As climate changes, boreal forests to shift north, relinquish more carbon than expect

[ScienceRocks]

As climate changes, boreal forests to shift north, relinquish more carbon than expected

9 hours ago

It's difficult to imagine how a degree or two of warming will affect a location. Will it rain less? What will happen to the area's vegetation? New Berkeley Lab research offers a way to envision a warmer future. It maps how Earth's myriad climates—and the ecosystems that depend on them—will move from one area to another as global temperatures rise.

The approach foresees big changes for one of the planet's great carbon sponges. Boreal forests will likely shift north at a steady clip this century. Along the way, the vegetation will relinquish more trapped carbon than most current climate models predict. The research is published online May 5 in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Read more at: As climate changes, boreal forests to shift north, relinquish more carbon than expected

 

[SSDD]

At what latitude did those forests terminate 14,000 years ago?

 

[editec]

I do wonder what the effect of melting tundra is having on the atmosphere.

There are shit\loads of CO2 and methane stored in that permafrost.

10% of the earth's landmass is arctic TUNDRA, FYI

 

[jon_berzerk]

I do wonder what the effect of melting tundra is having on the atmosphere.

There are shit\loads of CO2 and methane stored in that permafrost.

10% of the earth's landmass is arctic TUNDRA, FYI

on the other hand how much c02 gets used up

as the tundra comes to life

 

[editec]

I do wonder what the effect of melting tundra is having on the atmosphere.

There are shit\loads of CO2 and methane stored in that permafrost.

10% of the earth's landmass is arctic TUNDRA, FYI

on the other hand how much c02 gets used up

as the tundra comes to life

Well assuming that the planet is warming, that would mean that the tundra would be dying long before plant life could migrate north to recapture that CO2.

And while that tundra is dying (its formerly frozen plants will be rotting actually) it will be releasing enormous amounts of previously captured CO2.

And the rotting process is going to create enormous amounts of METHANE, too.

Eventually (in the longer run one supposes) new plant life will begin recapturing (and storing) CO2, that IS true.

But we do not live in the LONGER RUN, we live in the PRESENT.

So at first (and for many years would be my guess) there is a net gain in CO2 and methane IF the arctic tundras start to thaw.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I do wonder what the effect of melting tundra is having on the atmosphere.

There are shit\loads of CO2 and methane stored in that permafrost.

10% of the earth's landmass is arctic TUNDRA, FYI

on the other hand how much c02 gets used up

as the tundra comes to life

Well assuming that the planet is warming, that would mean that the tundra would be dying long before plant life could migrate north to recapture that CO2.

And while that tundra is dying (its formerly frozen plants will be rotting actually) it will be releasing enormous amounts of previously captured CO2.

And the rotting process is going to create enormous amounts of METHANE, too.

Eventually (in the longer run one supposes) new plant life will begin recapturing (and storing) CO2, that IS true.

But we do not live in the LONGER RUN, we live in the PRESENT.

So at first (and for many years would be my guess) there is a net gain in CO2 and methane IF the arctic tundras start to thaw.

drying up

--LOL

really

the plants spring up as soon the sun hits em

not years from now

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW Cult

Blah

blah

blah blah

Blah you're all gonna die!!!!

Blah

blah blah

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Climate is changing!

ZOMG!!

It's changing!!

We're the only planet in the entire solar system with a changing climate!!

 

[editec]

on the other hand how much c02 gets used up

as the tundra comes to life

Well assuming that the planet is warming, that would mean that the tundra would be dying long before plant life could migrate north to recapture that CO2.

And while that tundra is dying (its formerly frozen plants will be rotting actually) it will be releasing enormous amounts of previously captured CO2.

And the rotting process is going to create enormous amounts of METHANE, too.

Eventually (in the longer run one supposes) new plant life will begin recapturing (and storing) CO2, that IS true.

But we do not live in the LONGER RUN, we live in the PRESENT.

So at first (and for many years would be my guess) there is a net gain in CO2 and methane IF the arctic tundras start to thaw.

drying up

--LOL

Dying, not drying, Lad.

Most of the plant life in the tundra is long dead but frozen in the perma frost.

When the permafrost melts those dead plants start to rot.

Rotting plants give off CO2 and methane.

Really kiddo, learn some basic chemistry and get back to me, okay?

 

[Oddball]

We'll grow oranges in Iowa!

 

[SSDD]

All one need do is look back at paleohistory to see that this, like all other disasters predicted by climate science is just more hysterics with no basis in fact. We know that the holocene optimum, the minoan, the roman, and the medieval warm periods were warmer than the present..what disasters were caused by the greater warming during those times? Answer...none.

 

[Old Rocks]

All one need do is look back at paleohistory to see that this, like all other disasters predicted by climate science is just more hysterics with no basis in fact. We know that the holocene optimum, the minoan, the roman, and the medieval warm periods were warmer than the present..what disasters were caused by the greater warming during those times? Answer...none.

Either a rapid warming, or cooling, causes extinction events. PT Extinction event, and the Ordivician extinction event.

Causes of the Ordovician Extinction

The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction

You people were all over the 'alarmists' that thirty years ago predicted the melting of the north polar sea ice for part of the summer by 2100. Now it appears this will happen before 2020.

Munich Re and Swiss Re both state that the number of extreme weather events has increased dramatically over the past two decaded. We are seeing the effects of the warming right now.

 

[Oddball]

So, now the warmerist smoothers think that they can prevent extinction!

TFF!

 

[ScienceRocks]

So, now the warmerist smoothers think that they can prevent extinction!

TFF!

That's how you find avgs within such a graph. lol Secondly, how you understand the factors effecting the planets temperature.

Who would of thought it.

 

[Dot Com]

AGW Cult

Blah

blah

blah blah

Blah you're all gonna die!!!!

Blah

blah blah

Nice Oddball impression but why are you people denialists

 

[ScienceRocks]

AGW Cult

Blah

blah

blah blah

Blah you're all gonna die!!!!

Blah

blah blah

Nice Oddball impression but why are you people denialists

A few reasons...
1# They see some errors within the data and then they lose all trust within science. Stupid, but this is seriously the way they think. Certainly the warming is slower and they see this as a sign that the science is totally wrong. Science evolves and moves forward so of course we didn't totally understand the complexity of the oceans in the 1990's...Not like they won't hold the scientists to the wall for it.
2# They look at the graph for the past 13 years. I'll tell you one thing if I didn't understand the forcing's and the reasons for the way the graph looks. I'd probably agree with them without thinking either. When you measure from one point in 1998 to 2012, which is one of the way basic math students learn how to do "linear slopes" these people sometimes come to their conclusion based on just that. Doesn't have to be 1998 as it could be 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, etc.

What these people need to understand is 2002-2007 was a warm period with temperatures above the "means" and 2011-2013 has been the opposite. This is why we don't look at 5-10 year period to get a idea of where the climate is going as there's to much noise.

This is why the last 13 years looks flat even through 2011-2012's nina was far warmer then a equal one in 1999-2001. This is why I tell them to compare similar soi/enso as that will give them a much better idea of reality. Lastly, they're also thrown off from the recovery of the volcano in 1991 from 1992-1995 that made it look like the 1990's were warming up so fast. You can go to my UAH thread to see that this just isn't so.

Understanding why the graph does what it does is something they're lacking. The truth is the enso(short term cycles) are going up with the co2 forcing. This is why I say just wait until we're back in a 2002-2007 like pattern(enso) and you will see first and second record years each of those years like its nothing.

3# They hear someone talking about taking something away from them and they don't like it. Well, I could go into this but this is the political side of it. They don't trust as they don't understand the concepts above and they hear that it's all bull shit constantly from people they trust. There's also the economic side of it and the reality that this will cost a lot of money.

I was once a denier and these were some of my reasons. These people seriously need to see a clear warming one year after another to think any other way.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yup. They all say it is so complex that the scientists cannot possibly understand it. Then turn around and damn the scientists because the warming is not linear.

As more of the polar ice melts, as the ocean warm, the changes are going to come at a more rapid rate. At some point, they are going to have a major impact, as in doubling or tripling of food prices, and some items simply not available. We may see a differance in storm paths, we are already seeing a differance in storm frequency.

And it will all be denied, until it becomes so obvious a child see it. Kind of like the ol' obese junkie denying there was any warming until everyone could see out their back door. Then it became natural cycles.

 

[SSDD]

All one need do is look back at paleohistory to see that this, like all other disasters predicted by climate science is just more hysterics with no basis in fact. We know that the holocene optimum, the minoan, the roman, and the medieval warm periods were warmer than the present..what disasters were caused by the greater warming during those times? Answer...none.

Either a rapid warming, or cooling, causes extinction events. PT Extinction event, and the Ordivician extinction event.

Causes of the Ordovician Extinction

The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction

You people were all over the 'alarmists' that thirty years ago predicted the melting of the north polar sea ice for part of the summer by 2100. Now it appears this will happen before 2020.

Munich Re and Swiss Re both state that the number of extreme weather events has increased dramatically over the past two decaded. We are seeing the effects of the warming right now.

You should know that neither of those periods are analagous to the present...and what rapid warming? Less than a degree in 100 years constitutes rapid warming in your mind? Even the most outrageous claims of warming don't put the temperatures as high as the holocene maximum and we already know that didn't cause any extinction event. You are just a hysterical old granny.

 

[Oddball]

AGW Cult

Blah

blah

blah blah

Blah you're all gonna die!!!!

Blah

blah blah

Nice Oddball impression but why are you people denialists

A few reasons...
1# They see some errors within the data and then they lose all trust within science. Stupid, but this is seriously the way they think....

Or maybe we just catch liars lying over and over again and no longer believe their cries of "wolf", while true believer cement heads like you continue to insist that the liars are sages.