“Physiological and ecological factors influencing recent trends in United States forest health responses to climate change”
Highlights
- • We review information on US forest health in response to climate change.• We found that trees are tolerant of rising temperatures and have responded to rising carbon dioxide.• No long-term trends in US drought have been found in the literature.• CO2 tends to inhibit forest pests and pathogens.• Projections of forest response to climate change are highly variable.
by Craig Loehle, Craig Idso, T. Bently Wigley
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.042 (Forest Ecology and Management) (h/t to Poptech)
Abstract: The health of United States forests is of concern for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, forest commercial values, and other reasons. Climate change, rising concentrations of CO2 and some pollutants could plausibly have affected forest health and growth rates over the past 150 years and may affect forests in the future. Multiple factors must be considered when assessing present and future forest health. Factors undergoing change include temperature, precipitation (including flood and drought), CO 2 concentration, N deposition, and air pollutants. Secondary effects include alteration of pest and pathogen dynamics by climate change. We provide a review of these factors as they relate to forest health and climate change. We find that plants can shift their optimum temperature for photosynthesis, especially in the presence of elevated CO2 , which also increases plant productivity. No clear national trend to date has been reported for flood or drought or their effects on forests except for a current drought in the US Southwest. Additionally, elevated CO2 increases water use efficiency and protects plants from drought. Pollutants can reduce plant growth but concentrations of major pollutants such as ozone have declined modestly. Ozone damage in particular is lessened by rising CO2 . No clear trend has been reported for pathogen or insect damage but experiments suggest that in many cases rising CO2 enhances plant resistance to both agents. There is strong evidence from the United States and globally that forest growth has been increasing over recent decades to the past 100+ years. Future prospects for forests are not clear because different models produce divergent forecasts. However, forest growth models that incorporate more realistic physiological responses to rising CO2 are more likely to show future enhanced growth. Overall, our review suggests that United States forest health has improved over recent decades and is not likely to be impaired in at least the next few decades.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Denser forests due to CO2 increase atmospheric H2O, the most potent GHG, and also kill Spotted Owls that can no longer fly effectively through the forests to catch ground dwelling rodents. How ironic, the decrease in Spotted Owls is due to CO2. LOL
“Denser forests due to CO2 increase atmospheric H2O, the most potent GHG, and also kill Spotted Owls that can no longer fly effectively through the forests to catch ground dwelling rodents. How ironic, the decrease in Spotted Owls is due to CO2. LOL”
I’m calling bullcrap on this one. Sorry. 🙂 It has nothing to do with increased CO2 nor do denser forests kill spotted owls.
Spotted Owls love old growth forests. The tree cover is higher (for flying) and the fallen logs and plants provide ample places for mice and snakes and other critters to breed-which they eat. Those old growth forests are being destroyed “due to agriculture, industrial development, urban sprawl. These are all factors that have contributed to the extensive loss and fragmentation of prime wildlife habitat”
http://www.defenders.org/habitat-conservation/defending-habitat
Which leads to the rise of the bar owl which is a genetically identical pattern shift of the spotted owl to hunt the open places from the cuts. Turns out the spotted owl also likes the suburban environment where nesting in billboards and hunting in yards is a good alternative.
OweninGA,
I think I’ve heard of the Bar Owl. Is this similar to the Bar Fly?;)
Obama will order [rest trimmed].
[Nuf said. .mod]
601nan
Odious garbage.
I hope the Mods let you know that you can keep your racist crap all to yourself. No matter which side of things you are alluding that it comes from.
Tom Bombadil reports that the trees are thriving in his beloved valley of the Withywindle. He says “”Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!”
Tom reports that the Ents are also thriving.
All is well in Middle Earth.
Many of the younger readers here wouldn’t know who Tom Bombadil was, as he was written out of the movies 🙂
You take that back tobyglyn and wash your mouth out with soap! (or your hands off with acid…lol) ALL of my young readers” read the book(s) too. Don’t assume that ANY of the readers here base their knowledge of Tolkien only on stuff that has the name “Jackson” attached to it. Dishonor on you and your family! 🙂
Thanks, Craig Loehle, Craig Idso, and T. Bently Wigley. Very good article.
Not that I expected anything bad from an increase in atmospheric CO2, just the opposite.
From the paper: ” No clear trend has been reported for pathogen or insect damage but experiments suggest that in many cases rising CO2 enhances plant resistance to both agents.”
Hmmm, I guess pine beetles didn’t get the memo. They’ve devastated tens of millions of acres of pine trees across the US and Canada. In British Columbia alone, 44 millions acres have been affected, an area the size of Missouri. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/pine-beetles/rosner-text
“Hmmm, I guess pine beetles didn’t get the memo.”
But the conclusions shouldn’t be that CO2 is not a help to them, but rather that some other agent has counter-acted it, like too little precipitation, which makes it hard for trees to produce enoungh insect-killing sap.
Higher CO2 means lower nighttime temperatures, and in winter this is important as it takes very cold temps to keep the populations in check. Increased drought, due to a mixture of AGW and natural causes, weakens the trees. And lack of forest fires which have wiped out the beetles in burn areas is also a factor. It is a combination of all of these.
There is no trend to more droughtiness in the US. In fact, the opposite is the case, as documented by Tony Heller on his blog.
And as far as I know, data shows a slight increase in night temps over time, but who can say if this is real or due to adjustments.
And there is no trend towards less cold weather anywhere.
The citrus industry in Florida, and agricultural interest in many other states, means that a very long and detailed history of cold weather in the south has been kept.
Last year was about the coldest on record in the Eastern US, and in other years in the recent past there have been intrusions of Arctic air far to the south in the Western States…including this year.
Even if one takes it as true that the data sets which show the most warming, the amount is tiny…less than a degree C.
So, what lack of cold air and/or increases in drought might be being referred to here?
Pine beetles are a problem wherever pine forest density is allowed to get to high. The fact that undergrowth management and thinning operations have not occurred in our forests is leading to two major things: rampant spread of pathogens and wildfires growing huge and out of control at the drop of a thunderstorm. This is a forest management problem not a CO2 problem.
CO2 contributes to both drought as well as higher nighttime minimum temps, which means higher pine beetle survival rate.
Is there any evidence that CO2 does either of those things?
And no, models aren’t evidence.
Temperature data for the Rockies: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044370
Something changed, ergo it must have been CO2.
It doesn’t take much to feed your delusions, does it?
“Something changed, ergo it must have been CO2.
It doesn’t take much to feed your delusions, does it?”
No matter what changes, it’s all natural. Apparently, your skeptical mind is not really interested in the science.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
Pine beetles are a natural part of the forest. The rampant infestation of a decade ago was the result of decades of fire suppression and the utter refusal of environmentalists to allow controlled burns or selective falling of trees in “old growth” forests. “Old growth” forests are dying forests, and the beetles just love them.
Best forest management practices include allowing the forest to burn as long as it doesn’t endanger people or their property. But many environmentalists live in large cities and have no idea of what the real world is like.
Perhaps the damage would be even worse if not for the CO2 fertilization and concurrent increased resistance to attack.
I try to eat healthfully and stay fit, but that does not prevent mosquitos from biting me, an occasional wasp sting, a very occasional cold, or any other ailment gonibg around. But I think it helps me keep those things from laying me low.
Chris
Any idea when and why this beetle evolved to eat pine trees?
At what point did humans involve themselves in this evolutionary track?
Why is it, in some areas, after the beetle attack, only 10% of trees are affected?
The United Nations International Panel on Plant Growth (UNIPPG) is soliciting proposals to determine:
1. whether man has influenced that growth
2. has there been a fair distribution of that growth
3. have native species been given priority preference for that growth.
