UNL study estimates climate change impact on arctic

Wednesday, March 16, 2011
These three figures show the arrangement of arctic climate types using (a) observational data from 1950-99 and a combination of 16 climate-change models factoring in moderate greenhouse gas increases over the next 89 years (b) and (c). The climate types and vegetations in the arctic are abbreviated as Fi (ice cap/permanent ice cover); Ft (tundra); Ec (boreal continental/shrubs); Eo (boreal oceanic/needle leaf forests); Dc (temperate continental/needle leaf and deciduous tall broadleaf forests); and Do (temperate oceanic/dense coniferous forests with large trees). Source: Song Feng, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Lincoln, Nebraska -- Imagine the vast, empty tundra in Alaska and Canada giving way to trees, shrubs and plants typical of more southerly climates. Imagine similar changes in large parts of Eastern Europe, northern Asia and Scandinavia, as needle-leaf and broadleaf forests push northward into areas once unable to support them. Imagine part of Greenland's ice cover, once thought permanent, receding and leaving new tundra in its wake.

Those changes are part of a reorganization of Arctic climates anticipated to occur by the end of the 21st century, as projected by a team of University of Nebraska-Lincoln and South Korean climatologists.

In an article to be published in a forthcoming issue of the scientific journal Climate Dynamics, the research team analyzed 16 global climate models from 1950 to 2099 and combined it with more than 100 years of observational data to evaluate what climate change might mean to the Arctic's sensitive ecosystems by the dawn of the 22nd century.

The study is one of the first to apply a specific climate classification system to a comprehensive examination of climate changes throughout the Arctic by using both observations and a collection of projected future climate changes, said Song Feng, research assistant professor in UNL's School of Natural Resources and the study's lead author.

Based on the climate projections, the new study shows that the areas of the Arctic now dominated by polar and sub-polar climate types will decline and will be replaced by more temperate climates -- changes that could affect a quarter to nearly half of the Arctic, depending on future greenhouse gas emission scenarios, by 2099.

Changes to Arctic vegetation will naturally follow shifts in the region's climates: Tundra coverage would shrink by 33 to 44 percent by the end of the century, while temperate climate types that support coniferous forests and needle-leaf trees would push northward into the breach, the study shows.

"The expansion of forest may amplify global warming, because the newly forested areas can reduce the surface reflectivity, thereby further warming the Arctic," Feng said. "The shrinkage of tundra and expansion of forest may also impact the habitat for wildlife and local residents."

Also according to the study:

* By the end of the century, the annual average surface temperature in Arctic regions is projected to increase by 5.6 to 9.5 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on the greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

* The warming, however, will not be evenly distributed across the Arctic. The strongest warming in the winter (by 13 degrees Fahrenheit) will occur along the Arctic coast regions, with moderate warming (by 4 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit) along the North Atlantic rim.

* The projected redistributions of climate types differ regionally; in northern Europe and Alaska, the warming may cause more rapid expansion of temperate climate types than in other places.

* Tundra in Alaska and northern Canada would be reduced and replaced by boreal forests and shrubs by 2059. Within another 40 years, the tundra would be restricted to the northern coast and islands of the Arctic Ocean.

* The melting of snow and ice in Greenland following the warming will reduce the permanent ice cover, giving its territory up to tundra.

"The response of vegetation usually lags changes in climate. The plants don't have legs, so it takes time for plant seed dispersal, germination and establishment of seedlings," Feng said. Still, the shrub density in tundra regions has seen a rapid increase on decadal and shorter time scales, while the boreal forest expansion has seen a much slower response on century time scales.

Also, increasing drought conditions may help offset any potential benefits of warmer temperatures and reduce the overall vegetation growth in the Arctic regions, Feng said.

Non-climate factors -- human activity, land use changes, permafrost thawing, pest outbreaks and wildfires, for example -- may also locally affect the response of vegetation to temperature warming in the Arctic.

In addition to Feng, researchers on the project included climatologists Qi Hu and Robert Oglesby of UNL; Su-Jong Jeong and Chang-Hoi Ho of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Seoul National University; and Baek-Min Kim of the Korean Polar Research Institute in Incheon.

Comments
View 8 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    The global warming hoax continues....

    What's in store for tommorrow? Little Red Riding Hood?

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Mar 16, 2011, at 3:24 PM
  • Obviously, they are receiving grants from EPA or NSF. This goes against the mainstream! I personally would rather have a warming climate than a cooling phase. Plants need heat and liquid water. Water in solid form and frozen plants don't produce! What is causing this change? Man made CO2? Dream on! Talk about "egocentric" and arogance. Telling me humans have an affect on climate change? Only if selling "Carbon Credits".

    -- Posted by Online on Wed, Mar 16, 2011, at 5:51 PM
  • humans have an effect on climate change. keep burying your head in the sand

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Mar 16, 2011, at 10:31 PM
  • UNL's own climatologist just a few years ago explained to us at a meeting that these Global Warming nuts are expert staticians. The can mold their own results by changing numbers.

    They also present findings that are always worst case scenarios.

    I mean...the worst can scenario in my mind for our planet is that in the next century our yellow giant star, aka...the Sun, will make its transition into a red Giant.

    At that point it will swell up so large it will engulf our planet. This will happen some day. All stars go throught a lifecycle.

    When? No one knows. The experts don't think it will be another several billion years. But what if they're wrong?

    Will Global warming matter then?

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Wed, Mar 16, 2011, at 11:50 PM
  • BigDawg: Human activity has a greater affect on Global warming than Sun Spot activity? Why did the planet go through climate changes (cyclic Ice Ages) before the Industrial Revolution?

    -- Posted by Online on Thu, Mar 17, 2011, at 5:53 AM
  • Regression analysis works until it doesn't. This misinformation is to be expected. We are heading into a cooling period so all of this will be amended.

    Wallis

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Mar 17, 2011, at 11:46 AM
  • Isn't it strange how we all interpret things so differently! I read the article and found no mention of the human race being indicted, so the rant towards the scientists in that venue may have been off topic.

    This past winter I also listened to a presenter from another state that spent a great deal of time explaining the methods that many of these researchers use to arrive at their conclusions. One method that was very intriguing to me was the ability to study thousands of years of atmospheric conditions by analyzing the oxygen that is in the ice that has been cored from the polar icecaps. Seasons are read from the ice much like the rings on a tree. According to his presentation, these are trends that involve thousands of years, and I believe that is the biggest problem that people have, is in grasping the planet's concept of time.

    Castigating every one of these researchers and their respective schools seems a bit over the top as well. I know several people that are honest to goodness scientists, and hardly think that they have agendas.This would be tantamount to saying that all of the info on ag chemical labels was bogus because research was funded by the manufacturer itself through it's favorite university.

    I don't know if you were referring to Al Dutcher or not, but I've heard him several times and that's not exactly the message that I took away.

    -- Posted by hulapopper on Sat, Mar 19, 2011, at 7:06 AM
  • I can imagine some of the same comments now being made about the ability of puny man to effect the climate of the whole globe once being made about the fate of the seemingly limitless herds of bison that once roamed these plains and the flocks of passenger pigeons that darkened the air above them.

    Just once I'd like to have a naysayer cite by researcher's name and institution a study of the same sort that serves as foundation for this article.I realize that's a forlorn hope. Those naysayers can't do that kind of citation for the reason there is no original research supporting their position. They have only their denial of the preponderance of evidence that exists, and that's supposed to be convincing and conclusive.

    -- Posted by davis_x_machina on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 9:06 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: