Modeling the greening of the Arctic

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

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-

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

153 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve R
April 10, 2013 12:16 pm

Would warming and greening of the Arctic have been considered a good thing if it had nothing to do with CO2?

April 10, 2013 12:26 pm

Seems to me that if the Arctic becomes greener, you get this…
Albedo effect where less radiation is reflected back into space and we absorb more energy and get warmer;
Increased sequestration of carbon to grow & sustain this increased vegetation, reducing CO2;
A cooling of the globe because of the reduction in CO2;
The cooling kills off the vegetation;
… is there something I am missing here?

DCA
April 10, 2013 12:26 pm

I wonder what the Arctic albedo effect is compared to the albedo effect from all the snow that’s fallen this spring in the lower latitudes.

TomRude
April 10, 2013 12:32 pm

Models MUST be right: It’s already happening!
http://imageshack.us/a/img843/640/ussskateen2013a.jpg

Richard Day
April 10, 2013 12:32 pm

But think of the polar bears. Children just aren’t going to see them drinking Coke anymore.

Sam the First
April 10, 2013 12:46 pm

The juggernaut rolls on, in spite of all the hard work that goes into debunking this kind of nonsense.
Tonight on one of our main national news channels, Ch4, there were an item on ‘global warming’ purporting to ask whether it was time to acknowledge that with all the current snow and cold weather, the scientists have got it all wrong.
It was very depressing – although not in the least surprising – to see that this was merely an excuse to trot out all the usual nonsense, inc ‘increasing CO2 will lead to more runaway warming, in spite of the slowdown – the physics proves it’, from John Snow the anchorman, and similar alarmist rubbish for several others inc some govt-paid scientist from Reading. Dr Bjorn Lomborg of Skeptical Environment [ http://www.lomborg.com/ ] was brought on as the voice of dissent, but he prefaced his remarks by agreeing that there is global warming!
The uninformed viewer was left in no doubt that this cold winter changes nothing in the CAGW scheme of things… I despair.
Anyone who wants to watch the whole section which was quite long can access today’s Ch4 news replay on their website http://www.channel4.com/news/uk You may want to throw something at the tv.

Jimbo
April 10, 2013 1:06 pm

In Siberia, for instance, trees could grow hundreds of miles north of the present tree line.

It seems as if the tree line also moved up somewhat.
The Kola Peninsula is in the far north of Russia and is almost completely enclosed by the Arctic Circle. Now read this.

……..it was determined that between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1300 the tree-line was located at least 100-140 m above its current elevation. This elevation advance, say the authors, suggests that mean summer temperatures during this “Medieval climatic optimum” …….
Hiller, A., Boettger, T. and Kremenetski, C. 2001. Medieval climatic warming recorded by radiocarbon dated alpine tree-line shift on the Kola Peninsula, Russia.
The Holocene 11: 491-497.

Kaboom
April 10, 2013 1:08 pm

“New models predict” suffices to render whatever findings they think they have made from science into science fiction. And taint the legacy of science fiction along the way.

Master_Of_Puppets
April 10, 2013 1:18 pm

“Does one need to read any further than the first five words?” … What a zinger ! XD
The ‘Authors’ didn’t !
The ‘Reviewers’ didn’t !
The ‘Sponsors’ didn’t !
And I’ll just ignore it and anything else printed in ‘Nature Climate Change’ all the same !

David Jay
April 10, 2013 1:21 pm

“Alfred Alexander says: April 10, 2013 at 8:57 am
The Tundra will be warmer? That’s why Triticale was developed.”
Now the Trouble begins…

April 10, 2013 2:12 pm

How about Norway and Iceland, are they not arctic anymore?

Editor
April 10, 2013 2:47 pm

Sam the first
Really like the irony of John Snow talking about AGW!
Can we please have a lot of “hot babes” talking about the same, or is my political incorrect proclivity messing up the debate?

Box of Rocks
April 10, 2013 3:01 pm

Leo –
I always enjoy the coolness under a tree…

David L
April 10, 2013 3:24 pm

We certainly don’t want green pastures, farmable land, and lush forests. I pray the models are wrong and it stays a frozen wasteland. It’s so much better that way. And it’s the way Greenland has existed for the past 4.5 billion years. Oh, and ignore the Viking era farmsteads under all that ice and snow. Big Oil planted them there as a distraction. (Do I really need the /sarc?)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/

Lil Fella from OZ
April 10, 2013 3:24 pm

Computers (modelling) have taken over the world. Mankind is now sub servants to what the computer says. This was predicated in yesterday’s comics!

