Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Climate change doubles tundra plant life, boosting shrubs, grasses

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:36 AM
Original message
Climate change doubles tundra plant life, boosting shrubs, grasses
Source: Canadian Press

Climate change is already having a dramatic effect on plants in the High Arctic, turning the once rocky tundra a deep shade of green and creating what could be another mechanism speeding up global warming.
...
And if that is the case, Henry said the new, denser, shrubbier tundra could speed up global warming even further simply because that vegetation is darker and absorbs more solar energy. Previous studies have suggested that a global spread of thicker plant growth on the tundra could have the same effect as doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hs8ZNOHYfz_UDABLKYTaxOeEitCg



A war effort is required. Too many people just don't want to think about it though, unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Gee, I thought all those plants growing would ABSORB some carbon.
But what do I know, I'm just a culcha vulcha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. How did all those plant seeds get there in the first place unless...... never mind nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Didn't read that there are new plants....but your point is there have been past warming events, yes?
Without the help of human emissions and land-use changes.

Does that form your opinion about our current warming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katkat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. change mind?
No. Of course there have been variations in climate in the past. But the rapidity of warming currently is unprecedented, and the correlation with pollution and other worldwide destructive activities, well... You can't pee or worse in the water and expect it to stay pure. Or decimate the rain forests or dump mountains of plastic in the ocean or overfish species to extinction or built countless coal plants or run millions of cars and expect those things not to have a disastrous effect. Especially when the human population is at 125% of the planet's carrying capacity.

Back when the world had a small human population, our waste and pollution were not enough to have a significant impact. Now we're figuratively standing on each other's toes.

Wishing it were otherwise and things were simpler, does not make it so. It's like not going to the doctor because you're hoping if that lump doesn't get diagnosed as cancer that somehow you magically don't have cancer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Where did you find 125%?
I would like to see such a calculation and the assumptions that go into it. The carrying capacity is a lot bigger is you live like the average Bangladeshi than if you live like the average American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #20
48. Try this resource
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

The data tables they use are linked at the bottom of that page.

That's Mathis Wackernagel's organization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
45. So you think Canada shouldn't exploit the current event and plant wheat ? How many North Koreans
would this extra acreage of winter wheat feed ? Or do you feel its a bad idea to plant crops and "make hay" ?

Unless you are a creationist, the evidence the world was always frozen at the poles is a theory that doesn't hold water.
Which would make 'unbelivers' of intelligent design not welcome here.



http://www.unityinchrist.com/dinosaurs/dinosaurs2.htm

ironic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. Probably from the hundreds of millions of birds or hundreds of thousands of caribou.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
46. How about the fossil evidence found in Antarctica ?
I doubt penguins waddled through the flora and fauna of Antarctica back in the day.



I wouldn't be suprised if an isolated pocket near the polar circles could yeild up a secret or two in the form of a seed...

in due time...


http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/09/most-alien-looking-place-on-earth.html

jmo
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0307-name_that_species.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Penguins are found in more areas then just Antarctica.
So the chances of seeds in antarctica is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. Penguins are also not the only bird species there
Arctic terns (for one) migrate from the arctic to Antarctica every year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. You are absolutely correct. It would be more strange to not find foriegn plant life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katkat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. seeds
Some seeds remain viable for a very long time. I think I read that some seeds found in Egyptian tombs have been sprouted. A lot's happened in terms of moving soil around and seeds with it over millenia. Plus birds and other animals distribute seeds in the, ah, obvious manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Certainly they will, but shin high? Hardly a tropical jungle...yet the colour change
could be widespread over that vast area.

I'm sure the scientists who studies the effects and have estimated the impact of such a change (as alluded to in the story) took your point under consideration. But yeah, I can see that as being the likely response from the usual quarters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. plants absorb CO2 by day
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 12:42 PM by northernlights
but release some of it at night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
50. They will absorb some carbon, but their warming effect will help thaw permafrost
And permafrost is LOADED with carbon:

"Involving collaboration between scientists from Australia, Russia, the US, the UK, Canada and Europe the three-year study concluded that accounting for carbon stored deep in the permafrost more than doubles - to more than 1500 billion tonnes - previous estimates of the world's high-latitude carbon inventory.

"This is equivalent to twice the current amount of CO2 in the world's atmosphere," says co-author, CSIRO's Dr Pep Canadell, from The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research - a partnership between CSIRO the Australian Bureau of Meteorology."

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Permafrost_Carbon_Con...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
55. Rapidly growing woody plants do absorb carbon. But the melting permafrost
releases far more methane, so it's a net problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
64. They're also lowering the albedo of the region. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. Prepare for elk, moose, and caribou populations out of control as their food supply mushrooms
We should all gear up for some major herd-culling followed by sausage-making and grilling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Article says the opposite may be the case if their normal winter food - lichen - suffers
which it will if taller plants take over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. they fart alot and that will cause global warming.
probably not butt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. I thought plants took CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Do they absorb more heat than the do CO2?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. As the article states:
"Previous studies have suggested that a global spread of thicker plant growth on the tundra could have the same effect as doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

The colour of a surface has a huge impact on the amount of heat is created by the sunlight hitting due to less sunlight being reflected, with it's heat energy, back into space.

I haven't read these previous studies, but I would guess that the scant amount of C02 absorbed by short tundra plants is nore than offset by the vast land colour change this development represents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. reflectvity
The loss of reflective capacity is not offset by CO2 absorption from scrub growth. There is not going to be a temperate climate forest or a rainforest there. Plus the other effect is the melting of the permafrost and the resultant discharge of stored methane in the subsoil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. Just goes to show that two diametrically opposed conclusions can be reached with the same data.
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 01:45 PM by timeforpeace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. As there are no dumb questions (so they keep saying in college) I'll ask: what two conclusions? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
destes Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. That's a good question, THC,
Bet you don't get an answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Just reading through, I'd say. . . dark vegetation will increase warming (bad), while plant growth
absorbs co2 (good); diametrically opposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. I disagree that they're "diametricall opposed," if dismetric means equal...
...unless we're to believe that scientists are SO stupid that they ignore the extra C02 absorption of the extra tundra shrubbery.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. A war effort? I'm confused, about "too many people just don't..."
as well. There's simply not a lot an individual can do that will be significant enough by itself or in conjunction to ebb global warming. Folks that can seem to be out there doing what they can, stopping what they can (excessive driving and excessive vehicles).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carla Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. There is ONE THING individuals can do
to offset the carbon equations and help ease global warming. PLANT TREES. Very Simple.
www.la-reserva.org Imagine a "war effort" of tree planting world wide. Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Plant trees? That's your solution? Not every environment can support that proposition
And I seriously doubt that alone is going to stop global warming, or CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. Sorry, planting trees in appropriate areas will help, and many people have planted numerous trees and plants in areas that used to be pretty much barren; but to think it is the cure all seems quite wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. The green trees also absorb light and decrease albedo
I think the current solution is to pave everything and paint it white.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. Not so in northern climes. And this speaks to the question raised by many here...
...darkening the landscape with plants/trees can have an adverse effect when you get north. This is what scientists are telling us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Yes, a war effort. Something like what we saw in Britain and North America and elsewhere
to win WW1 and WW2. Everybody bent their back to the same goal.

And I didn't say any particular individual, acting alone, would solve the problem. But all individuals, acting together, certainly would stand a chance.

From my experience, and I've had a lot talking to people about this issue, many just don't want to think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. And as individuals what would you propose we all do in a concerted effort?
And whose going to pay for the lost wages while we do it? The further slow down to commerce and the economy? I understand your concern, but it is going to take technological advances to make the kind of wide spread environmental reform we need to make. I believe I've heard tell that the admin, most Dems, and even many others are as we speak are supporting those advances as well as building and inventing a greener tomorrow. While they are busy doing that, perhaps we should each do what little we can with flourescent bulbs, higher MPG vehicles, and so on; so when they got their stuff through, probably also higher a huge number of us in the mean time, we still have a relatively smoothly flowing economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. It's a false assumption that a war-type effort would mean "lost wages while we do it"...
or that the economy and commerce would have to slow down. Does the economy slow down during war efforts?

You are correct that technological advances are required. A war-type effort needs to be brought to bear to bring about such advances.

