Peter Spotts has a very
informative and intriguing article in the Christian Science Monitor on the country's growing wildfire risk. While researchers say it's premature to blame the recent So Cal fires on global warming, there is evidence to suggest that climate change has increased the number and longevity of fires (and also the longevity of the fire season) in the West, especially "in forests in the northern Rockies at middle elevations." Far more surprising, however, is this paragraph:
Global warming is expected to increase fire hazards in the western United States under a range of global-warming scenarios. But the greatest increase in risk, some researchers say, is likely to come in the East and Southeast. There, snowmelt and rainfall are unlikely to slake the increasing thirst of trees and shrubs as CO2 spurs their growth during longer, warmer growing seasons. This could leave more of the eastern woodlands drier and more vulnerable to wildfires by summer's end. Meanwhile, some of the most dense mingling of homes and woods – what experts call the wildland-urban interface – can be found in the eastern US.
Not surprisingly, forest fires are a big source of carbon dioxide -- nothing compared to the burning of fossil fuels, mind you, but significant nonetheless. Here's the lead from an
article by AP environmental reporter Seth Borenstein:
In one week, Southern California's wildfires spewed the same amount of carbon dioxide - the primary global warming gas - as the state's power plants and vehicles did, scientists figure.
A new study by two Colorado researchers shows that U.S. wildfires pump a significant amount of the greenhouse gas into the air each year, more than the state of Pennsylvania does.
Even more disturbing are indications that, as fires increase, the vast boreal forests, which span northern Canada, Alaska, Siberia, China and Scandinavia, have
gone from being a carbon sink to becoming a carbon source. That is to say, the forest, which was expected to sop up excess CO2, may now be contributing to global warming, which in turn is expected to exacerbate wildfires, in what threatens to become a feedback loop. Very troubling.
2 Comments:
As I understand it then, global warming would contribute to increasing forest fires because: 1) we'll have MORE trees (due to longer, warmer growing seasons), but 2) those trees will be dryer due to less water per flora-unit than we have now.
This leads to a coupla Q's right away: Do temperatures really trump water as the primary plant growth factor (swamps are lush, deserts less so)? Also, if global warming produces more cloud cover (as some say), will less sunlight discourage growth? I sure as heck don't know.
Good questions, and I'm not expert enough to answer. One thing, though: I *think* the increased biomass associated with warming has more to do with the fertilizer effect of increased CO2 than it does with higher temperatures. But I could be wrong.
The question concerning clouds is, as far as I know, a crucial one that's still unsettled, also presumably because it would have an albedo effect.
One more thing related to what you write: recent studies in the Amazon show that the rainforest is, counterintuitively, actually greener in the dry season than the wet season. There, at least, where the water table is shallow, it appears that sunlight, not precipitation was the limiting factor on growth. I doubt that is the case in any temperate forests, but I don't know for certain.
Here's a link for more on that.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main