Researchers predict Cyclone Haiyan likely to release huge amount of carbon

Nov 18, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Net impact of tropical cyclones on net ecosystem flux for the period 1851–2000 as predicted by ED. A positive flux (green) is an accumulation of carbon in the ecosystem (carbon sink), negative flux (red) is a release of carbon from the ecosystem (carbon source). Dashed and dotted line show bracketed range of non-mortality damage from leaf stripping (low) to near complete live biomass loss (high). Credit: Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045017. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045017

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers from several institutions working in the United States has published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, outlining the atmospheric carbon impact caused by hurricanes and cyclones. Prior research suggests, they note, that the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere due to Cyclone Haiyan is likely to be huge.

Strong weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and cyclones can cause the release of into the by uprooting trees. Uprooted trees almost always die and as happens with all trees when they die, stored carbon is released into the atmosphere.

In their paper the researchers note that Hurricane Katrina, for example, caused the release of approximately 100 tons of carbon into the atmosphere. The problem with Cyclone Haiyan is likely to be worse for two main reasons: it was a bigger storm covering a wider area and it struck a part of the world that has denser tree cover. The researchers aren't willing to try to predict how much carbon will eventually be released by all the downed trees, but suggest it could be huge—the carbon released by Katrina, equaled nearly half of all carbon sequestered by trees in the United States annually.

Perhaps even worse is that the team believes that carbon released by the destructive force of the cyclone may never be recovered. They note that past research has shown that new forest regrowth, such as has been occurring in the areas struck by Katrina, more than compensates for the loss of carbon due to dying trees. But, for places that are struck by such events that are not likely to see the trees grow back, the released carbon will never be stored in new tree growth. The Philippines experiences more cyclones than any other land mass and because of that (and population density in the area) it's likely the impacted areas will never again see the same amount of trees. Because of that, the released carbon will simply be added to the total amount that already exists in the atmosphere, leading to even more heating of the planet.

The researchers also noted that it's not always the strongest storms that cause the largest carbon release—sometimes larger storms that cover more area but have less strength wind up downing more .

Explore further: New York state bans fracking

More information: The impacts of tropical cyclones on the net carbon balance of eastern US forests (1851–2000), J P Fisk et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045017. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045017

Abstract
In temperate forests of the eastern US, tropical cyclones are a principal agent of catastrophic wind damage, with dramatic impacts on the structure and functioning of forests. Substantial progress has been made to quantify forest damage and resulting gross carbon emissions from tropical cyclones. However, the net effect of storms on the carbon balance of forests depends not only on the biomass lost in single events, but also on the uptake during recovery from a mosaic of past events. This study estimates the net impacts of tropical cyclones on the carbon balance of US forests over the period 1851–2000. To track both disturbance and recovery and to isolate the effects of storms, a modeling framework is used combining gridded historical estimates of mortality and damage with a mechanistic model using an ensemble approach. The net effect of tropical cyclones on the carbon balance is shown to depend strongly on the spatial and temporal scales of analysis. On average, tropical cyclones contribute a net carbon source over latter half of the 19th century. However, throughout much of the 20th century a regional carbon sink is estimated resulting from periods of forest recovery exceeding damage. The large-scale net annual flux resulting from tropical cyclones varies by up to 50 Tg C yr−1, an amount equivalent to 17%–36% of the US forest carbon sink.

via Newscientist

Related Stories

Two-pronged approach to boost forest carbon storage

Oct 21, 2013

More carbon will sometimes be stored in forests if a bigger variety of tree species is planted along with key species - such as nitrogen fixing trees - that are known to contribute strongly to carbon storage, ...

Geoscientist finds beavers play a role in climate change

Jul 18, 2013

Ellen Wohl, a geology professor at Colorado State University, has published a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, describing the role beavers play in climate change. In a field study she un ...

Carbon farming schemes should consider multiple cobenefits

Sep 13, 2013

Carbon markets and related international schemes that allow payments to landholders for planting trees, sometimes called carbon farming, are intended to support sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere. But they will have ...

Recommended for you

UN sends team to clean up Bangladesh oil spill

5 hours ago

The United Nations said Thursday it has sent a team of international experts to Bangladesh to help clean up the world's largest mangrove forest, more than a week after it was hit by a huge oil spill.

How will climate change transform agriculture?

5 hours ago

Climate change impacts will require major but very uncertain transformations of global agriculture systems by mid-century, according to new research from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Report: Radiation leak at nuclear dump was small

6 hours ago

A final report by independent researchers shows the radiation leak from the federal government's underground nuclear waste repository in southern New Mexico was small and localized.

Confucian thought and China's environmental dilemmas

10 hours ago

Conventional wisdom holds that China - the world's most populous country - is an inveterate polluter, that it puts economic goals above conservation in every instance. So China's recent moves toward an apparent ...

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2013
Obviously carbon is the enemy, we must fight it at all costs! A war on carbon is what we need.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2013
Just a note on the article (although I know folks like cantdrive and Nick don't want to hear about the article). They say in the article: "Hurricane Katrina, for example, caused the release of approximately 100 tons of carbon into the atmosphere." Of course that is a wrong number. The paper states that it is on the order of 100 Tg which is gigatons not tons. I guess being off by a factor of 10^9 isn't that bad if you are a journalist.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2013
" likely the impacted areas will never again see the same amount of trees. "
Why?
Plants grow quickly in tropical climates.
QuixoteJ
1.8 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2013
I guess being off by a factor of 10^9 isn't that bad if you are a journalist.
At least the writer uses paragraphs and knows when to place a dash in a sentence instead of another comma, unlike most of today's horrible online journalists. I'm wondering why this carbon release as a result of cyclones matters, though... it's just nature. It's interesting to know the number, but what gives?
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2013
Who cares about future dead bodies piling up to produce plague, "hey I know, let's depopulate the region by inducing even bigger plagues by channeling antibiotics R&D tax money into Solyandra and also ration vital emergency mitigating energy to the whole region." By the *results* of their plans and actions may you understand their impulses.

This popular cult even calls for war level rationing in the West:
"He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last "time of crisis" in the 1930s and 40s. / This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture. / "The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider...."
http://www.telegr...rld.html
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
mea culpa. I made a similar stupid mistake to the journalist. That should be Teragrams instead of gigatons. The number 100 Tg should be about 0.1 metric gigaton. Sorry for the confusion.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 18, 2013
The headline promotes alarm, yes?

Yet the abstract of the paper reveals that the actual trend is that forest *increases* now outstrip hurricane losses, *unlike* a century ago:

"On average, tropical cyclones contribute a net carbon source over latter half of the 19th century. However, throughout much of the 20th century a regional carbon sink is estimated resulting from periods of forest recovery exceeding damage."

Jim Hansen in 2012 peer review says its due to emissions (!):

"We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems and field studies...."

Clean coal greens the Earth.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 18, 2013
Watch ambulance chaser and now celebrity political activist Michael "Hide The Decline" Mann of the radical history-revising Hockey Stick Team over at junk science PR firm-owned RealClimate.org now twist typhoon facts into pretzels:
http://wattsupwit...-haiyan/

...as a *complete* lull in typhoons occurred just as temperatures peaked in the 90s!:
http://bobtisdale...-110.png

Remember?

Berkeley physicist Richard Muller spells it out:
Muller: "The theory doesn't predict more intense storms."

Muller in 2010: "The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that. What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their license."

But The Mann is still commands charge of peer/pal review in Climatology!
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
Nik, you seem to have changed your view of Muller. When his latest BEST study results came out showing that his earlier views of "heat island effects" were wrong and that he now believes humans are responsible for global warming you said he was incompetent and you used Curry to bolster your views. Now, you are using a quote from Muller from before the BEST results. Which is it? Is he an idiot or brilliant?

He has said that the BEST results have verified the mainstream estimates. He also said that his results are in agreement with the proxy data (his most recent views). You can see his results at:

http://berkeleyearth.org/

I can understand why you might be confused by Muller because he was skeptical then changed his mind when he dug into the data. He started with your perspective and now he agrees with Mann. I can imagine that has caused some real strain on your brain.
goracle
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2013
Nik, you seem to have changed your view of Muller. When his latest BEST study results came out showing that his earlier views of "heat island effects" were wrong and that he now believes humans are responsible for global warming you said he was incompetent and you used Curry to bolster your views. Now, you are using a quote from Muller from before the BEST results. Which is it? Is he an idiot or brilliant?
...
I can understand why you might be confused by Muller because he was skeptical then changed his mind when he dug into the data. He started with your perspective and now he agrees with Mann. I can imagine that has caused some real strain on your brain.

Exactly. Muller was a genuine skeptic, something that presents a sharp contrast with the contrarianism often disguised with the label skeptic.
gwrede
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2013
The Philippines experiences more cyclones than any other land mass and because of that (and population density in the area) it's likely the impacted areas will never again see the same amount of trees.
If that were true, then the Philippines would be treeless already.

Because of that, the released carbon will simply be added to the total amount that already exists in the atmosphere, leading to even more heating of the planet.
And the obvious conclusion.
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2013
The Philippines experiences more cyclones than any other land mass and because of that (and population density in the area) it's likely the impacted areas will never again see the same amount of trees.
If that were true, then the Philippines would be treeless already.

Because of that, the released carbon will simply be added to the total amount that already exists in the atmosphere, leading to even more heating of the planet.
And the obvious conclusion.

Obviously didn't RTFA.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2013
The ambulance cha$ing party is ending as we speak, now that Canada's leaders have just commented Australia for their newfound sanity:

"FEDERAL cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week's global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax.

Cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of "socialism masquerading as environmentalism" after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference."

- See more at: http://www.theaus...FVi.dpuf
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2013
thermodynamics, a career climate modeler with a real dog in the fight, exposes himself as a liar, above. He's a regular here and is fully aware of myriad quotes by Muller dug up by skeptics, in which Muller himself is revealed as a two-faced opportunist, merely advancing his career and potential fame using a misleading narrative of once being a skeptic.

thermodynamics claims: "I can understand why you might be confused by Muller because he was skeptical then changed his mind when he dug into the data."

...but provides no linked quotes of Muller now approving of Hide The Decline tactics.

I really don't know why these goofballs actively set me up for debate wins like this, but perhaps they are trying to just wear me out and finally achieve a last word win for a few hours? This iPhone makes the work of it into quite relaxing casual breaks during my scattered workday here with dozens of machine tools and a relaxing bed, on the Upper West Side.

Climate modelers that lie?!

Imagine that!
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2013
(A) Muller 2003: "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
http://www.techno...3/page2/

(B) Muller 2008: "There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it's going to get much, much worse."
http://www.wired....the-nex/

(C) Muller 2012: "You could call me a converted skeptic."
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0

(A) + (B) = (C) ?!

Muller's so-called eye opening BEST project was announced in 2010.
http://berkeleyearth.org/about

Ergo, Muller lied to the NY Times and NPR.

Climatology is a tangled web woven by such media hungry opportunists.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2013
Supposed doomsday believer Muller, gleaming with delight due to newfound media fame, care of Wired magazine:
http://www.wired....to_5.jpg

What Muller did was throw The Hockey Stick team under the bus to jump start his flailing media career. So the Team, whose RealClimate.org web site is registered to a junk science PR firm no less, is furiously trying to put Humpty Dumpy back together again, with a little help from their Gorebot followers. This behavior reflects their scientific behavior too, being both misleading and incompetently so.

They even defended a Marcott 2012 hockey stick blade that the authors themselves claimed wasn't real, since it was a mere proxy re-dating artifact. This Team cheer is seen here:
http://postimg.or...zirjyjd/
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2013
Typo: Marcott 2013
Earlier typo: commented > commended
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
Nik said: "...thermodynamics, a career climate modeler with a real dog in the fight,..."

What???

If you paid attention to earlier posts, you would know that I am a specialist in thermodynamics and heat and mass transfer and I generally model combustion systems. I understand the ensemble approach to modeling systems that are sensitive to initial conditions because that describes combustion systems. I have explained that before.

So, this is your usual uninformed blatant lie. It goes along with your other ill informed views.

This is just part of your approach to things to lie about someone to distract from the subject matter of the discussion.

If I modeled climate I would have said it by now. I, actually, model flames that are used in rockets and jets. I see that as a far cry from a fossil fuel hater or climate modeler (not that I see climate modeling as bad). I just argue the merit and don't lie about the people I disagree with. Good job of showing your colors.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
Nik continued said: referring to my statement about Muller: "......but provides no linked quotes of Muller now approving of Hide The Decline tactics."

Why would I link to fiction? Muller has not commented on that fiction that I know of anymore than anyone else would comment on it. The "...hide the decline..." red herring is not relevant as has been shown by the multiple investigations. The only place you will find comments on an issue that has been refuted is on politically motivated web sites. Muller doesn't go there since the data spoke for itself. Nice try Nik, but just another of your lies.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2013
I, actually, model flames that are used in rockets and jets.

And is quite challenging to be accurate even if you know the fuel, combustion chamber, air pressure, altitude, etc.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2013
" likely the impacted areas will never again see the same amount of trees. "
Why?
Plants grow quickly in tropical climates.


Because of people moving in and preventing new growth. Wow you're really not the brightest bulb in the sign are you?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2013
I'm wondering why this carbon release as a result of cyclones matters, though... it's just nature. It's interesting to know the number, but what gives?


The problem relates to the lack of re-uptake. Prior to the last century or so, human population was not such a large factor, and new growth would balance out the carbon cycle. Many more people now though, and they prevent new growth for a number of (mostly economic) reasons.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
Exactly. Muller was a genuine skeptic, something that presents a sharp contrast with the contrarianism often disguised with the label skeptic.


Exactly right. Skepticism is not a bad thing. Denialism and outright contrarianism is what spouts from Nik, Uba and others on this site.

Well and Ryygeson's schizophrenically paranoid delusions of socialism.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2013
I, actually, model flames that are used in rockets and jets.

And is quite challenging to be accurate even if you know the fuel, combustion chamber, air pressure, altitude, etc.


Ryg: Yes, it is challenging. It is the reason we never rely on one model or one run to give us answers we can design from. Instead, we run our models on server farms and run them many thousands of times with varying starting conditions and boundary conditions. We then use the ensemble of answers to help us understand what can happen. We then use the general trends to be able to design the first experiments. They are never exactly right, but without the ensemble approach we would be spending far more on experimentation. Folks like Nik seem to have no idea how complex models work and assume complex systems cannot be approximated by software. Have you flown in an airplane lately? Those engines were designed using software that never "exactly" duplicates flow in your engine.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2013
Good job of showing your colors.


A job he does over and over and over and over. A contrarian, conspiracist, denialist, and liar.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2013
[q..... Instead, we run our models on server farms and run them many thousands of times with varying starting conditions and boundary conditions. We then use the ensemble of answers to help us understand what can happen. We then use the general trends to be able to design the first experiments. They are never exactly right, but without the ensemble approach we would be spending far more on experimentation. Folks like Nik seem to have no idea how complex models work and assume complex systems cannot be approximated by software. Have you flown in an airplane lately? Those engines were designed using software that never "exactly" duplicates flow in your engine.
Exactly so Thermo - NWP and Climate model ensembles cannot be run thousands of times due to computation constraints but the same envelope of probability is obtained. Global temp still lies within this envelope of the IPCC's forecasts and they can do no more.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2013
assume complex systems cannot be approximated by software.

And you assume you know ALL the variables in your model.
Would you trust your model without testing in the real world?
AGWites expect the world to trust their complex models without real world testing and without knowing all the variables let alone the values of the variables they think they know.
they can do no more

AGWites demand the world believe the model's predictions 100 years from now.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2013
And you assume you know ALL the variables in your model.
Would you trust your model without testing in the real world?
AGWites expect the world to trust their complex models without real world testing and without knowing all the variables let alone the values of the variables they think they know.


Any variable will cycle back again - as it is internal – unless you can point to causation externally – want to trawl through solar possibilities? CR's perhaps? Dark matter? The basic Solar in – IR out rules. It's that equation that's in the +ve. The problem. The cause - anthro GHG's, as empirical experiment and physics has known of for ~150 years. Modern day scientists didn't just recently magic that up you know.
Would you trust that *our* model is wrong without testing in the real world. By which point it will be too late, if it isn't already?
You may be, but it's not *your* world to risk. It's our world. My world, and I vehemently object to your willful ignorance.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2013
Even if ALL the climate variables are known, there are still significant limits to the predictive ability of any computer model of emergent systems.
but it's not *your* world to risk.

But you want to plunder MY piece of the world your your faith in a limited computer model.
goracle
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2013
The ambulance cha$ing party is ending as we speak, now that Canada's leaders have just commented Australia for their newfound sanity:

"FEDERAL cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week's global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax.

Cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of "socialism masquerading as environmentalism" after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference."

- See more at: http://www.theaus...FVi.dpuf

Commented and commended are different words.
Canada's 'leaders' are currently busy trying to pretended that they did not back Rob Ford...
goracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2013
The ambulance cha$ing party is ending as we speak, now that Canada's leaders have just commented Australia for their newfound sanity:

"FEDERAL cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week's global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax.

Cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of "socialism masquerading as environmentalism" after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference."

- See more at: http://www.theaus...FVi.dpuf

Commented and commended are different words.
Canada's 'leaders' are currently busy trying to pretended that they did not back Rob Ford...

You comment so often I missed your correction.
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
Everybody except skeptics *lied* about Haiyan being a record biggest cyclone. So who you gonna go to when you want steady advise?

Skeptics! ...and their buddies at the Wall Street Journal:
http://blogs.wsj....rm-ever/

Six other cyclones were worse. What journalists did instead, prior to the doomed-anyway Polish climate talks was to purposefully misconvert from Metric to Engish, so 235 kmp (147 mph) became 235 mph, forming a "new category" of cyclone (thanks to Al Gore's claim that this was happening in meteorology).

Cyclones are declining as are Atlantic hurricanes:
http://www.dailym...ing.html

If they lie about tragedies what else are they lying about?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.