15 JULY 2007 FINDELL ET AL.

3621

Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Land Cover Change on Climate

KIRSTEN L. FINDELL
NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey

ELENA SHEVLIAKOVA
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

P. C. D. MILLY
U.S. Geological Survey, Princeton, New Jersey

RONALD J. STOUFFER
NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey

(Manuscript received 18 April 2006, in final form 25 October 2006)

ABSTRACT

Equilibrium experiments with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s climate model are used to
investigate the impact of anthropogenic land cover change on climate. Regions of altered land cover include
large portions of Europe, India, eastern China, and the eastern United States. Smaller areas of change are
present in various tropical regions. This study focuses on the impacts of biophysical changes associated with
the land cover change (albedo, root and stomatal properties, roughness length), which is almost exclusively
a conversion from forest to grassland in the model; the effects of irrigation or other water management
practices and the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide changes associated with land cover conversion are
not included in these experiments.
The model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged
climatic variables (e.g., 2-m air temperature is 0.008 K warmer in a simulation with 1990 land cover
compared to a simulation with potential natural vegetation cover). Differences in the annual mean climatic
fields analyzed did not exhibit global field significance. Within some of the regions of land cover change,
however, there are relatively large changes of many surface climatic variables. These changes are highly
significant locally in the annual mean and in most months of the year in eastern Europe and northern India.
They can be explained mainly as direct and indirect consequences of model-prescribed increases in surface
albedo, decreases in rooting depth, and changes of stomatal control that accompany deforestation.

1. Introduction climate trends and to make projections about possible

future climate scenarios. One of the potentially impor-
Climate models are increasing in complexity, en- tant issues that Pielke (2002) raises is the impact of
abling researchers to look in greater detail at the physi- anthropogenic land cover change on climate. Pielke et
cal processes connecting different parts of the climate al. (1998) discuss the many short- and long-term pro-
system. To date, the U.S. National Climate Assessment cesses that connect the terrestrial ecosystem and over-
as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate lying atmosphere; they assert that, “In studies of past
Change (IPCC) have considered only a limited number and possible future climate change, terrestrial ecosys-
of processes in their attempts to understand observed tem dynamics are as important as changes in atmo-
spheric dynamics and composition, ocean circulation,
ice sheet extent, and orbital perturbations” (460–
4611). We use the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Labo-
Corresponding author address: Kirsten L. Findell, NOAA/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, 201 Forrestal Rd., ratory (GFDL) climate model to test the hypothesis
Princeton, NJ 08540. that alterations to the vegetation cover of the earth’s
E-mail: kirsten.findell@noaa.gov surface due to human activities have altered regional

DOI: 10.1175/JCLI4185.1

© 2007 American Meteorological Society

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

JCLI4185
3622 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 20

and global climates through biophysical influences. 2. Model description and experimental design
This study does not consider the impact of ecosystem
dynamics and biogeochemical feedbacks on the climate The equilibrium climate model used for the experi-
system. ments described below comprises an atmospheric gen-
Recent studies have analyzed the influences of ob- eral circulation model coupled to a 50-m-deep slab or
served land cover changes on climate using atmo- “mixed layer” model of the ocean. The model grid cells
sphere-only general circulation models (Bonan 1999), are 2.5° longitude by 2° latitude in all model compo-
coupled atmosphere–slab ocean general circulation nents with 24 vertical levels in the atmosphere. The
models (Bounoua et al. 2002; Govindasamy et al. 2001; model has a seasonal and a diurnal cycle of insolation.
Zhao and Pitman 2002), and earth system models of The model’s treatment of the atmosphere, land, and sea
intermediate complexity (EMICs; Claussen et al. 2003; ice is the same as that in the Climate Model version 2.0
Matthews et al. 2003; Brovkin et al. 2004). Feddema et (CM2.0) model presented by Delworth et al. (2006).
al. (2005) stress the importance of including projections The details of the atmospheric component and the fi-
of land cover change in simulations of future climates, delity of its performance are contained in a paper from
as well. Land cover feedbacks are typically separated the GFDL Global Atmospheric Model Development
into biogeochemical and biophysical processes. Bio- Team (2004, hereafter GAMDT04). GAMDT04 and
geochemical influences are associated with changes in Milly and Shmakin (2002a) describe the land compo-
the net carbon uptake by plants and soils and tend to nent in detail; in section 3 we discuss the land model
have positive feedbacks on climate (Friedlingstein et al. parameters that are altered with land cover change.
2003). As noted above, these influences are not consid- The slab ocean component is coupled to a dynamic/
ered in this study. Biophysical influences are typically thermodynamic sea ice subcomponent (Winton 2000;
caused by changes in the radiative properties of the additional model documentation is available from the
land surface (e.g., albedo) and the properties directly GFDL Web site at http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov.)
affecting the surface water budget and turbulent ex- The pair of experiments presented here consisted of
changes (e.g., root and stomatal properties, roughness a 100-yr integration with land cover set to 1990 condi-
length). Govindasamy et al. (2001) and Matthews et al. tions (referred to as the All1990 run) and a 60-yr inte-
(2003) reported local and regional cooling resulting gration in which the land cover was changed to reflect
from albedo increases associated with anthropogenic the potential natural vegetated state (described below;
conversion of midlatitude forests to agriculture, par- NatVeg run). Both simulations had time-invariant con-
ticularly in winter. Bonan (1997, 1999) and Oleson et al. centrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and other
(2004) reported summer cooling caused by midlatitude radiative forcing constituents fixed at 1990 levels [see
deforestation and attributed the cooling to changes in Knutson et al. (2006) for details on the various forcings
stomatal conductance. Zhao et al. (2001) and Zhao and used in these model integrations]. The only difference
Pitman (2002) report cooling in some midlatitude re- between the simulations is the imposed land cover dis-
gions and warming in other regions in response to con- tribution. Analyses were conducted on the last 50 years
version from natural to present-day land cover; they of the two integrations.
suggested that a suite of parameter changes associated The potential natural land cover distribution (Fig.
with the land cover change was responsible for the sur- 1a) approximates the land cover conditions that would
face temperature changes. In general, the magnitude, exist in the absence of human disturbance. It is based
location, and direction of the changes in turbulent on the Milly and Shmakin (2002a) classification that
fluxes vary among the studies, particularly in summer was part of the Land Dynamics model (LaD). LaD has
months, and appear to be dependent on the specifics of 10 vegetation types that are groupings of the 32 Mat-
the land model parameterizations. thews vegetation types (Matthews 1983). The LaD veg-
A brief description of our model and experiments is etation types include broadleaf evergreen, broadleaf
provided in the next section of this work. A discussion deciduous, mixed forest, needle-leaf deciduous, needle-
of the physical processes influenced by vegetation pa- leaf evergreen, grassland, desert, tundra, and ice. Pa-
rameters is given in section 3. In section 4 we describe rameter values for each of these cover types are listed
the results from a global perspective, and in section 5 in Table 1. Milly and Shmakin (2002a) include an agri-
we focus on regions where the vegetation types culture type in the LaD code, but parameter values for
changed between the experiments. Discussion of the this type are highly uncertain and have not been tested.
results and comparisons with surface temperature ob- In this work, we use the grassland type to represent
servations are provided in section 6, and the conclu- crops and/or pastures. Other studies (e.g., Hansen et al.
sions are presented in section 7. 1998; Matthews et al. 2003) have used this same ap-

