Arctic gets greener as climate warms up

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

Of the 10 million square miles (26 million square kilometers) of northern vegetated lands, 34 to 41 percent showed increases in plant growth (green and blue), 3 to 5 percent decreases in plant growth (orange and red), and 51 to 62 percent no changes (yellow) over the past 30 years, new research shows.

By LiveScience

Higher temperatures and a longer growing season mean some of Earth's chilliest regions are looking increasingly green, researchers say.

Today, the plant life at northern latitudes often looks like the vegetation researchers would have observed up to 430 miles (700 kilometers) farther south in 1982, according to a new study.

"It's like Winnipeg, Manitoba, moving to Minneapolis-Saint Paul in only 30 years," study researcher Compton Tucker of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said in a statement.

Tucker and a team of university and NASA scientists looked at 30 years' worth of satellite and land surface data on vegetation growth from 45 degrees north latitude to the Arctic Ocean. In this region, large patches of lush vegetation now stretch over an area about the size of the continental United States and resemble what was found 4 to 6 latitude degrees to the south in 1982, the researchers say.

"Higher northern latitudes are getting warmer, Arctic sea ice and the duration of snow cover are diminishing, the growing season is getting longer and plants are growing more," climate scientist Ranga Myneni of Boston University said in a statement, adding that the changes are leading to great disruptions for the region's ecosystems. [10 Facts About Arctic Sea Ice]

The Arctic has been warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world in the past several decades, and Myneni says an amplified greenhouse effect is largely to blame for the changes in plant life. In this cycle, high concentrations of heat-trapping gasses drive up temperatures in the ocean and atmosphere. This warming cuts down Arctic sea ice and snow cover, causing the oceans and land surfaces in the region to be exposed (ice and snow are more reflective than darker surfaces); these surfaces absorb more heat from the sun's rays, which leads to further heating of the air and further reduction of sea ice and snow. Myneni warns that the cycle could get worse.

"The greenhouse effect could be further amplified in the future as soils in the north thaw, releasing potentially significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane," Myneni said.

Using climate models, the team found that Arctic and boreal regions could see the equivalent of a 20-degree latitude shift by the end of this century due to rising temperatures. But this doesn't necessarily mean more and more plants. The researchers say the amplified greenhouse effect could have other consequences, like more forest fires, pest infestations and droughts, which cut vegetation growth.

And the availability of water and sunlight determines where plants will thrive. "Satellite data identify areas in the boreal zone that are warmer and dryer and other areas that are warmer and wetter," Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., explained in a statement. "Only the warmer and wetter areas support more growth."

The researchers also saw more plant growth in the boreal zone from 1982 to 1992 than from 1992 to 2011 — a trend they attributed to a lack of water in the region during the last two decades of the study.

The research was detailed Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We're also on Facebook and Google+.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Discuss this post

Well, with the loss of more and more sea ice, the extra vegetation may be a blessing in disguise. The animals have to eat Something. I don't know if this area is the area that the polar bears are using to hunt for food.

The whole ecosystem seems to be going out of whack.

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:51 PM EDT

I'm sure the increased greenery will prove beneficial to some, allowing many species to move north. Species already adapted to the highest latitudes may not do as well though. Polar bears seem to require the pack ice, and don't do as well on land no matter how green, but maybe they will learn.

  • 5 votes
#1.1 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:23 PM EDT
Reply

It's doubtful that we can talk polar bears into going vegan.

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:17 PM EDT

There's still ground squirrels! Or caribou for that matter, but it's kind of hard to sneak up on them when you're a big white thing on the tundra.

  • 3 votes
#2.1 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:33 PM EDT
Reply

Yeah, I fear the polar bears are going to get the short end of the stick. I wish I knew the answer. So many species are on the verge of extinction or will be in the next few years.

I know the Orangutan's are being helped, albeit in a small way, the Chimps are being protected also in a small way but its a start. Same goes for Lions Tigers etc.. The Big Cats. Rhino's are starting to get help, hopefully that wont be too little too late. But I do not ever hear of anyone thinking about or actively trying to do something about the Polar Bears.

Please don't get me wrong, there very well may be efforts underway that I am just unaware of. I just hope there is a conservation group or country that is looking into the plight of the Polar Bears and Arctic wildlife in general.

  • 5 votes
Reply#3 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:01 PM EDT

Alaska has cooled 2.4 degrees since the year 2000. Bering sea ice was at record amounts. What warming?

    Reply#4 - Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:20 AM EDT

    What is your source?

    • 2 votes
    #4.1 - Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:22 AM EDT

    Yup. Confirmed. Alaska is an anomoly and has cooled, while the rest of the planet has warmed. Interesting how messy climate is.

    • 1 vote
    #4.3 - Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:41 PM EDT
    Reply

    Economykiller uses a climate denial website , whatsupwiththat.com, as a source! Of course, he cannot find as real scientific source like NOAA to reference because it would show his BS he blabbers about on every climate change story!

    • 1 vote
    Reply#5 - Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:34 PM EDT

    Shooting the messenger again? The reports come from both the National Weather Service and from NASA!

    Are you claiming that the NWS and NASA aren't scientific sources? Why is NOAA (oops, the National Weather Service is part of NOAA) the only source that matters?

    And the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) just released a report that admits they had a problem and that there hasn't been as much melting on Greenland as they previously reported.

    The melt extent algorithm used by Greenland Ice Sheet Today has been overestimating the melt extent, and as a result, daily images posted on this site in February and March may have indicated melt where none occurred.

    http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/2013/03/an-early-spring-calibration-for-melt-detection/

    So I have provided reports from three scientific sources, NWS (part of YOUR scientific source NOAA), NASA and NSIDC.

    I love how people like you attack the messenger because you can't attack the message.

      #5.1 - Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:37 AM EDT
      Reply

      Another Arctic update.

      From NASA!

      Note the temperature anomaly from the month of February. See all that blue coloring at the poles? Both poles? The places that the warming was supposed to show up first and be amplified? Note how parts of the Arctic were 6 degrees COLDER than average last month?

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=2&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=02&year1=2013&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

        Reply#6 - Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:47 AM EDT
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.