Is that a scary thing?
Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
In its October 14, 2010 issue, Nature magazine (p. 755) reports on a paper by JMG Hudson and G HR Henry, Increased plant biomass in a High Arctic heath community from 1981 to 2008, Ecology 90:2657–2663 (2009). (PDF ) It notes that, based on data collected from study plots over a 13-year period and survey data covering 27 years on the tundra of Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, an area where both temperatures and the length of the growing season has increased in recent decades:
“The biomass of mosses has increased by 74% and that of evergreen shrubs by 60%. The total biomass of the system has increased significantly, and vegetation has grown taller. But because there was plenty of open ground at the site into which plants could expand, these changes did not result in decreases in any group. The research indicates that climate change has already begun to increase plant productivity in the high Arctic.”
The abstract of the paper states:
“The Canadian High Arctic has been warming for several decades. Over this period, tundra plant communities have been influenced by regional climate change, as well as other disturbances… [W]e measured biomass and composition changes in a heath community over 13 years using a point-intercept method in permanent plots (1995–2007) and over 27 years using a biomass harvest comparison (1981–2008). Results from both methods indicate that the community became more productive over time, suggesting that this ecosystem is currently in transition. Bryophyte and evergreen shrub abundances increased, while deciduous shrub, forb, graminoid, and lichen cover did not change. Species diversity also remained unchanged. Because of the greater evergreen shrub cover, canopy height increased. From 1995 to 2007, mean annual temperature and growing season length increased at the site. Maximum thaw depth increased, while soil water content did not change. We attribute the increased productivity of this community to regional warming over the past 30–50 years. This study provides the first plot-based evidence for the recent pan-Arctic increase in tundra productivity detected by satellite-based remote-sensing and repeat-photography studies. These types of ground-level observations are critical tools for detecting and projecting long-term community-level responses to warming.”
In its penultimate paragraph, the paper admits that:
“The mechanisms for the observed increased productivity are unclear. However, it is likely that warming directly increased plant growth and reproduction and indirectly increased resource supply (Shaver et al. 2001). Increased temperatures also lengthened the growing season, increased soil temperature, deepened the active layer, and consequently may have influenced nutrient uptake in this plant community.”
Notably, the paper does not directly address the role, if any, that nitrogen and carbon fertilization may have played in the increased productivity. [One might argue this is implicit in the phrase in the above that refers to “indirectly increased resource supply.” If so, it’s a pretty sloppy piece of writing.] In any case, based on its findings, it expresses some skepticism about claims that many heath species may be endangered:
“Although many heath species are predicted to become endangered by their inferior competitive abilities (Callaghan et al. 2005), our results indicate that heath plant communities may persist in a warmer future in the High Arctic.”
The paper also points out that its findings are consistent with satellite-based analyses that show increasing productivity in the Arctic area. See the earlier WUWT post, Another Al Gore Reality Check: “Rising tree mortality”?, that shows that it is not only the Arctic region that has greened up, but also the Sahel, Australia, the Amazonia, and the world as a whole.
So, going back to the heading of this piece, is increased biological productivity something to be scared about?
The answer is “yes” only if:
(a) Any change is bad, which apparently many in the environmental community believe reflexively, AND
(b) Nature (including humanity) cannot adapt to any warming that might result.
But an increase in productivity isn’t just any change. It actually makes more resources available to life forms that rely on them for sustenance. That is, it could lead to more abundant, if not more diverse, species. Moreover, we know that nature has encountered as much if not greater warming in the Arctic regions before, and is none the worse for it. See, for example, CO2 Science’s Medieval Warming Project Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot.
That means more CO2 has been sequestered from the atmosphere. Time to celebrate, right?
You have to know that the warmistas will utter a loud “A-HAH!” and ignore any possible benefits accruing to these findings.
Obviously, life adapts very quickly. It’s worse than we thought. Hah!
Which has exerted a stronger influence, warming or increased CO2, on the observed biomass buildup?
I bet the latter.
nearly a thousand MSM articles are spinning the “success” of the UN biodiversity meeting in Nagoya, such as steve connor in the UK Independent, whose headline is “A giant leap for the natural world”. however,
BBC’s richard black is unusually sober:
29 Oct: BBC: Richard Black: Biodiversity talks end with call for ‘urgent’ action
Nations have two years to draw up plans for funding the plan…
The meeting settled on targets of protecting 17% of the world’s land surface, and 10% of the oceans, by 2020.
These are regarded as too small by many conservation scientists, who point out that about 13% of the land is already protected – while the existing target for oceans is already 10%…
Developed nations agreed to establish mechanisms for raising finance to help them – which could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars per year by 2020…
The sums might appear astronomical – particularly when you recall that governments are already committed to raising $100bn (£125bn) per year for climate change by 2020 – but French Ecology Minister Chantal Jouanno said it was not impossible..
Conservation groups warned that the agreement as it stands does not guarantee the erosion of species and ecosystems will be stopped…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11655925
while Guardian’s jonathan watts is not only pleasantly shocked, but sees faith in the UN “restored” :
29 Oct: Guardian: Jonathan Watts: Goodwill and compromise: Nagoya biodiversity deal restores faith in UN
After the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, a successful agreement to protect biodiversity has provided a timely morale booster
Some key goals have been set, including a plan to expand nature reserves to 17% of the world’s land and 10% of the planet’s waters. For a scarred veteran of the Copenhagen or Tianjin climate talks, the extent of the progress, goodwill and readiness to compromise during these past few days has been pleasantly shocking…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/29/nagoya-biodiversity-summit-deal
There’s no question that if you make the tundra warmer it will support more biomass.
