Yesterday’s New York Times had the sobering story:
Fall, the long-running series of shorter days and cooler nights, was canceled earlier this week after nearly 3 billion seasons on Earth, sources reported Tuesday.
The classic period of the year, which once occupied a coveted slot between summer and winter, will be replaced by new, stifling humidity levels, near-constant sunshine and almost no precipitation for months.
“As much as we’d like to see it stay, fall will not be returning for another season,’ National Weather Service president John Hayes announced during a muggy press conference Nov. 6. ‘Fall had a great run, but sadly, times have changed….” The cancellation was not without its share of warning signs. In recent years, fall had been reduced from three months to a meager two-week stint, and its scheduled start time had been pushed back later and later each year.
Okay, maybe this isn’t exactly a news story — Tom Friedman in yesterday’s NYT was merely reprinting a hilarious story from The Onion,” America’s Finest News Source.”
What makes this especially sad funny ironic is that, the same day, the New York Times also ran a front page news story on how the fashion industry is turning to climate experts to help them respond to the bizarre weather and changes in seasons we have been experiencing. In a stunning case of life imitating art, the Times quotes Michael Alexin, vice president for apparel design and development at Target, on what is happening to the fall (fashion) season:
Fall may not be knocked out, but it is on the ropes.
In memorial, the Onion listed “Some of fall’s most memorable moments”:
1841: Leaves crumple gently underfoot
1969: Nation charmed by adorable kids bundled up in scarves
1998: A number of highly anticipated weddings showcase stunning foliage
2006: Crisp autumn air makes its final appearance
Yes, I will always remember the days we needed scarves during the fall. Let’s hope we act fast enough so our children don’t ever have to remember the days they needed scarves during the winter.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
When I first saw that Onion article a while ago, I laughed, but quikcly recalled that New England tourism business cares about autumn leaves & Sugar maples:
Google: new england autumn leaves climate change
Well, bring a sweater if you plan to visit AZ – My donkey was frozen this morning. At least it looks and feels like autumn here ….
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the shorter days that trigger the leaves turning, not the temps?
Actually, it now looks like it is extra carbon dioxide that triggers the leaves turning!
Hmm, that’s new.
I can’t find any reference to leaves turning later in the fall in past 30 years, as it says in the article. Do you happen to know of such a refernce?
Well, yes. From Europe to the US there has been a well-documented and slow creep of seasons. Migratory species — who have no stake in arguing one side or the other of climate change other than survival — have been showing up earlier and leaving later for more than two decades, now. Bears have stopped hibernating in some areas, and so far as I know, they’re not part of a liberal global warming conspiracy. Then there’s the monthly temperature statistics from the National Weather service, which show a pretty conclusive warming trend in the season formerly known as fall.
Facts. Pretty stubborn stuff.
Just google it, and you’ll get a plethora of hits.
I did google the question of leaves turning later, but found nothing. Post a link if you have it. If this has been a noticeable trend there ought to be articles out there.
The article on the CO2 connection says that fall (leaves turning) has been starting 1.3 to 1.8 days later per decade for 3 decades now (a total of 4.65?). Let’s be honest: that’s not much of a change. I’m surprised anybody even noticed that and I wonder what the natural variability has been.
Higher temperatures may or may not cause the leaves to turn later or be duller [those issues seem complicated], but I wasn’t referring to those (relatively) minor issues.
The *real* worry is that as temperature rises, there will be less maples/northern hardwoods, as they get replaced by oak, hickory, pines, and hence less of the bright fall foliage that bring places like New Hampshire $100Ms of tourist revenue per year, as well as the decline of New England maple syrup. [Decline of the ski industry is a related topic, but has little do do with Autumn.]
http://www.des.state.nh.us/ard/climatechange/impacts.htm
and specifically “Global Climate Change and Its Impact on New Hampshire’s Fall Foliage and Maple Sugar Industry”:
http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-25.htm
EPA [page 4]:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ OAR/ globalwarming.nsf/ UniqueKeyLookup/ SHSU5BVJDV/ $File/ nh_impct.pdf
or in Vermont, according to the EPA [see page 4]:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ oar/ globalwarming.nsf/ UniqueKeyLookup/ SHSU5BWJ5J/ $File/ vt_impct.pdf\
I don’t know if there are precise foliage metrics, but people certainly track the maple syrup business [which in general has been moving North to Canada, although not jus for climate change reasons, of course]:
“Syrup – The Soul Of Vermont
New England’s Fall Sugar Maples Threatened By Global Warming”
http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2002/ 09/ 23/ tech/ main523028.shtml
Another way of looking at this would be to ask those who book tours and hotel rooms for people wanting to take ‘fall color tours’.
Have they ever guaranteed the beginning of the ‘color season’ down to a day or two start time?
No, they haven’t.
This story might be like the ones about the deformed frogs who were suffering because of the ozone hole – who ended up being diagnosed with a virus.
By the way, anybody come up with a good explanation for the ozone whole getting better yet?
One of my favorite Onion pieces was in the January 25, 2006 issue:
http://www.theonion.com/ content/ news/ nations_snowmen_march_against
For those who would like data on the changing seasons, here is one peer reviewed article on the subject:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/21/7465
John,
You’re probably right, if the climate is heating up, and if it has the impacts that some are predicting.
One of your links said it very well, [emphasis mine]:
“The brilliance of New Hampshire’s fall foliage colors may be adversely affected, according to predictions by many climate change scientists. Warmer temperatures may eradicate some species, and pests and pathogens may strike harder. Forests potentially thinned and prey to disease may lose their variety of rich color hues and brilliance.”
And I didn’t just want to see more reports supporting global warming, anyway guys. I’m intrigued about the leaf-turning claim: If leaves are really turning later, then that might be some tangible evidence of something. The study in the article was an experiment on trees ‘force-fed’ CO2.
My bull$h1t detector is going off and I’d like to know if anybody has actually observed fall leaves turning colors 1.3 to 1.8 days later per decade than they used to. Seems simple enough.
Apparently some researchers at The University of Southhampton have heard of such a study; apparently their proposal was based on it. Seems pretty far-fetched to me, though. Maybe they pulled some numbers out of their A$$es. In which case, this is propaganda.
The study itself, however, sounds pretty interesting. I wonder why the poplar trees have latent genes associated with increased CO2. Maybe one for Lovelock to ponder.
Ron: I’m not sure whether you’re talking to me or to the other “John”: I *specifically* disclaimed making any particular claim about number of days, as I have never seen such as a metric, so you seem to be addressing the other John’s claim, but pointing at one of my references.
I can imagine that somebody, somewhere has tracked the peak day in some specific place, which of course is subject to lots of gyrations year to year. Has anyone tracked them over any length of time, in a consistent way, at a statistically-valid number of spots, over a useful number of years? I don’t know (and don’t really care, it certainly wasn’t what I was talking about. Like I said, a couple days this way or that really doesn’t matter much, whereas species motion does, especially to people who care about sugar maples.)
But, if you want to look:
1) Here’s a map of typical peaks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FallFoliageMap.PNG from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_leaf_color
Obviously, it isn’t just latitude (length of day), but depends on temperature (which depends somewhat on altitude), sunlight, precipitation, etc. But, pretty clearly:
colder ~ earlier foliage
warmer ~ later foliage
2) Here’s a map of the natural range for the sugar maple:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/ spfo/ pubs/ silvics_manual/ volume_2/ acer/ saccharum.htm
“In northern New England and New York State it grows at elevations up to 760 m (2,500 ft). In the Green Mountains of Vermont and the White Mountains of New Hampshire, especially, the upper limit lies in a sharp horizontal band with a narrow transitional zone into the Boreal forest types. In the southern Appalachians the upper elevation ranges from 910 m (3,000 ft) to 1680 m (5,500 ft), with the lower levels generally restricted to the cooler north slopes.”
Put another way, further South, it grows higher up the hills, where it’s cooler.
As it gets warmer, tree populations shift up the hills (until they disappear) or North.
Of course, pollution doesn’t help any of the trees, i.e., one has to disentangle that.
3) One of those references pointed at:
“Indicators of Climate Change in the Northeast 2005″
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/ information/ pdf/ indicators.pdf
It doesn’t say anything about sugar maples specifically, but has clear comments about length of growing season (increasing), bloom dates (apples, grapes, lilacs) earlier, snow (less).
4) Among others, folks in Illinois are studying Maple movement:
http://www.niu.edu/ northerntoday/ 2007/ sept10/ sugarmaple.shtml
(I.e., the Northward motion is a well-known thing among the relevant scientists and agriculture people.)