?? It doesn't; in fact it suggests the opposite, that deciduous forests will take over in areas where boreal forests once held dominance. It also means that forests are appearing in locations within decades. And that is a very rapid expansion of forest into areas previously unable to support them.
Of course. That's why the warming so far is only about 2C rather than the ~30C you would see if we were responsible for _all_ the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. When I see posts like this, it makes me think that climate change deniers don't understand basic atmospheric physics.
Really? Thats how you are interpreting the information? Let me help a bit. QUOTE from original -- Low tundra shrubs, many of which are willow and alder species, have rapidly grown into small trees over the last 50 years,.... Previously people had thought that the tundra would be colonized by trees from the boreal forest to the south as the Arctic climate warms, a process that could potentially take centuries. But what we’ve found is that the shrubs that are already there are transforming into trees in just a few decades.” -- End QUOTE Not taking over, they are already there. And its not rapid, the plants are exhibiting normal growth patterns in a terrain they are adapted to (and obviously evolved to include utilizing every opportunity quickly). But its not your fault, to mislead you into believing these are "Low tundra shrubs" as the article describes rather than describing them as very common in the N. hemisphere and across multiple growing zones (two examples chosen for their common name). Northern willow: http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=SAAR6 Siberian Alder: http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=ALVIF Observation always trumps speculation (as in) But that is the hyperbole of scientific funding... well, what its turned into....
None that I've seen. We are talking about global average temperatures, mind. Your link is to a long list of references, not argument or evidence. As far as can be determined from a short sample selection (the reader doing your work for you), none of those studies offer any evidence or valid argument that the average global temperature ever jumped even 1C in fifty years, let alone 5. Woillard and Mook discuss rapid transitions in regional climate as global warming crosses certain thresholds - again, the rate of the warming is left open, but is certainly not as fast as the current one in any of their discussed scenarios. Flohn compared different regional climate regimes , not different rates of global warming. He compared the climate regimes typical of various global average temperatures once they are achieved, one of the first to do so, which is informative but does not address the matter of various rates of warming, McIntyre is incompetent in the field, and politically corrupt. That is not global average temperature. My front yard has 20C swings in less than 24 hours,and so what? The current warming trend is much faster than anything so far demonstrated for any time in the past except major catastrophes, asteroid impacts and the like. You seem to be assuming that growth of shrub willows and such over a few decades will prevent the boreal forest from invading and dominating over thousands of years - why?
That's like saying that a person infected with Ebola shows a normal growth pattern in the disease, therefore it's not a fast infection. It is very fast compared to their historical growth rates. Which, of course, is the point. That's how forests will replace tundras in decades.
You attribute a quote to me that I did not make. That is a quote from billvon's source that I was responding to because of its inaccurate portrayal. If you had taken the time to view the links to the US plant database, you would have seen that the willow/alder and boreal forest ranges overlap.
Your ebola portion snipped as fallacious. Not even a close analogy. 50 years for small trees to form from underlying feeders is not even close to incredible. It demonstrates the evolution of plants to adapt to changed environments, something that doesnt happen in 100 years therefore it is related to long term (thousands/millions of years) natural selection processes. And that underlying ability is due to past survival, not something newly seen. http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150208/ Nothing in this interglacial is outside the boundries of past interglacials and cannot be attributed solely to humans. Regardless of the IPCC handwaving.
I didn't say it was. The ability to adapt is not new - the speed at which the climate is driving that adaptation is new. The study was not by the IPCC. Are you a climate change denier? I ask because they often have knee-jerk reactions to climate discussions and insert disparaging remarks about either the IPCC or Al Gore seemingly at random. If so, knowing that will make your posts easier to parse.
Are you saying that plant life, over time, does NOT sequester carbon? Interesting. Most scientists disagree. From Wiki: ============= Forests are carbon stores, and they are carbon dioxide sinks when they are increasing in density or area. In Canada's boreal forests as much as 80% of the total carbon is stored in the soils as dead organic matter. A 40-year study of African, Asian, and South American tropical forests by the University of Leeds, shows tropical forests absorb about 18% of all carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels. Truly mature tropical forests, by definition, grow rapidly as each tree produces at least 10 new trees each year. Based on studies of the FAO and UNEP in South-East Asia, it has been estimated that tropical forests absorb about 5 to 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare each year. . . . . In the United States in 2004 (the most recent year for which EPA statistics are available), forests sequestered 10.6% (637 MegaTonnes) of the carbon dioxide released in the United States by the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas; 5657 MegaTonnes). Urban trees sequestered another 1.5% (88 MegaTonnes). To further reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 7%, as stipulated by the Kyoto Protocol, would require the planting of "an area the size of Texas [8% of the area of Brazil] every 30 years". ==============
the disagreement is about the time that X must be taken out of general circulation for one to say that X is "stored." For example, I can say back asphalt roads store solar heats and you would not object. You say Forests store CO2, and I objects as my time scale for that as GW reduction via CO2 tied up is at least 100 years. For example in my POV most wood frame houses don't store CO2. I don't have data but many forests are being cleared now to put their land to higher economic use. I would venture to say that 100 years ago in California the was more Carbon out of general circulation in trees than now - I. e. form my GW time scale the forest of CA are a source of CO2, not a sink and the Amazon Forest is sink one year and source the next now, but with 10 year averaging, the Amazon net is now "source," I think. Certainly the vast forest areas being cleared for palm oil plantations in countries that do not have Brazil's strict laws are sources. Here you will get, if caught, at least a large fine for cutting down a single tree. I had small (~100 acre) cattle farm, about 2 hours drive from Sao Paulo where I spent a few week ends each month. My very honest, hard working,* caretaker told me when I arrived that one steer had died and two were sick because they ate the green leaves of a tree a strong storm blew off. Those leaves toxic, when green. I said burn the G,,, D,,, tree down! He said you don't want to do that; and explain that every month or so a plane flew over pastures taking picture, that were computer processed. Being a foreigner I could even go to jail. He said he had already taken care of the problem. By that he mean he had cut near the base a deep ring around the tree. The plane's photos would show it dying, and after a few year we could cut it down. My neighbor was slowly expanding his pasture into an adjoining wooded area. They caught him after a while and his fine was about 50 times the value of the new pasture he created.
