Wrong, Phys.Org, Boreal Forests Are Doing Well Amid Modest Warming

From ClimateREALISM

By H. Sterling Burnett

Phys.org published an article describing research which claims, “world’s boreal forests may be shrinking.” This claim is refuted by data showing that boreal forests are experiencing a general greening trend, with forest extent and leaf cover expanding, the same as other ecosystems and bioregions.

The Phys.org story, “The world’s boreal forests may be shrinking as climate change pushes them northward,” cites research which speculates that the southern fringe of the boreal forests could shrink faster than its northern boundary expands, leading to an overall decline in biodiversity in largely wild boreal forests which “circle our planet’s far northern reaches, just south of the Arctic’s treeless tundra… The boreal region’s soils have long buffered the planet against warming by storing huge quantities of carbon and keeping it out of the atmosphere.”

At the outset, it is clear that there is more than a small amount of uncertainty in the claims made by the researchers at Phys.org. The article is long on speculation. What data it presents lend limited credence to the concerns raised about declining boreal forests. Concerning trends of slowing growth and a two-year relative dry spell at the boreal forest’s southern fringe, which was accompanied by increased insect infestation and wildfires, they write:

“If this happens at a larger scale, southern boreal forest boundaries will thin and degrade, thereby retreating farther north, where temperatures are still suitable.”

Yet, they acknowledge that the expansion of forests in the Northern Boundary could cancel out losses at the Southern boreal forest rang, writing:

“If boreal forests expand northward and retreat in the south at the same rates, they could slowly follow warming temperatures. … Will trees in the far north ever catch up with climate and prevent forest contraction? At this point, scientists simply don’t know.”

Leaving aside the speculation and examining what we do know with some certainty about the boreal forests. In the Phys.org’s own words:

Our recent studies using satellite data showed that tree growth and tree cover increased from 2000 to 2019 throughout much of the boreal forest.

Our studies also revealed that tree growth and tree cover often decreased from 2000 to 2019 in warmer southern areas of the boreal forests.

Satellite data makes it clear that climate change is affecting both the northern and southern margins of the boreal forest. However, if tree cover loss in the south occurs more rapidly than gains in the north, then the boreal forest will likely contract, rather than simply shifting northward.

There’s that pesky word, “if” again. Leaving the speculation aside, the researchers’ own data indicate that although there has been some decline in the tree cover at the southern edge of the boreal forest, there has been an increase in tree growth and tree cover for the boreal forest as a whole. This suggests that the northern expansion and growth is occurring faster than any southern decline, meaning the boreal forests, like other forests around the world, are adapting to climate change and benefitting like plant life in general has from increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Indeed, satellite data indicates that from a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands have experienced significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, as NASA researchers reported in a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. In fact, boreal forests have been among the biggest beneficiaries. The graphic below, from NASA, indicates that boreal forests are greening faster than most of the world’s other ecosystems, in general.

This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015.
Credits: Boston University/R. Myneni

Note that boreal forests are amongst the few areas with the deepest green color, indicating a greater than 50 percent increase in growth.

NASA’s satellite-based assessment of the upward trend in boreal forests was confirmed in a 2019 study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, which found:

Of the 3861 514 km2 in the study region [Arctic-Boreal area], nearly half (1648 210 km2; 42.7% of the domain) showed significant NDVI trends. About a third of the domain (1309 937 km2; 33.9%) was greening and just under a tenth of the domain (338 272 km2; 8.8%) was browning (figure 1(a)).

So, amid climate change, tree growth and range expansion across the Earth’s boreal forests exceed tree decline, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Following the science means following the data which shows that the Earth’s boreal forests have benefited from increased carbon dioxide concentrations and modest warming. One can speculate all day, as the researchers responsible for the Phys.org story did, but in doing so, being honest, they should have suggested that things were getting better for the boreal forests, not that they were likely “shrinking,” or that they and the wildlife that inhabit them were threatened by the Earth’s modest warming. The latter may fit the popular alarmist’s narrative that a climate disaster is in the offing, but it does not reflect the facts.

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News. In addition to directing The Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, Burett puts Environment & Climate News together, is the editor of Heartland’s Climate Change Weekly email, and the host of the Environment & Climate News Podcast.

5 14 votes
Article Rating
27 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
michael hart
November 10, 2023 6:09 am

You do know, of course, that it is always, always worse than we thought?

The BBC reports the same forests are now threatened by increased lightning strikes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67360140

Reply to  michael hart
November 10, 2023 7:10 am

Another meme making the rounds every couple of years is that the forests are dying younger. Of course the trees average about 150 years old….the boreal forests started growing well after the glaciers receded about 8000 years ago …..so tree generations have come and gone, forest fires have burnt and reburnt, the amount of detritus to examine varies greatly, and can be analyzed to reveal any preconception that is in the eye of the beholder….

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michael hart
November 10, 2023 8:59 am

And what about the yellow spotted pink weevil bug that is rapidly multiplying just south of the boreal forests and likes nothing better than chewing their leaves? 🙂

Reply to  Dave Andrews
November 10, 2023 10:37 am

I bet they’ll be considered a delicacy for most bird species. 🙂

Tom Halla
November 10, 2023 6:12 am

Any change is automatically a Bad Thing! All that greening must have some downside, despite any lack of evidence.

abolition man
November 10, 2023 6:32 am

This study has all the scientific relevance of a fiery debate over whether daylight savings is critical!
Instead of chopping an hour off one end and sewing it onto the other, these Scientismists decry the lose of the southern edge to boreal forests without bothering to look at the northern! I am reminded of the four blind men trying to describe an elephant; that is the level of brilliance they display! But then, this is a fairly typical level of knowledge and acumen for the Climageddon Scientism community!