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

15 JULY 2007 FINDELL ET AL. 3623

FIG. 1. (top) Cover types for the NatVeg simulation, 1: broadleaf evergreen, 2: broadleaf deciduous, 3: broadleaf/
needleleaf, 4: needleleaf evergreen, 5: needleleaf deciduous, 6: grassland/crops/pasture, 7: desert, 8: tundra, and 9:
glacier. (bottom) All1990 ⫺ NatVeg differences in cover type; 11.6% of the land surface is converted to grasslands.
Colors in (bottom) are representative of the original cover type shown in (top). Boxes in (bottom) are used to
indicate regions used in analyses and discussion later in the paper, North American boxes: N1 and N2; European
boxes: E1 and E2; Asian boxes: A1 and A2; and tropical box: T1.

proximation. Some observational studies also provide The 1990 land cover type distribution was derived by
support for this assumption. Mahmood and Hubbard combining the potential vegetation distribution de-
(2002), for example, show that nonirrigated crops and scribed above with the reconstruction of global land use
natural grasslands in Nebraska (central United States) history detailed by Hurtt et al. (2006). Figure 1b shows
produce similar fluxes of heat and moisture. LaD pre- the differences between the natural and 1990 cover-
scribes a single dominant vegetation type for each grid type maps; 11.6% of the earth’s land surface differs
cell and, therefore, does not represent subgrid-scale (was converted from native forests to grassland) be-
heterogeneity. tween the two cover type distributions. Additionally,

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

3624 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 20

TABLE 1. Minimum bulk NWS stomatal resistance (s m⫺1), effective rooting depth (m), snow-free albedo (-), roughness length (m),
and the critical snowmass (kg m⫺3; the snow amount that covers half of the surface) used in momentum and surface flux calculations
for land cover types used in the GFDL land surface model.

NWS stomatal Effective rooting Snow-free Roughness Critical snowmass

resistance (s m⫺1) depth (m) albedo length (m) (kg m⫺3)
1 (BE) broadleaf evergreen trees 43.6 1.30 0.149 2.65 60
2 (BD) broadleaf deciduous trees 131.0 1.38 0.130 0.90 10
3 (BN) broadleaf/needleleaf trees 87.1 1.61 0.132 1.20 25
4 (NE) needleleaf evergreen trees 69.7 0.84 0.126 0.90 40
5 (ND) needleleaf deciduous trees 218.0 0.84 0.143 0.80 40
6 (G) grassland 56.6 0.98 0.182 0.07 5
7 (D) desert 0.0 1.00 0.333 0.01 5
8 (T) tundra 170.0 0.49 0.139 0.07 5

