Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Climate of the Past Discussions”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2018

Executive summary. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report

Central to life on Earth, carbon is essential to the molecular makeup of all living things and plays a key role in regulating global climate. To understand carbon’s role in these processes, researchers measure and evaluate carbon stocks and fluxes. A stock is the quantity of carbon contained in a pool or reservoir in the Earth system (e.g., carbon in forest trees), and a flux is the direction and rate of carbon’s transfer between pools (e.g., the movement of carbon from the atmosphere into forest trees during photosynthesis). This document, the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2), examines the patterns of carbon stocks and fluxes—collectively called the “carbon cycle.” Emphasis is given to these patterns in specific sectors (e.g., agriculture and energy) and ecosystems (e.g., forests and coastal waters) and to the response of the carbon cycle to human activity. The purpose of SOCCR2 is to assess the current state of the North American carbon cycle and to present recent advances in understanding the factors that influence it. Concentrating on North America—Canada, the United States, and Mexico—the report describes carbon cycling for air, land, inland waters (streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs), and coastal waters (see Figure ES.1, p. 23). The questions framing the publication A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan (Michalak et al., 2011) inspired development of three slightly modified questions that guide SOCCR2’s content and focus on North America in a global context: How have natural processes and human actions affected the global carbon cycle on land, in the atmosphere, in the ocean and other aquatic systems, and at ecosystem interfaces (e.g., coastal, wetland, and urban-rural)? How have socioeconomic trends affected atmospheric levels of the primary carbon-containing gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)? How have species, ecosystems, natural resources, and human systems been impacted by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, associated changes in climate, and carbon management decisions and practices? SOCCR2 synthesizes the most recent understanding of carbon cycling in North America, assessing new carbon cycle findings and information, the state of knowledge regarding core methods used to study the carbon cycle, and future research needed to best inform carbon management and policy options. Focusing on scientific developments in the decade since the First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR1; CCSP 2007), SOCCR2 summarizes the past, current, and projected state of carbon sources, sinks, and natural processes, as well as contributions by human activities. In addition to CO2 and CH4, the report sometimes discusses nitrous oxide (N2O), a GHG associated with activities and processes that affect fluxes of carbon gases.1 SOCCR2 also describes improvements in analysis tools; developments in decision support; and new insights into ecosystem carbon cycling, human causes of changes in the carbon cycle, and social science perspectives on carbon. Since publication of SOCCR1, coordinated research from agencies in the three North American countries has enabled innovative observational, analytical, and modeling capabilities to further advance understanding of the North American carbon cycle (see Appendix D: Carbon Measurement Approaches and Accounting Frameworks, p. 834). Some of the report’s main conclusions, based on the Key Findings of each chapter, are highlighted in Box ES.1, Main Findings of SOCCR2, p. 24.

Report↗
USGS2013

Species of conservation concern and environmental stressors: Local regional and global effects

Species conservation has traditionally been based on individual species within the context of their requisite habitat, which is generally defined as the communities and ecosystems deemed necessary for their presence. Conservation decisions are hampered by the fact that environmental stressors that poetically threaten the persistence of species can operate at organizational levels larger than the habitat or home range of a focal species. Resource managers must therefore simultaneously consider local, regional, and/or global scale stressors for effective conservation and management of species of concern. The wide ranging effects associated with global stressors such as climate change may exceed or exacerbate the effects of local or regional stressors, they still need to understand the direct and interactive effects of global stressors and ultimately how they affect the lands they manage. Conservation of species in southern Nevada is further complication by the fact that the region includes one of the largest and fastest growing urban centers in North America. To accomplish the goal of species conservation, resource managers must identify actionable management options that mitigate the effects of local and regional stressor in the context of the effects of global stressors that are beyond their control. Species conservation is typically focused on a subset often referred to as species of conservation concern that have either demonstrated considerable decline or are naturally rare or have limited distributions. Stressors can directly and indirectly impact species in a variety of ways and through a diversity of mechanisms. Some stressors have been more intense in the past (e.g., livestock grazing) whereas other are now only emerging as new stressors (e.g., solar energy development, climate change). The primary stressors affecting southern Nevada ecosystems are listed in table 2.1 and reviewed in detail in Chapter 2. This chapter addresses Dub-goal 1.4 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy which is to sustain and enhance southern Nevada's biotic communities to preserve biodiversity wand maintain viable populations (table 1.3; Turner and others 2009). We provide numerous examples of how stressors affect the range and/or habitat of select species of conservation concern. It is important to note that the species or groups discussed in this chapter by no means represent a comprehensive treatment of all species of conservation concern listed in Table 1.2 (Chapter 1). Rather, several species were chosen as examples for each southern Nevada ecosystem type to illustrate how stressors and linkages among them can affect species of conservation concern, keeping in mind that many of the species considered here are found in more than one ecosystem type. In addition, the stressors that may impact a species in one ecosystem may not be those that affect it in another ecosystem and different species in the same ecosystem may not be affected by the same suite of stressors. Finally, at the start of each ecosystem section we summarize key resource concerns, species used as examples, key stressors, and potential synergistic effects of those stressors relative to the species example.

Nevada↗
USGS2022

Lessons learned from wetlands research at the Cottonwood Lake Study Area, Stutsman County, North Dakota, 1967–2021

Depressional wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America have a long history of investigation owing to their importance in maintaining migratory-bird populations, especially waterfowl. One area of particularly intensive study is the Cottonwood Lake study area in Stutsman County, North Dakota. Studies at the Cottonwood Lake study area began in 1967 and continue through the present (2022). During this period of scientific discovery, meteorological conditions at the Cottonwood Lake study area varied greatly and included one of the most severe droughts of the 20th century and one of the wettest periods in the past 500 years. Persistent wet conditions that began in 1993 have contributed to state changes in many of the study area’s larger wetlands to lake-like conditions, whereas the smaller wetlands returned to seasonally ponded conditions during relatively dry years interspersed within the longer-term wet period. Additionally, some nonwetland areas of the study area developed wetland plant, hydrology, and soil characteristics during the 1993-to-present (2022) wet period. The persistently high stages of water in the larger wetlands since 1993 contributed to a buildup of dissolved solids and increases in salinity with time following an initial decrease in salinity caused by the dilution of dissolved solids within a larger volume of water. During 2021, drought conditions similar to the 1988 to 1992 period may develop if conditions persist. However, meteorological changes during the past 30 years have persisted long enough to be considered a change in climate conditions at the study area and, if such wet conditions continue, would represent a change from conditions that occurred in the past two millennia. During the period of study covered in this report (1967–2021), biotic communities responded in a variety of ways to subtle and marked changes in ponded-water depths, permanence, and salinity among the different wetland types in the study area. This report provides background information on the Cottonwood Lake study area and its context within the Prairie Pothole Region, documents techniques used to quantify environmental conditions and biotic communities, describes major trends that have been observed, presents significant findings as “lessons learned,” discusses recent modeling advances, and highlights key messages to managers. The Wetland Continuum concept was used as a framework to place research findings within an ecological context and to highlight the dynamic nature of prairie-pothole wetland ecosystems.

North Dakota↗
USGS1972

Regional and other general factors bearing on evaluation of earthquake and other geologic hazards to coastal communities of southeastern Alaska

The great Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, brought into sharp focus the need for engineering geologic studies in seismically active regions. As a result, nine communities in southeastern Alaska were selected for reconnaissance investigations as an integral part of an overall program to evaluate earthquake and other geologic hazards in most of the larger Alaska coastal communities. This report gives background information on the regional and other general factors that bear on these evaluations. Southeastern Alaska, about 525 miles long and averaging about 125 miles in width, consists of a narrow mainland strip and numerous islands. For the most part, it is a region of rugged relief with numerous glaciers capping many of the higher mountainous areas and with long linear fiords forming the inland waterways. A maritime climate prevails with mild winters and cool summers. The southeastern part of the region receives the highest precipitation in the continental United States. Ketchikan, with a population of 6,994 in 1970, is the largest city. Geology and structure of the area are complex. Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks crop out and range in age from Paleozoic to Tertiary. Surficial deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene age mantle many areas. All of southeastern Alaska, except probably the highest peaks, was covered by glacier ice advances of late Pleistocene age. Major deglaciation was well advanced by 10,000 years ago--a time which approximately marks the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. There followed a period of warm climate called the Hypsithermal, which in southeastern Alaska began 7,000-8,000 years ago and ended about 4,800-3,500 years ago. Glaciers in most places receded back of their present positions. The Hypsithermal was followed by an interval (termed Neoglaciation) of cooler climate and resurgence of glacier ice which continues to the present, although most glaciers are now rapidly receding. During the past 10,000 years worldwide sea level has risen about 100 feet, but during the past 4,000 years it has risen only about 10 feet or about 0.03 inch per year. With sea level used as a datum, the amount of sea-level rise must be added to the apparent uplift of land for the time under consideration to determine the actual amount of land uplift. The widespread presence of emergent marine deposits, several hundred feet above sea level, demonstrates that the land in southeastern Alaska has been uplifted since the last major deglaciation. The greatest known has been uplifted since the last major deglaciation. The greatest known uplift is in the vicinity of Juneau where glaciomarine deposits are present 750 feet above present sea level. Part of southeastern Alaska is presently undergoing one of the most rapid rates of uplift of any place in the world. The fastest emergence is occurring in the Glacier Bay area where the land is being uplifted relative to sea level approximately 3.9 cm per year. Most or all of the uplift appears to be due to rebound as a result of deglaciation. Southeastern Alaska lies within the circum-Pacific earthquake belt, one of the world's greatest zones of seismic activity. During historic time, there have been five earthquakes in the region with magnitudes of 8 or greater, three with magnitudes of 7 to 8, eight with magnitudes of 6 to 7, more than 15 with magnitudes of 5 to 6, and about 140 recorded earthquakes with magnitudes smaller than 5 or of unassigned magnitudes. All of the earthquakes with magnitudes 8 or greater, and a large proportion of the others, appear to be related to the active Fairweather- Queen Charlotte Islands fault system or its western extension, the Chugach-St. Elias fault. Earthquake epicenters on the Denali fault system, the other major fault system in southeastern Alaska, are few in comparison. However, because high microearthquake activity has been recorded recently on this system and earthquakes of moderate size have occurred on some of its segments, the Denali fault system probably should not be dismissed as a relict fault system of no current tectonic importance. There are numerous other known faults, as well as lineaments that may be faults of varying degrees of tectonic activity in southeastern Alaska, adjacent Canada, and eastern Alaska. One of these elements is the Totschunda fault system, which connects with the Denali fault system in eastern Alaska; it has been very active during Holocene time but few historical earthquake epicenters appear to be related to it. Both historical seismicity and geologic conditions, such as frequency and recency of faulting, must be considered together to permit an assessment of the future earthquake probability of an area. Data are too few for both factors for an accurate evaluation to be made of earthquake probability in southeastern Alaska. However, information compiled in the form of strain-release and seismic-zone maps permit some generalizations. Thus, it is tentatively concluded that most, if not all, of southeastern Alaska should be placed in seismic zone 3, a zone in which earthquakes of magnitude greater than 6 will occur from time to time and where there may be major damage to manmade structures. Inferred effects from future earthquakes in southeastern Alaska include: (1) surface displacement along faults and other tectonic land-level changes, (2) ground shaking, (3) compaction, (4) liquefaction in cohesionless materials, (5) reaction of sensitive and quick clays, (6) water-sediment ejection and associated subsidence and ground fracturing, (7) earthquake-induced sub aerial slides and slumps, (8) earthquake induced subaqueous slides, (9) effects on glaciers and related features, (10) effects on ground water and stream flow, and (11) tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves. Because of the reconnaissance nature of our studies in the coastal communities and the sparsity of laboratory data on physical properties of geologic units in each area studied, the inferred effects must be largely empirical and generalized. Therefore, the inferences are based in large part upon the effects of past major earthquakes in Alaska and elsewhere, particularly upon the well-documented effects of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964. Buildings, highways, bridges, tunnels, harbor facilities, pipelines, canals, and other manmade structures may be severely damaged or destroyed by fault displacement or related tectonic land-level changes in southeastern Alaska. Direct damage from fault rupture would be restricted virtually to structures built directly athwart the fault. In California and Nevada, fault rupture almost always accompanies shocks of magnitude 6.5 or greater. The Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, and the Chilean earthquake of May 22, 1960, dramatically illustrated the severe adverse effects that can result from uplift or subsidence over a wide area. The variable most responsible for the degree of shaking at any epicentral distance is the type of ground. Generally, shaking is considerably greater in poorly consolidated deposits than in hard bedrock, particularly if the deposits are water saturated. Severe shaking of alluvial deposits and manmade fill, with resultant heavy damage, is well documented from the records of many past earthquakes. Damage commonly has been heavy as a result of ground settlement caused by compaction of loose sediments by shaking during an earthquake. This has been especially true where compaction was accompanied by tectonic downdrop of land, such as occurred during the Chilean earthquake of 1960 and the Alaska earthquake of 1964. Loosely emplaced manmade fill, deltaic deposits, beach deposits, and alluvial deposits may be susceptible to compaction in southeastern Alaska during a severe earthquake. Liquefaction of sand and silt is a fairly common effect of large earthquakes. It was well illustrated at Niigata, Japan, during the earthquake of June 16, 1964, and resulted in extensive damage. When part of a sloping soil mass liquefies, the entire mass can undergo catastrophic failure and can flow as a high-density liquid. In southeastern Alaska, deltaic deposits probably would be most susceptible to liquefaction. Sensitive and quick clays, which lose a considerable part of their strength when shaken, commonly fail during an earthquake and become rapid earthflows. Extensive studies were made of the sensitivity of the Bootlegger Cove Clay at Anchorage because of the marked loss of shear strength and dramatic failures of the deposits during the Alaska earthquake of 1964. If similar sensitive clays are present in some places in southeastern Alaska, they most likely are in some of the emergent fine-grained marine deposits; supporting data to confirm their presence, however, are largely lacking. Records of some 50 major earthquakes show that in at least half of the instances water and sediment have been ejected from surficial deposits Water-sediment ejection and associated subsidence and ground fracturing commonly cause extensive damage to the works of man. Ejecta may fill basements and other low-lying parts of buildings. Agricultural land can be covered with a blanket of infertile soils, and small ponds can be filled or made shallow. In southeastern Alaska these phenomena are most likely to occur on valley floors, deltas, tidal flats, alluvial fans, swamps, and lakeshores. Earthquake-induced sliding on land generally is confined to steep slopes but may take place in fine-grained deposits on moderately to nearly flat surfaces if the deposits are subject to liquefaction. A large rockslide triggered by the Lituya Bay, Alaska, earthquake of July 10, 1958, generated a wave that surged up the opposite wall of the inlet to a record height of 1,740 feet. During the Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of August 17, 1959, a spectacular rockslide plunged into the Madison River canyon, buried 28 people, dammed the river, and created a large lake. Earthquake-records are replete with accounts of sliding of surficial deposits during moderate to large earthquakes. Most or all of the general factors that favor subaerial landsliding are present in southeastern Alaska. Earthquake-induced subaqueous slides can produce adverse effects both nearshore and some distance offshore. Nearshore sliding may progress shoreward and destroy harbor facilities and other structures, commonly with substantial loss of life. Disastrous large submarine slides occurred along the fronts of deltas in Seward and Valdez during the Alaska earthquake of 1964. In similar fashion, the largest submarine slides in southeastern Alaska likely will be triggered along the larger delta fronts. Sliding farther offshore can constitute a threat to navigation because of changes in water depths. Also underwater sliding can break communication cables. Glaciers were not greatly affected by the Alaska earthquake of 1964 despite the fact that about 20 percent of the area that underwent strong shaking is covered by ice. In contrast, the cataclysmic avalanche of ice and rock that fell from a high glacier-covered peak in Peru during the earthquake of May 31, 1970, produced devastating effects downvalley on man and his works in the form of mudflows. Most towns in southeastern Alaska are sufficiently distant from glaciers so as not be to directly affected. Both the Alaska earthquake of 1964 and the Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of 1959 significantly affected ground- and surface-water regimens. Water levels in some wells declined whereas in others flow increased. Some springs discharged at a rate three times as much as normal; flow of others decreased or stopped. Discharge of many streams increased markedly. Most or all of the effects described above could occur in parts of southeastern Alaska during future large earthquakes. Tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves associated with large earthquakes commonly cause vast property damage and heavy loss of life. Tsunami effects can be devastating to coastal areas as far as many thousands of miles from their generation source. Seiche effects generally are confined to inland bodies of water or to relatively enclosed coastal bodies of water. Abnormal waves generated by submarine sliding or by subaerial sliding into water generally produce only local effects but may be highly devastating. Tsunami waves resulting from the Chilean earthquake of 1960 inflicted extensive damage and loss of life on coastal communities throughout a large part of southern Chile, and significant runups and damage were recorded in many places throughout the Pacific Ocean area. The tsunami waves generated by the Alaska earthquake of 1964 struck with devastating force along a broad stretch of the Alaska coast and produced heavy property damage and loss of life as far away as Crescent City, Calif. Seiche waves generated by that earthquake reached runup heights of 20-30 feet on some lakes in Alaska, and water-level fluctuations were recorded on streams, reservoirs, lakes, and swimming pools in States bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Waves generated by submarine sliding struck violently at a number of places during or immediately after the quake and were the major cause of loss of life and damage to property. Slide-generated waves probably would have a higher destructive potential in southeastern Alaska than either tsunami waves or seiche waves because of their possibly higher local runups and because they can hit the shores almost without warning during or immediately after an earthquake. Nonearthquake-related geologic hazards, although generally far less dramatic than those related to earthquakes, tend to occur so much more frequently or persistently that their aggregate effects can be significant. Three kinds of geologic hazards of this type are discussed: (1) nonearthquake-induced landsliding and subaqueous sliding, (2) flooding, and (3) land uplift. The potential for nonearthquake-triggered landsliding in southeastern Alaska ranges widely from place to place. Past sliding generally furnishes the clue in the prediction of where and in what materials future sliding will occur. Fast-moving rockslides, debris slides, and mudflows can be expected to occur from time to time on steep slopes and be highly destructive to highways, power plants, pipelines, buildings, and other facilities located on a slope or at its base. Present slow downslope movement of talus can be expected to continue at the same general rate unless conditions are changed by man or there are climatic changes. Snow and debris avalanches can be especially hazardous during winter months. Long-inactive landslides may be triggered into renewed activity or new slides may be created by man-induced modifications. Accelerated slope erosion and debris flows may follow large-scale clearing and cutting of timber. Subaqueous sliding can be expected to occur periodically along fronts of deltas and on other oversteepened underwater slopes. Floods have been common in parts of southeastern Alaska because of heavy precipitation and rapid runoff from steep slopes with resulting heavy damage to roads and other facilities. Continued damage can be expected in the future unless more remedial measures are taken. Current uplift of land in southeastern Alaska, although probably not affecting man significantly in a short period of time, may have some adverse long-term effects. These long-term effects should be borne in mind when facilities such as docks and boat harbors are constructed on or near the shore, where there is a critical relation between height of land and water.

Alaska↗
USGS2015

Approaches to modeling landscape-scale drought-induced forest mortality

Drought stress is an important cause of tree mortality in forests, and drought-induced disturbance events are projected to become more common in the future due to climate change. Landscape Disturbance and Succession Models (LDSM) are becoming widely used to project climate change impacts on forests, including potential interactions with natural and anthropogenic disturbances, and to explore the efficacy of alternative management actions to mitigate negative consequences of global changes on forests and ecosystem services. Recent studies incorporating drought-mortality effects into LDSMs have projected significant potential changes in forest composition and carbon storage, largely due to differential impacts of drought on tree species and interactions with other disturbance agents. In this chapter, we review how drought affects forest ecosystems and the different ways drought effects have been modeled (both spatially and aspatially) in the past. Building on those efforts, we describe several approaches to modeling drought effects in LDSMs, discuss advantages and shortcomings of each, and include two case studies for illustration. The first approach features the use of empirically derived relationships between measures of drought and the loss of tree biomass to drought-induced mortality. The second uses deterministic rules of species mortality for given drought events to project changes in species composition and forest distribution. A third approach is more mechanistic, simulating growth reductions and death caused by water stress. Because modeling of drought effects in LDSMs is still in its infancy, and because drought is expected to play an increasingly important role in forest health, further development of modeling drought-forest dynamics is urgently needed.

