Cold and Snowy and Warm and Wet
Cold and Snowy and Warm and Wet
Yes it is, again, a cold and snowy winter in the eastern parts of the U.S. (Master’s Wunderblog) You might recall that it was very cold and snowy in Europe at Christmas time. In the middle of Asia, January was very cold. Of course those whose opinions on global warming are anchored in the political arguments use the cold and snowy winter to substantiate their position that global warming is not real. I do not write to convince you.
Others become sensitized to the weather and start to think about climate and changing climate and what such a cold and snowy winter means.
A lot of scientists start out explaining the cold and snowy winter by making the statement that there are certain weather patterns, for example, the Arctic Oscillation. (see this blog in Washington Post for a different take) These patterns are part of dynamical or internal variability, and when the Arctic oscillation is in one phase of the pattern it is cold and snowy in the eastern U.S. and northern Europe. It should also be warm in Greenland. It’s been cold in central Asia and warm in northern Siberia. (Master’s Wunderblog: Near Record Warmth in Canada and Siberia) Hot-Cold-Hot-Cold = natural variability. It's just part of what we have to live with. All of this is true, accurately stated, but it does not strike me as a terribly intuitive explanation for those who just lost their crops in northern Mexico or central Florida. I am going to try to develop a more broadly intuitive framework to think about a cold and snowy winter in a warming world. I have written a number of previous blogs on this, one of which is reproduced at the end of this one. Also, I just finished lecturing on dynamical variability in class, and I have put those lectures on line - Lecture 11 and Lecture 12. There are a lot of links in these lectures.
An Intuitive Approach to the Cold and Snowy Winter: I will write from the point of view of the gardener or someone who likes to be outdoors and pays attention to the season and the weather.
In the winter the Sun becomes low in the sky because of the tilt of the Earth’s orbit. At polar latitudes, the Sun is below the horizon. There is no solar heating. It is dark at the pole.
During winter at the pole, the Earth continues to emit energy to space. This energy is emitted as infrared radiation. It gets cold.
It is worth remembering that if there is no solar energy to heat the Earth, the Earth will get very, very cold. It would start to approach the background temperature of outer space. At the pole, in the winter, it gets cold, say, – 40 degrees below zero. (The cool thing about 40 degrees below zero is that this is where Fahrenheit and Celsius are equal.)
Here in the U.S. it is intuitive to the gardener that the winter is cold, and dark, and it gets colder and darker the farther north you go. It’s right there on the back of the seed packet.
The atmosphere responds to this cooling at the pole; whenever and wherever there is a hot-cold contrast, a temperature gradient, there is motion. The wind blows.
A fact of the Earth is that it rotates. That rotation strongly determines the winds; the motion of the air aligns with the rotation of the Earth. (Here are two neat movies from MIT’s Climate Modeling Initiative Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory: .mpg format (large ones) non-rotating fluid, … rotating fluid )
Something of a river of air, the polar jet stream, forms around the pole. (perhaps a home boy’s figure) Most outdoor people have gotten pretty familiar with the jet stream, and that the jet stream is sometimes wavier than at other times and that that influences the weather – a lot.
Now here is something that is important, that is not quite as intuitive. The jet stream that forms around the pole largely isolates the air in the polar region from air outside the polar region. Here is how I would develop some intuition, imagine you are next to a rapidly flowing stream and you put a leaf in the stream. Does it flow across the stream to the other side, or is it rapidly carried downstream? It is carried downstream, and therefore, one side of the stream is effectively isolated from the other. The jet stream around the pole, this river of air, effectively isolates the pole. Therefore, not a whole lot of heat is carried to the pole; the sun is down; it gets cold at the pole.
This isolation of the pole during the winter occurs, whether or not there is global warming. The Sun goes down for a long period of time. Without transport of heat to the pole, the pole can get as cold now as it did 50 years. It might take a few days longer, but if it is isolated long enough then it gets just as cold. So we have a store of cold air at high latitudes.
Here is another, perhaps less intuitive fact. For the rotating atmosphere of the Earth, the hot-cold contrast, the temperature gradient, represents a source of energy for atmospheric motion. The atmosphere does not like these gradients. It wants to mix them up. If it as cold at the pole as it used to be, and warmer outside of the pole, then there is MORE energy for that mixing. So when the mixing occurs it is, likely, more vigorous, more energetic.
With this more energetic mixing, then it is possible that when the jet stream is wavy, it is very wavy compared to history. It is possible that the cold polar air goes farther south than it used to go. And more warm middle latitude air finds itself at the pole. Previously isolated polar air is pushed off the pole. It sits over Asia, Europe – North America. For a time in the middle of the winter, it can stay cold for a long time. And up at the pole it is warm. And if that cold polar air is pushed just a little bit farther south than historical, it can be damaging record cold.
