Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
Wed Jul 25, 2012, 01:03 AM Jul 2012

Under a warming climate, Washington’s forests will lose stored carbon as area burned by wildfire...

(Please note, US Forest Service News Release - Copyright concerns are nil.)

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/news/2012/07/warming-climate.shtml

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Under a warming climate, Washington’s forests will lose stored carbon as area burned by wildfire increases[/font]

[font size=4]Even small increases in area burned could have significant impacts on carbon storage[/font]

USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, OR: July 23, 2012


Contacts: Crystal Raymond, (206) 732-7809, craymond@fs.fed.us

Media contact: Yasmeen Sands, (360) 753-7716, ysands@fs.fed.us

[font size=3]PORTLAND, Ore. July 23, 2012. Forests in the Pacific Northwest store more carbon than any other region in the United States, but our warming climate may undermine their storage potential.

A new study conducted by the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington has found that, by 2040, parts of Washington State could lose as much as a third of their carbon stores, as an increasing area of the state’s forests is projected to be burned by wildfire. The study—published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Ecological Applications—is the first to use statistical models and publicly available Forest Inventory and Analysis data to estimate the effects of a warming climate on carbon storage and fluxes on Washington’s forests.

“When considering the use of forests to store carbon, it will be critical to consider the increasing risk of wildfire,” said Crystal Raymond, a research biologist based at the station’s Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory and lead author of the study. “Especially in the West, where climate-induced changes in fire are expected to be a key agent of change.”

Trees remove and sequester carbon from the atmosphere, in the form of carbon dioxide, acting as important stores, or “sinks,” of carbon that help to offset its accumulation in the atmosphere. When trees and other woody material in the forest are burned by fire, they release carbon back to the atmosphere, mostly as carbon dioxide, where it may once again act as a greenhouse gas that promotes warming. This land-atmosphere exchange of carbon is increasingly of interest to land managers seeking ways to actively manage forests to store carbon and help mitigate greenhouse gases.

To explore what effect climate-driven changes in wildfire might have on the ability of Washington’s forests to act as carbon sinks, Raymond and station research ecologist Don McKenzie used a novel approach. They combined published forest-inventory data, fire-history data, and statistical models of area burned to estimate historical and future carbon carrying capacity of three regions in Washington—the Western Cascades, the Eastern Cascades, and the Okanogan Highlands—based on potential forest productivity and projections of 21st century area burned.

“Forests on both the eastern and western slopes of the Cascade Range will lose carbon stored in live biomass because area burned across the state is expected to increase,” Raymond said. “Even small increases in area burned can have large consequences for carbon stored in living and dead biomass.”

The researchers looked at live biomass, which includes living trees and vegetation, as well as nonliving biomass in the form of coarse woody debris, which includes dead standing trees and downed logs. Both contribute to the carbon cycle, but in different ways—living biomass removes carbon from the atmosphere as vegetation grows, and coarse woody debris releases carbon over time as the material decomposes.

Raymond and McKenzie projected forests of the Western Cascades to be most sensitive to climate-driven increases in fire, losing anywhere from 24 to 37 percent of their live biomass and from 15 to 25 percent of their coarse woody debris biomass by 2040. These forests store significant carbon and typically burn with high severity, killing many trees and consuming coarse woody debris.

On the other side of the mountains, the researchers also projected a decrease in live biomass by 2040—of anywhere between 17 and 26 percent in the Eastern Cascades and in the Okanogan Highlands—but no change in coarse woody debris biomass, or possibly even an increase, because coarse woody debris biomass increases as trees are killed by fire and subsequent low-severity fires burn only a small portion of it.

...

To read more about the study, visit http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/11-1851.1[/font][/font]
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Under a warming climate, Washington’s forests will lose stored carbon as area burned by wildfire... (Original Post) OKIsItJustMe Jul 2012 OP
This is where I live cilla4progress Jul 2012 #1
Welcome to climate change OKIsItJustMe Jul 2012 #2
I know cilla4progress Jul 2012 #3
Yeah, I’ll dispute that OKIsItJustMe Jul 2012 #5
Is that the same thing? cilla4progress Jul 2012 #7
Yeah, I understood what you were at OKIsItJustMe Jul 2012 #8
Ahhh cilla4progress Jul 2012 #9
I don't believe they really know just what effect pscot Jul 2012 #4
Shall we say, “They have a fairly good idea?” OKIsItJustMe Jul 2012 #6
That is an interesting, if sobering, link... truebrit71 Jul 2012 #10

cilla4progress

(24,728 posts)
1. This is where I live
Wed Jul 25, 2012, 01:17 AM
Jul 2012

and we already lost our home to a wildfire in 1994. One of the first in the new area of out-of-control fires with cyclonic fire behavior. Real fun. Not looking forward to this.

And by the way, the bug-kill lodgepole and other species make for a very eerie look to the forests here - looks like they are about to (need to) combust.

cilla4progress

(24,728 posts)
3. I know
Wed Jul 25, 2012, 10:18 AM
Jul 2012

it's sickening.

I have my own much disputed theory that the flooding represents the melting ice caps! We shall see.

This sucks.

cilla4progress

(24,728 posts)
7. Is that the same thing?
Wed Jul 25, 2012, 10:25 PM
Jul 2012

I.e.: as ice melts (caps, Greenland, wherever) it simply puts more water into the ecosystem overall, ergo, flooding, wherever? I'm clearly not a scientist!

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
8. Yeah, I understood what you were at
Thu Jul 26, 2012, 12:09 AM
Jul 2012

I think it comes down to this; warmer air:

  • Evaporates more water (note that this can also make droughts worse.)
  • Holds more water

When conditions lead to the air letting go of that water (rain) there is more water to fall.

I don't think the increased amount of melt water has that much to do with it.

pscot

(21,024 posts)
4. I don't believe they really know just what effect
Wed Jul 25, 2012, 11:07 AM
Jul 2012

the Great Warming will have on the Pacific Northwest. We could be getting a lot more rain.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
10. That is an interesting, if sobering, link...
Thu Jul 26, 2012, 01:56 PM
Jul 2012

...at least those guys seem to have handle on reality..

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Under a warming climate, ...