[Vision2020] Question about forest health- Plummer, ID

[Ted Moffett]

On 7/26/11, Lynn McCollough <lmccollough at gmail.com> wrote:

I am now expecting some horrific fires in a wide range of the west, as
our hills and mountain ranges fill with dead, dry standing trees.
Alas. THAT will be a carbon footprint.

-------
Indeed.

A major "tipping point" for anthropogenic climate change is a "dieback
of the Amazon rainforest" which, in part from fires in this region,
could cause major CO2 emissions.

Read Fig. 1 ( http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20616/F1.large.jpg )
from the following 2009 Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences paper regarding major climate tipping points that can be
induced by human impacts: Arctic summer ice free, Himalayan Tibetan
glaciers, Greenland ice sheet, Amazon rain forest, ENSO, Thermohaline
circulation, West Antarctic ice sheet.

Some excerpts from this article are below, including a passage
revealing the magnitude of human influence on forests to either
mitigate or accelerate global warming.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20616.full

Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and
other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions

Edited by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Environmental Change Institute,
Oxford, United Kingdom, and approved August 31, 2009 (received for
review March 9, 2009)

Current emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) have
already committed the planet to an increase in average surface
temperature by the end of the century that may be above the critical
threshold for tipping elements of the climate system into abrupt
change with potentially irreversible and unmanageable consequences.
This would mean that the climate system is close to entering if not
already within the zone of “dangerous anthropogenic interference”
(DAI).
----------
There are large uncertainties associated with tipping points, which
are often considered as examples of “surprises.” Ramanathan and Feng
(9) estimate the likelihood of reaching the predicted critical
temperature threshold that triggers various tipping elements by
considering the probability distribution for the temperature increase
associated with the “committed” level of warming, which these authors
report to be 2.4 °C (1.4–4.3 °C). This is the estimated average
surface temperature increase above preindustrial values that would
take place if the concentrations of GHGs were held constant at their
2005 values, but without aerosol forcing, land surface albedo changes,
or any other anthropogenic forcing; that is, the 2.4 °C value is based
on past emissions and is comprised of 0.76 °C observed surface warming
plus 1.6 °C additional warming lagged in the oceans and “masked” by
cooling aerosols (9). Fig. 1 presents their results for various
policy-relevant tipping elements (9), most of which Lenton et al. (8)
include in their analysis; for elimination of Arctic summer sea ice
and melting of the Himalayan-Tibetan glaciers and the Greenland Ice
Sheet, the probability that the committed warming exceeds the tipping
point temperature is estimated to be larger than 50%, and it is
estimated to be >10% for dieback of the Amazon Rainforest, more
persistent and higher amplitude El Niño conditions, reorganization of
the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation, and melting of the West
Antarctic Ice Sheet. The transition time scales estimated for these
tipping elements vary from as little as 10 years for loss of summer
sea ice in the Arctic to 50 years for Amazon and other forest die-off,
to 300 years, at the low end, for melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet,
and 300 years as the worst-case scenario for the collapse of the West
Antarctic Ice Sheet (8, 9). Even if the actual warming is less severe
than estimated by Ramanathan and Feng (9), the probability that
threshold temperatures will be reached for several of the identified
tipping points is very significant if emission of GHGs continues along
the current path.

The potential consequences associated with these tipping points may be
largely irreversible and unmanageable (10) and include widespread loss
of biodiversity, meters of sea level rise, and famine, which could
lead to political instability (9, 11). In a worst-case scenario,
climate change could produce runaway feedbacks, such as methane
release from permafrost (12).

----------
Forests.  As reported by the IPCC, Sohngen and Sedjo (59) estimate
that forests may be able to provide global climate mitigation of 278
Gt CO2 >50 years. Canadell et al. (60) estimate current emissions from
deforestation to be 1.5 Gt C, or 5.5 Gt CO2 per year, the vast
majority from deforestation in tropical regions. McKinsey & Company
(13) estimate reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation
can provide mitigation up to 5.1 Gt CO2-eq. per year by 2030. The
Stern Review (2) notes mitigation from reduced deforestation is
“highly cost-effective.” McKinsey & Company (13) calculate that
afforestation can provide mitigation of 1.0 Gt CO2-eq. per year by
2030, reforestation 1.4 Gt CO2-eq. per year by 2030, and improved
management another 0.3 Gt CO2-eq. per year by 2030.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

> These trees run from right at roadside to some distance (one mile?)
> away from the pavement of US 95. The age range is from very young, 6'
> tall, to what I would guess as several decades, 40'-80' tall. Much of
> the mixed evergreen forest there looks very crowded.
>
> My initial response to their appearance was "pine bark beetles", but I
> am asking because the actual pines do not seem impacted. It is the
> firs, hemlocks, etc. and not the pines that are all dying. But the
> common name of the beetle may simply refer to evergreens, and not
> pines.
> Was in Colorado a couple years ago, and just returned from Montana. I
> am now expecting some horrific fires in a wide range of the west, as
> our hills and mountain ranges fill with dead, dry standing trees.
> Alas. THAT will be a carbon footprint.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>> Questions:
>> How close to US95 are these trees?
>> What are the estimated ages of these dying trees?
>> Depending upon the responses to these questions, I may have a couple
>> follow-up questions.
>> Thanks for bringing this up, Ms. McCollough.
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
>> change and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>> - Unknown
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 12:02, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering that, too.  I noticed it on Sunday.  Lots of branches have
>> died and turned brown on a lot of the trees along the road there.
>> I'm curious to find out what's happening, too.
>> Paul
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Lynn McCollough <lmccollough at gmail.com>
>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 2:31 PM
>> Subject: [Vision2020] Question about forest health- Plummer, ID
>>
>> Does anyone know what is happening to the trees both north and south
>> of Plummer along US 95? They appear quite diseased and/or dying,
>> except for the Ponderosa Pines, which look healthy and verdant among
>> the dying firs and hemlocks.
>> (Sorry if I broke a rule because this is not about Moscow.)
>> Thanks all.
>>
>>