Shocker: burning trees release stored carbon

From the Department of Obvious Science and the USDA Forest Service – Pacific Northwest Research Station, comes this shocking headline:

Washington’s forests will lose stored carbon as area burned by wildfire increases

Even small increases in area burned could have significant impacts on carbon storage

A July 2012 PNW Research Station study explored how carbon dynamics in Washington State may be altered by more-frequent wildfires, triggered by a warming climate. The study looked at the effects of greater area burned on both live biomass and nonliving biomass, such as the dead standing trees and downed wood shown here. Credit: Tom Iraci, US Forest Service

Forests in the Pacific Northwest store more carbon than any other region in the United States, but our warming climate may undermine their storage potential.

A new study conducted by the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington has found that, by 2040, parts of Washington State could lose as much as a third of their carbon stores, as an increasing area of the state’s forests is projected to be burned by wildfire. The study—published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Ecological Applications—is the first to use statistical models and publicly available Forest Inventory and Analysis data to estimate the effects of a warming climate on carbon storage and fluxes on Washington’s forests.

“When considering the use of forests to store carbon, it will be critical to consider the increasing risk of wildfire,” said Crystal Raymond, a research biologist based at the station’s Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory and lead author of the study. “Especially in the West, where climate-induced changes in fire are expected to be a key agent of change.”

Trees remove and sequester carbon from the atmosphere, in the form of carbon dioxide, acting as important stores, or “sinks,” of carbon that help to offset its accumulation in the atmosphere. When trees and other woody material in the forest are burned by fire, they release carbon back to the atmosphere, mostly as carbon dioxide, where it may once again act as a greenhouse gas that promotes warming. This land-atmosphere exchange of carbon is increasingly of interest to land managers seeking ways to actively manage forests to store carbon and help mitigate greenhouse gases.

To explore what effect climate-driven changes in wildfire might have on the ability of Washington’s forests to act as carbon sinks, Raymond and station research ecologist Don McKenzie used a novel approach. They combined published forest-inventory data, fire-history data, and statistical models of area burned to estimate historical and future carbon carrying capacity of three regions in Washington—the Western Cascades, the Eastern Cascades, and the Okanogan Highlands—based on potential forest productivity and projections of 21st century area burned.

“Forests on both the eastern and western slopes of the Cascade Range will lose carbon stored in live biomass because area burned across the state is expected to increase,” Raymond said. “Even small increases in area burned can have large consequences for carbon stored in living and dead biomass.”

The researchers looked at live biomass, which includes living trees and vegetation, as well as nonliving biomass in the form of coarse woody debris, which includes dead standing trees and downed logs. Both contribute to the carbon cycle, but in different ways—living biomass removes carbon from the atmosphere as vegetation grows, and coarse woody debris releases carbon over time as the material decomposes.

Raymond and McKenzie projected forests of the Western Cascades to be most sensitive to climate-driven increases in fire, losing anywhere from 24 to 37 percent of their live biomass and from 15 to 25 percent of their coarse woody debris biomass by 2040. These forests store significant carbon and typically burn with high severity, killing many trees and consuming coarse woody debris.

On the other side of the mountains, the researchers also projected a decrease in live biomass by 2040—of anywhere between 17 and 26 percent in the Eastern Cascades and in the Okanogan Highlands—but no change in coarse woody debris biomass, or possibly even an increase, because coarse woody debris biomass increases as trees are killed by fire and subsequent low-severity fires burn only a small portion of it.

“Changes in fire regimes in a warming climate can limit our potential to use forests in the Pacific Northwest to store additional carbon and to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Raymond said.

Understanding the possible effects of more area burned by fire can help managers decide whether forests need to be actively managed for their fire potential to minimize carbon loss.

###

To read more about the study, visit http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/11-1851.1.

The Pacific Northwest Research Station is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. It has 11 laboratories and centers located in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington and about 425 employees.

=============================================================

From SOS Forests:

Data are from the National Interagency Fire Center.

There are some evident trends.

1. Total acres burned has increased from the 1960’s to this Century, from an average of 4.6 million acres per year to 6.8 million acres per year.

2. Average acres per fire has also increased, from a low in the 1970’s of 21 acres per fire to 83 acres per fire in this Century.

3. Number of fires per year has decreased from a high (1975-1984) of nearly 190,000 fires per year to 83,000 fires per year this Century.

Fewer but larger fires this Century, and more acres burned in total.

To me this suggests a legacy of poor fuel management rather than “global warming”.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Urederra
July 24, 2012 1:15 pm

Phlogiston is also released in the process, or so I read.

crosspatch
July 24, 2012 1:28 pm

Only partially true. The fires actually SEQUESTERED more carbon than would otherwise be the case. Yes, the burning caused the release of carbon stored as wood. But that carbon would have all been released anyway as those trees died. The only thing that changed was the timing of it and the coming years will actually see a reduction in carbon release because there will be fewer trees decaying now that they have burned. It evens out. BUT! The charcoal that is left is very stable, will be covered with debris and buried. This carbon will remain out of the system for thousands, perhaps millions of years. You can dig today and find charcoal from fires thousands of years ago. That is carbon that was sequestered by nature and never released to the atmosphere by decay.

Robert
July 24, 2012 1:29 pm

Exacty as you would expect. Fire suppression means fewer but much larger fires over time…global warming has nothing to do with it.

highflight56433
July 24, 2012 1:39 pm

Yellowstone seems to have recovered. So has the Mt St Helen area. Areas I see burned, all seem to return to “normal” (what ever that is). Based on the new emerging policy to “let them burn” the study’s findings is “shocking.”
1. Total acres burned has increased from the 1960’s to this Century, from an average of 4.6 million acres per year to 6.8 million acres per year.
2. Average acres per fire has also increased, from a low in the 1970’s of 21 acres per fire to 83 acres per fire in this Century.
3. Number of fires per year has decreased from a high (1975-1984) of nearly 190,000 fires per year to 83,000 fires per year this Century.
AND …. A fast majority of logging industry has been shipped out of country since the sixties and thus there is more to burn. ????

Big D in TX
July 24, 2012 1:49 pm

Urederra says:
July 24, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Phlogiston is also released in the process, or so I read.
*******************************************************************************
Heh heh.
One of the coolest things I ever learned as a kid was exactly how fire works, and how there are different types of fire (hence the need for a variety of extinguishers), and that it is a fair question to ask: is fire alive?
Feynman gave an interesting mental image of it as well, I believe in one of his televised interviews.
He said (paraphrasing here) to imagine when you play mini golf, there is a hole at the top of a small hill. The ball and the hole represent oxygen and carbon, for example a log. The two can sit next to each other all day and do nothing until you energize them. Give that ball a hit and it can roll uphill, where it wants to go in the hole and snap into place, chemically speaking… not enough energy (i.e. a hot day) and it rolls back down hill, too much and it can skip over the hole and go down the far side (like blowing out a flame), but just right, and it will snap into place and release a big burst of energy that gets more balls rolling, giving you that wonderful self sustaining reaction (with available fuel) we know as fire.
But this is all just for fun in our heads, for as he later reminded the viewer, all reality is just a bunch of tiny, tiny, tiny bits jiggling together in a particular fashion.

July 24, 2012 1:50 pm

Back to my “worst ….blank….in-over-60-years model which predicts this type of thing (also floods, droughts, snowfall, tornadoes, hurricanes,,,- I’ve commented (and predicted) with this model over the past few years. I’m disappointed that they don’t show the data pre-1960. I “predict” that there were similar highs centred around 1950. I’ve been threatening to do an article on this but I’m too busy trying to make money in a tough “climate”.

ColdinOz
July 24, 2012 1:57 pm

Crosspatch is correct. Just to add that new regrowth with sequestrer more carbon still. Research in the Northern territory down here in Oz has demonstrated that aboriginal burning practices actually sequestrer carbon. If I can locate the appropriate link I’ll post it in a later comment.

David Larsen
July 24, 2012 1:58 pm

Poor fuel management, maybe. Fires are as natural as lighting, floods and other events. Homeostasis is the natural process of a system taken out of its natural state and then returning back to that state. It has been going on for billions of years and will continue to do so. Just watch out for the picturesque view of the river or mountains. We have had huge fires in Montana this summer including the Ash Creek fire of 250 THOUSAND acres. Barely a word on national news. We currently have around 5 at this time in Montana taking place. Most are trying to be contained at this time.

July 24, 2012 2:15 pm

I bought William Briggs’s fine book on statistics “Breaking the Law of Averages”. I’m a bit of an editor of sorts and there are a large number of typos and other errors in the English,(want an edit Dr. Briggs?) but it is a great book on what probability is and isn’t and the nature of uncertainty (we are all more certain than is warranted) – highly readable for even non-mathematicians and a good read for math-types – a good way to get an insight into probability rather than the hazardous plugging values into formulae (I’ve had to re-read some sections more than twice – probably because of my age). .
http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Law-Averages-Probability-Statistics/dp/0557019907/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235124681&sr=8-1
About the forest fires: Dr. WB would point out that statement A = the title of the paper under discussion” is a tautology and therefore is true with a probability of 1. We don’t even need an “E” which is the evidence, or E= “trees are made of carbon” could be used for comfort, How did I do Professor Briggs?

July 24, 2012 2:15 pm

“Trees remove and sequester carbon from the atmosphere…” Oh! Thanks for that Einstein, also did you know Trees release Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere during that rare occasion when they aren’t on fire? They release it at night time and during winter, so in theory the more trees there are the more Carbon Dioxide there is to be released into the planets atmosphere. More trees equates to More atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in circulation, which is beneficial to the biosphere as a whole.
In Fact, the Carbon locked up in Coal was once in the atmosphere it was beneficial to life on earth then and it still is to this day. Another fact is; when Carbon Dioxide is generally a low lying gas but as it cools it falls lower to the ground, and when Carbon Dioxide receives energy from the sun, warms and expands it is still generally a low lying gas, where Carbon Dioxide actually receives excessive amounts of energy from the sun similar to the process of the Planet Venus the Carbon Dioxide rises higher into the atmosphere where it actually Blocks a lot of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface.
So, When you go to offset your carbon footprint with your hard earned money (sucker), Remember that it will end up in the Atmosphere at some stage, guaranteed!

Phil Howerton
July 24, 2012 2:23 pm

Long article in today’s Wall Street Journal about all the pollution being released by wood and trash burning electric generating plants. And all the subsidies they get.

TXRed
July 24, 2012 2:26 pm

And next do you suppose that they will discover that water can be wet?

Scarface
July 24, 2012 2:27 pm

Wow, they might even discover that water is wet! And that a week has 7 (I repeat: 7) days!
Interesting times we live in. And all of that thanks to mandatory made global warming. The joy!

July 24, 2012 2:29 pm

This from twitter:
@ScotClimate: Scottish Government found to have lied on key figure. Is the Scottish Climate Bill dead?. Will the minister resign? http://bit.ly/OwkVl1
The Scottish government lied to politicians about key financial data which was central to the argument for the bill when they passed the Scottish Climate Change Bill. The government citing Stern said that the economic cost of a 2-3°C rise would be “between 5-20% of GDP”. In fact Stern suggests there may not be any net economic harm quoting figures of 0-3%
The figures are so key to justifying the bill, that it really is difficult to see how this bill could withstand a legal challenge.
… but the scandal gets worse. The Scottish paper (The Courier) which broke this story seems to have been lent on to remove the story. Presumably by someone in government.
This is about as bad as we can get. It appears the world’s most enthusiastic government for climate change is now embroiled in lies & cover-up.

Steve
July 24, 2012 2:30 pm

Wild fires never happened before 1960???

July 24, 2012 2:36 pm

Big D in TX,
Of course fire is alive. It grows, then it dies. It consumes plants. Flames multiply and propagate. Just as in organisms, fire burns fuel using oxygen. You can have a fire in your home, just like a pet.
I can’t think of any definition that applies to life that does not also apply to fire.
And back by popular demand, a chart of past atmospheric CO2 levels.

Skeptik
July 24, 2012 2:48 pm

Steve says:July 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm
No wild fires, only slightly angry ones.

GeoLurking
July 24, 2012 2:50 pm

Interesting… Total Acres Burned seems to have been on a flat to declining trend up until about 1995-1996.

Louis
July 24, 2012 2:57 pm

In one day, one large tree can lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground and discharge it into the air. Since water vapor is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2, shouldn’t we burn down all the trees to stop them from releasing sequestered ground water into the air? /sarc

Caleb
July 24, 2012 3:15 pm

Assuming that there exists a climate cycle of sixty years, (on average,) we should look back sixty years to the year 1952, and see what the forest fire situation was at that time.
What was the forest fire situation during the Dust Bowl, in the 1930’s?

crosspatch
July 24, 2012 3:16 pm

We, if you look up the latest greenie nut buzzword, it is called “biochar”. The charcoal that is very stable and stays out of the system for a long time.

crosspatch
July 24, 2012 3:18 pm

For example, here is a paper on the subject:
Carbon sequestration through charcoal formation in Amazonian forest fires
http://150.163.34.246/col/sid.inpe.br/mtc-m17@80/2006/12.07.12.25/doc/Carbon%20sequestration.pdf

RobW
July 24, 2012 3:18 pm

” but our warming climate may undermine their storage potential.”
Clearly the author doesn’t live in the same Pacific Northwest I do. Its been cold, cold cold for the past five years. Warming my a**.

Chris
July 24, 2012 3:39 pm

Cut down the trees and make them into houses. Carbon sequestered.

Crispin in Waterloo
July 24, 2012 3:42 pm

When I was a kid we lived in Ibadan, Nigeria. We furriners spoke of this ‘forest fire’ thing and people asked us to explain what it was. “The forest catches fire and it all burns!”
They laughed at us at the thought of such a thing. Nothing was more impossible than the burning of a jungle. “What a silly idea! Ha ha!”
A warmer world is a wetter world. Wet forests are very difficult to burn – try it in Vancouver. It is even difficult to dry chopped wood enough to get to burn at all. It is obvious that alarmists are claiming that if it is hotter, it has to be drier, just like on a hot summer day, it is hot because it is dry therefore GW = dry.
Well, that does not fly in the tropics. Hot means it is going to rain (again). I know a Dutch nun-doctor who worked 110 miles out of Kinshasa, so remote she could only get to the city for one week per year. She said she knew it was ‘dry season’, “when it did not rain continuously”.
If you want to fear something tropical, fear filaria and shistosomiasis and trypanosomiasis and hookworm and fungus that gets under your toe nails.

1 2 3