Researchers connect earlier spring to climate change

Jun 18, 2014 by Peter Reuell
Andrew Richardson, an associate professor of organismic and evolutionary biology, and research associate Trevor Keenan merged research from satellite imagery, on-the-ground observations, and instrument towers to create a richly detailed picture that shows spring starting earlier — and a growing season lasting longer — than at any point in the past two decades. Credit: Trevor Keenan

Every spring, as the weather warms, trees up and down the East Coast explode in a display of bright green life as leaves fill their branches, and every fall, the same leaves provide one of nature's great color displays of vivid yellow, orange, and red.

Thanks to , the timing of those events has shifted over the last two decades, Harvard scientists say.

Andrew Richardson, an associate professor of organismic and evolutionary biology, and research associate Trevor Keenan worked with colleagues from seven different institutions on a study that found that forests throughout the eastern United States are showing signs of spring growth dramatically earlier, and that the in some areas extends further into the fall. The expanded growing season, they say, has enabled forests to store as much as 26 million metric tons more CO2 than before. The work is described in a June 1 paper published in Nature Climate Change.

"What we find in this paper is an increase in the growing season of forests in the eastern U.S. due to recent climate change," Keenan said. "This has been beneficial for forests in the past, but we do not expect the response to continue unchecked in the future. It must also be kept in mind that this positive effect of warming is but one amid a barrage of detrimental impacts of climate change on the Earth's ecosystems."

The fact that forests can store more carbon is a good thing, but both Keenan and Richardson warned that it's far from so good as to cancel the potential devastation of climate change.

"Yes, 26 million metric tons is a lot of carbon, but it's still small when compared to fossil fuel emissions," Richardson said.

"And climate change isn't just about warmer temperatures. It's also about changes in precipitation patterns … so in the future, an earlier spring might not help forests take up more carbon if they end up running out of water in mid-summer."

The research integrated information from three sources: satellite imagery, on-the-ground observations, and instrument towers.

By collecting data across different scales, Keenan was able to capture both a regional picture of the eastern forest—which stretches along the seaboard from Maine to Georgia, and as far inland as Wisconsin—and a more granular measurement of individual sites.

Using satellite data, Keenan tracked when forests across the region began to green in the spring, and when leaves began to turn in the fall. Ground observations made every three to seven days at the Harvard Forest in Petersham and at a long-term research site in New Hampshire provided information about the state of buds, leaves, and branches.

When combined with records from instrument towers, the data sets allowed the researchers to paint a richly detailed picture that shows spring starting earlier, and a growing season lasting longer than at any point in the past two decades.

"Basically, we showed that there are three different ways of looking at this, and they all show the same result—spring is getting earlier," Richardson said. "When you look at the patterns across both space and time, and year-to-year at individual sites, and when you look across different species, the same patterns hold up … that gives us confidence that there's something going on."

Another important result, Richardson said, was the discovery of a significant source of error in existing computer models on how ecosystems work. It turns out that these models don't properly reflect how spring and autumn temperatures control the start and end of the growing season.

"What that means is if you run these models forward 100 years, they won't be accurate," he said. "This shows an opportunity to improve the models and how they simulate how forests will work under future climate scenarios."

The real power of the findings, however, may be in helping make the effects of climate change more tangible to the public, the researchers said.

"If you tell people the leaves are going to start coming out in mid-April, and it used to be in early May, that's something people can relate to more easily than describing temperature-change records," Richardson said. "People are just inherently fascinated by the passing of the seasons and weather, and how those two are connected."

Explore further: Natural response to slow global warming increases forest carbon uptake

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Plant phenologists ask, "You call this spring?"

May 05, 2014

After a harsh winter and an April reluctant to warm, New Englanders are keeping their eyes peeled for signs of a lasting spring. Among them is Elizabeth Wolkovich, a Harvard assistant professor of organismic ...

Recommended for you

Pharmaceuticals and the water-fish-osprey food web

6 hours ago

Ospreys do not carry significant amounts of human pharmaceutical chemicals, despite widespread occurrence of these chemicals in water, a recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Baylor University study finds. ...

User comments : 88

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tedo
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 18, 2014
How odd. Spring was several weeks late this year; nothing to do with Marmota monax getting dragged out of hibernation in February.

Just how the seasons cycle over decades, though some scientists believe the oceanic circulation oscillations may have some influence.

So, just a guess; only the last couple of decades are used in this analysis? Did anyone bother to check Chinese, Japanese or English notes back a few centuries? Or even Thomas Jefferson's rather fastidious note keeping or Benjamin Franklin's astute observations?

Somehow, I seriously doubt it. The research announcements are very anti-CO2.

Was there any actual research into a CO2 tie into the supposed spring season advancement?
Or corresponding research into Fall season delay?
Perhaps some silly verifications and actual correlations? Or is this just assumed?

Final thought; I registered just so I could leave a comment on a very narrow and suspected biased research announcement.
Is Phys.org intolerant of research doubts?
Unbiased Observer
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 18, 2014
Phys.org is incredibly lax with regards to "Climate Science" and some commenters (as a whole) that respond to this (especially for those that align with the purely anthropogenic group). It took years to ban someone who was issuing deaths threats to anyone who professed even the slightest doubt in the articles posted to this site.

Observations over time indicate that Phys.org has an organizational belief that it tends to follow over what true scientific inquiry would allow for in articles such as these.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 18, 2014
Phys.org is incredibly lax with regards to "Climate Science" and some commenters (as a whole) that respond to this (especially for those that align with the purely anthropogenic group). It took years to ban someone who was issuing deaths threats to anyone who professed even the slightest doubt in the articles posted to this site.
Observations over time indicate that Phys.org has an organizational belief that it tends to follow over what true scientific inquiry would allow for in articles such as these.

tedo, welcome.
There's a lot that disagree with the above.
Yes, some have gone too far (both sides) but generally the comments are civil, though with exasperation spilling over to annoyance at the repeated mythic and non-scientific spamming that, though the writer has been told often and linked to the peer reviewed science, a certain "ideological" preconception prevents them from "listening".
It just follows peer-reviewed science - and there's little from the "opposing" side.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (19) Jun 18, 2014
How odd. Spring was several weeks late this year; nothing to do with Marmota monax getting dragged out of hibernation in February.
Interestingly enough, the only area where spring was several weeks late was the eastern US. Can I venture a guess as to where you live?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 18, 2014
Climate changes.
Adapt.
Is Phys.org intolerant of research doubts?

Yes.
supamark23
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2014
Climate changes.
Adapt.


You're an idiot. Please post something new, we all know you don't believe in, or understand any of the science behind, AGW.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (23) Jun 18, 2014
I notice the 'liberals' are leaving out the anthropogenic part of 'climate change'.
Why?
Climate has been changing for thousands of years.
The AGWites blame humans for recent climate change, and have tried to hide previous climate changes they can't attribute to humans, Mann's hokey schtick.
So, come physorg, be honest and assert that spring is coming earlier because of humans. That is the intent of all your stories and why you allow fellow travelers to violate your rules.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 18, 2014
"Snow is falling over the higher elevations, as an upper-level low swirls over the Northern Rockies. Alta, Utah reported nine inches of snow on Tuesday, which makes it their third highest one-day snowfall total in June. "
http://www.weathe...20140616

Tornado season in the upper midwest used to begin the first week or so of June.
Now we see tornadoes in Nebraska a week or two later.
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 18, 2014
I notice the 'liberals' are leaving out the anthropogenic part of 'climate change'.
Why?
Climate has been changing for thousands of years.
The AGWites blame humans for recent climate change, and have tried to hide previous climate changes they can't attribute to humans, Mann's hokey schtick.
So, come physorg, be honest and assert that spring is coming earlier because of humans. That is the intent of all your stories and why you allow fellow travelers to violate your rules.


Really? because I used it in the post above this one.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 18, 2014
"Snow is falling over the higher elevations, as an upper-level low swirls over the Northern Rockies. Alta, Utah reported nine inches of snow on Tuesday, which makes it their third highest one-day snowfall total in June. "
http://www.weathe...20140616

Tornado season in the upper midwest used to begin the first week or so of June.
Now we see tornadoes in Nebraska a week or two later.


err so?
what's this to do with AGW?

If you have any idea that is.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (19) Jun 18, 2014
Climate changes.
Adapt.
Is Phys.org intolerant of research doubts?

Yes.


As I said.....
"It just follows peer-reviewed science - and there's little from the "opposing" side."
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 18, 2014
The purpose of 'peer reviewed' 'science' is to sell AGWism?

"The real power of the findings, however, may be in helping make the effects of climate change more tangible to the public, the researchers said."
runrig
4.6 / 5 (19) Jun 18, 2014
The purpose of 'peer reviewed' 'science' is to sell AGWism?

"The real power of the findings, however, may be in helping make the effects of climate change more tangible to the public, the researchers said."

The purpose of peer-reviewed science is to advance the cause of science, whatever the subject of the science.
Only in deniers' eyes is there an agenda.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2014
My car won't start. Must be because of climate change.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Jun 18, 2014
My car won't start. Must be because of climate change.

As in the case of AGW....

If you say so.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (22) Jun 18, 2014
My car won't start. Must be because of climate change.

As in the case of AGW....

If you say so.


Yes, that about sums up the qualifications for claiming present events are caused by 1*c rise as compared to one century ago,.... if someone says so.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 18, 2014
How odd. Spring was several weeks late this year; nothing to do with Marmota monax getting dragged out of hibernation in February.
Interestingly enough, the only area where spring was several weeks late was the eastern US. Can I venture a guess as to where you live?

Well the AGW "science" would say he does not live in the globe if AGW hasn't reached there.
Right Maggnus.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2014
Only in deniers' eyes is there an agenda.

The 'researchers' of this paper must have an agenda.

From the article:
"The real power of the findings, however, may be in helping make the effects of climate change more tangible to the public, the researchers said."
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 18, 2014
Hey riggy, the AGW Cult's peer review is what gave us Mann's Hockey Stick.
Trust me, that's the last thing you should be boasting about.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2014
Hey riggy, the AGW Cult's peer review is what gave us Mann's Hockey Stick.
Trust me, that's the last thing you should be boasting about.

Correct, and it also gave us Muller's..... And all the others that have near identical shapes.

Trust me it's one of many dead horses you're flogging.
Go and cheer with the rest of the fan-boys on WUWT.
They believe you, most don't, especially those that matter.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2014
Only in deniers' eyes is there an agenda.

The 'researchers' of this paper must have an agenda.

From the article:
"The real power of the findings, however, may be in helping make the effects of climate change more tangible to the public, the researchers said."

Keep up ryggy.....
Didn't you know it's accepted science?

The world's moved on my friend, and like all deniers, you've got left behind.

