Thoughts on the ocean, the environment, the universe and everything from nearly a mile high.

Panorama of The Grand Tetons From the top of Table Mountain, Wyoming © Alan Holyoak, 2011
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts

Thursday, May 28, 2015

NSIDC Reports The Smallest Maximum Arctic Sea Ice Extent

The National Snow and Ice Data Center just announced a news release, that the winter of 2014-15 had the lowest maximum sea ice extent since satellite records were started in 1979.


So what? This is yet another indicator of the effects of ongoing warming of the planet as part of the current trend in global climate change.  If you look at the map above you may not think that the difference between the 1981-2010 average is that compelling, but the bottom line is that the winter maximum sea ice extents and the summer minimum sea ice extents in the Arctic continue to drop as the years go on.  

This means that we continue to slide farther and farther down the climate change chute - impacts have always been predicted to be most extreme and obvious in the Arctic than anywhere else on the planet.  But if this is happening in the Arctic we should not be surprised to see other effects elsewhere...increasing temperatures, increasing intensities of storms, shifting weather and precipitation patterns, sea level rise, etc.

Oh, and a few more tidbits of information...the first time the Arctic maximum winter sea ice extent dropped below the 1981-2010 average was in 1995, and the last year the Arctic maximum sea ice extent matched or exceeded the 1981-2010 average was in 2003.  Every year since 2004 has had Arctic maximum winter sea ice extents below the long-term average...that's 11 years running! 

Click on the link below for more detailed information from the NSIDC:
Lowest Maximum Arctic Sea Ice Extent in Recorded History

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Moisture and motorcycles - a new reality

It's late January in eastern Idaho - the heart of winter.  Historically this meant snow, ice, and COLD.  My first experience with Idaho winters was in January 1977 when I rolled into Rexburg Idaho to attend Ricks College (since renamed BYU-Idaho).  I got off the bus and started the 6-block hike up the hill to campus.  The roads were literally sheet ice.  I remember this because when my suitcases got too heavy to carry I just leaned down and slid them along the ice all the way to campus (this was in the days before suitcases with wheels - what a great invention!).  Roads and sidewalks around here were usually snow/ice covered from after Thanksgiving through March.  There was so much snow in fact that some of the more adventurous (i.e., crazy/stupid) guys in the dorm would jump from the second floor landing into the deep snow below.  My roommates and I also used to get together at the end of the day and share the ice-related wipe-outs we saw during the day, and they happened every day on campus.

There is, however, a new climate reality.

There are of course still times when streets and sidewalks are snow/ice covered, but for the most part the streets and sidewalks are now mainly dry and bare for most of the winter.  This is even in a year where we are currently over 130% of our annual precipitation to date.  So, if the climate was as cold as it used to be we should have mountains of snow, but we don't.  Sure you can see snow around, but it's nothing extreme at all.  The reason we don't have much on the ground is that it keeps melting off.

I was surprised yesterday afternoon (1/26/2015) when I noticed someone zip by on a motorcycle.  I saw another person on a motorcycle this morning.  Motorcycles in January in Rexburg, Idaho!?  In days past you'd take a motorcycle out in January only if you had some kind of death wish.  Now, however, the roads are bare so if you bundle up it's completely doable.  I was doubly surprised yesterday when I saw that the weather forecast for today is RAIN (!!!???).  We are slated to reach temps in the low 40sF today and it may not even reach freezing overnight.  Now THAT'S CRAZY!


Welcome to the new reality.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

10 for 10 - Arctic Sea Ice Melt Trend Continues

Every year in October the National Snow and Ice Data Center (www.nsidc.org) releases a report on the minimum sea ice extent for the current year.  This year the NSIDC announced that the minimum summer sea ice extent for 2014 was 5.02 million square kilometers.  OK, so what?

NASA satellites started monitoring sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean back in 1979.  Satellite data are downloaded each day and sent sent to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, for analysis.  Thirty-five years of these data are now painting a sobering picture.  Though there is a significant amount of year-to-year variability among the data, a strong trend is emerging.
Average Monthly Sea Ice Extent September 1979-2014.  
Data courtesy of NSIDC.org

The data show that there is significantly less sea ice in the Arctic now than there was only a few decades ago.  The upper end of the trend line tops out around 7.9 million square kilometers of sea ice, and the bottom end of the line reached about 4.9 million square kilometers of sea ice.  The difference?  About 3 million square kilometers of sea ice gone missing.  How much is that?  That's about the same surface area as India, the 7th largest country in the world.

NSIDC also reports that we are currently losing on average 13.3% of sea ice cover per decade and that the ten Septembers with the lowest extents happened in the last ten years!  

Bottom line?  We are progressively losing more sea ice in the Arctic.  

10 for 10?  The last ten years, the ten lowest sea ice extents, and sadly at this rate it's not likely to get better before it gets even worse.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Quick Arctic Update - 15 Sept 2014

We are near the traditional end of the Arctic sea ice melt season, so I thought I'd check in and post a quick update.  Two years ago, 2012 set the the all-time recorded sea ice melt record (so far) with a minimum sea ice extent over 3 million square kilometers below the 1981-2010 average.  By comparison the 2014 Arctic sea ice melt season looks fairly tame, but don't be fooled, the current sea ice extend is creeping up on 1.5 million square kilometers below the long-term average, and it's still declining.  


This year's minimum sea ice extend will almost certainly not reach the record set in 2012, but it was a significant melt all the same.  This melt qualifies 2014 to be the 6th largest Arctic sea ice melt year on record, exceeded only by 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012.  The other years, 2009 and 2013 were just shy of this year's mark.  This also means that the eight years with the greatest Arctic se ice melt were the past 8 years.  It looks like a trend is forming....the bottom line, the sea ice melt is becoming more extensive as time goes on. 

(Graphs courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Univ of Colorado at Boulder, NSIDC.org)



Thursday, July 3, 2014

Holy Cow! Look at that decline in Arctic sea ice!

I haven't posted anything about much here lately, though there has been a lot going on.  For example the launch of the Carbon Observatory Satellite (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/carbon-observatory-2-satellite_n_5550826.html?utm_hp_ref=green), but I just had to place a short post when I checked the Arctic sea ice extent today at the NSIDC.org site.

The graph below shows the relationship between the current sea ice extent (blue line) and the extent in 2012 (green dashed line), the year that generated the smallest sea ice extent so far, and the long-term average sea ice extent (dark gray line).  The rate of sea ice melt through mid-June 2014 wasn't really much out of the ordinary, just 500,000 km2 below the long term average (just!?), but over the past couple of weeks the sea ice extent has plummeted!  It's now about 1.2 million km2 below the average extent for this time of year.  

Yikes!

If this sea ice melt rate keeps up we could see another record low extent or close to it.  And yet another indicator from the high Arctic that the effects of climate change are not going to be going away anytime soon.

This is also the second month running where the atmospheric carbon dioxide level did not dip below 400 ppm, the second month it's ever been this high in human history...at least for the last several hundred thousand years.

Hang on, it could get interesting and exciting to see just how far things will go before there is general acceptance and outcry that something be done, at least in the USA.

Think green!

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The 2014 Arctic Sea Ice Melt is ON!

Every summer some of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean melts.  And, it's once again that time of year.  The Arctic sea ice melt is on! 

There is no way to know how much sea ice will be left at the end of any melt season, but there's one thing we can be pretty sure of, and that's that there will be less sea ice up there at the end of this melt season than the 1981-2010 average of 6.3 million square kilometers.  

2001 was the last year the sea ice minimum was greater than long-term average.  

The data below show the annual minimum sea ice extent for the Arctic Ocean between 1979 and 2013 (data courtesy of the NSIDC.org).  There is a lot of variability in the data (which is normal for any natural system), but the interesting and worrisome thing is that on average the amount of sea ice remaining at the end of the summer melt season is dropping at an increasing rate (see the trend line through the data).   



The increasing steepness of the slope is what worries me.  These data indicate that not only do we have a trend of increasing sea ice melt in the Arctic, but that the rate ice is melting is accelerating.

Climatologists have long projected that the effects of global climate change will be observed earliest and most clearly in the Arctic.  The rate of melting sea ice is just one of those indicators, but it's a powerful one!

Global warming is not just some wild-eyed idea; the reality of global warming is a scientific conclusion based on decades of multiple lines of evidence.

Will we see a new record Arctic sea ice minimal this summer?  No one can know this, but science can with a high degree of confidence predict that there will be less ice on average this summer than we've seen in the past.

The data below show the current sea ice extent and recent extent history comparing 2014 and 2012, the year with the current minimum sea ice extent) so far.

So what!?

The answer to the so what question is this.  Global warming is real, and unless we get busy doing what we can to mitigate the effects of climate change we are in for some serious trouble.

America...the alarm clock is ringing.  Are you waking up?

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

New statement on climate change from the AAAS - 2014

There is a new statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also known as the AAAS, on what we know about climate change.

The AAAS is the leading scientific body in the United States, represents the best of our scientific community, and is the largest scientific community in the world.

For one thing, multiple lines of evidence support the statement that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are affecting the climate...I encourage you to take time to read the entire statement by clicking the link below.

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf

The link below is a 5 minute video in which the question of scientific consensus among other topics are touched upon.  It is also from the AAAS.

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/consensus-sense/

This statement and video do not represent the wild-eyed ramblings of some fringe scientific element, it reflects the mainstream scientific conclusions of the world's leading body of scientists on the topic of climate change, as well as an effort to disseminate information about what we know about it.

The AAAS is working deliberately to help people understand what we know, and calls upon governments to end the debate on a topic for which the science is settled, and move on to identifying  best approaches for dealing with the problem of climate change.

The debate is over...it's time to act.  What will you do?

Thursday, February 13, 2014

What is going on!? Early snow melt in Rexburg, Idaho

I live in Rexburg, Idaho.  For anyone who has lived here, gone to school here, or maybe even just visited, the word Rexburg often elicits a bodily chill.  OK, it can be a very cold place.  For example, the record cold temperature for Rexburg for the month of February is -36oF.  The average monthly high temp is 33oF and the average low is 16oF (for the month of February).

So what?

This is the sight that greeted me as I walked home from work yesterday around 5pm.  This is a full-blown snow melt.  The gutter was completely full.  OK, this in and of itself is no big deal.

Rexburg, Idaho, 5:15pm on February 12, 2014

We can have occasional warm days, even warm enough to cause a melt like this, but the thing that really blew me away was what I saw this morning...

...around 7:30am I reversed my path and headed back to work, and this is what I saw (see below).  My phone showed a temperature of 36oF and the gutter was STILL full of snow run off.  This is very, very, very strange.  To have a warm day and melt some snow during the day in Rexburg is no big deal, but to have overnight temperatures that do not drop below freezing and to see snow melt all night long in mid-Feb is strange, strange, strange.  Did I mention that this is strange?

Rexburg, Idaho, 7:30am on February 13, 2014

Was this one-day event caused by global climate change?  No, it's virtually impossible to link a specific one-day weather event like this one directly to climate change.  But, what you can say with a high degree of confidence is that the current global trend of warming makes weather events like this one more likely to happen.

Stay tuned, life is interesting.

It's a bit early for the Arctic sea ice melt, but...

It's been a while since I posted anything about the state of the Arctic, but when I checked the National Snow and Ice Database website this morning I thought it was worth a few words.

The graph below shows the Arctic sea ice extent between Nov 2013 and Feb 12, 2014.  There are a couple of notable things here.  First, the ice extent has been between 250,000 and 500,000 square kilometers below the 1981-2010 average the entire time.  This doesn't come as a shock to anyone who follows the Arctic, but it's just an ongoing confirmation of a warming Arctic.

BTW, did you know that according to the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that the last time that an annual global average temperature was cooler than the 20th century average was in 1976?  Yep, that's 37 years ago (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/).  I shared this with one of my classes of university students yesterday and realized as I said it that all of them were born well after 1976, so they have known only a warming world.  That's a sobering thought.

The second thing the graph shows that's interesting, though not yet significant is what happened over the last week or two.  If you notice the average sea ice extent usually reaches its maximum coverage around the end of February or early March.  The extent does show some ups and downs, as clearly shown in the 2011-2012 (dotted) line.  This year's data are shown on the blue line.  Anyway, so what?  Data of the last week or two show a leveling off and then decline in sea ice cover.  If this continues, and I'd be extremely surprised if it did this early in the season, we could really be in for a doozie of a sea ice loss year in the Arctic.  It's much more likely that this is just a temporary blip.  

