Claim: amplified greenhouse effect in the far north making it greener

Composite image showing the global distributio...
Composite image showing the global distribution of photosynthesis, including both oceanic phytoplankton and vegetation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Boston University

Amplified greenhouse effect shaping North into South

BU-led international team shows significant reduction in temperature and vegetation seasonality over northern latitudes

BOSTON—An international team of 21 authors from 17 institutions in seven countries has just published a study in the journal Natural Climate Change showing that, as the cover of snow and ice in the northern latitudes has diminished in recent years, the temperature over the northern land mass has increased at different rates during the four seasons, causing a reduction in temperature and vegetation seasonality in this area. In other words, the temperature and vegetation at northern latitudes increasingly resembles those found several degrees of latitude farther south as recently as 30 years ago. The study, titled “Temperature and vegetation seasonality diminishment over northern lands” (DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1836), can be downloaded here: http://dx.doi.org/.

The NASA-funded study, based on newly improved ground and satellite data sets, examines critically the relationship between changes in temperature and vegetation productivity in northern latitudes. 

On the amplified greenhouse effect, Prof. Ranga Myneni, Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University and lead co-author says “A greenhouse effect initiated by increased atmospheric concentration of heat-trapping gasses—such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane—causes the Earth’s surface and nearby air to warm. The warming reduces the extent of polar sea ice and snow cover on the large land mass that surrounds the Arctic ocean, thereby increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed by the no longer energy-reflecting surface. This sets in motion a cycle of positive reinforcement between warming and loss of sea ice and snow cover, thus amplifying the base greenhouse effect.”

“The amplified warming in the circumpolar area roughly above the Canada-USA border is reducing temperature seasonality over time because the colder seasons are warming more rapidly than the summer,” says Liang Xu, a Boston University doctoral student and lead co-author of the study.

“As a result of the enhanced warming over a longer ground-thaw season, the total amount of heat available for plant growth in these northern latitudes is increasing. This created during the past 30 years large patches of vigorously productive vegetation, totaling more than a third of the northern landscape—over 9 million km2, which is roughly about the area of the USA— resembling the vegetation that occurs further to the south,” says Dr. Compton Tucker, Senior Scientist, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.

The authors measured seasonality changes using latitude as a yardstick. They first defined reference latitudinal profiles for the quantities being observed and then quantified changes in them over time as shifts along these profiles.

“Arctic plant growth during the early-1980s reference period equaled that of lands north of 64 degrees north. Today, just 30 years later, it equals that of lands above 57 degrees north—a reduction in vegetation seasonality of about seven degrees south in latitude,” says co-author Prof. Terry Chapin, Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. “This manner of analyses suggested a decline in temperature and vegetation seasonality of about four to seven degrees of latitude during the past 30 years,” says co-author Eugenie Euskirchen, Research Professor, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

“The reduction of vegetation seasonality, resulting in increased greenness in the Arctic, is visible on the ground as an increasing abundance of tall shrubs and tree incursions in several locations all over the circumpolar Arctic,” says co-author Terry Callaghan, Professor, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the University of Sheffield, UK. He notes that the greening in the adjacent Boreal areas is much less conspicuous in North America than in Eurasia.

A key finding of this study is an accelerating greening rate in the Arctic and a decelerating rate in the boreal region, despite a nearly constant rate of temperature seasonality diminishment in these regions over the past 30 years. “This may portend a decoupling between growing season warmth and vegetation productivity in some parts of the North as the ramifications of amplified greenhouse effect—including permafrost thawing, frequent forest fires, outbreak of pest infestations, and summertime droughts—come in to play,” says co-author Hans Tømmervik, Senior Researcher, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tromsø, Norway.

According to the authors, the future does indeed look troubling: Based on analysis of 17 state-of-the-art climate model simulations, diminishment of temperature seasonality in these regions could be more than 20 degrees in latitude by the end of this century relative to the 1951-1980 reference period. The projected temperature seasonality decline by these models for the 2001-2010 decade is actually less than the observed decline. “Since we don’t know the actual trajectory of atmospheric concentration of various agents capable of forcing a change in climate, long-term projections should be interpreted cautiously,” says co-author Bruce Anderson, Professor of Earth and Environment at Boston University.

“These changes will affect local residents through changes in provisioning ecosystem services such as timber and traditional foods,” says Research Professor Bruce Forbes, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland. They will also impact the global community through changes in regulatory ecosystem services relating to emissions of greenhouse gases. “The soils in the northern land mass potentially can release significant amounts of greenhouse gases which are currently locked up in the permanently frozen ground. Any large-scale deep-thawing of these soils has the potential to further amplify the greenhouse effect,” says co-author Philippe Ciais, Associate Director, Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Science, Paris, France.

“The way of life of many organisms on Earth is tightly linked to seasonal changes in temperature and availability of food, and all food on land comes first from plants,” says Dr. Scott Goetz, Deputy Director and Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, USA. “Think of migration of birds to the Arctic in the summer and hibernation of bears in the winter: Any significant alterations to temperature and vegetation seasonality are likely to impact life not only in the north but elsewhere in ways that we do not yet know.”

###

This note was included in the press release:

For graphics and additional information about this study, visit: http://cliveg.bu.edu/greeningearth/ssnltydim/ssnlty-dim.html

After visiting there, it almost looks like a grade school science site to me. On that site, they talk a lot about “The Greening North.” as if this were a bad thing. If they poll some of the people who live in those areas, they might find the change is welcome.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jonnie26
March 11, 2013 6:47 am

“Since we don’t know the actual trajectory of atmospheric concentration of various agents capable of forcing a change in climate, long-term projections should be interpreted cautiously,”
kind of says it all !

tgmccoy
March 11, 2013 6:53 am

Like Greenland during the Viking colonization era…

Myron Mesecke
March 11, 2013 7:01 am

And in 30 years they will say the opposite.

Elliott M. Althouse
March 11, 2013 7:02 am

Thiry years- aka one half PDO cycle. It will be interesting to see in 2043 (if I am still around) if it looks like 1983 again in those areas

Patrick
March 11, 2013 7:08 am

Amplified (Where does the EXTRA energy come from?) GHE, as well as models, in the same article? Bollox, sorry, but thats just bollox!

H.R.
March 11, 2013 7:13 am

“According to the authors, the future does indeed look troubling: Based on analysis of 17 state-of-the-art climate model simulations, diminishment of temperature seasonality in these regions could be more than 20 degrees in latitude by the end of this century relative to the 1951-1980 reference period. The projected temperature seasonality decline by these models for the 2001-2010 decade is actually less than the observed decline.”
Well, the models are wrong for 2001-2010. All we have to do is wait ’til the end of the century to find out they are wrong yet again. On the bright side, the Y2100 models should be great, assuming anyone still has money to fund modeling at the end of the century.
BTW, I thought water vapor was decreasing, but one of the authors said it was increasing. It is hard to tell who didn’t get the memo; the water vapor uppers or the or the water vapor downers?

Jimbo
March 11, 2013 7:14 am

I’m still trying to understand the alleged threat of melting tundra and release of the heat trapping gases in some sort of runaway unknown. Here is some more evidence for what is ‘known’.

Rapid response of treeline vegetation and lakes to past climate warming
……………….Here we present palaeoecological evidence for changes in terrestrial vegetation and lake characteristics during an episode of climate warming that occurred between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago at the boreal treeline in central Canada. The initial transformation — from tundra to forest-tundra on land, which coincided with increases in lake productivity, pH and ratio of inflow to evaporation — took only 150 years, which is roughly equivalent to the time period often used in modelling the response of boreal forests to climate warming5,6. The timing of the treeline advance did not coincide with the maximum in high-latitude summer insolation predicted by Milankovitch theory7,…………………
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6409/abs/361243a0.html

……Tree birches (Betula pubescens Ehrh., B. pendula Roth.) reached the present-day shoreline of Barents Sea in Bolshezemelskaya tundra and 72°N in Taimyr between 8000 and 9000 BP……
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1552004?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101951365867

* The Taimyr Peninsula is the northernmost extension of the Eurasian landmass, in north-central Siberia. Today it is covered by tundra.

arthur4563
March 11, 2013 7:15 am

No mention of soot.

eco-geek
March 11, 2013 7:17 am

Replying to my own comment on the Real Greenhouse Effect it suddenly occurred to me that the Wilson Cloud Chamber (water variant) is cooled to enhance saturation of water vapour and get better water droplet trails when ionising particles traverse the chamber. This provokes the obvious question:
Is cloud formation enhanced in the far NH during periods when the atmosphere cools? I haven’t thought this through by any means but perhaps the Sevensmark effect is stronger at the poles so that cloud formation is more strongly driven in the arctic by variations in the sun’s magnetic field. If so this would seriously enhance the RGE during the last Grand Maximum.
Just a thought. Is this covered anywhere?

ed mister jones
March 11, 2013 7:21 am

“If they poll some of the people who live in those areas, they might find the change is welcome.”
As a resident of 42N7W I vote: “Excellent!”

ed mister jones
March 11, 2013 7:22 am

correction “71W”

March 11, 2013 7:28 am

They can’t seem to recognize a good thing.

Dave in Canmore
March 11, 2013 7:34 am

“based on 17 state of the art models”
marketing words shouldn’t be required in a research paper. Refering to them as state of the art rather than mere computer models is very telling! Perhaps the GIGO flaws of various papers are starting to sink in.
btw I work at high lattitudes through the boreal to the barrens…these guys need to quit playing video games and walk the earth more!

eco-geek
March 11, 2013 7:38 am

Yet another reply to my own post.
I don’t know if there is anyone out there who has the kit but there is some interesting data collection and processing that might be performed wrt to the “Enhanced Sevensmark Effect”.
It occurs to me that should this wild speculation have any basis in fact that it might be well worth looking at cloud formation over the far North Atlantic over the past few years and into the future. I guess we are talking satellite images and pixel counting. We chose this geographical area of interest because the gulf stream is continually feeding warm water and thus warm moisture laden air into the Arctic which progressively cools it. We might expect therefore to see increasing cloud cover occurring in this region as the solar magnetic field strength has declined (Livingston and Penn) and in consequence the cosmic ray flux has increased. This should perhaps be compared to another area of the globe at the same latitude where the warm moist air feed is lacking as well as each areas satellite record history.

