Is it more fog or less fog that is a sign of global warming and a problem for the Redwoods?
Who is right the National Geographic or The San Francisco Chronicle or are they both wrong like most AGW predictions?
National Geographic reports yesterday:
Declining fog cover on California’s coast could leave the state’s famous redwoods high and dry, a new study says.
Among the tallest and longest-lived trees on Earth, redwoods depend on summertime’s moisture-rich fog to replenish their water reserves.
But climate change may be reducing this crucial fog cover. Though still poorly understood, climate change may be contributing to a decline in a high-pressure climatic system that usually "pinches itself" against the coast, creating fog, said study co-author James Johnstone, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Berkeley.
Last summer the San Francisco Chronicle carried a story about research on fog and climate with a different conclusion:
The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it’s about to get even foggier.
That’s the conclusion of several state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study predicts that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won’t be soaring everywhere.
"There’ll be winners and losers," says Robert Bornstein, a meteorology professor at San Jose State University. "Global warming is warming the interior part of California, but it leads to a reverse reaction of more fog along the coast."
The study, which will appear in the journal Climate, is the latest to argue that colder summers are indeed in store for parts of the Bay Area.
More fog is consistent with predictions of climate change. Less fog is consistent with predictions of climate change. I wonder if the same amount of fog is also "consistent with" such predictions? I bet so.
Hmm so the science isn’t decided then?
4 Responses
BB
26 Nov 2010
Baccheus
26 Nov 2010
It is decided that man is warming the environment. That debate has been over for five years. The problem here is with simple uneducated people unable to deal with complex subjects.
There is considerable amount of work to be done to determine what all the effects will be. That is the purpose of the science journal: to share what is learned and to work towards a better understanding of how the pieces work together.
The first study found that temperatures are increasing in California most rapidly in the low-elevation land-locked Central Valley. Heat in the valley does cause ocean air to be sucked to the shore and cause fog. One simple conclusion forwarded by the authors is that it will bring more fog as it brings more air from the ocean. But at the same time the article made clear that this is a work in progress by quoting another researcher who noted that the oceans were colder, and that the affect on fog was unknown.
The other study was not confined to the Bay area, but covered the whole nothern coast, and concentrated on the ocean and coast rather than the inland area. They found declinging fog.
Only the ignorant jump to any immediate conclusion. The educated researchers look at both studies, note what must be reconciled and where better research is required. One obvious hypothesis is that global warming may cause coastal air to be drier, even as it remains cooler. It is difficult to differentiate what all the changes will be.
The only problem here is with media trying to say "Aha, scientists don’t know everything", to which the response is "duh".
Educated people can see that the research topics are getting more finite. A lot more work is going into how the various changes are working together. There is a lot to learn. But it is now fully accepted, with no educated doubters, that man is warming the environment.
say ‘no
26 Nov 2010
"Hmm so the science isn’t decided then?"
Not on this microscopic detail of the science, no. Physicists haven’t worked out the kinks of quantum decoherence. Does that mean quantum mechanics is just a "hoax"?
To address your original question…
…I will just highlight some key words from YOUR link.
"But climate change MAY BE reducing this crucial fog cover. THOUGH STILL POORLY UNDERSTOOD, climate change MAY BE contributing to a decline in a high-pressure climatic system"
"That’s the conclusion of SEVERAL state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study PREDICTS that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won’t be soaring everywhere.
stl_luna_7
26 Nov 2010
Baccheus is right with regards ‘to it being a work in progress’. In Tampa, I noticed a sudden drying of airmasses as they approached the mouth of Tampa Bay. This was a pretty consistent feature there and moreover as they they passed the Davis Island Area, they seemed to fall apart even more. A friend of mine stated while working with SWFTMUD, that salt deposits are very high over this region. Not only that, but National Geographic did a show on the abnormally high lightning strikes in Tampa’s downtown area. There is a lot going on here and also, it will take years of study to figure out what is going on. In this instance, there is a lot of heat, from Tampa Int’l Airport (TIA), to the city itself.
My point is, this is just one area. I did weather for that vicinity since 1989 and I believe I have a pretty good handle on what kind of weather we will get there. Knowing terrain features helps but I am positive there is something more.
Now as far as these current snows are concerned is that those areas were abnormally cold. I am not talking just surface temperatures because the thickness ( of cold air above the surface ) had to be ample to keep it snow. These storms drew warmer (of course) moister air from both the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic seaboard.
The are two areas that I know of which have very distinct low pressure areas which account for massive snowstorms. Those are Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, (Cape Hatteras Low ) and the Genoa Low in Italy. Both set up with the aid of very cold thickness values and both suck moisture enough to produce snows where these kind of snows are more rare.
Simply attributing this to ‘Global Warming’, ‘Climate Change’ or anything else is a little simplistic. If you ever saw the charts we analyze for severe thunderstorm outbreaks, you would see a very complex mosaic. Several factors have to set up and timing is usually critical.
I think the idea that we explore these possibilities are fine, but in no case should we jump to conclusions.
The Pod-People (Warmers) are trolling with dead bait on this one. They are trying anything and everything to keep their sinking boat afloat. They crack me up.