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.
“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.”
You’re supposed to skew the data and hide the decline (or persistence) before publishing the results. Pffftt… rookies. Silly rabbit, tricks are for Mann.
This was discussed in part three years ago, see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/11/06/alaska-warming-from-arctic-tundra-shrub-invasion-and-soot-deposition/
The main cause is probably (increased) particulate pollution providing trace nutrients to the plants.
Plants on permafrost have shallow roots in heavily leached soils. Nutrient availability is likely the limiting factor in plant growth.
Know what I hear from this…
nature thanking us for co2 and the sun for warmth.
And SH’s going to have bumpers this year I hear.
The simple truth is we are always getting better at finding what is there. No dramatic ups or downs, just nature being nature and us discovering it better.
I had a discussion with a scientist (non biologist) and when I said the idea of species means squat to nature, she almost flipped(tried to hide it but I saw it). The entire concept of species is a man made concept and the more we learn the broader/uncertain/ arbitrary that concept becomes.
Can’t wait for the UN crowd to start deciding economic policies based on species numbers (sarcasm off)
Philip Bradley says:
October 29, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“Plants on permafrost have shallow roots in heavily leached soils. Nutrient availability is likely the limiting factor in plant growth.”
Ya think ? LOL – yeah, right after the fact that they are frozen solid for ~ 75% of (7 plus months) a year [forget the total absence of light for months, since they can’t grow due to the temps anyway].
The photo (Plate 1) makes me question the validity of this research. In Plate 1 there appear to be a number of low structures scattered about the tundra. Are these the open-top chambers? Do I presume correctly that the researchers are measuring the biomass within these structures? A quick skim of the PDF didn’t answer these questions.
If the answer is yes then I’m afraid this research is probably worthless. It looks like a case of the observer altering the observed. The structures will block the wind thus changing the growing conditions.
I’ve spent a lot of time wandering around in Colorado’s alpine tundra and I can tell you from personal observation that the wind is a huge factor in the biomass even at a small scale. For example, the biomass in the lee of a boulder will be much greater than an exposed spot a foot away.
I need a big research grant so I can spend more time wandering around….umm….I mean researching the alpine tundra.
I wonder who will pay for the biodiversity agenda? It seems that most nations are broke or about to become so (dictionary on this – see USA). Thus, any free biological productivity must be a good thing. If this can be accomplished by a bit more GHG and a little soot it seems almost like a free lunch. Someone has already mentioned the extra warmth in the tundra ought to promote evolution and increased diversity. What’s not to like? [or WNTL?]
I’ll restate the broke part in case anyone has missed this. The USA is deep in debt. No one knows how to stop this. Print more money. Inflation. Zero interest rates. Workers want more pay. Retiree’s income goes down.
Health costs go up. Print more money. Send money to UN to support a biodiversity agenda. Is anyone in charge?
Research. It’s a wonderful thing.
Ellesmere island, Wikipedia.
“…Schei and later Nathorst described the Paleocene-Eocene (ca. 55 Ma) fossil forest in the Stenkul Fiord sediments. The Stenkul Fiord site represents a series of deltaic swamp and floodplain forests. The trees stood for at least 400 years. Individual stumps and stems of >1 m (>3 ft) diameter were abundant. Abundance of Metasequoia and possibly Glyptostrobus trees.
In 2006, University of Chicago paleontologist Neil H. Shubin reported the discovery of the fossil of a Paleozoic (ca. 375 Ma) fish, named Tiktaalik roseae, in the former stream beds of Ellesmere Island. The fossil exhibits many characteristics of fish, but also indicates a transitional creature that may be a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans…”
And from another source:
“…One of the most remote places on Earth, Ellesmere Island has experienced little human activity (see ARCTIC EXPLORATION). However, archaeological evidence shows that the fjords of Hazen Plateau were occupied some 4000 years ago. Excavations of THULE-culture winter houses on BACHE PENINSULA (mid-island), dating from 1250-1350 AD, have uncovered numerous Norse artifacts…”
Sounds like nature’s giving back the land it took before.
Greenhouse operators enrich the CO2 content in their greenhouses to get much faster plant growth and healthier plants.
+CO2 = more green, -CO2 = less green
Funny how that works out. More CO2, less famine.
Ah ha, henrythethird, Tiktaalik, a sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish, precursor to the amphibious land assault?! Great you bring it up. I take my moniker from its descendent cousins, Crossopterygii, species of which inhabited the Carboniferous (Mississippian/Pennsylvanian) Period swamps and deltas around here and which I’ve been lucky enough to find bits (and more of) when splitting shale. Well, two examples in twenty years isn’t bad!!
