Wildfires emit more greenhouse gases than assumed in California climate targets

April 16, 2015 by Sarah Yang, University of California - Berkeley
The darker green areas in the map on the left show regions in the state that store more carbon. In the map on the right, brown areas show carbon losses, mainly due to fires, while green areas show carbon gains. Credit: Patrick Gonzalez, National Park Service

A new study quantifying the amount of carbon stored and released through California forests and wildlands finds that wildfires and deforestation are contributing more than expected to the state's greenhouse gas emissions.

The findings, published online today (Wednesday, April 15), in the journal Forest Ecology and Management, came from a collaborative project led by the National Park Service and the University of California, Berkeley. The results could have implications for California's efforts to meet goals mandated by the state Global Warming Solutions Act, or AB 32, to reduce to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The bill, which passed in 2006, assumed no net emissions for wildland ecosystems by 2020.

The researchers noted that the information available at the time the bill was passed may have underestimated the release of through landmass conversions and wildfires, which are projected to increase in intensity in the western United States due to climate change. The authors pointed out that California is one of the few jurisdictions in the world to set mandatory emissions targets.

"Determining the balance between and emissions is essential for tracking the role of ecosystems in climate change. Growing vegetation naturally removes carbon from the atmosphere, reducing the magnitude of climate change," said study lead author Patrick Gonzalez, the National Park Service climate change scientist. "Conversely, burned or dead vegetation releases carbon into the atmosphere, exacerbating ."

The 2013 Rim Fire in California burned more than 257,000 acres, the second largest fire in the Sierra Nevada and the third largest fire in California since 1932. A new study finds that carbon released through wildfires contribute more than expected to greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Credit: Mike McMillan, US Forest Service

Gonzalez worked with forest ecologist John Battles, a professor in UC Berkeley's Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management and the principal investigator on the project to quantify carbon storage and emissions in the state's wildlands.

The study, funded by the California Air Resources Board, used 2001-2010 data from multiple public sources, including plot-level carbon stocks from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Inventory and Assessment Program and U.S. Landfire remote sensing data of vegetation at a 30-meter spatial resolution.

The analysis confirmed that California's forests are huge carbon reservoirs for the state. Previous research has found that redwood forests near Redwood National Park contain the most carbon per hectare on the ground of any ecosystem in the world. One hectare of redwood forest can store an amount of carbon equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated by more than 500 Americans. The giant sequoia forests of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National parks come in second.

Altogether, the forests and vegetation of state wildlands stored an estimated 850 million tons of carbon in 2010. However, those areas also accounted for approximately 69 million tons of carbon emitted between 2001 and 2010. Two-thirds of the carbon loss came from fires that burned just 6 percent of the area of wildlands in nine years. Annual carbon losses from forests and wildlands in California represent as much as 5 to 7 percent of state from all sectors between 2001 and 2010, according to the study.

"National parks and other protected areas clearly provide an important function in removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it," said Battles. "But we also know from previous research that a century of fire suppression has contributed to a potentially unsustainable buildup of vegetation. This buildup provides abundant fuel for fires that contribute to carbon emissions. Projections of more wildfires in the West mean that we need to account for this source of carbon emissions. Meeting the state greenhouse gas targets for 2020 might require a reconsideration of wildland management policies."

This research is among the latest examples of the long, productive partnership between UC Berkeley and the National Park Service, highlighted in the recent "Science for Parks, Parks for Science" summit commemorating the centennial of the National Park Service.

Explore further: Southern forests' ability to suck carbon from the air may be slowing

More information: Forest Ecology and Management Volume 348, 15 July 2015, Pages 68–77 DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.040

Related Stories

Reducing carbon footprints with carbon storage

November 9, 2011

Control of carbon emissions is an important component in the bid to address global climate change. However destruction of wildland habitats to make way for agriculture continues to erode the amount of carbon stored in the ...

Recommended for you

Top nitrogen researchers imagine world beyond fossil fuels

May 25, 2018

Freeways choked with traffic, supermarkets laden with fertilizer-grown stock from distance fields and virtually everything we touch derived from petroleum-based plastics. It's hard to imagine life beyond our fossil-fueled ...

Climate change may lead to bigger atmospheric rivers

May 25, 2018

A new NASA-led study shows that climate change is likely to intensify extreme weather events known as atmospheric rivers across most of the globe by the end of this century, while slightly reducing their number.

4 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2015
Of course the difference being that fossil fuels energy was given to it by the Sun, thousand++ years ago, whereas energy given to this woods was short term.

Tress store the Suns energy and release it within an "energy budget." (For concept.) Energy in ~ energy out.
Fossil Fuels release energy as if it had never been entered. It looks like a surplus, 0 energy in, fossil fuel energy out.

And since this energy is ~3/10th what is needed to dramatically change climate. This 3/10th IS definitely affecting climate. (Amount of energy released by fossil fuels in a year divided by the area of the Earth.)

The is a positive effect.
A positive effect is something that no CO2 believer and show in as many sentences.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2015
@Water_Prophet
Why can't you prove/qualify ANY of your claims ?

1 "4 technical degrees" ?
2 Claim CO2's radiative forcing is 0.00009 W/m^2 ?
3 Claim wiki is in "Great agreement" with you ?
4 Why wiki shows 1.5 W/m^2 which is 16,666 X your faked figure ?
5 Business use your figures ?
6 Leader in "Predictive Analytics" ?
etc

Start with just ONE of these, from first principles PROVE your claim CO2 is a "red-herring" & your specific figure of 0.00009 W/m^2 has *ANY* basis in reality ?

Y can't U do that ?

Have been reminding you to prove your claim very often, Y can't you do that Water_Prophet ?

Heard of a kid who "cried wolf" ?

Your faked claims show you have nil credibility & are anti-Science.

ie. Science = "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge" but, you Water_Prophet have NO discipline in ANY of your claims, Scientists can & do show workings but, YOU ignore & ONLY make idle feeble claims

Water_Prophet appears as a Pathological Liar !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2015
Here Mikey, radiative forcing, or insulation, a very very simple model for you, since you don't understand the good stuff.

Insulation is related to density and thickness.
Water vapor is about 50x more prevalent than CO2.
Water vapor has between 7 and 50x the green house power of CO2, lets go with 7x.
Water vapor's concentration has increased 435 ppm. CO2's only 135ppm.

Why anyone needs to go on from there, I don't know.

Right then an there we can see any effects of CO2 are completely obliterated not only by any water vapor baseline, but by changes in it. Imagine if it helps, there is no O2, N2 etc in the atmosphere, you can even imagine that the particles aren't moving if that helps you. Let the medium of heat retention be radiation.

In the upper atmosphere, where water vapor drops to 5x more than CO2, CO2 acts to disperse incoming solar radiation, so more CO2 ant significant distance above ground actually works in reverse.

Is this SIMPLE enough you can understand?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
..Insulation is related to density and thickness.
Water vapor is about 50x more prevalent than CO2.
Water vapor has between 7 and 50x the green house power of CO2, lets go with 7x.
Water vapor's concentration has increased 435 ppm. CO2's only 135ppm.
...
Is this SIMPLE enough you can understand?
You MISSED essential FACT water vapour has different IR bands of absorption therefore is CUMULATIVE and NOT competitive with CO2 - you idiot !!!!
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Why are you showing you are COMPLETELY ignorant of radiative emissions & absorption !

You are showing immensely you have ZERO understanding of essential university Physics !

Where & When did you get those "4 technical degrees" ?

WHY are they NOT on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/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.