Last friday, Slate.com posted an article by Joel Waldfogel called "Go North, Young Grapes: The effect of global warming on the world's vineyards." I was excited to see it, since I'm really interested in both global warming and wine. However, after reading it, I find several major deficiencies, some of which are obvious errors in understanding what global warming is and how plants, specifically grape vines, work.
The article reports on something called a "working paper" by Orley Ashenfelter and Karl Storchmann, who I think are economists. The paper is called "Using a Hedonic Model of Solar Radiation to Assess the Economic Effect of Climate Change: The Case of Mosel Valley Vineyards," written for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., whatever that is. I have looked at this paper, which you can find through the RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) web site [LINK,pdf], and so I will let Joel Waldfogel off the hook for a time while we discuss the paper itself.
Section 2B of the paper states, "it is apparent that
total solar radiation is highly dependent on the amount, kind and density of clouds, and varies
with time and place. For the sake of simplicity engineers often calculate the so-called
extraterrestrial radiation, that is, the radiation that would be available if there were no
atmosphere (Duffie and Beckman, 1991)." What this means to me is that they don't want to account for variations in the atmosphere (weather and such, you know, that's not important), so they are going to use what I would call solar insolation. However, that varies only with latitude and time of year, and they are calculating it at the ground, so they ignore the atmosphere but take into account the slope of the ground. Okay, well, I'll tell you why that is a poor assumption shortly.
Let me now quote from section 2D:
"D. Other Factors that Affect Vineyard Sites Gladstones (1992) provides a detailed analysis of several other factors that make specific geographic sites more or less suitable for the production of high quality grapes. Important factors include those that reduce diurnal (night-day) temperature differences. Nearness to a body of water and, especially, soil type are important determinants of diurnal fluctuations..."
Hold on to this for our discussion below.
Before going on to the analysis, the authors discuss the data for vineyard prices, and how they take into account non-south-facing slopes, altitude, and soil characteristics. There are gross assumptions built into these choices, which I will ignore here. However, let's just say that vineyards don't necessarily suffer from being farther away from bodies of water, despite the authors' assumption. One aspect that might be worth mentioning here is that the authors state that they think vineyards far from large bodies of water will be hurt because they don't have smaller diurnal temperature fluctuations; as I understand it, grapes do extremely well in conditions where there is large diurnal variation.... the hot days and cool nights of California's Napa, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties come to mind.
So how do they do global warming without an atmosphere? Well, they don't. They do a very simple energy flux calculation using blackbody radiation, albedo (reflectivity) and an "emissivity." Fair, except that instead of actually considering something resembling an emissivity, the authors choose to assume that the energy emitted from the surface is half of that emitted from the atmosphere. Crude to say the least, especially when it would have been easy to do much better. So they are sort of taking account of the greenhouse effect, since they'll get temperatures that are way too cold if they don't. They then plug in a temperature change associated with global warming, and get the amount of "radiation energy" that must be associated with that change, and they continue to assert this is "solar radiation" (actually in their figure they say "positive net radiation" which is correct).
Here's the thing. They set up their model using solar insolation, or atmosphere-free radiative flux at the surface, but then they try to apply a climate change that relies on a crude assumption about the atmosphere. This is inconsistent. They could have done better, but let us accept it. A greater problem is that they are making a model based on how agriculture should use incident solar radiation, which is visible light. Yes, there is a connection between sunshine and temperature, but plants are highly dependent on the actual sunshine for photosynthesis, not temperature alone. This is a complex biological relationship the authors fail to take into account.
They mention that there are other factors that affect vineyards, as quoted above. A critical one is the night-day temperature variation. The model punishes vineyards for having a large/larger diurnal variation, including an assumption that higher altitude vineyards are farther from water, must have larger day-night temperature variations, and therefore suffer more from "global warming." I'm just not sure why they do that, as I've learned that wine grapes are better with large diurnal cycles, and also wines made from mountainside vineyards are among the most prized/collected wines in the world. This is actually going to be important too, because in global warming scenarios, the diurnal variation is often affected more than the actual maximum temperature. That is because the effect is in the infrared, not the visible light, so after the sun goes down the surface can't cool as efficiently because the atmosphere is warmed. That means minimum temperatures get higher, and they change more than daytime maximum temperatures, which reduces the diurnal variation. The authors ignore this fact.
The major deficiency of the paper is the assumption that plants will thrive under warmer conditions based on energy input arguments. While it is true that there will be a larger energy flux into the surface under global warming, this energy will be in the infrared, which does not necessarily benefit plants. In marginal growing areas where occasional freezing conditions damage crops during the growing season, increases in daily minimum temperatures might reduce the occurence of these freezes, but the increased energy flux will not increase photosynthetic activity. Vineyards will not benefit directly from global warming by absorbing more radiant energy.
A more appropriate hypothesis to test is whether the changes in growing season length might affect vineyards. Since "spring" will start earlier, plants might respond by starting their growth cycle earlier. Autumn-like temperatures will come slightly later, so the growing season my be extended further. In the case of vineyards, this might allow grapes to ripen more, which increases the sugar content of the berries and increases the alcohol content of the wine. More importantly, different grape varieties might benefit by a longer growing season, so areas that only grow grapes with a short "hang time" now might be able to expand to other longer "hang time" varieties. Regions that don't have a long enough growing season to properly ripen grapes might get a boost and obtain growing seasons long enough to produce them (thinking especially of regions of Oregon and Washington).
Existing vineyards are unlikely to be affected by global warming, especially in established regions with strong control on growing practices (e.g., Bordeaux, Burgundy). It is possible that the nature of the wine will change, as warmer days and nights might change the sugar levels of grapes, or various other aspects of the fruit. It is also possible that changes in rainfall patterns will significantly alter the agricultural practices, and the possibility of severe droughts and floods putting more vintages in jeopardy in the future is a distinct threat.
2006-09-15
Sun spots only predict hemlines
This week's Nature has a short review article about the effect of variations in the Sun's luminosity on Earth's climate. In fact, most of the article is about trying to understand the Sun's luminosity and the solar physics at work. In the end, I think the important thing to glean is that there is a well-known 11-year sunspot cycle, and sunspots are cooler than the solar surface. However, when there are lots of sunspots, the sun is actually a bit brighter than normal because of faculae and the "magnetic network" of bright thermal "leaks," that let more energy escape the solar surface. All the evidence points to variations is luminosity (brightness or energy flux) being due almost entirely to magnetic field variations. Not so surprising perhaps. More surprising is that as hard as people try to find secular variability in the luminosity, it doesn't seem to change much. Even less surprising is that the variations that are observed, and inferred from proxies, should have a minimal influence on Earth's climate. This, despite global warming denialists always talking about "solar variability" as if it were a well-known, well understood phenomenon.
Here's something that hardly ever gets said out loud: climate scientists know at least as much about climate as solar physicists know about the sun. There, I said it. The two fields are covered in very different ways in popular press, though. Why? My little theory goes like this: People (general public, policymakers, media) can associate solar physics with astrophysics, which is like physics, which they (usually) didn't understand when they took it in high school/college compared; climate science, on the other hand, is not like physics (to them), and maybe it is more like meteorology, which is like the weather report, which is always wrong (right? Actually, no, but that is the perception.) So there is this tendency to not believe the "climate scientists" or "climatologists" (an even worse term) when they publish a new result, and this skepticism is amplified because there are so often controversial policy consequences/implications that bring out more vocal opposition and "fair and balanced" sort of treatment in the media. Contrast that with findings about the sun or stars or astronomy in general, which is mostly covered as amazing and important new scientific facts (unless it has to do with defining planets!). So that sort of sums up my pet theory.
Here's something that hardly ever gets said out loud: climate scientists know at least as much about climate as solar physicists know about the sun. There, I said it. The two fields are covered in very different ways in popular press, though. Why? My little theory goes like this: People (general public, policymakers, media) can associate solar physics with astrophysics, which is like physics, which they (usually) didn't understand when they took it in high school/college compared; climate science, on the other hand, is not like physics (to them), and maybe it is more like meteorology, which is like the weather report, which is always wrong (right? Actually, no, but that is the perception.) So there is this tendency to not believe the "climate scientists" or "climatologists" (an even worse term) when they publish a new result, and this skepticism is amplified because there are so often controversial policy consequences/implications that bring out more vocal opposition and "fair and balanced" sort of treatment in the media. Contrast that with findings about the sun or stars or astronomy in general, which is mostly covered as amazing and important new scientific facts (unless it has to do with defining planets!). So that sort of sums up my pet theory.
2006-08-31
Most Important Science Story of the Month
The observational confirmation of dark matter. [LINK] Far and away the most important science story for the month, and will definitely be in the top 10 for the year.
This is a great example of how science works. A set of physical rules seemed to make sense, but something didn't fit. Physicists thought they understood how gravity worked (at large scales), but galaxies and clusters of galaxies didn't seem to obey it. It was as if there were more mass that could be measured. A lot of explanations were presented, but one called dark matter seemed to come to the fore. The idea is that there is matter that interacts gravitationally, but we can't actually see it. This conjecture seems to be proved now with observations.
Guess what, science works!
Someone tell Congress.
This is a great example of how science works. A set of physical rules seemed to make sense, but something didn't fit. Physicists thought they understood how gravity worked (at large scales), but galaxies and clusters of galaxies didn't seem to obey it. It was as if there were more mass that could be measured. A lot of explanations were presented, but one called dark matter seemed to come to the fore. The idea is that there is matter that interacts gravitationally, but we can't actually see it. This conjecture seems to be proved now with observations.
Guess what, science works!
Someone tell Congress.
2006-08-30
Deniers try to misrepresent science.
A nice blog entry has been posted over on Deltoid, of ScienceBlogs [LINK]. It shows Hansen's 1988 climate model predictions of global warming along with observed global temperature. Despite how crude climate models were in 1988, Hansen's predictions are pretty much spot on. It is especially interesting to look at 1993, where the observations take a nosedive because of Mt. Pinatubo. They "recover" in about 2 years. Note that the credit on the figure is to the GISS page [LINK], but neither the blue line nor the extension of the red line (both observations) from 1998 to 2005 is on that page, and I don't know where that data come from. I tend to believe it though. If I find a better reference, I'll post it.
UPDATE: The red line (observations) actually isn't extended. Instead another dataset (blue) is just overlaid.
UPDATE: The red line (observations) actually isn't extended. Instead another dataset (blue) is just overlaid.
2006-08-21
Crutzen's sulfur ideas
"Wait, don't do it!"
That was my first reaction after reading about Paul Crutzen's semi-crazy idea to ameliorate anthropogenic global warming by filling the stratosphere with sulfur. In case you've missed the story, there's a wired article that covers the main points [LINK]. It all stems from an editorial Crutzen published in Climatic Change, [LINK] . The idea is that putting sulfur into the stratosphere (about 20 km above you, say) would reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching Earth's surface. That would cool the globe, no doubt, but there are problems.
We know it will work. Volcanoes do this same thing, more or less. We also know it would be temporary, because the sulfur would only float around the stratosphere for a few years before being used up in chemical reactions and slowly deposited back into the troposphere and back to the surface. Crutzen covers all this in the paper, which is mostly a quick back-of-the-envelop calculation mixed with some previous results. Crutzen, it should be pointed out, is not actually in favor of the idea; the media doesn't really seem to be mentioning that so much. In the paper he is extremely hesitant, saying essentially that if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we may start to experience catostrophic warming (~5 degrees C), which would necessitate rapid action to reduce the global temperature. To that end, he proposes a community wide, multidisciplinary effort to test this geo-engineering scenario. He thinks we need to model the effects, but also consider possible ecological consequences.
So what are the problems with reducing the sunlight getting to the surface? Well, one that is pointed out by the Wired article is that it will directly impact plants and photosynthesis. This might be especially pronounced in the tropics, where plants have evolved to expect a lot of sunlight. Changing the amount of light reaching the surface might give some plants a benefit and others a disadvantage, which could potentially throw the natural balance out of whack. Land-use issues aside, we don't have any idea really what the distribution of plant species in the tropics means for the global carbon cycle, not to mention the hydrological cycle. A second potential problem is that the additional sulfur in the stratosphere might change the stratospheric heating rates, which would change the temperature distribution, which would alter the large-scale temperature gradients, and might impact the Brewer-Dobson circulation. This would have unknown effects on the general circulation of the midlatitudes, possibly altering large-scale weather patterns (think El Nino or North Atlantic Oscillation). A third issue, also mentioned by Crutzen, is that cooling the surface won't save the ocean. As CO2 increases, it will continue to be taken up by the ocean. Unfortunately, that increases the acidity of the upper ocean, where lots of little creatures grow. Many of those little creatures grow calcium carbonate shells, but they can't do it in acidic conditions. That means they die. Not only do those organisms play an important role in the carbon cycle (and other biogeochemical cycles), but they are also the foundation of the entire marine food chain. If they die, then large species suffer, and larger ones suffer even more, and even humans who like to eat seafood will suffer.
So those are my first three potential problems with this plan. However, I'll take Crutzen's side. He basically says that our policy makers have their heads in their behinds, partly because they don't have good solutions and partly because they are not forward thinking, and so there is not going to be a reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations any time soon. Since we know we will face global warming, we need to figure out what to do if the warming starts to get out of control. This sulfur parasol effect is one possibility, and it should be investigated. Along the way, we will continue to learn important things about the climate system, even if the sulfur parasol turns out to be an untenable solution.
Additional reading
1. BioEd Online: Should we flood the air with sulphur? [LINK]
2. Crutzen, Paul J., 2006: Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y [possible LINK]
3. Geo-engineering in vogue, on RealClimate [LINK]
That was my first reaction after reading about Paul Crutzen's semi-crazy idea to ameliorate anthropogenic global warming by filling the stratosphere with sulfur. In case you've missed the story, there's a wired article that covers the main points [LINK]. It all stems from an editorial Crutzen published in Climatic Change, [LINK] . The idea is that putting sulfur into the stratosphere (about 20 km above you, say) would reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching Earth's surface. That would cool the globe, no doubt, but there are problems.
We know it will work. Volcanoes do this same thing, more or less. We also know it would be temporary, because the sulfur would only float around the stratosphere for a few years before being used up in chemical reactions and slowly deposited back into the troposphere and back to the surface. Crutzen covers all this in the paper, which is mostly a quick back-of-the-envelop calculation mixed with some previous results. Crutzen, it should be pointed out, is not actually in favor of the idea; the media doesn't really seem to be mentioning that so much. In the paper he is extremely hesitant, saying essentially that if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we may start to experience catostrophic warming (~5 degrees C), which would necessitate rapid action to reduce the global temperature. To that end, he proposes a community wide, multidisciplinary effort to test this geo-engineering scenario. He thinks we need to model the effects, but also consider possible ecological consequences.
So what are the problems with reducing the sunlight getting to the surface? Well, one that is pointed out by the Wired article is that it will directly impact plants and photosynthesis. This might be especially pronounced in the tropics, where plants have evolved to expect a lot of sunlight. Changing the amount of light reaching the surface might give some plants a benefit and others a disadvantage, which could potentially throw the natural balance out of whack. Land-use issues aside, we don't have any idea really what the distribution of plant species in the tropics means for the global carbon cycle, not to mention the hydrological cycle. A second potential problem is that the additional sulfur in the stratosphere might change the stratospheric heating rates, which would change the temperature distribution, which would alter the large-scale temperature gradients, and might impact the Brewer-Dobson circulation. This would have unknown effects on the general circulation of the midlatitudes, possibly altering large-scale weather patterns (think El Nino or North Atlantic Oscillation). A third issue, also mentioned by Crutzen, is that cooling the surface won't save the ocean. As CO2 increases, it will continue to be taken up by the ocean. Unfortunately, that increases the acidity of the upper ocean, where lots of little creatures grow. Many of those little creatures grow calcium carbonate shells, but they can't do it in acidic conditions. That means they die. Not only do those organisms play an important role in the carbon cycle (and other biogeochemical cycles), but they are also the foundation of the entire marine food chain. If they die, then large species suffer, and larger ones suffer even more, and even humans who like to eat seafood will suffer.
So those are my first three potential problems with this plan. However, I'll take Crutzen's side. He basically says that our policy makers have their heads in their behinds, partly because they don't have good solutions and partly because they are not forward thinking, and so there is not going to be a reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations any time soon. Since we know we will face global warming, we need to figure out what to do if the warming starts to get out of control. This sulfur parasol effect is one possibility, and it should be investigated. Along the way, we will continue to learn important things about the climate system, even if the sulfur parasol turns out to be an untenable solution.
Additional reading
1. BioEd Online: Should we flood the air with sulphur? [LINK]
2. Crutzen, Paul J., 2006: Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y [possible LINK]
3. Geo-engineering in vogue, on RealClimate [LINK]
2006-08-16
cheap movies
Having just spent my second consecutive night appreciating Brick on DVD, I wanted to take a moment out of our usual foray into climate science to talk about movies. A few posts ago, I raved a little bit about Clerks II, which I still highly recommend, but today I want to do something different. I've always appreciated low budget, indie movies, but I've recently seen a few that really struck my fancy. These have also mostly been first efforts (or at least first feature films) from the writer/directors. These are movies that you watch, or at least I watch, and then I just have to wonder how they got it done for hardly any money, and unde adverse filmmaking conditions. My intention is not to review or analyze these films, but just to note them, marke them as different from most movies, even different from most "indie" movies. I'm no expert on this, of course, but I can name a couple off the top of my head. Please feel free to add/recommend movies I've missed.
UPDATE: I just realized that The Brothers McMullen (1995) by Ed Burns was made for just $23,800. I haven't actually seen it, but I know a lot of people swear by it.
