And here we have been told it's 'climate disruption' causing local weather changes, when it's actually deforestation

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.

global-evapotranspiration
Global Evapotranspiration – oranges/reds shows greater values

“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.

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
151 Comments
Kevin Kilty
April 3, 2015 1:22 pm

On some thread here recently the person known as “Jimbo” cited an interesting paper from Nature from 1998 (SCIENCE z VOL. 280 z 19 JUNE 1998 z) wherein researchers had used a low resolution climate model to illustrate the impact of albedo variation from vegetation on global temperature. As driving function they used increasing solar irradiance from orbital parameter changes back to the Holocene climate optimum, which sounds miniscule, but some feedbacks they found by coupling ocean-atmosphere-vegetation were quite remarkable–increasing average temperature of 2C for instance.
If one will register successive years using vernal equinox, then it is apparent that solar insolation is currently increasing at high northern latitudes in the spring season by about 1 W/m^2 over the past millenium. It is not unreasonable to imagine that this is making spring come earlier to the arctic and part of the reason for its greening, and then part of the reason for advancing global temperature.

george e. smith
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
April 3, 2015 3:47 pm

Well in California, Spring is already a month late. We normally get stone fruit flowers in February.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 3, 2015 5:17 pm

drought or cold?

Jim Owen
April 3, 2015 1:50 pm

I always find it “interesting” when things like this show up. This is s rerun of a 2003(?) paper by one of the NASA GISS tribe with Jim Hansen as co-author. It’s also an illustration of how science can be delayed by politics and bad/false science.

April 3, 2015 2:45 pm

“inform global climate models”, good luck with that.
The “climate models require immense computational resources to run, they’re often unable to provide focused local information with reliable precision.” Too often as in never?
After dismal failure it is time to recognize that it is not possible to model the climate, not even the weather, with any skill for longer than a few days, maybe a few weeks.
Skilled long range forecasts can only be produced by the very best skilled meteorologists, not by programs.

jmorpuss
April 3, 2015 3:51 pm

It was not until UHF Frequencies in 1952 and the “Space Race” began did Global Warming become an issue. Since the late 1950’s, there have been thousands of satellites launched into outer space and even more antennas built that transmit to those satellites on Earth. These Satellites orbit Earth in “Polar” and “Geo Stationary” orbits. One satellite covers an area the size of North America! With the overlapping of each satellite footprint, it is clear that as we increase the amount of satellites and the use of microwave transmissions to those satellites, the Global Warming of the Earth increases. Global Warming history completely coincides with the history of artificial satellites and the use of microwave frequencies. Today there are Satellite TV, Internet, GPS trackers, Cell phones, and a host of other uses that are increasing by the day with each of these products having millions of subscribers. Direct TV alone has 16.8 Million customers. The amount of microwave transmissions entering our atmosphere is staggering. It is not just a few hundred; but, millions of waves. http://globalmicrowave.org/
More conformation regarding microwave heating http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/ARI%20Study%20Report/ACT-RPT-NRG-ARI-04-9102-Environmental_impacts_of%20microwave_beams-Report.pdf

Reply to  jmorpuss
April 4, 2015 7:13 am

OK, but microwaves have much lower power than light or even infrared. We don’t worry about how much light is flooding our atmosphere, so microwaves are even a much-less concern. They can’t hurt anything unless placed in a microwave oven.

jmorpuss
Reply to  beng1
April 4, 2015 5:45 pm

beng1
“Prior to 1996, the wireless age was not coming online fast enough, primarily because communities had the authority to block the siting of cell towers. But the Federal Communications Act of 1996 made it nearly impossible for communities to stop construction of cell towers “even if they pose threats to public health and the environment”. http://nstarzone.com/WIRELESS.html

April 3, 2015 4:06 pm

I wrote a paper about the cooling effects of forests when I was a junior in college. That was many, many years ago. It wasn’t a new idea then.

April 3, 2015 4:07 pm

Exactly what Pielke Snr was on about a long time ago, and roundly ignored by the mainstream modellers.
eg https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/r-369.pdf. Why I have no idea

commieBob
Reply to  Terry
April 3, 2015 4:30 pm

I was thinking the same thing. Li, Motesharrei, and Kalnay carry on the ignorance by not citing Pielke.

Reply to  Terry
April 3, 2015 4:53 pm

But you could have an idea, because it is now well known that the modellers were only charged to model the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 under high sensitivity scenarios and an additional water vapor positive feedback.
I think the Pielke Sr. paper makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

ChipMonk
Reply to  Terry
April 3, 2015 9:34 pm

Thanks Terry, I also thought the same thing the moment I saw the title of this article. Dr. Pielke and many others were way ahead of this topic many years ago.
Also see: https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=land+use
I believe you will also find his frustration with the IPCC for myopic focus on CO2 and therefore his resignation from that organization.

Les
April 3, 2015 4:29 pm

Many years ago in a University Optics class, a professor once asked ” If black is the best color for absorption and emmission, while white is best color at minimizing absorption and emmission, what is the color where absorption is maximized and re-radiation is minimized?” The class sat silent for some moments… until a sudden inspiration hit me and I blurted out “Green!”. Surprised (at me getting the answer) the prof said, “OK, but what color green?” Thankfully inspiration returned to the rescue and like a flash I said “Dark green, the color of evergreen needles…” A bit flabbergasted (the research was still only in low circulation journals) he asked “How did you know that?” My answer back then was a much more immature version of ‘One look at a pacific northwest forest perpetually shourouded in cloud, or draped in snow should tell us that those green needles need all the warmth they gcan get and hold.’
So the question to all of you out there is – what color minimizes the absorption/emission ratio?
The albedo impact of de-forestation depends on the greens of the forest and the greens of the crops, and perhaps more important than straight albedo is the absorption emission ratio.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Les
April 3, 2015 7:21 pm

Les.
That assumes each of the two choices (black or white, light green or dark green, green or white) is on the exact same “texture” and microscopic material roughness and material heat transfer characteristics. Thus, both water and ice have nearly the same emmissivities, but a-carbon-blacked surface of plastic or gold behaves differently.

Editor
April 3, 2015 6:57 pm

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.“. For goodness’ sake, what’s wrong with these people? The impact is an unknown, so the text should say “less or more productive …..“.
Some change, even man-made change, can actually be positive, but in some quarters you would never discover that.

Bob Highland
April 3, 2015 8:09 pm

Here’s another angle on the effects of deforestation, on CO2 sequestration, written by Tim Casey in 2008.
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/
If his numbers are correct, which seems reasonable, the cumulative effect of deforestation since 1850 would appear to be a reduction in carbon sequestration capacity since then of about 38 gigatons per annum (in 2008), rising at 500 megatons a year with continued forest loss, which somewhat dwarfs human emissions of around 8 gigatons of carbon per year.
While the remaining vegetation and other biota are struggling valiantly, and successfully, to absorb more CO2 than formerly, the loss of so much forest in the industrial era would appear to be in itself a complete answer to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

Reply to  Bob Highland
April 5, 2015 12:51 pm

Thanks, Bob, but I doubt his numbers greatly. If they were correct, the total emissions from deforestation plus fossil fuel burning would be huge, and we see no sign of that. The cumulative human emissions since 1850 are on the order of 500 gigatonnes. According to your source the deforestation since then has put no less than 2,600 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.
The problem with his claims seems to lie here:

It is known that photosynthesis consumes about 120 gigatons of atmospheric carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, every year (Bowes, 1991).

He’s only looking at half of the equation. The NET effect of any mature forest on atmospheric carbon is zero. That is to say, the amount of carbon released by decaying plant matter equals that removed by the plants from the atmosphere. If this were not true, the soils of virgin forests would either contain no carbon or would be solid carbon.
w.

PA Mountain Man
April 3, 2015 8:11 pm

“a precise, quantitative estimation of the impact of forests depending on the geographical location, tracing it back to the changes in albedo and evapotranspiration,”
I have spent more than a few years doing “precise, quantitative estimations” of the cost of performing construction work. After years of tracking estimates versus real world costs to complete jobs I came to two conclusions. 1) Every estimate takes as much time/money as you have to complete the estimate and the more time and resources available the more you can convince yourself you know exactly what the project will cost when completed. 2) No estimate survives to see the day after you sign the contract.

Pamela Gray
April 3, 2015 8:57 pm

Now let’s just wait a minute here. Deforestation is one thing. Replanting with whatever is another thing entirely. Are they clearing the trees to plant something they can sell or are they just burning the wood? When people use that scary word, it conjures up denuded hillsides aka Mt. St. Helens. But sometimes the deforestation is replaced by terraced agriculture. With that, the calculations must take into account whatever the clearing is replanted with. Me thinks this issue is not quite as bad as the scary words in the title makes us think it is.

ChipMonk
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 3, 2015 9:48 pm

Pam, FYI… https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=land+use
Dr. Pielke has thought that land-use is a really big deal and the type of land-use cover has a direct impact. The papers are lengthy but the research was clear.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  ChipMonk
April 4, 2015 7:58 am

Not impressed. You “linked to a link that links to…” etc. Please post a link to the actual paper, read it, and tell me what you think, not what someone else thinks. I get so tired of the lack of effort put forth by some who insist on letting someone else provide them with an opinion that this or that is good evidence.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  ChipMonk
April 4, 2015 9:21 am

This one says it gets colder:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2641398?sid=21106346673773&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&uid=3739856
Note that this first paper is based solely on a model. Nothing else.
This one says it gets hotter:
http://ecosystems.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange02/agriculture/articles/REGIONAL.PDF
Note that the second paper I linked to is what is called a grey paper. Yes it made it into a Science magazine. But it is not research. It amazes me how much “peer reviewed research” spouting agriculture-sourced climate change, is actually modeled scenarios and grey papers.
My opinion is that statements harelding what is in reality very murky research built on thin ice is actually lipstick on a costumed pig.

mairon62
April 3, 2015 9:45 pm

I feel sorry for the poor guy caught holding the chainsaw. At the opposite end of our now global supply chains, wealthy hollywood greens play on their luxury yachts for which a gleaming mahogany interior and a teak deck are pretty much standard equipment. When they feel like it, they excoriate the harvesters of the raw materials (that they can’t get enough of) without a whiff of irony. Meanwhile they sit at the top of the pyramid and command the view.

sophocles
April 3, 2015 10:34 pm

This must be a first: ” Climate Disruption” actually being used correctly as in ‘anthropogenic.’
Humans cut down forest.
Local climate is disrupted.
Yay! Got a terminology hit. For once.
But is the science settled?

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
April 4, 2015 4:09 am

The article is highly hypothetical. Tropical forests are associated with high rainfall, high humidity, low evaporation/evapotranspiration, low temperatures with aquifers underneath. These aquifers help trees to be green throughout the year. When these areas are deforested then rainfall comes down and aquifers slowly disappear and thus increase temperature and evaporation/evapotranspiration. If these areas are brought under cultivation: rainfed or irrigated agriculture, the scenarios of climate are quite different based on the length of the period the land covers the vegetation.
In addition to these scenarios, the movement of the Sun creates different scenarios based on the angle of incident of Sunrays. Here the type of green cover either forest trees or crops also vary with seasons.
Let the authors compare the climate in terms of all meteorological parameters with the forests, after clearing forests and with crop planations, etc. Then only such study will carry some meaning.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

ChipMonk
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
April 4, 2015 6:41 am

Dr Reddy, you may find this series helpful… https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=land+use
Dr. Pielke has thought that land-use is a really big deal and the type of land-use cover has a direct impact. The papers are lengthy but the research was clear.
Also follow the “Older Posts” links at the bottom of each page for a history of other research.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  ChipMonk
April 4, 2015 9:31 am

Again, what do you think of the research? Have you critiqued the actual papers you provide an indirect link to?

Bruce Hall
April 4, 2015 11:08 am
Pamela Gray
Reply to  Bruce Hall
April 4, 2015 11:31 am

What part of your link is research based? It seems based on opinion.

April 4, 2015 11:31 am

Albedo Change “Earth has shifted” http://www.newspapper.indianlife.org/story/2015/01/05/news/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warming-to-nasa-and-the-world/582.html ,”Earth Matters:Earth’s tilt brings big changes during seasons of the year-Altoonamirror.com-Altoon,PA/News,Sports,Jobs,Comunity information-The Altoona Mirror http://shar.es/1fFoSQ and http://wp.me/p7y41-vDW

Pamela Gray
April 4, 2015 11:49 am

In response to the Kilimanjaro reference in the post, there is plenty of evidence to consider on all three sides: ENSO shift, deforestation, and/or AGW/disruption. The more variables, the more the different camps point to their pet theory.
Here is a paper that just examines whether or not ENSO parameters lead to change in rainfall patterns. No models. Just measured data.
http://iri.columbia.edu/~alesall/vacs-tma/indeje_intjclim2000.pdf

Bruce Hall
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 4, 2015 12:03 pm
Bruce Hall
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 4, 2015 12:06 pm
Pamela Gray
Reply to  Bruce Hall
April 4, 2015 12:29 pm

Sorry. First, your direct link doesn’t pass the “is it the clean waters of research or the dirty waters of a grey paper” smell test. Furthermore, the link you have refers to research using models, not observations.
It appears from the papers that I have linked to, the models would have a hard time staying off the ropes in a one to one match up with back casting in one corner, and observations in the other. And remember: with backcasting, models are trained and trimmed with fudge factors related to their pet anthropogenic theory whereas ENSO data and sensor rainfall data is data all the way down.
So it seems that natural variability alone is equally capable of correlating with rainfall patterns compared to anthropogenic-leaning models. What does that mean? Rainfall patterns are correlated with natural variation. Plain and simple. Anthropogenic this or that (deforesting, building, warming, hotting, pouring, huricaning, tornadoing, storming, flooding, sunning, clouding, cow farting, irrigating, plowing, breathing, disrupting, etc) need not apply. This begs the question, why all the money poured into searching for the anthropogenic holy grail?
I tell you what, God is laughing!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 4, 2015 12:12 pm

Here is another that appears to question AGW, deforestation, or just plain old Mother Nature and interannual precipitation patterns.
http://trmm.jpl.nasa.gov/global/JGR4607.pdf
I am left to wonder if human-sourced deforestation (as apposed to that caused by natural drought), and/or anthropogenic warming affects are minuscule and buried in the noise of natural variation.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 4, 2015 1:55 pm

meant to type: Here is another that appears to question “whether it is,,,”

Bruce Hall
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 4, 2015 7:52 pm

So… $hit happens?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 4, 2015 8:32 pm

No, I just didn’t take the time to proofread.

Bohdan Burban
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 5, 2015 9:04 am

California has experienced two ‘mega-droughts’ over the last millennium or so (Wikipedia): 850 AD – 1090 AD (240 years) and 1140 AD – 1320 AD (180 years). The brouhaha over the current drought is just that.

Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2015 7:26 am

Yes but chopping down rainforest for biofuels is ok, because biofuels are helping “save the planet”.

Robertv
April 5, 2015 9:05 am