Ian
March 11, 2013 7:40 am

1951 to 1980, well that covers the most recent cold cycle – as their baseline. Not withstanding their 17 “state-of-the-art” computer models (phew!) and their apparent cut off just before the most recent cooling and wammo snow falls, not to worry, nature is about to fix that seasonality issue for you.

markx
March 11, 2013 7:53 am

You know, I think they would have preferred to be alarming us all over an impending ice age, it is so much easier to scare the children, and no doubt they would have blamed the same demons.
Trying to spin this so the locals are ‘worse off’ is just that bit more difficult …“These changes will affect local residents through changes in provisioning ecosystem services such as timber and traditional foods,” (quite a mouthful, eh?)
Now, the locals would really be complaining if they were getting colder….

March 11, 2013 7:54 am

This study was rather boring and predictable. Instead of finding the most likely cause of the greening planet (they did not even check the tropics, but rather 45N and above)…they decided to blame a marginal warming for the greening of northern latitudes. Its common knowledge that carbon dioxide itself has a fertilizing effect and higher levels of it make plants more drought tolerant and hardier in general. So a greening of the planet is probably more likely due to increased levels of CO2 by itself. Sure, the warming helps, but I am thinking that the scientists ignored the giant elephant in the room and instead focused on the evil and dreaded global warming nonsense. That is why they focused on the area of the world where warming benefits plants instead of looking at the entire planet as a whole and figuring out that possibly the tropics have seen similar plant growth and so on we go with more science by press released which helps our understanding of the planet none.

Tom in Florida
March 11, 2013 8:02 am

““Arctic plant growth during the early-1980s reference period equaled that of lands north of 64 degrees north. ”
and
“diminishment of temperature seasonality in these regions could be more than 20 degrees in latitude by the end of this century relative to the 1951-1980 reference period. ”
So the conclusion should be that things are different than the period 1950 – 1980 and nothing more. I suspect some cherry picking here especially since we know that period was a cooler period. What was the vegetation like during the period 1920 – 1950?
” Based on analysis of 17 state-of-the-art climate model simulations”
Must be abstract art they are talking about.

knr
March 11, 2013 8:08 am

The moon is made of cheese and we have the models to prove it .
Leo Geiger
If people living in the south listened instead of speculating ignorantly, they might find that the badly BS are the claims about Polar Bears from those ion the ground . Of course then we been told they know nothing as there no ‘scientists’ Funny how respect for native wisdom depends on that ‘wisdom’ supporting the climate doom outlook.

Espen
March 11, 2013 8:14 am

So they’re comparing 2011 to 1982? I.e. their period starts very near the bottom of a ~40 year long cooling period in the Arctic…

aaron
March 11, 2013 8:26 am

“A key finding of this study is an accelerating greening rate in the Arctic and a decelerating rate in the boreal region, despite a nearly constant rate of temperature seasonality diminishment in these regions over the past 30 years. “This may portend a decoupling between growing season warmth and vegetation productivity in some parts of the North as the ramifications of amplified greenhouse effect—including permafrost thawing, frequent forest fires, outbreak of pest infestations, and summertime droughts—come in to play,” says co-author Hans Tømmervik, Senior Researcher, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tromsø, Norway.”
If we assume that once greening reaches a limit, desertification will start and overwhelm the general increasing biological activity and improving ecology making this wonderful finding truly frightening.

Peter in Ohio
March 11, 2013 8:32 am

johnmarshall says:
March 11, 2013 at 5:06 am
How you can get increased growth from higher temperatures when actual data shows little to zero warming.
——————————————————————-
The way I understand it, sometimes the weather/climate doesn’t co-operate with the models. /sarc

Leo Geiger
March 11, 2013 8:34 am

“The temperature over the northern landmass has increased at different rates during the four seasons, causing a reduction in temperature and vegetation seasonality in this area.”
A reduction in seasonality means less difference between summer and winter because low temperatures are rising faster than high temperatures. It doesn’t mean temperatures are “reducing”, ie decreasing or getting colder, since some people seem to be confused by this.

Ouluman
March 11, 2013 8:38 am

Snow cover in Northern hemisphere has been increasing, so this doesn’t make any sense. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Leo Geiger
March 11, 2013 8:39 am

Another group finding this change *unwelcome* are the mining companies and northern communities who rely on winter ice roads which are becoming unviable due to the warmer winters.