- El Mariachi (1992) - Robert Rodriguez - $7,000
- Clerks (1994) - Kevin Smith - $27,000
- Primer (2004) - Shane Carruth - $7,000
- Brick (2005) - Rian Johnson - $500,000
- Honorable mentions:
- Slacker (1991) - Richard Linklater - $23,000
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) - Tobe Hooper - $84,000
- Roger & Me (1989) - Michael Moore - $160,000 (but it is a documentary)
- THX 1138 (1971) - George Lucas - $777,000 (a little pricey)
UPDATE: I just realized that The Brothers McMullen (1995) by Ed Burns was made for just $23,800. I haven't actually seen it, but I know a lot of people swear by it.
Planets, Dwarf planets, plutons, and apathy
The international astronomical union is going to vote on a new system for classifying heavenly bodies as planets [LINK]. Essentially the new rule is if a thing orbits a star, but is not a star or a moon, and it has enough mass to make it round, then yes, it is a planet. Well done, boys. Here's a potential new schematic of the solar system (LATimes):
People always have to make up labels and categories, despite the fact that nature certainly has shades of grey. We deal with it in clouds classification schemes all the time... cumulus, altocumulus, altostratus, cirrostratus, stratocumulus, and it goes on ad nauseam. Some things are categorized easily. Mammals are different from birds, and both are different from reptiles. Animals are different from plants. Galaxies are different from stars, and both are different from rocks (planet or not). Water clouds are different from dust clouds. Lakes are different from oceans. You get my point. Yet, at some level, the system starts to break down. Is Pluto a planet? Is Ceres? Does it matter what we call them at all? Is this the right way to spend our time? Instead of arguing over whether to have an official definition for planet or dwarf planet or "pluton," why don't we get back to work and figure out some meaningful scientific questions. As for elementary school science books, well, if you grew up in public schools like I did, you know it doesn't matter what the new books say, because the students won't see them until they are obsolete too.
People always have to make up labels and categories, despite the fact that nature certainly has shades of grey. We deal with it in clouds classification schemes all the time... cumulus, altocumulus, altostratus, cirrostratus, stratocumulus, and it goes on ad nauseam. Some things are categorized easily. Mammals are different from birds, and both are different from reptiles. Animals are different from plants. Galaxies are different from stars, and both are different from rocks (planet or not). Water clouds are different from dust clouds. Lakes are different from oceans. You get my point. Yet, at some level, the system starts to break down. Is Pluto a planet? Is Ceres? Does it matter what we call them at all? Is this the right way to spend our time? Instead of arguing over whether to have an official definition for planet or dwarf planet or "pluton," why don't we get back to work and figure out some meaningful scientific questions. As for elementary school science books, well, if you grew up in public schools like I did, you know it doesn't matter what the new books say, because the students won't see them until they are obsolete too.
2006-08-11
A new feature here on FtF
If you ever scroll down the page, take note of a new feature here on Facing the Fire: "An Idiot List." It is just a static list of people, especially those in the media, who consistently seem to say stupid things about climate change. It's not comprehensive, of course, and I welcome suggestions. It's also not a "deniers hit list," even though I did have to add Pat Michaels. I'll be expanding the list as new idiots appear, so keep your eyes peeled.
2006-08-09
2006-07-25
The Committee on Energy and Commerce
Because I missed it on 19 July, I've been watching parts of the webcast of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing called Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments [
LINK]. Other sites have already been covering the proceedings in more detail (esp. RealClimate), so I won't go into any details. All I'll say is that I have discovered a new villian in the House, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, whose opening statements to the proceedings (about minute 55 or so of the webcast) are among the most ill-informed, partisan, ignorant, and dangerous views on climate change that I have heard in the past few years.
LINK]. Other sites have already been covering the proceedings in more detail (esp. RealClimate), so I won't go into any details. All I'll say is that I have discovered a new villian in the House, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, whose opening statements to the proceedings (about minute 55 or so of the webcast) are among the most ill-informed, partisan, ignorant, and dangerous views on climate change that I have heard in the past few years.
Inhofe adds insult to injury
During my morning procrastination, I came across two blog entries about Senator Inhofe's recent appearance on CNN. He is amazingly wrong on just about every point. Deltoid was the first post I saw, and he points out Inhofe is lying about when (and why) he started denying global warming [LINK]. Deltoid in turn links to Judd Legum at Think Progress, who even has the video clip [LINK]. I recommend going over to see it, just to see how ridiculously wrong-minded he is. And this is one of the most influential people in Congress? Something needs to be done.
Op-Ed madness
Somehow I missed this Op-Ed in the LA Times yesterday by Naomi Oreskes [LINK]. It is called "Global Warming -- Signed, Sealed, and Delivered," and it a defense of her work -- which found an overwhelming scientific consensus that scientists believe global warming is real and humans have played a large role in it -- and also an explanation that there are always people who refuse to accept new ideas and facts. That second point is directed at the few remaining global warming deniers in the real scientific community (i.e., Richard Lindzen) and those outside science who cling to these "experts" as evidence that there is still some kind of debate about whether humans have influenced Earth's climate. Ms. Oreskes uses a classic example to show that this is not a new phenomenon; she points out that Harold Jeffreys, an eminent geophysicist in the early 20th Century, who was a brilliant and talented person, never believed in plate tectonics or continental drift. He just didn't think it was possible. As evidence mounted, he never bought into it, and railed against the idea. Despite the fact that by the time he died almost everyone in the geosciences believed in plate tectonics, Jeffreys refused. Of course, whether continents drift or not had no bearing on public policy in the 1950s or 1960s, and the "debate" was never sensationalized by the popular media and no lobbying groups rallied to quash the well-accepted science of continental drift. Undoubtedly there were religious types who found the thought unappealing, there still are people who don't want to believe in plate tectonics... for that there are a few out there who still believe Earth is hollow, but they were unable to stop the progress of science. With anthropogenic global warming, solid science faces a serious obstacle because the results of innumerable studies point directly toward humans and fossil fuels as the cause for global climate change, and that butts up against policy decisions. Worse yet, the most obvious way to mitigate climate change is to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but to do so would affect how business is conducted, and Business (with a capital B) has the money and influence to alter the policy-making process.
Go read the Oreskes' op-ed, it is quite clear and doesn't digress like I always do.
Go read the Oreskes' op-ed, it is quite clear and doesn't digress like I always do.