J Boles
Reply to  J Boles
November 10, 2023 7:43 am
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 10, 2023 8:42 am

We must destroy the environment in order to save it. You cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

MarkW
November 10, 2023 8:02 am

Models predict that the poles are going to warm at a rate several times higher than the rest of the world.
If that turns out to be the case, then you would expect the poleward range of these forests to expand faster than the equatorward side shrinks.

There’s another wrinkle, in that there is less land as you get closer to the poles.

Reply to  MarkW
November 10, 2023 10:40 am

Once upon a time dinosaurs lived at the poles.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 10, 2023 2:29 pm

Alligators as well.

Reply to  MarkW
November 10, 2023 11:45 am

They can “predict” whatever they want…

… it is all just meaningless trash talk !

Mr Ed
November 10, 2023 8:16 am

Story Tip:====>Clean Energy Takes Another Hit As Financials Cave For Amazon Fuel Cell Supplierhttps://www.investors.com/news/plug-power-financials-cave-as-clean-energy-stocks-takes-another-hit/

November 10, 2023 8:28 am

Here is some boreal history from 5000 years ago in Canada’s far NW Arctic coast.

comment image?w=600&ssl=1

This is a 5000 year old dead white spruce, still rooted, just outside of the Inuit village of Tuktuyaktuk. The modern treeline is ~ 100km south of Tuk, and modern white spruce (same species!) of this girth are another ~ 100km further south of the treeline. 5000 yrs ago, Tuk averaged 6 – 8°C more than now. Assuming Arctic ‘enhancement’ of T change to be double the global T° anomaly, suggests the globe was 3-4°C higher than the present average of 15.7°C, up to triple the warming Paris Accordites are swooning over.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 10, 2023 10:42 am

Love that evidence! 🙂

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 10, 2023 12:42 pm

I have cores and photos of relict Bristlecone Pines hundreds of yards above current BC treeline, which is about 11,500 feet in Colorado. Cores from the living trees in the pine forests lower down dated to around 600 years old. The dead trees on the otherwise barren south sloping hillsides above were of comparable and larger girths, bleached by many hundreds of years in the sun and jutting branches sharpened by the winds. I can’t say how long, but I’d guess in the hundreds if not thousands of years. I am fascinated by this mute testimony to the folly of global warming claims, and I still find these trees some of the most elegant refutations of the argument that we’re in an “unprecedented” warm period.

I don’t know how to post these pics but I appreciate yours, which I have seen here before.

Mr.
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 10, 2023 5:40 pm

I reckon I’d be rooted too if I was 5k years old and spent so much of my life under miles of ice.

November 10, 2023 8:39 am

If, maybe, possibly, could — It’s all worse then we knew and we must act now or else!

John Hultquist
November 10, 2023 8:58 am

An interesting report:
Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline
by Harvey Nichols, ~1976 or ’77; 10 pages

https://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf

Maps, photo, references
From the abstract:
“From palynological studies it appears that northernmost dwarf spruces
of the tundra and parts of the forest-tundra boundary may be relicts from times of prior warmth, and if felled might not regenerate. This disequilibrium may help explain the partial incongruence of modern climatic limits with the present forest edge. Seedlings established as a result of recent warming should therefore be found within the northernmost woodlands rather than in the southern tundra.”

Duane
November 10, 2023 9:16 am

So boreal forests are replaced by … temperate forests at the southern edge of the boreal forests. Both boreal and temperate forests store carbon in the biomass at the same rate.

So come again, what is the problem here?

November 10, 2023 10:35 am

If the boreal forest moves north- at its south end, other forests will replace it. It’s not as if it’ll become a desert. The boreal forest is huge and the tundra north of it is huge. Suggesting that- even if the total size of the boreal forest shrinks a bit- it’s not a biodiversity disaster. This moving around of ecosystems has been going on forever. It happens. No need to panic.

Too often, articles about forests like the one in Phys.org are written by biologists or ecologists or maybe climate scientists without EVER talking to field foresters who know quite a bit about those forests.

antigtiff
November 10, 2023 12:25 pm

I read a story not long ago about some biologists who did a field study of the advancing tree line in northern Alaska…not a fun expedition….and they found what may have been the northernmost tree…a mere 2 foot thing…and they cut it down or dug it up…to take back to the lab!

Bob
November 10, 2023 1:07 pm

In my view this research is completely worthless. It doesn’t say but suggests that we will lose the southern boreal forests ie we won’t have a forest there anymore. When in reality I see no reason why forests better suited to warmer climates wouldn’t move north. These guys are full of it.

Bruce Cobb
November 11, 2023 12:15 am

Carbonized Catastrophic Climate Change is creating Catastrophic Global Greening. We’re doomed.

November 11, 2023 1:37 pm

If boreal forests in the northern hemisphere expand northward they are likely bringing increasing vegetative mass to a comparatively unproductive zone. If the southern borders of boreal forests shrink northward they are being replaced by some other form of vegetative zone. There is no reason to assume that what replaces boreal forest on the southern edge is a less productive or less desirable vegetative zone. It may even represent additional growth to the biosphere’s abundance.

Verified by MonsterInsights