Recently in Climate Category

Is Winter Getting Shorter?

| No Comments
The average temperature of the earth has been rising steadily, and climate scientists are ver confident in their prediction that the trend will continue for the foreseeable future.  While global conditions can be forecast pretty well, relating global changes to local conditions is much harder.  One of the simplest climate predictions is that rising temperatures will lead to fewer days of winter-like weather.  Here is an animation of changes in the duration of winter across North America:

In the movie, red indicates a shorter winter at that location, relative to the average duration between 1871-2010.  I used a very human-centric definition of winter.  Winter was declared to start on the day where temperature falls below 5°C and stays below this level for five consecutive days.  Winter ended when temperature exceeded 10°C for five days.  More detail on the data is below.  

Not surprisingly, there is a lot of blue (longer than average winters) in the beginning and lots of red (shorter winters) at the end.  In between, you see red and blue blobs come and go.  Even early in the time series, there are some areas with shorter winters, and even at the end there are some areas with longer winters.  In any one location, winter duration fluctuates, but the general trend is towards shorter winters. For example, I plotted the winter durations for Maine (thin blue line) against the average duration for the whole region (thick black line).
WinterLengthAnom_5_10_5.jpgPositive numbers indicate longer than average winters. So, winters are definitely getting shorter over North America, and the trend is very consistent since the late 1970s.  The 30s and 40s tended to have shorter winters, while those in the late 60s and early 70s were longer.  Maine is much noisier, but tends to follow this overall pattern.  The period of shorter winters in the 1940s is more extreme in Maine, and only in the last couple of years have we exceeded those values. I would love to hear some recollections of the late 1990s: were winters really ~25 days longer than the last few years?  If you're not a fan of cold weather, this looks like a pretty good trend:  fewer days in the puffy jacket and fewer days running the old oil burner.  However, it's not all sunshine and roses (which of course will bloom earlier).  In Maine, mild winters allow the dreaded deer tick to flourish, making gardening an extreme sport.

Data Processing
The data for the animation and the figure were taken from the NOAA Earth System Research Lab's 20th C Reanalylsis (V2).  I downloaded the daily maximum temperatures and extracted North America.  Starting from midsummer in each year, I went through the next 365 days of data looking for a period where the temperature was 5°C or lower for 5 consecutive days.  The first period I found was declared to be the start of the following winter.  For example, if I started searching in June 1973, and found December 15 as the first winter day,my algorithm would say that the start of winter in 1974 was -15 days.  I then searched until I found five days of temperatures above 10°C and declared that to be the end of winter.  The duration was then the difference between the ending and starting dates.   If a location never fell below 5°, there was no
winter at that location.  Similarly, if the location was always colder than 5°, then the duration was 365 days.

I now have a map for each year with the winter durations.  To reduce some of the local variability, I computed a five year running mean at each location (1973 is now the mean of 1973-1977).  I then took the average duration at each location in the map and then subtracted the observed duration from the average, producing a map of anomalies.  In the movie, I interpolated on to a finer grid, to make the images less blocky.  Between each year, I inserted five images that were blendings of this year and the next.  This allows the movie to change smoothly.


1880-2011 Warming

| No Comments
For those of you keeping score at home, NASA has concluded that 2011 was the ninth warmest year on record.  (All together now: We're number 9! We're number 9!)  Furthermore, nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred this century.  They've put together a mesmerizing visualization of temperature patterns since 1880 (white=mid 20th C average, blue=colder than average, yellow-red=warmer).


It's worth taking a stop in some specific years (this is easier if you download the mp4 file from the NASA site):

  • 1930s--notice the warming over the US.  The warming in the 30s was associated with the Dust Bowl period and one of the largest displacements of people in the US (think Grapes of Wrath).
  • 1916--one of the coldest years in the record. Only a few areas of above average temperatures.
  • 1960--a pretty good representation of the "mid century average".  The colors are muted and the splotches of orange and blue are scattered evenly around the globe.
  • 1978--the start of the current warming trend.  Start from here and watch the red appear!
  • 1997--very strong El Nino year.  Notice the cone of warm water centered over the Pacific.
  • 2010--the warmest year on record.  While most of the world is orange, notice how the warming is stronger in the Arctic, and to a certain extent, the Antarctic.  While the global average temperature in 2010 is ~0.5°C higher than average, the temps in the Arctic are almost 2°C warmer.
  • 2011--"cone shaped" pattern of cold water in the Pacific indicates La Nina conditions.