Well, in the short term, there is more biomass (i.e. carbon) in the forest. In the mid-term (say 100 years) there is more biomass in the forest and on the forest floor. In the long term (say 1000+ years) that carbon gets buried underground. (Interestingly, due primarily to fungal action on dead wood and leaves.) The only negative I see is the albedo change in the short term, but that's not really in the realm of carbon storage.
Can you name any forest for which these are true? I can name several large ones for which it is not. Do you really think California has move carbon sequestered in trees and forest floor biomass than 100 years ago? Or going east and back even farther in time, Daniel Boon hunter bears in the Ohio forest, which covered the ENTIRE state - It hardly exists now, certainly few, if any, of the wild bears do. On the eastern side of the Ohio river their are a few bears in the mountains still, but also there are barren areas once called "strip mines." What little chance that re-forestation can make up for the lost trees, is pretty much gone now that the Carbon Offset prices are only ~ 1% of what they intially were and most of the exchange markets have actually shut down. Some truth to this but it is overwhelmed by the fact than long burried carbon (coal) is coming out of the ground, at least 100 pounds for every pound now ending up there.
From your article post --“The speed and magnitude of the observed change is far greater than we expected,” said Prof. Bruce Forbes of the Arctic Center, University of Lapland, corresponding author of the paper. Who is Forbes? http://www.arcticcentre.org/InEnglish/CONTACTS/Staff/Forbes,-Bruce I am guessing you had no idea he was involved with the IPCC. He knows damn well those willow/alder are very common and also knows damned well they exist now within (and outside) boreal forests. Handwaving... as I said.
Sorry to have failed to post the chain of custody of the quote, but I was addressing the argument you seemed to be making from it - your posting. You seemed to be objecting to the use of such evidence as supporting a conclusion of rapid environmental change due to higher yearly average temperatures and related circumstances. I pointed out that you are wrong in your objection as posted - there is no conflict between your boreal forest expansion scenario and the AGW alarmists observation that the Arctic tundra is changing very rapidly in this new climate regime. Of course. And he knows how they have been growing for the past few thousand years, and what's new now, and the implications of that rapid and noticeable alteration of the Arctic tundra ecology. What exactly is your problem with his observations and contentions?
Ah. Then again, you could go to this link: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/ and see that they admit there's a pause unless you claim to be a shaluka. And you could go to the arctic sea ice news and analysis site and see that this year set a record in the amount of sea ice. And we all know that sea ice comes from warming temperatures, right? See the problem with NASA data yet and data in general for this sorta thing? How about using the chart with just the title alone in this pdf: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/press_releases/lectures/Loeb_LaRC_Colloq.pdf Citing the latest data from NOAA and NASA, Dr. David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist and academic advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said that the 2013 global surface-temperature records from both entities show the “pause” in warming continues. CO2 Levels in a chart from NASA can be found at http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/24_g-co2-l.jpg And that is where everything goes haywire. The amount of CO2 in the last 20 years has been increasing, but the temperature hasn't been rising. Strange how facts work, eh? "...and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story ...You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here!" The rabbit holes of science are far and wide and yet the ignorance of such astound me. Could we be guilty of our own eco hysteria dark age? Never! Never. Ever. Ever.
The ones near where I lived in New York. They were cut for a farm about 150 years ago, and the forest has slowly grown back. When I was a young kid the forests were very "clean" - just trees and low brush. Now they're tangled mats of downed trees and dead leaves. Of course not; a lot has been cut, so there is less carbon sequestered in trees. (But you're making my point for me here - cutting down forests has reduced carbon sequestration in many places. Those are two different arguments: 1) Forests tend to sequester carbon (which you seem to disagree with) 2) It's difficult to incentivize people to plant forests (agreed)
From your link: "Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. " Not a pause, a slowdown. Actually it has been rising, but at about a third of the previous rate. Don't you hate when the very facts you try to use prove you wrong?
