Claim: amplified greenhouse effect in the far north making it greener

Composite image showing the global distributio...
Composite image showing the global distribution of photosynthesis, including both oceanic phytoplankton and vegetation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Boston University

Amplified greenhouse effect shaping North into South

BU-led international team shows significant reduction in temperature and vegetation seasonality over northern latitudes

BOSTON—An international team of 21 authors from 17 institutions in seven countries has just published a study in the journal Natural Climate Change showing that, as the cover of snow and ice in the northern latitudes has diminished in recent years, the temperature over the northern land mass has increased at different rates during the four seasons, causing a reduction in temperature and vegetation seasonality in this area. In other words, the temperature and vegetation at northern latitudes increasingly resembles those found several degrees of latitude farther south as recently as 30 years ago. The study, titled “Temperature and vegetation seasonality diminishment over northern lands” (DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1836), can be downloaded here: http://dx.doi.org/.

The NASA-funded study, based on newly improved ground and satellite data sets, examines critically the relationship between changes in temperature and vegetation productivity in northern latitudes. 

On the amplified greenhouse effect, Prof. Ranga Myneni, Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University and lead co-author says “A greenhouse effect initiated by increased atmospheric concentration of heat-trapping gasses—such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane—causes the Earth’s surface and nearby air to warm. The warming reduces the extent of polar sea ice and snow cover on the large land mass that surrounds the Arctic ocean, thereby increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed by the no longer energy-reflecting surface. This sets in motion a cycle of positive reinforcement between warming and loss of sea ice and snow cover, thus amplifying the base greenhouse effect.”

“The amplified warming in the circumpolar area roughly above the Canada-USA border is reducing temperature seasonality over time because the colder seasons are warming more rapidly than the summer,” says Liang Xu, a Boston University doctoral student and lead co-author of the study.

“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,” says Dr. Compton Tucker, Senior Scientist, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.

The authors measured seasonality changes using latitude as a yardstick. They first defined reference latitudinal profiles for the quantities being observed and then quantified changes in them over time as shifts along these profiles.

“Arctic plant growth during the early-1980s reference period equaled that of lands north of 64 degrees north. Today, just 30 years later, it equals that of lands above 57 degrees north—a reduction in vegetation seasonality of about seven degrees south in latitude,” says co-author Prof. Terry Chapin, Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. “This manner of analyses suggested a decline in temperature and vegetation seasonality of about four to seven degrees of latitude during the past 30 years,” says co-author Eugenie Euskirchen, Research Professor, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

“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,” says co-author Terry Callaghan, Professor, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the University of Sheffield, UK. He notes that the greening in the adjacent Boreal areas is much less conspicuous in North America than in Eurasia.

A key finding of this study is an accelerating greening rate in the Arctic and a decelerating rate in the boreal region, despite a nearly constant rate of temperature seasonality diminishment in these regions over the past 30 years. “This may portend a decoupling between growing season warmth and vegetation productivity in some parts of the North as the ramifications of amplified greenhouse effect—including permafrost thawing, frequent forest fires, outbreak of pest infestations, and summertime droughts—come in to play,” says co-author Hans Tømmervik, Senior Researcher, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tromsø, Norway.

According to the authors, the future does indeed look troubling: Based on analysis of 17 state-of-the-art climate model simulations, diminishment of temperature seasonality in these regions could be more than 20 degrees in latitude by the end of this century relative to the 1951-1980 reference period. The projected temperature seasonality decline by these models for the 2001-2010 decade is actually less than the observed decline. “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,” says co-author Bruce Anderson, Professor of Earth and Environment at Boston University.

“These changes will affect local residents through changes in provisioning ecosystem services such as timber and traditional foods,” says Research Professor Bruce Forbes, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland. They will also impact the global community through changes in regulatory ecosystem services relating to emissions of greenhouse gases. “The soils in the northern land mass potentially can release significant amounts of greenhouse gases which are currently locked up in the permanently frozen ground. Any large-scale deep-thawing of these soils has the potential to further amplify the greenhouse effect,” says co-author Philippe Ciais, Associate Director, Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Science, Paris, France.

“The way of life of many organisms on Earth is tightly linked to seasonal changes in temperature and availability of food, and all food on land comes first from plants,” says Dr. Scott Goetz, Deputy Director and Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, USA. “Think of migration of birds to the Arctic in the summer and hibernation of bears in the winter: Any significant alterations to temperature and vegetation seasonality are likely to impact life not only in the north but elsewhere in ways that we do not yet know.”

###

This note was included in the press release:

For graphics and additional information about this study, visit: http://cliveg.bu.edu/greeningearth/ssnltydim/ssnlty-dim.html

After visiting there, it almost looks like a grade school science site to me. On that site, they talk a lot about “The Greening North.” as if this were a bad thing. If they poll some of the people who live in those areas, they might find the change is welcome.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ibbo
March 11, 2013 4:40 am

What sort of English is this ?
“The temperature over the northern land mass has increased at different rates during the four seasons, causing a reduction in temperature and vegetation seasonality in this area.”
I mean seriously ?
“BU-led international team shows significant reduction in temperature and vegetation seasonality over northern latitudes”
Does that mean its getting colder in the northern latitudes not warmer as per the AWG theory ?
*confused*

garymount
March 11, 2013 5:02 am

Another promotion of the supposed greening can be found here :
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/growth-shift.html:

March 11, 2013 5:04 am

So in fact it is better than we thought?

johnmarshall
March 11, 2013 5:06 am

How you can get increased growth from higher temperatures when actual data shows little to zero warming. Increased atmospheric CO2 will increase the efficiency of photosynthesis in this steady temperature situation.
Also how can you amplify a non existent GH effect. The amplification will still be non existent.

March 11, 2013 5:08 am

“Based on analysis of 17 state-of-the-art climate model simulations, diminishment of temperature seasonality in these regions could be more than 20 degrees in latitude by the end of this century relative to the 1951-1980 reference period. The projected temperature seasonality decline by these models for the 2001-2010 decade is actually less than the observed decline.
Models? The reverence is not unlike that attending consultation of an oracle of the ancients. Make a good movie theme. This last very cold winter in the arctic – still going on strong- should correct the 2001 -2010 overshoot somewhat. Although using an awkward metric, it is the same old stuff that we have been hearing for decades (they didn’t use the word tipping point with the reduced albedo but they used everything else). This is clearly another one of these recent drive-by publishing blitzes to effect reversal of the damage done with the unauthorized release of the draft IPCC report – they mentioned they will be considering “new” stuff publlshed before May 13th 2013. Watch for bundles of this stuff before then. You have to hand it to them! Sceptics are keeping up in the publishing department.

Jimbo
March 11, 2013 5:09 am

“The soils in the northern land mass potentially can release significant amounts of greenhouse gases which are currently locked up in the permanently frozen ground. Any large-scale deep-thawing of these soils has the potential to further amplify the greenhouse effect,……”
“Think of migration of birds to the Arctic in the summer and hibernation of bears in the winter: Any significant alterations to temperature and vegetation seasonality are likely to impact life not only in the north but elsewhere in ways that we do not yet know.”

I can’t see into the future but I can look into the past. And what I see is a resilient Earth and survivalist creatures, like polar bears, from the north.

Abstract
We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
Abstract
Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185
Abstract
Calcareous nannofossils from approximately the past 7000 yr of the Holocene and from oxygen isotope stage 5 are present at 39 analyzed sites in the central Arctic Ocean. This indicates partly ice-free conditions during at least some summers…..
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/21/3/227.abstract
Abstract
………Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years …..
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract
Abstract
…Today’s ice cover (2 to 4 meters thick) over the Arctic Ocean provides a shadow that prevents coccolithophorids (photosynthetic, planktonic algae) from living there. Sparse, low-diversity, but indigenous coccolith assemblages in late Pliocene to mid-Pleistocene (but not Holocene) sediments imply deep penetrating warm currents or an ice-free Arctic Ocean, or both, as those layers were being deposited.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17796050

FerdinandAkin
March 11, 2013 5:16 am

A quick skim through the first paragraph caught my eye:
“the temperature over the northern land mass has increased at different rates during the four seasons, causing a reduction in temperature “
There you have it folks, an increase in temperature causes a decrease in temperature. Falsify that theory about Global Warming!

Bloke down the pub
March 11, 2013 5:19 am

‘ The warming reduces the extent of polar sea ice and snow cover on the large land mass that surrounds the Arctic ocean, thereby increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed by the no longer energy-reflecting surface.’
Hasn’t it been claimed recently that missing polar ice leads to more evaporation and therefore more snowfall on the area surrounding the Arctic ocean?

March 11, 2013 5:22 am

It might even be true. Climate variation has always seemed obvious to me, the anthropogenic portion not so obvious.
The big question, for me, is: what happens when external conditions (i.e. solar conditions) reverse? I suspect a dramatic climate reversal, which will, for these people, be as unexpected and frightening as the initial warming …

March 11, 2013 5:49 am

And they have considered the effect from CO2 fertilization and the effect from a positive AMO.
I think not!