If the proposers have early evidence, the design committee is welcoming precautionary principle suggestions for how to ameliorate the above problem and asks the applicants to consider a sliding scale, cost weighted approach considering the average GDP per nation.
It keeps the foamy head on top of a pint of good beer and makes trees grow bigger, stronger and healthier.
What’s not to like?
OT, but I saw a TV commercial for beer that was charged with nitrogen instead of CO2. Nitro beer, sounds explosive to me.
I think you’ll find the nitrogen is used to pressurise the casks to pump the beer rather than replacing the CO2 bubbles.
Guiness beer in csns and on draught contains nitrogen.
Helium in the beer sounds like more fun.
“Ozone damage in particular is lessened by rising CO2”
WR: Interesting!
Authors of papers: Loehle, Idso, and Wigley; they (probably) are have been too “cautious” conclusions.
These are similar, but more clear – evident:
… eg for U.S.:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/lulucf.html:
“The total carbon sequestration by the LULUCF sector has increased by about 14% since 1990…”
… tropic:
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/nasa-finds-good-news-on-forests-and-carbon-dioxide:
“A new NASA-led study shows that tropical forests may be absorbing far more carbon dioxide than many scientists thought, in response to rising atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas.”
… Sahel:
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-themes/landscapes/re-greening-sahel.html:
“Over the past decades the Sahel has often been portrayed as a region undergoing desertification; thus as a region plagued by recurring droughts and widespread land degradation, with severe famine as the outcome. Recent analysis of satellite data suggests, however, that this view of the Sahel may not be accurate. I n contrast, and to the surprise of many scientists and policy-makers, these studies reveal that large areas of the Sahel have in fact become increasingly green over the past 20 years.”
Dardel et al., 2014., Re-greening Sahel: 30 years of remote sensing data … : “Trends are found positive and statistically significant almost everywhere in Sahel over the 1981–2011 period.”
This is it case closed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xldmubli7UY
Since continental land masses are not evenly distributed throughout the globe won’t those extra, and extra large, growing trees add enough extra mass to disrupt the delicate balancing of our planet as it spins and wobbles its way around the sun? Won’t CO2 turn those trees into demonic menaces, disrupting the day/night cycles, the seasons,
….HELP!
Asia is going to tip right over, along with some Pacific islands.
Must be true…a congressman said it.
We be near the ” tipping point” now!
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
Source:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
“3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.”
———————
Wrong. CO2atm/ppm goes down in Summer and increases in Winter. You know that and you know why. That phenomenon could as easily be said that CO2 leads temps. Both statements by themselves are equally wrong.
CO2 lags temp by up to 800 years !
Marcus, what does that have to do with CO2/temp relationship on an annual time scale? Read what I said.
Alan Robertson (RE 3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.) “Wrong. CO2atm/ppm goes down in Summer and increases in Winter.”
Umm… for that you have no apparent correlation at all! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2012/to:2013/plot/esrl-co2/from:2012/to:2013/offset:-393
My statement should have read: …”Northern Hemisphere” Summer… and Winter. PIMF. Perhaps that caused confusion.
There is a clear correlation between CO2 on an annual basis and the action of the NH biosphere.
@ur momisugly Original Mike: Do you disagree?
Ps I’d be happier if people stopped using “Ummm…” It’s too cutesy by at least, an order of magnitude.
Alan Robertson wrote January 19, 2016 at 4:07 am
“3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.”
———————
Wrong. CO2atm/ppm goes down in Summer and increases in Winter. You know that and you know why. That phenomenon could as easily be said that CO2 leads temps. Both statements by themselves are equally wrong.
\
Allan MacRae says:
Nonsense Alan R. See my 2008 paper on icecap or this plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
BTW, the seasonal CO2 “sawtooth” that you reference also lags NH temperature and is driven by it.
Regards, Allan
Alan Robertson:
You assert
Sorry, but changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to global temperature by months. This was first determined by Kuo et al. in 1990, and several subsequent studies have confirmed it while revealing that the length of the lag increases with distance from the equator.
The seminal paper was Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thomson CJ, ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’, Nature 343, 709 – 714 (1990). It analysed Mauna Loa CO2 time series and its Abstract says
Richard
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2007/to:2013/plot/esrl-co2/from:2007/to:2013/offset:-390
Thoughts from 2009… …seem to be gaining popularity.
Best to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-79426
(Plant) Food for Thought (apologies – written too late at night)
Background:
http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html
1. “As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 ppm – will cease to grow or produce.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere
2. “The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 kyr BP (Before Present). During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials…
… On longer timescales, various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 myr BP of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 myr BP of over 6,000 ppm.”
Questions and meanderings:
According to para.1 above:
During Ice ages, does almost all plant life die out as a result of some combination of lower temperatures and CO2 levels that fell below 200ppm (para. 2 above)? If not, why not?
Does this (possible) loss of plant life have anything to do with rebounding of atmospheric CO2 levels as the world exits the Ice Age (in combination with other factors such as ocean exsolution)? Could this contribute to the observed asymmetry?
When all life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below 200ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.?
Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that they cause global warming?
Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
Regards, Allan 🙂
Updating to 2015: See points 9 to 12 below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/15/voxs-david-roberts-consilience-or-just-plain-silliness/comment-page-1/#comment-2098864
This is the dCO2/dt vs. temperature relationship I was referring to above. See my 2008 paper at:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
or this plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
There are several observations about this striking dCO2/dt vs. temperature relationship:
1. The dCO2/dt vs. temperature correlation is remarkably strong for a natural global phenomenon.
2. The integral (of dCO2/dt) is atmospheric CO2, and it LAGS temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record. CO2 also LAGS temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record. Thus CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales. Thus the global warming hypothesis assumes that the future is causing the past. Thus the CAGW hypothesis fails.
3. This close dCO2/dt vs temperature relationship indicates that temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
4. The dCO2/dt vs. temperature correlation is the only detailed signal I have found in the data – there is NO evidence that CO2 LEADS temperature or that increasing atmospheric CO2 significantly increases global temperature.
5. Furthermore, global temperature declined from ~1940-1975, increased from ~1975-2000, and has stayed flat (or cooled slightly) since ~2000, all while atmospheric CO2 increased; so the correlation of temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2 has been NEGATIVE, Positive, and Near-Zero. I suggest Near-Zero is the correct estimate of the sensitivity (ECS) of global temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2. There is and never had been a manmade global warming crisis – there is no credible evidence to support this failed hypothesis.
6. With few exceptions including some on this blog, nobody (especially the global warming alarmists) wants to acknowledge the LAG of CO2 after temperature – apparently this LAG of CO2 after temperature contradicts deeply-held beliefs about global warming dogma.
7. While basic physics may suggest that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the overwhelming observational evidence indicates that the impact of increasing CO2 on global temperature is so small as to be insignificant.
8. In summary, observational evidence strongly indicates that the manmade global warming crisis does not exist.
9. Finally, atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Plants evolved with about 2000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 5 times current CO2 concentrations.
10. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for all terrestrial life on this planet.
11. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestrations schemes are nonsense.
12. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against other life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂
Regards to all, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays!
– Allan
Thanks Allan, I have long thought that we came pretty close to going out during last glacial. Before we had even evolved. As the glacials seem to get colder and lower in C02 each time, I guess the next one will be the end. I read a comment in a paper yesterday. It was “we should all die now and give the earth a chance.” How many years has it taken to get to this level of intelligence?
Hi Eve,
The problem is that ALL terrestrial carbon-based life will end when atmospheric CO2 drops below about 150ppm. Not just the human species – but all terrestrial species.
Every kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species on Earth, with the exception of freshwater and sea creatures.
Maybe not during this next ice age, but one after that – in any case, the blink of an eye in geologic time.
Unless, of course, we get a lot smarter and recognize that the problem is not too much atmospheric CO2 but too little, and decide to do something about it. And what are the odds of that, with the crop of leaders we have now?
So we will give the Earth to non-carbon based species – I understand there are some out there, but they are likely to take billions of years to evolve into someone you can converse with – if ever.
If that is “giving Mother Earth a chance”, she might prefer carbon-based life forms after all.
My best to you and Adam, Allan 🙂
Hold on there just a second. We all know that CO2 is a pollutant. Therefore, these trees are polluted trees! Let’s chop’em all down.
Chop down the trees, the flowers, the birds, and insects, to make room for solar and wind farms.
And don’t forget to cut them up.
And burn them in my fire place on a cold winter night…
Most of the USA’s virgin forest was gone before 1920. http://www.endgame.org/oldgrowth3.jpg
Before coal became widely used we had clear cut vast areas of hardwood forest such as in Pennsylvania.
Johnsonburg PA in 1895 http://fusiafuscafamily.com/johnsonburg1895.jpg versus now http://i.pbase.com/g3/86/571686/2/66433077.9ZtZ4oWq.jpg
I keep saying over and over – switching from wood to coal as fuel, (and from wood to steel and/or concrete for large structures) is what saved our forests! Now it is additionally clear that burning coal is also good for our forests.
Agree Mike – all good points.
We can lend you some forest of you feel the need – we have over 300 million hectares (750 million acres) of boreal forest in Canada. That is about 1000 km north-south and about 6000 km east-west. But it appears you have some left in Maine and a lot more in the US Northwest and Alaska – a total of about one billion acres of forest between Canada and the USA. 🙂
What amazes me is the cutting and pelletizing of forests in the USA and Canada to fuel power plants in Europe. Apparently it replaces coal. This is enviro-lunacy – the result when scoundrels and imbeciles take over government policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel
Best, Allan
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/boreal/17394
Worldwide, the boreal zone covers:
•1.9 billion hectares
•14% of Earth’s land
•33% of Earth’s forested area
Canada has:
•28% of the world’s boreal zone – that’s 552 million hectares
•75% of all of its forests and woodlands in the boreal zone – that’s 307 million hectares in total
Basic physics, CO 2 does not create heat, rather heat creates CO 2.
“Future prospects for forests are not clear because DIFFERENT MODELS PRODUCE DIVERGENT FORECASTS.”
So they’ve noticed that too, eh?
Ristvan @7:06AM
Your number is incorrect.
Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report To Congress August 2013.
20,408,000,000. This includes tax provisions and payments in lieu of tax provisions.
CO2 is very good for trees and all vegetation. It makes vegetation less reliant on water and grow faster. CO2 inhibits forest pests and pathogens. Good vegetation is good for us too.
The idea that CO2 is a danger or a pollutant is inverse nonsense. Rising temperature cause more CO2 not the other way around. Slowly the fog of deception is dispersing.
As a consulting forester in my own business I help private landowners manage their forest land. Most forest land needs improvement cuttings – removing trees with poor stem quality and/or wispy live crowns which produce little diameter growth while retaining those trees with good stem quality and superior live crowns which can produce good diameter growth. Good forestry can double the growth rate of the more desirable trees by increasing the spacing between crop trees.
Many studies have shown the increase in CO2 has had a significant positive impact on the growth rates of our forests, but most of them always claim other greater negative effects like an increase in droughts which has never been proven. The real threat to our forests is not climate change but non-native insects such as the hemlock wooly adelgid, the emerald ash borer, and the Asian longhorned beetle and non-native invasive plants such as oriental bittersweet, Japanese barberry, and multiflora rose. It would be far better for the environment if funds and subsidies from the many climate studies and renewable energy schemes like wind & solar were instead directed to eradicating these real threats to our forests.