From the University of Maryland the department of Al Gore’s Kilimanjaro claims: Deforestation is messing with our weather — and our food
New study, the first of its kind, investigates cooling and warming effects of forests at both a global scale and a high spatial resolution
Annapolis, Md — New research published today in Nature Communications provides insight into how large-scale deforestation could impact global food production by triggering changes in local climate. In the study, researchers from the United States and China zero in on albedo (the amount of the sun’s radiation reflected from Earth’s surface) and evapotranspiration (the transport of water into the atmosphere from soil, vegetation, and other surfaces) as the primary drivers of changes in local temperature.
The research is the first global analysis of the effects of forest cover change on local temperature using high-resolution NASA global satellite data. A peer-reviewed paper based on the study, “Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations,” hints at how land use policies could have economic implications from forest to farmland.
“Understanding the precise mechanisms of forest-generated warming or cooling could help regional management agencies anticipate changes in crop yields. Together with a knowledge of other ecological factors, this information can help decision makers and stakeholders design policies that help to sustain local agricultural practices,” said Safa Motesharrei, co-author of the paper and a systems scientist at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC).
Agriculture–specifically, converting forest cover to plantations for oil palm, soy, rubber, coffee, tea, rice, and many other crops–is widely believed to be one of the main causes of deforestation. Such change in land cover could drive a rise or fall in local temperature by as much as a few degrees. This kind of fluctuation could substantially impact yields of crops that are highly susceptible to specific climate conditions, resulting in harvests that are less productive and less profitable.
The authors say it underscores the need for a holistic understanding of forestry activities on local climate. They point out that while local impacts of forest cover change are some of the most relevant for management practices, they’re also the most poorly understood.
The path to understanding these local impacts, the researchers say, is through albedo and evapotranspiration. Forests have a darker surface than, for example, an agricultural field–forests therefore have a lower albedo, which means less solar radiation is reflected and more is absorbed. This phenomenon causes warming. On the other hand, forests absorb more rainwater and transpire it as water vapor later. This phenomenon, called evapotranspiration, causes cooling.

“These two competing biophysical effects could determine whether–at a specific location or during a specific time of the day or season of the year–a forest could cause local cooling or warming. And, by extension, whether clearing a forest could lead to a rise or fall in local temperature,” explained Yan Li of Peking University, lead author of the study and visiting climate scientist at the University of Maryland.
For example, the researchers found that tropical forests, which occur closest to the equator, have a strong cooling effect year-round. Boreal forests, which occur furthest from the equator, and temperate forests, which occur between tropical and boreal forests, show a seasonal variation. Boreal forests have strong warming in winter and moderate cooling in summer with net warming annually, and temperate forests show moderate cooling in summer and moderate warming in winter with net cooling annually. The scientists say this difference in cooling or warming can be largely explained by whether albedo or evapotranspiration is the dominant effect.
The study addresses questions that have been previously impossible to answer without these global satellite data. Earlier research has studied the effects of forest cover on temperature using field observations or global climate models. Because field work can be expensive, time-intensive, and logistically difficult, field measurements are generally available for only limited areas. These data are therefore difficult to scale up to develop a global picture. And because climate models require immense computational resources to run, they’re often unable to provide focused local information with reliable precision.
“It’s difficult to get measurements that are both accurate at a fine scale and have a large enough coverage that they can inform global climate models,” said Nicholas Magliocca, a computational research fellow at SESYNC who was not involved in the study. “This analysis offers an important empirical benchmark against which global climate models can be validated to accurately represent the temperature-mediating effects of forests.”
The satellite data used in the study–collected by NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, or MODIS–provide the best of both worlds: information that is rich in detail and global in coverage. As a result, the researchers could effectively zoom in and back out again to analyze the same phenomena everywhere around the world.
“We knew before that forests have an impact on temperature. But this study has provided a precise, quantitative estimation of the impact of forests depending on the geographical location, tracing it back to the changes in albedo and evapotranspiration,” said Eugenia Kalnay, co-author of the paper and a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Maryland.
As rates of deforestation climb and shifts in local climate become more pronounced, the need to understand the relationship between forest cover change and temperature will become more urgent. We have already lost 130 million hectares–an area roughly equivalent to twice the size of France–of the world’s forests just in the past decade, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The more forests we clear, the more we increase risks for food production due to changes in temperature.
###
In addition to Li, Motesharrei, and Kalnay, the paper’s co-authors include Maosheng Zhao, research assistant professor at the University of Maryland; Qiaozhen Mu, research scientist at the University of Montana; and Shuangcheng Li, professor at Peking University.
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41130534 and 41371096).
The research paper, “Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations,” was published online March 31, 2015, in the journal Nature Communications.
Abstract:
The biophysical effects of forests on climate have been extensively studied with climate models. However, models cannot accurately reproduce local climate effects due to their coarse spatial resolution and uncertainties, and field observations are valuable but often insufficient due to their limited coverage. Here we present new evidence acquired from global satellite data to analyse the biophysical effects of forests on local climate. Results show that tropical forests have a strong cooling effect throughout the year; temperate forests show moderate cooling in summer and moderate warming in winter with net cooling annually; and boreal forests have strong warming in winter and moderate cooling in summer with net warming annually. The spatiotemporal cooling or warming effects are mainly driven by the two competing biophysical effects, evapotranspiration and albedo, which in turn are strongly influenced by rainfall and snow. Implications of our satellite-based study could be useful for informing local forestry policies.
Already known but reconfirmation doesn’t hurt.
Actually in severe cases the climate disruption caused by deforestation can be apocryphal.
Take Easter island for example, where the people got turned to stone after cutting down all their trees !!
Excuse me, that is Rapa Nui.
This may be a stupid comment, but I spend a lot of time in Southern Spain where forests are few and far between, it is a lot hotter than NE England (where I spend more time) where woods and forests are more common. I have to say the evaporation in Southern Spain is a great deal more noticeable than here, yet the diagram does not show that. Also California shows the same evaporation as Southern Spain, yet there is a drought.
Not evaporation – evapotranspiration, i e evaporation from plants (mostly forest).
Thanks tty, yes it was a stupid comment. It’s been a long day…………
No, not a stupid comment. The one of the great things about this site is the amount you can learn, if you are willing to do so.
Thanks for asking andrew.
Now I don’t have to ask.
From the article “Forests have a darker surface than, for example, an agricultural field–forests therefore have a lower albedo, which means less solar radiation is reflected and more is absorbed. This phenomenon causes warming.”. But plowed fields are dark and the crops on them as well. Add irrigation and should the difference not be minimal?. What I would consider a bigger difference between a field and a rainforest forest is the depth between the tops of a rainforest ( and the shade below it) especially in the rain forests shown on these pics. they can be hundreds of feet tall and have completely separate biospheres at different levels. Was that taken into account here?
And human caused, but it’s inconveniently located in places where the wealth redistribution potential is low.
Peta in Cumbria April 3, 2015 at 8:24 am
Why does that CO2 graph, when detrended, show a steeper rise during warmer than average years – if not something very temperature sensitive is creating the stuff? Totally counter intuitive if FFs are the cause of the CO2.
Not counter intuitive, about half of the annual emissions due to fossil fuel combustion are absorbed by the ocean and biosphere. Warming the surface will reduce the amount absorbed thus leading to the steeper rise.
“The more forests we clear, the more we increase risks for food production due to changes in temperature.”
Try growing food without clearing the forest.
“this information can help decision makers and stakeholders design policies that help to sustain local agricultural practices”
Let’s let the farmers decide.
IOW the difference between annual and perennial crops, what farmers do different from nature. Why does the CO2 graph start rising with the arrival in bulk of nitrogen fertiliser?