Stay tuned.  Life is interesting.  


Sunday, September 29, 2013

Highlights from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report - Summary for Policy Makers - Humans are driving climate change!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a draft of its Summary for Policy Makers report on Friday 9/28/2013.

This posting is a summary of the main points from that document.  The parts in bold font below are direct quotes from that document.  I inserted some additional comments clarifying or commenting on those quotes in the text in brackets below each quote.

You can read the entire document by clicking this link - it's about 30pp long:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Point #1 - Overall state of the climate:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of  greenhouse gases have increased.

(In other words, the climate is changing, and not for the better - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #2 - State of the Atmosphere:
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any  preceding decade since 1850

(Not only is the Earth's surface temperature warmer than it used to be, decade by decade it's getting even warmer - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #3 - State of the Ocean:
Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain (=99-100% confidence) that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 

(The upper ocean is warmer than it used to be - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #4 - State of the Cryosphere (frozen regions):
Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.

(Ice is melting and ice masses are in decling everywhere - an observation, not a prediction, not a model.)

Point #5 - Sea Level:
The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m 

(Sea level has risen 10" - so far - since 1901 - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #6 - Carbon and other Geochemical Cycles:
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification. 

(Burning fossil fuels together with land use changes produced unprecedented levels of CO2 compared to its levels over the past 800K years - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #7 - Drivers of Climate Change
Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.

(Radiative forcing is the term used to determine whether climate is warming or cooling.  Positive forcing is warming, negative forcing is cooling.  So, the largest contributor to current climate change is CO2 emissions - a conclusion based on many observations.)

Point #8 - Understanding the Climate and its Recent Changes
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.

(What humans have done and are doing affects climate.)

Point #9 - Evaluation of Climate Models
Climate models have improved since the AR4 (4th assessment report - 2007). Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence)

(Climate models are better than they used to be, and are now quite good at modeling observed climate history and observed current trends in climate change)

Point #10 - 2 Quantification of Climate System Responses:
Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

(In other words, the accumulated mass of observations collected so far, together with improved climate models increase our confidence that what we think is happening [i.e., human-driven global warming] really is happening.)

Point #11 - Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century.

(The term "extremely likely" correlates with a statistical significance of 95% confidence, which is about the same degree of scientific confidence we have about the link between tobacco use and cancer.  So, the data now show that we are in the realm of scientific certainty that human activities have been the dominant cause of recent observed climate change.  Bottom line - HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.)

Point #12 - Future Global and Regional Climate Change
Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

(Translation - if we just keep doing what we're doing, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere with reckless abandon, things will just keep getting worse.  The only way to mitigate the climate change problem is to cut back, way back, on carbon emissions.)

Point #13 - Future of Atmospheric Temperature
Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP (modeled) scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.

(No matter what we do, the atmosphere is already on a warming trend that will continue for some time to come, even if we cut carbon emissions to zero immediately.)

Point #14 - Future of the Atmosphere: Water Cycle
Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.

(Most likely wet areas will get wetter, and dry areas will get drier, with some exceptions.  Get ready!)

Point #15 - Future of the Ocean
The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation.

(The ocean will continue to warm, no matter what we do - this will affect the movement of water, and consequently of heat around the planet)

Point #16 - Future of the Cyrosphere (ice regions)
It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.

(There will be less ice on average, everywhere.)

Point #17 - Future of Sea Level
Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all  RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.

(No matter what we do, sea level will continue to rise for a prolonged period of time.  All we can do now is limit how fast and how high it will rise - this is linked to carbon emissions.)

Point #18 - Carbon and Other Geochemical Cycles
Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.

(Emitting even more carbon will make things progressively worse, and will drive ocean acidification - a change that will almost certainly affect marine ecosystems and probably cause the extinction of many marine species)

Point #19 - Climate Stabilization, Climate Change Commitment and Irreversibility
Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.

(There is no stopping anthropgenic climate change now, our actions from this point though will determine how far it will go.  It's our call.)


Friday, July 5, 2013

Holy cow! The 2013 Arctic sea ice melt is accelerating like crazy!

I know I just posted on the Arctic Ocean sea ice melt, but, well, that was three days ago.  And three days ago it looked like an acceleration of sea ice melt might have been on the way, but I'd say that now it's official!  Look at the difference between the 1981-2010 baseline trend and the observed sea ice melt between the latter half of June and July 4th.  Wow!


I did a little math, and here's what I came up with.

On June 21st the historical baseline (1981-2010) showed sea ice extent at about 11.4 million km2 and 10.55 million km2 on July 4th.  That's a difference of 850,000 km2 of sea ice, or a melt rate of about 65,400 km2 of sea ice per day.

By comparison, the observed time period between June 21st and July 4th 2013 showed a sea ice extent of 11.1 million km2 on June 21st and an extent of 9.6 million km2 on July 4th.  That's a difference of 1.5 million km2 over that time period for a daily sea ice melt rate of about 115,400 km2 per day.

The observed melt rate for 2013 over the past two weeks or so is therefore nearly double the baseline melt rate for the same time period.  It's doubtful that this melt rate can be maintained for long, but the next few weeks will give us a good indication about whether the 2012 sea ice minimum extent record is in jeopardy. That is, if the current sea ice melt rate will be sustained, at least over the short term.

So, it's true, things are really starting to warm up in the Arctic.

Stay tuned...it's going to be an interesting summer!

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Letting your vehicle idle doesn't help the environment - who knew?

Lots of people have the idea that idling a vehicle for a few minutes here and a few minutes there actually helps the environment by using less gas than starting and then restarting the engine.  That may have been true at one time, but not any more.  

It's time to shut down our engines when we are not driving (drive-throughs, grocery stores, convenience stores, banks, etc.).  That is actually the environmentally friendly thing to do.

Check out the information in the graphic below.

ORIGINAL: By Sustainable America. Check out the I Turn It Off campaign, where you'll get a free bumper sticker for pledging not to idle! 


Thursday, June 20, 2013

The difference between climate and weather - funny, but true

This posting to "That Videosite.com" attempts to spoof the British Government's commitment to mitigating climate change, but in a strange turn of events actually does a good job of reminding everyone of the difference between climate and weather, and that an unusually cold day doesn't offset the overall long term trend of climate change, a.k.a. global warming.  Why not click the link below and give it a look.

Cheers!

http://www.thatvideosite.com/v/2981/global-warming


Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Ice melt from the Greenland Ice Cap in 2012 smashed all previous records

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC.org) just posted data on the 2012 Greenland ice cap melt.  It smashed all previous satellite records.

According to the NSIDC this was the first time since 1979 (the first satellite coverage of Greenland) that every point on the entire Greenland ice cap reached melt conditions for at least part of the melt season.  This is shocking news, since some of the ice cap is over 2 miles above sea level, and should be high enough in both latitude and altitude to stay below freezing all year long.  But, alas, temperatures climbed above freezing everywhere on the ice cap.

The graph below shows the historical average percentage of the Greenland ice cap that experienced melt conditions on a daily basis.  You should note that historically essentially no ice melts from Jan to April and Oct through December, and that the historical melt season starts in April and runs through September.  The data also show that on average only about 25% of the ice cap experiences melt conditions.
The red line in the graph below shows the 2012 melt extent.  Compare it to dashed blue line showing the historical average.  What should you be seeing here?  (Continued below the graph.)

You will, I hope, notice a few things.  One is that there was a spring melt event in late March where more than 10% of the ice cap reached melt conditions.  This was at least two months earlier than the historical average reaches that extent.  It was a short event, but it occurred all the same.  The biggest thing you should see is that the melt extent during the summer reached up 90%.  Historically only about 25% of the ice cap experiences melt conditions.  In short, the 2012 Greenland ice cap melt exceeded anything observed so far in modern times.

The map below shows the 1979-2007 average of the cumulative number of days areas of the ice cap reached melt conditions.  Historically, the north edge of the ice cap experienced about 10-15 days of melt conditions.  The central east coast had even fewer than that.  And the SW coast experienced the most.  Now let's take a look at the cumulative number of melt days across the ice cap during 2012...look at the second map down.


The map below shows a frightening increase in the number of melt days even in regions mainly resistant to melting in previous years.  For example, the northern edge of the ice cap experienced 100+ days of ice melt, the central east coast had 50-60 days, and the SW coast also had 100+ days. In fact, all ice cap edges experienced shocking numbers of days of melt conditions during 2012.  And, as mentioned above, even the center of the ice cap reached melt conditions for a few days.


The map below shows air temperature anomalies for June-August 2012 compared to historical averages.  What this means is that the closer a region is to the red end of the scale, the warmer is is compared to historical averages, and the closer it is to the purple end, the cooler it was.  The map shows that the entire ice cap experienced increased temperatures compared to the historical average.  

The SW coast was especially hard-hit with temperatures in the +3.0oC range, while the center of the ice cap had temperatures that were 1oC to 2oC above average.  Nowhere in Greenland experienced below average temperatures during this time period.


The bottom line is that during 2012 Greenland's ice cap experienced unprecedented ice melt conditions compared to data from the satellite record (since 1979).

Should we be concerned about this?  I am.

Well, there is a chance that this could have been an isolated warmer than average year, but all other data from the Arctic in terms of temperatures, sea ice cover, etc., indicates that this kind of extreme melt year will most likely become more frequent if the forcing factors driving climate change are not mitigated.

Climatologists and oceanographers predict that if the entire Greenland ice cap were to melt, we would most likely see global sea level rise of about +7.0 meters (that's over 20 ft).  That would be catastrophic and make the flooding that occurred during Hurricane Sandy look like a nice day in the park.

Come on people, it's time to get to work doing things that will mitigate the effects of climate change.

That's my 2 cents' worth...

Friday, January 25, 2013

Don't be fooled, there is scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

Many people (almost entirely non-scientists or non-climatologists) inaccurately claim that the scientific community either has not or cannot reach consensus on the topic of anthropogenic climate change (i.e., global warming).  This claim has become a worn and weary diatribe used by some people, yes, I will even go as far  as to say "conspiring men" who are trying to muddy the waters on a topic that is accepted nearly universally by the practicing scientific community.

Why do people believe these conspiring men?  Because it happens to fit their pre-existing notions or opinions on climate, economy, religion, or plays to their benefit in terms of vested interest (e.g., oil industry).

The bottom line is that the scientific community has near unanimous consensus on the topic of climate change.  By the way, what proportion of scientists would it take to constitute a consensus?  50.1%, 60%. 75%, 80%, 90%, 95%, 98%, 99%, 100%?

I think that we can all agree that reaching a 100% consensus on any scientific theory is nigh unto unattainable, but was exactly what was discovered in a study carried out in 2004, and consensus has continued to strengthen since then.

In 2004, a study by the well-resepcted UC San Diego sociologist Naomi Oreskes was published Science, America's most prestigious scientific journal (http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/).  Results described in that study showed that NONE of the 982 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic of climate change published between 1993 and 2003 disputed the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change.

Other studies have claimed to show disputations and lack of consensus among scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change.  For example, a paper titled "Scientific Consensus on Global Warming" was published in the latter 2000s http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPol/ScientificConsensusOnGlobalWarming.pdf.

Be advised that the formatting and layout of these kinds of papers are intended to make them appear to be credible sources of information, but they are not comparable to peer-reviewed publications in professional scientific journals.

Back to the Heartland Institute paper...it reported moderate agreement on some topics, but significant disagreement on others.  There are, however, several points of concern related to this report and others like it.  The most important concern is that this report cannot be considered verifiable scientific information since it was never subjected to peer-review and was not published in a reputable scientific journal.  Another note of concern is the source of the paper itself.  It is a product of "The Heartland Institute".  Investigative research into public records shows that this institute and others like it are engaged in carrying out an active campaign to cloud the public's perception of well-documented scientific conclusions regarding climate change.  If you have questions about this I strongly recommend that you take a look at the book "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes (http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/)

You can also read more about the oil-backed Heartland Institute at this site: http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute.

Getting back to the original point of the posting.  There is clearly near unanimous consensus among climate scientists (98%+) that climate change is happening and more than 90% confident (IPCC report, 2007) that the current trend of global warming is being driven mainly by anthropogenic forcing factors, including greenhouse gas emissions and land-use changes, among other activities.

So what does scientific lack of consensus on verifiable scientific observations on this topic look like?  It looks like this:



Every year, groups of climatologists working independently in the USA, Great Britain, Japan, and other locations around the world, collect temperature data and generate average annual observed temperatures.  They can then plot their data onto one graph, as shown above, and see where differences and variations among their results are.  If there is any lack of consensus it is that some data show slightly warmer temperatures some years, while others show slightly cooler ones, but within a range of acceptable statistical variability, all the data produce the same long-term trends.  In other words - consensus.  

