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.
Brian says:
———————-
You know Brian, you’re right – so I will be one of the first. The evidence of the Canadian Arctic warming exists – at least when you look back over the past fifty years. That doesn’t excuse the total ignorance that these ‘scientists’ exhibit when they try to justify their version of how this warming is occurring, has occurred, or will occur.
Can someone give me a link to the real estate offices for these areas about to become green as I want to get in early!
/sarc
Michael, the complaints and skepticism are justified. But they’re not doing any good here where everyone already believes the same thing. I don’t think any AGW scientists read the comment section of this blog. Back and forth scientific discussion between opposing viewpoints is productive. A bunch of people rallying over their own preconceived bias is not. Even the skepticalscience article on Marcott has some valid dissention in the comments. I know there are smart people here, who can be skeptical about certain things while avoiding bandwagon attacks.
That said, I don’t see much wrong with this study. Extrapolating a trend and attempting to predict its impacts is normal scientific behavior. You may have reason to believe that the level of greening they predict is exaggerated, but the rate of ice loss in recent years certainly justifies a study.
rogerknights said @ur momisugly April 10, 2013 at 5:29 pm
I think this was the paper being discussed:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02110.x/abstract
Abstract
Brian said @ur momisugly April 10, 2013 at 7:35 pm
Brian, if you think everyone posting here “believes the same thing” then your reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired. There have been many robust disputes here. If AGW scientists don’t read the comments on this blog, how come they can make the claim that they are nonsense? Perhaps you believe they are psychic!
The Pompous Git, I’m not aware of any such claims, thus the phrase “I don’t think…”. I don’t doubt that they read the posts, but I have to assume that very few, if any, read through the comments.
“Everyone” was not meant to mean 100% of readers. Perhaps 98% is more accurate. In my estimation, 98% of commenters here do not believe in AGW. This particular article provides strong evidence of that.
Brian says “This is a perfect example of confirmation bias. No one has even acknowledged that the arctic is warming.”
How is the Arctic warming? As I posted above the warming up until the 1990’s was undeniable but since 2000 Alaska has become the most rapidly cooling place on the planet ( see Wendler 2012, The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska) When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation were in their warm phases, they pumped warm air and water into the Arctic. Now those oscillation have reverted to their cool phases and Alaska and Eurasia have experienced bitter cold. These oscillation explain similar warming during the 1930’s. If those oscillation remain in the negative phases as history predicts, the Arctic Ice will soon rebound. The Bering and Chukchi Seas have increase sea ice and the Barents Sea has now begun to recover.
The rate of warming from 1920 to 1940 was greater than in the 1990’s (see Bengsston 2004 The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism). Freezing winds removed the thick multiyear ice (see Rigor 2002 and 2004 Variations in the age of Arctic sea-ice and summer sea-ice extent) allowing more heat to ventilate from the Arctic ocean which has enough subsurface heat to melt the Arctic ice several times over. ( see Polyakov 2011 Fate of early 2000s Arctic warm water pulse).
When measurements were taken over the central Arctic the authors of “Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years” wrote “we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions.”
The greening of the Arctic is based on the belief that CO2 drove the warming of the 1990’s and the loss of sea ice in 2000’s, but the recent evidence suggests a cooling cycle has begun as natural oscillations have reversed. The only confirmation bias is exhibited by the uncritical believers who readily embrace the nonsense that recent trend towards colder winters and more snow are caused by global warming and not the predicted results of natural oscillations! And you my man sound like a true believer.
Brian,
I believe in AGW. But what does that mean, exactly?
It means I believe that human activity has a minuscule effect on global warming. However, that effect is far too small to measure — therefore it is ipso facto only a belief. It is far from being a verified scientific observation.
Certainly AGW is not something that we cannot handle, and it is not something that will cause any problems in the foreseeable future.
AGW is a non-event — which a small, dishonest minority is exploiting to make piles of grant money.
Where do you stand on the issue? Is AGW real, or not? And what physical evidence, if any, can you post verifying that it even exists?
Brian, your point of view on the bias exhibited in this particular thread is valid. There will always be bias, one way or the other, no matter how hard we try to eliminate it. That’s because of the social nature of mankind. Putting that aside and viewing things with an open mind is the difficult part.
Trees in a topical rain forests = “Good”
Re-forestation and new shrubs in over-grazed land = “Good”
Trees and shurbs in the arctic = “Bad”
What am I missing?
Brian:
Please explain your definition of an “AGW Scientist”
Especially the scientist part.
Brian said @ur momisugly April 10, 2013 at 8:30 pm
I did not say that they were many, but there have certainly been CAGW believers commenting here. William Connoly (the Stoat) and Science of Doom come immediately to mind. There have certainly been others.
I’d say most here believe that anthropogenic CO2 from burning fossil fuels contributes to the so-called greenhouse effect. I’d go even as far as saying most even believe that a doubling of CO2 would raise temperatures globally by around 1 Celsius degree as per Modtran4. What we have trouble with is believing that the 20th C increase is in any way “unprecedented”, or that the projected/surmised/guessed-at/prophesied [delete whichever is inapplicable] increase will bring on Thermageddon.