The article makes it seem like the increased warmth causes the increased CO2. Aiiiiieeee
Didn’t the arctic have palm trees in the past? Surely that wasn’t so long ago geologically. Shite happens, times change just like weather and climate.
where both temperatures and the length of the growing season has increased in recent decades:
—————
So today we are running with the “it’s warming but it’s good for us” line.
Tomorrow we will be back to the “there is no evidence for warming” line.
Today we still can’t wrap our heads around the importance of rates of change to adaption or that adaptation may mean extinction for species as habitat zones undergo geographical shifts.
So let me get this straight. The greenies have given up trying to “control” the climate because their scam failed. Having gone away and performed a hard re-think they’ve decided their next scam is to “control” evolution and it’s going to cost us twice as much?
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Maybe it’s better than we thought.
They look like mini-polyhouses to me.
Few here are saying that there is no climate change – the climate has been changing almost continuously as far back as you care to look. The question is what is driving these changes. Go look at Jimbo’s posting further up in this thread which shows that the climate in the high Arctic appears to have been significantly warmer than today in a period a few thousand years ago, after the end of the last ice age. Yet CO2 was lower than today.
As for the question of rates of change and their impact on species ability to adapt, again ask questions of the past – the rates of change at the end of the last ice age were very rapid indeed – in particular around the Younger Dryas event, with a plunge into colder conditions and an almost as rapid warming. We should recall that current habitats were created by climate change of this kind – and recent studies also show that current habitats are nowhere near as stable as previously considered, but have been pieced together by precisely these kinds of climate change.
What blows me away is the size of the effect when contrasted to the minimal exposure that this has in the MSM. The world is greening – significantly – measurably – massively. Deserts are in global retreat. Farm production us up world wide. This is a huge effect – a measurable effect of increased CO_2 levels. You’d think that the media might want to report it.
So today we are running with the “it’s warming but it’s good for us” line.
Tomorrow we will be back to the “there is no evidence for CO2 warming” line.
You left a word out.
Tomorrow I will still maintain the world is warming. Slowly. But that CO2 has a trivial part in that.
I will also be maintaining that warming is good for us, in the sense that cooling would be a disaster and keeping the same temperature an impossibility.
It is a straw man you are burning here. The issue is whether there is catastrophic warming or not. Far too many people still assume that any evidence of warming is evidence of CO2 warming, which is not a logical conclusion.
Won’t anyone think of the glaciers?
Hey Lazy,
Go here and download:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
— it’s got pictures too.
dwright says:
October 29, 2010 at 5:30 pm
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?
++++++++++++
One reason to study it is to know if the alarmist ‘methane eruption from melting tundra warming tipping will bring disaster upon us all’ argument has any foundation. So for $0.00 I read a paper on carbon emerging from melting permafrost and calculated with a single finger that the growth of biomass needed to completely absorb all carbon from stored rotting biomass is 5 kg per square metre. This study shows (almost because numbers are not quite given) that this figure will easily be attained.
As we already know, the treeline was 80-100 km further north in the MWP. 5 kg/m^2 is nothing for a growing forest. The area in question is vast, absolutely huge. The CO2 absorbing potential is enormous, but it seems it is not heating very much at all.
Incidentally in Inuvik 40 ft trees grow on permafrost. You can reach into the roots and feel the ice. Amazing. 200 feet higher, east of town, there are no large trees for a few thousand clicks beceause it is ju-ust a little too cold. They are there, tiny, alive, waiting for warmth.
“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.”
Plants of the scrub-lands have adapted to survive at the very margins of viable conditions for growth. They have a wide geographic range and it is very unlikely they will ever become endangered. Should Arctic conditions improve over the coming years they will simply move more polewards as more useful species regain there previously abandoned territory.
Nothing in nature is static, just like climate it is always in state of dynamic continuous change as it strives to continue it’s gene-pool.
As a biologist, I see nothing wrong or negative about increased plant production per se. Certainly, this would be a direct effect of warming and it is really unlikely that plant production in the arctic would be affected by CO2 levels.
The problem is the melting of the permafrost and resulting production of methane and CO2 as bacteria mineralize the vast amounts of frozen organic matter (mainly peat) in the Siberian, Canadian, and Alaskan tundra. This is a major positive feedback, where warming leads to more CO2 which leads to more warming.