Book chapter↗
USGS2009

Mirror Lake: Past, present and future

This chapter discusses the hydrological and biogeochemical characteristics of Mirror Lake and the changes that resulted from air-land-water interactions and human activities. Since the formation of Mirror Lake, both the watershed and the lake have undergone many changes, such as vegetation development and basin filling. These changes are ongoing, and Mirror Lake is continuing along an aging pathway and ultimately, it will fill with sediment and no longer be a lake. The chapter also identifies major factors that affected the hydrology and biogeochemistry of Mirror Lake: acid rain, atmospheric deposition of lead and other heavy metals, increased human settlement around the lake, the construction of an interstate highway through the watershed of the Northeast Tributary, the construction of an access road through the West and Northeast watersheds to the lake, and climate change. The chapter also offers future recommendations for management and protection of Mirror Lake.

New Hampshire↗
USGS2012

A support system for assessing local vulnerability to weather and climate

The changing number and nature of weather- and climate-related natural hazards is causing more communities to need to assess their vulnerabilities. Vulnerability assessments, however, often require considerable expertise and resources that are not available or too expensive for many communities. To meet the need for an easy-to-use, cost-effective vulnerability assessment tool for communities, a prototype online vulnerability assessment support system was built and tested. This prototype tool guides users through a stakeholder-based vulnerability assessment that breaks the process into four easy-to-implement steps. Data sources are integrated in the online environment so that perceived risks—defined and prioritized qualitatively by users—can be compared and discussed against the impacts that past events have had on the community. The support system is limited in scope, and the locations of the case studies do not provide a sufficiently broad range of sample cases. The addition of more publicly available hazard databases combined with future improvements in the support system architecture and software will expand opportunities for testing and fully implementing the support system.

Natural Hazards↗
USGS2016

Water isotope systematics: Improving our palaeoclimate interpretations

The stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen, measured in a variety of archives, are widely used proxies in Quaternary Science. Understanding the processes that control δ18O change have long been a focus of research (e.g. Shackleton and Opdyke, 1973; Talbot, 1990 ; Leng, 2006). Both the dynamics of water isotope cycling and the appropriate interpretation of geological water-isotope proxy time series remain subjects of active research and debate. It is clear that achieving a complete understanding of the isotope systematics for any given archive type, and ideally each individual archive, is vital if these palaeo-data are to be used to their full potential, including comparison with climate model experiments of the past. Combining information from modern monitoring and process studies, climate models, and proxy data is crucial for improving our statistical constraints on reconstructions of past climate variability. As climate models increasingly incorporate stable water isotope physics, this common language should aid quantitative comparisons between proxy data and climate model output. Water-isotope palaeoclimate data provide crucial metrics for validating GCMs, whereas GCMs provide a tool for exploring the climate variability dominating signals in the proxy data. Several of the studies in this set of papers highlight how collaborations between palaeoclimate experimentalists and modelers may serve to expand the usefulness of palaeoclimate data for climate prediction in future work. This collection of papers follows the session on Water Isotope Systematics held at the 2013 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco. Papers in that session, the breadth of which are represented here, discussed such issues as; understanding sub-GNIP scale (Global Network for Isotopes in Precipitation, (IAEA/WMO, 2006)) variability in isotopes in precipitation from different regions, detailed examination of the transfer of isotope signals from precipitation to geological archives, and the implications of advances in understanding in these areas for the interpretation of palaeo records and proxy data – climate model comparison. Here, we briefly review these areas of research, and discuss challenges for the water isotope community in improving our ability to partition climate vs. auxiliary signals in palaeoclimate data.

Quaternary Science Reviews↗
USGS2011

Effort explores 130 Million years of Antarctic paleoenvironment

Antarctic climate history has been dominated by events and turning points with causes that are poorly understood. To fill the gaps in our knowledges new effort is underway in the international geologic community to acquire and coordinate the circum‐Antarctic geologic data needed to derive and model paleoenvironments of the past 130 m.y. The effort, which focuses principally on using shallow (<100 m) stratigraphic drilling and coring to acquire the geologic data, is being led by the Antarctic Offshore Stratigraphy Project (ANTOSTRAT), a group that works under the aegis of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). About 40 scientists from 12 countries met this past summer in Wellington, New Zealand, at an ANTOSTRAT meeting to discuss strategies for implementing the desired paleoenvironmental field and modeling studies. The meeting was held in conjunction with the 8th International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2020

Looking forward, looking back: Building resilience today community report: Iliamna, AK

The Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center (AK CASC), in partnership with the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA), designed the Looking Forward, Looking Back: Building Resilience Today project as a series of trainings and workshops with tribal community leadership and members to collaboratively develop the western science knowledge and Indigenous knowledge to assist with adaptation planning. The project had three phases related to its title and structure. The first and last phase included two training sessions held at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska at the beginning and near the end of the project. The project team also traveled to the partner communities and held a series of onsite events with community members to develop locally-relevant information and contextualize climate science tailored to the needs and conditions of each community. This report represents the community information shared during those onsite events. The Meeting Announcement included in this report shows the date and descrip- tion of the outreach event. To support the community teams with engaging their leadership and community members on climate issues and planning, the project team visited each of the five communities, Iliamna, St. Michael, Kotlik, Kwigillingok and Quinhagak, and held a series of events. The purpose of these events were to: 1) facilitate mapping of a Traditional Use Area to refine an area for climate projections, 2) construct current and past seasonal Subsistence Calendars to identify important species and times of the year, 3) document Indigenous and local knowledge from current community members about environmental changes they have observed over their lifetimes, and 4) assist with documenting what the community perceived to be climate-related issues through photos and interviews. The agenda of the visits was co-produced with the community team. In each community, the community team and the project team hosted an open-to-the-public meeting and met with various groups. The community team advertised the meetings by posting community fliers, making announcements on the community radio, and reaching out to individuals that would contribute to the engagement discussions. Each community meeting focused on activities to develop the Traditional Use Area Mapping, the seasonal Subsistence Calendars and documenting observed environmental changes. Community members spent time at stations dedicated to each of these activities. The project team also met with various groups of individuals that included village corporation, tribal council, and city representatives where additional information about observed environmental changes was gathered.

Alaska↗
USGS2020

Looking forward, looking back: Building resilience today community report: St. Michael, AK

The Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center (AK CASC), in partnership with the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA), designed the Looking Forward, Looking Back: Building Resilience Today (hereafter ‘BRT’) project as a series of trainings and workshops with tribal community leadership and members. The overarching goal of the project was to collaboratively develop the Indigenous knowledge and western science knowledge for adaptation planning. We worked with five community teams consisting of up to four leaders from communities that chose to participate in the project: Iliamna, Kotlik, Kwigillingok, Quinhagak, and St. Michael. Community teams were developed through the application process and the project duration. Community teams were encouraged to have involvement from multiple governing bodies within the community that could include the Tribal Council, city government, and village corpora- tion. The project title, with its references to the future (Looking Forward), past (Looking Back), and present (Building Resilience Today), refers to the idea that adaptation planning relies on all three perspectives. Equally important, how- ever, is the dialogue to exchange past and present information, context, and what we expect in the future. According- ly, two training sessions held at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska at the beginning and near the end of the project were developed to provide community team interaction with each other and with university and federal science partners. The project team also traveled to the partner communities and held a series of onsite events with community members to document locally-relevant information and share climate science tailored to the needs and conditions of each community. This report represents the community information shared during those onsite events. The Meeting Announcement (page 5) shows the date and description of the outreach events. The purpose of these events was to: 1) facilitate mapping of a Traditional Use Area to refine an area for climate pro- jections; 2) construct current and past seasonal Subsistence Calendars to identify important species and times of the year; 3) document Indigenous and local knowledge from current community members about environmental changes they have observed over their lifetimes; and 4) assist with documenting what the community perceived to be climate-related issues through photos and interviews. The agenda of the visits was co-produced with the commu- nity team. In each community, the community team and the project team co-hosted an open-to-the-public meeting and met with various groups. The community team advertised the meetings by posting community fliers, making announcements on the community radio, and reaching out to individuals that would contribute to the engagement discussions. Each community meeting focused on activities to develop seasonal Subsistence Calendars, map Tradition- al Use Areas, and document observed environmental changes. Community members spent time at stations dedicated to each of these activities working with project team members. The project team also met with various groups of indi- viduals that included village corporation, tribal council, and city representatives where additional information about observed environmental changes was gathered. This community report presents some of the information developed in these activities.

Alaska↗
USGS2020

Looking forward, looking back: Building resilience today community report: Kwigillingok, AK

The Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center (AK CASC), in partnership with the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA), designed the Looking Forward, Looking Back: Building Resilience Today (hereafter ‘BRT’) project as a series of trainings and workshops with tribal community leadership and members. The overarching goal of the project was to collaboratively develop the Indigenous knowledge and western science knowledge for adaptation planning. We worked with five community teams consisting of up to four leaders from communities that chose to participate in the project: Iliamna, Kotlik, Kwigillingok, Quinhagak, and St. Michael. Community teams were developed through the application process and the project duration. Community teams were encouraged to have involvement from multiple governing bodies within the community that could include the Tribal Council, the city government, and the village corporation. The project title, with its references to the future (Looking Forward), past (Looking Back), and present (Building Resilience Today), refers to the idea that adaptation planning relies on all three perspectives. Equally import- ant, however, is the dialogue to exchange past and present information, context, and what we expect in the future. Ac- cordingly, two training sessions held at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska at the beginning and near the end of the project were developed to provide community team interaction with each other and with university and federal science partners. The project team also traveled to the partner communities and held a series of onsite events with community members to document locally-relevant information and share climate science tailored to the needs and conditions of each community. This report represents the community information shared during those onsite events. The Meeting Announcement (page 5) shows the date and description of the outreach events. The purpose of these events was to: 1) facilitate mapping of a Traditional Use Area to refine an area for climate pro- jections; 2) construct current and past seasonal Subsistence Calendars to identify important species and times of the year; 3) document Indigenous and local knowledge from current community members about environmental changes they have observed over their lifetimes; and 4) assist with documenting what the community perceived to be climate-related issues through photos and interviews. The agenda of the visits was co-produced with the commu- nity team. In each community, the community team and the project team co-hosted an open-to-the-public meeting and met with various groups. The community team advertised the meetings by posting community fliers, making announcements on the community radio, and reaching out to individuals that would contribute to the engagement discussions. Each community meeting focused on activities to develop seasonal Subsistence Calendars, map Tradition- al Use Areas, and document observed environmental changes. Community members spent time at stations dedicated to each of these activities working with project team members. The project team also met with various groups of indi- viduals that included village corporation, tribal council, and city representatives where additional information about observed environmental changes was gathered. This community report presents some of the information developed in these activities.

Alaska↗
USGS2020

Looking forward, looking back: Building resilience today community report: Kotlik, AK

The Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center (AK CASC), in partnership with the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA), designed the Looking Forward, Looking Back: Building Resilience Today (hereafter ‘BRT’) project as a series of trainings and workshops with tribal community leadership and members. The overarching goal of the project was to collaboratively develop the Indigenous knowledge and western science knowledge for adaptation planning. We worked with five community teams consisting of up to four leaders from communities that chose to participate in the project: Iliamna, Kotlik, Kwigillingok, Quinhagak, and St. Michael. Community teams were developed through the application process and the project duration. Community teams were encouraged to have involvement from multiple governing bodies within the community that could include the Tribal Council, the city governments, and the village corporations. The project title, with its references to the future (Looking Forward), past (Looking Back), and present (Building Resil- ience Today), refers to the idea that adaptation planning relies on all three perspectives. Equally important, however, is the dialogue to exchange past and present information, context, and what we expect in the future. Accordingly, two training sessions held at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska at the beginning and near the end of the project were developed to provide community team interaction with each other and with university and feder- al science partners. The project team also traveled to the partner communities and held a series of onsite events with community members to document locally-relevant information and share climate science tailored to the needs and conditions of each community. This report represents the community information shared during those onsite events. The Meeting Announcement (page 5) shows the date and description of the outreach events. The purpose of these events was to: 1) facilitate mapping of a Traditional Use Area to refine an area for climate projec- tions; 2) construct current and past seasonal Subsistence Calendars to identify important species and times of the year; 3) document Indigenous and local knowledge from current community members about environmental changes they have observed over their lifetimes; and 4) assist with documenting what the community perceived to be climate-relat- ed issues through photos and interviews. The agenda of the visits was co-produced with the community team. In each community, the community team and the project team co-hosted an open-to-the-public meeting and met with various groups. The community team advertised the meetings by posting community fliers, making announcements on the community radio, and reaching out to individuals that would contribute to the engagement discussions. Each commu- nity meeting focused on activities to develop seasonal Subsistence Calendars, map Traditional Use Areas, and document observed environmental changes. Community members spent time at stations dedicated to each of these activities working with project team members. The project team also met with various groups of individuals that included village corporation, tribal council, and city representatives where additional information about observed environmental chang- es was gathered. This community report presents some of the information developed in these activities.

Alaska↗
USGS2000

The state and future of Mars polar science and exploration

As the planet's principal cold traps, the martian polar regions have accumulated extensive mantles of ice and dust that cover individual areas of ∼10 6 km 2 and total as much as 3–4 km thick. From the scarcity of superposed craters on their surface, these layered deposits are thought to be comparatively young—preserving a record of the seasonal and climatic cycling of atmospheric CO 2 , H 2 O, and dust over the past ∼10 5 –10 8 years. For this reason, the martian polar deposits may serve as a Rosetta Stone for understanding the geologic and climatic history of the planet—documenting variations in insolation (due to quasiperiodic oscillations in the planet's obliquity and orbital elements), volatile mass balance, atmospheric composition, dust storm activity, volcanic eruptions, large impacts, catastrophic floods, solar luminosity, supernovae, and perhaps even a record of microbial life. Beyond their scientific value, the polar regions may soon prove important for another reason—providing a valuable and accessible reservoir of water to support the long-term human exploration of Mars. In this paper we assess the current state of Mars polar research, identify the key questions that motivate the exploration of the polar regions, discuss the extent to which current missions will address these questions, and speculate about what additional capabilities and investigations may be required to address the issues that remain outstanding.