according to the Hurtt et al. (2006) database, transitions resistance (top-left side of Fig. 2). Decreases in the
from natural grasslands to crops or pastures occurred rooting depth effectively reduce the maximum water-
on about 15% of the land, but these transitions do not holding capacity (the soil moisture reservoir size) of the
show up in Fig. 1 due to our treatment of grassland, grid cell. For a given rainfall event, a small soil moisture
crops, and pastures as one cover type. This estimate of reservoir is more likely to saturate than a large reser-
land area converted from a potential, undisturbed state voir, so precipitation is more likely to be removed by
to crops or pastures is within the range of similar esti- surface runoff, leaving less moisture available for
mates provided by other studies (Vitousek et al. 1997; evapotranspiration. Decreases in the roughness length
Ramankutty and Foley 1999; Chase et al. 2000; Pitman (grasslands typically are shorter than forests) lead to
and Zhao 2000; Klein Goldewijk 2001). decreases in turbulent mixing in the boundary layer and
decreased evapotranspiration, although the effect is
3. A conceptual framework small in the model. Changes in the non-water-stressed
To facilitate the discussion of the physical processes bulk stomatal resistance (effectively including changes
modeled in studies of land cover change, a general in leaf-scale stomatal resistance and leaf area) influence
schematic is provided in Fig. 2 for the example of con- the ease with which water can pass from the plant to the
version from forest to grassland. As discussed in detail atmosphere: increased resistance results in less evapo-
below, changes in land cover lead to changes in param- transpiration in the model.
eters controlling the use of available water and energy For the LaD parameter settings used in the GFDL
at the surface. In the LaD scheme, altered surface pa- model, changes of any one of these three parameters
rameters include the rooting depth, non-water-stressed lead to decreased evapotranspiration in the Tropics
(NWS) bulk stomatal resistance, surface roughness when forests are converted to grasslands. Where mid-
length, snow-free surface albedo, and snow-masking latitude forests are replaced with grasslands, decreased
depth. These model-prescribed parameters are shown stomatal resistance increases evapotranspiration, while
in bold in Fig. 2, with increases and decreases associ- the roughness length and rooting depth changes reduce
ated with the parameterization implemented in the evapotranspiration through similar processes as those
GFDL model. Values of each of these parameters are operating in the Tropics. As will be discussed in the
listed in Table 1 for each of the cover types (see Milly next two sections, the net effect of these changes is
and Shmakin 2002a for more details). Figure 3 maps decreased evapotranspiration in most regions in the
differences resulting from parameter changes between GFDL model.
the All1990 and the NatVeg simulations. The rooting Other parameters altered in most studies of land
depth is directly related to the water-holding capacity cover change impact the surface albedo. In the GFDL
of the root zone shown in Fig. 3, and the snow-masking model, the relevant parameters are snow-free albedo
depth is directly related to the critical snowmass (the and snow-masking depth (top right of Fig. 2). When
snow amount that hides half the surface) listed in Ta- forests are converted to grasslands, the snow-free al-
ble 1. bedo increases and the snow-masking depth decreases.
Three model-prescribed parameters directly influ- The effect of the former parameter change is to in-
ence the hydrologic cycle through their influence on crease the surface albedo year-round in tropical regions
evapotranspiration (E ): the rooting depth, the rough- and during periods with no snow cover in middle and
ness length, and the non-water-stressed bulk stomatal high latitudes. The effect of the latter parameter change

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

15 JULY 2007 FINDELL ET AL. 3625

FIG. 2. Idealized schematic of physical processes influenced by the conversion of forests to

grasslands. Model-prescribed physical parameters are in bold; BL: boundary layer, E: evapo-
transpiration, H: sensible heat flux, LW: longwave, and SW: shortwave. All radiative fluxes (in
circles) are surface fluxes (positive toward the surface).

is to increase the surface albedo when snow is present. energy is available for sensible heat flux and the surface
Thus, both parameter changes lead to increases in sur- temperature (Tsurf) increases. The decrease in latent
face albedo, particularly in snowy regions. The more heat flux and increases in sensible heat flux and surface
reflective surface means that less incoming shortwave temperature are accompanied by a decrease in low
radiation is absorbed by the surface, making less energy cloud cover resulting from the increased buoyancy and
available for sensible and latent heating. Surface albedo decreased moisture content of the near-surface atmo-
is not directly impacted by soil moisture in the model. sphere. The increased surface temperature is accompa-
Figure 2 also shows, however, that the surface radia- nied by an increase in the amount of longwave (LW)
tion balance is complicated by feedbacks resulting from radiation leaving the earth’s surface and, because of the
changes in the partitioning of available energy into la- reduced low cloud cover, less of this radiation is re-
tent and sensible heating (␭E and H, respectively, turned to the surface. These two effects yield a decrease
where ␭ is the latent heat of vaporization). If the direct in net longwave radiation at the surface. However, the
hydrological effects in the top-left corner of Fig. 2 (dis- decreased low cloud cover also allows more incoming
cussed above) lead to a net decrease in evapotranspi- shortwave radiation to reach the surface. The increase
ration, as is the case in these experiments, then more in downward shortwave radiation at the surface, how-

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

 3626
JOURNAL OF CLIMATE

FIG. 3. Surface changes in (a) root-zone water holding capacity (kg m⫺2), (b) surface albedo, (c) roughness length (m), and (d) stomatal resistance (s m⫺1) resulting from the prescribed
land cover conversion. Differences are All1990 ⫺ NatVeg. Note that albedo changes reflect differences in snow-free albedo, snow-masking depth, and snow cover between the two runs;
albedo changes are only shown in the regions with land cover conversion. Boxes are the same as in Fig. 1b.
VOLUME 20

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

15 JULY 2007 FINDELL ET AL. 3627

ever, is opposed by a decrease in absorbed shortwave a model’s representations of the relative strengths of
radiation resulting from the changes to surface albedo interacting processes like those included in Fig. 2. How-
discussed above and shown on the far right of Fig. 2. If ever, this fidelity is difficult to assess. The dearth of
the net surface radiative balance (bottom line of Fig. 2) reliable datasets for land-model parameters, fluxes, and
is negative, then both latent and sensible heat fluxes states greatly impedes the assessment of the realism of
may decrease, and surface temperatures may also de- any model’s sensitivity to land cover. A small measure
crease. of confidence in the vegetation dependence of param-
Precipitation responses to parameter changes are not eters used in this study is gained from the work of Milly
included in Fig. 2 because of the variety and complexity and Shmakin (2002b). Milly and Shmakin sought to
of relevant feedbacks between atmospheric and surface determine if specification of parameters on the basis of
processes and the small precipitation response found in global soil and vegetation distributions improved model
our experiments. For convective rainfall to occur, a lift- performance over that with globally constant param-
ing mechanism and atmospheric moisture must both be eters. Their results showed that model performance—
available. Sensible heat flux can contribute to the as measured by the prediction of annual runoff ratios of
former requirement and latent heat flux can contribute large river basins—did indeed improve when param-
to the latter requirement. Thus, one cannot always eas- eters were tied to soil and vegetation characteristics in
ily deduce how changes in the partitioning of these sur- the LaD model. Additional motivation for performing
face fluxes and changes in the availability of surface this study with the GFDL model is provided by the
radiation will influence precipitation. Findell and Elta- results of the Global Land–Atmosphere Coupling Ex-
hir (2003a,b) show that the precipitation response to periment (GLACE; Koster et al. 2006; Guo et al. 2006);
this model intercomparison project quantified the land–
changed surface fluxes is dependent on local atmo-
atmosphere coupling strength of 12 atmospheric gen-
spheric conditions and that some regions are more
eral circulation models. Coupling strength is defined in
likely to see increased convection when latent heat flux
GLACE as “the degree to which anomalies in land
increases and other regions are more likely to see in-
surface state (e.g., soil moisture) can affect rainfall gen-
creased convection when sensible heat flux increases.
eration and other atmospheric processes” (Koster et al.
Given the processes and interactions sketched out
2006, p. 590). Koster et al. show that the GFDL model
above, model results are highly sensitive to the param-
is among the models with the strongest land–
eter settings and to the relative strengths of various
atmosphere coupling strength.
processes within a given land surface model. For ex-
ample, the GFDL model shows modest summertime
warming in midlatitude regions converted from forests 4. Global sensitivity
to agriculture (discussed below), although Bonan (1997, Difference fields (All1990 ⫺ NatVeg) for a few vari-
1999) simulated summer cooling of 1°C in the central ables are shown in Figs. 4–6, and Table 2 lists annual
United States using a version of the National Center for average global differences for these and other vari-
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Climate ables. These differences are small in magnitude; al-
Model version 2 (CCM2) with the Land Surface Model though some are statistically significant [column (a)],
version 1 (LSM1). Oleson et al. (2004) found similar they tend to be within one standard deviation of the
summer cooling with LSM1, but they found that simu- mean values observed in the NatVeg experiment [col-
lations with a warmer and drier land surface model umn (b)] and would be hard to distinguish from normal
(CLM2) had smaller summer cooling. In contrast, the climate variability on short time scales. This result is
results of Xue et al. (1996) showed a warmer summer- consistent with other studies that have shown a lack of
time climate when crops occupied the central United sensitivity in global averages in response to similar land
States than when these crops were replaced with trees. surface perturbations (Chase et al. 2000; Zhao et al.
Zhao et al. (2001) found little change in North Ameri- 2001; Bounoua et al. 2002).
can response to similar land cover change using Additionally, all fields listed in Table 2 show only
NCAR’s CCM3 coupled to the Biosphere–Atmosphere 3%–7% of the earth’s surface passing a modified Stu-
Transfer Scheme (BATS), but they found cooling in dent’s t test at the 95% significance level. The modified
Europe, India, and northern China and warming in test accounts for autocorrelation of the time series
southern China in this study and the follow-up study by (Zwiers and von Storch 1995; von Storch and Zwiers
Zhao and Pitman (2002). 1999). The t test does not address field significance.
In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear how Field significance tests require estimates of the num-
experimental results depend critically on the fidelity of bers of spatial degrees of freedom (DOF) for each vari-

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

3628 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 20

FIG. 4. Annual difference in net radiation at the surface (All1990 ⫺ NatVeg). Differences are shaded only where
statistically significant at the 95% significance level according to the modified t test, but they are contoured
everywhere (0.0 contour line not included). 6.5% of global area passes this test. Boxes are the same as in Fig. 1b.

able (see, e.g., Livezey and Chen 1983) tested. Vari- cance level. DOF estimates depend on the variable and
ables with large correlation lengths (e.g., temperature) the time scale of interest (daily, seasonal, annual), but
have fewer DOF than variables with short correlation DOF estimates for global scale, annually averaged
lengths (e.g., precipitation) and therefore require much fields like those listed in Table 2 tend to be smaller than
more than 5% of the area to pass the 95% significance 100 (see, e.g., Van den Dool and Chervin 1986). Fields
level test for the whole field to be deemed statistically with 100 DOF require more than 9% of the area to pass
significant. Livezey and Chen (1983) show that fields a 95% significance test for the field as a whole to be
with only 7% of area passing a 95% significance test significant at the 95% level (Livezey and Chen 1983).
(the maximum listed in Table 2) require more than 400 Given that none of the global fields analyzed here ex-
DOF to achieve field significance at the 95% signifi- ceeded about 7% passing the modified 95% level t test,

FIG. 5. As in Fig. 4 but for 2-m air temperature differences (1990 ⫺ NatVeg); 6.0% passes at the 95%
significance level.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

15 JULY 2007 FINDELL ET AL. 3629

FIG. 6. As in Fig. 4 but for precipitation differences (1990 ⫺ NatVeg). 3.9% passes at the 95%
significance level.

a more rigorous assessment of field significance was not In all of the regions shown in Fig. 7a, annual average
performed. evapotranspiration is significantly reduced. This is even
true in each of the midlatitude regions where there are
competing impacts of the prescribed land cover change
5. Regional sensitivity
on the calculated evapotranspiration (Fig. 2). All re-
Although we do not see large changes from a global gions also show an increase in surface runoff (R) asso-
perspective, the prescribed alterations to surface veg- ciated with the decreased rooting depth and accompa-
etation cover lead to some substantial changes in many nying the decreased evapotranspiration, with the ex-
of the regions where land cover change occurs. Figure 7 ception of eastern Europe (E2) where runoff is
summarizes some annual average differences for a sub- unchanged. Figure 7a also shows small decreases in an-
set of regions that have undergone extensive land cover nual precipitation in all of the temperate regions and a
change (Fig. 1b), and Figs. 8 and 9 show the seasonal small increase in the tropical region of northern India
cycles of many variables for the regions of eastern Eu- (T1). Regions E2 and T1 showed the largest annual
rope (E2) and northern India (T1), respectively. mean changes; Figs. 8b and 9b show the seasonal cycles

TABLE 2. (a) Global mean differences (All1990 ⫺ NatVeg) of annual average values; (b) standard deviation of annual global mean
values within the NatVeg run; and (c) passing percentages for many variables. Bold type in column (a) indicates statistically significant
differences.

(a) Global (b) Std dev of annual (c) Percent of globe*

mean difference global mean value passing modified
Variable (All1990 ⫺ NatVeg) in NatVeg run 95% Student’s t test
Precipitation (P: cm day⫺1) ⴑ0.0008 0.0009 3.9%
Evaporation (E: cm day⫺1) ⴑ0.0008 0.0009 6.5%
Surface runoff (only defined on land: cm day⫺1) 0.0015 0.0016 7.3%*
Sensible heat flux (H: W m⫺2) 0.0967 0.1537 5.5%
2-m air temperature (°C) 0.0080 0.0626 6.0%
Low cloud amount (%) ⴑ0.2499 0.1889 5.2%
Net surface shortwave radiation (W m⫺2) 0.1198 0.2976 5.3%
Net surface longwave radiation (W m⫺2) ⴑ0.2639 0.2267 5.1%
Net surface radiation (W m⫺2) ⴑ0.1441 0.2036 6.5%
Net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (W m⫺2) ⫺0.0121 0.2620 6.7%

* Surface runoff is calculated only on land: for this variable, the percentage passing in column (c) is the percent of land area passing.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

3630 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 20

regions the total available radiation at the surface, Rnet,

is lower in the All1990 run than in the NatVeg run.
Decreases in latent heat flux are generally accompa-
nied by increases in sensible heat flux (Fig. 7c), though
due to the competing influence of decreased net radia-
tion at the surface, the increased sensible heat flux is
only significant in eastern Europe (E2). Given that
many of the changes shown in Figs. 4–7 are significant
in region E2, Fig. 8 is included to highlight the seasonal
cycles of many variables in this region and to better
illustrate the physical processes at work.
Evidence of many of the physical processes and in-
teractions among those processes discussed in section 3
are seen in seasonal cycles for the E2 region where the
land cover was changed from the mixed broadleaf/
needleleaf forests in the NatVeg simulation to grass-
lands in the All1990 simulation (Fig. 8). The reduction
of root zone soil moisture is relatively stable through-
out the year and averages about 40 kg m⫺2. Evapora-
tion (E ) and precipitation (P) are also decreased
throughout the year (Fig. 8b). As a result of the near
balance between reduced evapotranspiration and pre-
cipitation, runoff does not change appreciably.
Changes to the surface radiation balance (Fig. 8c) are
F IG . 7. Annual regional average differences (All1990 ⫺
also consistent with the schematic in Fig. 2: a change
NatVeg) for (a) variables involved in the water balance (precipi- from native forests in the NatVeg simulation to grass-
tation, evaporation, and surface runoff), (b) variables involved in land in the All1990 simulation leads to decreased net
the surface radiation balance (net, shortwave, and longwave ra- longwave radiation throughout the year, increased
diation), and (c) surface fluxes and temperature (E*: latent heat shortwave radiation during the summer months, and
flux, H: sensible heat flux, and t*10: 2-m air temperature scaled by
a factor of 10). The asterisks at the end of some bars indicate
decreased shortwave radiation during the winter
differences that are significant within the indicated region at months. The shortwave radiation changes suggest that
the 95% level according to the modified t test of von Storch the cloud effects dominate the shortwave radiation bal-
and Zwiers (1999). Region labels correspond to boxes indicated oi ance in the summer, but the surface albedo effects
Fig. 1b. dominate in winter. The shortwave and longwave ef-
fects nearly cancel in the summer months, but the an-
nual effect on net radiation at the surface, Rnet, is a
of precipitation for these regions in both the NatVeg significant reduction (Fig. 7b) due to the wintertime
and the All1990 integrations. increase in surface albedo. The evapotranspiration re-
The impacts of deforestation on the surface radiation duction discussed above is seen again in Fig. 8d in
balance include direct effects resulting from changes to the form of reduced latent heat flux (␭E ). This is ac-
the surface albedo and indirect effects following atmo- companied by increased sensible heat flux (H ), with
spheric feedbacks (Fig. 2). Consistent with the sche- maximum differences in August. Surface temperature
matic in Fig. 2, the net longwave (LW) response is differences tend to be largest in the summer months
negative in all the regions highlighted in Fig. 7b, though (Fig. 8a).
the change is not statistically significant in the two The region of northern India (T1) is included in Fig.
North American regions (N1 and N2). The combina- 7 and highlighted in Fig. 9 as an example of a region
tion of decreased net shortwave (SW) radiation result- where tropical forests were converted to grasslands.
ing from albedo changes and increased net shortwave The other areas with such a land cover conversion (Fig.
radiation resulting from the decrease in low cloud cover 1b) tend to be smaller or have fewer adjacent altered
following the decrease in evapotranspiration yields de- grid cells. Northern India and many of the other tropi-
creases in net shortwave radiation in three of the seven cal areas differ from extratropical regions in that the
regions shown in Fig. 7b, increases in two regions, and soils in northern India almost completely dry out for at
essentially no change in the other two regions. In all least a few months of the year (Fig. 9a), yielding energy

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

15 JULY 2007 FINDELL ET AL. 3631

FIG. 8. Seasonal cycles averaged over eastern Europe (Region E2; 44°–54°N, 12.5°–27.5°E) for the NatVeg run
(solid lines) and the All1990 run (dashed lines) of (a) root-zone soil moisture and 2-m air temperature; (b)
precipitation (P), evaporation (E ) and runoff (R); (c) net, shortwave, and longwave radiation at the surface (Rnet,
SWnet, and LWnet, respectively); and (d) Rnet with sensible (H ) and latent (␭E ) heat fluxes from the surface.
Asterisks indicate monthly differences that are statistically significant at the 95% level according to the modified
t test.

and water cycles that are very different during wet and months. In the model, the annual effects in the T1 re-
dry seasons. During the dry season, the decreased wa- gion are dominated by the wet season behavior (Fig. 7).
ter-holding capacity associated with removal of native Sensitivities of surface fluxes and related variables to
forests does not influence the water and energy budgets land cover change in regions like northern India may be
because the soils are already so dry and evapotranspi- substantially biased in our model. Milly and Shmakin
ration is already close to zero (Fig. 9b). The increased (2002a) identified a bias in interseasonal water storage
surface albedo, however, does yield significant changes: in the LaD model in regions where climatic aridity is
shortwave and net radiation go down during the dry strongly seasonal. The model does not account for up-
season (Fig. 9c). Because there is already almost no ward diffusion of deep soil water during the long dry
evaporation, this reduction in available energy trans- season or for evapotranspiration from areas of ground-
lates into reductions in sensible heat flux, surface tem- water discharge. Such processes can contribute nonneg-
peratures, and net longwave radiation at the surface ligibly to latent heat flux and limit sensible heat flux
(Fig. 9). during the dry season.
During the wet season, on the other hand, both the
hydrologic and the radiative processes sketched in Fig. 6. Historical perspective
2 are relevant. The prescribed change from tropical for-
ests to grassland in northern India leads to less evapo- To put these changes into perspective, we compare
ration, more runoff, more sensible heat flux, higher sur- the climatic changes observed over the past century or
face temperatures, fewer clouds, more shortwave radia- so with our experimental results. Such a comparison is
tion, and less net longwave radiation (Fig. 9). These useful because it helps quantify the contribution of an-
radiation changes typically result in no change in net thropogenic land cover change to observed climate
radiation at the surface during these wet season trends. However, the comparison must be interpreted

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

3632 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 20

FIG. 9. As in Fig. 8 but for the region of northern India (Region T1: 20° to 28°N, 75° to 92.5°E).

with a number of caveats in mind. First, the model re- the real world since 1870 (and before) such as green-
sults are from an equilibrium calculation in which the house gas and aerosol concentrations, solar insolation,
climate system is given a sufficient amount of time to and other factors (Hansen et al. 1998). We make the
adjust fully to the prescribed changes. The observations following comparison simply to give some perspective
are taken from time-dependent changes observed in the on the magnitude of the temperature changes simulated
real world from the 1870s to the present (discussed be- by our model.
low). An equilibrium experiment would be expected to We use observations from the Hadley Centre Climatic
show larger responses to perturbations than a transient Research Unit Temperature version 2 (HadCRUT2v)
experiment because the simulations, by definition, have surface temperature dataset [see Jones and Moberg
equilibrated with the forcings while the real world is not (2003) for treatment of land-based data; Rayner et al.
in equilibrium (Hansen et al. 2005; Wetherald et al. (2003) for treatment of ocean-based data; and Jones et
2001). Additionally, our equilibrium experiments ac- al. (2001) for details on the variance adjustment
count for changes to land surface cover that have accu- method for dealing with differing spatial and temporal
mulated since humans first began to modify the face of data density] to estimate surface temperature changes
the land through agriculture and other activities; we are since the 1870s in each of the labeled regions in Fig. 1b.
comparing a potential vegetation state (no human dis- The black bars in Fig. 10 represent the regional differ-
turbance) to the present-day condition. Not all impacts ences between the observed surface temperature in the
resulting from these changes would be captured by a last 20 years and the first 20 years of the observational
time series of the most recent 130 years. These two record (1985–2004 versus 1871–90). The white bars in
factors suggest that our experiments place an upper Fig. 10 represent the differences between the 50-yr cli-
bound on the potential impact of the biophysical effects matologies of the All1990 run and the NatVeg run of
of anthropogenic land cover change. Thus, if land cover our equilibrium climate model for the regions indicated
change was the major cause of observed climate in Fig. 1b. These regions are the areas where the land
changes, we would expect to see a larger signal in the cover was changed in the model integrations and where
model differences than in the observed differences. In the resulting climate response is the largest. If different
reality, many additional forcing factors have changed in regions were considered, the model signal (i.e., the

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

15 JULY 2007 FINDELL ET AL. 3633

present-day simulation and the simulation with poten-

tial natural vegetation cover, conditions are predomi-
nantly warmer as a result of anthropogenic land cover
change. The surface warming is largest in Europe.
Observations of surface air temperature show warm-
ing across much of the globe over the past century
(Houghton et al. 2001; Knutson et al. 2006). Compari-
sons of the results of the model integrations docu-
mented here with those observed temperature records
indicate that anthropogenic land cover change is un-
likely to be responsible for the observed global-scale
warming. This conclusion is substantiated by the fact
that, even in the regions where the effects of cumulative
land cover change from a potential natural state to
present-day conditions are large, the impact on surface
FIG. 10. Black bars: for each region, observed temperature dif- temperatures is small relative to observed changes in
ferences from the HadCRUT2v dataset, average of 1985–2004
surface temperatures over the last 130 years. Thus,
minus average of 1870–89. Asterisks on black bars indicate that
the temperature trends from 1870 to 2004 are significantly differ- within the limitations of the model, and noting that
ent from 0 at the 99.9% significance level in every region except changes in water management practices (e.g., irrigation
N2. White bars: for each region, modeled temperature differences and impoundment of surface waters) and biogeochemi-
between the 50-yr averages of the All1990 run and the NatVeg cal feedbacks of land cover changes are not included in
run. Asterisks on white bars indicate regions where the modeled
the model, we can conclude that the biophysical im-
differences between the All1990 and the NatVeg runs are signifi-
cant at the 95% significance level (modified t test). pacts of anthropogenic land cover change are unlikely
to be important drivers of observed global-scale climate
change.
white bars in Fig. 10) would be smaller. Even in these
regions, where the land cover change effect is largest, Acknowledgments. The authors thank Krista Dunne,
the model difference between the All1990 run and the Anand Gnanadesikan, Tom Delworth, and three
NatVeg run is much smaller than the observed warming anonymous reviewers for their helpful reviews of the
over the last 130 years in the North American, Asian, manuscript.
and tropical regions. In the European regions the simu-
lated surface temperature differences are a sizable frac- REFERENCES
tion of the observed trends. However, they still are less
than about 40% of the observed signal. This leads us to Bonan, G. B., 1997: Effects of land use on the climate of the
conclude that, though land cover changes can have sig- United States. Climatic Change, 37, 449–486.
nificant impacts on regional water and energy balances, ——, 1999: Frost followed the plow: Impacts of deforestation on
the climate of the United States. Ecol. Appl., 94, 1305–1315.
the observed surface warming in the real world cannot
Bounoua, L., R. Defries, G. J. Collatz, P. Sellers, and H. Khan,
be explained by land cover change alone and that other 2002: Effects of land cover conversion on surface climate.
changes in radiative forcing are collectively playing a Climatic Change, 52, 29–64.
much more dominant role. Brovkin, V., S. Sitch, W. Von Bloh, M. Claussen, E. Bauer, and
W. Cramer, 2004: Role of land cover changes for atmospheric
CO2 increase and climate change during the last 150 years.
7. Conclusions Global Change Biol., 10, 1253–1266.
Chase, T. N., R. A. Pielke Sr., T. G. F. Kittel, R. R. Nemani, and
According to the GFDL equilibrium climate model, S. W. Running, 2000: Simulated impacts of historical land
climatic impacts of anthropogenic land cover change cover changes on global climate in northern winter. Climate
have a small impact at the global scale but are climati- Dyn., 16, 93–105.
cally significant in a few regions, specifically eastern Claussen, M., and Coauthors, 2003: Earth system models of inter-
Europe, northern India, and eastern China. Regional mediate complexity: Closing the gap in the spectrum of cli-
mate system models. Climate Dyn., 18, 579–586.
impacts of land cover change are small in North
Delworth, T. L., and Coauthors, 2006: GFDL’s CM2 global
America. Contrary to some previous studies on this coupled climate models. Part I: Formulation and simulation
topic (Zhao and Pitman 2002; Bonan 1999; Hansen et characteristics. J. Climate, 19, 643–674.
al. 1998), model-simulated annual surface temperature Feddema, J. J., K. W. Oleson, G. B. Bonan, L. O. Mearns, L. E.
fields indicate that where differences exist between the Buja, G. A. Meehl, and W. M. Washington, 2005: The impor-

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC

3634 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 20

tance of land-cover change in simulating future climates. Sci- tion and modification of near-surface hydrologic cycle. Cli-
ence, 310, 1674–1678. mate Res., 21, 83–90.
Findell, K. L., and E. A. B. Eltahir, 2003a: Atmospheric controls Matthews, E., 1983: Global vegetation and land use data bases for
on soil moisture–boundary layer interactions. Part I: Frame- climate studies. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 64, 793–794.
work development. J. Hydrometeor., 4, 552–569. Matthews, H. D., A. J. Weaver, M. Eby, and K. J. Meissner, 2003:
——, and ——, 2003b: Atmospheric controls on soil moisture– Radiative forcing of climate by historical land cover change.
boundary layer interactions. Part II: Feedbacks within the Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1055, doi:10.1029/2002GL016098.
continental United States. J. Hydrometeor., 4, 570–583. Milly, P. C. D., and A. B. Shmakin, 2002a: Global modeling of
Friedlingstein, P., J.-L. Dufresne, P. M. Cox, and P. Rayner, 2003: land water and energy balances. Part I: The land dynamics
How positive is the feedback between climate change and the (LaD) model. J. Hydrometeor., 3, 283–299.
carbon cycle? Tellus, 55B, 692–700. ——, and ——, 2002b: Global modeling of land water and energy
GFDL Global Atmospheric Model Development Team, 2004: balances. Part II: Land-characteristic contributions to spatial
The new GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM2– variability. J. Hydrometeor., 3, 301–310.
LM2: Evaluation with prescribed SST simulations. J. Climate, Oleson, K. W., G. B. Bonan, S. Levis, and M. Vertenstein, 2004:
17, 4641–4673. Effects of land use change on North American climate: Im-
Govindasamy, B., P. B. Duffy, and K. Caldeira, 2001: Land use pact of surface datasets and model biogeophysics. Climate
changes and northern hemisphere cooling. Geophys. Res. Dyn., 23, 117–132.
Lett., 28, 291–294. Pielke, R. A., Sr., 2002: Overlooked issues in the U.S. National
Guo, Z., and Coauthors, 2006: GLACE: The Global Land– Climate and IPCC assessments. Climatic Change, 52, 1–11.
Atmosphere Coupling Experiment. Part II: Analysis. J. Hy- ——, R. Avissar, M. Raupach, A. J. Dolman, X. Zeng, and A. S.
drometeor., 7, 611–625. Denning, 1998: Interactions between the atmosphere and ter-
Hansen, J. E., M. Sato, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, I. Tegen, and E. restrial ecosystems: Influence on weather and climate. Global
Matthews, 1998: Climate forcings in the Industrial era. Proc. Change Biol., 4, 461–475.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 12 753–12 758. Pitman, A. J., and M. Zhao, 2000: The relative impact of observed
change in land cover and carbon dioxide as simulated by a
——, and Coauthors, 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirma-
climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 1267–1270.
tion and implications. Science, 308, 1431–1435.
Ramankutty, N., and J. A. Foley, 1999: Estimating historical
Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der
changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992.
Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson, Eds., 2001:
Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 13, 997–1027.
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge Uni-
Rayner, N. A., D. E. Parker, E. B. Horton, C. K. Folland, L. V.
versity Press, 881 pp.
Alexander, D. P. Rowell, E. C. Kent, and A. Kaplan, 2003:
Hurtt, G. C., S. Frolking, M. G. Fearon, B. Moore III, E. Shev-
Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night
liakova, S. Malyshev, S. W. Pacala, and R. A. Houghton,
marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J.
2006: The underpinnings of land-use history: Three centuries
Geophys. Res., 108, 4407, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670.
of global gridded land-use transitions, wood harvest activity,
Van den Dool, H. M., and R. M. Chervin, 1986: A comparison of
and resulting secondary lands. Global Change Biol., 12, 1208–
month-to-month persistence of anomalies in a general circu-
1229.
lation model and in the earth’s atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 43,
Jones, P. D., and A. Moberg, 2003: Hemispheric and large-scale
1454–1466.
surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and
Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melilo,
an update to 2001. J. Climate, 16, 206–223.
1997: Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277,
——, T. J. Osborn, K. R. Briffa, C. K. Folland, B. Horton, L. V. 494–499.
Alexander, D. E. Parker, and N. A. Rayner, 2001: Adjusting von Storch, H., and F. W. Zwiers, 1999: Statistical Analysis in
for sampling density in grid-box land and ocean surface tem- Climate Research. Cambridge University Press, 484 pp.
perature time series. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 3371–3380. Wetherald, R. T., R. J. Stouffer, and K. W. Dixon, 2001: Commit-
Klein Goldewijk, K., 2001: Estimating global land use change over ted warming and its implications for climate change. Geo-
the past 300 years: The HYDE Database. Global Bio- phys. Res. Lett., 28, 1535–1538.
geochem. Cycles, 15, 417–433. Winton, M., 2000: A reformulated three-layer sea ice model. J.
Knutson, T. R., and Coauthors, 2006: Assessment of twentieth- Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 17, 525–531.
century regional surface temperature trends using the GFDL Xue, Y., M. J. Fennessy, and P. J. Sellers, 1996: Impact of vegeta-
CM2 coupled models. J. Climate, 19, 1624–1651. tion properties on U.S. summer weather prediction. J. Geo-
Koster, R. D., and Coauthors, 2006: GLACE: The Global Land– phys. Res., 101 (D3), 7419–7430.
Atmosphere Coupling Experiment. Part I: Overview. J. Hy- Zhao, M., and A. J. Pitman, 2002: The regional scale impact of
drometeor., 7, 590–610. land cover change simulated with a climate model. Int. J.
Livezey, R. E., and W. Y. Chen, 1983: Statistical field significance Climatol., 22, 271–290.
and its determination by Monte Carlo techniques. Mon. Wea. ——, ——, and T. Chase, 2001: The impact of land cover change
Rev., 111, 46–59. on the atmospheric circulation. Climate Dyn., 17, 467–477.
Mahmood, R., and K. G. Hubbard, 2002: Anthropogenic land-use Zwiers, F. W., and H. von Storch, 1995: Taking serial correlation
change in the North American tall grass–short grass transi- into account in tests of the mean. J. Climate, 8, 336–351.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/08/23 06:14 AM UTC