Why does that CO2 graph, when detrended, show a steeper rise during warmer than average years – if not something very temperature sensitive is creating the stuff? Totally counter intuitive if FFs are the cause of the CO2.
And possibly one thing more temperature sensitive than my gf – soil bacteria, anyone?
Countless trillions of them, eating carbohydrate, breathing in oxygen and pumping out CO2 while driven hyper with soluble nitrogen.
Here’s my Friday Funny cartoon contribution …
Making Claims
http://www.maxphoton.com/king-of-the-mountain/
Nice, but maybe it should be; “King of The Mt.”,
In a wider perspective, Stickman’s claim seems to be MT
There was a debate about warming of the earth about 200 years ago, which most people would probably not know about. It was noticed, through their temperature measuring methods at the time, that there was regional warming In the northeast of North America. One explanation for this warming was the elimination of the forests to provide more farmland:
http://www.science20.com/science_20/1799_thomas_jefferson_noah_webster_and_first_global_warming_debate-81123
I like the phase “precise estimate”!
“precise estimate”
Easily obtained by putting the prefix S on a WAG.
An estimate can be very precise if you want. You can estimate the weight of a pile of beans to a hundred decimal places if you like. That’s extremely precise.
Whether it’s in any way accurate is another matter.
Yes, it’s as good as accurate estimate
Not necessarily. Precise and accurate are not one and the same. Ask an infantryman if he would rathr have precise or accurate rounds on target.
So “carbon budgets” of biomass are iffy already based on overall life cycle of CO2 and how long it takes to regenerate forests and the effect of harvesting trees to processes going on in the soil. Same is true but to an even greater extent of crop based biofuels when forests are cut down so that biofuels can be farmed from crops. Now someone shows that there is net cooling in temperate and tropical zones from forest cover via an evapotranspiration mechanism. How much longer must the insanity of growing fuel for a modern society go on before it’s put to an end for purely ecological reasons?
In the US probably til Nov 2016
Compare and discuss
?
http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_51/817066/carbon-map_cf132431109ff079ed2ad22c005e42bf.nbcnews-ux-640-360.jpg
Compare and discuss
http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_51/817066/carbon-map_cf132431109ff079ed2ad22c005e42bf.nbcnews-ux-640-360.jpg
Enter your comment here…
Updated map of CO2 from OCO-2 for Nov 1, 2014 to Dec 29, 2014. Obviously not getting the full dataset that might be available here but note there is a significant change in CO2 levels to the high northern latitudes now and to equatorial Africa. There is a seasonality pattern to CO2.
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/datareleases/images/OCO2.Fig1.Release.V6.png
Seasonality pattern with CO2 has been very consistently demonstrated at the Mauna Loa Observatory every year since 1959. Will be interesting to see how this will be confirmed or not by the satellite. Thanks for posting this just available map.
When do get the updated map
For 2015
Yeah, if the next NASA CO2 product looks like this, we will not get to see it. This CO2 satellite will have a failure, too.
There was supposed to be a new release last month. Suspect that they may be struggling with the narrative.
The data is published there, only that they didn’t provide nice maps for me to find.
http://www.pddnet.com/sites/pddnet.com/files/OCO-2.jpg
Hopefully the link will give the Nov – Dec 2014 data in the same format as Vukcevic provided above ,
Quite different as Bill Illis says, due to fossil fuel use in NH winter . High band in Equatorial Africa is puzzling to the NASA team I read and there is a funny red dot along the Amazon (Manaos?).
Brandon – the graph you posted of CO2 variations is of dubious value. The past CO2 data comes from ice cores, with a much lower accuracy and much lower “granularity” (time sensitivity) than the modernta. The two are therefore not directly comparable. In particular, the past data will be smoothed over extended periods, and therefore if there had been a spike in CO2 such as today’s, that spike would very likely not show up. I also note that if you go back a bit further in time, you will find CO2 concentrations that are many times higher than today’s. Food for thought …..
Mike Jonas,
Flip that argument. If there had been a dip in CO2 levels over two centuries ….
Going back 20,000 years, much of N. America was covered with glaciers. It didn’t extinct us. 120,000 years ago during the Eemian interglacial, sea levels were 5 to 7 meters higher. It didn’t extinct us.
Neither were there 7.125 billion of us competing for ever scarcer real estate, optimizing what we have to support a much higher quality of life than our hardy ancestors.
Apples and oranges. Food for thought.
vukcevic,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
What are the combustion products of hydrocarbons? Were humans burning as many tonnes of the stuff between 400,000 and 1,000 years ago as we are today?
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/sio117/ipcc_figs/IPCC_7.3small.bmp
It’s been well known for some time that natural carbon fluxes are over an order of magnitude larger than human emissions. This is an equilibrium system. CO2 sinks are not obligated to immediately soak up all of our contributions, which they would have to for the atmospheric mixing ratio to stay constant.
As Bill Illis points out, atmospheric CO2 concentration cycles seasonally, something which we’ve known at least since Keeling’s work in the mid-1950s:
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3_full.jpg
I think you understand all these things, and are just testing folks. But I’m not sure.
Argh, IPCC CO2 flux cartoon in .png instead of .bmp:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tbhzAJUpEeE/VR7ve8RE2sI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/Oy38f3CMzqA/s1600/IPCC_7.3small.png
Why does Mauna Loa not have any CO2 in the atmosphere after 2006 ? Who turned it off ?
It went off scale. Panic. Now.
It went off scale. Panic. Now.
A scale only going up to 400 illustrates very well the astonishing myopia and narrowness of view of climate science considering that multicellular life and the Phanerozoic biomes and ecosystems evolved with CO2 levels up to 10,000 ppm.
The scale is the problem, not the CO2.
phlogiston,
The lowest possible CO2 mixing ratio is 0 ppmv. The problem is thinking that reality responds to how we graph it. Y-axis scaling games “trick” eyes and minds if they fool anything … not the planet. What if our modern civilization had evolved at CO2 10,000 ppmv and were dropping rapidly toward 400 ppmv? It’s not the absolute levels which matter, but the relative change in a geological eye blink of time that is cause for concern.
Just been on a forum on an astronomy course offered by Coursera. The tutor, Mr Brown of Cal Tech actually said, and I paraphrase, ‘if only we could find a way to get rid of the CO2 on Earth’. Hey, what a brilliant idea!
Jay Hope,
Not so brilliant … blithering idiocy is more like it. You wouldn’t happen to have a link to the discussion?
Obviously the whole of Brazil is on fire.
Damned if I can figure out what is burning off the West coast of Southern Africa.
In Australia, nothing grows so there is nothing to burn except coal, but not enough people to burn it. (everybody in Australia burns wood; darned if I know where they get it, but I think most of it was deliberately planted by my sister, and her husband.)
Brandon Gates, I don’t have a link to the forum. But the course is called ‘Science of the Solar System’ and the forum discussion is entitled ‘Venus Terraforming’. Coursera is a hotbed for warmists. You won’t get any tutor, as far as I can see, who won’t embrace the prevailing beliefs. On another Coursera course, I was disheartened to see someone as talented as Prof Chris Impey stating that the hokey stick (sorry, the hockey stick) was one of the great scientific truths of modern times. The course is free, so it’s just asking for an army of ‘trolls’ to go in there with guns blazing……..
Jay Hope,
Ah. Well Brown’s lament makes more sense in that context. I seriously doubt he actually meant removing all CO2 from Earth’s atmosphere would be a Good Thing.
Pun intended of course …
For myself, the loose collection of alternative hypotheses aren’t terribly compelling, which I see as a real pity.
Matter of opinion I guess. I’m bad at such lists but the work of Watson and Crick (but don’t forget others, like Franklin!) would be my #1, followed very shortly by Einstein and Planck. Actually, I may need to reverse that, because I think you need QM to get to X-ray crystallography ….
[chortle] Not that anyone would be deliberately disruptive, mind ……
“””””…..Matter of opinion I guess. I’m bad at such lists but the work of Watson and Crick (but don’t forget others, like Franklin!) would be my #1, followed very shortly by Einstein and Planck. Actually, I may need to reverse that, because I think you need QM to get to X-ray crystallography ………”””””
I don’t think you do. simple diffraction theory will do.
And I would not ever mention the names of Watson and Crick in connection with x-ray crystallography; they would be the last names I would come up with.
As I recall, the key x-ray crystallography work done on the DNA molecule, that led to the double helix, was done by a very smart young woman, who did the exacting work. Unfortunately she died prematurely, I think from cancer, and as a result, she never received the credit that was due to her, for unraveling the DNA double helix.
One of the two serendipitous nobellists, never ever acknowledged her work.
Sorry, I wish I could remember her name.
The recognition does not always go to the deserving.
george e. smith,
Interesting thought. The idea predates the formal elucidation of QM in literature, but only just. I’m too ignorant of the particulars to argue it further.
Rosalind Franklin. I always go out of my way to mention her. 🙂
Alas.
Finally a sensible study with sensible conclusions.
So when a questionnaire asks if climate change is real and man-made, most self respecting scientists would likely answer in the affirmative, yet CO₂ emissions don’t come into it.
No they wouldn’t. If they did they should quit and flip burgers. Climate change is ’caused’ by atmospheric, oceanic, solar and axial tilt cycles. deforestation is a very minor effect.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that man via deforestation ”inconsequentially affects climate?
Contrary to the study’s fundamental premise, lower albedo of forests need not produce higher temperatures. After all, a very substantial portion of forest-absorbed insolation goes into producing growth through photosynthesis. That’s basic plant physiology!
Yes, but the fraction diverted into biomass is small; less than 5% typically. Really productive environments might produce 0.1 GJ of primary production with available sunlight of 1.7 GJ per meters squared per year.
Yeah, but this doesn’t translate into warming on the forest floor. It could be important for creatures who live in the canopy I suppose one could argue.
Gary:
Spot on! In tropical rain forests daytime temperatures in the canopy are several degrees Celsius warmer.. The shade provided by the canopy sharply reduces the insolation available for thermalizing the forest floor.
Some of the radiation falling on the canopy is converted into chemical energy by photosynthesis and is not therefore available to be radiated back to space.
If the planet is greening, as we are told, this increase in biomass should have a cooling effect.
Well our wonderful Governor, Moonbeam Brown, has come up with his own cure for California’s drought problem.
He has publicly challenged Californians to let all their lawns die, and be replaced with State help, by stone lawns, made out of water proof rocks, which the State will provide.
it’s called the “Snows of Kilimanjaro” project; well maybe that is the “Rapa Nui Forestry project.”
How the hell, did part of Polynesia become Chilean territory ?
Speaking of Kilimanjaro, it’s recovered.
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/kilimanjaro_snow_2011.jpg
Oh, that would explain why I have not seen recent photos or discussion of it. It went dark in the media like all the other scare talk items that were not cooperating.
That and the fact that it was actually sublimation and not temperature that was shown to cause the reduced ice.
sabretruthtiger,
Well I’ll be dipped in poo and covered with peanuts …
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2007/4/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-kilimanjaro-can-global-warming-be-blamed/99999
The observations described above point to a combination of factors other than warming air—chiefly a drying of the surrounding air that reduced accumulation and increased ablation—as responsible for the decline of the ice on Kilimanjaro since the first observations in the 1880s. The mass balance is dominated by sublimation, which requires much more energy per unit mass than melting; this energy is supplied by solar radiation.
These processes are fairly insensitive to temperature and hence to global warming. If air temperatures were eventually to rise above freezing, sensible-heat flux and atmospheric long-wave emission would take the lead from sublimation and solar radiation. Since the summit glaciers do not experience shading, all sharp-edged features would soon disappear. But the sharp-edged features have persisted for more than a century. By the time the 19th-century explorers reached Kilimanjaro’s summit, vertical walls had already developed, setting in motion the loss processes that have continued to this day.
And from John Cook at SkS: https://www.skepticalscience.com/mount-kilimanjaro-snow.htm
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro’s shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong.
Who is flying a commercial jet that low over Africa ??
No problem. It’s an Airbus, totally computerized to prevent crashes.
KLM and other European airlines give arriving passengers a thrill before swinging east to Dar es salaam (TZ) or Mombasa, Kenya. I got the same view in 1987 and 1989 when working on a dimension stone project near Moshi, Tanzania and a close up view by climbing it in 1989. It was darn cold when I was there – the third camp is up in the snow.
Well, I’m pretty sure that when all is settled and done, evapotranspiration causes cooling. But along the way it also causes precipitation which results in warming in places. Once again the devil is in the details.
“evapotranspiration causes cooling” – a bit like sweating, really.
Gaia at work! Shades of Lovelock’s Daisyworld.
At least he was man enough to admit he was wrong. Credit where it’s due. Us married guys are familiar with being wrong 🙂
“Us married guys are familiar with being wrong”
Correlation does not equal causation…
No, us married guys are familiar with being accused of being wrong and then dropping the argument because we’d rather watch the game.
You’re familiar with pretending you’re wrong to keep the peace.
I think I was right, once.
But not since that one time.
Forests are just another part of the climate control system. Note that when and where it’s hot they have a net cooling effect, and when and where it’s cold they have a warming effect … another part of the emergent global climate control mechanism.
w.
Willis,
By what mechanism(s)? How many W/m^2 are you talking?
While I would argue that human intelligence is an emergent property of the system, calling our wilful deforestation efforts deterministic is a bit of a stretch. IOW, your conclusion wouldn’t follow from premises even if your “analysis” wasn’t slipshod.
Whether warming or cooling is happening does not depend on Wm^-2.
It just depends on “if.”
With a working range of Temperatures from -94 deg. C up to at least +60 deg. C, any reasonable amount of Wm^-2 will barely get noticed.
george e. smith,
Um … well, this is a gross oversimplification, but a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
If what? This is a physical system with many known properties.
Why should the absolute temperature range have anything to do with this? The main problem I’d look to is the massive nature of the system. That’s why I asked Willis about energy flux per unit area.
Brandon Gates April 3, 2015 at 12:22 pm
Asking a man questions while insulting him by calling his work “slipshod” is no way to go through life, Brandon … however, I’ll overlook your childish accusation and answer your question.
First, I ask people to quote my words for exactly this reason. You go on about “willful deforestation” and “deterministic”, when I said nothing about either deforestation or determinism. As a result you have set yourself a fool’s errand, you are chasing shadows of your own making that have nothing to do with my words.
What I was referring to was this part of the head post (emphasis mine):
My comment was simply highlighting the nature, not the quantity but the nature of the relationship of forests and temperature—I noted that in colder areas the forests warm the earth, and where it is warmer forests cool the earth. I pointed it out as another of the many emergent phenomena which act in a homeostatic manner to stabilize the temperature of the earth.
In response you get all ugly, accuse me of slipshod work, rave about “wilful [sic] deforestation”, and ask me how strong the effect is in W/m2 … Brandon, I don’t know how strong it is, nor was that the topic I was addressing. I was commenting on the direction of the effect (towards thermostasis), not its amplitude.
Now, I agree that the amplitude of the effect is certainly of scientific interest. And if you want to pursue that question, I encourage and support you in doing just that … but my not doing so is not a reason to claim that my comment on the forest-temperature relationship was “slipshod”. For heavens sake, it’s a two-sentence comment, my good man, not a scientific paper.
w.
Willis,
Very gracious of you.
The person who alerted me to your response, clipe, was just complaining about my blockquotes. I can’t win.
I know your request, and normally do follow it. I’m making my own argument with “willful deforestation” and “deterministic”, but perhaps the moment has passed to pursue it.
Sure. The king daddy of them all is that radiative flux varies as the 4th power of temperature. In these parts, folks latch onto cooling and stabilizing mechanisms as if they’re the only thing which matter. I try to walk the Tao, but sometimes I see a need to move firmly into Yang territory. Due to the polarized nature of this topic, sometimes it feels like I just don’t have a choice.
My attitude toward you doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Rather than revisit past slights by way of trying to justify it I’ll simply use more neutral terms next time I ask you a question and see how that goes.
I’ve given that speech before in various forms, so I know the frustration well. However, “… another part of the emergent global climate control mechanism” read to me like a rather strong conclusion along the lines of, “Hey, we’ve got a self-stabilizing system here, no cause for concern”. Well, I believe it is a self-stabilizing system, else we wouldn’t be here. I don’t believe there’s no cause for concern.
I do see a lot of strong conclusions drawn here on very incomplete analyses. Also a lot of hints toward conclusions which aren’t explicitly stated — those are most frustrating, but that’s not your usual style. I call them as I see them, sometimes I get it wrong.
Being a biogeographer, much of this was known, but I agree that we have never had an ability to measure the components. Being Canadian, and working in the boreal forest for most of my life, I am very interested in what we can learn about the winter warming effect of coniferous forests. The data on albedo related to coniferous forests versus the low angle and short duration of winter sunlight will be interesting. As long as these data are protected from “adjustment” I see promise in this avenue of research.
Yes, do real science and do the best estimate you can.
One effect apparently not mentioned is the fact the low angle sunlight also enters the boreal forest from the side instead on top of the canopy as with tropical forests. As a result, much of the light passes though the screen of the front of a copse and is more absorbed in the interior of the forest. The forest floor also receives considerable light and its reflectance results in more opportunity for capture of the reflected rays. Here is a view of a black spruce stand.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/winter-boreal-forest-in-the-foothills-of-high-res-stock-photography/129837481
China is definitely taking the lead in climate science.
Mainly by following the scientific method instead of just supporting yesterday’s headlines.
Shape of things to come across academia
Agreed. There have been a number of recent examples of Chinese scientists concentrating on the science and not kowtowing to CAGW dogma. Very encouraging.
That’s a valid and interesting observation, but begs the question: is the research over there any less agenda- driven than the research over here? There is such a tremendous body of evidence which points to dogmatic research result, that all of Western science is now painted with the same odorous brush.
Alan @ur momisugly 11.57 am:
There could well be agenda, but if it results in more research into natural climate drivers it will extremely valuable.
Alan Robertson, you make a good point.
But although they may be blighted with a similar malaise to us… at least it is a different malaise.
We will get competition of ideas.
That will provide an antidote to the intellectual stagnation we are seeing in the West (in Academia).
CO2 is greening the planet – yes? So these effects can only get better?
Sustained 35 °C wet bulb temperature is a hard, do-not cross line.
Willis beat me to it. Negative feedbacks are swirling all around us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle
“In chemistry, Le Châtelier’s principle … can be used to predict the effect of a change in conditions on .. chemical equilibrium:
When a system at equilibrium is subjected to change in concentration, temperature, volume, or pressure, then the system readjusts itself to (partially) counteract the effect of the applied change and a new equilibrium is established.
It is common to take Le Châtelier’s principle to be a more general observation, roughly stated:Any change in status quo prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system.”
The principle has even been invoked in economics in the demand response to change in price and broadly in thermodynamics for predicting effects. I think it is a good model for climate change.
LC’s principle IS very general.
When you apply current to a DC motor, and it starts turning, it starts generating a back EMF that cancels out all of the current, except that necessary to sustain the roation.
When radiation generated by a high QE LED gets optically trapped in the diode, it is recaptured by the LED acting as a photo-diode, and generates a reverse current that raises the apparent internal series impedance of the LED.
I could cite a bunch more but so can anyone. If water vapor builds up over a water / air surface, and can’t escape, it cuts off further increase in evaporation (by returning water molecules to the liquid.)
So, will we build more green power plants that will burn more biomass or maybe not ?
Mmm…
The solution to banning the use of fossil fuels, is to burn the bio-mass before it gets fossilized.
Some are already doing it on a very large scale and you can visit this site for detailed info at all levels with very detailed videos of the operations.
http://www.drax.com/biomass/biomass-videos/biomass-from-forest-to-firms/
Kill all beavers. Problem solved.
Embrace and caress the beaver.
No no no, that’s for polar bears. Would change a lot of perceptions ….
Perception of a beaver?
No, seals I should think.
😉
And of course evapotranspiration causes cooling and evapotranspiration increases with rising temperature which causes more cooling. Might as well get this study completed. Also, I’m going to invoke the Le Chatelier Principle once again as my climate model. Any forced change on a system results in the system (partly) resisting this change (its my substitute for ‘negative feedbacks abound’). The LCP is a factual dynamic in all systems. Gee, Ive been arguing against the throw.-your-hands-up chaos theory of climate and now I know why. When things go chaotic, the LCP resists this. This sets up oscillations like ice ages’ optimae and interglacials – Okay, this is my new theory for what causes ‘attractors’ in chaos theory! Please, no Nobel Prize nominations, the prize has become terminally tainted, but of course remember the Pearse Effect as chaos theory advances!!
And in what units do you measure ‘climate disruption’?
Decibels.
perfect +10
Best of the bunch and done with one word!
Well … it was a rather nice setup, hey?
This research targets a significant factor. Don’t forget to factor in the increases from CO2 fertilization, which effects woody stemmed plants/forecasts the most.
If, for instance the increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm has increased tree/forest growth rates at 20%/year, this must be dialed into the effects on local climate……….but on a global scale, as CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.
In the US Cornbelt, over the past 3 decades, corn populations have increased greatly, at close to twice the density that they were 30 years ago.
During the growing season, this has created a microclimate that stretches out over the size of numerous states. It’s almost like a massive laboratory, using millions of acres of corn fields.
Evapotranspiration from these corn plants has increased dew points and low level moisture by as much as 5 degrees F or more. Dew points in the mid 70’s are now common, instead of unusual and 80+ degrees was almost unheard of before these corn crop populations were increased. I’ve seen 80+ dew points at least a dozen times in recent years.
This has caused a lower lifting condensation level, with cumulus forming earlier in the day as well as thunderstorms that have heavier rains(more precipitable water).
Rainfall has increased as this produces a positive feedback. Daytime maximum temperatures with the additional low level moisture are lower. At night, temperatures are higher(when the dew point is 80 degrees, you won’t be dropping much below that even with calm winds and clear skies).
On a much wider, global scale, since the increase in CO2 is leading to a significant greening of the planet, then evapotranspiration(plant transpiration) is increasing too during the growing seasons.
This same effect, though not as pronounced as what we’ve seen in the Midwest Cornbelt is taking place globally.
This effect is being underestimated and maybe be at least partially responsible for an increase in clouds and the lower average height of clouds…………a negative feedback to global warming
It would partially explain the increase in global water vapor and the decrease in diurnal temperature disparities(with many more record high mins vs record high maxs).
Here’s a good article on it.
“woody stemmed plants/forecasts the most”
That should be FORESTS
Also genetic engineering has produced corn plants (maize) with more corn and less plant.
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/4997/corn-and-climate-sweaty-topic