told a colleague that he would “hide” contradictory evidence from Siberian tree rings and replace it with more accurate data on changes in local air temperature. In another message, he speaks of keeping research he disagrees with out of a U.N. report, “even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”
The recent debate has energized critics of climate change science, who believe that some scientists are playing political games and altering results for their own purposes. They claim that this incident has called into question the credibility of science and scientists. Others believe that this debate is about the scientific process itself, which is suddenly playing itself out in the public arena. Politicians and the public want certainty, but science is a messy affair. Indeed, scientists can draw different conclusions from the same data.
But, I wonder how much this ”scandal” has damaged climate science? The musing of individual scientists in their personal e-mails are one thing. In fact, I’ve been know to say a few stupid things in my e-mails as well, and I challenge anyone who uses electronic communication to examine their own record.
That being said, individual scientists should understand the need for transparency in science and never forget its central tenet: skepticism. To quote Charles Darwin, one of the greatest scientists to have ever lived:
“I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject) as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it.”
The massive amount of data that have been accumulated on climate change–from rising global temperature trends, to melting glaciers, and numerous phenological effects on animals and plants–have convinced many, if not most scientists, that something is going on. According to Jane Lubchenco, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Our collective understanding of how the earth is warming…rests on a wealth of scientific information that is very diverse and comes from multiple sources and multiple groups.”
One of the main points of contention is whether or not our changing climate is the direct result of human activities or simply yet another natural cycle of warming and chilling that we have seen throughout earth’s history. Our warming climate (9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade) is correlated with the rise of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, many of which are due to human activities. However, as all scientists are taught, correlation does not imply causation. Its that pesky uncertainty again. As an analogy: Do you believe that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer? This connection is also based largely on correlational studies–people that smoke have a higher probability of getting the disease. Knowing this, should you take a chance that you will die substantially earlier by starting to smoke, a highly addictive habit? I sincerely hope not.
There might be a degree of uncertainty in all science. However, there is also the Precautionary Principle, which tells us that if the risk is great, perhaps society should err on the side of caution. The risks associated with climate change are great–especially the risks to wildlife, plants, and existing natural ecosystems. We’ve already pushed them to the limit, and the extra burden of climate change, in theory, could be catastrophic. And I haven’t even touched on what a warming planet could do to human agriculture, fisheries, forestry and other industries. Of course, I don’t want to be alarmist, or to predict how fast one of these potential futures might play out. On the other hand, what if we do have a serious problem? What if it is happening faster than we’d all like it to? Looking back decades later, climate scientists will derive little pleasure in telling people “I told you so.”
Uncertainty is a part of science, one that is often exploited by those who disagree with its findings. But the public should not worry. Science is the most self-correcting of all human endeavors. Scientists that cheat the system are not tolerated by it–they are punished and cast out. The scientific fraternity values truth above all, and those that abuse that responsibility pay a price. Charles Darwin recognized the power of science to see through the smoke and mirrors when he said:
“Great is the power of steady misrepresentation, but the history of science shows how, fortunately, this power does not long endure.”
The true nature of climate change will reveal itself and scientists will light the path.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Pine Beetle, Whitebark Pine and Grizzly Bears
From the new report on National Parks in Peril
YELLOWSTONE CASE STUDY:
Global Warming, Bark Beetles, Whitebark Pine, and Grizzly Bears
By Dr. Jesse A. Logan, contributing author to National Parks In Peril
I consider the large-scale bark beetle mortality occurring in lodgepole pine forests across the West
interesting and unusual-- but I have no doubt that lodgepole forests will remain on the landscape for
generations. The current mortality in whitebark pines, though, breaks my heart. We are witnessing the
catastrophic collapse of high mountain ecosystems as a result of human-caused climate change, and
grizzly bears could pay the price.
The grizzly bear is the most emblematic symbol of America’s remaining wildlands. Unfortunately, in
one of its last strongholds, the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, its very existence is in peril. The most
challenging of its many threats there is a loss of critical food resources. Most important in the grizzly
diet are the large and nutrient-rich seeds of whitebark pine, as the bears depend on them in the fall to
prepare for hibernation. Nutritionally stressed bears in years with poor whitebark nut supplies have a
lowered over-winter survival rate, and, more importantly, lower cub birth rates as embryos will be
reabsorbed if pregnant females lack sufficient fat entering hibernation. Without enough whitebark pine
nuts, grizzly bears are also more likely to get into human conflicts as they search for other foods.
In recent years, a new threat has erupted to this critical element in the grizzly diet: the expansion into
high-elevation forests of a small, native bark beetle in response to a warming climate.
The mountain pine beetle is a native insect that has co-evolved with some pine forests. Trees killed by
the beetles (and fire) open up the forests to new growth; otherwise, some types of trees, especially
lodgepole pine, would be replaced by shade-tolerant spruce and fir. But whitebark pines are different
from lodgepoles. Whitebarks live for centuries, not decades, and are restricted to high elevations (with
one of their adaptations being their large, highly nutritious seeds). Whitebark pines do not depend on
catastrophic forest disturbances to survive; instead, they are threatened by them. One hypothesized
reason for the restriction of whitebark pines to high elevations is that they are poorly defended against
the insect pests and pathogens of lower elevations. Mountain pine beetles have not before been a
major threat to whitebark pine survival; their defense has been the high-elevation climate, historically
too cold for long-term survival of large beetle populations.
Unfortunately, things have dramatically changed in response to climate warming since the mid 1970s.
Computer simulations had predicted mountain pine beetle outbreaks into high-elevation systems, but
even the modelers were surprised by how quickly and how far beetles have now spread into whitebark
pines. Significant mortality is occurring across the entire American distribution of whitebark pine, with
no sign of it diminishing. When added to another stress—from a pathogen, white pine blister rust—the
spread of bark beetles into higher elevations puts in question the continued existence of these
ecosystems and of Yellowstone’s grizzly bears.
Given the likelihood of continued warming, what, if anything can be done to protect whitebark pines
and the grizzlies that depend on them? First, we need to better understand mountain pine beetle
infestations of whitebark pine, which differ from the host/insect interactions of other pine species.
Understanding the unique aspects of mountain pine beetle in whitebark pines may let us tip the scale to
favor the host. Second, we need better tools to evaluate the extent of mortality. Whitebark pine habitats
are in the most remote and wild places (often designated wilderness areas) in the Rocky Mountains,
where mortality goes almost undetected. Advanced technology, such as satellite imagery combined
with traditional aerial photography and ground surveying, is needed. Third, management tools (e.g.,
pheromone strategies) need to be fine-tuned for high-elevation environments. All of these approaches
need to be integrated across large, remote, and inhospitable landscapes.
Dr. Logan, an entomologist, retired in 2006 from the U.S. Forest Service.
YELLOWSTONE CASE STUDY:
Global Warming, Bark Beetles, Whitebark Pine, and Grizzly Bears
By Dr. Jesse A. Logan, contributing author to National Parks In Peril
I consider the large-scale bark beetle mortality occurring in lodgepole pine forests across the West
interesting and unusual-- but I have no doubt that lodgepole forests will remain on the landscape for
generations. The current mortality in whitebark pines, though, breaks my heart. We are witnessing the
catastrophic collapse of high mountain ecosystems as a result of human-caused climate change, and
grizzly bears could pay the price.
The grizzly bear is the most emblematic symbol of America’s remaining wildlands. Unfortunately, in
one of its last strongholds, the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, its very existence is in peril. The most
challenging of its many threats there is a loss of critical food resources. Most important in the grizzly
diet are the large and nutrient-rich seeds of whitebark pine, as the bears depend on them in the fall to
prepare for hibernation. Nutritionally stressed bears in years with poor whitebark nut supplies have a
lowered over-winter survival rate, and, more importantly, lower cub birth rates as embryos will be
reabsorbed if pregnant females lack sufficient fat entering hibernation. Without enough whitebark pine
nuts, grizzly bears are also more likely to get into human conflicts as they search for other foods.
In recent years, a new threat has erupted to this critical element in the grizzly diet: the expansion into
high-elevation forests of a small, native bark beetle in response to a warming climate.
The mountain pine beetle is a native insect that has co-evolved with some pine forests. Trees killed by
the beetles (and fire) open up the forests to new growth; otherwise, some types of trees, especially
lodgepole pine, would be replaced by shade-tolerant spruce and fir. But whitebark pines are different
from lodgepoles. Whitebarks live for centuries, not decades, and are restricted to high elevations (with
one of their adaptations being their large, highly nutritious seeds). Whitebark pines do not depend on
catastrophic forest disturbances to survive; instead, they are threatened by them. One hypothesized
reason for the restriction of whitebark pines to high elevations is that they are poorly defended against
the insect pests and pathogens of lower elevations. Mountain pine beetles have not before been a
major threat to whitebark pine survival; their defense has been the high-elevation climate, historically
too cold for long-term survival of large beetle populations.
Unfortunately, things have dramatically changed in response to climate warming since the mid 1970s.
Computer simulations had predicted mountain pine beetle outbreaks into high-elevation systems, but
even the modelers were surprised by how quickly and how far beetles have now spread into whitebark
pines. Significant mortality is occurring across the entire American distribution of whitebark pine, with
no sign of it diminishing. When added to another stress—from a pathogen, white pine blister rust—the
spread of bark beetles into higher elevations puts in question the continued existence of these
ecosystems and of Yellowstone’s grizzly bears.
Given the likelihood of continued warming, what, if anything can be done to protect whitebark pines
and the grizzlies that depend on them? First, we need to better understand mountain pine beetle
infestations of whitebark pine, which differ from the host/insect interactions of other pine species.
Understanding the unique aspects of mountain pine beetle in whitebark pines may let us tip the scale to
favor the host. Second, we need better tools to evaluate the extent of mortality. Whitebark pine habitats
are in the most remote and wild places (often designated wilderness areas) in the Rocky Mountains,
where mortality goes almost undetected. Advanced technology, such as satellite imagery combined
with traditional aerial photography and ground surveying, is needed. Third, management tools (e.g.,
pheromone strategies) need to be fine-tuned for high-elevation environments. All of these approaches
need to be integrated across large, remote, and inhospitable landscapes.
Dr. Logan, an entomologist, retired in 2006 from the U.S. Forest Service.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Hot enough for ya?
From the Vermont News Guy blog commenting on a just released major report about "how the world is getting warmer, will continue to do so, and in the process leave our descendents a hotter, wetter, and very different part of the country."
...Since 1970, the report said, the annual average temperature in the Northeast has increased by 2°F, with winter temperatures rising twice this much.” For those seeking a silver lining in the cloud, there is one: longer growing seasons.
But also more “heavy downpours,” dirtier air leading to “increasing problems for human health,” and “severe flooding.”
Oh, and less snow. Perhaps a lot less snow.
Over the next several decades, those winter temperatures could rise at least another 2.5 degrees, perhaps as much as 4 degrees.
“The projected reduction in snow cover will adversely affect winter recreation and the industries that rely upon it,” the report says. “The length of the winter snow season would be cut in half across northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine…Winter snow and ice sports, which contribute $7.6 billion annually to the region’s economy, will be particularly affected by warming.”
In the woods, the report noted, the spruce and fur forests so important to northern New England are “declining already,” and are likely to continue doing so, replaced by maple and beach trees under the “lower possibility” of climate change, by oak and hickory under the “higher possibility.”
In addition, “large portions of the Northeast are likely to become unsuitable for growing popular varieties of apples, blueberries, and cranberries under a higher emissions scenario.” As for maple trees and their prized sap, conditions suitable for maple forests “are expected to shift dramatically northward…eventually leaving only a small portion of the Northeast with a major maple sugar business.”
Read the full commentary here
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Climate change - presented by a great teacher
Richard Alley’s Orbital and Climate Dance
By Andrew C. RevkinImagine a cross between Woody Allen and Carl Sagan and you come somewhat close to capturing the style of Richard Alley, a Penn State glaciologist and expert on Earth’s past climate cycles who has spent years trying out new ways to captivate students and the public with the science and significance of climate change.
He imitates Johnny Cash to describe the planet’s cycles. His book, “The Two-Mile Time Machine,” is a fascinating account of how scientists have learned to use ice as a history book of climatic and atmospheric changes — and what Greenland has revealed about times when climate jogged abruptly.
http://www.youtube.com/revkin
He also dances. In the short video above, Dr. Alley explains how some patterns in the changes that occur during Earth’s ice ages and warm intervals (like the last 11,000 years) prove that greenhouse gases exert a warming effect. They don’t trigger the warmups or chills, but the gases explain why some climatic changes are global (the gases mix uniformly around the planet) while others are not.
The video was taken in Chicago last year during a workshop for science teachers held as part of Polar-Palooza, a traveling road show in which field scientists and Arctic residents explain what’s going on at both ends of the planet. Their next stop, this weekend, is Manhattan, with one appearance at The New York Times’s auditorium on Saturday and another Sunday at the American Museum of Natural History Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