One problem is the drop in biodiversity as arctic species range’s disappear.
But the overall drop in global productivity will not occur in the tundra.
Funny how that period covers only the warming phase of the AMO. I wonder what they will run in 30 years?
And I wonder how many of my (Canadian) tax dollars went into studying something that should be “facepalm” obvious? Gee plants grow when it’s warm who’d of thunk?
Wombat, do you realize that the only way you can have static biodiversity.
would be for the climate to be static?
and even then, it wouldn’t work
Climate is the main driver of evolution, if it didn’t change, and something go extinct,
we probably wouldn’t even be here.
and the biodiversity of arctic species would be something else entirely.
Change is good, get used to it.
This brings to mind a topic that I’ve not seen raised for awhile, namely the theory that the recession of arctic ice would release massive amounts of CO2, setting up feedbacks that would spin the planet into ever-increased warming.
I believe this is what our good friend Henry Waxman had in mind when he made this immortal statement a year and a half ago:
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/quote-of-the-week-5-waxmans-stunningly-stupid-statement/
MY QUESTION: if arctic warming results in increased plant growth, wouldn’t this tend toward the absorption of CO2 rather than its runaway increase? I’d appreciate some perspective on this. Thanks.
Ken in North Dakota
I remember that the melting tundra issue caused them to re-think the methane issue; think off-setting.
Warmists like to ignore the increased greening of the planet that kicks in to absorb much of the extra amount of ‘toxic’ co2. This is one of the feedbacks that has allowed us to exist today and in the past despite significant climate changes over the past 100,000 years.
“Although many heath species are predicted to become endangered by their inferior competitive abilities (Callaghan et al. 2005), our results indicate that heath plant communities may persist in a warmer future in the High Arctic.”
====================
Talk about persistance, they survived the last ice age.
If I’m not mistaken, plant DNA is 1000 (or something) times longer than human DNA. In other words, plants can handle anything natural variation throws at them.
You better grab for your gun. The ugly smell of genocide is in the air.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8093089/Liberal-gene-discovered-by-scientists.html
The tropics likewise had a biomass increase of 25%, with the added benefit of a large positive impact on fauna.
Pat, they are gently nudging away from AGW and onto the next scare. Reach for your wallet or purse. :o)
Now wait a minute!
How is the non existent global warming (It’s UHI effect, isn’t it?) affecting plant growth.
You cannot have it both ways!!!
\harry
Late-quaternary vegetation and climate near the arctic tree line of northwestern North America
Quaternary Research
Volume 1, Issue 3, September 1971, Pages 331-342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(71)90069-X
Wombat says October 29, 2010 at 5:14 pm
“One problem is the drop in biodiversity as arctic species range’s disappear.”
This is absurd. Boreal and Arctic species have humongous ranges and huge populations vs tropical species. The primary characteristics of Boreal habitats is LOW species diversity and very high species dominance, aside from the pitiful primary productivity. Almost all of the species have distributions in both North America and Eurasia. Rare species are the product of species endgame (typically overspecialization) or rarely over-exploitation by humans. Considering that 100% of this habitat was covered by over a mile thick ice sheet until recently, this is one of the most perturbated habitats on earth and humans had nothing whatever to do with it.
OT you can snip but I think WUWT should be looking/posting more about meteorogical clmate data rather than biology, politics etc re the real issue.. but hey you’ve got the greatest hits etc so you know vat you are doing LOL.
Wombat says:
October 29, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Why is the drop in biodiversity a problem?
And how do we know arctic species ranges will disappear?
Maybe all those plants and animals we refer to as arctic, will rejoice in a warming of their range. Perhaps what they are doing now, particularly since the start of the Little Ice Age, is a real pain and they would love to get back to the good old days of the Medieval Warming Period?
I know the Vikings would have been thrilled with a little warming back then.
Wombat says:
October 29, 2010 at 5:14 pm
There’s no question that if you make the tundra warmer it will support more biomass.
*************
Please tell that to all the alarmists who claim that this warming will produce a runaway greenhouse disaster from the massive release of CO2 and CH4 instead of increased sequestration.
OT: India invests heavily in coal fired power plants:
http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/dailybriefing/2010_10_29/China_signs_landmark_energy_deal_with_India.html
Soooo….
Green is good …. unless, as in this case, Green is bad ???!!!
These are twisted times we live in.
Harry Lu says:
October 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Now wait a minute!
How is the non existent global warming (It’s UHI effect, isn’t it?) affecting plant growth.
You cannot have it both ways!!!
Yes you can Harry. Specific areas can become warmer from time to time without it leading to catastrophic global warming. Perhaps the Arctic area has been warmer recently while other areas have been colder.
In any event, a large number of us here know the world is warming (and has been for centuries). It is the role of man, and specifically CO2 which we dispute.
(Other options are possible to explain the increased growth. People studying my garden over a short time from winter to summer could attribute increased plant mass to temperature. In fact the dominating characteristic is how long since I last pruned and weeded.)
R. de Haan says:
October 29, 2010 at 5:40 pm
…. that link could be a thread all unto itself so I won’t say too much more… but it does not surprise me just from my own observations over the years. That being said, I think it is crucial for everyone to recognize that there are different ways people are hardwired & that there may be no way to change are person’s thoughts on a subject – this is extremely relevant to the AGW debate, as this has become a highly political subject instead of a scientific subject, which should be free from emotion. It also illustrates that AGW is a political subject to anyone who would say otherwise – as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of AGW supporters are also politically left. Name one other field in “science” where the majority so strongly fall into one political camp. Left wing biologists? Right wing chemists? Nope, only climate “science” falls into this category. Why? Because it is politics 1st, science 2nd.