One more thing to worry about – fog shortage

UPDATE: Roger Pielke Jr. alerts us to this:

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.

From the University of California – Berkeley via Eurekalert:

Fog has declined in past century along California’s redwood coast

Analysis of hourly airport cloud cover reports leads to surprising finding

California’s coastal fog has decreased significantly over the past 100 years, potentially endangering coast redwood trees dependent on cool, humid summers, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, scientists.

It is unclear whether this is part of a natural cycle of the result of human activity, but the change could affect not only the redwoods, but the entire redwood ecosystem, the scientists say.

“Since 1901, the average number of hours of fog along the coast in summer has dropped from 56 percent to 42 percent, which is a loss of about three hours per day,” said study leader James A. Johnstone, who recently received his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley’s Department of Geography before becoming a postdoctoral scholar in the campus’s Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management (ESPM). “A cool coast and warm interior is one of the defining characteristics of California’s coastal climate, but the temperature difference between the coast and interior has declined substantially in the last century, in step with the decline in summer fog.”

The loss of fog and increased temperature mean that “coast redwood and other ecosystems along the U.S. West Coast may be increasingly drought-stressed, with a summer climate of reduced fog frequency and greater evaporative demand,” said coauthor Todd E. Dawson, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology and of ESPM. “Fog prevents water loss from redwoods in summer, and is really important for both the tree and the forest. If the fog is gone, we might not have the redwood forests we do now.”

Fog in the redwoods

The scientists’ report will be posted online during the week of Feb. 15 in advance of publication in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The surprising result came from analysis of new records recently made available by the National Climate Data Center. The U.S. Surface Airways data come from airports around the country, which have recorded for more than 60 years hourly information such as cloud cover (cloud ceiling height), visibility, wind and temperature.

Johnstone evaluated the data from airports along the northern California coast and found two airports – Arcata and Monterey – that had consistent fog records going back to 1951. With these data, he was able to show that frequent coastal fog is almost always associated with a large temperature difference between the coast and inland areas.

Using a network of 114 temperature stations along the Pacific Coast, Johnstone and Dawson demonstrated that the coast-inland contrast has decreased substantially, not just in Northern California, but along the entire U.S. coastline from Seattle to San Diego. This change is particularly noticeable in the difference between Ukiah, a warm Coast Range site in Northern California, and Berkeley on San Francisco Bay. At the beginning of the 20th century, the daytime temperature difference between the two sites was 17 degrees Fahrenheit; today, it is just 11 degrees Fahrenheit.

The relationship between temperature gradient and fog frequency implies a 33 percent drop in fog along the coast during this time.

Greater fog frequency is connected to cooler than normal ocean waters from Alaska to Mexico and warm water from the central North Pacific to Japan. This temperature flip-flop is a well-known phenomenon called Pacific Decadal Oscillation – an El Niño-like pattern of the north Pacific that affects salmon populations along the US West Coast. The new results show that this pattern may also have substantial effects on the coastal forest landscape.

In addition, the data show that the coast gets foggier when winds blow from the north along the coast, which fits with observations that northerly winds push surface waters offshore and allow the upwelling of deep, cold, nutrient-rich water.

“This is the first data actually illustrating that upwelling along the Pacific coast and fog over the land are linked,” Johnstone said.

By pulling in data on temperature variation with elevation, Johnstone and Dawson also related their fog data with a temperature inversion that each summer traps the fog between the coast and the coastal mountains. The inversion is caused by a warm, dry, high-pressure cell that sits over Northern California in late summer, bringing hot temperatures to inland areas, including the Central Valley. If the inversion is strong, its lower boundary at about 1,200 feet keeps a lid on the cool marine layer and prevents fog from penetrating over the Coast Ranges. When it is weak, the ocean air and clouds move upward and inland, resulting in a cooler interior and a warmer, drier coast.

“The data support the idea that Northern California coastal fog has decreased in connection with a decline in the coast-inland temperature gradient and weakening of the summer temperature inversion,” Johnstone said.