And that is what January looked like. Here it is:
Figure 1: Observations of temperature in December of 2010. The temperatures are represented as a difference (anomaly) from a 30 year average. See more from (Master’s Wunderblog: Near Record Warmth in Canada and Siberia)
I don’t know if that helps. I apologize not being able to draw some new figures. There are some things that are worth thinking about for the sake of consistency.
Do we see these episodic record cold temperatures in unusual places in the middle of the winter, when we would have stronger temperature gradients, perhaps more vigorous mixing?
Do we see it taking a little longer for the pole to get cold in the transition from fall to winter?
Does the temperature at the pole bottom out at about the same temperature as it always has, but the temperature in middle latitudes gets a little warmer?
Is spring coming earlier?
Is it possible that midwinter risk to crops at southern middle latitudes increases, at the same time the spring growing season starts earlier?
Is it snowier in the middle of winter, but less snowy in the spring?
What does it mean when the United States is as cold as it has ever been for a month in the middle of winter, but the planet as a whole is still the 17th warmest on record?
r
Relevant Blog from 2010 linked here and repeated below.
Warm Cold Warm Cold
You may remember that early last winter it was cold in the eastern half of the United States. There was a lot of press about what the cold weather implied about global warming. I wrote a series of blogs last year that are:
Cold in a Warm World
Cold in the East
Last Year and This Year
Last Year and This Year – and the Next Big Story?
I have started teaching again. One of things we do in the beginning of the class we talk about what people already know about global warming. Two of the students raised the issue of “what’s in name?” That is, if it is called “global warming,” then people are confused when it is not, always, uniformly warmer all the time. (Might remember this discussion as well.)
As I stand in front of these students prattling on, I am always thinking of ways to explore, challenge, and expose ideas. Early on, we talk about the role of greenhouse gases in the natural climate of the Earth. We have known since, at least, 1800 that water vapor and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases that make the Earth “warm.” That is, if you take away these gases which act like blankets and hold the Sun’s energy near the surface of the Earth for a while, then the Earth would be MUCH colder – say, about zero degrees Fahrenheit. Restating this, without the atmosphere the surface of the Earth would be cold. (Spencer Weart’s great history) Water is about two thirds of the greenhouse warming.
One could take from this fact, and it is not often I use the word “fact,” – one could take from this fact, that there is a strong physical reason that works to take the Earth towards this “equilibrium” temperature. Think of it this way, suppose you have a pot of boiling fresh organic chicken broth on the stove. Once you get the pot boiling, if you want to keep it boiling then you have to keep adding a little heat to the bottom of the pot. If you turn off the heat, then the pot stops boiling. This loss of energy which works to stop the boiling is always occurring, and you are always adding energy through the burner to counter this loss. For the Earth, the Sun is the burner, the source of energy, and the Earth is always cooling to get rid of this energy. It’s a little like a spring trying to pull the Earth’s temperature to, on the average, about zero degrees Fahrenheit. (A question for the reader: what is the impact of putting a top on the pot?)
If you were to turn off the Sun, then the Earth would get cold fast. That is what happens when winter comes to the poles. In the north, throughout October and November, the North Pole starts to cool. The Earth emits radiation to space. Since the heating from the Sun is totally absent at this time, it can get far colder than that equilibrium temperature of zero degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere and the oceans continue to transport heat to the north, but they can’t keep up. This process of cooling at the poles in the winter is a fact of the planet that will continue even as greenhouse gases build up.
This is where weather comes into play. We have this cold air up towards the North Pole. The atmosphere and the ocean have many different types of - I will call them features - features that have characteristic types of motion associated with them. An example of such a feature is a hurricane, which has closed circulation around an eye. The hurricane then moves around, but pretty much no matter how it bounces around for a week or two, after a while the hurricane heads out to the north. Really they head off to the pole, and north or south depends on which hemisphere. What the hurricane does is transport heat from the tropics to the pole, and that is what the atmosphere and oceans do all the time. They are trying to reduce the contrast between warm and cold.
The hurricane is an example of a dynamical feature. There are many more dynamical features and many of them behave like waves. A hurricane behaves more like a spinning top; it’s a vortex. The atmosphere is full of waves, and professors like me torment students of meteorology with mathematical descriptions of these waves. There are many ways that waves come into being, but one way is because of air flowing over mountain ranges. You can imagine, more intuitively, a stream of water flowing over a rock. I have tried to convey this idea of a wave in the figure below.
Figure 1: A schematic picture that represents a wave in temperature. There are hot and cold parts of the wave. Do other climate bloggers draw such compelling figures?