You and your like's sad denial of empirical science does not usurp the science experts, no matter how many quotes from Dyson are posted here, or the other mythic rubbish..... Oh, how about 'Climategate' - you've not peddled that for a bit - must be time again surely?
Because as we know there'll be no peer-reviewed science to support you.
Cue 'pal-review' and 'grant-chasing' and/or 'socialist conspiracy'.
Go and hug your TP mates and plot the next safe seat you can put in more reactionary hands.
Now there's a nice friendly Troll.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 18, 2014
My car won't start. Must be because of climate change.

As in the case of AGW....

If you say so.


Yes, that about sums up the qualifications for claiming present events are caused by 1*c rise as compared to one century ago,.... if someone says so.

No, it's your lot just saying things. That's the whole point and one that never gets through.
One swallow never made a summer and Dyson, Watts, Spencer, or any other contrarian will not sway things without the science ... And as I said there's b##*er all. Sorry, but life sucks sometimes eh?
Science has a century or so of knowledge behind the acceptance of experts in AGW.
The fact that you know 'better' is just a sad comment on the vagaries of human nature when self interests are challenged.
PinkElephant
4.8 / 5 (16) Jun 18, 2014
Only in deniers' eyes is there an agenda.

The 'researchers' of this paper must have an agenda.

From the article:
"The real power of the findings, however, may be in helping make the effects of climate change more tangible to the public, the researchers said."
Of course you ASSume that the researchers volunteered that, unprompted -- as opposed to it being a likely response to a typical question from a journalist, regarding the meaning/importance of the study to the average Joe...
strangedays
4.8 / 5 (18) Jun 18, 2014
@tedo
Is Phys.org intolerant of research doubts?


That seems like a strange question. Physorg simply cuts and pastes interesting articles. This one is from the Harvard Gazette. Physorg has a pretty fair set of policy guide lines in terms of comment posting - and seems to exercise very minimal moderation. Great latitude seems to be given to those who violate the comments guidelines. It seems that you are suggesting that physorg is intollerant - for posting science articles. Or perhaps you think that by permitting scientists like runrig to respond to the anti-science noise - they are practicing intollerance.
strangedays
4.8 / 5 (17) Jun 18, 2014
It is very interesting that a quick google search on topics like the usda climate zones - reinforce the science that is telling us that things are warming up - http://usatoday30...787142/1

This article looking at things such as cherry blossom festivals, and fall foliage changes is also very supportive of the science. http://people.bu....ries.pdf
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2014
The deniers are loosing their minds! They are turning into flakes and nuts faster than you can plot the exponential that represents global average temperature to global CO2 changes! Of course spring is arriving earlier, global temperatures from antropogenic CO2/greenhouse gasses have increased just as science has predicted (for decades now).

Science has also predicted the obvious things that happen with rising global temperatures; like melting ices sheets, glaciers, shorter snow lines. Hotter/longer summer highs, drier longer periods of drought, and earlier springs, later falls. And that is with only a few degrees C increase in the global average temperatures. Project in the future if you will, when CO2 is 500ppm and global average temps are 10C about present day!

CO2 has to be stopped at all costs, and the cost burden needs to fall on the 1% that has so richly benefited from the CO2 pollution that they continue to encumber the planet and the people with.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 19, 2014
The 1% eh.
Now, who has really lost their mind.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2014
On 'peer' review:

"SCIENTISTS make much of the fact that their work is scrutinised anonymously by some of their peers before it is published. This "peer review" is supposed to spot mistakes and thus keep the whole process honest. The peers in question, though, are necessarily few in number, are busy with their own work, are expected to act unpaid—and are often the rivals of those whose work they are scrutinising. And so, by a mixture of deliberation and technological pressure, the system is starting to change. The internet means anyone can appoint himself a peer and criticise work that has entered the public domain. And two recent incidents have shown how valuable this can be."
http://www.econom...r-review
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2014

This article looking at things such as cherry blossom festivals, and fall foliage changes is also very supportive of the science....


It is why AGW alarmism has no credibility and is politicay dangerous to liberty ,... because too many stupid people believe that cherry blossoms and fall foliage are effected now by AGW and that hurricanes are 5 mph faster because of AGW etc,... because of 1*C increase as compared to a century ago.

This is scientifically UNFOUNDED propaganda spoon fed to neophytes and other senseless half-wits, to establish a sense of urgency which is the only way the political left can convince the masses to accept government control of their lives and the market.

And i'm actually someone who does NOT reject the core science.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2014
CO2 has to be stopped at all costs, and the cost burden needs to fall on the 1% that has so richly benefited from the CO2 pollution that they continue to encumber the planet and the people with.


Another niave know-nothing AGW enthusiasts, who will believe anything told because "it's science". You CAN'T just "stop CO2 at all costs". We, the world, WILL continue to burn CO2 based energy until a replacement exists that does NOT effect economies. In fact we are even accelerating the consumption of CO2 despute all the alarmism rhetoric.

It is a catch twenty-two,... economies have to be strong to afford the transistion, if no alternative is found that can be as cheap and effocient as coal and oil.

Also, realize that countries like China are NOT going to voluntarily stunt their own economy because of AGW,... especially when western economies are competing,... they would just as well assume that the west shots itself in the foot by being green and reap the advatage of that.

Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2014
the cost burden needs to fall on the 1% that has so richly benefited from the CO2 pollution that they continue to encumber the planet and the people with.


Do you understand math, or had you lost your mind with all the AGW propaganada crammed down your face? 1) You would have to change the form of government fundamentally to achieve the theft and mass redistribution of wealth that implies, 2) there isn't enough 1%'ers to even make a dent is existing gov waste, and they already have over 50% taken in taxes, 3) every human being who has a modern standard of living has benefted by the use of CO2 energy,... so it's gibberish that "THEY [the 1%'ers] continue to encumber the plane" with pollution. It NOT the evil oil companies,... the supply,... it's the demand.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (17) Jun 19, 2014
It is why AGW alarmism has no credibility and is politicay dangerous to liberty ,... because too many stupid people believe that cherry blossoms and fall foliage are effected now by AGW and that hurricanes are 5 mph faster because of AGW etc,... because of 1*C increase as compared to a century ago.

Noumen
We cant legislate against intelligence, as this site proves. To say we keep things quiet because some jump to conclusions is bizarre IMO.
And, BTW, what you said is correct, increased LH release will increase winds in tropical storms (I cannot quantify).
You say you understand the core physics, why not that?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2014
Do you understand math, or had you lost your mind with all the AGW propaganada crammed down your face? 1) You would have to change the form of government fundamentally to achieve the theft and mass redistribution of wealth that implies

I fundamentally disagree with this. The science is the science and others take over the "propaganda" if it exists, and no one is saying drop fossil at all costs as in unthinkingly. Just move on to sustainables as quickly as the economics allows.
Also it is not theft if money is taken by tax to fix the problem. If you caused damage to a jointly owned property (even by simply doing unbidden harm) then the other joint owners would naturally want redress (I would, and I do as a global victim of AGW) - yes we are all victims and villains in this as we acquiesced, and, as it's a global problem there needs to be a globally organised response. ryggy baby will jump in here - but where will his "if people talk it's socialism" so it's evil take us?
strangedays
5 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2014
@Noumenon
It is why AGW alarmism has no credibility and is politicay dangerous to liberty


I am not sure what you mean by AGW alarmism - it would seem prudent to look at the science - and to listen to the scientists. If you look at what cities like Beijing are dealing with - and statistics like the WHO reporting that 7 million people die each year as a result of air pollution - http://www.thegua...e-a-year - surely it is important for us to pay attention to our atmosphere - and to understand it the best we can. I am not a neophyte, but I am not a trained scientist. I think we should look to the trained scientists - the ones studying the climate to keep us informed. It seems clear to me that they are telling us that we have a problem, and that you do reject the core science - and then insult people who disagree with you.
strangedays
5 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2014
@ Noumenon
We, the world, WILL continue to burn CO2 based energy until a replacement exists that does NOT effect economies


Of course we will continue to burn FF. Science (such as reported by this site every day) is working feverishly to make that replacement available to us. It looks like solar will be on parity with coal in just a couple of years

http://www.realcl...851.html

All indicators are that science will continue to develop cheaper and cheaper renewables (google perovskite), and the age of fossils comes to an end.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2014
It is why AGW alarmism has no credibility and is [politically] dangerous to liberty


I am not sure what you mean by AGW alarmism - it would seem prudent to look at the science - and to listen to the scientists.


Exagerated claims of present effect or accuracy. Climate scientists are not the ones deciding on solutions nor government policy.

It seems clear to me that they are telling us that we have a problem, and that you do reject the core science - and then insult people who disagree with you.


I agree that sending tons of CO2 into the air will likely have an effect (which may include positive effects as well as negative) and that there is a legitimate question about the rate of natural carbon sequestration.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2014
@ Noumenon
We, the world, WILL continue to burn CO2 based energy until a replacement exists that does NOT effect economies


Of course we will continue to burn FF. Science (such as reported by this site every day) is working feverishly to make that replacement available to us. It looks like solar will be on parity with coal in just a couple of years

http://www.realcl...851.html

All indicators are that science will continue to develop cheaper and cheaper renewables (google perovskite), and the age of fossils comes to an end.


Great.
Noumenon
1.1 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2014
The science is the science and others take over the "propaganda" if it exists,


Whether it's from politicians or from climate scientists, scientifically unfounded exaggerations, are scientifically unfounded exaggerations.

and no one is saying drop fossil at all costs as in unthinkingly.

just quoted howhot saying "CO2 has to be stopped at all costs" and there are many like him/her.
Just move on to sustainables as quickly as the economics allows.

As as quickly as energy tech in the market allows, yes.

Also it is not theft if money is taken by tax to fix the problem.

You can't single out certain people for being responsible for certain problems.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2014
7 million people die each year as a result of air pollution

Based upon what data?
The EPA has no data to support its assertions for clean air.
I think clean air is a good idea, but when the 'experts' use secret data, how can they be trusted?
"Virtually every major EPA air-quality regulation under President Obama has been justified by citing two sets of decades-old data from the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study II. The EPA uses the data to establish an association between fine-particulate emissions and mortality."
"The data in question have not been subjected to scrutiny and analysis by independent scientists. And the EPA does not subject its cost-benefit claims to peer review. This means we have no way of evaluating the quality of the science being used to justify the agency's claims."
http://online.wsj...08231682
strangedays
5 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2014
@Noumenon
Whether it's from politicians or from climate scientists, scientifically unfounded exaggerations, are scientifically unfounded exaggerations.


Your term 'scientifically unfounded exaggerations' is very loaded, and very telling about your bias. If a model predicts a category 5 hurricane, which does not materialize, do you accuse the metereorology community of exaggeration - or do you understand that the models have limitations? Many people keep harping on the failures of the climate models. As Runrig keeps pointing out - they are still within the error bounds. Even if they were not - they are just models - and scientists are working with a highly complex system - and refining the models as new data comes available. The fact is that the models said the system was going to warm, and it is warming.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2014
If a model predicts a category 5 hurricane, which does not materialize, do you accuse the metereorology community of exaggeration


Yes.
Unless they stress the limitations on the predictions at ALL times.
The fact is that the models said the system was going to warm, and it is warming.