“As fog decreases, the mature redwoods along the coast are not likely to die outright, but there may be less recruitment of new trees; they will look elsewhere for water, high humidity and cooler temperatures,” Dawson said. “What does that mean for the current redwood range and that of the plants and animals with them?”

Eventually, Dawson and Johnstone hope to correlate fog frequency with redwood tree ring data in order to estimate climate trends going back hundreds of years.

“While people have used tree ring data from White Mountain bristlecone pines and stumps in Mono Lake to infer climate change in California, redwoods have always been thought problematic,” Dawson said, mainly because it’s hard to determine whether the width of a tree ring reflects winter rain, summer fog, temperature, nutrient supply or other factors. “Stable isotope analyses of wood cellulose allows you to pull this data out of the tree ring.”

Dawson has established that the isotopes of oxygen in a tree reflect whether the water comes in via the leaves from fog, or via the roots from rainwater. “Redwoods live for more than 2,000 years, so they could be a very important indicator of climate patterns and change along the coast,” he said.

The new fog data will allow Dawson and Johnstone to calibrate their tree ring isotope data with actual coastal fog conditions in the past century, and then extrapolate back for 1,000 years or more to estimate climate conditions.

The work was supported by the Save the Redwoods League and the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center.

================================================

Further reading: Fog in California from UCSB

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/california_fog/cal_coastal_fog1_sm.jpg
The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
242 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pat
February 16, 2010 7:24 pm

Democrat Walter Russell Mead – must read all:
15 Feb: DC Post Runs With Climategate; NY Times Still in Tank
The New York Times turned down the Watergate story, giving the Washington Post ownership of the story of the decade. Now the Washington Post is going for a repeat, scooping the somnolent Times on the Climategate story. The Post story by Juliet Eilperin and David A. Farenholdt is no skeptic’s dream, but Post readers now know something that Times readers are still in the dark about: the climate change movement has taken a serious hit in recent weeks as allegations of misconduct and high profile errors undermine the credibility of the key institutions and figures in the movement…
I am not sure how long the reputation of a great newspaper can withstand the consequences of this kind of news judgment; the steady (and to me, painful and unwelcome) erosion of the Times‘ influence and prestige is unlikely to end until its pages regain the reputation as the first, best place to learn about the vital events of the day. At some point, the Times will simply have to break down and let its readers in on the Climategate story…
Personally, I’m still clinging to the rebuttable presumption that global warming is real and it is serious, but I have to admit I wouldn’t be as surprised now as I would have been three months ago to discover that the truth turns out to be somewhat less dramatic, less categorical and less immediately actionable than what we’ve been led to expect.
But the story the Times cannot bring itself to print is not about belief. It is a political story that the Times is failing to report. ..
I gather from friends better connected than I that many top environmentalists in the US are still in denial, still hoping that somehow this will all go away.
News flash: it won’t…
Here’s a thought for the truly twisted conspiracy theorists to chew on: could the New York Times be working for a Republican victory this fall? Probably not, but the paper of record couldn’t be doing more to help the GOP on this issue if it tried.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/15/nyt-still-mia-on-climategate-big-boost-for-gop/

JAE
February 16, 2010 7:25 pm

Well, I visit the redwoods often, and I have not seen ANY signs of stress. And I have a forestry degree. These guys are just seeking headlines, IMHO.

Doug in Dunedin
February 16, 2010 7:29 pm

Robert (12:37:35) :
‘Heavens! It’s worse than we thought!’
Robert babycakes, Its actually precisely as we thought. As Kim indicates, advocacy science.
Doug