Similar work is done by climatologists investigating causes (also referred to as climate forcing factors), and they also nearly universally conclude that without human-produced effects, we would not currently be experiencing a warming trend.  Instead we would be experiencing a gradual cooling trend.

So whenever you hear someone parroting some out of date or completely unsupportable fallacy that there is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, ask them about their source of information.  It will inevitably originate in some non-scientific think tank or media outlet that clearly has an agenda that benefits if people do not understand that there is scientific consensus on climate change and that we had better get busy doing something about mitigating the effects of climate change. 

That's all for today.  Cheers!

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

What's going on in the Arctic? The winter sea ice freeze is on, but Arctic sea ice cover still 1 million km2 below historical averages

 It's been quite a while since I gave you an update on what's happening in the Arctic.

First of all, the Arctic Oscillation shifted recently from its Positive Phase to its Negative Phase; it has been mostly in the Positive Phase since the 1970s .  During the Positive Phase there is a large low pressure region dominating the Arctic, but during the Negative Phase there is a large high pressure system there.  This switch means that masses of cold Arctic air are more likely to push south and perhaps stay longer than they used to.  This is especially true for western North American.  This also helps explain the ice-box conditions we have been experiencing lately in the mountain west.

In other news, the Arctic Ocean sea ice freeze is well under way.  After the record ice melt of the summer of 2013, climatologists are keeping an interested eye on 2013's freeze up.  As the map below from the NSIDC.org shows, sea ice extent is at or sightly above normal in the Bering Sea and beyond the Kamchat peninsula.  At the same time, it is well below historical averages east of Scandinavia and south of Greenland.

If you recall, the Bering Sea produced above average sea ice coverage last year, and the lower than average sea ice in east of Greenland also lagged behind historical averages.


Though sea ice production and sea ice extent are still rising - as is to be expected this time of year - current sea ice extent is about 1 million km2 below historic averages (see the graph below from the NSIDC.org) 

FYI - The last time sea ice cover reached or exceeded the historic average for this time of year was in 1998 - yep, 15 years ago.  Every year since then, mid-January sea ice extent has been below average.  The take home message is that the Arctic continues to warm, and that sea ice extent continues to decline (on average) as the years go by.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Why has it been so cold in the western USA lately?

The western United States experienced an extremely mild, dry winter during 2011-12.  This year (2012-13), however, things are different - it's cold, cold, cold! and wetter than last year, too.

For example, where I live in SE Idaho, we have been experiencing low temperatures in the -10 to -20oF range over the last week or so.

Why is it so much colder than last year?

Last year's mild winter can be explained in part by ongoing global warming, but prevailing weather conditions over the Arctic also matter.

There is something called the Arctic Oscillation (AO).  The AO has two phases, a positive and a negative phase.  During the Positive Phase of AO, low pressure sits over the Arctic and a high pressure system dominates around 45oN.  During the Negative phase of AO, the opposite occurs; a high pressure system dominates the Arctic and low pressure exists around 45oN.

You can learn more about it at this site provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html)

The bottom line is that the AO can switch between its positive and negative phases over a matter of weeks to decades.  The dominating phase of AO can have a significant impacts on the weather over the northern hemisphere.

 (Images courtesy of NSIDC.org)

The image above left shows the effects of the "Positive Phase of Arctic Oscillation".  During the positive phase (low pressure system over the Arctic) masses of cold Arctic air stay farther north, and the western USA stays warmer and drier than usual.  At the same time, coastal Eastern Canada gets colder air than usual.  During the Positive phase the North Atlantic storm track can also move farther north than usual, bringing cold, wet winter weather to northern Europe.  According to NSIDC.org, we have been experiencing mainly the positive phase of AO since the 1970s.   

The image above right shows the effects of the "Negative Phase of Arctic Oscillation."  During the negative phase (high pressure over the Arctic), low pressure is much more common around 45oN, and this phase recently developed.  During the negative phase colder, wetter air masses than usual are pulled farther south by the low pressure system over western North America.  Along with this we normally see the Atlantic storm track pushed farther south, bringing precipitation to the Mediterranean instead of northern Europe.  

There are, of course, many other oscillating weather patterns that contribute to conditions we experience, but the AO is one recently switched phases.

Global Warming also plays an important role in generating weather.  Even though the Arctic is cold, much more heat than normal is stored there, and it has to go someplace.  One thing this does is increase the amount of atmospheric activity and can contribute energy to the polar jet stream, pushing it farther south than usual.  The map below shows the jet stream track for 14 January 2013:


The map above shows the jet stream pushing as far south as northern Mexico.  My son happens to be there, and he reported recently that they are experiencing freezing temperatures and even snow!  

Knowing something about the Arctic Oscillation effects of global warming help us understand weather we experience.

I hope this was helpful.

Monday, January 7, 2013

2012 - Hot, Hot, Hot! The warmest year on record for Rexburg, Idaho

Every month or so I get a weather summary/update from our local weather guru, Lee Warnick.  He enjoys tracking the weather...I enjoy tracking climate.

Anyway, his latest weather news release to the "Rexburg Weather Group" was quite the eye-opener.  I mean it shouldn't have been much of a surprise given the un-Idahoanly mild winter we had in 2011-2012, but the effects of global climate change are being felt everywhere, even here in SE Idaho.

Here are some highlights from his weather summary of 2012:

Average annual high temperature data for Rexburg, Idaho (n=41 years of temperature data)
  1. Average annual high temp = 56.25oF
  2. 2012 average high temp = 59.36oF
  3. Departure from average = +3.11oF
  4. This is the highest annual average temperature on record for Rexburg, Idaho
Average annual low temperature data for Rexburg, Idaho (n=41 years of temperature data)
  1. Average annual low temperature = 30.59oF
  2. 2012 annual low temperature = 34.12oF
  3. Departure from average = +3.53oF
  4. This was this highest annual low temperature average for Rexburg, Idaho ever
>90oF days 
  1. Average number of 90oF days = 15.6
  2. 2012 number of 90oF days = 32
  3. 2012 had more than twice the historical average of 90+oF days!
<0oF days
  1. Average number of days with below 0oF temperature = 17.5
  2. 2012 number of days below 0oF = 1...that's right only ONE!  Unbelievable!
Windy days in Rexburg, Idaho...a place already known for its wind
  1. Annual average number of windy days = 65.6 
  2. 2012 number of windy days = 104 
  3. Yep, that's 1.6 times more windy days than the historical average.
  4. The previous record number of windy days/year was 95 in 2011 (also a record at the time)
Daily temperature records
  1. High daily temperature records - there were 45 new daily temperature records set in 2012
  2. Low daily temperature records - there were 6 new daily low temperatures set in 2012.
  3. If we were in a normal temperature year we would predict roughly equal numbers of high and low temperature records to be set, but in 2012 high temperature records to low temperature records were set at a rate of 7.5:1.
What does all of this mean?

It means that 2012 was the warmest, windiest year on record for Rexburg, Idaho.

Is this an evidence of global warming?

It is statistically difficult to tie an individual weather event, such as one warm year or one windy year, to global warming.  But, what we can say with confidence is that the current trend of global climate change makes years like these more likely to occur than in the past, and that the observed elevated temperatures and increased number of windy days are also consistent with climate models of ongoing global warming.

We can also be confident in saying, like it or not, that there will be cooler years than 2012 and warmer years than 2012 in the future, but that we are almost certainly going to see more warmer years than cooler years as long as the current trend of global warming continues.

(image courtesy of allposters.com)

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The new reality? Snowless Rexburg in mid-December

Welcome to Rexburg, Idaho, 12-12-2012.  See anything strange?  Well, if you know anything about this part of the country there are all kinds of strange things in this photo.  The strangest is what is missing.  SNOW!

This is mid-December in SE Idaho, 80 miles south of Yellowstone National Park, 50 miles west of the Teton Mountain range, and at an elevation of a mile high.  Even the foothills in the background are bare. 


Last Saturday my family and I drove north to Island Park into the Targhee National Forest on our annual trek to cut a Christmas tree (you can get a USFS permit to do this for $10).  Normally the snow up there is knee deep this time of year, but this year (and last year) there was no more than an inch or two on the ground when we went up to cut our tree.

Strange, strange, strange!

A week and a half ago we even had a thunderstorm!?  This is not typical Rexburg weather.

As for the foreground...there's not a patch of snow to be seen.  A few flakes came down earlier this afternoon, but it all melted as soon as it hit the ground.

When I looked out of my office window earlier today (the photo above is what I see - not bad, huh?) I saw people on bicycles, scooters, and even the occasional motorcycle.  I also saw people wearing sweatshirts and jackets, and not even that many heavy coats, except for students from So Cal or AZ :-)

On an aside, I got an email from my folks the other day.  They live in Wichita, Kansas.  My Mom mentioned that they are seeing plants starting to push up through the ground they don't usually see until Spring.  Man, are they confused...the plants, not my folks.

If this keeps up, plants and animals are going to get more and more ecologically confused as time goes by.

Oh, I'm confident that we will get snow eventually, but so far, it's a brown, brown holiday season.

Is this the new reality?  Only time will tell.

What will the rest of the winter bring?  Stay tuned.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Understanding Climate Change Part 7 - Oxygen Signals and Paleoclimates

Oxygen Signals and Paleoclimates

(Reading #7 for my course on Climate Change, Alan Holyoak, PhD)

Note: This is the last reading in this series.  This set of 7 readings is designed to help college general education students gain the the foundational background they need to understand the contents of the book "The Climate Crisis" by Archer and Rahmstorf, which I use as a course textbook.  

Daily Objectives
1.     Be able describe the differences between heavy and light oxygen isotopes. 
2.     Be able to explain why ice cores from polar glaciers contain meaningful climate records.
3.     Be able to explain why speleotherms, wood, and coral contain meaningful climate records.
4.     Be able to explain why paleoclimatologists probably get excited when they find skeletons of foraminiferans in their sediment samples.
5.     Be able to comment on the general pattern of global temperature change over billions, millions, and hundreds of thousands of years.

Introduction

            A way tool to gain insight into current patterns of climate change is to learn as much as possible about Earth’s climate history.  This field of study is called paleoclimatology.   Paleoclimatologists collect data from as many sources as possible to help them develop a picture of what Earth’s climate was like in the past.  These observations range from glacial erratics and glacial striations that you have already learned about to oxygen and carbon isotope ratios in ice, water, and sediments, among other things.  In this reading you will learn about the data that paleoclimatologists collect to investigate Earth’s climate history.  One important thing to keep in mind is that the farther we look back in time, the greater the range of uncertainty there is in the data.

Climate Clues

            Just like a detective, paleoclimatologists are good observers and creative thinkers.  This helps them identify and make sense of the climate clues that exist in Earth’s historical record.  You already learned how boulders and rocks that seemed out of place and strange scratches on rock faces led to Louis Aggasiz’s 1837 Ice Age Theory.  Similarly, other good observers discovered other ways to tease more clues about Earth’s climate history from sources such as ice, wood, ocean sediments, and even stalagmites. 

Climate and oxygen isotopes

            All isotopes of an element have the same number of protons, but different numbers of neutrons.  This difference in neutron number gives each isotope a unique atomic mass.  There are three isotopes of oxygen, 16O, 17O, and 18O.  These isotopes are not radioactive so their global concentrations are stable.  Their characteristics are listed in Table 1.



Table 1. Characteristics of isotopes of oxygen

Oxygen Isotope
Number of Protons
Number of Neutrons
Proportion of all oxygen atoms
Oxygen-16 (16O)
8
8
99.76%
Oxygen-17 (17O)
8
9
0.04%
Oxygen-18 (18O)
8
10
0.20%

            Paleoclimatologists are interested in finding light oxygen (16O), and heavy oxygen (18O) in compounds in samples they collect.  They use the ratio between 18O and 16O atoms in oxygen-containing compounds as proxy data for temperatures of past time periods.  Fortunately these kinds of compounds are found in ice, sediments, fossils, and other long-lived substances.  The heavy to light oxygen ratio is calibrated against a standard of heavy to light oxygen isotopes in seawater 200-500 meters deep in our ocean today.  The ratio between light and heavy oxygen-containing compounds at this depth correlates extremely well with average surface seawater temperature.  It therefore stands to reason that whenever we find oxygen ratios similar to those in today’ oceans and associated seawater temperatures, the same oxygen-ratio/seawater temperature relationship should have existed in oceans throughout history.
            The vast majority of water molecules are made with light oxygen, but the rest contain heavy oxygen (Table 1).  Scientists discovered that the rates of evaporation and condensation of water with high and heavy oxygen are not identical; water with light oxygen evaporates slightly more readily than water with heavy oxygen, and water with heavy oxygen tends to condense and fall as precipitation before most of the water vapor that is made of light oxygen (Fig. 1). 

Figure 1. Relationship between temperature and heavy oxygen (18O) concentration in precipitation.  These data show the percent divergence from the standard 16O:18O ratio in the ocean.  Negative values mean there is less 18O present than in the ocean standard. (Image: NASA)

            When air cools water vapor condenses and falls as precipitation. 18O has a greater mass than 16O and water made with heavy oxygen therefore has a greater mass, and as subject to a greater gravitational force than something that has a lower mass.  As a result, water made with 18O falls more readily than water made with 16O.  Water vapor left in the atmosphere at this point is partially 18O-depleted.  This depletion happens faster when temperatures are low than when they are high.  Therefore, when the Earth is in a cool phase most of the 18O-water precipitates out before water vapor reaches the poles, leaving mostly 16O water to fall as snow to form ice layers there.  Conversely, when the Earth is in a warm phase 18O-water stays in the air longer, and more 18O reaches the poles than when the Earth is cool.  This produces a 16O to 18O ratio in polar ice that contains elevated levels of 18O when the Earth is warm (Fig. 2).  Scientists have measured the ratios of oxygen isotopes in ice layers from polar ice caps to produce accurate records of climate change going back as far as the ice record.  These data currently go back 800,000 years. Fortunately, we can look even farther back using other kinds of data, because oxygen isotope ratios go only so far back using ice alone. 

Figure 2. Water rich in both heavy and light oxygen evaporates at the equator, but as air moves away from the equator it cools, and heavy oxygen water falls as rain at a faster rate than light oxygen water.  During an ice age polar ice there will be significantly less 18O in the ice than when the Earth is in a warm phase.  (Image: NASA)

Before we look at other things that contain oxygen ratio data, however, there is something else of interest that oxygen ratios in water can tell us.  These ratios can tell us whether a particular time period was wet or dry.  This is the case because most of the heavy oxygen tends to condense first and fall as precipitation over oceans, leaving mostly light oxygen water to move onshore to fall as rain over continents.  So, if sediments in a region of ocean have increased amounts of 16O in it, this is almost certainly the result of freshwater runoff from continents.  When this is observed we conclude that Earth was experiencing a wet climate. 

Diversity of Oxygen Records

Ice was pointed out in the previous section as an extremely important source of climate data.  Why is this the case?  Scientists drill cores of ice from polar glaciers (e.g., Antarctica and Greenland) and collect date-specific data from water and other materials trapped in ice (Fig. 3).  The cores from this drilling show distinctive layers that are produced annually (Fig. 4 & 5).  Scientists take samples from each layer, analyze the ice for oxygen isotope ratios and other materials trapped in the ice, and can thereby determine the temperature of the Earth when the ice was formed.

Figure 3. Drilling ice cores from polar ice caps.  (Image courtesy of NASA.)
Figure 4. This photograph was taken when scientists in Antarctica dug a trench, but left a thin wall of snow between the two halves of the trench.  Light illuminating the wall clearly shows the annual layering of snow, which eventually gets compacted into ice layers. The stuffed animal is included for scale. (Image courtesy of NASA.)


Figure 5. These images show ice cores from different depths within a polar ice cap.  The upper image clearly shows layers of ice in the exposed side of an ice sheet.  The lower image shows layers of ice from ice cores, and that they can be quite distinctive, depending on their depth and age, as well as anything else that is trapped in the ice. (Images: NASA.)

            Oxygen isotopes are found in more materials than just ice.  It is also stored in wood, shells, bone, coral, and some kinds of rocks.  One extremely important source of temperature data is stored in the microscopic skeletons of tiny organisms called foraminiferans.  These small organisms are related to amoeba, but they produce calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells.  The shell of each species of foraminifera has its own unique shape and sculpturing (Fig. 6).  This means that whenever a scientist spots foraminiferan shells, they can know what species of foraminiferan they are looking at, and whether those foraminifera were warm-water or cold-water species.  Looking for the presence of warm and cold-water species, and the oxygen isotope ratios in their shells in sediment layers provide important clues about paleoclimates.  This is one of the reasons why climatologists drill sediment cores as well as ice cores (Fig. 7).

Figure 6. Scanning electron photograph of shells of foraminiferans. 

Figure 7. Drilling ships like the one above are used to collect sediment cores for analysis.  Scientists slice the sediment cores, do chemical analyses of each layer, and look for foraminifera and other evidence of climate change. (Image: NASA.)

            Paleoclimate records also exist in stalagmites that are formed in caves and caverns (Fig. 8).  These kinds of climate data are called speleotherms.  How can speleotherms contain meaningful climate information?  Structures in caves are largely isolated from the surface and do not experience processes of erosion like rocks on the surface do, so once materials are deposited there they remain there indefinitely. 

Figure 8.  Giant stalagmites in Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons.)

Stalagmites are produced by water that trickles through the soil and rock layers above the cave.  As water moves through the soil some materials, like CaCO3 dissolve in it.  When water drips into caves and then evaporates, the CaCO3 is left behind.  A new layer of CaCO3 is added to a stalagmite each year, so if you slice through a stalagmite and polish the cut edge the individual layers are visible (Fig. 9).  Just like tree rings, the rings in speleotherms are wider during wet years and narrower during dry years, and samples can be taken from each layer for analysis.  But, how can we know the ages of the layers of a stalagmite?  Again, think back to FDSCI 101 and your discussions on radiometric dating.  That works here too!
            As indicated in the text below Fig. 9, Uranium-Thorium radiometric dating can be carried out on a sample from each layer of a speleotherm.  Uranium readily dissolves in water and is deposited along with CaCO3 then the water evaporates.  Thorium, however, does not dissolve as readily in water, so all Thorium in a layer is the result of Uranium decay, and can be used to calculate an accurate age for each layer.  Pretty slick, huh?
Figure 9. This is a photograph of a cross-section cut through a small stalagmite.  Each band represents one year of deposition of chemicals from water dripping from above.  Samples from each section can be used to measure oxygen isotope ratios and to carry out radiometric dating, as indicated in the text below the photo.  (Image courtesy of NASA.)  

