backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by Paj.. on Mar 13 at 8:35 AM

More vegetation could speed up warming in the short term

Humans may be concerned about global warming, but nature for its part appears to be adapting.  A new study by a team of international experts examining the latest satellite and weather station data from The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggests that the rate of change in vegetation in middle Canada (the so-called boreal region) is leveling off, while the vegetation in the northernmost tundra is dramatically increasing during summer months.

I. Vegetation Growth is Rapidly Increasing in Permafrost Region

The vegetation in turn is causing a so-called "amplified warming" effect -- by the vegetation limiting the snow cover, which in turn provides a darker, less reflective surface that absorbs sunlight and traps heat.

The study, funded by NASA, finds that vegetation is effectively shifting northward approximately 7 degrees.  Dr. Compton Tucker a Senior Scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, comments, "As a result of the enhanced warming over a longer ground-thaw season, the total amount of heat available for plant growth in these northern latitudes is increasing. This created during the past 30 years large patches of vigorously productive vegetation, totaling more than a third of the northern landscape -- over 9 million km2, which is roughly about the area of the USA -- resembling the vegetation that occurs further to the south."

Plant growth
Plant growth in the Canadian permafrost region is dramatically increasing.
[Image Source: NASA]

Terry Callaghan a climatology Professor at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the University of Sheffield, UK, comments, "The reduction of vegetation seasonality, resulting in increased greenness in the Arctic, is visible on the ground as an increasing abundance of tall shrubs and tree incursions in several locations all over the circumpolar Arctic."

A clue to where vegetation growth will eventually reach may be found in the boreal, region where vegetation previously greatly increased, but is now leveling off.  The slowing of boreal growth is more pronounced in North America than in the Russian north.  Ultimately, the vegetation in the melting permafrost region is self-limiting, as it will saturate the more northern latitude.

II. Study Doesn't Consider Carbon Trapping Properties of Vegetation

Researchers warn that this trend may lead to increasing forest fires and droughts in boreal regions, where vegetation growth is slowing.  Using "17 state-of-the-art climate model simulations", the researchers predict that compared to the 1951-1980 reference period, the model suggests that by 2100 the net latitude shift could reach 20 degrees.

However, the researchers acknowledge that flat-lining temperatures over the last decade caused the models to overshoot vegetation estimates substantially.  Bruce Anderson a Professor of Earth and Environment at Boston University, remarks, "Since we don't know the actual trajectory of atmospheric concentration of various agents capable of forcing a change in climate, long-term projections should be interpreted cautiously."

permafrost melting
Extra vegetation may melt permafrost may decrease reflectivity and increase greenhouse gases, but it may also soak up carbon.
[Image Source: Vladimir Romanovsky]

The researchers suggest the change in vegetation growth regions could substantially impact the timber and agricultural industries.  They also are concerned that melting in the north could release pockets of methane and other greenhouse gases that are trapped in the permafrost.

One major oversight of the study is that it does not fully examine the ability of the extra vegetation to absorb atmospheric carbon.  It seems like that while a reduction in reflectivity certainly will amplify heating, that fresh plant growth will soak up carbon.  Ultimately, this means that if the north greens to the extent that the study predicts, the extra carbon trapping could substantially reduce ongoing warming.

The study was published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Nature: Climate Change.

Source: Boston University [PDF]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Still conflicted we see..
By Spuke on 3/11/2013 11:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
If it wasn't for Jason's articles, I would've thought that the global warming "fad" was dead. I haven't heard a peep about global warming in a better part of a year yet it was soooo important that we had to do something NOW. Just as I predicted. Not only is it not talked about anymore, no one even remembers talking about it in the first place. Hilarious stuff.


RE: Still conflicted we see..
By Paj on 3/12/2013 10:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously, you don't read much. Or are twelve. Apologies if it's the latter.


RE: Still conflicted we see..
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/12/2013 11:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it wasn't for Jason's articles, I would've thought that the global warming "fad" was dead.
Clearly you haven't been reading much.

It's true environmental issues in general are on the back burner amid the whole fiscal sequestration/North Korea/etc. drama, but it's still the most talked about and reported on environmental topic of interest.

Personally I think that's unfortunate. Growing up, I recall rainforest deforestation was covered in far greater detail in the media. Personally I feel that's the single biggest environmental issue; and a problem mankind can prevent if we're responsible.

What are my thoughts on the topic? Warming is of course empirically verifiable, but we have yet to fully quantify it, and I think "stopping" it is largely out of our hands. No amount of carbon credits will fix things, and people like Gore are just clever snake oil salesmen.

Thus I feel it's a topic worth devoting some research too, but I feel it's overstated. And I feel that people are exploiting it with alarmist statements in order to get funding or government loans (e.g. Solyndra).
quote:
I haven't heard a peep about global warming in a better part of a year yet it was soooo important that we had to do something NOW. Just as I predicted. Not only is it not talked about anymore, no one even remembers talking about it in the first place. Hilarious stuff.
I think you're misinformed. Your tax dollars -- a fair deal of them -- are going to fund global warming studies. Many of these studies are highly speculative and admittedly have a large margin of error.

Granted, I'm a supporter of government-funded research and I feel *some* studies on this topic are appropriate, HOWEVER I feel that far too much money is being spent on it, when it'd be better to spend some of that money studying loss of biodiversity with rainforest destruction or on health sciences topics like cancer or Alzheimer's disease.

Again, my goal is to provide a balanced, unbiased discussion in the spirit of former DT writer Michael Asher, and to make it clear your money is still being spent on this research.


RE: Still conflicted we see..
By Paj on 3/13/2013 8:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally I think that's unfortunate. Growing up, I recall rainforest deforestation was covered in far greater detail in the media. Personally I feel that's the single biggest environmental issue; and a problem mankind can prevent if we're responsible.


Global warming is one of many environmental challenges we face. It's good that you acknowledge others, such as deforestation, which of course is a pressing issue too.

quote:
What are my thoughts on the topic? Warming is of course empirically verifiable, but we have yet to fully quantify it, and I think "stopping" it is largely out of our hands. No amount of carbon credits will fix things, and people like Gore are just clever snake oil salesmen.


The US Acid Rain program has shown that a market based system is effective in dealing with pollution. Similar inititives in the EU has led to huge reductions in SO2. Why cant the same work for C02?

quote:
Thus I feel it's a topic worth devoting some research too, but I feel it's overstated. And I feel that people are exploiting it with alarmist statements in order to get funding or government loans (e.g. Solyndra).


The fact remains that stimulating investment into green technologies is a good thing. Cleaner energy is vital, and can be achieved through advances in technology, efficiency, and regulation.

For a website that purports to champion technological development, it's curious that anything vaguely 'environmental' or 'green' in nature receives such a hostile response. It seems to be endemic to certain countries, the USA in particular but also Australia, both of which have large domestic fossil fuel industries. Conversely, the EU is much more receptive to developments in the field, in which fossil fuels industries are smaller. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.

quote:
I think you're misinformed. Your tax dollars -- a fair deal of them -- are going to fund global warming studies. Many of these studies are highly speculative and admittedly have a large margin of error.


I completely disagree. Numerous worldwide studies and reports have shown that current warming is outside the scope of natural variability, including those from the Royal Society, IPCC, and national science academies of pretty much every major industrialised nation. The US is unique amongst major economies in its ignorance and denial of these scientific reports, instead choosing to trust the entities responsible for causing the damage. It's big tobacco all over again.

Do companies involved in green technologies stand to benefit economically from initiatives, subsidies and tax breaks? Of course they do. Is success 100% guaranteed? Of course not. But this is nothing new. Governments throughout history have used these mechanisms to encourage development in new technologies and infrastructure, because they generally work well. They create jobs and improve infrastructure and competitiveness.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki