Climate change Sea Ice Melt Glacia melt the developing science

Depends on the existence of suitable ponds in suitable transition zones. It's probably likely somewhere - transition zones from oak to pine can't have been eliminated from the NA landscape altogether, surely?
Btw: a transition like that is often and normally quick once begun: The existing forest holds its ground for a generation after it loses the ability to reproduce, and when it dies without heir (in the general or common case of pines, by disease or pest damage and then fire) the new and better suited forest grows in immediately.

In Minnesota a transition from pine to "maple/basswood" (maple plus something) and the like happened within one human lifespan over large regions of the State, the white and red pine forests having held on in marginal climate zones until logged off.

No. Too dry, and too dark, and not enough suitable area.
One of the factors in all of this is that the surface area suitable gets smaller at high latitudes. The planet is an oblate spheroid, not a cylinder.
Another factor is that trees and shrubs do not sequester carbon as efficiently as peat and tundra herbage do in many high latitude solar and temperature regimes - there's a net loss of CO2 capture when woody plants (willows and birches and alders and the like normally lead the transition) take over and shade the ground in those regions. So the boreal forest spread will not reliably replace what it replaces, let alone losses elsewhere.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

once you gather enough correct information of the precise meaning of what that "growth" is, you may realise it is not a good thing.

where it is growing is in areas that need the perma frost to remain to contain massive carbon sinks

the shade from the trees prevents sun light reflection and the trees prevent liken growth.
it is a changing of the ecology which allows the temperature to increase even faster.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss?language=en

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you wondering why record breaking burns are news?

Greenland, Alaska and Siberia.
=====================
Huge swathes of the Arctic on fire, ‘unprecedented’ satellite images show
Earth’s boreal forests now burning at rate unseen in ‘at least 10,000 years’, scientists warn

Harry Cockburn
Monday 22 July 2019
The Independent

Vast swathes of the Arctic are suffering from "unprecedented" wildfires, new satellite images have revealed.

North of the Arctic circle, the high temperatures are facilitating enormous wildfires which are wreaking ecological destruction on a colossal scale.
It comes after the world’s hottest June on record which has been followed by a devastating heatwave in the US, with Europe forecast for the same treatment later this week.

Satellite images reveal fires across Greenland, Siberia and Alaska, with warm dry conditions following ice melt on the enormous Greenland icesheet commencing a month earlier than average.

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...land-alaska-siberia-photographs-a9015851.html
====================

Will there be areas that transition biomes rapidly due to climate change? Yes, in some places that will be likely - along with the mass extinctions that accompany such changes.

 

ain't very precise

 

if you are sitting in the corner staring at the wall yelling "oh no it isnt" it is hard to be logical about scientific terms of reference

arctic natives have been reporting more and more wildfire for the last 10 years.

it doesn't make sexy headlines for fat rich politicians to stroke their ego with though.
it also doesnt sit well with those companys wanting to start drilling in the perma frost as it melts. makes for awkward family TV news during dinner.

forests of trees in snow on fire while your local gas station drills for oil right beside it...

 

ok
are the fires over peat or permafrost?

 

the fire that was burning 5 years ago ?
or the fire that was burning 10 years ago ?

 

But is very large, and dangerous.

Some are in peat, some are over peat, some are over permafrost, some are over and/or in past melted permafrost. AGW abets large landscape fires in a variety of ways.

One of the threats is an increasingly likely and now predicted growth in underground peat fires (frequency, duration, and area or volume).

Why are you asking people here? If curious, the net is at your fingertips.

 

yes sculptors wording gives off an air of troll.

did motivate me to start reading on boreal forest fires.
turns out there is only 1 study by 1 group that i have found so far and published by the Royal-society.
the charcoal from previous fires making up what they perceive as roughly 50% of the Co2 produced from 1 burn event.
and .. the charcoal in total being roughly 1% of the entire forest

it is worded in a manner that takes a certain adjustment to convert freely into data.
my suspicion is that it was written to a style in an attempt to counter main stream media propaganda that was defining all ecology news as alarmist.

methane sinks is something that i have not caught up reading on currently.
i can understand many governments would want to keep it secret as the reality is like screaming fire in a cinema that is about to have opening night.





please note "publishing" is not "writing"


thought i better post the link
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345

 

fyi
yes i am aware how some trolls may attempt to thread jack the subject to a proxy debate around something else and then play personality politics with it.



https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/studying-how-arctic-wildfires-change-the-world

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://cce.nasa.gov/cce/hyperwall.htm

 

NYU Scientists Capture 4-mile Iceberg Breaking in Greenland

 

Iceland's Okjokull glacier commemorated with plaque
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49345912

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeh, in searching for the answer, i found that there was a noticeable paucity of detailed information and a plethora of using the events in furtherance of an agenda.
It is well known that forest fires over permafrost vs fires over peat have different morphologies and outcomes.
ergo my above question.

 

There is no "the answer" to anything you have posted here.
Meanwhile, if you are running into a lot of people using events in furtherance of an agenda - like some here who use D-O warming events in pursuit of AGW denial - you are obviously not searching in the scientific publications regarding AGW.

Try the published research into AGW. The effects of the invasion of woody plants into thawing permafrost (some of which involves peat) are a recent but hardly overlooked topic. The findings are so far discouraging.

Your question was rhetorical, and had essentially nothing to do with forest fires over permafrost vs those over peat. It was well answered in this:

 

you have read some study's you can post a link to and copy n paste the core paragraph etc?

many things are well-known
common sense & calculus are arguably less well known.

examining the facts to get an idea of social opinion around science they have not read on delivers .. what ?

leaving me wondering if you are ... intellectual trolling of the subject to use fake leaning big data to over whelm the average person.

... well...
maybe you could post a link ?

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/lightning-struck-near-north-pole-why-strange/

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...ufX-PFxOpNJbFOYrdY5cIGRKf_n-aWTmmKxtgj2gIUD5A

 

Yeh, I phrased that badly-----------oops
forrest over peat over permafrost vs forrest over peat(no permafrost) vs forrest (no peat no permafrost).

I got no answers man, just questions that lead to more questions that lead to more questions ...
.....................................
That being said
It seems likely that we may be in another superinterglacial? Given time and temperature, all below sea level may melt?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

my main point is that there is scientific proof to show melt speed differs as a factor of exponential process in a mixed environment
speed of ice melting
speed of water boiling
etc etc
while business want to say not to anything that involves spending tax payers money
tax payers as customers are paying businesses to pollute the world
its all pretty messed up

ice & glacier melting is not a simple equation based on Co2
however the anti-science AKA creationists want to define it as such or label it as godly and thus uncontrollable and un-knowable.

... there are questions, and there are questions ...
if you do not want answers to your questions, you are part of the problem...
many people know this but pretend to themselves and others by direct lying that they do want to know the answer, then start screaming and run off before it is given.