Dave Wendt
February 16, 2010 7:30 pm

““While people have used tree ring data from White Mountain bristlecone pines and stumps in Mono Lake to infer climate change in California, redwoods have always been thought problematic,” Dawson said, mainly because it’s hard to determine whether the width of a tree ring reflects winter rain, summer fog, temperature, nutrient supply or other factors. “Stable isotope analyses of wood cellulose allows you to pull this data out of the tree ring.”
Dawson has established that the isotopes of oxygen in a tree reflect whether the water comes in via the leaves from fog, or via the roots from rainwater. “Redwoods live for more than 2,000 years, so they could be a very important indicator of climate patterns and change along the coast,” he said.
The new fog data will allow Dawson and Johnstone to calibrate their tree ring isotope data with actual coastal fog conditions in the past century, and then extrapolate back for 1,000 years or more to estimate climate conditions.”
I guess it’s time for my quarterly reminder of this post from June ’08
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/13/surprise-leaves-maintain-temperature-new-findings-may-put-dendroclimatology-as-metric-of-past-temperature-into-question/#comments
which references this paper
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/pdf/nature07031.pdf
The central premise on which the notion that oxygen isotopes in tree rings are reliable recorders of climate phenomena rests is that tree foliage is normally at ambient temperature. The Helliker and Richter paper presents rather compelling evidence that this not the case. That through a combination of biological processes tree foilage maintains itself within a much narrower range of temperature than the ambient. In a rational world this finding would have been more than sufficient to put a stake through the heart of the paleoclimate tree ring proxy vampires. Obviously, that has not been the case.
Although the authors are not scientists of great repute, the language of the paper makes it pretty clear that the results they achieved came as a big surprise to them, which makes me grant them more credence than most of bilge that I’ve waded through in trying to come to grips with this whole CAGCC morass. Indeed, from what I’ve been able to discover their thesis has not been refuted or contradicted in the time since it was published.
The history of this little paper is revealing. If you do a Google search, you find a flurry of references about the time of the PR announcing its publication, including Anthony’s post. Then it pretty much disappears down the memory hole, with a few science journal cites, but mostly blog references in the interim. When trying to understand this seemingly illogical neglect, my more conspiratorial side tends to focus on the fact that the authors are employed at UPenn, which places them in proximity to a certain tree ring aficionado we are all familiar with. But I’m sure that is purely coincidental.

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES
February 16, 2010 7:42 pm

Is this another worry that I shouldn’t worry about?
Is Ed ‘Too Tall’ Jones too tall?

Daniel H
February 16, 2010 7:42 pm

@wayne:
“Have only visited CA four or five times in the past but seems the coast line environment would have even lower plant forms, as moss on rocky surfaces, that would be more telling. Seems if fog conditions were getting to some critical point, they would disappear first, not being able to draw moisture from the soil as trees or vines. Do you know the local environment well enough to shed some light there? Seen any moss lately?”
Yes I have seen moss, lots of it! I’m an avid runner and I run through the hills around here nearly everyday. The streams are full of water from all the rain and there is green moss everywhere. It’s sticking to the rocks, the branches, you name it. It’s a beautiful sight to behold.

Editor
February 16, 2010 7:44 pm

Robert (12:41:02)

” kim (12:10:49) :
Advocacy science. Bah.”

Seriously? You do realize that half the papers on this site are either out-and-out funded by the energy lobby, written by non-specialists sticking their oar into climate science specifically for the political purpose of trying to discredit AGW, or both? And you want to talk about “advocacy science”? Ballsy.

Half the papers funded by the “energy lobby”. I’d like to see the data to back up that particular piece of bullshit.
I’d also like to a study that shows that the specialists (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Briffa, and the rest of the unindicted co-conspirators) do a better job at the science than the non-specialists (McIntyre, McKittrick, Anthony Watts, chiefio, Jeff Id, myself, and others).
Yes, some of the papers here have been found to have errors. But given the Hockeystick and the hockeystickalikes and the Jesus Paper and the rest of the peer reviewed crap we’ve seen, that’s no surprise. It’s how science works. Put the ideas out there, and let people try to tear them down.
You don’t like the science? Fine, you can be the one to find faults with it. You don’t like the CVs of the authors? Fine, you can piss off and post where people think that it makes a difference who wrote a paper or where it was published … here, we care about the truth, not the pedigree.

OK, I’ll bite. What is it about this study of ocean currents, fog, and redwood trees that makes it “advocacy science”?