            Climate is, of course, more than just temperature.  It is also includes the pattern of precipitation area experiences.  Figure 10 shows the relative precipitation record for the region around Carlsbad Cavern, NM, based on speleotherm data.

 Figure 10.  A record of stalagmite ring thicknesses from Carlsbad Caverns, NM.  The ring thickness provides a record of relative amounts of rainfall in that area over the past 450 years. It is typical for any natural system to exhibit variability around the overall trend. (Image courtesy of NASA.)

            Scientists can also use tree core data to decipher recent climate changes.  As mentioned about in relation to speleotherms, trees in temperate and Polar Regions produce a pair of rings of wood each year.  In years when conditions promote abundant growth trees produce a thick tree ring.  In years when conditions limit growth trees produce a narrow ring (Fig. 11).  By producing overlapping tree ring records scientists have produced climate records extending back thousands of years.  Bristlecone pines are among the known longest living trees, and a climate record using their tree rings has been produced that goes back over 5,000 years (Fig. 12).

Figure 11. This photograph shows part of the cross section of a trunk from a tree.  The tree rings vary in width depending on local climate conditions; wide rings indicate favorable growth years, and narrow rings indicate years in which growth was limited. (Image: NASA)

Figure 12. Precipitation record from overlapping Bristlecone Pine tree ring data (blue line) compared to the average precipitation from the 20th Century (tan line).  Scientists apply knowledge about the relationship between precipitation, temperature, soil quality, and other factors and tree ring thicknesses in living trees to reach conclusions about past climate conditions.  (Image: NASA)

While speleotherms and tree rings are useful for reconstructing terrestrial climate conditions, they do not help us understand how climate changes affect conditions in the ocean.  Fortunately, while trees produce annual tree rings, corals also produce records of annual growth that is recorded in their CaCO3 (Fig. 13).  The CaCO3 secreted by corals occurs in the upper levels of the ocean, so we can analyze each layer of coral skeletons to discover the 16O and 18O ratios to see how climates changed in the tropics during recent history (Fig. 14).

Figure 13. This x-ray of a cross section through a coral colony’s skeleton exposes the annual layers of growth.  The heavy and light oxygen ratios in the CaCO3 that makes up each layer provides a signal that can be used to generate a climate record extending back as far as the age of the colony.  Some colonies are known to have lived well over 1000 years. (Image courtesy of NASA.)

Figure 14.  Oxygen isotope ratios were used to generate a temperature profile for ~1890-1950 (lower graph).  These data are compared to periodic ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) oscillations that occur in the tropical Pacific Ocean to see if correlations exist (upper graph).  Red areas represent temperatures above the long-term average, and blue areas show cooler temperatures.  Dark gray vertical bars represent strong El Nino events, and light gray bars represent weak El Nino events. (Image: NASA.)

Climate Patterns in Deep Time

            Paleoclimatologists use data from sediment cores, ice cores, speleotherms, tree rings, coral growth layers, and other data, to reconstruct Earth’s climate history.  Several groups of climatologists, working independently, generated climate models using available data to provide estimates of past climates throughout Earth’s history.  While these models represent the best science on this topic, the farther we go back in time, the less precise the scenarios tend to be. Earth history with only a relative indication of temperature extremes.  The reconstruction of Earth’s climate history is shown in Fig. 15.  This figure is based on sea level change, proxy data of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and other proxy data from the geologic record.  Figure 16 shows a model of CO2 levels from 400 Ma (million years ago) compared to proxy temperature data.

Figure 15. This figure shows a deep time reconstruction of Earth climate history.  Earth has oscillated between cold and warm periods throughout its history.  Cold periods are indicated in blue and warm periods in…peach J? Observe that the time scale on the left side of the figure is not linear.  It is roughly logarithmic, with older time periods being allocated less space than recent time periods.  This is appropriate since we have much better data for recent time periods than for more ancient times, but if one is unaware of this it can give someone a skewed view of earth’s climate history.  (Image from WW Norton, adapted from Kump et al. 1999.)

Figure 16. Model of paleo-CO2 levels, comparing the model to other predictors of climate.  (Image from Archer and Rahmstorf.)

            Climate reconstructions from deep geologic time are helpful in showing general trends, but if we hope to identify current climate trends and make sense of what is happening now, we must compare what is happening today with more recent climate histories.  For example, by using oxygen isotope data from ocean sediments we can generate a relatively precise record of climate from 65 Ma.  This reconstruction is shown in Fig. 17.  Many climatologists who have studied the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) have suggested that evidence of events before and during this thermal maximum around 55 Ma are similar in some respects to trends we are experiencing today.

Figure 17. Reconstruction of past climate using evidence from the deep ocean, including oxygen isotope ratios and other evidence from sediment cores. (Image from Archer and Rahmstorf.)

            As shown in Fig. 17, Earth has, with a few ups and downs in global temperature, undergone gradual cooling over the past 65Ma.  As we look at progressively shorter time intervals we see that over the 400,000 years that Earth has experienced a temperature equilibrium including oscillations between cool and warm periods, i.e., glacial and interglacial periods. 

Figure 18. The past 400,000 years of Earth’s temperature variability.  Four prolonged glacial periods are indicated in blue, and warm interglacial periods are shown in red. (Image adapted by ARH from a figure courtesy of NASA.)

            The bottom line when it comes to Earth’s climate history is that climate has changed in the past, it’s changing today, and it will continue to change in the future.  This conclusion is evidenced by the fact that we have seen periods of Earth’s history where it was probably a lot like a giant ice ball, and other times when it was like a giant hot house.  Geologically speaking, recently Earth has experienced a more or less stable climate cycle of warm and cool periods.  So, when we begin to consider the current state of the climate, this recent trend is the most meaningful baseline we have for comparison to what we see today.  Deviations from Earth’s recent past stable climate conditions deserve to be investigated.  Those are, of course, topics for other class discussions, and we will address them later in the semester. 

Source material

Archer, D., and S. Rahmstorf. 2010. The Climate Crisis. Cambridge University Press.

Riebeck, H. 2005. Paleoclimatology. NASA Earth Observatory Program. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology/