This last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest Synthesis Report (fifth report since 1990). It is a stark, sobering, and interesting read in context of the previous reports since scientific data and analysis support increasing certainty regarding climate warming, anthropogenic causes, strong and comprehensive impacts on natural systems, and “high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally” without urgent and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
California is currently experiencing it’s worst drought in history as the warmest year in history is about to be recorded. The long-term, increasing temperature trend for California, the ocean, and the rest of the world’s landmass is unequivocal.
What does this mean for Mono Lake? The impacts this year are clear—the lake level dropped. Will this continue? Are the hydrologic models predicting future lake levels already out of date? Will climate change bring other, less obvious impacts? Are they underway now? Of the known changes, which ones can be mitigated? These are among the questions that the Mono Lake Committee is presently trying to answer.
What we do know is that there is no one else to take the lead. While US Forest Service and California State Parks may wish to be more responsive, their staffing and resources are strapped. The Los Angeles Department of Water & Power is only responsible for fixing the damage of past excessive water diversions. It will be up to all of us and the Mono Lake Committee to find solutions and to take action at Mono Lake as we cope with the impacts of climate change.
[…] The IPCC Synthesis Report, record California temperatures and drought, and Mono Lake: Bartsche writes: “This last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest Synthesis Report (fifth report since 1990). It is a stark, sobering, and interesting read in context of the previous reports since scientific data and analysis support increasing certainty regarding climate warming, anthropogenic causes, strong and comprehensive impacts on natural systems, and “high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally” without urgent and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. … ” Read more from the Mono-Logue here: The IPCC Synthesis Report, record California temperatures and drought, and Mono Lake […]
California temperatures are not apple to apple comparisons. After the 1980s temperatures have been taken at cities by ASOS instruments at airports. Prior to that they were taken 5 feet off the ground in instrument shelters in good exposure. The ASOS are taken on towers with thermometers ten to fifteen feet off the ground. They are situated near airport runways and taxiways. The data is meant for pilot safety, not climate. Also electronic thermometers have taken the place of mercury. Sensors are not always calibrated or get out of calibration. At SNARL just west of the Mammoth Airport they had this problem until I told them about how warm their temperatures had become. Location of the instruments is also a big problem. Mammoth Ranger Station were taken out in the forest but were moved several years ago nearer the Visitor Center right next to a asphalt driveway. Yosemite also had a weather yard with excellent exposure but again the instruments were moved right next to a building, 15 feet from a air-conditioning unit and surrounded by a huge asphalt parking lot. The instruments at the Mono Lake Committee HQ are now walled in by buildings and a wall by the sidewalk. No chance for any air circulation. Los Angeles moved their instruments from the top of a two story asphalt roof to USC in July, 1999. The average temperatures fell to 1950 levels. Their hottest year was 1983. LAX warmest year was back in 1959. Speaking of LA, last year was their driest with 3.60″ but 1898 had 4.83″ and 1947 had 4.13″. What I am getting to is that temperatures of today cannot be compared to temperatures in years past. They should be recorded but with a big * . The article refers to “the intergovernmental Panel….” and this makes one wonder about the data right off the bat. It also refers to “hydrological models”. Models are changed all the time. They have a hard time predicting the weather five days out. The length of the Sierras do not show a warm up. Truckee’s warmest year with 1981, Bishop is 1981 and their driest year was 1947 with just 0.80″. Over the hill in Yosemite has had 17.75″ so far this year but lets not forget December of 1955 when 29.78″ fell.
I do studies also in Nevada and Hawaii and find no increase in temperatures that do not use ASOS data.
Bob, you make excellent points, and your perspective on data quality control is essential when choosing which stations to use in a study and how to interpret that data. I really appreciate your work in this area and your interest and assistance with our own data analyses in the past. Your point is that there is local variation due to changing local conditions–not all stations are warming–and you are correct.
However, we must be careful when making the leap from questioning individual stations to questioning studies and conclusions about climate change over larger areas. Introducing doubt without including a broader perspective leads to questioning our role in climate change, which, if unanswered, can lead to inaction. Despite concerns about individual stations, there is overwhelming evidence that the Sierra Nevada and global climate is warming. The science is settled enough for us not to debate it here or in other blog comments–problems with studies should be directed to the authors of those studies so that they can be improved. With China building a new coal-fired power plant every ten days, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is poised to reach dangerous levels if nothing is done. The oceans are acidifying, threatening coral and shellfish and other marine life. The snow line in the Sierra is rising. We must act quickly.
And we must be careful to use good data.