As far as what individuals do....that is well known. What is missing is the pressure and will to ensure all individuals do those things. A war effort means people are required to act, not just told they should because it would help but if you don't want to then, well, that's your personal choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
21. Obviously it's a wake-up alarm, but also couldn't much of the vegetation be harvested as well ... ?
To provide organic mulch fertilizer for areas that desperately need it (also reducing production/consumption of agrichemicals as well as mitigating the feedback loop). I'm sure that starving areas of the Sahelian zone could use a few billion tons of such mulch to stave off the expanding Sahara, for starters

If this is a stupid question, could someone KNOWLEDGEABLE please explain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I'm familiar with the tundra. Just came through it by train. Besides the logistical problem...
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 07:22 PM by time_has_come
..(there's very few roads up there...even long before you get to the tundra many areas and communities in them are accessed only by plane)

But also this vegetation is pretty scant stuff. Like the article mentions, now it's tickling the shins. that's what...six inches? The amount of area that you'd have to harvest, destroying sensitive habitat in the process and using fuel to do it, would be vast.

edit: it's also very marshy and rocky land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The abyss Donating Member (930 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
22. Well hell!
I sure hope Saint Al gets his carbon tax trading board in place…. In time to save us from the plants that emit CO2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. I like a joke as much as anyone, but it's strange how so many people like to joke about this issue.
GW is already killing over 300,000 per year according to a 100+ page study by the Global Humanitarian Forum. Saint Al indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The abyss Donating Member (930 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. No offense intended.
Posting on any blog, especially a political blog, is no different than replying to a TAT card. In other words don’t take offense.

When it comes to “climate issues” I suggest we should all examine the natural planetary scale.

Saint Al ain’t out there trying to save the world, he’s out there trying desperately to convince you that somehow you should accept less and should feel “real bad” because things-r-a-changing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. No offense taken at all. It's just an odd how muddled this has become...
...with talk about "natural" cycles and the mocking focus on Al Gore. As if Al Gore invented the idea of global warming.

He's done a lot of good raising awareness, especially outside North America. Here he's such a polarizing figure that I wonder if he's done more harm than good.

I'm curious to hear from you what you mean by "we should all examine the natural planetary scale." Can you oblige?

cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The abyss Donating Member (930 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. I think “polarizing” is an excellent term!
This little orb, we call earth, gets hot then it gets cold, ask any geologist. Planetary scale = geological time.

“We”, little humans, are not releasing any more or different compounds than already existed here at a basic atomic level. We can’t because it was already here! Cloraforacarbons included.

My comments are not meant to indicate that our activities as humans are somehow benign. But I feel on a planetary scale, those activities are no more damaging than a collection of beavers building dams.

Given enough time a beaver dam gets washed down stream. Given enough time the Hoover dam will wash away into the Gulf of California.

My advise, don’t let Saint Al tell you that somehow you are a ,“bad-bad human”.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. No offense, but you need to become more informed.
Scientists understand warming and cooling of the past very well.

Our current rapid warming is not explained by the things that explain the events in the eons of the past. Solar activity, volcanism, orbital changes, all the reasons of before do not explain what's happening today.

The "natural" pablum is an easy and believable feed for a public that is unwilling or unable to accept what's happening today. Unfortunately, it's a lie.

My advice, believe reality, no matter how scary and unpleasant it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Also, learn about the planetary cycle that greenhouse gasses
you have a simplistic view of this, at present. Simply knowing that what we release have been here all this time and believing that to mean we're not responsible is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The abyss Donating Member (930 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. I will agree that we must disagree.
I see this as nothing more than political theater.

I guess we’ll just have to wait around and see what happens. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. You see science as political theater.
Does it matter what happens, in regard to how you choose to see things? Regardless of what happens, would you not cling to the illusion that it's "natural"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. buy a clue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
58. I sure hope you didn't and/or won't breed, with your care-less-about-consequences attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
57. So, do you maintain that we should just gleefully burn as much fossil fuel
as we please, as fast as we please, and to hell with potential consequences? Because the evidence for AGW is extremely strong, and the evidence to the contrary is mighty thin.

What are you, two years old and spoiled rotten???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The abyss Donating Member (930 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. Settle down – try not to expel too much co2.
GW and all considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Ooh! It burns! The witty, Dorothy-Parkeresque snark! It's so FUNNY and ORIGINAL!!!!!!
Toodles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
56. Wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
28. We need a huge volcano to throw enough debris into the air
to cool the climate for a year or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. I was actually quite surprised to find out that contrails probably help
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 08:58 PM by Better Today
keep us cooler as well as the smog of all things. I imagine you're being a smart ass, but I think it may be, though bad on many levels like smog, a temporary solution to global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. It would be horrible, but it might buy us some time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
59. Global dimming - the cooling effect of jet contrails and such - is just MASKING
the true extent of GW.

It ought to scare the living daylights out of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. Our kids should be really pissed at the mess we are leaving them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galledgoblin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #28
65. "thank god nuclear winter canceled out global warming"
Futurama should not be looked to for solutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##



This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
44. Tundra is not ice and snow
Tundra already is pretty much green and dark colored. I do not understand what they are talking about since more growth does not mean more carbon dioxide in the air but less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. don't tell that to the journalists that spin the story to fit their view nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. I wonder if the protruding stems and branches in spring and fall may make a difference
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 02:58 PM by NickB79
The tundra usually receives less than 10" of snowfall a year; it is a frozen desert for much of the season. During the winter, the landscape is one of mostly white snow, broken here and there by rocky outcroppings and occasional open patches of ground.

With a covering of shrubs and grasses 1-2 ft tall, there will be a slight increase in the region's albedo. All those dark, protruding stems and branches may make a noticeable difference on the amount of sunlight absorbed during the spring, when the sun begins to shine again but before the snow typically melts, and during the fall when snow begins to fall and the soil freezes up. If that speeds up the spring thaw, and delays the fall soil freeze, that means more CO2 released as the permafrost thaws deeper and further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #44
60. Not as dark as taller vegetation though
Here's a paper from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (an independent research center associated with the University of Oslo).

Desert – tundra – forest
The major Arctic vegetation zones include the polar deserts,
tundra, and northern part of the boreal forest. The northernmost
zone that covers most of the high Arctic is the polar
desert, characterized by open patches of bare ground and an
absence of even the smallest woody shrubs. Tundra is
characterized by low shrub vegetation. Climate warming is
projected to cause vegetation shifts because rising temperatures
favor taller, denser vegetation, and will thus promote the
expansion of forests into the Arctic tundra, and tundra into the
polar deserts. This change, along with rising sea levels, is
projected to shrink tundra area to its lowest level in at least the
past 21,000 years, greatly reducing the breeding area for many
bird species and the grazing areas for land animals that depend
on the open landscape of tundra and polar desert habitats. Not
only are some threatened species very likely to become extinct,
some currently widespread species are projected to decline
sharply.
...
Countervailing Forces on Climate
The projected reduction in tundra and expansion of forest will
cause a decrease in surface reflectivity, amplifying global
warming because the newly forested areas are darker and more
textured and thus absorb more solar radiation than the lighter,
smoother tundra. For example, black spruce is the least
reflective of any vegetation type on Earth and it is likely to be a
large part of the mix of new trees in North America. In
addition, expanding forests will mask highly reflective snow.
The darkening of the surface that results from these changes
will create a feedback loop whereby more warming will lead to
more tree growth, which will cause more warming, and so on.
On the other hand, the expanding forest vegetation will be more
productive than the existing tundra vegetation, and the tundra
will be more productive than the polar deserts it displaces.
Model results suggest that this could increase storage of carbon,
slightly moderating the projected amount of warming. The net
effect of these countervailing forces involves multiple
competing influences that are not fully understood. However,
recent studies suggest that the increase in absorption of solar
radiation will dominate over the increase in carbon storage,
resulting in a net increase in warming.

http://acia.cicero.uio.no/factsheets/3_vegetation_zones.pdf


Tall vegetation tends to shed snow, and thus have longer periods of looking 'dark' from above compared with tundra that has short vegetation which is completely covered for a significant part of the year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
53. this issue is too serious for some
so serious they can't agree nor disprove the science. Keep posting about this topic... the only theatre I see from this issue, are those who try to dismiss it. A kick and a recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC