iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Neil Wagner

GET UPDATES FROM Neil Wagner
 

Global Warming Gives Trees the Cold Shoulder -- And Frozen Roots

Posted: 03/ 6/2012 12:37 pm

2012-03-09-earth.gif

While the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are often used interchangeably, scrutiny of the two phrases reveals a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Global warming refers to an increase in our planet's average temperature, while climate change refers to the planet's many and varied climactic effects triggered by, among other things, global warming.

When hearing the phrase "global warming" people often assume it means that every place on Earth is getting warmer. Not so. In fact, a recent study surmises that the expansion of warming Arctic air will push colder air south, resulting in a cooling of Europe. A warming globe causing a cooler Europe? That just might be the case.

Just as ironic is the conclusion of the research that inspired today's comic strip: global warming is causing trees near the Arctic to freeze. Reduced snowfall in that region is one of the climactic effects triggered by warmer conditions. With reduced snow cover, the roots of yellow cedars aren't getting the insulation typically provided by snow. This insulation is needed to protect the cedars' shallow roots from freezing, since conditions in and near the Arctic circle -- while warming -- are still cold.

Question: How should we deal with a global phenomenon that can use warmth to freeze things?
Answer: Very seriously!

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Like "What on Earth?" on Facebook.
Become a Fan here at The Huffington Post.

An earlier version of this blog incorrectly stated that there are yellow cedars in the Arctic.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 20
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
05:35 PM on 03/12/2012
Fascinating -- "With REDUCED snow cover, the roots of yellow cedars aren't getting the insulation typically provided by snow."

Except I JUST read this in the news: "Less sea ice brings more snow" at http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338792/title/Less_sea_ice_brings_more_snow

So which is it, more snow or less snow?

I guess there is more snow in some areas and less snow in others?

Typical, that you can prove anything you want with the AGW theory.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Neil Wagner
12:43 PM on 03/13/2012
I understand the "you can prove anything you want..." charge. At the same time, there are a few caveats:
A) As best as I can tell the graphic in your linked article shows minimal, very isolated increase in snowfall in Alaska. (Admittedly I don't see any decrease either). Reminds me of Greenland, whose ice sheet is melting rapidly at the edges, creating moist air, which leads to more snow (and, thus, ice) at high altitudes in the middle of the sheet. So it is both losing AND gaining ice.
B) You ask if it is "more snow or less snow." The graphic shows that some areas around the globe get noticeably more snow, while others get less.
C) Scientists will be the first to tell you "exact science" is a misnomer. They are struggling to learn about our world so we can all understand it better. Findings aren't released as an official decree that all the answers have been found. Climate science will forever be a work in progress—I view the consensus as a valid warning to be heeded, rather than a final conclusion.
11:14 PM on 03/13/2012
Thank you Neil.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Neil Wagner
11:22 AM on 03/08/2012
A few notes:

A) CORRECTION: While yellow cedars are in Alaska, they are not in the Arctic. Frankly, I had subconsciously associated them with the Arctic and never realized my oversight until you folks pointed it out. Good catch!

B) While "What on Earth" is a humble blog and comic strip, I work very hard to correctly cite credible sources — and provide links — to support my cartoons and text. I want WOE to entertain, inform and always be accurate. I'm proud of my track record, and regret this strip's error.

C) I appreciate your input. Following up on your comments, I've been able to increase my Arctic knowledge. That's a good thing.
photo
Winterseeker
For the trees...we need them, not vice versa.
09:31 AM on 03/07/2012
Understanding the positive and negative feedback cycles is a race against time, and we are falling behind fast. Good on this writer to bring out some clarity through this fairly simple example, I encourage those who read this to learn more about local and global consequences due to climate change and global warming rather than assume everything the media wants you to. Ultimately, these changes which harm the climate and nature will, in just another cycle, come back to harm the very perpetrators who fuelled this disastrous situation, us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Knocker
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
10:53 PM on 03/06/2012
Another disturbing phenomenon that global warming have on the Arctic is that the acceleration of the melting of the ice-caps is slowly causing polar bear to face extinction.
09:04 AM on 03/07/2012
Simply untrue - the polar bear population across the entire arctic is at its highest level in almost fifty years. Some areas of population have increased in numbers while others have declined. But overall, they've never done better. (And the Al Gore picture of a PB on a tiny ice floe evidently about to drown . . . the bear was only a few yards off shore, it was used without permission of the photographer and used to prove his incorrect theory). PBs drowning? Untrue a couple have washed up - no evidence of drownign and no significance to this - they spend 1/5 of their time in the water - sometimes they die there. And, they can swim a hundred or more miles. They are almost acquatic animals.
10:24 PM on 03/06/2012
You deleted my comment that pointed out that there are no trees in the Arctic because, it made you look stupid and uninformed......

There are STILL no trees in the Arctic and your article STILL mentions the "trees in the Arctic" as freezing.

You see, the other thing is... is that the trees "SOUTH" of the tree line, every year, freeze and thaw. Because there are four seasons there.

So the study quoted is ridiculous.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Neil Wagner
09:21 AM on 03/07/2012
A) I'm always looking to expand my knowledge, so I will study the precise definition of "Arctic." Thanks for the heads-up. This link seems to LARGELY concur with the info you provided, but I sense a little wiggle room. I will return with more comments. http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/arctic_definition.html
B) I did not delete anything. HuffPost has complete control over which comments appear and when - including mine.
C) I'm guessing you feel you know more than every researcher you take issue with.
C) You sound very angry.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Neil Wagner
12:05 PM on 03/07/2012
My final follow-up to your "no trees in the Arctic" meme:
A) You may want to contact the U.S. National Park Service and explain that their Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve - which is within the Arctic Circle contains "boreal forest. This is the largest forest ecosystem on earth..."
http://www.nps.gov/gaar/naturescience/plants.htm
B) "Contrary to popular belief, the Arctic is not all snow and ice.... a large portion of the Arctic is comprised of forested and tundra regions
"Trees are unable to survive in the high Arctic because of the extreme low temperatures"
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/resources_faq.html
C) A link in the story tells you who did the research
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
10:12 PM on 03/06/2012
"Information on the ages of canopy-level yellow-cedar trees (i.e., nearly all > 100 years old, (Hennon and Shaw, 1994)), suggests that the trees that died throughout the 1900s, and those that continue to die, regenerated and grew into their dominant positions during the Little Ice Age. We speculate that yellow-cedar colonized low elevation sites during this period, when winter and spring snowpacks were more consistent."
http://www.fs.fed.us/r10legacy/spf/fhp/cedar/onset.html

Summary: The Little Ice Age enabled the yellow cedar to migrate down the mountains. The Little Ice Age is over so they'll migrate back up the mountains.
08:37 AM on 03/07/2012
What mountains??? Are we talking about the same "Arctic" - I've been to the Arctic and . . . (1) there are NO trees in the Arctic - that is the main definer for the Arctic, and (2) The Arctic I was in has NO Mountains. Yeah - when you get to the mountainous areas (Rockies). But the Arctic is mostly flat. Who did this study??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
03:56 PM on 03/07/2012
Neil Wagner posted the study in his article above. The US Forest Service R&D PNW Research Station did the study. Neil mentions the Arctic but I don't know why. The Yellow Cedar range is south of the Arctic in southern Alaska and along the Pacific coast down to Washington State.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10legacy/spf/fhp/cedar/tree.html

To answer your question: The yellow cedar is dying in southeast Alaska and northwest BC in the Coast Mountains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Mountains

It is very mountainous there.
04:16 PM on 03/06/2012
Heres a link
http://www.athropolis.com/map5.htm
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Neil Wagner
10:17 PM on 03/06/2012
Simple, straightforward, informative: defines the Arctic in an accessible way. Is there info about a shift in the treeline?
08:46 AM on 03/07/2012
I suppose you kind of need to examine that over a very long period. You do ask an intelligent question. If this could be determined then there would be conclusive proof of long term climate change / warming. I would almost certainly not trust the reporters - their findings would almost certainly be biased one way or another. And the truth would most likely be - year.... it's moved over here, but no, it actually moved south over there. Half the scientists would report one side, and the others the other...
04:16 PM on 03/06/2012
Hey.... guess what.... THERE ARE NO TREES IN THE ARCTIC . . . .
That's what defines it as the Arctic.

This is so typical of the stupidity of global warming alarmists.

ps - the shrubs and ground cover in the Arctic go through thaw and freezing every year and always have - they actually have four seasons up there.
02:35 PM on 03/06/2012
More of this, please. (Better than those exaggerated reports which 'prove AGW beyond all doubt' that will never convince Gingrich and co.)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Neil Wagner
04:54 PM on 03/06/2012
I'm glad you enjoy "What on Earth." There is PLENTY more to read at Huffington Post, Science Friday and on Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/whatonearthcomics
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blog/author/NeilWagner/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-wagner
09:07 AM on 03/07/2012
Well Neil, re your cartoon... note there are no trees in the arctic and....... puffins and polar bears are near each other in the dictionary, but do not co-exist (except in zoos) the rest of time they are thousands of miles apart.