
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.
Wait… longer plant growth periods is a bad thing now?
Leo Geiger says:
March 11, 2013 at 6:24 am
‘“If they poll some of the people who live in those areas, they might find the change is welcome.”
The Inuit living in those areas were among the first to notice the changes caused by warming and express concerns. If people living in the south listened instead of speculating ignorantly, they might find the change is unwelcome.’
In other news of recent decades, the frost line in central Florida has been moving southward for forty years. That means that the land available for citrus crops such as oranges has been declining. Find the town of Frostproof on the map. It is no longer frost proof. This report is based entirely on reports from the ground by industry professionals.
The moral of the story is that climate changes all the time and changes in ways that have no explanation at this time. All modelers should be required to have at least one assistant who was a farmer but saw his farmland disappear before his eyes. There are plenty of farmers to go around.
I read earlier papers from Prof. Myneni, where the main thesis examined how increased CO2 contributed to planetary greening. I suppose, a different kind of green has made him see the light and join the chorus.
Steven Mosher says:
March 11, 2013 at 6:47 am
Sorry, Steven–we’re not going to let you hijack this thread.
30 years?
To coin John McEnroe, “You can’t be serious!”.
Steven Mosher says: “wait, somebody tell the plants that the warming is all due to bogus adjustments”.
– No one has Steve. But I bet it is a lot more likely that increased CO2 has had a larger role than you and the other “rent-a-quote” Warmists would want to think or, indeed, say.
Theo Goodwin says:
March 11, 2013 at 8:57 am
“In other news of recent decades, the frost line in central Florida has been moving southward for forty years. That means that the land available for citrus crops such as oranges has been declining. Find the town of Frostproof on the map. It is no longer frost proof.”
It never was frost proof. It was just a name taken back in the late 19th century to attract peope to the area.
“The town was originally named Keystone City, but people kept getting it confused with Keystone Heights up in North Central Florida. The town fathers, being good developers, came up with the perfect Florida name: Frostproof. Unfortunately, a couple of years later a severe frost visited the area and destroyed most of the citrus groves in the area. ”
http://www.florida-backroads-travel.com/frostproof-florida.html
People, we need to do something about this. If we don’t stop producing CO2, there is a very good chance that we will end up with even MORE of those disgusting ‘plant’ and ‘tree’ things. Yuk!
“This created during the past 30 years large patches of vigorously productive vegetation, totaling more than a third of the northern landscape”
Vigorous greening, observed everywhere (not only at high latitudes) has more to do with efficient water use & photosynthesis made possible by a 30% higher CO2 level than with a several tenth of a degree warming.
But, of course, an utterly dead, frozen landscape, nice & clean, devoid of any weed would conform to the Green Dream much better.
I was wondering how soon this article would make its appearance here. I almost laughed myself silly when I read the first article because its another case of a southerner telling people of the north that they know what’s good for them.
Common sense tells you that you are going to get more plant growth when your growing season gets longer, that’s just a fact of agriculture. What he doesn’t explain is how you are going to get plant growth north of the Arctic circle (or south of the Antarctic circle) during the winter when the sun doesn’t shine for six months of the year. The absolute length of your growing season is not how warm it is, it is based on the amount of sunlight that the plant can receive. Thus, north of the arctic circle your maximum growing season is the six months when you have sunlight. Your maximum growing season becomes longer the further south you go and the longer the periods of daylight become. With that extra sunlight also comes extra warmth – the extra warmth does not cause the plants to grow except as a result of stopping the plants from freezing and killing them.
When you extrapolate goblygook and interpolate it into english after a full analysis using statistical methods a scientific new age paper results with accolades. Thus new science is born or not.
So, the Earth got warmer last century; it got greener.
More green instead of snow-white is good.
It is cooling that is frightening, not warming.
My first question is what, exactly, do they mean by “newly improved ground and satellite data sets”. If they mean that the data sets are based on more extensive and/or more reliable temperature measurements, that’s probably a good thing. If they mean that the data sets have been scrubbed and “adjusted”, then I am much more skeptical.
Does anyone here know what data sets they used and whether they really are “newly improved”?
“significant reduction in temperature and vegetation SEASONALITY” — hmm, a “reduction” in temperature “seasonality”? The only sense I can make of that is a reduction in the difference between one season and another. Sounds to me like warmer winters + cooler summers, for a net warming of ZERO.