Shock news: trees grow better in a warmer climate with more carbon dioxide

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

Trees in Alaska’s far north are growing faster than they were a hundred years ago says a study led by Lamont-Doherty scientist Laia Andreu-Hayles.
Image: Trees in Alaska’s far north are growing faster than they were a hundred years ago says a study led by Lamont-Doherty scientist Laia Andreu-Hayles. Credit: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

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.”

Researchers have traveled to the Alaskan treeline repeatedly. Lamont tree-ring scientist Kevin Anchukaitis (left) and Fairbanks arctic ecologist Angela Allen sample a dead spruce.
Researchers have traveled to the Alaskan treeline repeatedly. Lamont tree-ring scientist Kevin Anchukaitis (left) and Fairbanks arctic ecologist Angela Allen sample a dead spruce. Credit: Lamont-Doherty

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
125 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gary Mount
November 11, 2011 5:14 pm

I used to pass a willow tree on my way to a coffee shop. Its leaves remained longer than any other deciduous tree as fall progressed. As I used to hate winter, before I started studying climate change politics, the sight of a tree not yet hibernating for the winter delighted me. But one day during a wet snow fall, that tree split apart from the weight of snow on its leaves. I pass by that spot where that tree once grew and mourn its loss, but that’s nature and the plants that survive in harsh conditions do so for a reason.

Dave N
November 11, 2011 5:57 pm

If by “adapting to a warmer climate”, they mean “prefer a warmer climate”, they’ve hit the nail on the head.

November 11, 2011 6:28 pm

Wait till they try to “Hide the incline” Then we”l see who’s laughing and who’s crying.
I’m sure there will be investigations galore if that happens..

jae
November 11, 2011 7:38 pm

OMG, are the tree-ring readers finally seeing what the tree rings say? LOL.

JPeden
November 11, 2011 8:24 pm

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.
To make a long story much shorter for the noble researchers: “All cherry picked roads made of increased ring width or density segments put end to end will lead directly to YAD061”

November 11, 2011 8:31 pm

Aaaaargh! We’re going to be attacked by giant trees!
We’re doomed!

JPeden
November 11, 2011 8:37 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
November 11, 2011 at 9:52 am
“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.”
Speak for yourself , Dr. Pepper! But me, judging from the anecdotal evidence you validly offer only for yourself, to no end, you are in severe need of some heavy duty antidepressants. Before it’s too late!

November 11, 2011 9:46 pm

And now it’s time for
duuuuuuuuuh
“I was expecting to see trees stressed from the warmer temperatures”
As TheGoodLocust says, a train ride would have disabused them of that notion. Travel from the south of Finland to the north and watch the trees get shorter and shorter. But anyone who has anything to do with trees should already know about that.

JPeden
November 11, 2011 10:25 pm

RoHa says:
November 11, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Aaaaargh! We’re going to be attacked by giant trees!
We’re doomed!

As if the Watermelons weren’t bad enough!

Dave Springer
November 12, 2011 12:11 am

My mom had her 1965 vintage gas furnace replaced with a brand new one last winter. Upstate New York, a furnace is serious business there. The new one is about twice as efficient. Saves big bucks on the gas bill.
Anyhow, the new furnace had new intake/exhaust installed and because it’s so darned efficient the exhaust doesn’t even heat the exhaust pipe up enough to be uncomfortably warm to the touch. So it comes out of the house and blows right across a sidewalk about waist high. On the other side of that sidewalk is a 50 year-old McIntosh apple tree my dad and I planted. After that new furnace exhaust started blowing CO2 rich warm onto it’s old trunk it produced the biggest crop of apples, by far, this fall in its entire 50 year history.

Finntastic
November 12, 2011 2:41 am

I don’t really see why this is surprising. There is a reason why it’s called a ‘greenhouse effect’ after all – the trapping of heat in order to boost the growth of plants.
Unfortunately, some people seem to forget that greenhouses also need copious amounts of water to function. The conditions can also leave vast swathes of flora barren. Co2 is good, in the same way that water is good. It’s important. We need it. But would you want someone pouring a jug of water into your lungs?
The analogy is similar if we turn our whole planet into a giant greenhouse.

Lars P.
November 12, 2011 4:43 am

What a surprise, tree-ring lab scientist find the reality on the ground different to dire (models?) predictions. Remembers of what Freeman Dyson said.
“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.” – cheap shot at skeptics continued further with “but still scientists struggled with how to correct for the so-called divergence problem.’’ – trying to discuss away the real problems of Climategate.
“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 fosilized trees preserved under the cold conditions.” Interesting to see there are long-dead partially fossilised trees in the area where the northern treeline gives way to open tundra. So it is not only recently that trees grow there? And how far in the tundra are there fossilised trees? Not interesting for boreal forest history?
“Satellite images have revealed swaths of brown, dying vegetation and a growing number of catastrophic wildfires ” – to compensate for the good news some dire words. Where is the data and the analysis?
Ignorance of the benefits of CO2 and CO2 correlation as posted by Smokey (Smokey says:November 11, 2011 at 5:07 pm ). CO2 not even taken into consideration!
One needs to learn to read between lines to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Gail Combs
November 12, 2011 7:13 am

This article shows how utterly useless “Science Education” has now become because it is no longer based on science but politics!
These idiots ever hear of the “Tree Line” on mountains before???

Mark
November 12, 2011 7:59 am

E. J. Mohr says:
Also here in western Canada there is abundant evidence of forests growing high in the mountains where today there are no trees, because it is too cold. Of course the only news regarding these newly uncovered forests are scary headlines about global warming causing glaciers to melt and exposing these long buried trees.
The real question to me, is why did it suddenly cool fast enough for advancing ice to cover entire forests, and this question is never asked.

Other obvious questions would be “What killed these trees?” and “Did they all die at about the same time?”
Maybe not so obvious to the AGW crowd…

Bruce Cobb
November 12, 2011 8:20 am

Finntastic says:
November 12, 2011 at 2:41 am
Co2 is good, in the same way that water is good. It’s important. We need it. But would you want someone pouring a jug of water into your lungs?
In the realm of bad trollist analogies, yours certainly vies for the most inane. There is no evidence whatsoever that C02 levels are anywhere remotely close to what might be called dangerous levels, other than in the feverish imaginations of climate bedwetters.
Additionally, your objection that “greenhouses also need copious amounts of water to function” belies the fact that rainfall seems to be plentiful in places where it is usually expected. I’m somewhat surprised you didn’t spout the usual Warmist nonsense about how it is now raining too much in some areas, and not enough in others, thanks to man.

November 12, 2011 2:46 pm

Finntastic says:
November 12, 2011 at 2:41 am
Unfortunately, some people seem to forget that greenhouses also need copious amounts of water to function.

“Copious amounts”? Do you have a source for that assertion?
For that matter, is this “copious amount” that plants growing in a greenhouse more or less water than a similar plant growing in the local environment?

November 12, 2011 9:07 pm

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.
=============================================
Actually Hugh, there are a multitude of studies that show that boreal forests emit more carbon than they absorb – the one below suggest forest fires, others suggest decaying biomass. Bing it.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/19283768-looks-like-ronald-reagan-was-right-trees-do-create-pollution

Editor
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
November 12, 2011 10:44 pm

Wayne Delbeke – the study you posted a link to is fit only for the bin. Models. GIGO.
Here is a paper that appears not to rely on models:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5625/1560.abstract
:Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally.
[a petagram is a billion tonnes]
Not specific to boreal forests, but to global vegetation (their ‘primary production’ refers to global vegetation not to agriculture). Unfortunately the full paper is paywalled.

JPeden
November 13, 2011 12:31 am

Finntastic says:
November 12, 2011 at 2:41 am
Co2 is good, in the same way that water is good. It’s important. We need it. But would you want someone pouring a jug of water into your lungs?
The analogy is similar if we turn our whole planet into a giant greenhouse.

Your own body has already done both. Ave. human body CO2 concentration = 56,000 ppm vs atmospheric concentration of about 385 ppm C02. So you are not going to drown from atmospheric CO2 any time soon. We don’t drown from the atmospheric high of about 4% water vapor concentrations, either = 40,000 ppm., compared to the normal water vapor concentrations in the airways of the human body = 62,000 ppm.
Regardless, the Earth is not a greenhouse because it is not enclosed. So the “greenhouse effect” attributed to CO2 is not analogous to a real greenhouse, whose temp. increases because its air is not subject to convection up and away from the greenhouse and out to space. You don’t need any CO2 in the greenhouse for that to not happen.

Myrrh
November 13, 2011 10:03 am

Further to above, JPeden to Finntastic:
Our bodies require around 6% carbon dioxide in every lungful of breath to function properly and we produce this ourselves because the amount required is not available from the atmosphere, and each breath expels with a 4% CO2 content. Although as it exits with water vapour it’s actually all carbonic acid. If we can’t for some reason get the 6% in each lungful for healthy oxygen transportation through the blood etc., the body will attempt to conserve what it has by restricting breathing.. Someone hyperventilating for any reason, shock or something, and losing too much carbon dioxide will go into an asthma-like attack as the body attempts to stop the dilution by too much air until it can re-establish its optimum levels. Hence the ol’ breathing into brown paper bag – breathing back in any carbon dioxide expelled to quieten the body’s panic at not having sufficient of it.

Keith Sketchley
November 13, 2011 2:56 pm

I’m ROFL.
Isn’t the whole idea of tree-ring analysis that low temperature is limiting on growth? How far above the low limit is a high limit?
Perhaps for a particular species there is a top temperature, different for trembling aspen than cactus I suppose (well, moisture is a factor) and varying with species (Lebanon/Himalayn Cedar for example transplants to a variety of climates). I point to tropical jungles as evidence that high temperatures are not bad.

Urederra
November 14, 2011 4:04 am

JohnWho says:
November 12, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Finntastic says:
November 12, 2011 at 2:41 am
Unfortunately, some people seem to forget that greenhouses also need copious amounts of water to function.
“Copious amounts”? Do you have a source for that assertion?
For that matter, is this “copious amount” that plants growing in a greenhouse more or less water than a similar plant growing in the local environment?

It is actually the opposite. There is a large amount of (real) peer reviewed papers at co2science.com that shows that plants growing in atmospheres with high concentrations of CO2 are more drough resistant. I think it is because plants can keep their stomas closed for longer time and therefore reducing water loss by transpiration while having enough CO2 to keep the Calvin cycle running.

Steve M. from TN
November 16, 2011 10:22 am

The tree researcher exclaims: “I was expecting to see trees stressed from the warmer temperatures,”…“What we found was a surprise.”
Of course they were surprised. They were expecting justification to “hide the decline.”

Page4888
November 17, 2011 12:14 pm

I have a college level botany book published around 1969 that details most of the so-called “discoveries” made by these neo-scientists.
The chemistry of photosynthesis and it’s reaction to increased ambient warmth, increased CO2, and/or increased H2O, and the many impact variations of all three interacting at various concentrations or levels, has been known for over 100 years.
These people seem to be doing old science all over again.
Don’t they read?
It wouldn’t bother me except the my tax dollars are supporting these people.

1 3 4 5