Icarus↗
USGS2011

Simulation of groundwater flow in a volatile organic compound-contaminated area near Bethpage, Nassau County, New York: A discussion of modeling considerations

The 2010 Bethpage groundwater-flow model (ARCADIS, 2010) was based on a steady state assumption. Although it is widely acknowledged that significant water-level changes have occurred in the past, the reviewed model does not represent changing water levels. The steady state approach limits the effectiveness of the following: 1. identification of sources of contamination, 2. analysis of model accuracy, 3. model calibration, and 4. simulations of future scenarios. Future plume movement was simulated in an incomplete manner through an unchanging groundwater-flow field. Available time-series information on temporal variation of factors affecting groundwater-flow dynamics includes: 1. public-supply pumping, 2. groundwater discharges from systems remediating volatile organic compound (VOC) plumes, 3. recharge and precipitation rates, and 4. water levels and streamflows. Transient phenomena that might be useful in future hypothetical simulations include pumping variations, redirection of containment-system waters for industrial use, and climate-change scenarios. Public-domain computer programs, U.S. Geological Survey guidance reports on transient-state calibration and uncertainty methods (Doherty and Hunt, 2010), and additional local and regional datasets are available to provide additional confidence in model evaluations and allow better evaluation of their limitations.

New York↗
USGS2017

Monitoring protocols: Options, approaches, implementation, benefits

Monitoring and adaptive management are fundamental concepts to rangeland management across land management agencies and embodied as best management practices for private landowners. Historically, rangeland monitoring was limited to determining impacts or maximizing the potential of specific land uses—typically grazing. Over the past several decades, though, the uses of and disturbances to rangelands have increased dramatically against a backdrop of global climate change that adds uncertainty to predictions of future rangeland conditions. Thus, today’s monitoring needs are more complex (or multidimensional) and yet still must be reconciled with the realities of costs to collect requisite data. However, conceptual advances in rangeland ecology and management and changes in natural resource policies and societal values over the past 25 years have facilitated new approaches to monitoring that can support rangeland management’s diverse information needs. Additionally, advances in sensor technologies and remote-sensing techniques have broadened the suite of rangeland attributes that can be monitored and the temporal and spatial scales at which they can be monitored. We review some of the conceptual and technological advancements and provide examples of how they have influenced rangeland monitoring. We then discuss implications of these developments for rangeland management and highlight what we see as challenges and opportunities for implementing effective rangeland monitoring. We conclude with a vision for how monitoring can contribute to rangeland information needs in the future.

Book chapter↗
USGS2017

The role of paleoecology in restoration and resource management—The past as a guide to future decision-making: Review and example from the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, U.S.A

Resource managers around the world are challenged to develop feasible plans for sustainable conservation and/or restoration of the lands, waters, and wildlife they administer—a challenge made greater by anticipated climate change and associated effects over the next century. Increasingly, paleoecologic and geologic archives are being used to extend the period of record of observed data and provide information on centennial to millennial scale responses to long-term drivers of ecosystem change. The development of paleoecology from an emerging field investigating past environments to a highly relevant applied science is reviewed and general examples of the application of paleoecologic research to resource management questions in diverse habitats and regions are provided. Specific examples of the application of paleoecologic research to the restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem of south Florida (U.S.A) are presented. Conducting valuable scientific research that would benefit resource management decisions, however, is not enough. Scientists and resource managers need to be engaged in collaborative discussions from the beginning of the research process to ensure that management questions are being addressed and that the science reaches the people who will benefit from the information. Paleoecology and related disciplines provide an understanding of how ecosystems and individual species function and change over time in response to both natural and anthropogenic drivers. Information on pre-anthropogenic baseline conditions is provided by paleoecologic research, but it is the detection of long-term trends and cycles that allow resource managers to set realistic goals and targets by moving away from the fixed-point baseline concept to one of dynamic landscapes that anticipates and incorporates an expectation of change into decision-making.

Florida↗
USGS1991

Change in the size of Walker Lake during the past 5000 years

In 1984, a 12-m sediment core (WLC84-8) was taken from the deepest part of Walker Lake. Samples of the core were analysed for diatoms, pollen, carbonate mineralogy, magnesium content, δ 18 O and δ 13 C values of the total inorganic fractin, δ 18 O and δ 13 C values of Limnocythere ceriotuberosa , δ 13 C values of the total organic fraction, grain size, and magnetic susceptibility. The data indicate that Walker Lake became shallow and probably desiccated between ⩾5300-4800 and 2700-2100 yr B.P.. Each of the organic and inorganic proxy indicators of lake size discussed in this paper was useful in determining the presence of the shallow-lake intervals. However, none of the indicators was useful in determining the cause of the shallow-lake intervals. Instead, the types of fish living in Walker Lake prior to 1940 were used to demonstrate that shallow-lake intervals resulted from diversion of the Walker River and not from climatic aridity. Major changes in mineralogy and magnesium content of carbonates and major changes in diatom populations with time were found to be a function of the chemical evolution of Walker Lake combined with changing lake size. The stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon were found to be good indicators of lake volume changes. A lake-level record for Walker Lake constructed from stable-isotope data was found to be similar to a lake-level record constructed using tufa and tree-stump data. Both records indicate relatively high lake levels between 4800−2700 yr B.P., at 1250 yr B.P., and within the last 300 yr. Substantial declines in lake level occurred ∼2000 and ∼1000 yr B.P.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon↗