March 11, 2013 5:53 am

Sigh…”According to the authors, the future does indeed look troubling: Based on analysis of 17 state-of-the-art climate model simulations, diminishment of temperature seasonality in these regions could be”
I think the Essenbach principle of the number of authors being inversely proportional to the quality of the science applies.

Steve Keohane
March 11, 2013 5:54 am

Global temperature is increasing, especially over northern lands DMI does not show this. The graphs from the paper are too small to read in the abstract link above, sounds like crap* to me.
*crap, term for extrapolated assumptions

Jim Clarke
March 11, 2013 6:03 am

They really struggled to avoid mentioning that the net impacts are truly wonderful for the high latitude biosphere! Hypocrites! This is yet another example of how government money has corrupted science. Government money generally goes to science that can solve a problem for government. No problem? No funding!
They also left no doubt that the change was entirely due to greenhouse gases, despite that fact that the signatures of greenhouse warming are generally absent from the atmosphere. There is no tropical warm spot in the upper troposphere. There is no increase in global water vapor. There is no warming at the other pole, and so on. The far more scientific explanation is that the majority of what they have observed is part of a natural cycle largely driven by ocean circulations. But that does not generate a problem that governments can fix. Again…no problem, no funding.
The whole world of science is tainted by government funding.

Steve Keohane
March 11, 2013 6:06 am

Global temperature is increasing That is a quote leading into the abstract. After looking at the abstract, I decided not to take the time to read the above, and commented. I then saw the link to the BU site and confirmed it’s models and new improved temperature data, ie crap.

Felflames
March 11, 2013 6:07 am

So potentially , Greenland is going to benefit by having more useful land?
The vikings would be pleased to know their ancient settlements, that have been buried under ice for so many centuries ,will see the light of day again.

Peter in MD
March 11, 2013 6:07 am

Wasn’t a sudy just released recently that said relative humidy /Wator vapor is not rising? So now, studies filled with false information and conjecture pass as real science?
Wonder how much this cost the US taxpayer?

Leo Geiger
March 11, 2013 6:24 am

“If they poll some of the people who live in those areas, they might find the change is welcome.”
The Inuit living in those areas were among the first to notice the changes caused by warming and express concerns. If people living in the south listened instead of speculating ignorantly, they might find the change is unwelcome.

Caleb
March 11, 2013 6:27 am

If you want to see what effects warming will have, you can look back to the MWP. Oh, I forgot.
You eraced it. /sarc

lowercase fred
March 11, 2013 6:34 am

On planet earth we have warm spells and we have cold spells. Vegetation changes in some places when we go from cold to warm. Lord only knows how much money was wasted for this “international team of 21 authors from 17 institutions in seven countries” to tell us a long version of that.
This really is a racket.

beng
March 11, 2013 6:37 am

How do they separate “greenhouse” warming from otherwise natural warming?

eco-geek
March 11, 2013 6:41 am

If real world data conflicts with the theory then the theory is wrong. Its a double edged sword.
Of course the greening might well be because of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere as plant life responds very favourably to increases in CO2. Plants also tend to be green rather than white like snow so they don’t reflect radiation back out into space quite so well. A positive feedback loop is then entirely plausible as the greener surface becomes a warmer surface further increasing the possibilities for further greening hence further warming.
It may well be that such a mechanism is the Real Greenhouse Effect. CO2 warms the far NH via enhanced plant growth. I guess this is a good thing.
I also understand this research was carried out during the late 20th Century solar maximum. As cloud cover in the far NH would be reduced because of the heliosphere shielding the Earth from cosmic rays we would expect a further enhancement to the Real Greenhouse Effect (RGE). This of course is about to reverse and possibly quite seriously so. I would expect some dieback over the coming decades but the RGE might go some way towards limiting the destruction of Canadian grain production as the developing solar minimum begins to bite.

March 11, 2013 6:44 am

That is fine while the warming is on, but when cooling start in the forthcoming decades it is the high latitudes that are going to suffer the most.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
btw ( today here in the UK we know what a mid-March felt in the LIA).

Richard M
March 11, 2013 6:46 am

In 2012 I played golf several time in March in Minnesota. We’ve received about 20″ of snow so far this March and it isn’t even half over. Looks to me like this research is typical of climate science. Look at the 30 years where warming took place and ignore the cyclic nature of weather.

Harold Ambler
March 11, 2013 6:46 am

People purporting to do climatology who use such short periods of measurement and then generalize about it, all the while divorced from meaningful information about past fluctuations in the system, ought to be ashamed. And instead they are lionized. That is the age we live in.

March 11, 2013 6:47 am

wait, somebody tell the plants that the warming is all due to bogus adjustments.

1 2 3