2006-07-24
three quick notes
First, I want to let you know that I am still interested in these "atmospheric rivers." I've tracked down some additional references, and even some data, but haven't had a chance to look into it yet. On that note, I should also mention that I did at least learn that I was wrong about the Pineapple Express being more frequent in the spring. One reference (that I'll cite eventually) finds that these events are centered in January and February. More on this stuff later
Second, there's a story in the NYTimes about NASA changing their mission statement [LINK]. It seems a little troubling, but I'm not sure if it really means anything right now.
Finally, and off topic, I highly recommend Clerks II. It is the sequel to Kevin Smith's 1994 film, Clerks. If you haven't seen Clerks, you need to see it, and see it first. Smith has made a series of movies centered on characters in New Jersey, sometimes with slightly overlapping stories. There are a lot of "in jokes," in Clerks II, but I think as long as you've seen Clerks, you're good to go. The clerks are in their early 30s now, and haven't made the life changes hinted at in Clerks. Clerks II is a hilarious rehashing of some of the same themes from the original, but it is also a new look at life from an older point of view. It isn't a perfect movie, there are a few gags and a scene or two that could have been more effective, but on the whole it is funny and even emotionally resonant at times. The NYTimes gives a positive, though not completely consistent review [LINK], and it has been getting a slightly "Fresh" rating on RottenTomatoes.com (from critics, very fresh from users). While I'm pimping Clerks II, you can also see a featurette about the making of the movie on the Apple site [LINK], and there's even more at the official site Clerks2.com.
Second, there's a story in the NYTimes about NASA changing their mission statement [LINK]. It seems a little troubling, but I'm not sure if it really means anything right now.
Finally, and off topic, I highly recommend Clerks II. It is the sequel to Kevin Smith's 1994 film, Clerks. If you haven't seen Clerks, you need to see it, and see it first. Smith has made a series of movies centered on characters in New Jersey, sometimes with slightly overlapping stories. There are a lot of "in jokes," in Clerks II, but I think as long as you've seen Clerks, you're good to go. The clerks are in their early 30s now, and haven't made the life changes hinted at in Clerks. Clerks II is a hilarious rehashing of some of the same themes from the original, but it is also a new look at life from an older point of view. It isn't a perfect movie, there are a few gags and a scene or two that could have been more effective, but on the whole it is funny and even emotionally resonant at times. The NYTimes gives a positive, though not completely consistent review [LINK], and it has been getting a slightly "Fresh" rating on RottenTomatoes.com (from critics, very fresh from users). While I'm pimping Clerks II, you can also see a featurette about the making of the movie on the Apple site [LINK], and there's even more at the official site Clerks2.com.
2006-07-13
rivers in the sky
Well, in a small step toward more focused posts, I wanted to write a few thoughts about a short paper that is in Geophysical Research Letters this month. The reference is:
Ralph, F. M., P. J. Neiman, G. A. Wick, S. I. Gutman, M. D. Dettinger, D. R. Cayan, and A. B. White (2006), Flooding on California's Russian River: Role of atmospheric rivers, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L13801, doi:10.1029/2006GL026689. [LINK]
The authors are using satellite observations of atmospheric moisture, and comparing coherent (but transient) structures to precipitation events (storms), with particular emphasis on flood events. These coherent structures are called atmospheric rivers by the authors, who have been championing the term for a couple of years. Residents of California will recognize the particular events discussed in the paper as the "pineapple connection" or the "pineapple express." This is basically a narrow band of very moist air that stretches from the tropical central to eastern Pacific northeastward toward California. When these atmospheric rivers form, they tend to bring humid, more tropical conditions to California. I've always thought of these events happening in spring, and delivering warm, humid conditions, usually associated with mid-level to high-level clouds. The authors are looking at winter storms though, and they find that atmospheric rivers are associated with the warm-sector of storms, and also they are associated with strong low-level winds (a low-level jet).
When the low-level jet gets wrapped up with a developing storm, forming the connection between the tropics and the extratropics manifest as an atmospheric river, it can deliver a lot of precipitation to coastal areas. This study is an attempt to show that atmospheric rivers are associated with floods in the Russian River area of northern California. The way it works is that the storm approaches the coast, with the atmospheric river sort of preceding it (or riding on the warm sector). The atmospheric river is confined to the lower levels in that low-level jet, which then intersects the land. The trouble with land is that it isn't flat, and when the low-level jet meets the coastal mountains, it has to go somewhere. It turns out that relatively low mountains don't deflect the flow very much, but instead the jet goes up and over the mountains (that's the dynamics). As the moist air rises, it cools, and cooler air has a lower saturation humidity so the water begins to condense and rain out (that's the physics). This is orographic precipitation. So as long as that low-level jet is carrying such warm, moist air and is intersecting the mountains, there's going to be serious rain. The paper shows a case study from February 2004, and it is clear that as long as there is upslope winds (the low-level jet going over the mountains), it is raining like crazy.
The authors suggest, not very strongly (because this is kind of a new way of thinking about this), that a large fraction of coastal flooding in California is connected with these filaments of moist air originating in the tropics and attached to winter storms.
What does this have to do with climate and/or climate change? Well, a lot of people like to talk about changes in the distribution of extreme events in a warming world... like more/stronger hurricanes, more frequent floods and droughts, etc. This is a possible mechanism for flooding along coastal areas (where most people live), so if we want to understand how flood events will change in the future, we need to understand this connection between atmospheric rivers and orographic precipitation. That includes better understanding of both the dynamics (how and why the atmospheric rivers form) and the physics (how mountains force precipitation). Even more interesting for some of us... well, me... is that a lot of the water in the atmosphere comes from the tropics, and there is some evidence that a large fraction of that transport is in the form of these narrow filaments. If the formation or characteristics of atmospheric rivers are sensitive to, say the distribution of moist convection in the deep tropics, or the structure of the north-south atmospheric circulation (the Hadley circulation), then there might be important consequences for extratropical atmospheric moisture in a changing environment. That's just a poorly-formed idea rattling around in my head though, so don't take it too seriously, but these atmospheric rivers are probably playing a more important role in the distribution of water in the climate system than has been appreciated before, and that is interesting.
Ralph, F. M., P. J. Neiman, G. A. Wick, S. I. Gutman, M. D. Dettinger, D. R. Cayan, and A. B. White (2006), Flooding on California's Russian River: Role of atmospheric rivers, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L13801, doi:10.1029/2006GL026689. [LINK]
The authors are using satellite observations of atmospheric moisture, and comparing coherent (but transient) structures to precipitation events (storms), with particular emphasis on flood events. These coherent structures are called atmospheric rivers by the authors, who have been championing the term for a couple of years. Residents of California will recognize the particular events discussed in the paper as the "pineapple connection" or the "pineapple express." This is basically a narrow band of very moist air that stretches from the tropical central to eastern Pacific northeastward toward California. When these atmospheric rivers form, they tend to bring humid, more tropical conditions to California. I've always thought of these events happening in spring, and delivering warm, humid conditions, usually associated with mid-level to high-level clouds. The authors are looking at winter storms though, and they find that atmospheric rivers are associated with the warm-sector of storms, and also they are associated with strong low-level winds (a low-level jet).
When the low-level jet gets wrapped up with a developing storm, forming the connection between the tropics and the extratropics manifest as an atmospheric river, it can deliver a lot of precipitation to coastal areas. This study is an attempt to show that atmospheric rivers are associated with floods in the Russian River area of northern California. The way it works is that the storm approaches the coast, with the atmospheric river sort of preceding it (or riding on the warm sector). The atmospheric river is confined to the lower levels in that low-level jet, which then intersects the land. The trouble with land is that it isn't flat, and when the low-level jet meets the coastal mountains, it has to go somewhere. It turns out that relatively low mountains don't deflect the flow very much, but instead the jet goes up and over the mountains (that's the dynamics). As the moist air rises, it cools, and cooler air has a lower saturation humidity so the water begins to condense and rain out (that's the physics). This is orographic precipitation. So as long as that low-level jet is carrying such warm, moist air and is intersecting the mountains, there's going to be serious rain. The paper shows a case study from February 2004, and it is clear that as long as there is upslope winds (the low-level jet going over the mountains), it is raining like crazy.
The authors suggest, not very strongly (because this is kind of a new way of thinking about this), that a large fraction of coastal flooding in California is connected with these filaments of moist air originating in the tropics and attached to winter storms.
What does this have to do with climate and/or climate change? Well, a lot of people like to talk about changes in the distribution of extreme events in a warming world... like more/stronger hurricanes, more frequent floods and droughts, etc. This is a possible mechanism for flooding along coastal areas (where most people live), so if we want to understand how flood events will change in the future, we need to understand this connection between atmospheric rivers and orographic precipitation. That includes better understanding of both the dynamics (how and why the atmospheric rivers form) and the physics (how mountains force precipitation). Even more interesting for some of us... well, me... is that a lot of the water in the atmosphere comes from the tropics, and there is some evidence that a large fraction of that transport is in the form of these narrow filaments. If the formation or characteristics of atmospheric rivers are sensitive to, say the distribution of moist convection in the deep tropics, or the structure of the north-south atmospheric circulation (the Hadley circulation), then there might be important consequences for extratropical atmospheric moisture in a changing environment. That's just a poorly-formed idea rattling around in my head though, so don't take it too seriously, but these atmospheric rivers are probably playing a more important role in the distribution of water in the climate system than has been appreciated before, and that is interesting.
2006-07-07
anti-ballistic missile systems
GWB just said in his press conference this morning that he thinks there was a "reasonable" chance of shooting down that long-range Korean missile the other day. The question was about missile defense systems, with the implication that the system is what would intercept the missile. I think this is false. The missile defense system has, to public knowledge at least, not passed any of its tests without knowing where to aim a priori. Shooting down a missile with a missile is like stopping a bullet with a bullet (or an arrow with an arrow, or whatever you like); it's pretty hard. So when people say things like "missile shield" you should instead think defending yourself by shooting at the bullets heading for you. A shield not does that make.
2006-06-29
quick updates
I haven't posted much lately, I know. I don't know about you, but I've been overwhelmed with the various climate-related news, movies, books, etc. coming out lately. I think it would be more worthwhile for us to try to focus on some issues here, rather than the usual scattershot links and comments. Unfortunately, that takes more time and energy than I have right now. If possible, I'll work something up by next week, but don't plan you life around it.
In the meantime, Daimler-Chrysler is finally bringing the Smart car to the USA, New Zealand could ban inefficient cars (yeah, that will happen), the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" is still out there making ridiculous claims, tropical mountain glaciers are still disappearing, and everybody continues to run around yelling about Greenland melting. Not to mention China's air pollution, PowerLight Corp. producing tons of clean energy, the Supreme Court of the USA is going to hear Mass. v. EPA, and geo-engineering is back in the limelight.
Definitely take a look at DeSmogBlog and ClimateArk for news stories about all these and more, and RealClimate for the science arguments. I'm going to ruminate for a while about what niche needs to be filled in this little climate-centric arc of the blogosphere, and get back to you soon.
In the meantime, Daimler-Chrysler is finally bringing the Smart car to the USA, New Zealand could ban inefficient cars (yeah, that will happen), the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" is still out there making ridiculous claims, tropical mountain glaciers are still disappearing, and everybody continues to run around yelling about Greenland melting. Not to mention China's air pollution, PowerLight Corp. producing tons of clean energy, the Supreme Court of the USA is going to hear Mass. v. EPA, and geo-engineering is back in the limelight.
Definitely take a look at DeSmogBlog and ClimateArk for news stories about all these and more, and RealClimate for the science arguments. I'm going to ruminate for a while about what niche needs to be filled in this little climate-centric arc of the blogosphere, and get back to you soon.
2006-05-22
Shermer finally signs on
Acclaimed skeptic Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptic Society among other things, has a recent column in Scientific American in which he admits that is is now won over by the evidence for anthropogenic climate change [LINK]. Skepticism is very good, and I think most scientists are skeptics at heart. At this point though, people who are still on the fence about human-induced climate change are either turning a blind eye or are being pulled by non-objective forces toward the other side. Apparently Shermer was just turning a blind eye.
So what was it that made Shermer finally find his way to the side of science on this issue? Did he get a preview of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report? Did he take a critical look at the scientific literature? Did he visit NCAR and talk with leading scientists in the area? No, he saw Al Gore's presentation. Okay, I also saw it, and I must say it is very good. But Shermer says it is "based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance." Well, it is an important part of the documentary (and book), An Inconvenient Truth, but it is not Al Gore's work. That is an incredibly inaccurate statement. I'm a big Al Gore fan, but he's not a scientist. Giving a summary of hundreds of other people's work can lead to a significant contribution in a field, but that would be a technical review, this is really just a public outreach project. And to be convinced by before and after photos is a naive approach to understanding an incredibly complex phenomenon. The photos are impressive, no doubt, but taken out of context, such photos can also be extremely misleading. For example, until the last few years some mountain glaciers in North America and Europe were growing, after having shrunk in the middle of the 20th C. The photos are impressive, showing giant sheets of ice coming down the mountain year after year. However it wasn't because the world was cooling, but because of local effects. Today we can look at most glaciers and feel confident that they are receding because of global warming, but it is only because we have the cumulative effects of many glacier observations. I'm glad Shermer has decided to use science and logic on this issue, but it is too bad he had to be convinced by a flashy powerpoint presentation instead of the actual scientific evidence.
So what was it that made Shermer finally find his way to the side of science on this issue? Did he get a preview of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report? Did he take a critical look at the scientific literature? Did he visit NCAR and talk with leading scientists in the area? No, he saw Al Gore's presentation. Okay, I also saw it, and I must say it is very good. But Shermer says it is "based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance." Well, it is an important part of the documentary (and book), An Inconvenient Truth, but it is not Al Gore's work. That is an incredibly inaccurate statement. I'm a big Al Gore fan, but he's not a scientist. Giving a summary of hundreds of other people's work can lead to a significant contribution in a field, but that would be a technical review, this is really just a public outreach project. And to be convinced by before and after photos is a naive approach to understanding an incredibly complex phenomenon. The photos are impressive, no doubt, but taken out of context, such photos can also be extremely misleading. For example, until the last few years some mountain glaciers in North America and Europe were growing, after having shrunk in the middle of the 20th C. The photos are impressive, showing giant sheets of ice coming down the mountain year after year. However it wasn't because the world was cooling, but because of local effects. Today we can look at most glaciers and feel confident that they are receding because of global warming, but it is only because we have the cumulative effects of many glacier observations. I'm glad Shermer has decided to use science and logic on this issue, but it is too bad he had to be convinced by a flashy powerpoint presentation instead of the actual scientific evidence.
2006-04-26
A Bill Gray sighting
Last hurricane season, I blogged a few times about Bill Gray, an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University. For those of you out of the atmosci loop, CSU is actually a top-notch meteorology/atmspheric dynamics program, and Bill Gray was a pioneer of seasonal forecasting for tropical activity. I emphasize was, as now is mostly a climate change denier. He still does seasonal prediction, and his group is still respected in that area, but he doesn't seem very active in that work any longer. Apparently he's at the AMS meeting on hurricanes and tropical meteorology this week, where he is presenting a paper [LINK]. He seems to think that global warming is due to variations in the thermohaline circulation; I don't think there is any observational evidence for links of decadal scale variability in the THC and global surface temperature (I could be wrong about that). In any case, RealClimate has posted a limited response to the extended abstract by Gray [LINK]. The didn't go looking for it, but it is a response to a CNN article, which undoubtedly has been picked up by other outlets [LINK]. The article doesn't go into depth about Gray, but uses him as the "other side" of the "debate." The RealClimate guys (and girls) have taken Gray to task, pointing out "scientific absurdities" in the argument, and also pointing out that Gray's theory has conveniently changed over the years to account of contrary evidence. It is worth a quick read if you are interested.
2006-04-23
"In fact, let's call it science fiction," says Orrin Hatch
In an interview with Salt Lake City Tribune, Senator Orrin Hatch gives his opinion of climate change [LINK]. The article is fairly timid, but does manage to paint a picture of Orrin Hatch, showing he is firmly in that bizarro neo-Conservative reality where there is little scientific consensus, or at least where that consensus is part of some kind of vast scientific conspiracy. Suddenly I'm reminded that I never got a chance to read Chris Mooney's The Republican War On Science; maybe it is time to pick that up.
Maybe I'm wrong about Hatch though. After all, as the article says, he has read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and "took note of the scientific citations at the end of the book." No, he couldn't remember any of them, or what they said, but he noted them.... of course, that might just mean that he saw that Crichton "did research," so the novel must be true. Conservatives are getting funnier and funnier.
Oh, just in case anybody has missed the news, climate change, and by that I mean global warming caused by human activity increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere along with all the associated effects, is not in dispute in the scientific community. The temperature trends are quantitatively different from the observed natural variability, and recent years are among the warmest in the past 1000 years.
An article in The Register reports that a study published in Nature decreases the uncertainty in our estimate in climate sensitivity [LINK]. Actually, the study just shows that it is extremely unlikely to get what are already considered implausible temperature changes (without some seriously catastrophic conditions). The work is by Hegerl, Crowley, Hyde, and Frame, who use a simple hemispheric energy balance model and reconstructions of climate for the past 1,000 years or so to examine the statistical relationship between our best guess of past climate and our estimate of climate sensitivity. It is an interesting study, though the limitations of their model may be such that the result is not as relevant for anthropogenic global warming as the authors believe. It is, however, as good an estimate for climate sensitivity as we have right now. The paper is in Nature: Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries
Gabriele C. Hegerl, Thomas J. Crowley, William T. Hyde and David J. Frame
doi:10.1038/nature04679
In a not-quite-related story in Nature, the climateprediction.net project found an error in their aerosol forcing that caused the simulation to crash at 2013 [LINK]. This is for a sub-project focusing on climate change in the UK, and has set the schedule back by a couple months. It isn't all that bad, really, because the error will allow the investigation of the effects of aerosols on global warming.
