New article: Paleoecology of an Upper Ordovician submarine cave-dwelling bryozoan fauna and its exposed equivalents in northern Kentucky, USA

Mark Wilson April 20, 2018 11:26 am

I’m happy to link to an article on Ordovician bryozoans that has just appeared in the Journal of Paleontology:

Paleoecology of an Upper Ordovician submarine cave-dwelling bryozoan fauna and its exposed equivalents in northern Kentucky, USA

It is work Caroline Buttler (Head of Palaeontology at the National Museum Wales, Cardiff) and I pursued as our first joint project. An early version is described in this blog post. Thank you to Caroline for her leadership, and the Luce Fund at The College of Wooster for its support. If you want a pdf of the paper, just send me an email note.

[I just noticed this is my 1000th post on this blog!]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Delightful fossils in the Middle Jurassic Carmel Formation on my last field day

Mark Wilson April 19, 2018 4:19 am

St. George, Utah — Today I met Jerry Harris, Professor of Geology at Dixie State University in St. George. He was very friendly, generous and knowledgeable, guiding me to two fantastic Carmel outcrops I would not have approached on my own. Shown above is one complete section of the Carmel Formation in the Dammeron Valley. The reddish rocks in the lower right are the underlying Temple Cap Formation; the top of the ridge is the end of the Carmel here — it is unconformably overlain by the Iron Springs Formation (Upper Cretaceous). This is an extensive exposure perfect for exploring.

The red unit here in the Dammeron section is the top of the Temple Cap Formation. I’m not sure if the Carmel commences with the green marls, but classic Carmel limestone is found immediately above.

A curious unit within the lower few meters of the Carmel is this bedded gypsum deposit. It represents a significant accumulation of evaporite minerals, and thus the evaporation of a lot of seawater in an enclosed basin.

The Carmel limestones show normal (but restricted) seawater and lots of evidence of high energy. These carbonate crossbeds are almost herringbone.

This is a view west from the top of the Dammeron Valley section. In the distant left you can see the familiar Square Top Mountain and pointy Jackson Peak. On the right is the majestic Veyo Volcano. The Gunlock exposures are just a few kilometers away, but no outcrops connect them to the Dammeron Valley.

Jerry Harris also showed me large exposures of the Carmel Formation in Diamond Valley, a few kilometers south of the Dammeron Valley location. It is not picturesque, but there is plenty of Carmel under that sagebrush. The excavation for that water tower turned out to be especially good for shelly fossils, so Jerry took me there right way.

The most common fossil is the pectenid bivalve Camptonectes. It has calcitic valves, so they are well preserved, unlike the numerous aragonite-shelled mollusks in the Carmel that are seen only as ghostly molds.

To my delight, some of the bivalves at this locality are encrusted by small cyclostome bryozoan colonies. Jurassic bryozoans are very rare in North America. In fact, Paul Taylor and I have described most of them from the Carmel! (Taylor, P.D. and Wilson, M.A. 1999. Middle Jurassic bryozoans from the Carmel Formation of southwestern Utah. Journal of Paleontology 73: 816-830.) The exquisite bryozoan colonies above are as good as any we’ve found before. A thorough study of all the Carmel sclerobionts is worth pursuing.

There are also nice wedge-shaped limid bivalves at the water tank exposure in Diamond Valley.

These fossiliferous slabs have lots of treasures. I only wish they were more common in the Carmel.

Here’s a simple Google Maps image of my three main areas of study north of St. George. 1 = Gunlock, 2 = Dammeron Valley, 3 = Diamond Valley. Curiously, the most fossiliferous part of the Carmel Formation (the upper unit of the Co-op Creek Limestone Member) differs significantly between Gunlock on the west and the two valleys on the east, even though they are only a few kilometers apart. The Gunlock area has oyster balls and hardgrounds, which are absent in the east. The trace fossils are also more abundant and diverse in Gunlock than in the other two sections. Shelly fossils, though, appear to be more common in the east. It will be fun to sort out these facies differences in more detail.

Finally, I wanted to include an image of the cinder cone and lava flows at the entrance to Diamond Valley. They are within Snow Canyon State Park and have been dated at an astonishingly young age of 32,000 years.

Great day, great scouting trip. Thanks again to Jerry Harris and Andrew Milner!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Another day in the shallow Jurassic seas of southwestern Utah

Mark Wilson April 18, 2018 4:18 am

St. George, Utah — Back to the Gunlock region for me to revisit old Carmel Formation research sites to check for access issues and new exposures. This trip has also given me a chance to update my images of the unit. Most of my previous images are shockingly on film. I’ve been in this business a long time.

Above is one of my favorite Carmel outcrops, the cliff at Eagle Mountain. The white and buff layers are the Co-op Creek Limestone Member of the Carmel Formation (Middle Jurassic). They are topped by a thick, well-cemented conglomeratic sandstone, The Iron Springs Formation (Upper Cretaceous). This is a nice example of an erosional disconformity between the units with an interval of time unrecorded (a hiatus). The cliff is on private land, so I’m in the process of finding the owners. The image was taken looking northeast from: 37°18.428’N, 113°44.408’W.

Today I looked at some smaller details in the Carmel sections. I found these exquisite mudcracks near the Eagle Mountain locality. This is solid rock, even though the cracks look modern. This shows, of course, that this patch of muddy seafloor dried out, producing the cracks by desiccation of clay minerals.

On top of the mudcracked layer is a thin carbonate bed with vugs and cracks filled with gypsum. This represents a hypersaline environment where gypsum and/or anhydrite was precipitated as evaporite minerals. We thus went in time from a dry seabed to one covered by shallow briny water.

Within the gypsum-rich layers are intraclasts of carbonate mud derived from the mudcracked layer below. When the seawater returned it had enough energy at times to rip up pieces of the hardened mud below.

Finally, on top of the gypsiferous layer is a limestone rich in star-shaped crinoid debris (ossicles of Isocrinus nicoletti). This represents the influx of normal marine water, albeit in a restricted context. As far as I can tell, there are multiple triplet layer sets like this near the middle of the Carmel in the Gunlock area. What was controlling these changes in sealevel and chemistry?

I would be neglecting my duties as a geologist if I didn’t mention that there is much more to the geology here than the Carmel Formation. Above we see the underlying Navajo Sandstone with its massive cross-bedded eolian dune features. The Navajo is topped here by thick basaltic lava flows of Pleistocene-Holocene age (the Santa Clara Volcanic Field).

Lovely place for a geologist!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Another geological scouting day in southwestern Utah

Mark Wilson April 17, 2018 4:17 am

Kanab, Utah — My day began with a visit to the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm, where I met Andrew R.C. Milner, the Site Paleontologist and Curator. This museum is built over an extraordinary set of dinosaur trackways. These tracks were not even discovered when I started working in the area, and now this building houses a busy and productive center for vertebrate paleontology in the region.

Andrew is a dinosaur paleontologist and an expert on vertebrate trace fossils, and he also knows a lot about the Carmel Formation and its outcrops in Utah. He gave me local contacts, and will join us in the field when we start the official Utah Jurassic expedition next month. He has been very helpful.

I then drove to Mt. Carmel Junction on the eastern side of Zion National Park, about two hours from St. George. It is a small place with a surprisingly long Wikipedia page. It sits in the center of several extensive exposures of the Carmel Formation, including this cross-bedded unit made almost entirely of crinoid ossicles. These rocks are called encrinites. This particular Middle Jurassic encrinite is one of the youngest known. This exposure is at Stop #5 of Tang (1997). It is still easily accessible at the northwest corner of the junction.

Alas, this great expanse of Carmel Formation, known as Stop #6 in Tang (1997) is no longer accessible, at least not easily. If you look carefully you can see a barbed-wire fence at the base of the outcrop. I could find no evidence of who owns this land, and jumping a fence out here can have serious consequences! Unfortunately there are far more such fences here than were present in the easy-going 1990’s. This makes taking students here harder for casual examinations of the rocks.

I spent the night in nearby Kanab, Utah, where I got to spend excellent time with my Father, who was in the area hiking with two friends. I then drove back to St. George the next morning, passing through a long stretch of northern Arizona. This included driving by the storied Colorado City of FLDS fame. Follow those links if you don’t know the story!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Wooster Geologist returns to the Jurassic of southwestern Utah

Mark Wilson April 16, 2018 4:16 am

St. George, Utah — This week I’m exploring the wonderful Middle Jurassic Carmel Formation exposed in southwestern Utah. It is a rare bit of solo fieldwork I’m doing to prepare for a Wooster Independent Study expedition here with students and Nick Wiesenberg in about a month. My colleagues, students and I last did research here almost two decades ago, so I wanted to make sure I knew how access and exposures have changed. Better to explore early than be surprised while leading a team! (One new thing in the above image: a lake where I used to wade across the Santa Clara River to get to the Carmel outcrops.)

The Carmel Formation is 100 to 300 meters thick, more or less, through parts of southern Utah. It is relatively thin by Utah Jurassic standards. It is a mostly marine unit, having been deposited in a narrow restricted seaway. I’ve long been fascinated by its fossils, which are almost entirely mollusks and traces of arthropods. It is time to revisit these exposures with new eyes and ideas.

This is a view looking north across typical Carmel Formation outcrops about a half-hour northwest of St. George. The rocks are exposed in strike valleys, which are great for finding bedding plane slabs with fossils and sedimentary features, but miserable for constructing stratigraphic columns. Luckily most of that tedious work is done. In the background are two iconic mountains for the area: Square Top and Jackson Peak. In April 1983, a B-52 bomber tragically crashed into Square Top.

The Carmel Formation is capped unconformably in this region by the Upper Cretaceous Iron Springs Formation, a conglomeratic sanadstone here. It is cemented well, capping the less resistant Carmel limestones and claystones below. This is a typical strike valley exposure of the top of the Carmel.

This is a Google Maps view of today’s field area, which is in the middle of the image stretching diagonally from the reservoir in the southeast (right) to where the dirt road bifurcates in the northwest.

One of the interesting features of the Carmel is a widespread carbonate hardground. Tim Palmer and I published on it a long time ago, but there are still many questions about its formation and the variety of borings on its surface. Above are two fragments found loose in a wadi.

The Carmel has beautiful sedimentary structures, like the ripples on the left, and cool trace fossils like the arthropod trackway (Gyrochorte) on the right.

I’m intrigued with the dominant oysters in the Carmel: Liostrea strigilecula. They formed “oyster balls” (ostreoliths) almost unique to the Carmel, and these large masses of unknown origin and significance. They seem to be small reef-like forms, but also show signs of occasional overturning. They hosted encrusting bryozoans and boring bivalves.

An early morning view of my field area. The reddish unit below is the Temple Cap Formation, with the base of the Carmel white turning into, shall we say, carmel-colored. The water is part of the Gunlock Reservoir.

Today I sorted out access to a few old localities, and found some new ones. Much has changed here in the last 20 years. There are new roads in and around the growing cities of St. George and Santa Clara, the Santa Clara river has been further managed with massive earthen works (in response to frequent flash floods, no doubt), and there seem to be new barbed-wire fences across some Carmel exposures. Nevertheless it felt like old times as I tramped across the gravelly hillsides scanning the ground for geological treasures.

I must add as a footnote an image of this ugly-but-simple bridge over the Santa Clara River at Miner’s Canyon. For years my students, colleagues and I waded through the river here because the water was too deep for our rental vehicles. This meant we had lots of walking to do once we were on the other side, including walking back loaded with rock samples. Now we can just drive across. I have a feeling, though, that this bridge will not survive the next flash flood!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Climate Monday: Repeat Photography

acrawford April 15, 2018 8:08 pm

The semester is winding down, so we only have a few more of these climate visualization posts to go. Today, I want to highlight repeat photography. Taking a picture of the same place several or many years apart can be a striking demonstration of change and capture the imagination better than a sterile graph or abstract map.

The flashiest examples applying the idea to climate change come from productions like Chasing Ice by the Extreme Ice Survey or Chasing Coral by Exposure Labs. (Chasing Coral was recently featured here at the College of Wooster as part of the “Great Decisions” series.) The products can be truly fascinating, especially when many photographs are combined in a time lapse video.  For example, the video of the Extreme Ice Survey’s repeat photography of Mendenhall Glacier, embedded below, gives a better impression of glaciers as flowing masses of ice than any single photograph or model simulation.  It also shows the decline in mass at the toe of the glacier between May 2007 and August 2011.

