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.
Shock news: trees grow better in a warmer climate with more carbon dioxide
Whoa!
Those “tree researchers” are really top-notch!
Did they give those trees a big HUG for all of us?
I’ve noticed that when I dig up a plant or small tree, bring it in the garage, and just let it sit there, after a while it just doesn’t look so good and all the leaves fall off. Wonder if these “tree researchers” might like to investigate this?
Overheard at a wedding between two “tree researchers” :
“With this tree ring, thee I wed.”
🙂
Hugh Pepper says:
November 11, 2011 at 9:52 am
I sense a true believer. Is it a member of the CAGW church visiting?
Dear ferd berple,
This is not my quote:
“Given the host of negative synergies (eg wildfire),.. ”
You may redirect to the writer I was quoting. 🙂
Later,
highflight56433
Nick Shaw; Not to mention you are doing it for the polar bears now opening Coke
““I was expecting to see trees stressed from the warmer temperatures,”…“What we found was a surprise.”
That explains everything you need to know about over educated PhD types and ordinary folks with a normal amount of common sense.
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.
You evidently missed the works of several other groups of dolts, who have claimed to have proven that due to CAGW all the permafrost in Northern Canada and Siberia is bound for extinction and the boreal forests will be nipping at the shore of the Arctic ocean in no time at all.
More silliness but at least it is a counterweight to the previously 100% negative effects of CO2 and warming. The spate of articles on the skeptical side of the question seem to have blossomed forth with the climategate scandals opening the door to “contrary” papers. I think journals are padding themselves with such new stuff to push the silliness of the past few decades into the background.
From the article: “The study, in the journal Environmental Research Letters, spans 1,000 years […]”
Isn’t that milking the grant-cow for an unusually long time? Most grants are only good for a year or two and maybe three years if things go well.
These people actually believe what they are saying. Obviously proof that alien races exist. They could not come from this world and talk such dribble.
Maybe they should try an experiment. – Nice big glass house. Seal all leaks. Plant a big range of plants and grow to a reasonable size, measure etc. Then remove all of the polluting CO2 and check the response of the plants. They will probably get another surprise. Totally unexpected I would think.
Larry Geiger says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm
In the picture at the top of this post the young lady is measuring the diameter of the tree at about 18 inches? Standard tree measurements are made at “breast height”.
Imho she’s measuring at breast height. She didnt get the memo though that she has to stand up.
Actually the word is amazed, not surprised
Larry Geiger says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm
In the picture at the top of this post the young lady is measuring the diameter of the tree at about 18 inches? Standard tree measurements are made at “breast height”.
=======
Looking at the slope of the land behind the young lady, she may very well be measuring at “breast height” if she was standing next to the tree.
In any case, it is good to see the kids getting some field experience.
Totally Surprised my green house with injected Co2 produces Amazing crops of Tomatoes UrrrH.
“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.”
Why? The two big stresses for plants are frost and lack of water. For those that are frost resistant then it’s lack of water. Temperature is the least important.
PaulC says:
November 11, 2011 at 2:05 pm
These people actually believe what they are saying. Obviously proof that alien races exist. They could not come from this world and talk such dribble.
Maybe they should try an experiment. – Nice big glass house. Seal all leaks. Plant a big range of plants and grow to a reasonable size, measure etc. Then remove all of the polluting CO2 and check the response of the plants. They will probably get another surprise. Totally unexpected I would think.
===================================================
Biosphere 2
I remember reading how German farmers were suing the railways for electrification because, they said, that crop production had fallen off in areas adjacent to the tracks. The cause was put down to the loss of soot from the steam engines.
Similarly one can see, say, motorways along which the wild flowers and plants thrive, presumably a result of the heat island effect coupled with increased CO2, and heaven knows what else!
The implication that these researchers have ‘discovered’ tree ring density (as opposed to width) is bizarre. Keith Briffa, for instance, has been using tree ring density in temperature reconstructions for years.
e.g., from 2001 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/Briffa2001.pdf
Which makes me think that the divergence problem is not yet solved. Or is there actually a methodological ‘leap forward’ as suggested in the article?
So, essentially, they went with the models rather than kind of really check by observation the climate around them trees? :p
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.”
Since they didn’t measure temperatures at the location, they don’t know this. Unless their claim is that tree growth at this location is somehow teleconnected to global average temperatures.
Further, solar insolation is the primary determinant of all plant growth, without controlling for this, they have no idea what caused the growth changes they found.
“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.”
What do trees growing around a Stevenson box do to the measured average temperature?
They’re also not looking at past research.
Many previous studies (such as here: http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/6/839.full.pdf), have found that increased CO2 actually increase frost hardiness in plants and trees.
“…One almost universal response of plants to exposure to elevated CO2 is an increase in the concentration of total non-structural carbohydrates (TNC; starch plus soluble sugars) in leaves (e.g. Wong, 1990; Farrar and Williams, 1991; Bazzaz and Fajer, 1992; Korner and Arnone, 1992;
Korner and Miglietta, 1994; Poorter et al., 1997). It has often been hypothesized that these increases in leaf carbohydrate concentrations may increase leaf freezing resistance…”
So let’s see – increased CO2, increased frost hardiness in trees growing at the northern edge of Alaska’s tundra cause them to survive the winter better, and they grow faster.
What was it they proved here?
An acquaintance of mine used to grow medical marijuana. Besides regulating the temperature, light, fertilizer, and water, he had a CO2 generator and kept the plants supplied with 1200 ppm. He grew much bigger plants, faster, than you could outdoors.
Perhaps Liebig was right after all. Now pick the limiting factor for tree growth. CO2, temp, nutrients (many), or water. Or any combination. Here in Montana it is normally water.
“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.”
Hugh Pepper: I would like you to explain away the notion of a preconceived view uttered in the above quote. Ms. Andreu-Hayles was going with a mind to find some kind of expected stress. There doesn’t seem to be any explanation of what that stress might be, just a notion that it would be there, and that its absence came as a ‘surprise’. Hers was a psychological admission, leaking out for all to see. Nothing to do with science. OK, so she was baffled. My “guess”? She was seeing a more-or-less normal Subarctic environment doing what it does best. A fraction of a Kelvin degree’s variation does nothing. She was expressing disappointment at having failed to find something to be alarmed about.
Isn’t this the entire basis for using tree rings as temperature proxies?
Tree rings are correlated with CO2 much better than with temperature.
So much for Briffa & Mann’s treemometers.