Oh Noes! Ecosystems are getting greener in the Arctic

Researchers develop technique to better predict how plants in cold regions respond to warming

DOE/LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

In recent decades, scientists have noted a surge in Arctic plant growth as a symptom of climate change. But without observations showing exactly when and where vegetation has bloomed as the world’s coldest areas warm, it’s difficult to predict how vegetation will respond to future warming. Now, researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and UC Berkeley have developed a new approach that may paint a more accurate picture of Arctic vegetation and our climate’s recent past – and future.

In a study published online Aug. 20 in Nature Climate Change, the researchers used satellite images taken over the past 30 years to track – down to a pixel representing approximately 25 square miles – the ebb and flow of plant growth in cold areas of the northern hemisphere, such as Alaska, the Arctic region of Canada, and the Tibetan Plateau.

The 30-year historic satellite data used in the study were collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer. The data was processed by Boston University, and is hosted on NEX – the NASA Earth Exchange data archive.

At first, the satellite data showed what they expected – that as Arctic climates warmed, tree and plant growth increased. After comparing these observations with state-of-the-art climate models developed for CMIP5 – the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 – what they discovered next surprised them.

Current and predicted changes in areas around the world where vegetation responds strongly to warming. Shaded areas represent areas where vegetation growth was limited by cold temperatures at the start of the observational record (1982-1986) but was not by the corresponding year. Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 is a carbon emissions target to limit temperature increases to two degrees Celsius, while RCP 8.5 represents a scenario where carbon emissions are not limited and temperature increases exceed two degrees Celsius.
CREDIT Trevor Keenan and William Riley/Berkeley Lab

Their data analysis revealed that 16 percent of Earth’s vegetated land where plant growth was limited by cold temperatures three decades ago is no longer predominantly temperature-limited today, a result that was not reproduced by the CMIP5 models tested. “Our findings suggest that CMIP5’s predictions may have significantly underestimated changes in the Arctic ecosystem, and climate models will need to be improved to better understand and predict the future of the Arctic,” said first author Trevor Keenan, a faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth & Environmental Sciences Area and an assistant professor in UC Berkeley’s department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management.

Keenan and Riley used the satellite data to build a new observational benchmark that quantifies the growing expanse of vegetated land in the northern hemisphere. They also estimated changes in the proportion of the Earth’s surface where plant growth will no longer be limited by cold temperatures over the 21st century. Keenan and Riley project that by the year 2100, only 20 percent of vegetated land in the northern hemisphere will still be limited by cold conditions that have been in place there for centuries; the remaining 80 percent will no longer experience sufficiently cold temperatures, and with earlier springs, plants will grow sooner, in unexpected places and to an unexpected degree.

“Although the greening might sound like good news as it means more carbon uptake and biomass production, it represents a major disruption to the delicate balance in cold ecosystems,” said Keenan. “Temperatures will warm sufficiently so that new species of trees could move in and compete with vegetation that had previously dominated the landscape. This change in vegetation would also affect insects and animals that relied on native vegetation for food.”

Scientists collaborating through the World Climate Research Programme developed the CMIP5 models to help researchers around the world gain a better understanding of the relationship between carbon emissions and global warming, among other goals. International consortiums such as the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) have also used CMIP5 projections to inform policy decisions. Keenan said that while the CMIP5 models provided researchers with a broad overview of the problem, they do not always accurately represent the important roles plants play in reflecting light back into the atmosphere, sending water back into the atmosphere, and absorbing carbon dioxide.

“No one has looked at high-latitude systems from this angle before as they are very complex, but they’re important as they control multiple feedbacks to the Earth system,” said co-author William Riley, a senior scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth & Environmental Sciences Area.

Now that Keenan and Riley have established a standard approach for assessing climate models, they plan to explore how they can use more advanced statistical techniques, such as machine learning, to quantify how soil organic matter properties, atmospheric carbon dioxide, wildland fires, and temperature, will affect climate in the 21st century.

###

The study was funded by DOE’s Office of Science. Additional funding was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

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
58 Comments
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
August 22, 2018 3:46 am

How do such study differenciates between natural variation and global warming {if any}?

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Sam C Cogar
August 22, 2018 4:00 am

“the researchers used satellite images taken over the past 30 years to track – down to a pixel representing approximately 25 square miles –

Their data analysis revealed that 16 percent of Earth’s vegetated land where plant growth was limited by cold temperatures three decades ago is no longer predominantly temperature-limited today,”

And satellite radar projection/reception has improved “how much” during the past 30 years?

RyanS
August 22, 2018 4:00 am

I was just reading this: Arctic plant diversity in the Early Eocene greenhouse here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282332/

“Alligators and Tapir”. Amazing.

old construction worker
August 22, 2018 4:15 am

“Although the greening might sound like good news ….major disruption ….delicate balance …” I as a tax pay don’t mind paying for climate research but don’t feed me B.S.

Ewin Barnett
August 22, 2018 4:22 am

You mean green, like the green when Mammoths were flash frozen with plant leaves still in their stomachs some 12,000 years ago in Siberia?

JOHN S CHISM
August 22, 2018 4:27 am

Climate Alarmist always look at the negative aspects. They’re worried about some bugs and cold weather plants that may suffer from warming temperatures. But they make it sound like having new growth of other species is a negative and the new insects that may bring to those regions. This Climate Change to them is a bad thing and want everything to remain the same, while they do not believe in evolution that has occurred throughout the history of Earth.

ralfellis
August 22, 2018 4:46 am

The Arctic was 2 degrees warmer than now, during the Holocene Maximum just 9,000 years ago. And the Siberian Taiga forest was up to 200 km further north than now. And at the same time, most of the Sahara was green and fertile.

Sounds like a win-win to me. What is not to like?

R

Peta of Newark
August 22, 2018 4:50 am

Aw that’s epic news – whole new places to grow (more) coconut oil.
There is hope – its looking good.

What prompted: I *presently* do have sight (no sound) of a TV – showing Sky News and 2 consecutive stories just gone past are: Arctic ice melt and something to do with coconut oil.
Proof that there *is* a God and whoever *is* trying to tell us something.

Presently showing an overly made-up & bleached cougar with bottle of white wine at a table in the middle of the road in (I think) Brussels and a newspaper also on the table with headline = “No Deal”
Too true lady, Seattle Sarah is enough for me
😀
and I don’t drink so scrap the vino

commieBob
August 22, 2018 4:56 am

These researchers need to consider what happened during the, quite recent in geological terms, Holocene Climate Optimum. The tree line was a lot farther north. It was as much as seven degrees warmer in the arctic than it is now. link We know what will happen if it gets warmer in the arctic because it happened before.

The alarmists can easily ignore fossil forests that are tens of millions of years old. They should not be able to ignore the entirely natural climate that existed as recently as 5000 years ago.

August 22, 2018 4:58 am

It’s not that long until the 2020 color band will be on us, and the projections of this study can be validated (or not).

Latitude
August 22, 2018 5:19 am

It’s unexpected…..CMIP5 didn’t model it

…so they admit the models only do what they tell it to do

August 22, 2018 5:28 am

With the Arctic warming, as if, I’d like to see which plants they are talking about that grows in – 30 C. That’s minus 30 C .
Are they sure this is scientific based or political wishful thinking. I’ve looked at the temperatures in the Arctic, they look like they are running slightly below average.

Charles Higley
August 22, 2018 5:30 am

This observation is a no-brainer once one realizes that it does not have to get warmer or significantly warmer to get the increased vegetation they observe. Higher CO2 makes plants more tolerant of both warmth and cold, such that plants in the UK now come up in the Spring two weeks earlier than 70-some years ago. However, the UK has not warmed, with CO2 enabling plants to grow and bloom at lower temperatures, thus more green.

So, the increased atmospheric CO2 is allowing Arctic plants to grow where they could not before without the increased CO2. No global warming required, which is why the models fail once again.

““Although the greening might sound like good news as it means more carbon uptake and biomass production, it represents a major disruption to the delicate balance in cold ecosystems,” said Keenan.

As they know so little about the Arctic ecosystems, to claim this is a major disruption, in light of it having been much warmer a number of times in the last 2000 years, is clear alarmism and propaganda.

Thomas Homer
August 22, 2018 5:34 am

More life results from increasing the base of the food chain –> that ‘surprised’ the researchers?

More atmospheric CO2 feeds more life –> therefore we need to tax it?

richard
August 22, 2018 5:38 am

1952- “The speed of growth of plants, in the Arctic is phenomenal. For example,- in Arctic Lapland, a farmer pointed across a field of knee-high grassand said: “Up here we get as many as three crops, whereas down south they are lucky if they get two.” In Northern Canada, way above the Arctic Circle, clover grows to a height of four feet by mid-July. Two crops are not uncommon. Potatoes average 100 bushels to the acre. In time the Arctic will supply food for populations of many millions.”

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/197883792?searchTerm=Arctic%20glaciers%20receding%20more%20flowers%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&searchLimits=

richard
August 22, 2018 5:51 am

FLOWERS IN ARCTIC REGIONS.
The Daily News (Perth, WA : 1882 – 1950) Thursday 29 May 1919

RUSSIA “FARMING IN ARCTIC CIRCLE”
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate (NSW : 1876 – 1954) Monday 14 February 1949

Wheat in Arctic Swamps
The Queenslander (Brisbane, Qld. : 1866 – 1939) Thursday 25 March 1937 p

World Achievement The Arctic Potato
The Maitland Daily Mercury (NSW : 1894 – 1939) Wednesday 27 September 1939

THE “TROPIC” ARCTIC.
Shepparton Advertiser (Vic. : 1914 – 1953) Thursday 11 December 1930

1930- “Botanists travelling near the northern coast of Canada, not many hundred miles from the North Pole, have catalogued over 700 varieties of flowering plants, while forests of trees, more than 70 feet high and 14 inches through the butt, are to be found”

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/72648212?searchTerm=farming%20in%20the%20arctic%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&searchLimits=

ARCTIC REGION NOT BARREN
Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878 – 1954) Saturday 3 June 1933

The Fertile Arctic
Recorder (Port Pirie, SA : 1919 – 1954) Thursday 12 October 1933 p

1907- “Millions of birds go to the Arctic regions to breed,” said an explorer. “They get there the finest rarest food that is to be found in the whole world.” The vegetation of tbe tnndra, or greatArctic swamp, consists of cranberries,cloudberries, and crowberries—hundreds of millions of bushes and hundreds of millions of fruit”

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/196782094?searchTerm=growing%20crops%20in%20the%20%20arctic%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&searchLimits=

(Love this one) Worth Knowing ANTS IN THE ARCTIC.
Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932) Thursday 14 May 1914

and on and on and on…..

Steven Mosher
August 22, 2018 5:56 am

Some one tell those plants that it’s not getting warmer. It’s all uhi.

François
August 22, 2018 6:18 am

Correlation is not causation, nor is it collusion either. The post is about an increase in temperatures in the Arctic (which is not denied) increasing the vegetation there, vaguely relating it all to a stagnant (sort of) amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by the way, with outdated figures, cfcomment image). What is the point?

Crispin in Waterloo
August 22, 2018 6:26 am

They sound desperate in the analysis to find a way to describe warming and vegetation growth as a problem, but let’s retrace a couple of steps:

“…it’s difficult to predict how vegetation will respond to future warming…”

Say what? How about asking a few Canadian farmers or farm extension officers from Agriculture Canada how vegetation responds to warming, if they are that clueless. If the ‘investigators” are unaware that there are farmers in Northern Canada, they should do more homework before speculating that the plant profile may change and eliminate the food supply of the few animals that manage to survive “up there”. The animals may appreciate a few additions to their larder.

“There are about 270 vascular plant species, 325 mosses, around 100 liverworts and 550 to 600 lichens on the Arctic islands”.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/arctic-archipelago/

Hardly enough to support meandering herds which used to roam the islands when it was a lot warmer. There is probably a less in there somewhere.

Further south on the tundra among the blueberries there are tiny, stunted trees in their billions that are waiting for the temperature to rise a little so they can expand into their former growing areas. The article is written as if this has never happened before in support of the idea that a (slightly) warmer Arctic is somehow unprecedented. This is not even fear-mongering, it is ignorance.

The only thing of interest to me in the article is that they surveyed the areas where plant growth is accelerating because of temperature change and or CO2 fertilisation, shows that the latest climate models do not capture this.

Why not? One of the most obvious things about the melting of a region of permafrost is that the plant growth accelerates, producing a forest as fast as limiting conditions permit.

The idea that permafrost will melt and produce a huge amount of methane is just another meme born of ignorance, spread be those who never asked how that biomass came to be there in the first place.

So far they discovered what and Northern Canadian farmer already knew: that when it is warmer plants do better, and something we all know: that the Models are inadequate.

Yawn. I need more coffee. This is boring.

August 22, 2018 7:43 am

Hey, the polar bears can go back to being brown bears and hunt in the forest. Woohoo!

Editor
August 22, 2018 7:43 am

I remember reading something here recently about Global Greening…..

Dale S
August 22, 2018 9:03 am

I’m not sure why CMIP5 failing to model regional climatic effects would be news. To my knowledge, the only thing CMIP5 models semi-successfully model is global temperature anomaly trends (actual *temperatures* not so much), and that only if your expectations are low.

Robert of Ottawa
August 22, 2018 10:06 am

What’s this? Ecosystems are getting Ecoier?

LadyLifeGrows
August 22, 2018 10:06 am

“without observations showing exactly when and where vegetation has bloomed as the world’s coldest areas warm, it’s difficult to predict how vegetation will respond to future warming.”
Since when have alarmists successfully predicted ANYTHING?

But note that, once again, alarmists are COMPLAINING about increased life and growth. They are psychotic, evil.

And is it temperatures that cause the growth? or is it the carbon dioxide itself, like everywhere else on Earth?

August 22, 2018 10:30 am

I note that the satellite used, Fapar, does not cover above 75N or below 60S.

Not much of the Arctic/Antarctic covered then?