This month’s open thread. Usual rules apply.
Just a quick note since I’ve been tracking this statistic for a few years, but the Nenana Ice Classic tripod went down this afternoon (Apr 23, 3:39 Alaska Standard Time). See the earlier post for what this is and why it says something about the climate (see posts on 2014 and 2015 results).
With this unofficial time, this year places 4th earliest for the breakup of ice in the Tanana river. It is unsurprising that it was early given the exceptional warmth in Alaska this year.
The exact ranking of years depends a little on how one accounts for leap-year and other calendrical effects. The raw date is the 4th earliest, but given that this year is a leap year, it would be the 5th earliest counting Julian days from the start of the year. Tying the season to the vernal equinox is more stable, which again leads to the 4th earliest. But regardless of that detail, and consistent with local climate warming, the ice break-up date have advanced about 7 days over the last century.
As a side bet, I predict (based on previous years) that despite enormous attention in the skeptic-osphpere given the Nenana result in 2013 (when it was remarkably late), it won’t be mentioned there this year.
Anyone reading pundits and politicians pontificating profusely about climate or environmental science will, at some point, have come across the “volcano gambit”. During the discussion they will make a claim that volcanoes (or even a single volcano) produce many times more pollutant emissions than human activities. Often the factor is extremely precise to help give an illusion of science-iness and, remarkably, almost any pollutant can be referenced. This “volcano gambit” is an infallible sign that indicates the author is clueless about climate science, but few are aware of its long and interesting history…
Guest article by Sally Brown, University of Southampton
Let me get this off my chest – I sometimes get frustrated at climate scientists as they love to talk about uncertainties! To be sure, their work thrives on it. I’m someone who researches the projected impacts and adaptation to sea-level rise and gets passed ‘uncertain’ climate data projections to add to other ‘uncertain’ data projections in my impact modellers work bag. But climate scientists do a good job. Without exploring uncertainties, science loses robustness, but uncertainties in combination can become unbounded and unhelpful to end users.
Let’s take an adaptation to sea-level rise as an example: With increasing scientific knowledge, acceptance and mechanisms that would allow adaptation to potentially occur, one would think that adaptation would be straight forward to implement. Not so. Instead of hard and fast numbers, policy makers are faced with wide ranges of uncertainties from different sources, making decision making challenging. So what uncertainties are there in the drivers of change, and can understanding these uncertainties enable better decisions for adaptation?
Prior to considering adaptation in global or regional models, or implementation at local level, drivers of change and their impacts (and thus uncertainties) require analysis – here are a few examples. More »