Peter in Ohio
April 10, 2013 3:35 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
April 10, 2013 at 12:14 pm
I don’t believe this.
The earth is no longer warming so….
————————————————-
I’m beginning to catch on to these rascals. They don’t really need to prove the earth is warming or defend that it is not. They begin with the presumption that the “science is settled” and go from there. It opens the door for thousands of “new” studies of what COULD happen IF Mann’s hockey stick became reality. And computer models are the icing on the cake…making the mundane all “sciencey”!

April 10, 2013 5:04 pm

Why computer models, surely we have satellite coverage which should tell us exactly what is really happening.

rogerknights
April 10, 2013 5:29 pm

A year or two ago on WUWT someone argued that the shade provided by these shrubs in summer would inhibit the melting of permafrost and thus also curb the release of methane. (A negative feedback.) I wonder of the authors mentioned this effect in their paper.

Michael Tremblay
April 10, 2013 5:46 pm

“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.”
These idiots don’t deserve the time of day – they also need to take their heads out of their fantasy novels and their computer screens and read about botany, biology, and agriculture. I don’t need a computer model to predict the types of plants that could grow above the tree line, all I have to do is look at the plants that are growing there now. Different types of plants more suited to the climate of any region do not automatically pop out of the soil like in computer games. These trees are not Ents who can pull up their roots and start marching north to defeat the evil wizards like in Lord of the Rings, and they cannot spread automatically like in Sim-Earth.
Being warmer is nice and all, but the growing season is limited, not only by the temperature, but by the amount of sunlight available. Trees like conifers don’t grow as much during the winter, not because it’s cold, but because there’s not enough sunlight to sustain them. Sure, they might be able to grow further north than the present tree line but as they travel further north their growth is limited by the amount of usable sunlight to the point where they can’t survive.
Also, there are no trees above the tree line right now because the conditions for growth of the trees do not match the trees in the treeline. When the growing conditions above the tree line improve, the trees in the treeline will populate the new areas. It takes 65 years for trees in the tropics to repopulate areas where they once were. It takes decades for fast growing trees to repopulate clear-cut areas in the Pacific northwest and that is despite extensive replanting. It’s probably going to take the trees in the treeline 200-300 years to move a few miles north of the treeline. It only takes one really cold winter to kill them all.

Joseph Bastardi
April 10, 2013 5:48 pm

It gets loonier every day

higley7
April 10, 2013 6:01 pm

New models, old models, they are still models and they all suck.

Dudley Horscroft
April 10, 2013 6:02 pm

JohnG asks what this means = ““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.”
Let us take it apart. 1. We got some money. 2. ‘sophisticated = “pretentiously or superficially wise”, ‘probabalistic model’ = “a simplified representation of a complex entity designed to facilitate calculations and predictions, where the results are likely to be or to happen but not necessarily so”, therefore “this looks good and when we put data in the results may or may not be right”. 3. “scale up to continent-wide vegetation prediction” = “based on my back yard and when it gets warmer the plants grow, so I think that if the Arctic gets warmer there will be more plants”. 4. “associated uncertainty estimates” = “I am 95% sure there will be many more weeds, I am 99% sure there will be some more weeds, but if I use round-up I am 50% sure there won’t be so many weeds.”
5. “transformative research” = “I know in my head but I have put it on paper and entered the equations into the computer.” 6. “the new field of Computational Sustainability” = “nobody had thought of doing this before, with a computer, and it will not exhaust natural resources or cause severe ecological damage.”
Hence “We got money to write a good-looking computer program that said if the near-Arctic climate warmed we would get greater plant coverage with various degrees of probability, which we knew already but no-one had thought to say before.”
My apologies to Carla, but she should write English not “gobbledygook”.

Brian
April 10, 2013 6:19 pm

So out of all of the comments so far, not a single one supports even a single aspect of the article. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias. No one has even acknowledged that the arctic is warming.

Ian H
April 10, 2013 6:33 pm

The comments about vegetation causing more warming because it is darker than ice misses the mark by several miles. The vegetation being discussed would be a summer feature. At that time of year what it would be replacing is in many cases a barren landscape consisting of piles of dark coloured rock.

James at 48
April 10, 2013 6:44 pm

Zzzzzzzz …. only 27 more years until “mid century” and only 37 until the middle of “mid century.” They can barely grow rapeseed in Manitoba and in such a short time the Arctic is going to green up? Seriously?