Maybe I'm wrong about Hatch though. After all, as the article says, he has read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and "took note of the scientific citations at the end of the book." No, he couldn't remember any of them, or what they said, but he noted them.... of course, that might just mean that he saw that Crichton "did research," so the novel must be true. Conservatives are getting funnier and funnier.
Oh, just in case anybody has missed the news, climate change, and by that I mean global warming caused by human activity increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere along with all the associated effects, is not in dispute in the scientific community. The temperature trends are quantitatively different from the observed natural variability, and recent years are among the warmest in the past 1000 years.
An article in The Register reports that a study published in Nature decreases the uncertainty in our estimate in climate sensitivity [LINK]. Actually, the study just shows that it is extremely unlikely to get what are already considered implausible temperature changes (without some seriously catastrophic conditions). The work is by Hegerl, Crowley, Hyde, and Frame, who use a simple hemispheric energy balance model and reconstructions of climate for the past 1,000 years or so to examine the statistical relationship between our best guess of past climate and our estimate of climate sensitivity. It is an interesting study, though the limitations of their model may be such that the result is not as relevant for anthropogenic global warming as the authors believe. It is, however, as good an estimate for climate sensitivity as we have right now. The paper is in Nature: Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries
Gabriele C. Hegerl, Thomas J. Crowley, William T. Hyde and David J. Frame
doi:10.1038/nature04679
In a not-quite-related story in Nature, the climateprediction.net project found an error in their aerosol forcing that caused the simulation to crash at 2013 [LINK]. This is for a sub-project focusing on climate change in the UK, and has set the schedule back by a couple months. It isn't all that bad, really, because the error will allow the investigation of the effects of aerosols on global warming.
2006-04-19
Alarmists! Alarmists!
I haven't posted a response to Richard Lindzen's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal [LINK]. The main reason is that I'm really not fast enough to beat the folks at RealClimate [LINK], who do an outstanding job of addressing the scientific points of these kinds of things. Definitely read the op-ed, take a drink to wash that bad taste away, and then go read the posts at RealClimate. Today, Jeff Masters at wunderground.com has taken a swing at the Lindzen piece, and done a really nice job [LINK].
As a recap, the Lindzen rant is basically saying that there are all kinds of "alarmist" climate scientists who rely on the public being afraid of global warming in order to get funding to, you guessed it, study global warming. This idea has been around almost as long as the global warming deniers have. (By the way, I am not going to use the word 'skeptic' for these folks, since I think being skeptical is a virtue and relates to having an open mind and rational thought process. The deniers are closing their minds to basic scientific principles, and have ceased to be skeptical.) The problem with the idea that climate science is self-perpetuating is that it can't really be true. If it were, and this response is now standard among climate scientists addressing the question, climate scientists would be encouraging much more investment in climate research, but instead the most "alarmist" among us are calling for huge investments in energy research and mitigation strategies. That doesn't sound like self-interested activity to me. There are a few other points in Lindzen's rant, but you can read more about that elsewhere.
As a point of clarification, in case you go read Jeff Master's post, the description of Lindzen's iris hypothesis is not correct there. The idea behind the iris hypothesis is that precipitation efficiency (how much of evaporated water in tropical convection gets rained out versus deposited in the upper troposphere) will increase in a warming environment, which would have the effect of reducing the area covered by cirrus anvils. That would essentially let more terrestrial infrared radiation escape to space (in the tropics) and be a cooling influence on the climate, like the iris of the eye opening and closing to change the amount of light passing through. The problems with this theory are numerous, actually, though it can not yet be completely discredited. The main problem is that there is no evidence for this change in precipitation efficiency, either from observations or simulations. It is still a possibility, and if it were ever to be found in nature, it is likely that climate models would have to incorporate a new microphysics parameterization because this effect is not currently modeled. Other criticisms have pointed out errors with the statistical methods Lindzen and colleagues used in the original paper, as well as ambiguities between local and nonlocal effects.
references
iris hypothesis paper (Lindzen et al)
statistical response (Harrison)
local v. nonlocal effects (Hartmann & Michelsen)
Obervational study to test iris hypothesis (Lin et al)
As a recap, the Lindzen rant is basically saying that there are all kinds of "alarmist" climate scientists who rely on the public being afraid of global warming in order to get funding to, you guessed it, study global warming. This idea has been around almost as long as the global warming deniers have. (By the way, I am not going to use the word 'skeptic' for these folks, since I think being skeptical is a virtue and relates to having an open mind and rational thought process. The deniers are closing their minds to basic scientific principles, and have ceased to be skeptical.) The problem with the idea that climate science is self-perpetuating is that it can't really be true. If it were, and this response is now standard among climate scientists addressing the question, climate scientists would be encouraging much more investment in climate research, but instead the most "alarmist" among us are calling for huge investments in energy research and mitigation strategies. That doesn't sound like self-interested activity to me. There are a few other points in Lindzen's rant, but you can read more about that elsewhere.
As a point of clarification, in case you go read Jeff Master's post, the description of Lindzen's iris hypothesis is not correct there. The idea behind the iris hypothesis is that precipitation efficiency (how much of evaporated water in tropical convection gets rained out versus deposited in the upper troposphere) will increase in a warming environment, which would have the effect of reducing the area covered by cirrus anvils. That would essentially let more terrestrial infrared radiation escape to space (in the tropics) and be a cooling influence on the climate, like the iris of the eye opening and closing to change the amount of light passing through. The problems with this theory are numerous, actually, though it can not yet be completely discredited. The main problem is that there is no evidence for this change in precipitation efficiency, either from observations or simulations. It is still a possibility, and if it were ever to be found in nature, it is likely that climate models would have to incorporate a new microphysics parameterization because this effect is not currently modeled. Other criticisms have pointed out errors with the statistical methods Lindzen and colleagues used in the original paper, as well as ambiguities between local and nonlocal effects.
references
iris hypothesis paper (Lindzen et al)
statistical response (Harrison)
local v. nonlocal effects (Hartmann & Michelsen)
Obervational study to test iris hypothesis (Lin et al)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)