From the National Science Foundation:
New Models Predict Dramatically Greener Arctic in the Coming Decades
![]()
International Polar Year- (IPY) funded research predicts boom in trees, shrubs, will lead to net increase in climate warming

A map of predicted greening of the Arctic as compared with observed distribution Credit and Larger Version
Rising temperatures will lead to a massive “greening” of the Arctic by mid-century, as a result of marked increases in plant cover, according to research supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as part of its International Polar Year (IPY) portfolio.
The greening not only will have effects on plant life, the researchers noted, but also on the wildlife that depends on vegetation for cover. The greening could also have a multiplier effect on warming, as dark vegetation absorbs more solar radiation than ice, which reflects sunlight.
In a paper published March 31 in Nature Climate Change, scientists reveal new models projecting that wooded areas in the Arctic could increase by as much as 50 percent over the coming decades. The researchers also show that this dramatic greening will accelerate climate warming at a rate greater than previously expected.
“Such widespread redistribution of Arctic vegetation would have impacts that reverberate through the global ecosystem,” said Richard Pearson, lead author on the paper and a research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation.
In addition to Pearson, the research team includes other scientists from the museum, as well as from AT&T Labs-Research, Woods Hole Research Center, Colgate and Cornell universities, and the University of York.
The research was funded by two related, collaborative NSF IPY grants, one made to the museum and one to the Woods Hole Research Center.
IPY was a two-year, global campaign of research in the Arctic and Antarctic that fielded scientists from more than 60 nations in the period 2007-2009. The IPY lasted two years to insure a full year of observations at both poles, where extreme cold and darkness preclude research for much of the year. NSF was the lead U.S. government agency for IPY.
Although the IPY fieldwork has been largely accomplished “in addition to the intensive field efforts undertaken during the IPY, projects such as this one work to understand IPY and other data in a longer-term context, broadening the impact of any given data set,” said Hedy Edmonds, Arctic Natural Sciences program director in the Division of Polar Programs of NSF’s Geosciences Directorate.
Plant growth in Arctic ecosystems has increased over the past few decades, a trend that coincides with increases in temperatures, which are rising at about twice the global rate.
The research team used climate scenarios for the 2050s to explore how the greening trend is likely to continue in the future. The scientists developed models that statistically predict the types of plants that could grow under certain temperatures and precipitation. Although it comes with some uncertainty, this type of modeling is a robust way to study the Arctic because the harsh climate limits the range of plants that can grow, making this system simpler to model compared to other regions, such as the tropics.
The models reveal the potential for massive redistribution of vegetation across the Arctic under future climate, with about half of all vegetation switching to a different class and a massive increase in tree cover. What might this look like? In Siberia, for instance, trees could grow hundreds of miles north of the present tree line.
These impacts would extend far beyond the Arctic region, according to Pearson.
For example, some species of birds migrate from lower latitudes seasonally, and rely on finding particular polar habitats, such as open space for ground-nesting.
The computer modeling for the project was supported by a separate NSF grant to Cornell by the Division of Computer and Network Systems in NSF’s Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering, as part of the directorate’s Expeditions in Computing program.
“The Expeditions grant has enabled us to develop sophisticated probabilistic models that can scale up to continent-wide vegetation prediction and provide associated uncertainty estimates. This is a great example of the transformative research happening within the new field of Computational Sustainability,” said Carla P. Gomes, principal investigator at Cornell.
In addition to the first-order impacts of changes in vegetation, the researchers investigated the multiple climate-change feedbacks that greening would produce.
They found that a phenomenon called the albedo effect, based on the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface, would have the greatest impact on the Arctic’s climate. When the sun hits snow, most of the radiation is reflected back to space. But when it hits an area that’s “dark,” or covered in trees or shrubs, more sunlight is absorbed in the area and temperature increases. This has a positive feedback to climate warming: the more vegetation there is, the more warming will occur.
“By incorporating observed relationships between plants and albedo, we show that vegetation distribution shifts will result in an overall positive feedback to climate that is likely to cause greater warming than has previously been predicted,” said co-author and NSF grantee Scott Goetz, of the Woods Hole Research Center.
-NSF-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“In Siberia, for instance, trees could grow hundreds of miles north of the present tree line.”
Yes. The tree line might advance toward its location during the Medieval Warm Period.
Peter in Ohio says:April 10, 2013 at 7:56 am
What might this look like? In Siberia, for instance, trees could grow hundreds of miles north of the present tree line.
I’m no expert, but I believe that this has happened in the past. It obviously didn’t lead to runaway global warming then so why should it be different today?
I would assume Siberia is like Canada, in that the frozen tundra, is frozen, partially-decayed plant matter. One would therefore assume that plants once grew where it is now frozen. Computer models are not needed. The difference today is the computer, as well as ignoring that it only does what you tell it to do. And lots of funding to secure more government income, ie. taxes.
When Leif Erikson landed in Labrador, he called it Vineland, because it was so lush.
Those were better times.
Further, all of that extra greenery during the Medieval Warm Period, did not lead to some kind of catastrophic positive feedback loop and turn the entire planet into Ecuador.
E
CO2… It’s What Plants Breathe!
Aren’t the low end of the tempature models scheduled to diverge from the actual recorded tempature sometime next year? How can anyone be getting funding for studies like this? The world is truly turned upside down.
Definitely time for biologists to apply for grants for studying the positive impacts of global warming.
More non-human life is better, right? Less human life is better, right (as per Erhlich, Suzuki, Strong, the WWF and the Sierra Club)? Win win. You grow some, you drown some.