Climate has been warming for 10,000+ years. North America used to be covered in ice.
scientists are working with a highly complex system

Yes, and they can predict 'disaster' in 100 years with no uncertainty?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2014
just quoted howhot saying "CO2 has to be stopped at all costs" and there are many like him/her.


The relevant word was "unthinkingly"

"Just move on to sustainables as quickly as the economics allows".

As as quickly as energy tech in the market allows, yes.


No otherwise the economies os scale wouldn't occur. There has to be a measure of subsidy to get the tech onto a footing wherby supply/demad will drive down prices. Again just common sense.

"Also it is not theft if money is taken by tax to fix the problem".

You can't single out certain people for being responsible for certain problems.


Yes you can ........... it's ALL of us.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2014

Climate has been warming for 10,000+ years. North America used to be covered in ice.
scientists are working with a highly complex system


FFS ryggy, you are a Human being and not a parrot. Try thinking and not parroting.

.... You missed off "there were no SUV's then"

Yes, and they can predict 'disaster' in 100 years with no uncertainty?


There's plenty of uncertainty in the SCALE OF THE DISASTER.
strangedays
5 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2014
Yes.
Unless they stress the limitations on the predictions at ALL times.


Where I live - when the weather channel shows us the predicted track of a hurricane - they never stress the limitations - we are intelligent enough to understand that. Often they will show us different tracks - based on different models. We are intelligent enough to infer from this process that the models are not telling us with 100% certainty what is going to happen - just what a computer model is outputting. Often when a storm is approaching - meteorologists do the same thing - show us different outputs of different models. As I say - we are intelligent enough to infer that the meteorologists understand that they are not giving us any certainties - just outputs from models with limitations. We all still watch the weather forecasts.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2014
Yes.
Unless they stress the limitations on the predictions at ALL times.


Where I live - when the weather channel shows us the predicted track of a hurricane - they never stress the limitations - we are intelligent enough to understand that. Often they will show us different tracks - based on different models. We are intelligent enough to infer from this process that the models are not telling us with 100% certainty what is going to happen - just what a computer model is outputting. Often when a storm is approaching - meteorologists do the same thing - show us different outputs of different models. As I say - we are intelligent enough to infer that the meteorologists understand that they are not giving us any certainties - just outputs from models with limitations. We all still watch the weather forecasts.

Precisely .... but you have to remember it's ryggy talking. Special limitations apply.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2014
Precisely .... but you have to remember it's ryggy talking. Special limitations apply.


Yep, his little anti-science view of everything must be shaking pretty hard with all of the evidence and all of the political calls for action on climate change.

I especially like this recent bit:
A poll out Wednesday by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News found that while Obama's popularity is down to 41 percent, matching a previous low, a majority of Americans agree with him on climate change.
More than six in 10 of the 1,000 Americans surveyed said action is needed against climate change, and 57 percent said they would favor a proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions even if it meant higher energy bills.
I think it is telling that this comes from an article discussing how every Republican EPA chief since Nixon is calling for the US Congress to act on the evidence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2014
- when the weather channel shows us the predicted track of a hurricane - they never stress the limitations


Yes, they did. They showed the various tracks.

Parroting is stating the obvious that the climate has been warming for over 10,000 years?

It's the AGWites that continue to parrot the 'Chicken Little' line.

Republican EPA chief

The Road to Serfdom was dedicated to socialists of all parties, including Republicans.

Who believes Nixon was a free market, limited government conservative?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2014
Yes, they did. They showed the various tracks.
Oh, you mean like error bars being included in every single modelling attempt that is done on climate?

Parroting is stating the obvious that the climate has been warming for over 10,000 years?

It's the AGWites that continue to parrot the 'Chicken Little' line.
Complete bunkum. Not worth the time needed to write it.

The Road to Serfdom was dedicated to socialists of all parties, including Republicans.

Who believes Nixon was a free market, limited government conservative?
More of the same looney tune garbage that permeates almost every post you make. You're a denialist loon, and a mentally diseased nutcase. Crawl back under the garbage heap that you spawned from.
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2014
Yes, they did. They showed the various tracks.


Then what are you whining about? They have models - the models are based on best data available - we are aware of the limitations of the models - we still understand the importance of the models. Beats flipping a coin right?. Same thing with hurricane predictions. They got it horribly wrong with Katrina - but the scientists did not throw the baby out with the bath water.
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2014
From Rygg
Climate has been warming for 10,000+ years. North America used to be covered in ice.


I wonder if any one can support this phrase - that is tossed around so loosely. I did a quick google on temp data for the past 10,000 years - and it seems that this statement is inaccurate. Here was one hit.

http://tamino.wor...picture/

Sure seems that on a science site - accuracy of information is very under valued.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2014
Parroting is stating the obvious that the climate has been warming for over 10,000 years?


ryggy.....
I'll give you a clue - it's the dT/dt that the problem and the fact that it's GHG's causing it.

oh and ....
" the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...ene.html
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 19, 2014
They got it horribly wrong with Katrina - but the scientists did not throw the baby out with the bath water.

And 7 years later forecast Sandy with remarkable accuracy one week out.

http://www.scient...m-sandy/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Jun 19, 2014
the fact that it's GHG's causing it.

All based upon THE CLIMATE MODEL which does not and cannot account for all variables.
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2014
Which climate model @R2? CMIP3, 2, 1, WCRP, PCMDI, the GCMD's, or the 20 to 30 others that where used to make this graph?

http://ukclimatep...g2.4.png

There is a statistical process called clustering in all of these models that will most likely be what happens. Computer modeling also has a feedback system in that the more people are aware of what the data predicts, the more they will try to change that outcome (at least you hope there is a survival instinct). You hope the rate of temperature rise flattens out do to intervention and people correcting the problem. (It can be done. We banned all CFCs and the ozone hole actually returned to normal. Unfortunately with CO2, it stays with us for 1000s of years, the sooner we stop the better).

Unfortunately, I think this heads us right on to global extinction in the 2200s do to the intransigents of mindless conservatives cowards and antiscience dim bulbs!



thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2014
the fact that it's GHG's causing it.

All based upon THE CLIMATE MODEL which does not and cannot account for all variables.


Only trivial models account for all variables. That does not make all models useless.

Just for historical purposes, why don't you tell what you have modeled in your life?

Was that modeling exercise helpful?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Jun 20, 2014
That does not make all models useless.

That depends upon the purpose of the model.
If you intend to use the model to destroy an economy, you had better be damn sure about the model.
global extinction in the 2200s

People like you have been saying this for thousands of years.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2014
Rygg said
That does not make all models useless.

That depends upon the purpose of the model.
If you intend to use the model to destroy an economy, you had better be damn sure about the model.
global extinction in the 2200s

People like you have been saying this for thousands of years.


Trying to change the subject again.

Please answer the question. Have you ever built a computer model and if so, what did you model and what did you learn?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2014
Yes, I have built computer models and have learned they are limited by the algorithm and by the computer itself. Computers are digital, not analog.

Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 20, 2014
Yes, I have built computer models and have learned they are limited by the algorithm and by the computer itself. Computers are digital, not analog.

You know, you don't have to lie Ryyg. You can say no, and that would be fine. That you make a statement like this one and then expect any acceptance of anything you have to say is the height of absurdity.

That you don't understand modelling is already apparent by the comments you make. You lie about it because you think that would somehow equate to your being taken less seriously. That's hilarious because you cannot not BE taken less seriously! As for this:
That depends upon the purpose of the model.
If you intend to use the model to destroy an economy, you had better be damn sure about the model.
It probably surprises you that I agree. The problem with you is, you cannot see that it is not just "models". Your religious-like clinging to simplistic talking points and anti-everyone diatribes is what makes you a loon!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
Your religious-like clinging to simplistic talking points

You mean the AGWites simplistic talking points : "The world is coming to an end if you don't do as we say."?

"Most important, and most difficult to learn, systems thinking requires
understanding that all models are wrong and humility about the limitations of our knowledge.
Such humility is essential in creating an environment in which we can learn about the complex
systems in which we are embedded and work effectively to create the world we truly desire."
System Dynamics Review Vol. 18, No. 4, (Winter 2002): 501–531
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
You mean the AGWites simplistic talking points : "The world is coming to an end if you don't do as we say."?
Utter bullshit. There are changes coming as a result of what we , as a species, are doing to this planet with our industries. The evidence suggests they could be very bad, but likely will only be bad. We should do something to try and lessen the impact. That's it loon, no "world coming to an end".

"Most important, and most difficult to learn, systems thinking requires
understanding that all models are wrong and humility about the limitations of our knowledge.
Such humility is essential in creating an environment in which we can learn about the complex
systems in which we are embedded and work effectively to create the world we truly desire."
System Dynamics Review Vol. 18, No. 4, (Winter 2002): 501–531
A quote mine. It doesn't say what you think it says.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
The evidence suggests they could be very bad, but likely will only be bad.


"on May 4, the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) issued its third National Climate Assessment (NCA), a collection of imagined future climate catastrophes and disasters for every section of the country. Its purpose is to convince the public that only quick action to cut emissions of carbon dioxide could avert these horrible events. "
"NCA report ambles on about rising rates of heat waves, droughts, floods, severe weather, hurricanes, etc. "
""Artificially raising the price of energy is the same thing as impoverishing the American People. It is shocking and disgusting that our government would intentionally pursue this goal, particularly without any scientific basis whatsoever." "
http://www.americ...oom.html
strangedays
5 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
From Ryggy -
If you intend to use the model to destroy an economy, you had better be damn sure about the model.


Except that of course - no one is trying to use any models to destroy any economies. When such a bizarrely stupid statement is made - the author clearly is not aware of the perception they then project of totally lunacy. Ryggy goes on to cut a paste a quote, that shows an additional angle to this lunacy.

Most important, and most difficult to learn, systems thinking requires
understanding that all models are wrong.


Of course - if you understand that 'all models are wrong' - you know that you cannot be 'damn sure' about a model. That is a basic logical error.

Of course - the main idea behind developing renewable energy is to find cheap, infinite energy sources, that can power our economies into the future. Very insightful of the people with vision who are doing this important work. Guess Ryggy want to continue choking our world with coal.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2014
no one is trying to use any models to destroy any economies.


