From the National Science Foundation:
New Models Predict Dramatically Greener Arctic in the Coming Decades
![]()
International Polar Year- (IPY) funded research predicts boom in trees, shrubs, will lead to net increase in climate warming

A map of predicted greening of the Arctic as compared with observed distribution Credit and Larger Version
Rising temperatures will lead to a massive “greening” of the Arctic by mid-century, as a result of marked increases in plant cover, according to research supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as part of its International Polar Year (IPY) portfolio.
The greening not only will have effects on plant life, the researchers noted, but also on the wildlife that depends on vegetation for cover. The greening could also have a multiplier effect on warming, as dark vegetation absorbs more solar radiation than ice, which reflects sunlight.
In a paper published March 31 in Nature Climate Change, scientists reveal new models projecting that wooded areas in the Arctic could increase by as much as 50 percent over the coming decades. The researchers also show that this dramatic greening will accelerate climate warming at a rate greater than previously expected.
“Such widespread redistribution of Arctic vegetation would have impacts that reverberate through the global ecosystem,” said Richard Pearson, lead author on the paper and a research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation.
In addition to Pearson, the research team includes other scientists from the museum, as well as from AT&T Labs-Research, Woods Hole Research Center, Colgate and Cornell universities, and the University of York.
The research was funded by two related, collaborative NSF IPY grants, one made to the museum and one to the Woods Hole Research Center.
IPY was a two-year, global campaign of research in the Arctic and Antarctic that fielded scientists from more than 60 nations in the period 2007-2009. The IPY lasted two years to insure a full year of observations at both poles, where extreme cold and darkness preclude research for much of the year. NSF was the lead U.S. government agency for IPY.
Although the IPY fieldwork has been largely accomplished “in addition to the intensive field efforts undertaken during the IPY, projects such as this one work to understand IPY and other data in a longer-term context, broadening the impact of any given data set,” said Hedy Edmonds, Arctic Natural Sciences program director in the Division of Polar Programs of NSF’s Geosciences Directorate.
Plant growth in Arctic ecosystems has increased over the past few decades, a trend that coincides with increases in temperatures, which are rising at about twice the global rate.
The research team used climate scenarios for the 2050s to explore how the greening trend is likely to continue in the future. The scientists developed models that statistically predict the types of plants that could grow under certain temperatures and precipitation. Although it comes with some uncertainty, this type of modeling is a robust way to study the Arctic because the harsh climate limits the range of plants that can grow, making this system simpler to model compared to other regions, such as the tropics.
The models reveal the potential for massive redistribution of vegetation across the Arctic under future climate, with about half of all vegetation switching to a different class and a massive increase in tree cover. What might this look like? In Siberia, for instance, trees could grow hundreds of miles north of the present tree line.
These impacts would extend far beyond the Arctic region, according to Pearson.
For example, some species of birds migrate from lower latitudes seasonally, and rely on finding particular polar habitats, such as open space for ground-nesting.
The computer modeling for the project was supported by a separate NSF grant to Cornell by the Division of Computer and Network Systems in NSF’s Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering, as part of the directorate’s Expeditions in Computing program.
“The Expeditions grant has enabled us to develop sophisticated probabilistic models that can scale up to continent-wide vegetation prediction and provide associated uncertainty estimates. This is a great example of the transformative research happening within the new field of Computational Sustainability,” said Carla P. Gomes, principal investigator at Cornell.
In addition to the first-order impacts of changes in vegetation, the researchers investigated the multiple climate-change feedbacks that greening would produce.
They found that a phenomenon called the albedo effect, based on the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface, would have the greatest impact on the Arctic’s climate. When the sun hits snow, most of the radiation is reflected back to space. But when it hits an area that’s “dark,” or covered in trees or shrubs, more sunlight is absorbed in the area and temperature increases. This has a positive feedback to climate warming: the more vegetation there is, the more warming will occur.
“By incorporating observed relationships between plants and albedo, we show that vegetation distribution shifts will result in an overall positive feedback to climate that is likely to cause greater warming than has previously been predicted,” said co-author and NSF grantee Scott Goetz, of the Woods Hole Research Center.
