A Hot Day’s Night: The Beetles
A Hot Day’s Night: The Beetles -
The semester is almost over here in Michigan, and I am looking forward to more regularity in writing these blogs. Sorry for the recent infrequency, and the occasional excursions into the arcane. I am looking for well posed, interesting, new questions to focus on, and you know how to find me if you have a good idea. In this entry I want to build of the recent heat and the early spring.
The thread I made through the last blog ended up with Plant Hardiness Zones, which are those maps that gardeners and farmers use to decide when to plant seeds. Over the last 20 – 30 years the warming of the planet has caused the northern migration of these zones. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012. Since I am not so facile, I have taken from this graphic the two extremes, 1990 and 2012.
Figure 1: 1990 U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones. (From Washington Post)
Figure 2: 2012 U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones. (From Washington Post)
What I want to look at here are the very coldest temperatures, the purples. If you look at Zone 2b, the zone below -40 degrees F, it essentially disappears between 1990 and 2012. Zone 3a, which is between -35 degrees F and – 40 degrees F becomes much smaller.
So this past winter, and especially March 2012, was extraordinarily warm in the 48 contiguous states. In fact, I, who fly too much, had one of the easiest winters of travel. Based on Jeff Master’s blogs, I chose several times to go through Chicago, and for the most part I have landed with splendid views of a blue Lake Michigan. There was an interesting piece on Talk of the Nation, noting the relation between a warm winter and the lack of flu. So what is the problem? It’s not below -40 degrees anymore. Air travel is easier. We might have less flu. Does anyone besides me, planting potatoes on a dry 80 degree day in March, worry about this?
I have been spending a lot of time with beetle-killed wood this year. You might recall a couple of blogs back in 2009 where I talked about the pine beetles which are killing millions of acres of pine trees in the western U.S. and Canada. (Climate Change and the Forest, Climate and the Beetle) It is beautiful wood, often with a light blue tint. I am using it to restore a couple of 100 year old out buildings. There is a LOT of it; in fact, more than one can imagine managing. There is some lumber being made, some fire wood being made, but for the most part there are millions of acres of dead trees. I have talked to a couple of people who wonder why there is not more outrage about these massive forest kills. That’s fodder for the comments.
Back up to the maps. The pine beetle responsible for killing the pines in the Rockies is itself killed, controlled, by temperatures less the -40 degrees F. This is at the edge of the coldest temperatures normally seen in the U.S., and these cold extremes have largely disappeared since 1990. In the map below, I have used the interactive version of the map from the US Department of Agriculture to extract the State of Colorado. There are only very small areas of Zone 3a remaining.
Figure 3: Plant hardiness zones in Colorado for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.
We adapt to climate change – or we will. Now, one of the most effective adapters seems to be the Mountain Pine Beetle. In The American Naturalist there is a pre-publication posting of an article on the Unprecedented Summer Generation of the Mountain Pine Beetle. That is, rather than there being one generation of Mountain Pine Beetle during the year, in Colorado, in recent years there have been two broods. The paper is by Mitton and Ferrenberg. There is a press release of the paper here.
They noted in 2008 pine beetles flying and attacking pines more than a month earlier than the historic norm. They set up experiments to test three hypotheses: 1) That temperature had not changed; 2) That the length and timing of the flight season had not changed; and 3) the life cycle of the beetle had not changed. Their results found that there had been significant warming, with spring coming earlier. They found that the behavior of the pine beetle was explained by earlier emergence of the beetles, followed by a second brood of the beetles in the summer. Figure 4 shows this schematically. It is striking to see the move to earlier springs in the figure – as with the hardiness zones.
Figure 4: The historical mountain pine beetle (MPB) univoltine life cycle (above calendar arrows and linked by black arrows) and the observed MPB bivoltine life cycle (below calendar arrows and linked by red arrows). Univoltine means one brood per year, and bivoltine means two broods per year. Calendar arrow colors represent monthly temperature regimes: blue for <0°C, yellow for 0°–4.99°C, orange for 5°–9.99°C, and red for 10°C and higher. From Mitton and Ferrenberg, Mountain Pine Beetle Develops an Unprecedented Summer Generation in Response to Climate Warming.
This research took place in an area that in the 1970s was judged to be “climatically unsuitable for Mountain Pine Beetle development … .” The study is convincing that the devastation of the forest due to the pine beetle is directly related to the warming planet. It points out the vulnerability of the tree populations, as the trees that are being impacted now have not developed a historical resistance to the pine beetle. Since most of the beetles that are born live, this impact is not incremental, as that second generation is enormous.
