Disturbance, albedo, and radiative forcing Thomas L. O Halloran 1*, Beverly E. Law 1, Zhuosen Wang 2, Jordan G. Barr 3, Crystal Schaaf 2, Mathew Brown 4, Michael L. Goulden 5, José D. Fuentes 6, Mathias Göckede 1, Andrew Black 4, Vic Engel 3 1 Dept. of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA 2 Dept. of Geography and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA 3 South Florida Natural Resource Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA 4 Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 5 Dept. of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA 6 Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: tom.ohalloran@oregonstate.edu Photo: Mara Spencer
Motivation/background Biogeochemical vs biogeophysical climate influences of vegetation Albedo important relative to carbon in boreal forests Important in global deforestation studies Mostly hypothetical modeling studies Conventional wisdom: Disturbance effect on albedo only important for fire and in boreal forests
The case for albedo albedo CO 2 Kin (1-α) + εlin - σεt 4 = Rnet = H + LE + G
The case for albedo Quantity Quality Kin (1-α) + εlin - σεt 4 = Rnet = H + LE + G Greenhouse gases and surface albedo change the net amount of energy in the climate system LE, roughness etc., only move energy around (at the first order)
Outline Part 1 Compare the per-unit area CO 2 and albedo radiative forcings caused by 3 forest disturbances: 1. Hurricane defoliation of mangroves 2. Mountain pine beetle mortality 3. Wildfire Part 2 (preliminary) Global CO 2 and albedo radiative forcings of gross deforestation
Part 1. Case studies Methods Albedo and carbon fluxes: Albedo: AmeriFlux towers and MODIS broadband albedo CO 2 fluxes: AmeriFlux towers, biometric NEP measurements, fire emission factors, models NBP accounts for NEP of undisturbed stand Radiative forcing: Albedo: change in reflected outgoing shortwave at surface, scaled to TOA using offline radiative transfer calculations (Shell et al., 2008) CO 2 : RF calculation from Myhre et al., (1998): RF 5.35 ln C C 0 [ W m 2 ] where C is CO 2 perturbation to atmosphere after uptake by land and ocean are accounted for (HILDA model)
1. Hurricane wind throw: Wilma in Everglades Cat. 3 Winds >190 km hr -1
Before hurricane Wilma
After hurricane Wilma
MODIS EVI (%) 80 70 60 50 40 Tower 30 20 10 Google Earth 0 % change MODIS EVI > 2,700 km 2 affected
Hurricane 1200 10 NEP (gc m -2 year -1 ) 1000 800 600 400 200 NEE mol CO 2 m -2 s -1 ) 0-10 -20 Apr 04 Apr 07 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Local time (hours) NEP reduced by 33% in first year Barr, J.G., T.J. Smith III, J.D. Fuentes, and V. Engel, Hurricane disturbance and recovery of energy balance, CO 2 fluxes and canopy structure in a mangrove forest of the Florida Everglades. Submitted.
Hurricane Defoliation by Hurricane Wilma in October 2005 (red dashed line) reduced albedo from 0.11 to 0.09, resulting in a positive radiative forcing of 2.5 W m -2 (heating) in the first year, which quickly recovered in only 4 years.
Hurricane: Net Forcing NBP nearly >350 gc m -2 CO 2 accumulating while NEP is reduced Net: Positive forcing (heating) from both CO 2 and albedo
2. Insects: Mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine British Columbia Natural Resources Canada
Insects Data source: Andy Black s towers, British Columbia
Insects Defoliation Data source: Andy Black s towers, British Columbia
Insects Data source: MODIS, Oregon
Insects Defoliation Data source: MODIS, Oregon
Insects Snag fall Data source: MODIS, Oregon
Insects: Net Forcing NBP from Kurz et al., 2008 Mild in early years ~55 gc m -2 by year 13 Net: Positive forcing (heating) from CO 2 and negative (cooling) from albedo
3. Wildfire (short term) The Charlton (Waldo Lake) fire burned ~3,800 ha of ~300 year old mountain hemlock stand in the Cascades of central Oregon in 1996. Photos from 2007 (Mara Spencer).
Wildfire Albedo increases in summer and winter via two different mechanisms albedo (May-October ) 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 R 2 = 0.73 slope = 0.0057 p < 0.002 Summer albedo (JFMAND) 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 R 2 = 0.89 slope = 0.010 p < 0.0001 Winter 0.00 4 6 8 10 12 14 Years since fire Summer green-up A 0.18 4 6 8 10 12 14 Years since fire Snag fall B
Wildfire (long term) UC Irvine boreal fire chronosequence (Manitoba) See also McMillan and Goulden (2008), Amiro et al., (2006) 1850 1930 1964 1989 1998 2003
Wildfire: Net Forcing Pyrogenic flux of 2160 280 gc m -2 Local NEP curves (e.g. Goulden et al., 2010) Net: Large positive forcings from CO 2 (heating) and albedo (cooling) largely offset for a net cooling of only -2.5 W m -2 over 100 years.
Part 2. Globally significant? Goals: Model albedo perturbation of recently published gross deforestation rates from 2000-2005 (Matthew Hansen et al., 2010, PNAS) Estimate CO 2 forcing from the concomitant emissions
Global albedo radiative forcing model Shell et al., 2008, J.Clim.
PDF PDF Albedo statistics 12 Grasslands - February 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 albedo 35 Grasslands - August 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 albedo
Global results: albedo (preliminary) Radiative forcing (W m -2 ) 0.0 R 2 =0.56-0.1-0.2-0.3 0 5 10 15 20 Disturbed Area (*1e6 km 2 ) Pongratz et al., 2008,2009 in Brovkin et al., 2006 Davin et al., 2007 IPCC 2007 Predicted 95% confidence Tested against the historical anthropogenic land use change literature Forest to agriculture conversion, mostly 5 year albedo RF = -0.018 0.003 W m -2 (forest to grass) 5 year albedo RF = -0.015 0.003 W m -2 (forest to crops)
Parts Per Million (ppm) Atmospheric CO 2 Concentration November 2010 390 388 GLOBAL MONTHLY MEAN CO 2 December 2009: 387.2 ppm September 2010 (preliminary): 389.2 ppm 39% above pre-industrial 386 384 382 380 378 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Over 2000-2005, atmospheric CO 2 concentration rose +10.4 0.1 ppm (small uncertainty) Annual Mea Growth Rate (ppm y -1 ) 2009 1.62 2008 1.80 2007 2.14 2006 1.84 2005 2.39 2004 1.60 2003 2.19 2002 2.40 2001 1.89 2000 1.22 Slide courtesy Pep Canadell, Global Carbon Project. Data Source: Pieter Tans and Thomas Conway, 2010, NOAA/ESRL
CO 2 Emissions from Land Use Change (1960-2009) CO 2 emissions (PgC y -1 ) 10 8 6 4 2 Fossil fuel Land use change 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Time (y) Over 2000-2005, ALUC accounted for 15 10% of the increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentration (large uncertainty) Slide courtesy Pep Canadell, Global Carbon Project. Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geosciences
Global results 2000-2005, due to global gross forest cover loss: CO 2 radiative forcing: +0.023±0.02 W m -2 5-year global radiative forcing 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00-0.02-0.04-0.06 CO2 2000-2005 albedo
Global results 2000-2005, due to global gross forest cover loss: CO 2 radiative forcing: +0.023±0.02 W m -2 Albedo radiative forcing -0.018±0.02 W m -2 5-year global radiative forcing 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00-0.02-0.04-0.06 CO2 2000-2005 albedo
Conclusions 1. Over the timescales investigated, the albedo radiative forcing is on the same order of magnitude as the CO 2 forcing. This is true for both: Natural disturbances, calculated bottom-up and per-area Global gross deforestation from 2000-2005
Conclusions 2. Recovery times vary for albedo and CO 2, complicating the net climate effect in time. Recovery of carbon stocks is a complex ecological process (succession), with lots of controls (seed dispersal, nutrient limitation, competition etc.) Albedo recovery is that plus optical effects.
Conclusions 3. Should we manage forests for albedo? Probably not. (see IPCC chart)
Radiative Forcing Since 1750 Source: IPCC (2007)
Conclusions 3. Should we manage forests for albedo? Probably not. (see IPCC chart) However, if we wanted to, radiative forcing provides a quantitative framework to compare albedo and CO 2. REDD+ forestry activities will be more beneficial to global climate if they consider albedo e.g. deciduous vs. evergreen Evapotranspiration should be a local to regional management decision Important not to deplete groundwater
THE END
Climate models corroborate Climate sensitivities Albedo = 1.07 K/W/m 2 CO 2 = 1.2 K/W/m 2 LE = 12 K/W/m 2 Roughness = 7.25 K/W/m 2 These results demonstrate that the nature of the forcing owing to change in evapotranspiration efficiency or surface roughness is different from a classical radiative forcing perturbation. Instead, the climatic influence of these factors involves internal redistribution of energy in the climate system. (Davin and Noblet-Ducoudré, J.Clim. 2010.)
Insects Photo: Pat Teti
Global results: albedo (preliminary) Radiative forcing (W m -2 ) 0.0-0.1-0.2-0.3 0 5 10 15 20 Disturbed Area (*1e6 km 2 ) Predicted 95% confidence Forest to grass conversion AmeriFlux data Assumes static replacement over the 5 years Need MODIS albedo with snowy values