Read my submission above at Willis Eschenbach (15:01:57). You see, while you are raving about who wrote what, some of us actually look at the data to see if the paper is science or advocacy …

Robert
February 16, 2010 7:48 pm

“I’d also like to a study that shows that the specialists (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Briffa, and the rest of the unindicted co-conspirators) do a better job at the science than the non-specialists (McIntyre, McKittrick, Anthony Watts, chiefio, Jeff Id, myself, and others).”
That would be all of them. Mann has done more and better science than your entire batting line-up.

Jim Johnstone
February 16, 2010 7:48 pm

Hi folks – you can find the article here – it is open-access, so you can read it and make your own judgments on the paper itself, rather than the press clippings.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/recent
(scroll down just a bit)
I’ll make one point here – the airport cloud data are relatively immune to local surface changes. The airports are recording cloud ~400 m above the ground just ~1 km from the ocean near sea level. The fog deck typically forms over the ocean at elevation and moves into the coastal hills as a layer.

Robert
February 16, 2010 7:52 pm

[snip] Calling Mr Eschenbach a “liar” is only acceptable if there is a reason. You have given no reasons.
Second warning. ~dbstealey, moderator

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES
February 16, 2010 7:52 pm

David Corcoran (18:05:01) :
Let’s panic about the fog. Immediately.
===================================================
Don’t bother me. I’m too busy panicking about that Antarctic ice shelf.

February 16, 2010 7:53 pm

Willis Eschenbach:
“I’d also like to a study that shows that the specialists (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Briffa, and the rest of the unindicted co-conspirators) do a better job at the science than the non-specialists (McIntyre, McKittrick, Anthony Watts, chiefio, Jeff Id, myself, and others).”
Robert (19:48:31) replied:

“That would be all of them. Mann has done more and better science than your entire batting line-up.”

Thus showing conclusively that Robert is simply a troll.

Steve Oregon
February 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Willis,
I can’t believe I haven’t seen this asked before.
Great shot.
Willis Eschenbach (19:44:53) :
“I’d also like to a study that shows that the specialists (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Briffa, and the rest of the unindicted co-conspirators) do a better job at the science than the non-specialists (McIntyre, McKittrick, Anthony Watts, chiefio, Jeff Id, myself, and others).”

D. King
February 16, 2010 7:56 pm

Problem solved….Next!

Richard Sharpe
February 16, 2010 7:58 pm

Robert (19:48:31) said:

“I’d also like to a study that shows that the specialists (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Briffa, and the rest of the unindicted co-conspirators) do a better job at the science than the non-specialists (McIntyre, McKittrick, Anthony Watts, chiefio, Jeff Id, myself, and others).”

That would be all of them. Mann has done more and better science than your entire batting line-up.

Proof by assertion. QED.

Mike M
February 16, 2010 8:01 pm

This is so simple, all the experimental data I’ve seen indicates that more CO2 makes plants more drought resistant so….build a coal fired power plant there.

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES
February 16, 2010 8:03 pm

Robert (19:48:31)
This is no problem with the Mann Hockey Stick graph?

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES
February 16, 2010 8:03 pm

Robert (19:48:31)
Do you know of ‘Mike’s Nature trick’?

Richard Scott
February 16, 2010 8:04 pm

I worked at Humboldt Redwoods State Park in the summer of ’72. I remember very little fog. We often had daytime temps in the 90’s. Part of my job involved taking bank deposits to the bank at Garberville late at night. Fog was not a problem for the driving and I usually drove at regular highway speeds.
My wife stayed in Eureka while I worked away from home in the summer during my time studying forestry at Arcata. Eureka had fog almost every afternoon. But 10 miles inland up a little valley at the community of Blue Lake, it was a lot drier and we still have redwoods. Our day care lady was there and I remember going to pick up my boy. It would be drizzly in Arcata and I would get to the day care place and the sun was shining and Mike would be running around with no shirt on.
Maybe fog is important if the soil is coarse or shallow, but I doubt it is important where soils are deep.