What I have drawn with the dashed line is a “small” wave, perhaps a wave that would form in October. Then I draw, with the solid line, a bigger wave, perhaps a wave of December or January. These waves are always growing and decaying, sometimes moving a little bit to the east and the west. If we label the graph so that the bottom is the south, the top is the north, the left hand side is west and the right hand side is east, then we can imagine North America siting under this wave. If the left hand side is the Pacific Ocean and the right hand side is the Atlantic Ocean, then it sets up the story. If the wave grows in the west, the warm air pushes up to the north towards the pole, and the cold air is displaced south into the United States. This is not some random, made up thing, because 1) there are the Rocky Mountains that help make the wave, 2) the way the Earth rotates makes the air flow from west to east, 3) northern part of North America, we call it Canada here in the South, gets cold because the Sun is down, and 4) the Pacific Ocean starts to look warm as the continent starts to get cold.
If I hear people talking about how cold it is in the east of the U.S., I ask them to, using Wunderground.com of course, to look at what is going on in California and Alaska. If it is cold in the East, then usually it is warm in the West. And if this wave gets big enough, then it pushes up towards to pole, and it looks warm in the north, and the air that is displaced to the South, off the pole, looks cold. And to weak-kneed academics from Florida State University, it might look VERY cold. (What’s going on at Florida State? Must be all of that money that goes to cushy climate scientists.)
Even if there is a lot of carbon dioxide it still gets cold when the Sun goes down at the poles, and that cold air can get pushed down away from the pole, and there is still winter. In fact, if that push of air towards the pole is especially vigorous, then the cold air can get pushed to new places, and we have a record cold. If you are going to play the “record game,” look for new highs that might be paired with the new lows. (Jerry Meehl and colleagues did this recently, many, many more new highs. They concluded that it’s getting warmer.)
OK …. Let’s look at last December. It’s from the usual place the National Climatic Data Center.
Figure 2: Observations of temperature in December of 2009. The temperatures are represented as a difference (anomaly) from a 30 year average.
I recall Boulder, Colorado being really cold in December, as well as a blizzard in Baltimore. The map shows two cold centers over North America and Siberia. It’s pretty warm in Greenland and Alaska, and you can study the map more. Here is a link to the excellent discussion at the National Climatic Data Center. In the northern hemisphere this map shows a distinctive wave pattern. (There are good reasons that these waves appear as 1, 2, or 3 , but I will make you take dynamics on your own.)
I deliberately did this without referring to the Arctic Oscillation. I was driving around this afternoon thinking about that. If the pole has spent the last few years with its cold phase at the pole, and that cold phase was, by historical standards, not so cold, does that mean something? Just thinking on the way to Sprayberry's.
I posed the question at the end of a recent blog about what a record December blizzard in Baltimore might or might not say about climate change. Since then there have been record snow storms all over the northern hemisphere. At a very real level, a set of storms in one winter says NOTHING about global warming. Nothing. It surely does not say that global warming is abated, or of no concern. In fact, as a couple of comments pointed out, if the atmosphere is warmer, and the air is moister, if it is cold enough to snow, then there is a lot of snow. Others say that cold is cold.
There is still cold weather. Fact is, when the entire surface of the globe is considered, December 2009 was a warm month, in a warm year, of the warmest decade we have measured. (see this write up) Prepare in the next week for a bunch of storms to hit California. (Of course, that’s just a model prediction.) I wonder how many people will attribute those storms to El Nino, based on the science, but at the same time dismiss the far more certain science of global warming. I’ll be at the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting in Atlanta. Our group has eight talks, so there is student stress and faculty worry. More and more climate at the meeting as we start to think about a National Climate Service.
r
And here is
Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
Changes in the Arctic Are Hitting Closer to Home
It’s a puzzle: How could warmth in the Arctic produce frigid conditions elsewhere?
NOAA scientists may have a clue.
Extremely cold winds have swept down through the Northern Hemisphere recently, reaching as far south as the state of Florida and causing record low temperatures in January. The unusually cold winter of 2009–2010 – which saw massive snowstorms dubbed “Snowpocalypse” and “Snowmageddon” — and the frigid start to 2011 in the eastern United States and Europe have scientists talking about what might be influencing the weather.
Dr. James Overland, a scientist at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) in Seattle, has been studying the changing conditions in the Arctic for 30 years. He explains why the deterioration of the Polar Vortex could be leading to some of these extreme winter weather events.
“When the Polar Vortex — a ring of winds circling the Arctic — breaks down, this allows cold air to spill south, affecting the eastern United States and other regions,” says Dr. Overland. “This can result in a warmer-than-average Arctic region and colder temperatures that may include severe winter weather events on the North American and European continents.”
Link
New Analysis Released by the World Resources Institute
February 25, 2011
Seventy-five percent of the world's coral reefs are currently threatened by local and global pressures, according to a comprehensive analysis released by the World Resources Institute, along with the Nature Conservancy, the WorldFish Center, the International Coral Reef Action Network, Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Center, and a network of more than 25 partner organizations, including NOAA.
For the first time, the analysis includes threats from climate change, including warming seas and rising ocean acidification.
The most immediate and direct threats arise from local sources, which currently threaten more than 60% of coral reefs. Local threats include impacts from fishing, coastal development, and pollution. Left unchecked, the percent of threatened reefs will increase to more than 90% by 2030 and to nearly all reefs by 2050.
Visit NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program for more on this report, including links to social media resources and supporting video.
Link
Scientists ‘Sniff’ Around Frozen Ground
Methane, chemically known as CH4, is composed of a single carbon atom surrounded by four hydrogen atoms. Negatively charged particles (electrons) whirling around the hydrogen atoms force them to sit as far as possible — 109.5 degrees exactly — from each other. This gives methane a balanced and proportional structure. (Credit: NOAA)
Cows put it out there. So do mines and landfills. On a molecular level, methane gas is elegantly simple, just four tiny hydrogen atoms surrounding a single carbon atom.
Zoom out, however, and the picture is more complex, particularly when it comes to climate change. Methane, the main component in natural gas, is both a rich source of energy and a powerful greenhouse gas.
Our atmosphere allows solar energy to reach and warm the Earth’s surface. However, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap the heat emitted from the Earth’s surface and prevent it from escaping to space. To a point, the greenhouse effect is beneficial to life on Earth. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keep surface temperatures warm enough for life on Earth to flourish. Without them, Earth would be an inhospitable ice ball.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, human activity has added greatly to the amount of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. While carbon dioxide is the most abundant and has a much longer life span, methane is more potent at trapping heat.
Large chunks of soil collapse as a result of permafrost thaw and erosion, as seen in this image taken along the Sagavanirktok River on the North Slope of Alaska near Deadhorse. When permafrost thaws, microbes digest vegetation, which results in the release of methane.
Download here. (Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center/CIRES)
Where’s all this methane coming from?
Mining and the processing of fossil fuels are the principal sources of methane. Livestock emit large quantities of the gas as they digest grain and grasses. Landfills also give off lots of methane as garbage decays.
NOAA scientists have been measuring the levels of these gases for many decades. The changes in the levels are summarized yearly in the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index.
Their measurements have tracked startling increases in greenhouse gases over time, as well as increases in average surface temperature. As the atmosphere warms, NOAA scientists expect that alterations in climate will bring more intense storms, heat waves, droughts, flooding and rising sea levels.
Methane levels, however, have not shown a consistent upward trend. From the late 1970s through the late 1990s, methane levels in the atmosphere rose but then flattened until they began increasing again in 2007. Methane emissions from wetlands found mainly in the tropics, with some in the Arctic, are the likely reason for the increase.
As global temperature rises, scientists have been keeping their eyes on another source of methane – permafrost. As soil that has remained at or below freezing for two or more consecutive years, permafrost resides near the poles and at high altitudes. Permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere holds vast amounts of carbon equal to the amount of carbon in known coal reserves. The Southern Hemisphere, having relatively less land area, has less permafrost.
Scientists working with the NOAA-funded Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) drill a permafrost core sample on the North Slope of Alaska near Deadhorse. Team members include (left to right) Tim Schaefer of Schaefer Tec Consultants, Lin Liu of the University of Colorado, and Tingjun Zhang of CIRES.
Download here. (Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center/CIRES)
As temps rise, so does methane
Thawing of permafrost would liberate a great quantity of methane: As the soil warms, microbes digest vegetation contained in this frozen ground, releasing methane as the byproduct. Potentially, this process could set a feedback cycle into motion, amplifying atmospheric warming, increasing permafrost thaw and promoting the release of more methane.
“NOAA’s Earth System Research Lab analyzes methane in air samples collected around the world,” says Ed Dlugokencky, Ph.D., a NOAA research chemist who leads the methane monitoring program. “The data we generate from these samples helps us understand global trends and details of the methane cycle. We do not see signs of a feedback cycle yet, but continued monitoring is very important.”
A new study led by Kevin Schaefer, Ph.D., and a team of scientists from NOAA-funded Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and the NOAA Earth System Research Lab now predicts a 29 to 59 percent decrease in permafrost by 2200. Published in the journal Tellus B, the study estimates a large release of carbon – in the form of carbon dioxide and methane – from thawing permafrost over the next century, though much is still unknown about how these emissions will accelerate climate warming.
Scientific climate projections do not currently account for carbon emissions from permafrost, but the study concludes that the effect is “strong enough to warrant inclusion in all projections of future climate.”
Link
(Opening Keynote Address)
As delivered on Feb. 23 by Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator as part of a Press Launch of the World Resources Institute "Reefs at Risk Revisited" at the National Press Club, Washington, DC
February 23, 2011
Thank you, Jonathan for that introduction, and for all that WRI has done to draw attention to the importance of coral reefs and to quantify their state. Your leadership is much appreciated and greatly respected.
