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.”

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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

“Calling Mr Eschenbach a “liar” is not acceptable.”
Your board, your rules. That’s perfectly fine. But please help me understand those rules. Are we not allowed to talk about people falsifying their data sets? That’s news to me. It seems like a frequent topic of discussion on WUWT. Why should it be acceptable to call Mann a liar (that is, to say he has been suspected of falsifying data), but not Mr Eschenbach, especially given that he invited the comparison?
Not arguing the point; asking for clarification to avoid future trouble.
[Reply: Willis Eschenbach is an esteemed writer and commenter here. Michael Mann is not. And that is the end of this discussion. ~dbs, mod.]
Wayne R (15:53:06) :
“Here in Vancouver we’re having a serious problem providing snow for the Winter Olympics.”
Wayne do you know that to be true or are you just regurgitating warmist lies?
None of the stats available online show any shortage of snow in BC.
Both Cypress and Whistler seem to have about 3 metres of snow.
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-ski-525351-british_columbia_ski_resorts-i
http://cypressmountain.com/
“Andrew30 (14:43:48) :
Robert (12:41:02) :
“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…”
At the bottom of this page:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history
From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
It includes:
British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’
UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’
World Wildlife Fund, ‘Political Advocates’
Greenpeace International, ‘Political Advocates’
Robert, you have a point.
We should not trust ANY study funded by an Energy Lobby or by Political Advocates.”
I believe “Robert” wears special fact filters on the glasses worn when reading certain web based material. Articles paid for by the energy lobby here at WUWT. Oh the irony!
Just a slight deviation, NOAA predicted 2009-10 winter to be warm in the US.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091015_winteroutlook.html
The irony is sweet, they should have listened to Matt Rogers from the Commidity Weather Group.
So, Water Vapor is stronger than CO2.
More damage control over at RealClimate by Gavin. Those guys truly make me sick.
So we lose the redwoods — big deal. Replace ’em with palms.
I am just so gosh darn tired of every advocacy group demanding that their cause be acted upon with untempered vigor. My ability to become aroused about trees can be summed up in one word: impotence.
Tree people, bye-bye. Please.
One other thing. the The Redwood Forest Foundation looks like a shell compant with less than $100,000 in assets.
The Save the Redwood League on the other hand;
As of March 31, 2009
Commercial paper and cash $ 6,866,332
U.S. Government and agency obligations $54,107,505
Exchange traded funds and stocks $ 6,578,130
as part of a total asstet holdings of $ 81,355,672
This is typical of the levels of cash I see in other ‘charities’ that fund climate scientology; although this is less than Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
One point and a question —
. The Federal Government must evacuate and relocate everyone in California to new reservations East of the Mississippi River. Everyone else in the country must be relocated and resettled to reservations East of the Hudson River. We MUST save the environment. The only way to accomplish this historic move and save gasoline and the precious environment is to force everyone to walk. Re-locatees will be permitted to bring only what they can carry. Anyone not complying with this order should be tried in Federal Court and hung at sunrise following their conviction. Anyone who falls out along the way will be shot. Anyone caught crying will be shot.
Q Have the British ever found out where the Irish hid all that wonderful, beautiful, life sustaining, miserable fog?
Lordy, the next thing you know, they’ll be saying global warming or climate change or whatever the hell they call it now is causing the universe to collapse into itself. Is there anything at all left that’s happenning or has happenned or will happen that isn’t or wasn’t or will be caused by it? Could the itch on the bottom of my foot be a result of global climate change? I’m starting to wonder……..
Robert (20:05:42)
“
Obviously in response to my statement:
Robert, here’s a protip for you. If you want to attack something, first you should probably learn to read. Once you’ve done that, actually read what the person said. Otherwise, people will just continue to point and laugh.
I live in Sacramento where there are redwoods planted in many private yards and business complex’s. Not only is there zero summer fog it’s 30 – 40 degrees hotter then the coastal areas on a typical summer day. It would appear that redwoods are fairly adaptable.
O/T but we are all hoaxers and cranks apparently, according to my big mate Gav at RC:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/
I am trying to figure out if he is a terminal blogging death spiral and lashing out randomly or whether this is just his normal state. It is quite disturbing to see such unbalanced behaviour IMO.
Historical note: The Wright brothers’ first flight was in 1903.
Implication: Not so many “airports” in the early 20th century.
Until after The Great War most “airfields” were exactly
what the term indicated… dirt or grassy fields where
airplanes took off and landed.
The study is a documentation of the temperature island
changes at airport facilities as they evolved from airfields and
airstrips to concrete then black-topped runways, with most
maturing into complexes with parking lots, transport
depots and modern highways.
There seems to be more than a few biases that would be in
play in any temperature/humidity study of West Coast
airports over time.
Robert (20:18:29)
Robert, Tim Lambert over at the Deltoid blog calls me a liar all the time. In some ways I find that incredibly infantile and puerile, since he never bothers to back up his claim with any facts, it’s just “he’s a liar waa waa waa”.
In some ways I find it a measure of how much I am actually accomplishing. He wouldn’t attack me without evidence in such a virulent and unpleasant way unless I was getting through to him. And I would say the same for you, you wouldn’t falsely accuse me of lying with no evidence at all unless my arguments make you uneasy …
Now, I may well be wrong, I’ve been wrong many times. Heck, I may well be wrong in some of the things I’ve said on this thread. And I have no problem with people pointing out where I’m wrong, I don’t like it, but hey, that’s science. If you find where I’m wrong, tell me.
But I’m an honest man.
Calling someone a liar is something that you shouldn’t do without solid evidence. I’ve called both Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann liars, and I showed exactly where they lied, chapter and verse. Here’s an example, where I list exactly what other people said, and then Gavin’s claims, at Willis Eschenbach (22:54:43).
That’s the difference between an accusation and evidence. For you to claim that I’m a liar based on some random Deltoid bullshit, sorry, that doesn’t work. Just makes you look credulous.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
The faster we can educate other people how to “read between the lines” the faster this charade can be put to an end. Here’s a little example. You can do it with most articles blaming man for his many sins.
See this portion from the article? Notice the “particularly noticeable”? Translate that to be “this is the most difference between any of the airports we were able to find”. They then base the article on that.
Then notice “beginning of the 20th century” and “it was 17 degrees Fahrenheit”. That was when the maximum difference occurred. If the maximum difference would have been in the 1950’s, that would have used that for maximum impact. These are not blind studies as in proper science and statistics!
Would love to get to the actual data and prove my statements above false.
But that will be a rarity. One, takes far too long with no funds to investigate properly. Two, many times the data is not available even if you had the resources. Three, the people behind the stories will never come to you with the data to make it transparent themselves, and if the above statements are true, I don’t blame them, who would turn themselves in. But after seeing this type of data picking and warping, chances are very high this is just another example of the same bending of the truth.
The more you see it, the easier it is to see. Congratulations on becoming a “skeptic”.
As Dr. Richard Feynman said:
Scientists are trained to employ logic to examine and test claims.
( more: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-feynman-tufte-princip )
In other words, to be skeptical of untested and unproved claims until you are sure it is true.
To test a claim has become almost impossible but you can still examine the claims and use your logic. It’s the lack of this that is destroying all of science, not just climate science.
“…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.”
I would like to have Mr. Dawson explain something for me. Redwood forests are mist forests for much of the year. Their leaf structure is a very effective condensation drip generator, as anyone who has spent any amount of time walking in a foggy redwood grove would know. When the fog blows in they produce their own precipitation, “rain” for the forest floor where, as luck would have it, their roots are located. How, Mr Dawson, can you possibly tell the difference between foliar absorption and root absorption during the same weather event by looking at isotopic oxygen?
Just asking.
Redwoods do rather well in NZ too. Some have been here for well over 100 years doncha know. They seem to do quite well without the fog too. In fact I’m sure we could adopt them all if they are really threatened in California. You know – ‘support our American cousins an’ all that !
“Calling someone a liar is something that you shouldn’t do without solid evidence.”
That is a discussion that the moderators have rather firmly ruled out of bounds. I would be happy to discuss it with you further, but the rules of the forum do not allow it.
aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (19:42:17) :
“Is this another worry that I shouldn’t worry about?
Is Ed ‘Too Tall’ Jones too tall?”
Ed ‘Too Tall’ Jones, Medal of Honor Winning pilot, was too tall to qualify to be a pilot. He passed away last year in Boise, Id. A true hero. God bless em all.
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.
Uh huh….and since there is a LONGER cycle of the PDO (that goes for many, many decades)…it is reasonable to conclude that this cycle may have something to do with this.
Back when Arnold was decrying “global warming” as causing the horrific fires in Cali a couple of years ago….we were all saying….”No it wasn’t, stupid.”
It is the cold PDO that is causing the subsidence and drier conditions.
Also….perhaps….less fog.
Besides….100 years is a blip in time really….especially, in light of Earth’s actual age.
Get over your concerns. Mother Nature will always find an ingenious way to balance herself out.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Willis Eschenbach (21:31:44) :
Willis I respect your tenacity and your quest for the truth. Bravo….and carry on!!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
There are a fair number of sequoias in Scotland that were planted around 160 years ago and have grown well. (Indeed some suggest that as they still have another 800 years ahead of them they will grow taller than their Californian parents). We don’t have any fog to speak of in the summer months.
So let me get this straight.
If there is more fog, it is the fault of global warming.
And if there is less fog, it is the fault of global warming.
I don’t get it.
Gateway Pundit picks up on the hypocrisy:
2009 – Global Warming Causes Foggy Days in San Francisco…
2010 – Global Warming Causes Fog-less Days in San Francisco
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/02/2009-global-warming-causing-more-foggy-days-in-san-francisco-2010-global-warming-causing-fog-less-days-in-san-francisco/