BudBurst: Citizen science to study climate change
Project BudBurst looks like an interesting citizen science project to engage the public as researchers on climate change. Participants volunteer to look out for first bud bursts, first leafing, first flower, and seed or fruit dispersal in their area. Those are all phenological events, meaning biological phenomena that are sensitive to climate variations. From Project BudBurst:
Phenology is the study of the timing of life cycle events in plants and animals. In other words, studying the environment to figure out how animals know when it is time to hibernate, and what ‘calendar’ or ‘clock’ plants use to begin flowering, leafing or reproducing.Link (Thanks, Michael-Anne Rauback!)
Phenology is literally “the science of appearance.” Scientists who study phenology – phenologists -- are interested in the timing of specific biological events (such as flowering, migration, and reproduction) in relation to changes in season and climate. Seasonal and climatic changes are some of the non-living or abiotic components of the environment that impact the living or biotic components. Seasonal changes can include variations in day length, temperature, and rain or snowfall. In short, phenologists attempt to learn more about the abiotic factors that plants and animals respond to...
Phenological observations have been used for centuries by farmers to maximize crop production, nature-lovers to anticipate optimal wildflower viewing conditions, and by almost all of us to prepare for seasonal allergies. Today, this well established science is also used by scientists to track the effect of global warming and climate change on organisms and to make predictions about the future health of the environment. By tracking changes in the timing of these phenological events, scientists are able to better understand how our environment is changing.
the latest
latest episodes
There's also a similar project in the UK.
The live maps on it are absolutely fascinating.
@Beanolini (#1), Thanks for posting that link.
Similar project in Ireland also Greenwave
I'm not sure why they need data for this. Everyone right-thinking person knows that the future health of the environment is going to be far worse than it is today, and that every extreme weather event is due entirely to anthropogenic global climate change.
It'll be interesting to see how the results of this project are spun to fit the mythology-du-jour over the next decade or so. It is already well-established that any changes in the observed population of an animal species in a region is bad: if the population goes down, it is because the species is being driven to extinction. If the population goes up, it is because habitat destruction elsewhere is driving the species into new areas.
For plants, earlier leaf appearance is obviously proof of a warming planet. Later leaf appearance might be accounted for by insufficiently cool winters leading to greater parasite load. An extreme example of this phenomena is the pine beetle that is devastating commercial forests in Western Canada. Due to anthropogenic global climate change winters haven't been cold enough to kill them off for a decade or more.
An alternative project that might be less susceptible to heat island effects and geographical observer bias would be to perform local plant species surveys, and track the migration of species. Fairly significant changes over the past few decades is already observable amongst commercial plant species, but cultivation involves too many confounding variables--if a crop becomes more valuable it may be profitable to cultivate it in a marginal climate region. Looking at what's growing in the ditches and hedgerows may over the longer term be a more sensitive and harder to bias climate indicator that bud timing.
When did "global warming" become climate change, and why?
climate change = if the earth gets cooler, it's still your fault.
By dumping our carbon-based waste products into the atmosphere we are increasing the heat content of the atmosphere by trapping more of the sun's energy. Naively, you'd think this might make the Earth's atmosphere warmer, and if you were a politician trying to whip up hysteria you'd point to temperature records to try to justify your favourite power-grab. Ergo, "global warming."
However, the Earth's atmosphere is a complex fluid with two major components: water vapour, and everything else. The heat capacity of water vapour is a lot higher than the heat capacity of the gases that make up the "everything else". So if you add more water vapour to the atmosphere without adding more heat, the temperature will go down.
This is where it gets fun: one of the consequences of adding heat to the atmosphere, globally, is to increase the amount of water vapour. In some models this actually over-compensates for the added heat, causing the mean global temperature to drop. By the same token, if something were to decrease the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, global temperatures could rise even though the heat content of the atmosphere has not changed.
Bottom line: dry-bulb temperature, which is what most weather stations give you, is a lousy proxy for atmospheric heat content, and the climate effects of humans increasing the heat content of the atmosphere are going to be a lot more complicated than the air simply getting hotter.
"Climate change" is intended to acknowledge that we could be in for any or all of colder/wetter/hotter/dryer regional climates in any combination as the Earth's atmosphere, biosphere and oceans respond to increased global heat content. Although it is more scientifically accurate, this term is also more politically useful, as any extreme weather whatsoever can now be blamed on climate change, thus increasing the range of events politicians can use to justify increasing the scope of their power.
The politics are climate change are not unlike the politics of terrorism: there is a real problem, but that does not stop a bunch of fascists from trying to use it to manipulate people for their own ends. The difference between terrorism and global climate change is in the scope of the problem: terrorism is minor, global climate change has the potential to be civilization-ending.
But the risks facing us from global climate change do not stop neo-puritans from trying to use it to impose their moral agenda on the world rather than simply opening the gates to any and all possible solutions.
I don't know how our SUV's are increasing the surface temps on Mars and Jupiter but have a feeling not a lot of these cool-aid drinkers will venture to try.
PASTED THE WRONT DRAFT: I don't know how our SUV's are increasing the surface temps on Mars and Jupiter but I have a feeling not a lot of man made warming koolaid drinkers will venture to explain it either.
"With infinite complacency, men went to and fro about the globe, confident of our empire over this world. Yet across the gulf of space, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our planet with envious eyes and slowly, and surely, drew their plans against us.."
you'll see! you'll all see!!
It's going to get ugly when we get hungry. Hot or cold, either extreme, the crops suffer. Water shortage or floods, if we are looking at a fluttering climate for even a few years, oh yeah, Tom is utterly right about how governments and would be governments will use famine (real or anticipated) to lead and drive the people.
If you don't already live somewhere temperate, with abundant water, local food production and reasonable civil order, consider moving,
#11.
Yep. :(
And all that we computer-owning middle class types will feel (apart from the political machinations) will be increased food prices. The poorest of the already starving poor will starve in numbers never before seen.
"But that's OK, the poorest of the poor are always starving, right?"
I'm personally all for a calculus of death as a tool for publicising the problem. Something along the lines of "The emissions from your vehicle this year will cause 3.72 developing nation children to starve to death. Keep on trucking."
where is the best place in the world to live? In view of the possible coming climate problems?
#8, #9: Jupiter is not warming overall, just changing its temperature distribution.
Warming on Mars is related to recent massive dust storms.
Neither of these has anything to do with the climate on Earth.
Just in case Takuan comes back and read this.
#13: The UK? (Here's why.)
Canada, Germany, Russia and Japan don't seem like such bad options, either. (This assumes the Americans don't try to take Canada's resources by force as arability moves in a polar direction.) It also assumes we don't end up with a three-way nuclear war between the emerging power blocs of the 21st century.
good essay by Dyer
I tend to rely on Gwynne Dyer as a general source of deep, long-term political analysis. (I trust a historian far more than I trust sensationalist/partisan journalists.) His books are worth a read, too.