Daniel H
February 16, 2010 8:05 pm

Check this out. I just searched the Google news archives using the terms “Northern California” and “foggier” and this story came up from July 6, 1992:
SCIENCE UPDATE The Dallas Morning News
“New evidence supports a theory that global warming could bring foggier weather to Northern California, according to an article published last week in Nature…”

Unfortunately, it costs $2.95 to read the full article and I didn’t feel like paying. So instead I searched the Nature web site for any articles containing the term “fog” between June and August of 1992 but no relevant hits came up. That’s strange. Anyway, here is the Google search result that contains the Dallas Morning News story if anyone else wants to explore this further:
http://tinyurl.com/yc6mpgj
If someone finds the Nature article mentioned in the story please post a link here!

Robert
February 16, 2010 8:05 pm

“Proof by assertion. QED.”
Equally as valid as Willis’ assertion that his list is better than Mann and his colleagues. That was the initial assertion. Given that Mann has 80 peer-reviewed papers and Mr. Eschenbach is known mostly for having falsified scientific data, I would say the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate his superiority.
[Reply: impugning Willis Eschenbach’s integrity one more time will have consequences. ~dbs, mod.]

Richard Scott
February 16, 2010 8:06 pm

One more thing. These scientists are from Berkley, maybe 200 plus miles from Arcata and probably 50 miles from any redwoods. They need to get out of the lab and see the real world.

Sojean
February 16, 2010 8:10 pm

OT – I’m a regular visitor to this site and was thrilled to hear Mr. Watts on my favorite talk radio KFI in SoCal this afternoon. Please do more interviews in CA. Thank you so much, Mr. Watts.

Andrew30
February 16, 2010 8:17 pm

Why are we hearing about this now?
Posted: February 10, 2010 09:43 PM
“California: The Next Climate Battleground”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hunter-cutting/california—the-next-cli_b_457777.html

Why are we hearing it from the Save the Redwood League?
The Save the Redwood League is part of an alliance that sells carbon credits.
(January 16, 2008, Humboldt County, California)
http://www.savetheredwoods.org/newsroom/pr/pr_alliance.pdf
“Today an innovative alliance of private capital investors and conservation interests have joined forces … The Nature Conservancy, Save-the-Redwoods League and the Community Forestry Team — a coalition of Humboldt County-based forestry, conservation and environmental advocates — are working with investment and forestry partners Atlas Holdings, Bank of America, Conservation Forestry LLC and the Redwood Forest Foundation Inc.”
“The Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc. (RFFI) is a private non-profit, Section 501(c)3 organization. Its mission is to acquire, protect, restore and manage forestlands for the long-term public benefit of the region’s citizens….. In 2007 RFFI completed the purchase of the 50,000 acre Usal Redwood Forest outside of Ft. Bragg, California.”

(July 2009)
http://www.rffi.org/Usal-management-faq.html
“RFFI is pleased to sell approximately 918 acres to the Save the Redwood League at the same time the conservation easement is sold on the remainder of the property.”
“The 2.9% inventory cap recognizes both substantive and community related goals. Substantively, a “percent-of-inventory” or “POI” cap will help recruit larger trees and higher inventories across the ownership regardless of market forces which may come into play.”
“RFFI is currently working to certify the carbon that will be sequestered through implementation of its conservation strategy. This carbon will be certified with the Climate Acton Registry. Once the carbon is certified, RFFI will seek to sell its certified carbon credits to help pay back its loans so long as it makes economic sense to do so.”

Where there is climate scientology, there is money, you just need to know how to find it.

Doug in Dunedin
February 16, 2010 8:18 pm

Robert (19:48:31) :
That would be all of them. Mann has done more and better science than your entire batting line-up.
Robert babycakes. Your comments are like those of some infantile football fans e.g – ‘my team is better than yours – na de na de na na’
What is happening here is a discussion on the merits and value of this paper in the context of the scientific, economical, social and political arenas. The participants here are trying to UNDERSTAND what is happening. Every strand of this is part of the wider debate. It is really quite serious.
Doug