From the NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and the “playing with climate models for doom outcomes is too stupid to be science” department.

Envisioning a future where all the trees in Europe disappear
Using climate models to take a deeper look at the regional effects of global warming
Vegetation plays an important role in shaping local climate: just think of the cool shade provided by a forest or the grinding heat of the open desert.
But what happens when widespread changes, caused by or in response to global warming, take place across larger areas? Global climate models allow researchers to play out these kinds of thought experiments. The answers that result can serve as a warning or a guide to help policymakers make future land use decisions.
With this as a backdrop, a team of researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and Justus-Liebig University Giessen in Germany decided to use a regional climate model to see what would happen if land use in Europe changed radically. They looked what would happen with air temperature, precipitation, and temperature extremes if Europe were completely deforested to either bare land or just ground vegetation. They also considered what might happen if Europe’s cropland were converted to either evergreen or deciduous forests.
The researchers knew that climate change impacts tend to be underestimated at a regional level, “because the projected global mean temperature changes are dampened by averaging over the oceans, and are much smaller than the expected regional effects over most land areas,” the team wrote in their paper, recently published in Environmental Research Letters. “This applies to both mean and extreme effects, as changes in regional extremes can be greater than those in global mean temperature up to a factor of three.”
“We wanted to perform a quantitative analysis of how much land cover changes can affect local climate. Important transitions in the land use management sector are envisioned in near future, and we felt important to benchmark the temperature response to extreme land cover changes”said Francesco Cherubini, a professor in NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme, and first author of the study. “Decisions regarding land uses are frequently taken at a subnational level by regional authorities, and regional projections of temperature and precipitation effects of land cover changes can help to maximize possible synergies of climate mitigation and adaptation policies, from the local to the global scale.”
Future extreme land use changes are not as improbable as you might think. As the global population continues to grow, more land will come under pressure to produce food.
Alternatively, demand for crops for biofuels could also drive what kind of vegetation is cultivated and where.
One future vision of what the world might look like, called Shared Socio-economic Pathways, estimates that global forest areas could change from about – 500 million hectares up to + 1000 million hectares in 2100, with between 200 and 1500 million hectares of land needed to grow bioenergy crops. In fact, the higher end of this range could be realized under the most ambitious climate change mitigation targets.
Changes in land use can have a complicated effect on local and regional temperatures.
When the ground cover is altered, it changes how much water is retained by the soil or lost to evaporation. It can also affect how much sunlight the ground reflects, which scientists call albedo.
The researchers knew that other studies had shown contradictory effects, particularly from deforestation. Some showed that deforestation reduced air temperatures near the ground surface, and increased daily temperature extremes and number of hot days in the summer. Other studies found increases in the occurrence of hot dry summers.
But when the researchers ran their model to see what would happen if land was deforested, they found a slight annual cooling over the region overall, but big differences locally.
Their model showed that when forests were replaced by bare land, the temperatures cooled by just -0.06 ? regionally. The cooling was slightly greater (-0.13? regionally) if the researchers assumed that forests were replaced by herbaceous vegetation. In some locations, cooling can exceed average values of -1 C.
On their own, these regional changes may not seem like much. But when the researchers looked more closely at how these changes were distributed across the region, they found that there was a cooling in the northern and eastern part of the region, and a warming effect in western and central Europe. They also found that deforestation led to increased summer temperature extremes.
“Regional cooling from deforestation might look counter-intuitive, but it is the outcome of the interplay among many different physical processes. For example, trees tend to mask land surface and increase the amount of solar energy that is not reflected back to the space but it is kept in the biosphere to warm the climate,” said Bo Huang, a postdoc in the Industrial Ecology Programme who was one of the paper’s co-authors. “This particularly applies to areas affected by seasonal snow cover, because open land areas covered by snow are much more reflective than snow-covered forested land.”
The researchers found an annual average cooling across the whole of Europe, but with a clear latitudinal trend and seasonal variability. Despite the average cooling effects, they found that deforestation tends to increase local temperatures in summer, and increase the frequency of extreme hot events.
When the researchers ran their model to see what would happen if cropland was replaced by either evergreen or deciduous forests, they found a general warming in large areas of Europe, with a mean regional warming of 0.15 ? when the transition was to evergreen forests and 0.13 ? if the transition was to deciduous forests.
Much as in the deforestation thought experiment, the researchers found that the changes were stronger at a local scale, as much as 0.9 °C in some places. And the magnitude and significance of the warming gradually increased at high latitudes and in the eastern part of the region. Areas in western Europe actually showed a slight cooling.
Cherubini says that understanding how regional vegetation changes play out at more local levels is important as decision makers consider land management policies to mitigate or adapt to climate change.
“It is important to increase our knowledge of land-climate interactions, because many of our chances to achieve low-temperature stabilization targets are heavily dependent on how we manage our land resources,” Cherubini said. “We need more research to further validate and improve the resolution of regional climate change projections, since they are instrumental to the design and implement the best land management strategies in light of climate change mitigation or adaptation.”
###
Here’s the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac794/meta
It will reduce the number of trees; to combat this imaginary threat, all the trees will be cut down to make room for unreliable windmills. See Scotland’s efforts for further details.
My sanity prevents me joining this discussion.
Anthony
You have an irritating habit of creating headlines that do not match the article.
They are not saying “global warming will cause all the trees in Europe to disappear” they are saying “removing trees would cause climate change.” So you have got cause and effect the wrong way round.
There are plenty of stupid things about this study, without needing to misrepresent it.
The article speculates that Europeans will cut down all the trees to make room for more crops due to the imagined decrease in agricultural productivity that more CO2 is supposed to cause sometime in the future.
They start “In the different Shared Socio-economic Pathways, global forest areas are predicted to change from about −500 Mha up to + 1000 Mha in 2100” so the range is suggesting an increase is most likely. Granted, they then go on “and between 200 and 1500 million ha of land will be required to grow bioenergy crops” which suggests less land for forest. Perhaps forests are one of the bioenergy crops.
Note that Anthony’s “after” picture just shows the trees removed, no crop in their place.
…The researchers knew that climate change impacts tend to be underestimated at a regional level, “because the projected global mean temperature changes are dampened by averaging over the oceans, and are much smaller than the expected regional effects over most land areas”…
Global mean temperature changes aren’t the basis for estimating climate impacts at regional levels. Clueless much?
Here’s another CLiMATE MODELLING THOUGHT experiment related to reforestation in Alberta for your enjoyment. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022977
[Quote from article]”For example, trees tend to mask land surface and increase the amount of solar energy that is not reflected back to the space but it is kept in the biosphere to warm the climate,” said Bo Huang, a postdoc in the Industrial Ecology Programme who was one of the paper’s co-authors. “This particularly applies to areas affected by seasonal snow cover, because open land areas covered by snow are much more reflective than snow-covered forested land.”
An interesting point. In winter, with a low sun angle to the south most of the day, most sunlight reflects off snow-covered open land, but dark tree trunks standing vertically will absorb the sun’s heat on the south side, and re-radiate it toward nearby ground. Has anyone noticed how snow tends to melt faster to the south of tree trunks than in open or grassy areas? Deforestation can cause cooling in winter!
As an aside, those pictures of the approach to the Eiffel Tower are a poor example of deforestation. In the “Before” picture, the trees along the right side have their foliage cut into box-shaped blocks. This is frequently done to trees lining a street or courtyard in France, but the foliage of trees left to grow naturally has a more ovoid or cone shape, and their branches shade a larger area. The “Before” picture has already been partially deforested!
In coniferous forests ( like most Northern forests) the sun doesn’t get down to the base of the trees at any time of year. This means that the snow stays on the ground until it is melted by higher air temperatures. This can be several weeks later than in open country. Especially on North facing slopes.
Drop me a line when somebody comes up with a computer model that tells them something they didn’t program it to say.
Well I’m sure the models will give an accurate picture of the potential changes to forest, vegetation and temperature. (not)
Here is how I know.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Notice in their dystopian future, much of the deforestation is actually caused by “fighting climate change”, via biofuels, and wind and solar farms. Thus their own bogeyman, “climate change” indirectly causes other bogeymen, like deforestation. Pretty soon, you wind up with Dantes 9 Circles of Hell.
During the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, the Earth was warmer than today with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels but CO2 levels were lower than today. There is no evidence that trees in Europe disappeared during the Eemian. I believe that the continental ice sheets that formed during the last ice age had a more devastating effect on trees than periods or warmer climate and higher CO2 levels.
I think these guys should get out of the science fiction stuff. There are people who are really good at predicting dystopic future Earth’s such as the authors of ‘Hunger Games’, in which the land is heavily forested, and ‘Divergent’, in which plants outnumber humans even in what is left of Chicago.
I mean, really, I expect to see an apatasaurus trimming the treetops in my back yard, any day now.
We here in Oz are a bit warmer than Europe and there are lots of trees . They tend to grow back after being cut down as well.
Another self satisfaction dreamland scenario by utterly biased clueless scientifically ignorant money wasters.
What is this? Some sort of effort to write the worst possible fictional nightmares as pretend science?
No, global cooling will do that, as they are all cut down and used to heat.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Is someone paying such folks to sit around and invent fantasy (aka models) about dastardly happenings if the climate warms? It is beyond bizarre. Obviously like many in the USA they have had no history whatsoever. They certainly have not been taught to think critically, though I would imagine they would argue otherwise. I would trust a good science fiction writer before these idiots.
Wow, a really exciting paper – at least it would have been if printed on toilet tissue & donated to the destitute who don’t have any. This is just navel-gazing garbage. What benefit to mankind could possibly arise from the arse-backwards idea these twits acted out in a vain, & expensive, attempt to influence global policy-makers.
…”The answers that result can serve as a warning or a guide to help policymakers make future land use decisions.”
===========
That’s the ticket, never mind the science, this is about influencing the “policymakers”.
“…because the projected global mean temperature changes are dampened by averaging over the oceans, and are much smaller than the expected regional effects over most land areas,”
This is purely speculative. The models have not been validated, and nothing they project is believable until they are. The idea that weather will vary is hardly news. Claiming that it will vary more is pure speculation. Maybe it will vary less.
And what are “most land areas” anyway? Where it varies less, that was outside the “most” and if it happens that it appears to “vary more” that in inside the “most”? This is intellectual puffery.
“As the global population continues to grow, more land will come under pressure to produce food.”
The population is forecast to stop growing in about 2050 as living standards rise around the world. When land is “under pressure to produce more food” it could be tree crops that are planted, or mixed fields and tree crops. “Crops” doesn’t mean “monocrops”. Advances in agriculture bring multi-cropping with a host of symbiotic relationships known in permaculture as “plant guilds”. This speculative paper seems to have the aura of the New York Horse Manure story where the future is the past, only more.
I think there should also be a link to the press release, because that’s where the juice is.
“Their model showed that when forests were replaced by bare land, the temperatures cooled by just -0.06 ?”
That’s just crazy. Trees transpire more water than grass and much more than bare land (which dries out within days). The transpiration of water is what keeps the land cool. So if you replace forest with bare land, we would expect an increase in temperature, not a decrease.
Oh, wait. He said model. That explains everything.
On behalf of my fellow countrymen/women, I apologize for this rubbish……
Germany went through all this before with acid rain in the 80s, and . . . . nothing happened.
Well, this is certainly true for The Netherlands. Trees are disappearing like snow for the sun because they are cut and sold as bio-fuel.
A lot of fools out there, even in Norway obviously…