Another hot model: Forest emissions, wildfires explain why ancient Earth was so hot

The release of volatile organic compounds from Earth’s forests and smoke from wildfires 3 million years ago had a far greater impact on global warming than ancient atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, according to a new study by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. The research provides evidence that dynamic atmospheric chemistry played an important role in past warm climates, underscoring the complexity of climate change and the relevance of natural components.

Yale study: Forest emissions, wildfires explain why ancient Earth was so hot

Nadine Unger with Yale’s omega supercomputer.

The release of volatile organic compounds from Earth’s forests and smoke from wildfires 3 million years ago had a far greater impact on global warming than ancient atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, a new Yale study finds.

The research provides evidence that dynamic atmospheric chemistry played an important role in past warm climates, underscoring the complexity of climate change and the relevance of natural components, according to the authors. They do not address or dispute the significant role in climate change of human-generated CO2 emissions.

Using sophisticated Earth system modeling, a team led by Nadine Unger of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) calculated that concentrations of tropospheric ozone, aerosol particles, and methane during the mid-Pliocene epoch were twice the levels observed in the pre-industrial era — largely because so much more of the planet was covered in forest.

Those reactive compounds altered Earth’s radiation balance, contributing a net global warming as much as two to three times greater than the effect of carbon dioxide, according to the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

These findings help explain why the Pliocene was two to three degrees C warmer than the pre-industrial era despite atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that were approximately the same as today, Unger said.

“The discovery is important for better understanding climate change throughout Earth’s history, and has enormous implications for the impacts of deforestation and the role of forests in climate protection strategies,” said Unger, an assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at F&ES.

“The traditional view,” she said, “is that forests affect climate through carbon storage and by altering the color of the planet’s surface, thus influencing the albedo effect. But as we are learning, there are other ways that forest ecosystems can impact the climate.”

The albedo effect refers to the amount of radiation reflected by the surface of the planet. Light-colored snowy surfaces, for instance, reflect more light and heat back into space than darker forests.

Climate scientists have suggested that the Pliocene epoch might provide a glimpse of the planet’s future if humankind is unable to curb carbon dioxide emissions. During the Pliocene, the two main factors believed to influence the climate — atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the geographic position of the continents — were nearly identical to modern times. But scientists have long wondered why the Pliocene’s global surface air temperatures were so much warmer than Earth’s pre-industrial climate.

The answer might be found in highly reactive compounds that existed long before humans lived on the planet, Unger says. Terrestrial vegetation naturally emits vast quantities of volatile organic compounds, for instance. These are critical precursors for organic aerosols and ozone, a potent greenhouse gas. Wildfires, meanwhile, are a major source of black carbon and primary organic carbon.

Forest cover was vastly greater during the Pliocene, a period marked not just by warmer temperatures but also by greater precipitation. At the time, most of the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa, Australia, and the Arabian peninsula were covered with savanna and grassland. Even the Arctic had extensive forests. Notably, Unger says, there were no humans to cut the forests down.

Using the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Model-E2 global Earth system model, the researchers were able to simulate the terrestrial ecosystem emissions and atmospheric chemical composition of the Pliocene and the pre-industrial era.

According to their findings, the increase in global vegetation was the dominant driver of emissions during the Pliocene — and the subsequent effects on climate.

Previous studies have dismissed such feedbacks, suggesting that these compounds would have had limited impact since they would have been washed from the atmosphere by frequent rainfall in the warmer climate. The new study argues otherwise, saying that the particles lingered about the same length of time — one to two weeks — in the Pliocene atmosphere compared to the pre-industrial.

Unger says her findings imply a higher climate sensitivity than if the system was simply affected by CO2 levels and the albedo effect.

“We might do a lot of work to reduce air pollution from road vehicle and industrial emissions, but in a warmer future world the natural ecosystems are just going to bring the ozone and aerosol particles right back,” she said. “Reducing and preventing the accumulation of fossil-fuel CO2 is the only way to ensure a safe climate future now.”