So, yes, this warm winter has had its advantages - less fuel oil was needed. But in the western forest we are seeing this case study of wide ranging ecological disruption. The consequences of the disruption will unfold in the next decades. Questions of fire and soil erosion will emerge. The impact on tourism will be realized - and, of course, water quality and the change in the ecosystems of the western forests. The Mountain Pine Beetle is adapting rapidly to global warming, what are our strategies to adapt to the Pine Beetle?
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
Why does it matter to you what I post?
Well, when I see someone post something so utterly at odds with the facts and completely detached from reality, I feel a little sorry for such a person.
That is, of course, unless I suspect that that person is attempting to deceive others. Then I'm a bit less sympathetic.
You must be right. Everything I posted was just lies and BS. You don't need to pay any attention to it. Feel better?
Thus revealing your complete misunderstanding. This topic has nothing to do with the way I or anyone else feels. It has to do with facts and putting those facts in their proper perspective and coming to a reasoned conclusion. The fewer feelings involved, the better for all concerned.
How anyone feels about the conclusion is immaterial to the fact that the conclusion is supported by in context facts and observations.
Feelings probably have more of a place in what we do with or about the conclusion --in this case AGW and CC. Any proposed solutions probably will have to take into account our feelings and sensibilities, both individually and as a society.
Climate Change "Alarmism" primarily occurs in the fetid imaginations of denialists whose religion (capitalism) cannot allow them to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of AGW and CC. And so, they attempt to inoculate themselves by accusing the other side of having a religion.
Why, yes, I have seen the anti-science crowd use that tactic before. (Google "Evolution is a religion" for verification.)
No, it is the relatively new reality. Any article that begins by questioning whether it is even warming can be discounted immediately since that viewpoint is contradicted by every temperature index on Earth (including satellite). It's a sure sign that the writer doesn't know what he or she is talking about. The rest of the article proves beyond all doubt that that is indeed a reliable sign.
'Twasn't I alone who referred to those authors as shills; it's right there in their CVs should you or anyone else care to look. At any rate, again, an opinion piece written by one of those oil company shills and posted on a denialist blog has absolutely no bearing on the discussion and carries absolutely no scientific weight whatsoever. Only denialists desperate for any tiny piece of blather care what those shills have to say; I surely don't, and--far more importantly--neither does the world of science.
(I'll mostly ignore the lame attempt at Godwinning, for that, too, is a well known tactic of the truly desperate.)
After reading this post I am convinced you are not in the same mold as NEO who wishes for totalitarian control. You are just a fool. You should Google "fool" so you know exactly what I mean.
A hundred-plus tornadoes last weekend in the Plains states. No biggie. No big deal. We’re getting used to crazy weather. We had a winter that in many states felt like spring. A spring that in much of the country’s been racking up temps like summer.
Record highs all over. Confused animals. Crops out of order. The latest polling says a large majority of Americans now believe the wild weather is being made worse by climate change. Is it? Is this it?
This hour, On Point: does the wild weather mean climate change is moving in? And we talk with two new Pulitzer prize winners who chased the weather.
-Tom Ashbrook
Guests
Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and a Research Scientist at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University. You can read about a new poll on American attitudes towards climate change here.
Heidi Cullen, research correspondent and scientist for Climate Central. She’s the author of “The Weather of the Future: Heat Waves, Extreme Storms, and Other Scenes from a Climate-Changed Planet.”
Harold Brooks, research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Severe Storms Laboratory.
May Boeve, executive director and co-founder of the environmental group 350.org. Their new awareness campagin about climate change, “Connect the Dots” launches on May 5.
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/04/18/wild-weather
"FYI, ten years ago I believed in global warming; believed that CO2 was a pollutant. But I did what you apparently have not done. I checked ALL the resources, those who were telling me what I didn't want to hear as well as those who agreed with my preconceptions. And little by little, I was forced to realize that the amount of b.s. being spread by the alarmists was MUCH greater than the amount being spread by the deniers. As time went on, I saw prediction after prediction fail. I saw alarmists admit they'd lied. That they'd fudged the data and thrown away the truth. That stories about the Himalayan snow tops melting were based on a drunken reporter's fiction. I can go back and read the dire predictions made in 2000 that by 2010, there would be no winter.
So before you tell me to take the mote out of my eye, I suggest you remove the beam from your own."
On a related note: why is it that conservatives yap so often about responsibility, yet they're so goshdarned quick to distance themselves from that responsibility when it serves them to do so?
Silly denialists...
Gee, thanks! Now you guys are posting easily-disproved denialist tirades culled from anonymous commenters on obscure internet forums? I have to tell you, peer-reviewed science backing your point of view would carry a lot more weight. But, again, I realize you can't post any of that because there is none of that...
Thank you for that substantive response.
I do understand the lack of substance, though. Denialists simply have none to offer. Just look at this page your posting on. There are all sorts of wild claims made by denialists with little to no science behind them. Some claims contradict other denialist claims. There's certainly nothing like an alternative explanation. How can there be? There's simply no way to organize wild flailing. :^)
The second one kinda looks like James Hanson
It is not CO2 but Eddie the Head running the show
Do you also have a fear of the dark
Do you have a fear of death
Lets finish our Iron Maiden theme with a classic and a tribute to the Battle of Balaclava or as you may know it the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade into the Valley of Death
img src="">
But while I'm here, I'll take this opportunity to agree with Neapolitan: Silly deniers
That there is some funny stuff.
More evidence of his credibility
Must be AGWT or ?????????
Norsex already has
More proof of the rapidly melting ice this year. Is this suppose to happen?
I just don't have the heart to show what Antarctica is doing. Hint well above normal
Both are due to AGWT or ??????????
Joe Romm? What papers did he publish?
Here is your quote:
I've taken to ignoring nymore since he's just stirring the pot. He's not interested in discussion. He's interested in getting a rise out of people.
I didn't put him on ignore. I "-" his posts instead. "Don't feed the troll" is about the only piece of internet wisdom I abide by, though some of the advice on bacon is mighty tempting.
Hook, line and sinker
It's to easy but still fun
No reason it can't. What import do you imagine it has.
Oh, and just for fun -- this is what a lot of that sea ice looks like:
I'm not an expert, but I'll go out on a limb and say that that ice will melt very quickly.
Why not? I do.
But perhaps you are unfamiliar with the topic?
Link
Link
Link
You mean today or this month's sea ice area and extent? If so, the answer is a resounding "no." Neither are due to AGW or CC. They are both due to weather...over a backdrop of AGW-caused CC. You'd have to look at a lot more data over a much longer period to make a proper assessment.
So enjoy the weather. It won't last. 8^P
I guess that they're encouraged by the anti-evolution movement's success in arguing against science? LOL
Oh no what is going on, It must be all the CO2 (AGWT) or ??????
Seems to be cooling from its highs.
Must be all that CO2 (AGWT) or ????????
You can even take 1998 out because I already know some of you will scream that it is the problem.
Global Surface Warming Since 1995
Posted on 20 April 2012 by dana1981
Santer et al. (2011) examined modeled vs. observed trends in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) and found that climate "skeptics" generally exaggerate the discrepancy between the two. Nevertheless, based on University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) data, TLT is not warming as quickly as models expect. That being said, we don't know if the discrepancy is due to models overestimating TLT, UAH and RSS underestimating it (which is a very plausible possibility), or both.
One key finding from Santer et al. is that we must examine at least 17 years of TLT data to discern a human influence on tropospheric temperatures:
"Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."
Now that another year has passed, we can include 2011 data in this analysis. What we find according to UAH, the TLT trend since February 1995 is 0.12 /- 0.21%uFFFDC per decade (using the Skeptical Science Temperature Trend Calculator), and according to RSS, it's 0.048 /- 0.21%uFFFDC per decade. Both trends are positive though neither is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
At the current rate even given the high number of 0.12 it would take almost 90 year to get to 1 degree C.
Wasn't there also suppose to be a hotspot over the tropics? There doesn't seem to be one, why?
The slow down in warming must be because of CO2 (AGWT) or ?????
The desperation is starting to show with the AGWT bible thumpers.
Anyway have a good day all.
The ice is melting. It's going, going, going...and one day soon it'll be gone. But believe me when I tell you I'll take no more pleasure from that than I would from watching a loved one die a slow, painful death from cancer.
Meanwhile, I see our silly little self-confessed troll is unaware of the moderating effects of our ongoing (though fading) deep El Nino. I also see that he's reproduced five separate graphs that show marked temperature rises as "proof" that the planet isn't warming. He reminds me of an obese guy staring down at the bathroom scale and trying to convince himself that since he only gained two pounds over the past week instead of his normal three pounds that he must be losing weight.
We saw some remarkable liberal denialism in action during the Keystone XL debate here in Nebraska. We had a large number of people claiming a leak in the pipeline would contaminate the aquifer and contaminate drinking water for millions of people, despite the fact that for a multitude of reasons groundwater experts concluded that was impossible. Worse, we had one engineer with scientific training do a 'study' that ostensibly claimed the risks of the pipeline were being underestimated, but in fact contradicted most of the claims made by most of the pipeline opponents. And this is where I think leftist denialism is most at fault. Highly educated liberals who know their own side's arguments are fallacious may not use them, but they will refrain from contradicting them. This post claims that leftists will change their views in repines to contrary evidence, but who is going to provide them with that evidence?
Another area of leftist denialism is w.r.t. genetic modification, where (more in Europe than here) the left has greatly exaggerated the risks. And one sees it in the US in the embrace of wildly unlikely and/or exaggerated theories about the effects of pollutants - for example, BPA. Most leftist scientists know how to do rational risk assessment, and can spot tendentious data analysis, but they're strangely silent on the subject. Another area is the tendency, even when against the preponderance of the evidence, to take the nurture side in virtually any nature/nurture debate.
However, the one area where leftists have conservatives beaten is smugness. It never fails to amuse me that a BS in English has no problem calling a Harvard Ph.D. in the hard sciences a 'smart idiot'. I'm inclined to reciprocate, but omitting the adjective.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | March 1, 2012 7:28 PM
Well said and ever so appropriate for Hot Heads>
More bad news for AGW theory.
http://www.kaltesonne.de/
Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet
by: Fritz Vahrenholt
I trust you'll be pleasantly enraged.
I am hoping along with you, ovewrwash12. Technology can do wonders, but it can also be a double edged sword.
I would like to add to what Neapolitan said. There are two strong entities that would love to see all the sea ice disappear. Global shippers and and the oil industry would love to see the sea ice disappear. The oil industry knows how to make the sea ice disappear quicker and make more money in the process. Not to mention the potential money they will make when the sea ice does disappear. As long as the oil industry has its world wide political clout, I would not expect to see any other technologies help to mitigate the rising CO2 levels. The oil industries do not want alternative energy sources becoming the mainstay of our energy needs now. I would go so far as to venture and say that if the oil industries also controlled the alternative energy industries, that we would be seeing a lot more alternative energy sources being used now. ;-)
No need to do that. Instead, I will demonstrate why the line of attack you are using isn't taken seriously by the knowledgeable...and is roundly laughed at by those with a sense of humor.
Let's indeed start with 1998, using HudCRUT3 (the coldest global measure with the least Arctic coverage.) That's as much in your favor as I can make things. So, what does it show? See for yourself.
Oh, noes!! The trend is down 0.005ºC per decade!! Oh, wait. There's an uncertainty of 0.155ºC per decade, plus or minus. That means the trend is 95% likely to be between +0.15ºC per decade and -0.16ºC per decade. IOW, There is no statistical significance to this "trend."
Anyone claiming that there has been no warming since any date in the last thirty years is either displaying profound innumeracy or is simply lying.
Should someone start dumping crude oil on your property, what would be your thinking?
A leftist would make them clean it up and to stop dumping on their property.
A rightist would tell the dumpers that they owe him dumping fees and would even sign an agreement to never sue the dumpers. No matter if the property owner's grandkids suffered disabilities linked to the dumped oil because the grandkids played on their property. The property owners knew better than to let the grandkids play there. The grandkids should sue their grandparents!
Someone starts strip mining next to your property and contaminates your property and surface water. What would be your thinking?
A leftist would sue because their crops and livestock failed due to the contamination.
A rightist would say that this is just the chances you take with any financial endeavor. You should have planned your business better, Loser!
I could give you nearly limitless examples to use, but you do get the point?
Common sense is not anywhere near as common as what one would first suspect that it would be! One should be more apt to believe that people are willing to be extremely stupid, if pays them well enough!
Really?
You're a very naughty troll, nymore!! LOL
Yes, I am deeply offended by polar ice caps and have been plotting their demise for years.
Fortunately, AGW has saved me considerable trouble, though it's a bit slower than my plan.
No, I'm mostly bored. Politics boards abound on the internet. Try posting that stuff there where it belongs.
The Arctic ice cap is soon to be cut down to part-time.
The Antarctic probably isn't going to last as long as most think at this point.
What's probably going on is that you've left out the 2σ confidence. What do you want to bet that if they were included there would be no problem? That's the common denialist tactic in these situations. ;^D
Your claim was that "they {satellites} show no warming since 1995." Obviously you were wrong. UAH shows warming. You only bring up statistical significance now to try to distract from the fact that your claim has been refuted.
Next time, if you mean "statistically significant warming" then say so. ;^P
(EDIT: I should have stated that RSS also shows warming.)
Dr. Rood and the rest of you guys have a way of throwing a bunch of stuff out there to suggest that the AGW case has a leg to stand on. It doesn't. Let me sum up the status of it for your.
The Earth appeared to be warming up rapidly. We believed it might have something to do with man caused discharges of CO2. We came up with theories, models and data that seemed to fit what we thought was happening. Now the models don't seem to be working very well and the latest data doesn't seem to support the rapid warming we thought was happening. It even appears that some of the data was incorrect, maybe even distorted by some of our scientists.
We still wants grants and money. So we will stick with our story as long as we can get away with it.
That "bunch of stuff"...yeah, they're called facts. Many people, hopefully most, prefer them to fairy tales.
No, the Earth was --and is-- warming. That is a fact that is beyond any rational doubt. Irrational doubts (and doubters) are never in short supply. However, they can be summarily dismissed because...well, they're irrational. :^)
No belief to it. Physics tells us that that must be so. It is also attested to by many lines of independent evidence.
Again, wrong. "We" came up with hypotheses and models and tested them against observation. Turns out we have a reasonably good handle on what the problem is, where it came from, and very generally what is going to happen. However, nothing is science is perfect --ever. Trading on tiny uncertainty and imperfection isn't the mark of someone after truth and accuracy. It is a sure sign that someone is trying to deceive those who don't know science generally and AGW science in particular.
That's utter nonsense that is totally disconnected from reality. That reality is that the models have done pretty well. Again, not perfect but well enough.
Where the models don't do perfectly is actually good news for scientists. It tells them where they can learn something new.
That is a malicious lie. I'll say it again. That is a malicious lie. Further, I challenge you to post any credible evidence whatsoever that that is the case. You can't.
All you can provide is out of context quotes and naked assertions with no facts to back them up. Misunderstanding is one thing, but libeling people is odious and under-handed
See? This is how I can tell that you don't know how to think critically. The truth is, if AGW was wrong there would be even more grant money. Some would be to find out just what the hell really is going on with climate. Some to find out why 150 years of physics is wrong. And some to do things I can't even think of! LOL
But feel free to enjoy your fairy-tales if they make you feel better. I'll only bother you when you attempt to palm them off as reality.
A bit of good news from Washington (you don't see that everyday) with many more informative links.
I've used the pictures in Climate Change lectures as it appears to be something that people can relate to.
Do you deny that there has been no statistical warming over the last 12-15 years?
Do you deny that the mainstream warmest models didn't predict that in the context of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
Do you really deny, based on Climategate E-mails, that there weren't attempts by warmest scientists to keep skeptic articles from seeing daylight and that there weren't modifications and adjustments made to critical data to get a better fit to graphs that warmists presented to the public to "prove" their case?
If you can deny the above, discussion with you is pointless.
Keep on believing what you wish. Over the next months and years more and more of your arguments will vaporize.
I have said it before and I say it again, in a few years this blog will disappear because of lack of interest.
I see you want it both ways when the graph you posted showed cooling since 1998 the margin of error comes into play, when you post a graph showing warming than you get upset when I bring the margin of error up.
You know and I know there has been no warming outside the margin of error in 16 years and counting. I don't believe that was predicted.
You posted it. It wasn't a quote of someone else. It was you.
Also, that statement is not contained within the article SkS. You are making things up.
Again, you are making things up. That should come as no surprise to anyone since you've admitted that you are a troll. Any problem you have about that graph is yours. Had you said "no statistically significant warming" instead of simply "no warming" you wouldn't be so embarrassed that you would have to make things up. Next time, state what you mean clearly.
What you believe is both irrelevant and wrong. It so happens that only twice in the history of the UAH data has a 17-year period based on calendar years displayed statistically significant warming. That occurred in both 1991 - 2007 and 1992 - 2008. The rest of the time there was no statistically significant warming or cooling.
That means in 14 of the 16 periods of 17 years that we can test for at this point, the warming failed to be statistically significant.
I trust that you now will adjust your belief on this issue. LOL
Viewing: 151 - 201
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index