From Roger Pielke Sr.
New Paper “Impacts Of Land Use Land Cover Change On Climate And Future Research Priorities” By Mahmood Et Al 2009
We have a new multi-authored paper that has been accepted. This paper illustrates the breadth and diversity of scientists who have concluded that land use/land cover change is a first order climate forcing.
The paper is
Mahmood, R., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, D. Niyogi, G. Bonan, P. Lawrence, B. Baker, R. McNider, C. McAlpine, A. Etter, S. Gameda, B. Qian, A. Carleton, A. Beltran-Przekurat, T. Chase, A.I. Quintanar, J.O. Adegoke, S. Vezhapparambu, G. Conner, S. Asefi, E. Sertel, D.R. Legates, Y. Wu, R. Hale, O.W. Frauenfeld, A. Watts, M. Shepherd, C. Mitra, V.G. Anantharaj, S. Fall,R. Lund, A. Nordfelt, P. Blanken, J. Du, H.-I. Chang, R. Leeper, U.S. Nair, S. Dobler, R. Deo, and J. Syktus,
2009: Impacts of land use land cover change on climate and future research priorities (PDF). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., accepted.
The paper starts with the text
“Human activities have modified the environment for thousands of years. Significant population increase, migration, and accelerated socio-economic activities have intensified these environmental changes over the last several centuries. The climate impacts of these changes have been found in local, regional, and global trends in modern atmospheric temperature records and other relevant climatic indicators.”
In our conclusions, we write
“It is the regional responses, not a global average, that produce drought, floods and other societally important climate impacts.”
as well as make the following recommendations
“we recommend, as a start, to assess three new climate metrics:
1. The magnitude of the spatial redistribution of land surface latent and sensible heating (e.g., see Chase et al. 2000; Pielke et al. 2002). The change in these fluxes into the atmosphere will result in the alteration of a wide variety of climate variables including the locations of major weather features. For example, Takata et al. (2009) demonstrated the major effect of land use change during the period 1700-1850 on the Asian monsoon. As land cover change accelerated after 1850 and continues into the future, LULCC promises to continue to alter the surface pattern of sensible and latent heat input to the atmosphere.
2. The magnitude of the spatial redistribution of precipitation and moisture convergence (e.g., Pielke and Chase 2003). In response to LULCC, the boundaries of regions of wet and dry climates can change, thereby affecting the likelihood for floods and drought. This redistribution can occur not only from the alterations in the patterns of surface sensible and latent heat, but also due to changes in surface albedo and aerodynamic roughness (e.g., see Pitman et al. 2004; Nair et al. 2007).
3. The normalized gradient of regional radiative heating changes. Since it is the horizontal gradient of layer-averaged temperatures that force wind circulations, the alteration in these temperatures from any human climate forcing will necessarily alter these circulations. In the evaluation of the human climate effect from aerosols, for example, Matsui and Pielke (2006) found that, in terms of the gradient of atmospheric radiative heating, the role of human inputs was 60 times greater than the role of the human increase in the well-mixed greenhouse gases. Thus, this aerosol effect has a much more significant role on the climate than is inferred when using global average metrics. We anticipate a similar large effect from LULCC. Feddema et al. (2005), for example, have shown that global averages mask the impacts on regional temperature and precipitation changes. The above climate metrics can be monitored using observed data within model calculations such as completed by Matsui and Pielke (2006) for aerosols, as well as by using reanalyses products, such as performed by Chase et al (2000) with respect to the spatial pattern of lower tropospheric heating and cooling. They should also be calculated as part of future IPCC and other climate assessment multi-decadal climate model simulations.”
We also write
“With respect to surface air temperatures, for example, there needs to be an improved quantification of the biases and uncertainties in multi-decadal temperature trends, which remain inadequately evaluated in assessment reports such as from the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP 2006). We also recommend that independent committees (perhaps sponsored by the National Science Foundation) conduct these assessments.”
====
Personal note: I am in the list of authors. I had an equal role with the other co-authors, resulting in the first climate science publication for which I am listed as an author. Note the sections in the PDF speaking of the issues with USHCN. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I noticed your name in the list of authors before I read your personal note. Congratulations and good work. Your site and your efforts are inspiring.
Nasif Nahle (20:07:46) :
“However, not only humans alter their environment. Every living being on this planet alters its environment until collapse.”
This is a very good point Nasif. (But, as is my light hearted wont, I have been putting the blame on butterflies lately in a few posts. Camille, Andrew, Bill… how many more hurricanes will they cause?!)
wattsupwiththat (20:12:26) :
Way to go Anthony. Show these ‘climate scientists’ how to really do it.
On the negative side, now that you are a ‘peer-reviewed’, ‘fully fledged’, ‘won your colors’ and ‘published’ ‘climate scientist’. do I have to remove the quotes from now on?
Nice. Congratulations, Anthony.
My academic background took a few turns and twists before I ended up as an economist (environmental and natural resource economics), including a couple of years majoring in geography and geophysics. When I read the abstract, and thought about the obviousness of the paper’s main thesis, I thought to myself “this would be obvious to a geographer.” And then I looked at saw that the lead author is a geographer. Good.
The paper surely benefits from the broad multidisciplinary background of its authors. How refreshing a change from the parochial world view of “climate science” where the chief actors seem to think “we’re the only ones who know enough about this to have authority in these matters.”
There is no doubt that human activity influences climate. I have no difficulty accepting that LULCC is a major “forcing,” and arguably much more significant than CO2/GHG’s. It is probably even more significant than the sun.
You know, some of the land use impacts on climate could actually be through their impacts on CO2. Here’s an example: A while back, a study found that plankton in the Atlantic was being fertilized by dust from Africa. One of the big ecological issues in the 1970s and 1980s was desertification, as overgrazing and cutting trees for firewood turned marginal areas south of the Sahara (the Sahel) into desert and winds carried away the topsoil.
I hadn’t heard much about desertification lately, but apparently fast growing, drought resistant Eucalyptus trees have been introduced to the area and planted in profusion. That has done a lot to stabilize the area and even push back the desert.
So: the desert stops expanding and actually contracts a bit. Does that mean that the amount of dust arriving in the ocean decreases? That seems to follow. If so, does that lower the productivity of the ocean? That also seems to follow logically. Since plankton seeding has been suggested as a bioengineering solution to reduce CO2 levels, presumably a decrease in seeding from desert dust would increase CO2 levels.
Now I have no idea of the magnitude of an of this, but has anyone looked into the possibility that the desertification problem was artificially lowering CO2 levels and that alleviating that problem is at least part of the reason CO2 levels are currently climbing.
I’m probably one odd one out on this. I do not believe land use will/would/could affect weather/climate systems (used to). It may seem complete at odds (or am I?). The presence of mountains etc of course yes (ie andean weather, Pyrenees etc but not for example desertification, planting/removing vegetation. I am prepared to be educated on this though.
REPLY: Large cities make effects on local weather, such as UHI induced downwind convection and rain shadows. – Anthony
Obvious effects of course UHI…. cement around a Stevenson screen will of course increase thermometer temps overall!
Meanwhile, over on ‘Real Climate’, they are running a post which includes the following:
“Scientists document their procedures and findings in the peer-reviewed literature in such a way that they can be double-checked and challenged by others. The proper way to challenge results is, of course, also through the peer-reviewed literature, so that the challenge follows the same standards of documentation as did the original finding.”
I have just made the following post:
“Na-aa-aa-aa-aa-aah! Stop it! You’re making me laugh! Na-aa-aa-aa-aa-aaaaaah!!!”
Sorry – but I have a ‘Carry On Films” sense of humour – the late Kenneth Williams was my inspiration for this particular post. Let’s see if RC post it? It should be comment No. 172 plus or minus an RC error margin…
My congratulations as well Mr Watts! The first of many I am thinking.
After a quick read, I like this paper. Back to the real problems facing the environment. Things we can actually do something about. Rather, I should say we must do!
Now to read it again in depth…
the climatic effects from light-absorbing aerosols or land-use changes do not lend themselves to quantification using the traditional radiative forcing concept….. These challenges have raised the question of whether the radiative forcing concept has outlived its usefulness and, if so, what new climate change metrics should be used”…
The radiative forcing concept (or theory) treats the world’s climate as if it were uniform or at least uniform along lattitudes. Climate change according to this theory results from global scale changes in energy gain or loss.
What the authors above are saying is that the climate is a complex system of local and regional processes all of which result in energy gain or loss.
I also think the forcings theory is wrong or at least inadequate in describing the Earth’s climate, because the climate is dominated by fast, mostly negative, feedbacks over hours to days. Forcings that change over decades are irrelevant because they are swamped by the much faster feedbacks.
In a sense we are saying the same thing. For example cutting down trees reduces air humidity close to the ground, and solar heating which previously would have produced clouds and then rain no longer does.
“Berry R (20:25:17) :
I hadn’t heard much about desertification lately, but apparently fast growing, drought resistant Eucalyptus trees have been introduced to the area and planted in profusion. That has done a lot to stabilize the area and even push back the desert.”
The only problem with the Eucalytus tree is that it is not a native African tree. Although fast growing and the wood from the tree is ideal for building, long straight truncks/branches etc etc it is in effect a pest in many parts of Ethiopia as an example. It’ll soak up as much ground water it can get too and is also a huge fire risk.
On a regional level – Australia – a life-long farmer/landcare practioner, Peter Andrews, also maintains that land-use factors affect climates locally.
His two books make interesting reading – “Back From The Brink” and “Beyond The Brink”.
VG (20:26:45) :
I’m probably one odd one out on this. I do not believe land use will/would/could affect weather/climate systems (used to). It may seem complete at odds (or am I?). The presence of mountains etc of course yes (ie andean weather, Pyrenees etc but not for example desertification, planting/removing vegetation. I am prepared to be educated on this though.
VG (20:29:30) :
Obvious effects of course UHI…. cement around a Stevenson screen will of course increase thermometer temps overall!
Hi, VG… Welcome to the At Odds People Club (AOPC).
As you could have noticed, the authors of the paper are referring to local, regional and global climate alteration due to human activities. Although they have not mentioned it, I deduced that the referred changes are related to the concepts of Climate Climax (determined by the general regional climate) and the Edaphic Climax (determined by the topography and the local microclimate).
Hypothetically, the climax community is the final autoperpetuable stage of ecological succession. However, in the real world, the final stage is not in equilibrium with the physical and biological elements, so it tends to collapse in the short or long term then, depending on the degree of disequilibrium.
Regular natural perturbations of the physical and/or biological components of an ecosystem alter the ecological succession in such form that it doesn’t finish like the hypothetical climate climax, but like an edaphic climax. This occurs frequently because living beings overexploit their habitats or because natural phenomena, like earthquakes, fires, floods, droughts, glaciations, etc., change the topography and the availability of natural resources for living beings.
One of the most harmful effects that humans produce to the climax communities is the fragmentation of habitats through the expansion of roads, communication networks, cities, etc. These practices not only alter the communication between individuals and biological communities, the local microclimate and the topography, but also the survival and evolution of species.
The truth is that we cannot evolve as a species if we don’t alter the climax communities; thus, the proposals from most of the green parties are absolutely anti-cultural and anti-progress.
For illustrating what I have said in the last paragraph, for medicine advancements, pharmacological industry produces tons of medicines that will end, by this or that way, at a climax community. However, must we stop producing medicines? I think we must not. Some people would propose herbal medicines, which are also effective according to reports of serious researchers from several institutions and the Herbal Medicine PDRs; nevertheless, how much land we would need for cultivating herbal medicines for the more than six billion people in this world? Besides, there are many medicinal plants which cannot be produced in greenhouses or controlled cultures, but only in their natural habitats. See the damages that austerity green-policies would bring to humankind?
If you want to get an idea about just how much we have changed the landscape this is interesting. It allows you to compare how new york looks today with 1609.
http://themannahattaproject.org/
Anthony, congratulations and many thanks for your relentless efforts.
This, in my opinion, is the most effective way to address the “settled” science of AGW/Climate Change.
Patrick Davis (21:05:45) :
Re Eucalytus; never camp under a Eucalytus or stand under one in times of drought of hot weather. They drop their branches to conserve water. They kill several people and destroy many cars every year in Australia from dropping branches.
Jimmy Haigh (19:54:01) :
… Well, if they ever get round to planting trees in Oz, give me a shout and I’ll be over to help. I planted trees for a few years in Scotland – it was the best job I ever had! Loved it! – planted about a million I reckon! My record was 4000 in one day. (Mind you, this was back in about 1984 and a lot of beer has gone under the bridge since then…)
So you’re responsible for the Griffin forest then? Sadly it has never been thinned properly and is now an inpenetratble mono-culture of spruce, with little or no age structure. Because of it’s low amenity it made the case for the Griffin windfarm much more difficult to stop, (I don’t think the windfarm would never have been gioven permission if the hills were still heather moorland). Anyway, 68 turbines, eachl 125m tal,l will wreck the whole context of the Highland Perthshire landscape, but sadly that’s not what our planners and politicians think. Calliachar (14 turbines on the hills above Amulree/Kenmore) and Logiealmond (on the Highland Boundary Fault to the west of Bankfoot) have also gone to Public Inquiry, but we are hopefull that the politicians will see that the Griffin scheme is big enough.
VG (20:26:45) :
I’m probably one odd one out on this. I do not believe land use will/would/could affect weather/climate systems (used to). It may seem complete at odds (or am I?). The presence of mountains etc of course yes (ie andean weather, Pyrenees etc but not for example desertification, planting/removing vegetation. I am prepared to be educated on this though.
REPLY: Large cities make effects on local weather, such as UHI induced downwind convection and rain shadows. – Anthony
I have done some rough calculations and would say that the UHI effect from large cities can in some circumstances be regional rather than just local. But I suppose it depends on how you define regional/local.
– sorry, forgot to close the italics tag after Anthony’s reply.
Increased land clearance leads to greater run-off. The amount of silica washed into the oceans has increased markedly since agricultural industrialisation. In the spring there is a diatom bloom which peters out when the silica runs out, to be replaced by other phytoplankton which use calcium carbonate to make their shells.
Diatoms have been advantaged by industrial farming. Using a different carbon fixing system from their calciferous cousins, diatoms are less discriminatory against 13C and thus pull down an unexpectedly large amount of the heavier carbon isotope.
This leads to a depleted 13C signal in the atmosphere which might be interpreted as an increase in 12C.
Before spending trillions, check the biology.
JF
The only thing the greenies accomplished here was to insist that runaway forest fires were natural, and removing the standing dead trees to reduce the fire hazard was unnatural, and they got it though constant legal harassment.
The place burns down faster than it grows.
What does grow is the hotter weather trees & brush that burn hotter (oils in leaves).
I read the paper and will read it again. One thing I noticed, though, is a dearth of historical landscape geography references. The latest findings in that field provide strong evidence that human beings have been altering vegetation on a continental scale via anthropogenic fire for millennia.
During the entire Holocene, and longer than that on continents such as Australia, people have been setting fire to vast tracts on a frequent, regular basis. Those activities altered the carbon cycle, vegetation, soils, and albedos, and produced aerosols, again at a continental scale.
There are more trees and more forested acres in the Americas today than there were 500 years ago. I suspect the same is true for all the other continents save Antarctica. And there is much less exogenous anthropogenic fire.
I would be happier with the paper had the authors considered those findings.
About land use. The difference between a surface covered with concrete and land with grass/trees.
After a very warm day in summer, both surfaces are dry (grass is yellow). When evening comes, concrete surface remains warm a very long time while temperature above grass surface falls quickly and is several degrees lower. (one can feel the temperature drop close from parks).
Could someone help me understand why? It seems to me there is not much more evaporation from grass than from concrete as both surfaces are very dry. And concrete reflects more sun than grass…
Does the temperature difference come from trees pumping deep water from the ground or something like that?
Note to Nasif Nahle (22:08:29):
The concept of ecological succession to climax states is falling out of favor. Those Clementsian theories have been supplanted by reconstructions of historical development pathways. That is, what really happened — based on empirical evidence — does not fit the theory, and so the theory is being abandoned.
In addition, recognition of historical human influences is growing. People have had major effects on plant and animal populations for thousands of years. People have altered geographic distributions of plants and animals, too. Theories regarding the “balance of nature”, “plant associations”, “wilderness”, “fragmentation”, the “mosaic”, etc., absent historical human influences, are also in decline.
Well done Anthony, you deserve this recognition after all your hard work, as do your team of volunteers.
Global climate change is simply the sum of the changes that happen in each individual micro-climate over long periods of tme. This paper will certainly help get this important message across.
A survey published today shows how the hot, dry conditions caused by climate change are damaging Canada’s mining industry because of all the resultant snow, rain, flooding and cold weather (???)…
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page68?oid=87795&sn=Detail
Canadian miners say global climate change definitely hurts mining
A survey conducted at this year’s PDAC conference and across Canada by the David Suzuki Foundation finds a substantial portion of the miners and explorers surveyed believe climate change is already harming their operations.
The foundation’s survey of 48 attendees at PDAC found half of them felt snowfall was the most common climate-change related event affecting mining operations while freezing rain had the least impact. Thirty-six percent of the respondents said forest fires and ice conditions also affected operations.
Only 21% of those surveyed mentioned that high temperatures were having a direct impact on operations, compared to the 38% who said cold temperatures were having an impact. Flooding, storms and heavy rainfall were identified by between 20 to 26% of the respondents as affecting mining operations.
…
“Mine operations in Central Canada were more likely to be affected by freezing rain, flooding, extreme cold and storm, which is reflective of the extreme weather of the central provinces,’ the report said.
A cross-Canada survey in 2008 randomly selected 62 mining practitioners working on the ground across the country. Their responses often matched those respondents surveyed at PDAC.
However, the most commonly identified climatic hazards among the mining group were too much rainfall (71%), too much snowfall (56%), storm events (33%), flooding (25%), and cold temperatures (19%).
Well done, I hope you had a little celebration in which ever way you see fit.
Congratulations.