On behalf of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and the 12,800 employees of NOAA, it is my pleasure to stand with the World Resources Institute and partners to launch “Reefs at Risk Revisited.” With this historic report, WRI continues its trend of using expert knowledge to inform, inspire, empower action, and implement transformative solutions that address global environmental challenges.
Now – full disclosure: I feel compelled to be completely honest with you. Any mention of coral reefs immediately transports me to an underwater haven called Raja Ampat in eastern Indonesia where I had the privilege of diving just over a year ago. The reefs there epitomize what is at stake with the onslaught of threats to reefs world-wide. Raja Ampat harbors 1320 species of reef fish, and as much as 75% of the diversity of the world’s corals. Those numbers, though impressive, do little to capture the beauty, mystery, and majesty of the seascapes. Crocodile fish, pygmy seahorses, batfish, crinoids, anemone fish, nudibranchs, anemones and so, so, so much more -- all dependent upon the underlying structure and habitat provided by healthy coral reefs. An Eden beneath the waves, those reefs are a source of knowledge, a treasure trove of life’s mysteries, the grocery and pharmacy of local people, their protection against tsunamis and tropical storms, and a rich source of resilience against environmental change.
Floating blissfully in this blue Mecca, I wished that its beauty and bounty were more broadly recognized. Those reefs are essential to the health, food security and economic well-being of Indonesians. Approximately 60% of Indonesians depend on seafood for their sole or primary source of protein. Fisheries there are also critical for trade and economic opportunity, including a burgeoning tourist industry.
Unfortunately, the beautiful, diverse coral reef ecosystems I saw in Indonesia are threatened, as are reefs globally. As noted in the new WRI report, approximately 75% of world’s coral reefs are currently threatened by a combination of local and global pressures.
This is a critical time for ocean ecosystems in general, but especially for coral reefs. Mounting pressures on land, along the coast and in the water converge in a perfect storm of threats to reefs. Since the last ‘Reefs at Risk’ report a decade ago, threats have gone from worrisome to dire. Reef ecosystems are changing rapidly and radically, with profound consequences for humanity.
But what’s really at stake?
Preserving coral reefs is about protecting coastal communities:
Coastlines protected by reefs are more stable, more resistant to erosion, than those without. Up to 90 percent of the energy from wind-generated waves is absorbed by reef ecosystems. In Belize alone, coastal protection afforded by reefs and mangroves provides an estimated $231 to $347 million dollars in avoided damages per year.
Preserving coral reefs is about preserving cultures:
As an example, the most linguistically diverse place on earth, Papua New Guinea, is home to approximately 820 different languages and to many people who are dependent on coral reefs. If we lose these reefs, we risk losing the communities and cultures that gave rise to such diversity.
Preserving coral reefs is about food security:
We need to expand the way we think about food security far beyond just grains and livestock on land to include fisheries, given that vast numbers of people in developing countries rely on their coastal waters for essential protein.
500 million people worldwide depend daily upon coral reefs for their food and livelihoods. That’s 200 million more people than live in the U.S. alone.
Preserving coral reefs is about ensuring thriving economies:
It is difficult to put a precise dollar value on many of the benefits provided by coral reef ecosystems, but by any estimate they are globally and locally valuable. Tourism, reef fisheries and shoreline protection are particularly noteworthy.
But most of all, preserving coral reefs is about our collective commitment to one another, to the rest of life on the planet and to our future.
A deadly combination of local and global threats are putting these important ecosystems and their services at risk.
WRI’s “Reefs at Risk Revisited” presents not only a sobering status report of worsening drivers of previously identified threats, but a new focus on recently identified threats from climate change and ocean acidification.
The potential impacts from climate change were demonstrated graphically by the extensive coral bleaching in the Caribbean basin in 2005 and in Southeast Asia and the Coral Triangle region in 2010. In addition, ocean acidification – the change in ocean chemistry due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere – had barely made it into the scientific literature 10-years ago, but is now understood to inflict potentially irreversible damage to our ocean ecosystems.
Extreme bleaching events kill corals outright, while less extreme events can weaken corals, affecting their reproductive potential, reducing growth and calcification, and leaving them vulnerable to disease. Coral bleaching has negative impacts not only on coral reef ecosystems, but also on the human communities that depend on coral reefs for food and income.
If the current trends persist, the projections in this report tell us that 20 years from now, roughly half of reefs globally will experience thermal stress sufficient to induce severe bleaching in most years. Within the next 50 years, this percentage is expected to grow to more than 95 percent. This is a sobering thought.
Although many reefs can recover from infrequent and mild bleaching, this degree of both acute and chronic stress presents a significant risk of irreversible damage to reefs and subsequently to the people who rely upon them.