-NSF-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Green is good, right? /
New Models Predict Dramatically Greener……..
Does one need to read any further than the first five words?
…so there is overall warming from shrubs and a subsequent feedback, but there is no UHI?
Awesome. Another model projection. So. It. Must. Come. To. Pass.
“a trend that coincides with increases in temperatures, which are rising at about twice the global rate”
That’s because “the global rate” is meaningless. So-called “global warming” is really “warming in the Northern Hemisphere, in the winter and at night”. Freeman Dyson points out that CO2’s biggest impact on temperatures is in dry air, which is generally cold air (as warmer air tends to absorb more water vapor). It is not an increase in temperatures in hot places and seasons.
I guess with warm air at 1070hPa in the Arctic… sarc/off
Now all that is needed is for nature to confer with the models! Unfortunately, models don’t include real, physical data, like past climate cycles and what the polar areas looked like for the past 10,000 years when the climate was warmer than today. And do you suppose the underlying basis for the models is that CO2 will cause drastic warming? Did the models consider that we haven’t had any global warming for the past 15 years?
Since the basis of these forecasts is a warming planet, would they also conclude a cooling planet will result in the Arctic not going green?
Right.
The bird that were looking for nesting space never arrived
Wind mills.
Alfred
Let’s get this straight. These people have discovered something called ‘albedo’ previously unknown to physics? And Scott is a ‘grantee’? Great job title!
Its about time for a “GIGO model” real estate fund … buying up cheap properties while there is still a bit of snow, and only scattered palm trees.
The AGW fanatics somehow always conclude that “it is worse than predicted”.
No matter how many times reliaty decides otherwise.
NSF is afraid of what the future might bring and go about spreading amplified fear.
“sophisticated probabilistic models that can scale up to continent-wide vegetation prediction”
Unbelievable! All we need now is Johnny Appleseed to appear on the scene.
You don’t need a ‘model’ to tell you that ‘if’ it gets warmer there will be more plants, let alone financial grants. 2 years??? God save us…
What a waste of money. Computer models built upon computer models. Even worse when the first computer model is wrong!
“Plant growth in Arctic ecosystems has increased over the past few decades, a trend that coincides with increases in temperatures, which are rising at about twice the global rate.”
I doubt that a fraction of a degree here or there in the Arctic is as big a driver of any greening as is the increase in CO2, which is increasing much more rapidly than temperature and has lead temperature in that respect historically. In any event, these are GOOD things, not bad. Colder is bad and may well what we are in for on a global basis given the past 15 or so years. Less crops, less food=more disease, more wars, more death, historically.
What might this look like? In Siberia, for instance, trees could grow hundreds of miles north of the present tree line.
I’m no expert, but I believe that this has happened in the past. It obviously didn’t lead to runaway global warming then so why should it be different today?
For example:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/peteet_02/
Yes I agree. Whilst the arctic turns into a lush tropical rainforest the amazon, caribbean and sahara desert will be under a mile of ice. The Earths equator will become a ring of ice and each side of it will be the new arctic tundra.
By the way, twice the global rate for the past 15 years would be 2×0=0.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91230
Note all the vegetation causing climate warming.
Just another instance where grants are used to fund the development of climate models which can be absolutely guaranteed to demonstrate:
1. Thermageddon is imminent.
2. More funds are urgently required for additional studies on this very ‘serious matter’.
3. All their dire predictions will occur after the lifetime of the average reader. :
There is something inherently wrong with this prediction in that the growing season is so short in the Arctic that even if temperature does rise in the years ahead, the spread of vegetation northwards will be extremely slow, at a rate measurable in centuries, not decades..
.
Apparently this is where the money is at these days in climate science: rank conjecture (“modeling”) about what *might* happen in 40 or 50 years.
Amazing faith in modeling, with guesses piled on assumptions to the third power projected 40 years into the future and fed to the believing masses for indoctrination of others and conversion of the unbelieving. How does this get ANY traction at all. Are these scientists? They don’t act like it.
Must be some of those ‘model’ trees that can grow on ice then!