SCIENCE ABOARD THE LMG

| 1 Comment
Another update from austral graduate student Karen:

This research cruise is part of a Long Term Ecological Research Program (LTER), an NSF-funded project to study long-term change in a diverse set of ecosystems.  Palmer Station and the LTER cruise are the primary components of the Antarctic LTER.  Long-term research is expensive to support and does not turn out a lot of results in the short-term.  However, without it, people would have no way of knowing how the world is changing over time.  It is therefore exceedingly important.

LTER science covers many aspects of the ecosystem.  There are people studying gases and trace metals in the ocean, bacteria, phytoplankton (plant plankton), zooplankton (animal plankton), birds and whales.  Carbon flux is a major focus that crosscuts many of the different project teams.  

The group that I work with studies zooplankton and their role in the Antarctic carbon cycle.  Dr. Deborah Steinberg, from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), runs the project.  We conduct different kinds of net tows to sample the zooplankton at different locations and at different depths around the peninsula.  In addition, some of us are conducting experiments to look at fecal pellet production, gut evacuation rates and development rates.  Each of these aspects of zooplankton ecology directly relates to carbon cycling.
Rockin'_zpl_team.JPG
The rockin' zooplankton team working their magic aboard the LMG, LTER 2012.

Carbon cycling is important because carbon is one of three primary elements that simulate the growth of life in the sea; the other two are nitrogen and phosphorus.  In addition, carbon in the ocean can exist as carbon dioxide (CO2), a major player in greenhouse gas warming.  It is therefore of utmost importance to understand how carbon moves in the marine system, and under what conditions it remains in the sea versus exits into the atmosphere.  
The way we catch zooplankton is with large nets that are towed behind the boat.  We use nets made of different sized meshes to catch different sized organisms.  
picture:
2m_deploy.JPG
Our two meter "metro" net is deployed off the stern of the ship.  We typically tow this net down to 120 meters.  For every regular sampling station, we take a tow with this net, and another with a smaller (one meter) net down to 300 meters.

Once we have our zooplankton samples onboard, we sort, identify and count all of the animals that we have caught; this takes quite a long time!  Some examples of animals that we typically catch include: krill, salps, amphipods, copepods and chaetognaths.  We also occasionally catch larval and juvenile fish and squid.
zpl_pickin.jpg
Kate and Miram take a gander at what we have caught in our latest tow.
zpl_bucket.JPG
A mélange of zooplankton swim around in a large beaker after being brought inside the lab; here you can see different ages and species of krill, chaetognaths and more.

We are not the only ones out here trying to catch zooplankton; whales are a great indicator of large numbers of krill in the area.  In fact, when we do a net tow in the presence of whales, we usually find big healthy-looking krill in the sample.
Mn_head.JPG
The head and dorsal fin of a humpback whale feeding near one of our sampling stations.
Mn_flukes.JPG
Humpback whale flukes- the patterns on the underside of humpback whale flukes are used to identify individual animals.  The longest animal migration on record was recorded after a humpback known to frequent American Samoa was sighted in Antarctica.  

The zooplankton community changes with the oceanographic conditions in different areas.  Nearshore, the water contains more phytoplankton, while offshore, the waters are less phytoplankton-rich.  We tend to find large schools of krill inshore, where phytoplankton is most abundant.  Offshore, less krill are seen but we also catch more salps, a type of gelatinous zooplankton.  Salps tend to be found in nutrient-poor waters, potentially indicating ecosystem niche-differentiation from krill.  

While tiny, zooplankton are an incredibly important component of the Antarctic ecosystem.  They are the link between the organisms converting sunlight into useable energy, and all higher trophic levels here. ¬ There is evidence that as the climate warms and ice conditions change, major changes in the zooplankton community will follow.  LTER scientists are seeking to describe and understand these changes, as they occur. 