Rules of Climate Change Repeat Photography

Showing climate change with repeat photography requires a few special considerations:

First, you need to have not only the same location, but the same angle for your shot, showing the same context around the feature of interest in each and every photograph being compared.  This is why the Extreme Ice Survey set automated stations with the cameras well-mounted rather than using hand-held cameras.  Much of the Chasing Ice documentary is about building and installing the equipment necessary to achieve this fundamental “rule” of repeat photography. The Chasing Coral team tried similar techniques, only with the added complication of being under water.  Needless to say, it was harder for the Chasing Coral team.

Second, any repeat photography of environmental phenomena had better avoid making natural seasonal cycles look like climate change.  The two pictures of Sub Lake in Rocky Mountain National Park above were taken in June 2015 and January 2013.  The difference between the two isn’t climate change; it’s winter. Another example: The Mendenhall Glacier video shown above is labeled as “May 2007 to August 2011”.  A red outline of the glacier in the first frame is compared to the outline of the glacier in the final frame, and that’s a little deceptive.  Just like snow cover and sea ice, the Menhendall Glacier has a greater extent and thickness at the end of winter than the end of summer — especially at the toe. So part of that difference you’re seeing is just the fact that a) over 80 inches of snow typically fall on the toe of the Mendenhall from October to March and b) the average high temperature is over 60°F in June, July and August in southeast Alaska.  It’s likely to look more robust in May than August, so the time lapse would be better starting and ending in the same month.

Image result

Cherry blossoms in Washington, D.C. (from the National Park Service)

Third, climate change is not the only factor that determines whether one year is cooler or warmer or wetter or drier than the last.  Climate change is not the only factor that determines whether coral bleaching will occur or whether a glacier will retreat.  For example, in Chasing Coral, a coral bleaching event in Australia is highlighted and attributed to climate change.  At the same time, though, an El Niño event was occurring. El Niño is a natural part of the climate system, but it can also lead to warming and coral bleaching. Was global warming a factor in this bleaching event? Absolutely, but the devastation depicted in Chasing Coral may have been less overwhelming in a La Niña or normal year. As another example, if you were trying to take pictures in Washington DC to show how the date of cherry trees blooming was coming earlier each year, you might be disappointed.   Although blooming is now occurring on average about a week earlier than in the 1970s, peak bloom was actually slightly later than average this year. The best way to get around this issue is to have several decades between the start and end of the repeat photography pair or sequence.

The Repeat Photography Project at Glacier National Park

With all these rules in mind, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is currently undertaking a repeat photography project for the failing glaciers of Glacier National Park. They’re also soliciting help from visitors in a crowd-sourcing effort. The time spans exceed 50 or even 100 years for these photos, which is enough time to see some truly remarkable changes to Glacier National Park’s namesakes. It’s even long enough to avoid the seasonal issues discussed above. As an example of the output, below is repeat photography of Boulder Glacier (1932 to 2005) from the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK).

Boulder Glacier - 1932 Boulder Glacier - 2005 color

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Climate Monday: Putting Recent Weather in Context

acrawford April 9, 2018 7:30 pm

It snowed in Wooster today. It also snowed in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Maryland, and several other states. Across the Northeast and Midwest, baseball broadcasters, news anchors, my coworkers, and even random people on the street are remarking on how “It sure doesn’t feel like spring”, and “why won’t winter go away.”  Actually, this refrain has been happening since a series of big storms pummeled the East Coast in March.  So of course I wonder: how uncommon has the late winter/early spring weather been?

I figure we can use this griping to highlight where to go to see past weather in context.  It’s all too easy to get a forecast for tomorrow, and it’s all too easy to complain that the weather “isn’t like it used to be”.  But let’s get critical here: Is this abnormal? Here’s a few places you can go to get an answer:

  1. Go to NOAA’s “Climate Data Snapshots“. You can quickly display the basics of climate (temperature and precipitation) for any month in the 21st century up to last month. There’s a few other options, too (like drought and climate change projections). Here’s their map for whether the USA was cooler (blue) or warmer (red) than normal last March:

So yes, the East Coast was a bit colder than normal, but only by a few degrees Fahrenheit in most places. Maybe people in eastern Montana had better reason to gripe about the weather than anybody in the Midwest or Northeast. In was 10°F colder than normal up there.

2. For a little more analysis, check out the NOAA News section. This week, they have the summary for March 2018. They provide some context in addition to the maps on this site.  They also use a different map for showing whether it’s been colder or warmer than normal.  This map is a percentile map; instead of showing how warm or cold compare to normal it was in °F, it asks, what percentage of Marches were colder (or warmer) than this one?

 

Here we can see that although eastern Montana was about 10°F colder than normal on average in March, that’s par for the course in Montana.  The temperature varies widely out there on the northern plains, so an erratic March is nothing new.  In North Carolina and Virginia, however, having a March that is 5 or 6°F colder than normal is something rare, so pockets of those states came in “much below average”.  In other words, just as the average temperature in Montana is colder than North Carolina, the temperature in Montana is also more variable than in North Carolina.

3. A third place you can go is to the professional weather and climate bloggers at Category 6 on Weather Underground. Bob Henson and Jeff Masters are more likely to put a personal spin on a story, but sometimes that’s even more interesting.  They often highlight NOAA’s maps and give their own flavor.  For example, they prefer to highlight the state-wide averages for temperature:

When you do that, the whole story of the East Coast be cold and snowy (and it was snowy, for sure) pops out even more distinctly than eastern Montana — because overall, the state of Montana was pretty average.  Some of the detail is lost for big states when state-level data are used, but they also have some appeal — it’s easier to think in states than the the divisions used in the previous two maps, after all.

So getting back to today, what do the numbers say for Wooster.  Well, Sunday April 8 was the coldest day recently, with a low temperature of 23.5°F at the weather station at the OARDC just south of town.  The record low for April 8 is 14°F, set in 1982.  The average is 33.0°F. So no, this wasn’t record cold for Wooster. But it was pretty low — only 12 years (about 10%) since 1900 had a lower daily minimum for April 8.  Also, of the 52 years with non-zero precipitation on April 8, a total of 11 of them had snow — that’s 21%.  (It drops to 19% for April 9.)  In other words, yes, it’s colder than normal…  and yes, snow is rare on April 9 in Ohio.  But not that rare.  The last time it did, in fact, was… 2016.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Wooster Paleontologist visits the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History

Mark Wilson April 5, 2018 11:01 pm

Washington, DC — I have the privilege this semester of being on a research leave from teaching, so I thought I’d report on one of my activities. Without classroom responsibilities I can travel for research opportunities, especially now as the weather in the northeastern US marginally improves. (Despite the sunny view above, it was freezing!)

I visited the Paleobiology Department of the National Museum of Natural History in Washington to examine some particular fossils in the collections, and give a departmental seminar. This is typical for paleontological research, and I’m grateful to the generations of museum scientists who make it possible.

The Collections Manager at the NMNH Paleobiology Department is our own Kathy Hollis (’03). She does such a fine job she’s on a poster board in front of the museum, and she was featured in an excellent Wooster Magazine article on museum science.

Kathy sets me up deep in the fossil collections, endless rows of cabinets. The Paleobiology Department, in fact, has more than 10,000 of these, each with multiple drawers of treasures.

My work is pretty simple at this stage. I find fossils of interest in the collections (most of which I’ve identified from publications) and photograph them for future reference. I use this copy stand, which is the best in the business. (I want one, Department Chair.) The paper tray is filled with lead shot which is useful for positioning specimens at any angle under the camera.

Here’s an example specimen: the ambonychid bivalve Claudeonychia from the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnatian region. The scale is in centimeters. The dark color is actually an encrusting bryozoan, a story I’ll tell later.

I meet many cool fossils along the way, including this magnificent specimen of Wilsonoceras from Wyoming. It is a nautiloid cephalopod I’ve always wanted to see purely for its name!

Here is the poster for my presentation to the Paleobiology Department. It is a tradition for visiting researchers to present a talk on their work.

This is the Cooper Room where the talks are held. I love its Old School ambiance, and the paleontological history it represents. It is a superb place to present ideas to colleagues in the discipline.

The field season is about to begin for Wooster Earth Scientists, so expect more posts. Again, it is a privilege to have such opportunities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Climate Monday: Climate Change Hot Spots

acrawford April 2, 2018 7:32 pm

It’s no secret that global warming does not simply mean more warm days and fewer cold ones. Warming is uneven, with some regions (like the Arctic) warming faster than others. Additionally, warming of the atmosphere and oceans has a cascading effect on other parts of the Earth system, from the amount of ice stored in Greenland to the variability of global wind patterns, to the extent of various habitats. The world is complex, and it the impacts of climate change myriad. With so many changes happening, what places or changes should humans focus adaptation and mitigation efforts? Enter the concept of “climate change hot spots”. Let’s examine three frameworks and how they’re visualized.

Example #1: One of the simplest frameworks for talking about climate change hot spots is to consider places where various physical aspects of the climate are projected to change the most (Kerr 2008). This was the tactic used by a group of climate modelers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research back in 2008.  They ran detailed, regional-scale climate models into the future and looked for a) places with the most change in average temperature and precipitation, and b) places with the most change in the variability of temperature and precipitation (in other words, heat waves, cold snaps, floods, and droughts).  The result was a relative index from low change to high change:

Figure 1: Map of the “relative responsiveness” of the USA and northern Mexico to climate change based on projected changes in temperature and precipitation under a suite of climate models. (Kerr 2008)

The nice thing about this measure is that it’s objective and gives a value of overall impact for everywhere in the lower 48.  It’s limited in it’s utility, though.  For one thing, it only measures temperature and precipitation, omitting related concepts like sea level rise and wildfire frequency/intensity.  It also is a projection of the future, which is problematic both because there’s less certainty about the future and because there are changes already happening that might be more pressing to address.

Example #2: That in mind, another way to define “climate hot spot” is a location that has already changed substantially. The Union of Concerned Scientists (2011) has compiled a map of locations that have “well-documented” changes already occurring. Here’s a snapshot, but the visualization is meant to be an interactive map, not a static image, which is certainly inviting.  The “well-documented” claim is supported by reference lists and descriptions for each event. In other words, these have been researched substantially.  Another interesting point is that the map shows a much broader view of “climate change” than the earlier climate model studies.  Sure, there’s “extreme wet” and “air temperature”, but there’s also “ecosystem” sections and “health” and “food” for people. This is definitely better suited for a broader audience and broader concerns.

Figure 2: Snapshot example of climate hot spots by the Union of Concerned Scientists (2011).

Still, the above example may seem lacking with regard to two elements (and maybe others): First, it is clearly focused on the USA.  There is a data bias, of course — the Union of Concerned Scientists has many American scientists, and many of them study the USA. But it may give the false impression that the USA has more dire situations than the rest of the world.  Second, there is still little sense of risk versus vulnerability.

If we think of climate change as a natural hazard, just like a volcanic eruption or an earthquake or a hurricane, we can talk about both risk and vulnerability of populations.  For example, both the Netherlands and Florida are at great risk of sea level rise, but the Dutch are bettered prepared to adapt to rising seas because of past experience and current cultural, political, and physical infrastructure. The same risk can lead to more or less hardship depending on how vulnerable a place is — and assuming sea level rises about the same in both locations, Florida is likely to have more hardship from sea level rise than the Netherlands.

Example #3: This added concept of vulnerability is used to define “climate hot spots” in yet another way: as locations where “strong physical and ecological effects of climate change come together with large numbers of vulnerable and poor people and communities” (Neumann and Szabo 2016). Their map is still really a measure of risk, not vulnerability, but they use it to help highlight areas with high risk that also have special vulnerability (originally identified by De Souza et al. 2015):

  1. Deltas in Africa and South Asia that have large populations of poorer people. Groundwater extraction and other human activities that make deltas sink can exacerbate the effects of sea level rise.
  2. Semi-arid regions in parts of Africa, South Asia, and Central Asia that may become drier. Again, the lower economic resources in these regions make them more vulnerable.
  3. River basins dependent on glaciers and snowpacks as a water source, especially in the Himalaya, where there are large populations of poorer people.

Figure 3: Climate risks based on three factors: snow-dependence, semi-arid climate, and river deltas. (Neumann and Szabo 2016).

___

Works Cited

De Souza, K., Kituyi, E., Harvey, B. et al.  (2015). Vulnerability to climate change in three hot spots in Africa and Asia: key issues for policy-relevant adaptation and resilience-building research. Reg Environ Change, 15: 747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0755-8

Kerr, R. (2008). Climate Change Hot Spots Mapped Across the United States. Science, 31: 909. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/321/5891/909.full.pdf

Neumann, B. and Szabo, S. (2016). Climate change ‘hotspots’: why they matter and why we should invest in them. The Conversation. Accessed 2 Apr 2018. http://theconversation.com/climate-change-hotspots-why-they-matter-and-why-we-should-invest-in-them-68770

Union of Concerned Scientists (2011). Climate Hot Map. Accessed 2 Apr 2018. http://www.climatehotmap.org

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Climate Monday: Weather Forecast Maps

acrawford March 26, 2018 2:02 pm

The College of Wooster is now back in session for six more weeks, which means we have six more climate visualizations to share this semester. Today is bright, sunny, and quickly approaching 50°F in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but we’re due for a rainy week, so it seemed like a good time to highlight weather forecasts.  In the USA, we see forecasts for our localities frequently.  Maps or descriptions of current and future weather conditions are pervasive throughout the various forms of media, from phone apps to newspapers to radio broadcasts.

Below is the current weather surface according to The Weather Channel.  There’s high pressure currently centered over the northeast — hence the clear skies, but a storm is brewing over the Oklahoma panhandle.  Over the next few days, that low pressure center is going to move eastward and northward, shoving that precipitation you currently see over Missouri along with it and generating more along those fronts as it strengthens.  I like The Weather Channel current surface maps.  They’re neat, colorful, easy to read, and only show the essentials needed to understand the current weather state.  However, they don’t have a similar map for forecasts.

Current US Surface Weather Map

For example, if you go to the “Classic Weather Maps” section of their website, and then scroll down to learn what’s in store for Wednesday, I you see this:

Day 3 Forecast

 

That not too bad for many people.  Find a city near you, look at the symbol and the high temperature, and you get a good sense of how to dress. However, if you’re halfway between cities shown, like Wooster or the middle of Iowa or Oregon, this map is less helpful. Is is going to rain in Wooster like Cincinnati or just be cloudy like Detroit? Also, there’s a lack of context — there’s no marking of high and low pressure to help give a sense of the atmospheric circulation behind these weather forecasts.  If you’re interested in your locality, you probably want a map that’s zoomed in further, so this national map isn’t helpful. And if you’re a weather geek, you probably want more detail.  So this forecast map may not be what you’re looking for.

Another option is Weather Underground. This website is a bit geekier than The Weather Channel, and it’s especially cool that you can link up your own personal weather station data to their server for free and share it with the world.  Their main forecast map for Wednesday morning (shown below) is dominated by the precipitation.  No cities or cloud/sun symbols are shown, but you probably know where you live and can surmise that a place receiving that light green shade will be cloudy with some showers, whereas the dark green is a sure thing for steady rain at least part of the day.  It’s a little easier to gauge the broader context here, too.  That big band of rain from Texas to upstate New York is a classic signature of a winter storm (yes, “winter”… “extratropical cyclone” is more accurate, but also less commonly said) that’s moved across the Heartland and currently sits in the northeast, a big cold front extending down to the southwest.  But the front isn’t drawn; neither is the low pressure symbol.  There could be more.

Both The Weather Channel and Weather Underground are primarily weather communicators and collectors. They do not actually make the forecasts; rather, they receive forecasts from the National Weather Service (a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA). If you aim for Wednesday from NOAA, you get this map:

For the weather geeks, this is the best map.  It has the precipitation forecast, but it also shows the fronts and the pressure.  The context that can be inferred from other maps is plain and explicit here.  This is definitely not the prettiest map, and if you’re not a weather fan, it might seem pretty cluttered.  However, if you like clutter, check out this forecast map from Unisys:

NAM - US - SL Pres/Prec - 48hr

Personally, I think that is not a nice color scheme, and the number of “Highs” and “Lows” indicated is a tad excessive.  But there’s a lot of data on this map, and that can be useful for analysis even if it fails at communication. In the end, the map you choose likely depends on your personal preference!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment