NORTHERN FORESTS: Vegetation changes underway in boreal forests as a result of climate change may, in turn, prompt more global warming
Image: Cephas via Wikimedia Commons
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Boreal forests across the Northern hemisphere are undergoing rapid, transformative shifts as a result of a warming climate that, in some cases, is triggering feedback loops producing even more regional warming, according to several new studies.
Russia's boreal forest - the largest continuous expanse of forest in the world - has seen a transformation in recent years from larch to conifer trees, according to new research by University of Virginia researchers.
In Alaska, where the larch were largely devastated by a disease outbreak in the late '90s, vast swathes of forest are becoming inhospitable to the dominant white and black spruce.
"The climate has shifted. It's done, it's clear, and the climate has become unsuitable for the growth of the boreal forest across most of the area that it currently occupies," said Glenn Juday, a forestry professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Biome change isn't the only climate-change-related concern, either.
As warmer temperatures make the northern latitudes more accessible to development, the region's vast and pristine wetlands and peat lands are increasingly vulnerable.
Last week the Pew Environment Group released a report calling for greater controls on development - oil and gas extraction, logging, mining, hydroelectric dams - in Canada's boreal wilderness, which contains 25 percent of the world's wetlands.
The Pew report cited a 2009 study that found Canada's boreal, if left untouched, provides $700 billion in "services" to the world annually, chiefly in carbon storage and subsistence value to First Nation peoples.
Canada is in the midst of an unprecedented drive to set aside large tracks of its boreal, but Pew's analysts said it wasn't enough. "Only a fraction has been protected to date - far less than the amount scientifically recognized as necessary to sustain the ecosystem over time," the group said in a statement.
In Russia, the progression from larch to conifer is particularly troublesome, researchers say, because it will promote additional warming and vegetation change in the region.
Larch trees drop their needles in the fall, allowing the vast, snow-covered ground in winter to reflect sunlight and heat back into space and helping to keep temperatures in the region very cold. But conifers such as spruce and fir retain their needles, which absorb sunlight and increase the forest's ground-level heat retention.
This, researchers say, creates ideal conditions for the proliferation of evergreens to the detriment of larch. "What we're seeing is the system kicking into overdrive," said University of Virginia environmental sciences professor Hank Shugart in a statement. "Warming creates more warming."
Shugart is co-author of a study assessing this feedback, to be published in the journal Global Change Biology.
The researchers used a climate model to assess the impact if evergreens continued their march northward at the expense of leaf-dropping larch. The Russian boreal forest sits over a tremendous repository of carbon-rich but frozen soil. As the forest cover changes, the permafrost begins to thaw, potentially releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the scientist said.
"Such changes in that vast region have the potential to affect areas outside that region," said Jacquelyn Shuman, a post-doctoral researcher at the university and the study's lead author.
In Alaska, similarly transformative changes are already underway. Shorter, drier winters and severe weather are taking a toll on the forest, Juday said. In late November, in what should be the depth of winter, Fairbanks had three days of rain that later froze, snapping limbs and downing trees.
"You talk to people down in Canada, where the temperate forest meets the southern limit of the boreal forest, and they say that's nothing new," Juday said. "But the boreal forest is not adapted to that. (Trees) just get devastated when that happens."
See what we're tweeting about
48 Comments
Add CommentGood article, but larch v. conifer does not parse. Larches are conifers, deciduous to be sure, but conifers nonetheless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdding more energy creates warming, adding less energy creates cooling. Proof: the sun rises and sets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdding more excess CO2 does NOT create warming unless you add more energy. Reducing CO2 emissions does not create less warming unless you also reduce the energy absorbed. Varying solar and "Gravity (energy) Causes Climate Change". CO2 just sits there.
Doesn't Scientific American understand basic science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a touch of tragedy about your unhinged comment. Clearly, you have strong beliefs yet without so much a shred of evidence to support your wandering comparisons.
If you feel Scientific American is such a bogus source for scientific news, why not visit somewhere where your kind of opinions will feel more at home... like say, The National Enquirer?
Do you understand basic science? CO2 keeps energy (in the form of Infrared radiation) from leaving, this is an indisputable known fact that was proven in 1859. More CO2-->more energy-->higher temperatures, it's that simple.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnreadable. Incomprehensible. Irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther than that, keep up the good work.
White back grounds reflect light thereby keeping things cooler. Black absorbs heat warming thins up. Larch tress are deciduous and when they loose their needle it gives access to the ground, covered in white snow keeping things cooler. The spruces (conifers)keep their needles and provide a wide area of dark heat absorbing material.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry this on a sunny day...Wear a black shirt in the sun, you find you heat up very quickly. Conversely, try a white one and you will find you stay much cooler.
If you live in an area where winter is still in swing you can try this one too. Get a piece of white paper and place a bit of snow on it. At the same time get a black piece of paper and do the same. Set them side by side and you will find the snow on the black paper will melt more quickly than the white one, if the white one melts at all.
I hope that helps answer you question. :) Barb
He does; he plagues the Globe and Mail regularly with his wierd and unsubstantiated rants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a very good explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I think his point is that larch (Larix) is also a conifer and he's correct. But it's considered a deciduous conifer as it drops its needles in the fall.
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/42/40132932.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI strongly suggest you read Leemans & Eickhout, which implies that all forests will be wiped out soon. We have experienced a rate of warming of about .2 C/decade, and reputable scientific studies predict a .3 C/decade rate of warming this decade. According to Leemans & Eickhout forests are the most vulnerable to ecosystem collapse, and furthermore a .4 C/decade rate of warming will destroy all ecosystems rapidly.
In my opinion, ecosystem collapse is greatly underestimated, and is ignored by most (if not all) climate models. Dr James Lovelock's predictions most accurately take into consideration ecosystem collapse with his theory of the "hot state."
I could provide very scary quotations from experts about the rate of warming, ecosystem collapse, feedback loops, and the rapid decent of the Earth into a hot state, but instead this is all mute, because there is a cheap and simple way to immediately cool down the Earth: just add a little (more) sun dimming aerosol to the air. A carbon diet is an unfeasible solution to prevent the decent of the Earth into a hot state: in my opinion only geoengineering in the form of solar radiation management can prevent a mass extinction and a human bottleneck.
Unfortunately, the rapid decent of the Earth into a hot state is like the nuclear tragedy in Japan (i.e. a massive earthquake followed by a gigantic tsunami), unthinkable and therefore not to be contingency planned for. Take my word for it, when faced with massive starvation, mankind will opt for adding a little (more) "dust" to the air.
DobermanMacLeod@gmail.com
More wild speculation hung on "could" or "might" or "may" .... the usual crap scientific nonsense. No evidence. No proof. No nothing. Just wild and baseless speculation to be heaped on the pile of so-called 'evidence of AGW'. Bilge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "Anthropogenic Global Warming" has been relabeled as "Anthropogenic Climate Change" since these alarmist have lost their "warming" creditability after snow at the Copenhagen conference and record lows for the most recent conclave in the Yucatan. The Public, while gullible enough to be influenced by Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", has succumb to reality with record snows and low temperature this Winter. "Global Warming" is the result of too much heat being retained in the terrestrial system due to added heat sources and/or insulating gases. But CO2 at less than 400 parts per million is far less of an insulator than water vapor...All gases have insulating capacities, thankfully!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis SA article about the Boreal Forest is complete alarmist hogwash. Trees that are able to photosynthesize remove CO2 and convert solar energy to biomass instead of heating the Earth. The combustion of fossil fuels today is the release of Ancient Solar Energy. Yes it adds BTU's and CO2, but this article proves that the Boreal Forest is expanding to absorb more CO2 and Solar Energy to compensate per the concept of the Gaia Hypothesis.
If one needs to tilt with windmills in this Global Warming Religion, attach nuclear energy for adding too many BTU's.
If the article is correct, then deciduous forests should be spreading north into former conifer range, and deciduous trees should convert more CO2. The larch and other conifers will convert more CO2 than tundra can. Also, while dark colors do absorb more heat, if you place those white and black papers under several feet of snow, there will be very little difference in melting at minus forty. Conifer forests look very white from above when covered by snow. Whiter than a deciduous forest appears.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother point- dark or white makes no difference when the sun is below the horizon during the arctic winter.
"Denialist Morons and Fools are incapable of learning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey best be extinguished." VD
What enlightenment provided by VD & those that cannot accept that their "Cause" is corrupt and flawed...In the 70's there was worry about the Earth Cooling; now Global Warming; so "Climate Change" covers anything that happens in the future.... We are still emerging from the last Ice Age; the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods were warmer than today and the Earth survived. Give us Copernicus and Galileo for role model scientist that were willing to buck the consensus junk science of their age!
Absolutely as decisive as Obama and his minions...
"In late November, in what should be the depth of winter...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Let's see. Alaska, as far as I recall, is part of the North American Continent, where winter doesn't start until December 21, and lasts, believe it or not, through March 20. So, the "depth of winter" should occur, realistically if not scientifically, sometime during the month of January. That goes for Alaska as well. I'm just guessing that your writer would be surprised to learn that rainfall in Alaska during November is quite commonplace.
Are you happy publishing drivel?
Unhinged? Apparently Scientific American believes the "depth of winter" occurs during November.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefend that.
What are you, the thought police? STFU unless you have something original to say. Twaddle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisON what basis do you assert that solar output is declining? I'll wait.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice try. However, the reality is that any "heat absorbing" property of an evergreen is more than offset by its shade producing effect. That is fact. I could source it for you, but why bother. And, as for comparing an evergreen's "leaves" (not needles) to a black piece of paper, go up to the nearest evergreen you can find on a cold winter's day (with sun) and grasp the "needles." Now, tell me, are they "warm" to your touch? No?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCASE CLOSED.
All forests will soon be wiped out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally?
Wow.
Ride that global warming induced tsunami, pal.
Any time you'd like to attempt to extinguish this denier, just let me know, pal. Of course, someone with the moniker Vendicar - which sounds like a popsicle truck, should really rethink bluster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have lost all respect for Scientific American. I am not surprised with the loss of honesty and integrity. This is just another ‘scientific’ article pushing a watermelon agenda, control of our lives through energy usage. The earth has been warmer several times during just this ice-age cycle. When the earth entered this last ice age, the global temperatures plummeted, but the CO2 levels remained high for several thousand years. How can that be if CO2 controls climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum, etc. The CO2 levels have usually been much, much higher over most of the planet’s geological history. There was one period where the CO2 levels were 10 times higher than present, yet the earth was in an ice age. By the way, where are the news articles trumpeting the fact that the earth has been cooling slightly over the past 15 years, even while the CO2 levels have increased 7-8% during the same time?
These alarmists have NO empirical data, but rely only on computer models, which are easily programmed to get predetermined answers. What ‘real’ data they do get is often manipulated, distorted, or hidden to ‘fit’ their agenda. (See the Climate Gate d-mail files.) The only ‘warming’ they can claim is entirely due to two main factors: 1. Urban Heat Island effect where temperature monitors located in cities show warming, because of urban development, and 2. Most of the temperature recording stations in rural or higher elevations have been dropped from the group of those actually used to determine the ‘average’ global temperatures. Remove all temperature monitors which show colder readings and, voila – warmer averages!
A higher level of CO2 is in effect, airborne fertilizer for plants, which also has the following benefits:
• Greater resistance to insects & pests
• Higher resistance to drought
• Plants grow larger root mass
• Plants require less water
• Plants have greater above-ground mass
• Plants produce more oranges, nuts, wheat, timber, etc.
Where is the alarm in this?
Climate responds to changes in the sun (sunspot cycles), natural cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Southern Oscillation, Milankovic cycles, etc., NOT variations in CO2 levels. We only contribute 4% of all CO2 emissions. Humans could revert back to Stone Age conditions and the global temperature would not change enough to measure. Do you really want to live without heating, transportation, lighting, modern food production, jobs, etc.? Stop being sheep following the Al Gore, James Hansen wolves.
The gradual shift northward of both plant and animal species due to climate change has been well documented. While the changes in vegetation in Canada and Russia will have some effect on the climate, the major impact of warmer temperatures in the far north is the melting of the permafrost. This melting has been releasing significant amounts of methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition - exhunter - the climate has not been cooling for the past 15 years and human activity is responsible for much more than 4% of all carbon dioxide emissions.
Oh well, FWIW,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/pmod/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:1995/trend/plot/pmod/from:1987/normalise/trend
Here we have the temperature record, with a positive slope over the last 15 years, the PMOD total solar irradiance (TSI), with a negative slope over the last 2 cycles, and the CO2 record from Mauna Loa.
Exhunter, what were you saying about no empirical evidence? This is a drop in the bucket.
Undergraduate, I believe you were waiting on something about solar output? I suggest you go hit the books a little harder.
(Denialist Morons and Fools are incapable of learning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey best be extinguished.)
So why haven't you been?
You can find studies from well regarded organisations arguing the opposite conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ones ‘proving’ AGW tend to get the most publicity.
(NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2003) — Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom your own reference:
A) "Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. "
B) They were looking at only the activity during the minimums; not the entire cycle.
C) That was written in March of 2003; so, it does not take into account the most recent minimum.
Nice bit of irrelevant cherry-picking.
Try this for a good example of the evolving Climate Change: http://www.helium.com/items/2125333-prepare-for-new-ice-age-now-says-top-paleoclimatologist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is cherry picking, all the Ice Cap records over this period are cherry picking also, or is it only cherry picking when the data does not agree with your blinkered view. Exactly the mind set that discourages scientists from investigating contra data. When they do, they tend to apologise for it, as you point out. The same thing happened a few years ago when a couple of scientists discovered that living trees were producing considerable quantities of methane. They were apologetic about it & no one else has been keen to follow it up. Might have effected their funding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat were you saying about cherry picking again? 15 years only? What sort of record is that? Oh, I forgot. Data only applies when it supports your case. Time frames do not apply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Here we have the temperature record, with a positive slope over the last 15 years, the PMOD total solar irradiance (TSI), with a negative slope over the last 2 cycles, and the CO2 record from Mauna Loa.)
Another ten years & climat change or AGW will be a non issue. It will have about the same run as the evangelist Jimmy Swaggart had. Same reasons too. Corruption & scandal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you aware that some other studies indicated that the methane that was released was transported from the soil? Though, I think it was rice rather than trees, but in any case, it's irrelevant to the current topic.
Do you even bother to read other people's posts? I used the 15-year interval to respond to Undergrad. I made no assertion about the data; I merely showed what the data are. If you are maintaining that there is a rise in solar output with the data show a decline, I suppose that is your prerogative, but...
Also, I think you have demonstrated your lack of understanding of statistics. If the variance of the data is lower, it takes less measurements to achieve a 95% confidence interval. You have made an apples to oranges comparison between the metrics and implied that somehow the variance is the same when they are not even measuring the same thing.
You have changed the topic instead of countering; that generally means you have conceded the point. And yet you are still talking. Why?
I have not conceded the point. You do yourself what you accuse others of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that an expert such as you had not heard about the methane finding simply confirms my contention. If it doesn’t confirm AGW, the MSM doesn’t publish it.
Have a good read & learn something, it has nothing to do with soil & plenty to do with hiding the evidence:
“A methane source in the sunlight: Plants form the greenhouse gas under UV radiation,” http://www.mpg.de/568294/pressRelease200805272
“Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, the maximum Arctic sea ice extent has occurred as early as February 18 and as late as March 31, with an average date of March 6.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/”
Well another record falls. The latest maximum in the satellite record and still increasing. Now well ahead of the smallest maximum which occurred in 2006. This makes five straight years where the maximum has exceeded the 2006 low. Strange that there is still no sign of the ice free Arctic so many were predicting.
Thats all well and good but the problem is, co2 is NOT a factor in the greenhouse gas make up of the earth. It is only .035% of the total atmosphere, and as a contributor to greenhouse its a dismal 3.6% Sorry, just a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlain old water vapor, yes, from water, supplies 95% of the greenhouse effect. co2 total = 3.618%, Methane = .360%, N20 = .950% misc other gases = .072%. Sorry again, just facts......
So when are you greenies going to recognize this, THE BIGGEST IS NOT CO2, ITS WATER. Look at a map of the earth, what do you see that covers about 70 % of the earth's surface?
how much co2 do you see? How much co2 is there compared to water. the difference may be so staggering that we cannot calculate it. So lets use water vapor (thats the stuff evaporating from all that water)
Water vapor 95%, co2 3.6 % Wouldn't it make sense to look at what is the most abundantant rather than the least?
The only problem with that is that Greenies hate oil and they hate oil companies so they need a boogyman connected to oil, and that is co2.
AJSP
You are intitled to your own opinion, you are not intitled to your own set of facts
marmot says, "Good article, but larch v. conifer does not parse."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==============
Sure it does, because the article is all about leafless trees in the winter versus true conifers in the biome shift that never lose their needles.
Although a conifer, the larch is a deciduous tree and loses its leaves in the fall. The needles turn yellow and fall in the late autumn, leaving the trees leafless through the winter.
howie says: "More wild speculation hung on 'could' or 'might' or 'may' .... the usual crap scientific nonsense. No evidence. No proof."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==================
NO, actually you are the one with no proof and just spewing your attack as speculation and only opinion.
According to the article you obviously failed to read, it states, "according to new research by University of Virginia researchers, boreal forests across the Northern hemisphere are undergoing rapid, transformative shifts."
Also, Glenn Juday, a forestry professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, states "the climate has shifted. It's done, it's clear, and the climate has become unsuitable for the growth of the boreal forest across most of the area that it currently occupies."
Also, University of Virginia environmental sciences professor Hank Shugart, co-author of a study assessing this feedback, to be published in the journal Global Change Biology, states "what we're seeing is the system kicking into overdrive. Warming creates more warming."
These RESEARCHERS are saying that this creates ideal conditions for the proliferation of evergreens to the detriment of larch.
These SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS are publishing their peer-reviewed research in the journal Global Change Biology, so until YOU can provide the "proof" and "evidence" YOU crave so much, your attack will fall on deaf ears, and only appear as unfounded criticism in an emotional rant.
under says: "ON what basis do you assert that solar output is declining?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==============
More of the usual attacks by the anti-science crowd, with at least 5 ridiculous posts in a row, including trying to stifle debate with a "STFU" emotional response. BTW, trying to compare the climate in Alaska, when a good portion lies above the Arctic Circle, to other parts of the North American continent, is absurd!
As far as your inability to research the declining solar output on your own:
A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity, according to a peer-reviewed document by several scientists: http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
However, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960 and the exceptional Solar Cycle 19, frightening people in Europe and its geomagnetic storm that caused a radio blackout over North America in 1958.
Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades, with the current Solar Cycle 24 only recently becoming active after a very long minimum.
Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature:
"It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3%."
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract
chris says: "Undergraduate, I believe you were waiting on something about solar output? I suggest you go hit the books a little harder."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this=============
I concur.
carlyle says: "Another ten years & climat change or AGW will be a non issue."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this=================
Only because even the denialists will have to agree that the trend supports AGW, but it will most likely be too late to do anything about it because of the years of foot dragging and anti-science denialism.
"On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record."
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
Have another look at your link site. The actual maximum ice extent did not occur untill the 2nd of April. The latest maximum ice extent in the satelite record. Also just announced, record ozone hole over Antarctica. Why? Years after the ban on CFCs. Well they say residual CFCs combined with record cold over Antarctica. Ignoramus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscarlyle says: "Have another look at your link site. The actual maximum ice extent did not occur untill the 2nd of April."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==============
Not so.....but nice try!
April 5, 2011
Ice extent low at start of melt season
Arctic sea ice extent for the month of March 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite record. Sea ice reached its maximum extent on March 7; extent on this date tied for the lowest winter maximum extent in the satellite record. Air temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean were above normal.
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
Glenn Juday, a forestry professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, states "the climate has shifted."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-------------------------------------------------------
joey says: "I looked up Glenn Juday, he is not just a professor in Forestry..."
=====================
You're correct, Dr. Glenn P. Juday is a Professor of Forest Ecology in the School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Alaska. He specializes in forest biodiversity, climate change assessment, climate change and forest growth, and old-growth forest ecology.
Among quite a few other peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that he has authored or co-authored, was:
Global Change and the Boreal Forest:
Thresholds, Shifting States or Gradual Change?
F. Stuart Chapin, III, Terry V. Callaghan, Yves Bergeron, M. Fukuda, J. F. Johnstone, G. Juday and S. A. Zimov
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
http://www.lter.uaf.edu/pdf/892_chapin_callaghan_2004.pdf
joey says: "Thats all well and good but the problem is, co2 is NOT a factor in the greenhouse gas make up of the earth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this=========================
Sorry joey, but your "disrupt and divert" propaganda doesn't fly when the discussion is clearly about an article on: "Vegetation change underway in boreal forests as a result of climate change creating a feedback loop that prompts more warming," by well-qualified scientific researchers -- not anti-science denialists that cannot even understand the simple greenhouse effect.
An extension of your link under the heading "daily image updateD" shows the maxim occured on the 2nd of April 20011.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are so blind to the evidence right in front of you it is breathtaking. Mind you you have plenty of friends who simply refuse to see the evidence when it does not agree with your mind set. it was predicted that it had reached its maximum but it had not. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
My apologies. I have been a victim of an optical illusion. Looking at the graph I was sure it had reached its maximum on 2nd April. Putting a ruler across the graph I see I was in error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact remains that the maximum ice extent has never dropped below the low level set in 2007.
Sorry joey, but your "disrupt and divert" propaganda doesn't fly when the discussion is clearly about an article on: "Vegetation change underway in boreal forests as a result of climate change creating a feedback loop that prompts more bla bla bla.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--------------------------------------------------
Lackatoka, This artical rates right up there with the theories that the Minnesota Bridge collapse was caused by Global Warming.
I see you're not disputing these as facts:
CONTRIBUTION TO GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Misc. Gases - .072%
N2O - .950%
Methane - .360%
CO2 - 3.618%
Water Vapor - 95.000%
This is not propaganda, this is fact. It's relevant because Greenies are out with a new wild theory almost daily, you can detect its speculation because they have Key Words, might, could, can, ect.
These typical Wild Theories are meaningless. Your feedback loop is so weak, its almost a joke. In light of the fact that the amount of CO2 contribution is so tiny, and the increase in temperature has been so little, it is meaningless, and a waste of time. Someone's not thinking. It's like debating the effect of a drop of arsenic in Lake Tahoe.
For what it's worth, Greenies would be better to try and control the evaporation of water from the oceans.
But there is no money that can be scammed from taxpayers and corporations in Carbon offsets.
AJSP
You ARE entitled to your own opinion, you are NOT entitled to your own set of facts.
Sorry Average Joe Sixpack but your numbers are way off base. By itself, each greenhouse gas is only a relatively small contributor to the total greenhouse effect. However, in combination with one another, the effect is greatly magnified. Therefore, the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the effect of each gas alone. The following represents to effect of each gas alone on the greenhouse effect:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater Vapor - 36%
Carbon Dioxide - 9%
Methane - 4%
Ozone - 3%
The combined impact is almost twice that of the sum of each gas individually. Because of the interactions between each gas, any increase to one gas has a profound impact on the total greenhouse effect.
The following represents to effect of each gas alone on the greenhouse effect:Water Vapor - 36%Carbon Dioxide - 9%Methane - 4%Ozone - 3%The combined impact is almost twice that of the sum of each gas individually. Because of the interactions between each gas, any increase to one gas has a profound impact on the total greenhouse effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-------------------------------------------------------
I see, so this "Intreraction", must be under some kinda Time/Space Warp that changes all mathematics? So 95% dosen't leave 5% anymore, and 3.6% can become 9%. How neat, now we can have any result we want.
So from now on we can just ignore reality and change it to whatever we feel comfortable with. Kinda like what Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama do...
Sorry, but back to reality
Misc. Gases - .072%
N2O - .950%
Methane - .360%
CO2 - 3.618%
Water Vapor - 95.000%
AJSP
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.