The modeling calculations were performed on Yale University’s omega supercomputer, a 704-node cluster capable of processing more than 52 trillion calculations per second.

###

===========================================================

I had to chuckle about the last line, because the Yale writer of the press release, Kevin Dennehy, ascribes importance to the speed of the “omega supercomputer”. This is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the assumptions that went into the model’s parameters. If they are rooted in reality and measurement, then the model has a chance of being accurate, assuming it is programmed properly. If it is not, then it is simply an exercise in GIGO, and the speed of GIGO is immaterial to the conclusion.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Norton
February 6, 2014 9:17 am

Doesn’t the last paragraph in quotes contradict the study itself?

DesertYote
February 6, 2014 9:26 am

“Reducing and preventing the accumulation of fossil-fuel CO2 is the only way to ensure a safe climate future now.”
WOW. And this lady is supposed to be a scientist? I guess she is just another victim of Yale education.

Barry C. Strayer
February 6, 2014 9:27 am

B. Strayer
So the forests in the arctic came 1st then it got warmer? This is some very stressed logic.
Barry Strayer

Zeke
February 6, 2014 9:37 am

Yale study: Forest emissions, wildfires explain why ancient Earth was so hot
Nadine Unger with Yale’s omega supercomputer.
“The release of volatile organic compounds from Earth’s forests and smoke from wildfires 3 million years ago had a far greater impact on global warming than ancient atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, a new Yale study finds.”
Have Paradigm Shift, will Revise History to Suit.

Brian H
February 6, 2014 9:38 am

The kicker is that while it may be the only way, it’s still an immaterial and ineffectual way. I.e., there is no way to “ensure a safe climate”. You takes what you gets, and CO2 has Sweet Fanny Adams to do with it.

Zeke
February 6, 2014 9:42 am

““Reducing and preventing the accumulation of fossil-fuel CO2 is the only way to ensure a safe climate future now.” The modeling calculations were performed on Yale University’s omega supercomputer, a 704-node cluster capable of processing more than 52 trillion calculations per second.”
I know someone who can do that with a Raspberry Pi.
Yet if we face cold, and volcanic amplification of the cold, then the advice is bad.
This would be the equivalent of ripping out the plumbing and electricity for a remodel just before a polar vortex wobble in Montana. But progressives scientists always love to make sweeping, top-down reforms of that on which others’ lives depend on.

Jay Dunnell
February 6, 2014 9:46 am

Just did a quick google search on Pliocene era. Seems this was a COOLING period. So her whole study is mute. If forests worked the way she describes, then it should have warmed, not cooled. Of course other factors came into play, the closing of the Panama Isthmus, India connecting to Asia, polar ice accumulation, North American, European, Asian mountain ranges appearing.
Maybe she meant Miocene era.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tertiary/pliocene.php

JackT
February 6, 2014 9:50 am

Super-Computer or not, it’s still just another scientific wild-assed guess that no one can prove or disprove.

Sean.fr
February 6, 2014 9:51 am

So if we cut down the rain forests, we will be OK. It is all those greens planting tress!.

Rob B
February 6, 2014 9:51 am

Climate Science: moving at the speed of GIGO.

tty
February 6, 2014 9:53 am

This is going to require some pretty strenuous re-writing of geology and paleontology, since the Pliocene has always been characterized as a time when grassland biomes dominated the Earth like never before or since. For example from University of California: “The Pliocene Earth” (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tertiary/pliocene.php):
“The Pliocene, 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago, was a time of global cooling after the warmer Miocene. The cooling and drying of the global environment may have contributed to the enormous spread of grasslands and savannas during this time.”
Also the usual claim about geography being identical to the present has some rather important exceptions. The Panama Isthmus didn’t exist during most of the Pliocene and neither did the Bering Strait.

Martin A
February 6, 2014 9:55 am

They make it up as they go along.

Avid Flyer
February 6, 2014 9:56 am

Ronald Reagan was ridiculed for asserting that trees cause pollution. Maybe he just needed a degree from Yale instead of Eureka College.

February 6, 2014 9:59 am

The paper raises more questions than it answers. How did all those forests grow? If CO2 was barely above sustainability levels, the forests would not have had the CO2 in order to thrive. And you can burn forests for only so long before you have no more forests.

timetochooseagain
February 6, 2014 10:04 am

Hm, dividing up causation of a known quantity up amongst more causes, somehow increases the magnitude of the effect of one such cause.
Riiiiiiight.

Rob B
February 6, 2014 10:05 am

Jim Norton:
Yes, the last paragraph does seem to contradict the study. The study implies that reducing CO2 is not the only way to prevent a warmer planet: reducing vegetation and forests will also help. “Save the planet, clear-cut a forest today!” Or, “Have you thanked a real estate developer today?”

Alan Robertson
February 6, 2014 10:11 am

I had to chuckle about the last line, because the Yale writer of the press release, Kevin Dennehy, ascribes importance to the speed of the “omega supercomputer”. This is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the assumptions that went into the model’s parameters. If they are rooted in reality and measurement, then the model has a chance of being accurate, assuming it is programmed properly. If it is not, then it is simply an exercise in GIGO, and the speed of GIGO is immaterial to the conclusion.”
____________________
Perfect strike of hammer on nail.
I used to be a real gearhead and even played a key role in the successful build of vendor components for a couple of Cray Research models. I also built my own TFLOPS+ machine at one point. After I got past my hotrodder outlook, the only important thing about supercomputers became the programming. That’s where the perceptions of the physical realities of the world are bent by mental manipulations.

R. de Haan
February 6, 2014 10:14 am

yeah, yeah, when you don’t have fossil fuels to blame you resort to bio mass.
As long as CO2 remains the culprit of unbearable heat.
Another worthless piece of crap to fill the paper bin.

RichardLH
February 6, 2014 10:22 am

Alan Robertson says:
February 6, 2014 at 10:11 am
“After I got past my hotrodder outlook, the only important thing about supercomputers became the programming.”
“Programming – Modelling the World inside a Computer.”
with apologies to Larry O’Brien

February 6, 2014 10:27 am

“The modeling calculations were performed on Yale University’s omega supercomputer, a 704-node cluster capable of processing more than 52 trillion calculations per second.”
It takes a human to make a mistake.
It takes a computer to make it really quickly.

R. de Haan
February 6, 2014 10:29 am

Just another GIGO report produced with the assistance of a super computer operated by a member of the Dorkus Maximus family.
This is the only species that visits a university like Yale to study themselves plain stupid.
They should issue a restraining order to keep them away from supercomputers and the plain paper stacks for that matter.
What a terrible waste of time and money.

Ronald
February 6, 2014 10:29 am

An photo of a botokwoman next to a computer and the words moddeling made me go off. It is that far now that they say oke it is happening becaus the model says so. But nobody seems tho think oke lets look of the model is correct.

daddylonglegs
February 6, 2014 10:31 am

Utter rubbish.
The evolution of trees caused a dramatic fall in both CO2 and temperature.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/5/1302.full.pdf
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.png
Trees and vegetation in general cool the planet due to water transpiration. The earths surface in the Proterozoic, before plants covered the land, was hot and arid. Trees also made soil and brought the hydrological cycle onto land.
Why do these studies focus on minor greenhouse gasses e.g. volatile compounds and ignore the mother of them all, water vapour? These computer models only show what they are politically programmed to show. Everyone knows they are total crap. Why do they bother?

Ian
February 6, 2014 10:36 am

No doubt the Yale “Models” are callibrated by reference to the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) models’ performance against measured data?

LeeHarvey
February 6, 2014 10:40 am

“Even the Arctic had extensive forests. Notably, Unger says, there were no humans to cut the forests down.”
Wait, so the reason the tundras of the world are not covered in forest is because we cut down all the trees?
Or did we cut down the forests?
Much like Ms. (Dr.?) Unger, I’m having a hard time distinguishing one from the other…

1 2 3