In addition to thermal stress, corals face the added threat of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is a global-scale change in the basic chemistry of oceans that is currently underway as a direct result of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. As more CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, sea water becomes more acidic. The change in chemistry means it is more difficult for corals to build their skeletons.
The moniker “osteoporosis of the sea,” gives you a hint of some of the impacts of ocean acidification. Reduced calcification rates limit a reef’s ability to grow, stay healthy and withstand stress.
The analysis in “Reefs at Risk Revisited” found that by 2030, fewer than half the world’s reefs are projected to be in areas where the level of calcium carbonate is ideal for coral growth, suggesting that coral growth rates could be dramatically reduced due to ocean acidification. By 2050, only about 15 percent of reefs will be in areas where calcium carbonate levels are adequate for coral growth.
The state of reefs today and this report should raise concerns for everyone. Reef ecosystems are globally important; their continued existence is a moral imperative for the global community; healthy reefs are also the life-line for local communities.
This report and new scientific efforts provide opportunities for the world to change the current trajectory of loss of reefs and the services they provide. Science is driving new innovative solutions; communities and stakeholders are becoming engaged; and creativity is enhancing progress.
Beacons of hope emerge from multiple places around the world. Let me highlight a few of these.
One such beacon comes from Indonesia. In remote villages of the Bird’s Head Seascape – an expanse of north-eastern Indonesia considered the epicenter of biodiversity within the Coral Triangle – village leaders and resource managers have formed a soccer league specifically as a means to foster cooperation and exchange knowledge about their approaches to coral reef conservation. They travel by every means possible – mules, small water craft, mopeds and rickshaws – to soccer games, ultimately building a larger, stronger, more resilient community of practitioners to protect these valuable resources and the communities dependent upon them.
This ingenuity and commitment provide hope for reefs.
Another creative effort is underway in the Caribbean.
Through an effort of The Nature Conservancy, fishers from Pedro Bank, Jamaica -- the only remaining place in Jamaica where you can still make a living by fishing – were brought together with fishers from Belize. This “Fishers Exchange” exposed the shock and dismay of the Belizeans as they witness the scope of the devastation of Pedro Bank in Jamaica; and the amazement of the Jamaicans as they snorkel among teeming fish in Belize’s marine protected areas. Like the best conservation stories, this is more about hope than it is about loss. In the waters of Belize, the Pedro Bank fishers saw the value of marine protected areas and well-managed fisheries. They saw just how rich their own waters used to be and can be again. With work and commitment, they still have an opportunity to preserve and recover their natural heritage and protect the reefs and the fisheries that are the foundation of their way of life.
Another innovative tool that gives me hope is the use of satellite-based observations to monitor environmental conditions influencing coral reef health at local, regional, and global scales.
For example, NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch has customized data such as sea surface temperature from our polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites into user-friendly products that highlight areas currently at risk for coral bleaching and other environmental threats. We are able to alert resource managers and researchers to environmental events significant to coral reef health, allowing managers to enhance monitoring and implement additional protective measures in a timely fashion.
Yet another reason for hope is the new National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes here in the United States.
Our Nation’s first ever National Ocean Policy states unequivocally that healthy oceans matter. The Policy clearly articulates the interconnected nature of humans and oceans – that our communities, economies, and livelihoods depend on healthy ecosystems.
I am pleased that at the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force meeting tomorrow its members will take action to integrate Task Force priorities within the framework of the National Ocean Policy. The Task Force will provide the necessary voice and leadership to ensure that coral reef ecosystem conservation is part of the implementation of the National Ocean Policy. I think this is a very important step, and as a member of the National Ocean Council, I wholeheartedly support this action.
But: make no mistake: the task before us remains a daunting one. It will take a herculean effort to reverse the current trajectory and leave healthy ocean ecosystems to our children and our grandchildren.
Some might say that the odds of reversing trends to leave such a legacy are too great. But I beg to differ. I am encouraged by numerous signs:
the increasing number of local community efforts that are underway, bringing ingenuity and passion;
the successes of various restoration efforts, giving hope for reversing trends;
increased scientific engagement informing choices;
critical philanthropic efforts enabling proof of concept, development of powerful networks, and translation of scientific knowledge into practice; and
especially the engagement of young people who have a knack for tackling seemingly impossible tasks and bringing fresh energy and thinking.
The global community is now faced with a decision. We have the chance to reverse the decline of coral reefs and bring them back to health. The window of opportunity for this option is finite. This report should serve as the wake-up call: now is the time to act.
Healthy oceans should be everyone’s business. Greater awareness and engagement are needed to protect and restore the global treasures that are coral reefs. How the world rises to this challenge is a reflection of our commitment to one another and to the natural world that gives us sustenance, wisdom and a reflection of our souls.
Thank You.