What’s not to like (sarc!!!!).
Must agree with several commenters above.
I feel like piling on to nearly every thread with – ” … except, that there has been no warming for many, many years so what type of climate change are you on about?”
And French wine production will reduce due to Global Warming (headline news April 8th 2013).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/08/climate-change-wine-production
The only problem with this ‘accurate’ forecast, is that northern Europe is going throu its coldest and longest winter in 50 years. In Holland, there is not a bloom in sight, and the annual flower show is going to be delayed for a month, for the first time in a century.
Appart from all that, the report is VERY ‘accurate’. /sarc.
.
In a similar vein, The Guardian reports “Climate change will threaten wine production, study shows”. Good lord! I guess we’ll all have to switch to beer and mead. Or drink English and Scandinavian wines. Or wines from Vinland (what the Vikings called Newfoundland).
But wait a minute! The Mediaeval Warm period never happened, so what am I talking about…
Makes no sense.
If the vegetation is absorbing energy and then using that energy to build carbohydrates, how can that energy be counted twice?
I could understand if the energy was being absorbed by a dark rock and then slowly being released over time.
I fail to see how something could warm when the energy is being used in a different pathway.
Sophisticated probalistic models. Gives a whole new meaning to the term fasifiability (“Not”).
Current global temperatures are at the lower border of the 95% confidence level of IPCC projections. Meaning that we live in a world that has a 5% chance of existing under the CO2AGW theory.
I expect that probability to drop.
“This is a great example of the transformative research happening within the new field of Computational Sustainability,” said Carla P. Gomes, principal investigator at Cornell.”
Fire the lot and try to reclaim as much money from them as possible; they are useless eaters. And sell the superconfuser for scrap.
I strongly suspect that where plants are now growing, was not ice previously.
I suspect that most of it was tundra and rock.
“Computational Sustainability”
Somebody probably got paid for dreaming-up this nightmare. The sustainability part is the jobs of the modelers. The rest is bunk.
Models, models, models……….
Observations be damned!
Green is not good when it is fictitious in the first place in order to spread alarm, get scare monger money, and extend the reach of bad science to the ends of the earth and ends of the academe.
As I recall, the Woods Hole Research Center is an advocacy organization funded in part by George Soros and formerly lead by John Holdren. OMG, will the NSF be making research grants to WWF, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club next? How can this happen?
@ur momisugly Box of Rocks
Their reasoning is that the plants replace snow, which used to reflect 90 % of energy away into space. Now the plants are dark and only reflect away 20 % Of the remaining energy, the plant uses 2 % for the processes you mention. The rest of the energy goes into warming the environment.
Of corse the plant is made from the carbon in CO2, and therefore should reduce ‘Global Warming’.
‘Computational Sustainability’ is terrifying. ‘To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.’
Would you stretch the concept of sustainability to require the production of enough breastmilk to last a child for his entire life? A computer model is incapable of seeing anything absurd in such a proposal.
The idea that snow/ice refects most of the sunlight falling on it ignores the fact that the amount that is reflected is dependent on the angle of the sunlight. We hear that sea ice/snow reflects upto 90% of the sunlight falling on it, but we don’t hear about the maximum absorbtion. Think about snow forts on a sunny day, or how clear, ice can be. It needs to be explained to people that the difference between the amount of solar energy aborbed by sea ice/snow and open sea water on an annual basis is much less than they think. It should also be explained that in the Arctic winter, open water radiates much more energy than ice covered water.
Warning! When you see the words “Woods hole. . .” you must make sure that it ends with the further 2 words “. . .oceanographic institute.” This is the hallmark of a bonafide research establishment of the highest regard. If however, it ends with the words “. . .research center” you should know it is a counterfeit, a cheap imitation – you have been conned.
Don’t accept fake merchandise from Woods hole research center – accept only genuine products.
“For example, some species of birds migrate from lower latitudes seasonally, and rely on finding particular polar habitats, such as open space for ground-nesting.”
And this is it?? I was reading the article most the way through and getting a comfortable feeling that this was heading toward being a positive thing, but waiting for what was wrong with it. What is wrong with these people? A little birdie that likes to nest on open space in the arctic? How much room does he take up ~100cm^2? How many of them are there (and could we have its name please)? He will just have to fly a little further. Is a few extra wing-flaps too much to pay for expanding the habitat 10,000 of square km for thousands of other species? Why is it this and the other greening expansion of habitats we been reading about something to be alarmed about? The biggest carp we have heard has been the woeful dwindling of habitat. Now both the siberian tiger and even the Indian tiger will be able to head off and frolic in the new greeness. Man, we have certainly entered the silly phase of this climate drama. Marcott et all draw a graph showing we are near entering the next ice age and he interprets as imminent danger of heat prostration. Have they no shame?
Vince Causey,
Excellent point. If it doesn’t have “oceanographic” in its name, it’s not legit.
“International Polar Year- (IPY) funded research predicts boom in trees, shrubs, will lead to net increase in climate warming”
Okay. Now I am really confused.Weren’t these non-scientific clowns saying about 3 years ago that plants/trees are good because they sequester CO2,therefore,no cAGW !?!?!?
For those asking about the northern treeline earlier in the Holocene, here is Hubert Lamb’s map of the treeline at various times:
http://www.sturmsoft.com/climate/forest_grassland_limits.jpg
Sorry about the poor (by today’s standards) scan. I should rescan it sometime.
Perhaps this will add to the turbulance that’s going to plague trans-atlantic air travel?
I don’t believe this.
The earth is no longer warming so….