A new generation

| 1 Comment
I've just finished yesterday (just on time, as usual!) grading the final assignment of undergrads from the "Université du Québec à Rimouski" for a fall session class entitled "Functioning of Marine Ecosystems".

And yesterday something stroke me. When I was producing a report (not so long ago) supposed to describe the patterns and processes prevailing in a marine ecosystem, I had David Attenborough's voice in my head chanting "The sun shines relentlessly over the blue sea, providing a tremendous amount of energy capable of moving water masses and make microscopic life bloom..."

But I think that my students heard a David Suzuki of some sort warning "There is an urgent need to describe and understand the current state of the marine ecosystem in order to face the impacts of global change and the ever increasing human pressure over the ocean..."

The vast majority of those 20 pages reports supposed to describe some specific marine ecosystems (The Gulf of Maine, the Baltic etc) were presented that way, to the point where some almost lost sight of the purpose of the assignment and spent more pages listing the current threats to their systems than characterizing its state and dynamics.

During the past session we had a variety of lectures and discussions, they did several presentations on various relevant topics. I did my best to put forth a balanced approach, but these students definitely learned ecology in a context radically different from what prevailed until the end of the last century. Canadian Conservative Ministers of natural resources will have to learn living with those new "radicals"!
The press has been abuzz lately with the Berkley Earth project.

Their recent scientific achievements "confirmed" the warming trend in global temperatures.I admit, there is certainly an amusing irony in the fact that they were partially funded by oil billionaires, but other than that, the climate story hasn't really changed.  At least three groups (NOAA, NASA, HadCRU) had already published the warming trend that the Berkley group found, and it has been studied in detail for decades. 

Sadly, most of us can't make a scientific career out of re-confirming other people's results.  Otherwise, I would just write a paper detailing Einstein's theory of relativity, post it on a really slick website, publish it in a top journal, and rest on my laurels.  After all, relativity has skeptics too.

480px-Einstein_1921_portrait2.jpgWhilst the old-hat temperature trend is making all the headlines, there does appear to be a scientific contribution in the Berkley group's work.  In their first paper, they detail an averaging process that "allows us to include short and discontinuous temperature records."  This is potentially a very useful algorithm.  Earth sciences are riddled with sporadic, truncated, and sparse time series.  If we could use a similar algorithm on other measurements--e.g. salmon returns, copepod abundance, or whale sightings--then we could potentially include data sources that we previously had to omit due to biases.

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where stories about averaging processes don't push paper.

P.S. Hats off to the NOAA scientists who had it right all along.  NOAA gets enough flack about its science already, and is sadly underfunded.  Yet here was a collection of scientists whose main motivation was simply to do good science.

-Nick Record, signing off

My Plan for America and the World

| No Comments
With the '012 campaign heating up, there are lots plans in the air.  The new craze this year seems to be plans with a strong numerological bent, even if the numerics behind the plans tend towards the vague.  Well, I have a plan of my own.  This is my vision of the future:

3 3 3


(Yes, I went with a number-based plan, but at least mine is prime.  And patriotically colored.).  Unlike some of the other plans, my plan does not depend on getting past a Senate filibuster, nor does it require an executive order or a super-committee. This plan is already in motion, so strap on your jet pack and come with me to the 3-3-3 future:

3

  degrees (C) of warming.  This is the current best estimate for how much warmer air temperatures will be on our planet in 2050 (relative to 2000).  Of course, some places will experience even more warming (take that, Canadian Arctic).  The extra demand for air conditioning should really give a boost to the energy sector.

3

  times as many major storm events.  According to the upcoming IPCC report, the intense rainstorms, the kind we normally get once every 20 years, will occur twice every decade.  Numerically inclined readers will note that this is actually a 4-fold increase. I would counter that mine is a conservative plan.  This component of the plan should stimulate the basement sump-pump industry.

3

 
mm/year of sea level rise.  Currently, sea level is rising by 3 mm/year.  3 mm/year times 50 years is 155 mm (15.5 cm), but sea level rise is getting faster and expected to continue to accelerate.  The acceleration is due to the fact that warmer water expands faster when it heated.  The acceleration is also due to increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica.  The ice sheets are the big wild card.  Observations of the last 10 years are more consistent with "fast-ice" scenarios.  By 2050, it is possible we could see 3 decimeters (30cm=1 foot) of rise, although 15-20 cm is more conservative.  This part of the plan should do wonders for stimulating the construction of breakwaters, dikes, and gondolas.

Sources:
IPCC AR4news coverage ofupcoming IPCC special report on "Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation", and Clark et al. 2011.

Does climate change get more news coverage in warmer years?

| 3 Comments
Today I find myself in an inquisitive mood.  A frigid and persistent winter wind has arrived early, chilling the walls of my island hovel, and forcing me to retreat to the couch with a blanket and a cup of coffee to ponder the whims of the weather.

An autumn snowstorm is chugging across the northeast US now.  It brings to mind the anomalously cold events that have occurred in the US in the past couple of years, like the frosts in Florida.  This, in turn, brings to mind the cacophony of recent news coverage questioning the reality of climate change.  "Has Global Warming Stopped?"  "If climate change is happening, why is the earth getting colder?"  Is curbing greenhouse gas emissions "Treason"?  I've often wondered, as I am wondering today: do changes in the weather effect the news coverage of climate change?

I am not a scholar of human nature.  Still, questions like the one I've posed in the title seem important to climate science.  Changes in climate and changes in weather are two very different processes that can be very weakly coupled in nature (depending on time scales).  It takes many decades for  the lumbering machinery of the climate to shift to another state.  Weather, on the other hand, changes quite rapidly.  I have lived in three different countries that boast the catch phrase, "If you don't like the weather, just wait five minutes!"  Yet these two processes--weather change and climate change--can be very strongly coupled within the human mind.  The confusion between weather and climate runs deep.  

We often rely on news media for information on topics where we have no expertise.  So I wonder: does the weather effect news coverage of the climate?

I'm not equipped to fully answer the question I've posed, but there is enough data freely available to at least begin to form an answer.  I have put together a simple analysis to get at this question, using two time series.  The first is the global mean surface air temperature change (provided by NASA).  The second is an index of news coverage on the topic of climate change.  This index is essentially the proportion of news articles in the US containing the term "climate change" (provided by the NewsLibrary.com database).  Available news data begins in 1977, so that's where my time series start.

In figure (1), I have plotted the temperature change (top) and the climate change news index (middle).  At a first glance, there might appear to be a strong correlation between the two (shown at the bottom).  However, this strong correlation only says that there has been an increasing trend in both series.  It says that temperatures have gone up over the past 33 years, and so has news coverage of climate change.  Nothing surprising.

ClimateNews00.jpg
Figure 1.


I
'd like to know, however, if there is a correlation on a finer time scale.  In other words, if there is a stand-out warm or cold year, is there any effect on the news coverage?  One (of many) ways to test for this is to subtract the increasing trend out of the data and plot the residuals.  When you do this, you get the flatter time series, shown in figure (2).

ClimateNews01.jpg
Figure 2.


There is no significant correlation between these two time series.  Yet if you look at them with a keen eye, you'll notice that they track each other fairly well until the year 2000, at which point they diverge.  Breaking the time series up by decade tells an intriguing story.  Figure (3) shows the correlations by decade--positive through 2000, then negative after 2000, and in all cases, statistically significant.

ClimateNews04.jpg
Figure 3.


To put it into words, something changed in 2000.  Before the turn of the millennium, warm years (i.e. warmer than the increasing trend) were associated with more news coverage of climate change.  Cold years (again, cold relative to the increasing trend) were associated with less news coverage of climate change.  

To me, this suggests that warm years were nagging reminders that this climate problem might be serious.  Hence the news coverage.  Have you ever been in a t-shirt on an eerily warm March day and heard someone remark sagely, "It must be global warming"?  Warm spells are not unique to the past 20 years, and an odd weather event is not evidence of climate change.  Yet they seem to remind many people of the climate change threat.  (You would be wiser to listen to your grandfather, as he mumbles, "Why, when I was your age, we had to dig potatoes in summer, because the first snowfall usually came in late September, by cracky.")

What happened in 2000 is even more compelling.  Suddenly it was cold years that drew the news coverage.  Why would climate change make headlines in cold weather?  I would hypothesize that this phenomenon is connected with the surge in climate change skepticism over the past decade.  Cold years are fodder for this sentiment in the same way that warm were for the opposite view.  I.e., "A snow storm in May?  So much for climate change."

Mind you, this is only my hypothesis.  We would need a deeper probing into the data to truly confirm or refute it.  We would want to examine, for example, the context in which the phrase "climate change" appeared.  Still, the evidence is compelling.  It would be alarming enough to learn that our perceptions of climate change are driven by fluctuations in the weather, rather than sound climate research.  It borders on disturbing that fluctuations in weather now seem to be driving a false perception.

On the other hand, it is possible that the increase in hurricanes, and the icy wind outside my door, are due to an angry Poseidon.

-Nick Record, signing off


Dead whales are beautiful!

| No Comments
Last year, we spent a certain amount of time and energy blogging about dead whales.  The Seascape crew's big contribution to our knowledge of dead whales was to calculate the carbon transferred from the atmosphere (or at least the surface ocean) to the deep sea in the carcasses of sinking whales.  Craig Smith from Scripps has been studying "whale falls" for many years, and his work describing the special communities of organisms that have evolved to exploit dead whales inspired me to think about dead whales.  The pictures from his work always rank high on the disgust-o-meter.  That's why I was so excited when a friend sent me this video:
The video was developed for the Radiolab.  You can see the original video here, and there is also a link to the podcast, which features Dr. Smith, that inspired the animation.  I'll be listening to the podcast on my next drive to Orono.

Free food for the mind

| No Comments
I've just opened an email form a colleague informing us that from today onward, the National Academies Press will offer its electronic books and reports for free.
They even provided the code to embed in anybody's webpage. It's neat, as you can see by yourself. Go there and browse the catalog. There's definitely something for you.

The Sea is an Unknowable Beast

| No Comments
We can measure the speed of light to an astonishing level of accuracy.  Uncertainty is a millionth of one percent.  We can measure and count sub-atomic particles that weigh a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a gram.  We can detect earth-like planets hundreds of trillions of miles away by measuring wobbles in stars.

Yet we can't measure egg mortality in the ocean.

This week I'm at the Ecosystem Studies of Sub-Arctic Seas conference.  I've attended this meeting, and other similar meetings, in the past.  It's a good chance to meet with scientists from all over the world, hear their ideas, learn from them, and (if you're like me) interact with them awkwardly.  It's fun and educational.

Learning about the North is especially interesting, as the Arctic appears to be a harbinger of what's to come with climate change.  Complex systems of ocean currents and ice are shifting into new states, and consequently, so are the ecosystems they support.  Marine scientists are intrepidly probing the depths to help us figure out just what is happening, and how to deal with it.

The problem is that the sea is an unknowable beast.

One of my favorite talks at this meeting was on copepod egg mortality.  The question boils down to: how many eggs survive from one day to the next?  After showing measurements made using a variety of different techniques, the take home message was: none of these techniques works.  Actually, I saw a few talks on the impracticability of measuring mortality in the ocean.  Nobody seems to be able to do it except in highly simplified or idealized cases.

It's amazing all that we've accomplished in science.  I marvel in the feats of humanity against the powers of nature, staving off death and disease, conquering flight and space travel, and discovering the imaginary numbers.  That does give me some hope that we might have the cognitive toolkit and the sheer determination to figure out the science of changing seas and their ecosystems--to buffer humanity against the oncoming climate shifts.  But I marvel too in what we have yet to accomplish.  We haven't been able to travel back in time; we haven't been able to build cities on Mars or crack the speed of light.  

And we can't count how many eggs die in the ocean.  One might say oceanography is harder than quantum physics.  At the least, it's an intriguingly mysterious enigma.

-Nick Record, signing off

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Climate category.

Bering Sea cruise is the previous category.

Computation is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.