In this part of the Arctic, which could be a bellwether for changes to come elsewhere with greenhouse-driven warming, what might be called pop-up forests are forming. Low tundra shrubs, many of which are willow and alder species, have rapidly grown into small trees over the last 50 years, according to the study, led by scientists from the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Oxford and the Arctic Center of the University of Lapland.
Warming Arctic Tundra Producing Pop-Up Forests – NYTimes.com
How did he come to the conclusion that greenhouse-driven warming is responsible?
Perhaps if Andy had spent five minutes doing research, he would have known that the Arctic has been warming for almost 200 years.
25 Apr 1939 – WILL EARTH GET WARMER? Scientist Has New Theory
Revkin probably does do research.. His main problem is dismissing anything that doesn’t fit the “consensus”.
The researchers’ definition of “trees” stretches the generally accepted definition considerably. 1-2 metres high is a “tree” these days? If Sherwood Forest had “trees” which fitted this definition the Sheriff of Nottingham wouldn’t have had much difficulty catching Robin and his merry band..
Dr Mann will be proud of them.
Steve, you’re torquing my meaning if you say I’m presuming that the CURRENT warming and tundra response is greenhouse-driven. Didn’t say that at all. This DOES however provide an indication of what would come under more warming, including greenhouse-driven warming.
Andy,
Sorry if I misinterpreted, but I suspect that most of your readers read into it the same implications as I did. Unless a person can explain why the Arctic warmed over the last few hundred years, they clearly are not in a position to explain any current warming either.
“have rapidly grown into small trees over the last 50 years, ”
Yeah and it’s a pure coincidence that that’s about the time interval our CO2 emissions have been significantly rising.
As usual Revkin plays the game of leftist journalism by implying stuff without saying it explicitly, then defends himself by saying “I never said it explicitly.”
The NYT is a remnant of an age where the left had the printing presses. It dies.
It’s purely coincidence that the phrase “greenhouse-driven warming” appears in an article that obviously has nothing to do with “greenhouse-driven warming”, right?
“Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
June 7, 2012 at 6:34 am
Steve, you’re torquing my meaning if you say I’m presuming that the CURRENT warming and tundra response is greenhouse-driven. Didn’t say that at all. This DOES however provide an indication of what would come under more warming, including greenhouse-driven warming.”
Anyway So What?
There’s literature/studies over the years that prove. Treelines were further North than present day in Scandinavia, Canada and Siberia. SO No Big Deal afterall. And some of those studies were during the MWP. So Greenhouse-driven Warming be damned then.
Anyway More trees growing in the Tundra should be a good thing won’t it? Should help to absorb the extra emissions!
“rapidly grown … over 50 years” ’nuff said
How terrible. Small trees. I thought biological diversity was higher during the last ice age according to the Nature study in the post “Experts: World To End – Again.”