Single Alaskan Tundra Fire In 2007 Produced 1.3 Million Tons CO2 - More - Much More - To Come

[hatrack]

The fire that raged north of Alaska's Brooks mountain range in 2007 left a 1000-square-kilometre scorched patch of earth – an area larger than the sum of all known fires on Alaska's North Slope since 1950. Now scientists studying the ecological impact of the fire report that the blaze dumped 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – about the amount that Barbados puts out in a year. What's more, at next week's meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Albuquerque, New Mexico, two teams will warn that as climate change takes hold tundra fires across the Arctic will become more frequent.

Tundra fires only take off once certain thresholds are reached, says Adrian Rocha of the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. "But projected changes in climate over the next century – increased aridity, thunderstorms, and warming in the Arctic – will increase the likelihood that these thresholds will be crossed and thus result in more larger and frequent fires."

Rocha's team placed carbon dioxide and radiation sensors across the fire-scar and found that in the year after the fire, the most severely burned tundra emitted twice as much carbon as undamaged tundra normally stores away.
Pristine tundra takes up about 30 to 70 grams of carbon per square metre during the summer months, whereas the severely burned site lost about 40 to 120 grams per square metre. The team also found that the most severely burned terrain absorbed 71 per cent more solar radiation than normal, warming faster as a result and losing a layer of permafrost 5 to 10 centimetres deep.

"That may not seem like a lot," says Rocha, "but over the entire fire scar you're talking about 5 to 10 cm of water over a 1000 sq km area." Plus there's the double whammy of positive feedback: as tundra burns and emits carbon, it melts the permafrost – and that releases more carbon into the atmosphere. "Along with the melting ice in the permafrost, you're also exposing more old carbon that was stored in that freezer and is being allowed to decompose and reintroduce itself to the atmosphere."

EDIT

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17537-alaskas-biggest-tundra-fire-sparks-climate-warning.html

[XemaSab]

1. Yay feedback loops!

:bounce:

[phantom power]

2. nothing will persuade, but all will be allowed

[Fotoware58]

3. GHG's from burning forests

I'm sure those totals from wildfires outpace those rates. Forest fires usually put out 80 to 300 tons of GHG's per acre, depending on intensity and fuel loading. This doesn't include GHG production during decay, after the fire, either.

[Bigmack]

4. Not only this, but

soon, and no doubt already, tens of thousands of acres of trees in BC Canada and points south too, which have been killed off by the pine park beetle - not longed killed off in winters now too warm to "do the deed" - will go up in smoke. A couple years ago we flew up north to fetch back a motor home abandoned by friends, one of whom had been flown out after a massive stroke, and we simply marveled at the ENDLESS sight of THOUSANDS of acres of dead trees. And that was "only" the thousands of acres visible from the road. It's just an appalling, incredible sight. A scary sight. Ms Bigmack

[Fotoware58]

5. Sadly...

you are misjudging the acreage. Here in the states, we have 7 million acres impacted by overstocking and bark beetles, with more than 25% mortality. Canada has it even worse, with an estimated 22 million acres of dead trees. The worst is yet to come in this massive, ongoing, man-enhanced disaster rolls on like a giant tsunami across our western forests.

However, there seems to be some good news on the horizon, as fire managers and and forestry bigwigs now seem to realize that forest management through "free range fire" just isn't very cost-efficient, when judged from start to finish. They are also finding it hard to justify the fallacy that Let-Burn fires are "good for forests". When fire suppression costs are coupled with resource losses, infrastructure damage and mitigation costs, the total economic damages for the fire can exceed the suppression costs by a factor of 10. A recent study on San Diego's Cedar Fire lays out the costs.

We haven't seen the worst of it yet but, it only takes one week of windy and dry fall weather to set millions of acres ablaze. Until then, the science of active forest restoration takes a backseat to partisan politics, while precious old growth is cooked to a crisp.

[angelshare2]

6. Not good for trees.

That is all.