'Well, we can't say we weren't warned. This week, the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency released a set of proposed rules designed to target greenhouse gas emissions. If enacted, these rules would virtually destroy the coal industry - just as President Obama once promised he would do."
"Rich people will be able to pay those extra costs, though they may gripe about it. But middle-class households will see a rise in their energy bills that will put them in even greater financial distress than they already are under in this abysmal "recovery." Poor and working-class people will be especially hurt, of course, as is almost always the case when wealthy pencil-pushers hatch a brilliant plan to "save the planet.""
http://www.washin...romised/
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2014
Again - no one is using a model to destroy an economy. Your cut and paste in no way shows that there is an attempt to destroy and economy. Of course we need regulation to keep our air breathable. The reason we have high quality air, and China does not - is because past administrations passed legislation like the clean air act. We are also developing alternative energy - to be ready as a replacement for the use of high pollution coal. Solar panels are just a couple of years away from being as cheap as coal - thanks to the foresight of those working in the renewable energy world. http://www.greent...han-Coal

No one is using models to destroy economies.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
Yes, I have built computer models and have learned they are limited by the algorithm and by the computer itself. Computers are digital, not analog.


Rygg2: Thank you for answering my question. Your answer is a good one and if you don't mind, I would like to explore it a bit. What you have answered is usually taught in the first hour of a course on numerical methods. Knowing the limitations of every tool is a first step toward using it correctly. However, the professional users of any tool are taught how to get the most out of their tools. I am going to break your statement into two parts to examine.

First, the statement:
...limited by the algorithm...


Do you know which algorithms they use in the bowels of these GCMs?

The reason I ask is that companies earn their money by designing algorithms that meet the needs of the consumer. When they design the algorithms they have manuals that describe the behavior and discuss the trade-off between parameters. Cont
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
Continued: For instance, an algorithm may sacrifice speed for precision. Or, an algorithm may use parallel architecture which sacrifices capital cost for precision and speed. So, you are correct that the choice of algorithm is important but I do not know why you associate the algorithm choice with impossibility when, I don't think you know what algorithms they are using. As an example, I could use a Runge-Kutta approach to solving a differential equation and my choice is to determine which version, how many iterations I want to use, and what level of precision I need. I can use single precision, double precision, and quad precision. I can even use a specialty program and use arbitrary precision or rational numbers. So, what I do is to run a sensitivity analysis to determine what I need for the answer to fall within my range of uncertainty. If I select the right algorithm I can meet my requirements. Then the algorithm is not the limiting factor. Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
Continued: Part of the design of a model is the selection of the algorithms and you are correct, those can be a problem if someone chooses a naive algorithm that does not meet the needs of the problem. However, are you saying that algorithms used are an issue with all of the GCMs and if so, please elaborate on which algorithms you suspect limit the computations in all of the GCMs and what is the magnitude of their impact.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
Rygg2 said:
Computers are digital, not analog.


Please explain how you see this as a weakness?

Is it related to precision?

Is it related to the simultaneous interaction of analog systems?

The digital approach overwhelmed the analog approach by allowing arbitrary precision and giving us repeatability (which does not exist in analog systems). Please share why you see the digital approach as flawed/
TegiriNenashi
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
So, Arctic sea ice extent is currently -0.5 M Km^2. Therefore, conjecture about "springs arriving early" in Northern Hemisphere is believable. However, Antarctic sea ice extent is currently +1.5 M Km^2. Which prompts a simple idea that springs in Southern Hemisphere are most likely late.

P.S. This was rhetorical observation. At this site (and, to be fair, other "popular" venues too) the rate of climate change is measured by sampling butterfly population migrating north, with majority of readers swallowing this BS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2014
Round off error.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2014
Rygg2:
Round off error.


Do you know what the operation with the greatest contribution to round off error is?
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
Your religious-like clinging to simplistic talking points

You mean the AGWites simplistic talking points : "The world is coming to an end if you don't do as we say."?

It's more like this @R2; the world hasn't ended yet! What are you going to do to save it?
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2014
And no climate model yet has any explanation for the Viking Warm period or the Little Ice Age. They are simply ignored. The Earth has been several degrees warmer and several degrees colder than it is now in historical times, and all this is documented. The notion that the Gulf Stream affected Greenland, the Western Scottish Islands, the Eastern Scottish Islands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, and China, all reporting longer growing seasons and earlier spring in the Viking era, is too absurd to consider seriously. Not that I expect rationality to prevail. There are too many grants at stake.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2014
Well look at you Shootist, all coming out of the woodwork to actually participate in the conversation (well almost) instead of just waving sound bites and trollist anti-science canons. You going to stick around to actually discuss some of your misunderstandings this time?

Temperature reconstructions tend to look at average past temperatures, not specific time periods. More than 1,000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other proxy records covering the entire planet are used to try and construct a global map of temperature change in the past 1,500 years. Proxies suggest the MWP saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, including Southern Greenland, Europe, and North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In other regions, including central Asia, southern Europe and other areas, the opposite is true. (see here, for eg http://www.meteo....e09.pdf) cont...
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2014
And no climate model yet has any explanation for the Viking Warm period or the Little Ice Age. They are simply ignored. The Earth has been several degrees warmer and several degrees colder than it is now in historical times, and all this is documented. The notion that the Gulf Stream affected Greenland, the Western Scottish Islands, the Eastern Scottish Islands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, and China, all reporting longer growing seasons and earlier spring in the Viking era, is too absurd to consider seriously. Not that I expect rationality to prevail. There are too many grants at stake.


Sure Shotinfoot: It is all a conspiracy to take your money. They hide the MWP and LIA just to steal your gold. Tighten your tinfoil hat and take an extra dose of your meds and it will all be fine...
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2014
Our best records suggest that the MWP was not global, unlike temperature anomalies today, and in fact, some areas experienced higher cooling than that which was experienced during the LIA.

Some significant research has been done with regards to the temperature fluctuations over the last 2000 or so year, and a major paper was published by the D2K Network (http://www.nature...97.html) which shows that even taking into account some fluctuations (the MWP and LIA are significantly represented in the data) the long term trend was generally cooling. Until the 1900s.

What is of note is that temperatures now are higher than they have been at any point, including the MWP Shootist is so fond of misunderstanding, than they have been over the last 1400 years.

Regardless, Shootist loves to obfuscate the discussion by making his claim:
no climate model yet has any explanation for the Viking Warm period or the Little Ice Age. They are simply ignored.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2014
In fact, they are most definitely not ignored, notwithstanding his fervent desire they be so. Truet et al (2009) (Persistent Positive North Atlantic Oscillation Mode Dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly Valérie Trouet, et al Science 3 April 2009: 324 (5923), 78-80. DOI:10.1126/science.1166349]) looked at the anomaly specifically, finding that the NOA during the 350 or so years that represent the MWP was stuck in a persistent positive mode, thus causing northern hemispheric above norm warming. This, in turn, resulted from an increase in solar output combined with a dearth of volcanic eruption during the same period (Hong et al, 2000) and (Perry and Hsu 2000). There are several more published studies documenting the unusual regional warmth of the area, including Bard et al 1997, Bond et al 2001, Shindell et al, 2001, V Nieto-Moreno et al 2013, LK Cunningham el al, 2012 and so on. The suggestion that it is somehow "ignored" is laughable.
Egleton
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2014
I admire the deniers. Their tactics are straight out of Goebels textbook. (Hitler's propaganda minister)
Fear- "they" are going to get you money. And possibly do your daughter.
Deflection- the warm spell in the middle ages is unexplained
Strawman- models are inaccurate. (Climate scientists don't trust models either, they lean more on historical data.)
Ad hominims- How ofen has Al Gore been offered up as the poster bad boy scientist?
Shifting the debate- They have abandoned their mantra that global warming is not happening, in favour of "we can adapt". (Really- to what, exactly?)
Throwing dust up, any dust-just to keep up the appearance of a "debate".
It is amazing what a few professionals can do with some useful idiots.
http://www.physic...els.html
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2014
Hey Shootist, do you have the ability to consider new evidence. or are you just stuck in denierville? Take a look at this: http://sploid.giz...94349153

Seems like maybe the polar bears are facing some problems?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2014
'Amici curiae are well-qualified climate scientists. Amici include respected professors and scientists who have worked for government agencies, universities, and businesses. These highly regarded scientists have expertise in a wide array of fields implicated by this rulemaking, including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, and engineering. They have many publications in peer-reviewed journals and are respected in their fields of expertise by their peers.
Amici wish to present to this Court scientific data that bear directly on the underlying rulemaking. Specifically, amici submit that EPA's finding of human-caused global warming is not supported by the evidentiary record that was before EPA."
http://sblog.s3.a......2.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2014
"EPA's third line of evidence relies on claims that climate-forecasting models that assume CO2 http://www.epa.go...rment/is a key determinant of climate change can be trusted to provide forecasts of future conditions that are adequate for policy analysis."
"The models on which EPA relied all forecast rising temperatures assuming continued increases in CO2."
"A model is only as good as the accuracy of its forecasts, and these models' forecasts have not been accurate."
"the models EPA relied on as its third line of evidence are invalid. That is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. And, as discussed above, EPA's assumed Greenhouse Gas Fingerprint Theory simply does not comport with the real world. Thus, models based on that theory should never have been expected to be valuable for policy analysis involving an Endagerment Finding that so critically affects American energy, economic, and national security."
Same ref.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2014
"Amici believe that no scientists have devised an empirically validated theory proving that higher atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to higher GAST. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating each of EPA's three lines of evidence, then EPA's assertions that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea-level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods, and droughts are also disproved. Such causality assertions require a validated theory that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST.
Lacking such a validated theory, EPA's conclusions cannot stand. In science, credible empirical data always trumps proposed theories, even if those theories are claimed to (or actually do) represent the current consensus."
http://sblog.s3.a......2.pdf

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2014
"For climate scientists who, by definition, must take a systems perspective, the report is myopic in many regards, missing some key interconnections and history, and instead seeing everything through a climate change "lens." This is not to say that climate change is unimportant, or that human activities are not driving much of this change. But we need an honest assessment of the interplay between the environment, policies, economics, and technology. Our models are not especially good at regional-scale predictions on decadal time scales, but this does not mean that the NCA cannot add value to the decision making process under uncertainty. The challenge is how to use uncertain science to inform these decisions and policies, while recognizing that science cannot provide definitive answers."
http://www.nap.ed...;page=24
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2014
Look everyone! They have released The Loon! The quote mining, denialist, conspiracy claiming, anti-everything Loon! What happened, you forget your meds AGAIN Loon?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2014
NAP => National Academies Press
skyderalerts
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
Geoengineering is bringing the climate change and is changing weather patterns. We need to stop it now! Join Us http://www.skyderalert.com/
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2014
'Amici curiae are well-qualified climate scientists. Amici include respected professors and scientists who have worked for government agencies, universities, and businesses. These highly regarded scientists have expertise in a wide array of fields implicated by this rulemaking, including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, and engineering. They have many publications in peer-reviewed journals and


Uh-huh.

Well then, rygsuckn', how bout you put on your mining togs and present us with a list of this August Body's peer-reviewed publications? And I mean serious peer review, like Nature, APR, and the like --not f^^^ing breitbart.

Time's-a'-wastin', moron!