Guys, I’m mostly looking at this from a psychological perspective. I’m one of the seemingly rare few that believes we don’t know what is happening with the climate other than that the Arctic is warming, and that most hypotheses are still feasible until proven otherwise. That includes greenhouse gases, solar variance, ENSO variance, and the mechanisms that Jim Steele describes. Many of the ideas labeled as contrarian (pretty much everything except greenhouse gases) make sense to me, and I accept them. But regardless of my opinion of the science, I think it makes much more sense to debate with educated people of varying opinions rather than creating a mob-like atmosphere of angry comments all supporting the same conclusion. Basically, I think that those of you that know your stuff should be stating your cases on warmist sites or neutral forums. They could really use some educated criticism, otherwise uninformed attacks there will continue to earn the “denier” tag for all skeptics.
Jim, you acknowledged the Arctic warming in your post, and the phrase “if those oscillation remain in the negative phases” shows that you also realize that there is a possibility that typical cycles may change. Clearly you believe they will remain, and that is a valid hypothesis. I think educated skeptics like yourself should be promoting your hypotheses rather than attacking warmists.
I understand that warmists are even worse with the confirmation bias, but attacking them does nobody any good, and only serves to increase the polarization of the issue.
The Pompous Git, your last bit about the unprecedented rise is what I mean when I say AGW believer. Almost nobody here believes that. I’m not saying that followers of this blog are wrong, but rather that it’s pointless to attack AGW believers when there are very few here. As you know, there are plenty elsewhere.
And when I say “AGW scientists” I mean published researchers, not warmist bloggers who are looking for attention.
Brian,
As stated, I am an AGW believer.
What is your response to that?
dbstealey, within this community you might be considered an AGW believer, but certainly not by the entire community of those interested in climate. I say this based on you calling AGW a “non-event”. Perhaps I should have said CAGW instead of AGW. But regardless of what you want to call it, a vast majority of readers here share your opinion, and that’s the point I was making.
The greening could also have a multiplier effect on warming, as dark vegetation absorbs more solar radiation than ice, which reflects sunlight.
I’ve seen a similar claim before, that additional forest would lead to warming due to the increased absorption of sunlight, though it wasn’t ice, but maybe sand or grass land?
However, to me this seems counter-intuitive to me, I enjoy the local redwood forests because they are cooler than being in the direct sun. Surface temperature is cooler in the forest compared to the open. For example, what would be warmer, a desert world or a forested world?
Brian,
What is it about “I believe in AGW” that you do not understand?
dbstealey, you are building a strawman argument against me. I concede that you believe in AGW. My point is that your statement “AGW is a non-event” is a nearly universal belief on this site.
Brian,
As I suspected, you are now moving the goal posts.
So tell me, where is the line between AGW being a significant event, and being a non-event?
$Billions are riding on your answer.
Brian,
I’m finding, reading your responses, that you exhibit the characteristics of a true skeptic. Good on you. Always question the standard line. Act as the Devil’s advocate – by doing so you help advance real science. You believe that this thread shows bias and I agree with you. I am critical of the conclusions of the study that started this thread. Can you bring forward any arguments that counter my stance – if so, I welcome a chance for a real debate. To me, in this particular thread, it’s a case of me disagreeing with their conclusions and the methods they achieve those conclusions, not an argument over AGW vs non-AGW.
Michael Tremblay,
Yes, I am also reading Brian’s responses. I want to see where Brian draws the line: is AGW really a problem? Or, is it a grant-generating scam?
There doesn’t seem to be much daylight between the two points of view. AGW is either a problem… or it is not. There is no real middle ground in this debate. Either/or, no?
Michael,
I haven’t read the study or even the abstract, only the NSF article posted here. As such, I’m not confident about the conclusions or methodology. Still, I think it makes sense to gather as much information as possible given the rapidly changing local climate in the Arctic. Their conclusion that more vegetation might amplify warming in the region makes sense to me, though I am no scientist.
The bias I’m concerned about is AGW vs non-AGW. The first 10 or so comments are just snarky, uninformed attacks that could apply to any article posted here. I enjoy reading legitimate ideas, like those posted by Jim Steele and The Pompous Git, and that’s why I read WUWT. Unfortunately I have to sift through a bunch of rhetoric first.
Thanks for being civil. Although if you want to debate it will have to wait until tomorrow. I need to sleep.
dnstealey, I have outlined my thoughts already. I think there is in fact a middle ground, that we don’t know yet. I will say that I don’t think the entire thing is a scam. Yes, I think there is plenty of corruption, but I think there is also some legitimacy. The reason you don’t think there is a middle ground is because of the rampant confirmation bias on both sides. It’s a similar situation in politics of today.
dbstealey,
I disagree – there is a lot of daylight between the two points of view. For example, I believe that people are contributing to global warming. I don’t believe that we are heading towards catastrophic AGW, and I certainly don’t agree that CO2 concentrations are causing AGW. I can’t go into all the reasons why I hold my position, and I can’t unequivocally say that I won’t change my position if someone can show that I am wrong. What I can say is that the reasoning presented by the AGW crowd is flawed and in a large measure unscientific – that is what I, personally, really object to. In a lot of cases they are using that as a grant-generating scam. In a lot of cases it is and ego problem where they are unwilling to admit that they are wrong – because they don’t want to jeopardize their standings and suffer a loss of status. The main problem is that people don’t learn things unless they make mistakes, or learn from the mistakes of others. When you can’t admit you’ve made a mistake, you’ve learned nothing and are destined to continue to make mistakes. When you are responsible for the lives of other people and you continue to make mistakes, those people die – that is the real tragedy because they didn’t need to die.