It has long been known that changes in land use can affect local temperatures. Switching from forest to pastureland to a concrete jungle has a measurable effect. Here, we see that the type of crop associated has a dramatic effect:
The scientists found that converting from natural vegetation to crop/pasture on average warmed the cerrado by 2.79 °F (1.55 °C), but that subsequent conversion to sugarcane, on average, cooled the surrounding air by 1.67 °F (0.93°C).
Via Eurekalert: Sugarcane cools climate
Palo Alto, CA—Brazilians are world leaders in using biofuels for gasoline. About a quarter of their automobile fuel consumption comes from sugarcane, which significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions that otherwise would be emitted from using gasoline. Now scientists from the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology have found that sugarcane has a double benefit. Expansion of the crop in areas previously occupied by other Brazilian crops cools the local climate. It does so by reflecting sunlight back into space and by lowering the temperature of the surrounding air as the plants “exhale” cooler water. The study is published in the 2nd issue of Nature Climate Change, posted on-line April 17.
The research team,* led by Carnegie’s Scott Loarie, is the first to quantify the direct effects on the climate from sugarcane expansion in areas of existing crop and pastureland of the cerrado, in central Brazil.
The researchers used data from hundreds of satellite images over 733,000 square miles—an area larger than the state of Alaska. They measured temperature, reflectivity (also called albedo), and evapotranspiration—the water loss from the soil and from plants as they exhale water vapor.
As Loarie explained: “We found that shifting from natural vegetation to crops or pasture results in local warming because the plants give off less beneficial water. But the bamboo-like sugarcane is more reflective and gives off more water—much like the natural vegetation. It’s a potential win-win for the climate—using sugarcane to power vehicles reduces carbon emissions, while growing it lowers the local air temperature.”
The scientists found that converting from natural vegetation to crop/pasture on average warmed the cerrado by 2.79 °F (1.55 °C), but that subsequent conversion to sugarcane, on average, cooled the surrounding air by 1.67 °F (0.93°C).
The researchers emphasize that the beneficial effects are contingent on the fact sugarcane is grown on areas previously occupied by crops or pastureland, and not in areas converted from natural vegetation. It is also important that other crops and pastureland do not move to natural vegetation areas, which would contribute to deforestation.
So far most of the thinking about ecosystem effects on climate considers only impacts from greenhouse gas emissions. But according to coauthor Greg Asner, “It’s becoming increasingly clear that direct climate effects on local climate from land-use decisions constitute significant impacts that need to be considered core elements of human-caused climate change.”
*Co-authors on the study are David Lobell of the Program for Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University, Gregory Asner and Christopher Field of Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology, and Qiaozhen Mu of the University of Montana. The work was made possible through the support of the Stanford University Global Climate and Energy Project.
The Department of Global Ecology was established in 2002 to help build the scientific foundations for a sustainable future. The department is located on the campus of Stanford University, but is an independent research organization funded by the Carnegie Institution. Its scientists conduct basic research on a wide range of large-scale environmental issues, including climate change, ocean acidification, biological invasions, and changes in biodiversity.
The Carnegie Institution for Science (www.carnegieScience.edu) has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research since 1902. It is a private, nonprofit organization with six research departments throughout the U.S. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.

izen says:
April 18, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Try this –
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/71932/title/Climate_meddling_dates_back_8%2C000_years
Climate meddling dates back 8,000 years
Clearing land — first to hunt and gather, and then to farm
or-
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/250311/full/news.2011.184.html
—————————————————————————-
Oh Gawd izen. Why don’t you throw in the beavers building dams into your pathetic list of songs as well. In fact anything that lives is a candidate for your list from what you say. Why not stop breathing – that would help.
Douglas
A lot of our sugarcane crop was destroyed in the recent floods, so we can expect warmer weather in Queensland?
Just some comments about the ethanol in Brazil:
Sugar cane ethanol is (generally) economically viable in Brazil. The problem is that its price oscilates with the international sugar prices (so sugar cane is used to make ethanol or sugar, whatever is more profitable), and also with seasonal fluctuation of sugar cane harvest. So when ethanol is expensive for whatever reason, people uses gasoline (flexible-fuel cars – flex – are quite popular now). (As a side note, the tank of my car is filled with gasoline right now).
Also, ethanol production from sugar cane in Brazil does not compete with food production. Prices in Brazil suffer more from the rising inflation and management of the BIG sized government…
I didn’t read all the Wikipedia entry within its details, but it seems to be quite good (a little greener for my taste, but, well…):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
I see all this from an economic point of view; trying to impose the use of biofuels, even when they are more expensive than gasoline (requiring government subsidy, forcing food prices, high production cost, etc), that’s just plain stupid, isn’t it?
Let’s try the same experiment with lots of different crops. Then let’s plot temperature change against leaf area of the crop per unit land area. Any predictions?
@izen says: April 18, 2011 at 3:05 pm
“Climate meddling dates back 8,000 years”
So almost the whole of human civilization is “meddling”.
Yeah.
That just about sums up the weird anti-human belief system of the Hyperthermalists.
Ever seen what elephants do to trees in Africa? Go wag your bony finger at them.
“Tim Folkerts says:
April 18, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Jim G says: April 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm
“And so what about the water vapor that forms clouds. Are you saying that this does not occur, or that clouds do not keep heat from radiating back into space at night? Coldest nights here in the northland are cloudless nights, for sure.”
I’m simply saying that the H2O specifically from burning biofuels will have little effect on overall water cycles and will cause little CHANGE in clouds. Certainly clouds and water vapor will have significant impacts of IR into/out of the atmosphere.
Others seems to be claiming that burning biofuels would CREATE a lot of H2O when in fact it is simply recycling the H2O.”
Sounds a lot like what some say about CO2.