The geniuses at Columbia University’s Lamont -Doherty Earth Observatory have discovered Liebigs Law of the Minimum. The tree researcher exclaims: “I was expecting to see trees stressed from the warmer temperatures,”…“What we found was a surprise.”
Trees on Tundra’s Border Are Growing Faster in a Hotter Climate
Measuring Techniques Improve—But the Implications Are Not Certain

Evergreen trees at the edge of Alaska’s tundra are growing faster, suggesting that at least some forests may be adapting to a rapidly warming climate, says a new study.
While forests elsewhere are thinning from wildfires, insect damage and droughts partially attributed to global warming, some white spruce trees in the far north of Alaska have grown more vigorously in the last hundred years, especially since 1950, the study has found. The health of forests globally is gaining attention, because trees are thought to absorb a third of all industrial carbon emissions, transferring carbon dioxide into soil and wood. The study, in the journal Environmental Research Letters, spans 1,000 years and bolsters the idea that far northern ecosystems may play a future role in the balance of planet-warming carbon dioxide that remains in the air. It also strengthens support for an alternative technique for teasing climate data from trees in the far north, sidestepping recent methodological objections from climate skeptics.
“I was expecting to see trees stressed from the warmer temperatures,” said study lead author Laia Andreu-Hayles, a tree ring scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “What we found was a surprise.”
Members of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab have traveled repeatedly to Alaska, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this past summer. In an area where the northern treeline gives way to open tundra, the scientists removed cores from living white spruces, as well as long-dead partially fossilized trees preserved under the cold conditions. In warm years, trees tend to produce wider, denser rings and in cool years, the rings are typically narrower and less dense. Using this basic idea and samples from a 2002 trip to the refuge, Andreu-Hayles and her colleagues assembled a climate timeline for Alaska’s Firth River region going back to the year 1067. They discovered that both tree-ring width and density shot up starting a hundred years ago, and rose even more after 1950. Their findings match a separate team’s study earlier this year that used satellite imagery and tree rings to also show that trees in this region are growing faster, but that survey extended only to 1982.
The added growth is happening as the arctic faces rapid warming. While global temperatures since the 1950s rose 1.6 degrees F, parts of the northern latitudes warmed 4 to 5 degrees F. “For the moment, warmer temperatures are helping the trees along the tundra,” said study coauthor Kevin Anchukaitis, a tree-ring scientist at Lamont. “It’s a fairly wet, fairly cool, site overall, so those longer growing seasons allow the trees to grow more.”

The outlook may be less favorable for the vast interior forests that ring the Arctic Circle. Satellite images have revealed swaths of brown, dying vegetation and a growing number of catastrophic wildfires in the last decade across parts of interior Alaska, Canada and Russia. Evidence suggests forests elsewhere are struggling, too. In the American West, bark beetles benefitting from milder winters have devastated millions of acres of trees weakened by lack of water. A 2009 study in the journal Science found that mortality rates in once healthy old-growth conifer forests have doubled in the past few decades. Heat and water stress are also affecting some tropical forests already threatened by clear-cutting for farming and development.
Another paper in Science recently estimated that the world’s 10 billion acres of forest are now absorbing about a third of carbon emissions, helping to limit carbon dioxide levels and keep the planet cooler than it would be otherwise.
There are already signs that the treeline is pushing north, and if this continues, northern ecosystems will change. Warming temperatures have benefitted not only white spruce, the dominant treeline species in northwestern North America, but also woody deciduous shrubs on the tundra, which have begun shading out other plants as they expand their range. As habitats change, scientists are asking whether insects, migratory songbirds, caribou and other animals that have evolved to exploit the tundra environment will adapt. “Some of these changes will be ecologically beneficial, but others may not,” said Natalie Boelman, an ecologist at Lamont-Doherty who is studying the effects of climate change in the Alaskan tundra.
In another finding, the study strengthens scientists’ ability to use tree rings to measure past climate. Since about 1950, tree ring widths in some northern locations have stopped varying in tandem with temperature, even though modern instruments confirm that temperatures are on a steady rise. As scientists looked for ways to get around the problem, critics of modern climate science dismissed the tree ring data as unreliable and accused scientists of cooking up tricks to support the theory of global warming. The accusations came to a head when stolen mails discussing the discrepancy between tree-ring records and actual temperatures came to light during the so-called “Climategate” episode of 2009-10.
The fact that temperatures were rising was never really in dispute among scientists, who had thermometers as well as tree rings to confirm the trend. But still scientists struggled with how to correct for the so-called “divergence problem.’’ The present study adds support for another proxy for tree growth: ring density. Trees tend to produce cells with thicker walls at the end of the growing season, forming a dark band of dense wood. While tree-ring width in some places stops correlating with temperature after 1950, possibly due to moisture stress or changes in seasonality due to warming, tree ring density at the site studied continues to track temperature.
“This is methodologically a big leap forward that will allow scientists to go back to sites sampled in the past and fill in the gaps,” said Glenn Juday, a forest ecologist at University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who was not involved in the study. The researchers plan to return to Alaska and other northern forest locations to improve geographical coverage and get more recent records from some sites. They are also investigating the use of stable isotopes to extract climate information from tree rings.
Other authors of the study include Rosanne D’Arrigo, Lamont-Doherty; Pieter Beck and Scott Goetz, Woods Hole Research Center and David Frank, Swiss Federal Research Institute. The study received funding from the Swiss and US national science foundations.
Now remind me why we grow plants in greenhouses. Preferrably with added CO2.
How can these people lack so much commonsense.
“The fact that temperatures were rising was never really in dispute among scientists, who had thermometers as well as tree rings to confirm the trend. But still scientists struggled with how to correct for the so-called “divergence problem.’’ The present study adds support for another proxy for tree growth: ring density. Trees tend to produce cells with thicker walls at the end of the growing season, forming a dark band of dense wood. While tree-ring width in some places stops correlating with temperature after 1950, possibly due to moisture stress or changes in seasonality due to warming, tree ring density at the site studied continues to track temperature.”
Yay! No more need to hide the decline 🙂
It makes one wonder – What kind of education did these “researchers” receive? Perhaps someone should check their credentials. If legit, those institutions, should be closed. GK
I agree with Pamela Gray , as usual . Forests in southern Idaho have similar conditions to those in eastern Oregon . Stands of trees become denser , the trees weaken from competition and the bark beetles move in . I lived in Idaho for over twenty years , and have spent most of the last thirty winters there so I don’t buy the idea that milder winters lead to explosions in bark beetle populations . The beetles are always there , and only do serious damage to the weakest trees .
I too am surprised that you and you and you are all surprised they were surprised!
Does CO2 also increase bear scat in the woods?
Hugh Pepper …
anyone who claims to be a “researcher” but is then “suprised” that warmer climates help pine tress grow faster is not a scientist nor a researcher but an ignorant robot simply spouting AGW nonsense. They deserve absolutely no respect because they have not earned it. As far as the rest of your comment, wildfires are not negative “synergies”, whatever that means. They a healthy positive events …
It seems to be a recurring theme that the pro-AGW researchers really do not know anything about what they are talking about. Pamela Gray and others mention above that the government’s severe restrictions on logging may have something to do with the problems, large wildfires and insect infestation, cited by the researchers. And the researchers note tree ring widths and densities varied at different sites, though temperatures didn’t. That alone should make them look for other causes. Where are these people being educated?
Well, I’m not surprised you were surprised she was surprised they were surprised!
Did these people really think that these trees grew way up north because they like the cold? They only grow there because they are the only trees strong enough to grow up there. Why they don’t grow down at normal latitudes? Not sure, but may be related to competition.
The ‘wildwood’ was undergoing Native American silviculture through periodic burns for thousands of years. The Europeans put an end to that, then the Greens started breaking contract with ranchers who previously had been given grazing rights in the national forests (which were for resource management, not wildlife preservation), and the brush grew up allowing for catastrophic wildfires. Pests of course, come in waves, and always have. Monocultures contribute to this, as do other factors, but to attribute this to the proven non-existant AGW without taking these other factors into consideration is unscientific, and either ignorant or fraudulent.
“Well, I’m not surprised you were surprised she was surprised they were surprised!”
I’m surprised to hear you say that.
In other news, researchers have discoverd that bears actually do crap in the woods….
But won’t more CO2 dampen forest fires? My old Sim Earth model worked that way!
The quote “In the American West, bark beetles benefitting from milder winters have devastated millions of acres of trees weakened by lack of water. A 2009 study in the journal Science found that mortality rates in once healthy old-growth conifer forests have doubled in the past few decades. ” appears above.
As one who lives in one of those forests, The fire and bark beetle problem is a result of over growth and over population. We can’t cut trees and fires are suppressed until the fuel load reaches the point that the fires can not be controlled. Forest thinning is only permitted in alpine urban areas and then it it is limited thinning.
After the bark beetle finished in our area, we the trees were still had 3-5 times as many trees as the forest can safely support. I have trees 8-12 inches in diameter as close as 10 feet apart. On my property the canopy is so thick that no sunlight reaches the forest floor.
Only logging (only trees killed by bark beetles can be cut) or fire (I and hundreds of others would loose our homes) can clear the forest and make it healthy.
The Western forests are not healthy, but it is not warming doing it. It is our forest policy that is killing the trees.
I’ve never seen any one so happy to measure the circumference of a tree as the scientist in the first picture.
Being the self appointed GOD on all tree related topics, I can’t believe this data until Michael Mann verifies the study’s validity.
\sarc
From a climax vegetation viewpoint, even if the white spruce were stressed because of a “warmer” climate, tree species from lower latitudes would take over. DOH
Forgetting all the imaturity, lack of open minded scientific thought processes and obvious green indoctrination of the authors the possible finding of density as a proxy for temperature is interesting so lets not throw the paper in the green waste just yet.
Wasn’t one critique of Michael Mann’s bristle cone pine data that those trees live at the edge of the Alpine environment where temps are subfreezing most of the time, stunting growth? When things warmed, growth increased. Same for Briffa’s Yamal tree ring data set.
Call me crazy, but I’ve seen trees in Alaska where snow and ice surrounded the trees and they stopped growing. When the ice retreated, the trees grew strong. Wait. Isn’t that what happens between winter and summer — growth slows or stops in winter cold and accelerates in summer warmth. So it would go that in warmer climes with sufficient water, trees grow well. They just now discovered that?
WUWT readers have known this for years:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases.jpg
Hugh Pepper says:
November 11, 2011 at 9:52 am
Most of these comments are simply disrespectful and unworthy of further criticism. It is clear from this research that forests are in the process of dramatic change and it is a stretch to imagine a positive outcome after these changes. Given the host of negative synergies (eg wildfire), we should be very concerned about the prospects for a diminished boreal forest and it’s immense capacity to absorb CO2. Incidentally, these changes can be observed and I encourage your correspondents to make a trip to northern Canada or Alaska.
===================================================
Hugh, you’ve been a regular here long enough to know that forests are always in constant dramatic changes. You are also certainly knowledgeable enough to have already realized that while wildfires do have negative impacts on certain things, they are a necessary process for the health of all forests.
As far as the disrespectful nature of some of the comments, do you blame them? Some researcher finds out something that many skeptics have been saying for years, and the researcher is surprised? Its one thing to find something that hadn’t been thought of before, but the idea that CO2+warmth helps plant growth……….. well, a derisive response is probably as polite as can be expected.
Any professional greenhouse outfit could tell you that plants like a CO2 level that’s about 12-15% higher than naturally occuring levels are today. That’s why they buy expensive CO2 generators for their operations. One could postulate that it says something about evolution and history as well, but what, I’m not sure yet…
Warmer temperatures reduced the stress on the trees? Wow. Did a government grant pay for this? — John M Reynolds
“Most of these comments are simply disrespectful and unworthy of further criticism. It is clear from this research that forests are in the process of dramatic change and it is a stretch to imagine a positive outcome after these changes. Given the host of negative synergies (eg wildfire), we should be very concerned about the prospects for a diminished boreal forest and it’s immense capacity to absorb CO2. Incidentally, these changes can be observed and I encourage your correspondents to make a trip to northern Canada or Alaska.”
First, the only disrespect is our having to tolerate the ineptness spewing from higher ed. Second, don’t be critical of critical thought. Third, there is nothing clear about climate. Fourth, every one here is clear on how CO2 benefits plants. Fifth, there is no host of negative synergies. Sixth, as someone graciously pointed out, biomass is on the rise. Finally, we do not need any trips to Canada or Alaska to opine on or evaluate bunk research.
Oh yes, get a life with a sense of reality and sense of humor. Please. 🙂
News flash….
Living things at the edge of their limit….grow better when conditions improve
Film at 11
Hugh Pepper says:
November 11, 2011 at 9:52 am
The first duty of a researcher is to do some research, right? And the very best place they could come would be here at WUWT. Right? I mean, they can’t call themselves “researchers” if they haven’t thoroughly studied and evaluated WUWT.
So would you call these people “researchers” in light of the above?
As of this moment, the Blog Stat here at WUWT is ■94,155,740 views. Apparently, that doesn’t include any of these people or they wouldn’t be “surprised”. And that’s why I call them (and you’re really gonna hate this description ’cause it’s the worst thing I can call them): climscires (not full climate, hence the “clim“; not full scientists, hence the “sci“; and not full researchers, hence the “res“).
Disrespectful? As much as I can occupy it.