Link
New studies demonstrate potential increases in waterborne toxins and microbes harmful to human health
February 19, 2011
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting:
Feb. 19 Symposium 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. (EST)
A panel of scientists speaking today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) unveiled new research and models demonstrating how climate change could increase exposure and risk of human illness originating from ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems, with some studies projecting impacts to be felt within 30 years.
“With 2010 the wettest year on record and third warmest for sea surface temperatures, NOAA and our partners are working to uncover how a changing climate can affect our health and our prosperity,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “These studies and others like it will better equip officials with the necessary information and tools they need to prepare for and prevent risks associated with changing oceans and coasts.”
In several studies funded by NOAA’s Oceans and Human Health Initiative, findings shed light on how complex interactions and climate change alterations in sea, land and sky make ocean and freshwater environments more susceptible to toxic algal blooms and proliferation of harmful microbes and bacteria.
Climate Change Could Prolong Toxic Algal Outbreaks by 2040 or Sooner
Herrold family harvesting oysters in Willapa Bay, Washington.
Download here. (Credit: With permission from Bill Dewey, Taylor Shellfish Farms, Inc.)
Using cutting-edge technologies to model future ocean and weather patterns, Stephanie Moore, Ph.D., with NOAA’s West Coast Center for Oceans and Human Health and her partners at the University of Washington, are predicting longer seasons of harmful algal bloom outbreaks in Washington State’s Puget Sound.
The team looked at blooms of Alexandrium catenella, more commonly known as “red tide,” which produces saxitoxin, a poison that can accumulate in shellfish. If consumed by humans, it can cause gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms including vomiting and muscle paralysis or even death in extreme cases.
Longer harmful algal bloom seasons could translate to more days the shellfish fishery is closed, threatening the vitality of the $108 million shellfish industry in Washington state.
“Changes in the harmful algal bloom season appear to be imminent and we expect a significant increase in Puget Sound and similar at-risk environments within 30 years, possibly by the next decade,” said Moore. “Our projections indicate that by the end of the 21st century, blooms may begin up to two months earlier in the year and persist for one month later compared to the present-day time period of July to October.”
Natural climate variability also plays a role in the length of the bloom season from one year to the next. Thus, in any single year, the change in bloom season could be more or less severe than implied by the long-term warming trend from climate change.
Moore and the research team indicate that the extended lead time offered by these projections will allow managers to put mitigation measures in place and sharpen their targets for monitoring to more quickly and effectively open and close shellfish beds instead of issuing a blanket closure for a larger swath of coast or be caught off guard by an unexpected bloom. The same model can be applied to other coastal areas around the world increasingly affected by harmful algal blooms and improve protection of human health against toxic outbreaks.
More Atmospheric Dust From Global Desertification Could Lead to Increases of Harmful Bacteria in Oceans, Seafood
Aerosolized dust is clearly visible in the satellite image and stretches across the Atlantic Ocean nearly continuously from Western Africa into the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.
Download here. (Credit: With permission from SeaWIFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and ORBIMAGE.)
Researchers at the University of Georgia, a NOAA Oceans and Human Health Initiative Consortium for Graduate Training site, looked at how global desertification — and the resulting increase in atmospheric dust based on some climate change scenarios — could fuel the presence of harmful bacteria in the ocean and seafood.
Desert dust deposition from the atmosphere is considered one of the main contributors of iron in the ocean, has increased over the last 30 years and is expected to rise based on precipitation trends in western Africa. Iron is limited in ocean environments and is essential to most forms of life. In a study conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey, Erin Lipp, Ph.D. and graduate student Jason Westrich demonstrated that the sole addition of desert dust and its associated iron into seawater significantly stimulates growth and persistence of Vibrios, a group of ocean bacteria that occur worldwide and can cause gastroenteritis and infectious diseases in humans.
“Within 24 hours of mixing weathered desert dust from Morocco with seawater samples, we saw a 10-1000-fold growth in Vibrios, including one strain that could cause eye, ear, and open wound infections, and another strain that could cause cholera ,” said Lipp. “Our next round of experiments will examine the response of the strains associated with seafood-related infections.”
Since 1996 Vibrio cases have jumped 85 percent in the United States based on reports that primarily track seafood-illnesses. It is possible this additional input of iron, along with rising sea surface temperatures, will affect these bacterial populations and may help to explain both current and future increases in human illnesses from exposure to contaminated seafood and seawater.
Increased Rainfall and Dated Sewers Could Affect Water Quality in Great Lakes
Projected change in the frequency of one inch rainfalls across Wisconsin in days per decade. Global Climate Models were downscaled to produce region specific projections using a statistical method developed by the Climate Working Group of the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. Data provided by D. Lorenz, M. Notaro, and D. Vimont, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Download here. (Credit: NOAA)
A changing climate with more rainstorms on the horizon could increase the risk of overflows of dated sewage systems, causing the release of disease-causing bacteria, viruses and protozoa into drinking water and onto beaches. In the past 10 years there have been more severe storms that trigger overflows. While there is some question whether this is due to natural variability or to climate change, these events provide another example as to how vulnerable urban areas are to climate.
Using fine-tuned climate models developed for Wisconsin, Sandra McLellan, Ph.D., at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Freshwater Sciences, found spring rains are expected to increase in the next 50 years and areas with dated sewer systems are more likely to overflow because the ground is frozen and rainwater can’t be absorbed. As little as 1.7 inches of rain in 24 hours can cause an overflow in spring and the combination of increased temperatures — changing snowfall to rainfall and increased precipitation — can act synergistically to magnify the impact.
McLellan and colleagues showed that under worst case scenarios there could be an average 20 percent increase in volume of overflows, and they expect the overflows to last longer. In Milwaukee, infrastructure investments have reduced sewage overflows to an average of three times per year, but other cities around the Great Lakes still experience overflows up to 40 times per year.
“Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on urban infrastructure, and these investments need to be directed to problems that have the largest impact on our water quality,” said McLellan. “Our research can shed light on this dilemma for cities with aging sewer systems throughout the Great Lakes and even around the world.”
“Understanding climate change on a local level and what it means to county beach managers or water quality safety officers has been a struggle,” said Juli Trtanj, director of NOAA’s Oceans and Human Health Initiative and co-author of the interagency report A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change. “These new studies and models enable managers to better cope and prepare for real and anticipated changes in their cities, and keep their citizens, seafood and economy safe.”
Link
I am pretty sure JFlorida knows the kinetic energy in the gulfstream can alleviate that problem.
Your arrogance, ignorance and stupidity need to be challenged. Here's why. It is only with that certainty that you espouse that really bad things happen, things such as totalitarianism, genocide and communism. So, your arrogance, ignorance and stupidity are really more than just that. The combination is truly evil and dangerous.
Does anyone here think that to be surprising for a blog about climate science? For that matter, surprising for any blog about any science? Do you guys know why I capitalized CENSORED AND PROPAGANDA? It's because this site is being used for other than an exchange of climate science ideas. This site is censored and being used as a PROPAGANDA MACHINE by its blogger, Dr. Rood. If it wasn't, the postings that have been CLEANSED OUT would be visible to those who come here for the first time or those who never have signed in. I am not speaking about those posts that violate community standards. Perhaps some of you here believe disagreement with the party line is a violation of community standards.
So, Dr. Rood, what is going on here?
Of course!
Florida, should we read this part carefully, also?
January and February Northern Hemisphere snow cover
Sea ice extent is only one of a number of data sets scientists use to understand how climate is changing. Rutgers University and NOAA have compiled a 45-year record of Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent from NOAA snow charts. These data show that much of northern North America, Scandinavia and northern Eurasia are snow covered between 90 and 100 percent of the time in January and February. High elevation plains and mountains at lower latitudes, such as the southern Rocky Mountains in the U.S. and Hindu Kush in Asia, also have extensive snow cover.
Over this record, in January, Northern Hemisphere snow cover averages 47 million square kilometers (18.1 million square miles), and in February it averages 46 million square kilometers (17.8 square miles)—approximately 45 to 46 percent of the land area in the region. While sea ice extent was below average for January 2011, this month had the sixth-largest snow cover extent since the record started in 1966, at 49 million square kilometers (18.9 million square miles). Snow was unusually widespread over the mid-western and eastern United States, eastern Europe, and western China. Snow cover in February remained above average at 47.4 million square kilometers (18.3 million square miles), with more snow than usual in the western and central U.S., eastern Europe, Tibet and northeastern China.
Reduced sea ice extent and extensive snow cover are not contradictory, and are both linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (see our January 5, 2011 post). A strongly negative AO favors outbreaks of cold Arctic air over northern Europe and the U.S., as many people experienced first-hand these last two winters. Whether this is a trend, or in any way linked to ongoing climate warming in the Arctic, remains to be seen.
The emphasis is mine. I'm sure you and Michael believe that sentence is unnecessary since all is known and agreed to by clear thinking scientists.
It has been a trend since the start of the industrial revolution and we can reverse it if we want to.
SST does not control El Nino
The atmospheric diabatic forcing over the tropics and the position of the principal atmospheric centers of action at 500 hPa
do.
And Danish wind mills, they are much more pictureque.
I don't know but I wish he and I could computer model it together! It would be great if Bill Gates would fund us both to accomplish it!
Um,yes; it is looky here:
Northern Hemisphere average annual snow cover has declined in recent decades. This pattern is consistent with warmer global temperatures. Some of the largest declines have been observed in the spring and summer months.
And the same is true for glaciers also here: Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade. Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water supplies in certain regions of Asia and South America.
Deplorable isn't it Michael? I can show you many many more indicators if you would like me too!
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index