1 of 6
1
Climate change killing mighty trees in Alaska
Posted: 21 February 2012 05:01 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26

For citizenschallenge,

And for more than a century, with less snow on the ground, frozen roots have killed yellow cedar on nearly a half-million acres in southeast Alaska, plus another 123,000 acres in adjacent British Columbia.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46439567/ns/us_news-environment/

A thousand year old tree is not a renewable resource, unless you are willing to wait a thousand years..

[ Edited: 21 February 2012 05:08 PM by Write4U ]
Image Attachments
yellow cedars.jpg
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2012 12:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4258
Joined  2010-08-15
Write4U - 21 February 2012 05:01 PM

For citizenschallenge,

And for more than a century, with less snow on the ground, frozen roots have killed yellow cedar on nearly a half-million acres in southeast Alaska, plus another 123,000 acres in adjacent British Columbia.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46439567/ns/us_news-environment/

A thousand year old tree is not a renewable resource, unless you are willing to wait a thousand years..

Yea, the beat goes on

“I’m looking out my window and we have a dusting of snow at best,” Schaberg said from his Vermont office. “And the soils are frozen all over the place, which is not the norm at all.

So even just this one component of changing climate — reduced snow packs, its influence on soils and the things that are living in soils, like roots — that is not limited to the yellow cedar story and Alaska. That’s pertinent to many locations.”

Cascading consequence and all that.

And the Right Wing still clings to some oblivious notion that the planet is there to supply us, and that we can disregard all these changes we are witnessing… inducing too.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2012 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01

This just makes me sick.

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2012 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26

ah yes, as someone mentioned, we have dominion over the earth. But we are terrible caretakers.  Cedar especially is a human friendly species for its excellent properties. It is a very light wood, but its long fibers make it exceptionally resilient and makes clean splitting a delight (cedar shakes). Its bug resistant, rot resistant and becomes aesthetically more beautiful with age.  IOW it is a natural treasure.

Now they are dying and the oldest (largest) are becoming ghostly giants slowly decaying in the course of time. But even in death they still provide safe haven to birds and tree-dwelling animals. Now that is a creature worthy of worship, our love and care. Call me a tree hugger.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 06:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

The increasing mortality from lack of snow cover began 130 years ago. So it was climate change even then.
CAGW proponents , do please provide the evidence to show that CO2 emissions caused the lack of snow cover, if that is to be your claim. Or at least show that GW caused it, if that is your claim.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to explain and show the evidence supporting your position.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 06:51 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 10:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 06:40 AM

The increasing mortality from lack of snow cover began 130 years ago. So it was climate change even then.
CAGW proponents , do please provide the evidence to show that CO2 emissions caused the lack of snow cover, if that is to be your claim. Or at least show that GW caused it, if that is your claim.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to explain and show the evidence supporting your position.

See the link above. I am no expert but if you are interested on pursuing the issue, you can start with that news story.

Oddly, it seems that the problem is a secondary effect of GW. The warming causes less snow cover, which exposes the soil to freezing during cold spells. This is damaging the shallow roots of these trees and is what kills them.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 10:38 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
Write4U - 05 March 2012 10:18 AM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 06:40 AM

The increasing mortality from lack of snow cover began 130 years ago. So it was climate change even then.
CAGW proponents , do please provide the evidence to show that CO2 emissions caused the lack of snow cover, if that is to be your claim. Or at least show that GW caused it, if that is your claim.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to explain and show the evidence supporting your position.

See the link above. I am no expert but if you are interested on pursuing the issue, you can start with that news story.

Oddly, it seems that the problem is a secondary effect of GW. The warming causes less snow cover, which exposes the soil to freezing during cold spells. This is damaging the shallow roots of these trees and is what kills them.

Thanks, Write4U. I was wondering how the people expressing such horror at man’s doing would explain how they know.

Therefor what is sought is attribution of the lack of snow cover to AGW, or CO2 emissions…say starting in around 1880. It’s easy to say stuff.  However, more snow is also attributed to AGW. Where and when the lesser or increased snow cover appears, seems to be invented ad hoc all too often.
With the total lack of evidence being presented, it does not measure up to be a believable report.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 10:48 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26

Have you had a look at Greenland lately?  The snow cover is no longer pure white. Apparently the warming ( so far just a few degrees) is destroying the snow crystal structures and makes them denser (globs instead of crystals). The result is less reflection surface and instead of pure white, the snow now is beginning to look grayish, which in turn allows more sunlight to penetrate.

French Curve, there may be several factors at work. I don’t think anyone is claiming that man is solely responsible for GW. But we are spewing millions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere and if we only contribute to a few degrees, the consequences may be disasterous. There is a domino effect, one thing affects something else, which in turn affects something else.
I have lived in No. Idaho for 45 years. When we got here we experienced 4’-6’ snowfalls every winter for about 20 years. In the last tenn years we have had but 3’-4’ total during the winters and our spring run-offs are much shorter and lower. This has affected a lot of farmers which depend on spring run-offs for their crops. Migration patterns of plants, trees, and animals are changing further north. Flowering plants are blooming sooner, and changing the pollination seasons of many pollinating insects.

If you are a doubter, think of this. Will smoking cigarettes kill you?  Not tomorrow, but 20 years from now it will. I don’t think their are any deniers left about what exposure to cigarette smoke does to our lungs.  The human body is also a biosphere and may well be compared to the earth as a biosphere. When we introduce a secondary non-natural distribution of pollutants to the earths biosphere, the results may not be immediately apparent, but 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years from now, we may look back and wish we had been more prudent.

An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 11:45 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
Write4U - 05 March 2012 11:27 AM

Have you had a look at Greenland lately?  The snow cover is no longer pure white. Apparently the warming ( so far just a few degrees) is destroying the snow crystal structures and makes them denser (globs instead of crystals). The result is less reflection surface and instead of pure white, the snow now is beginning to look grayish, which in turn allows more sunlight to penetrate.

Thanks, but this is not an answer to the enquiry about evidence to support what is implied - that AGW or C02 is responsible for the lack of snow cover for the roots in this case, starting circa 1880 and peaking in the 1970’s or 80’s.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 11:37 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 11:34 AM
Write4U - 05 March 2012 11:27 AM

Have you had a look at Greenland lately?  The snow cover is no longer pure white. Apparently the warming ( so far just a few degrees) is destroying the snow crystal structures and makes them denser (globs instead of crystals). The result is less reflection surface and instead of pure white, the snow now is beginning to look grayish, which in turn allows more sunlight to penetrate.

Thanks, but this is not an answer to the enquiry about evidence to support what is implied - that AGW or C02 is responsible for the lack of snow cover for the roots in this case, starting circa 1880 and peaking in the 1970’s or 80’s.

Trust me, you will get some responses from more knowledgeable people here. It’s been discussed at length with references to studies.
You can also do a search of the terms and you’ll be directed to many threads re GW.

Here are a few,

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
http://realclimate.com/
http://SkepticalScience.com/
 

CC where are you??

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 11:58 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

This statement is odd enough to warrant a second look:

“I’m looking out my window and we have a dusting of snow at best,” Schaberg said from his Vermont office. “And the soils are frozen all over the place, which is not the norm at all. So even just this one component of changing climate — reduced snow packs…i

This scientist expects that by looking out his window in Vermont, and if he sees there is only a dusting of snow today, it means….

This nice inclusion draws an extra note of caution about the article.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

From Wiki;

...Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming…

One could infer that it got warmer after that : )

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 12:33 PM

From Wiki;

...Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming…

One could infer that it got warmer after that : )

Do you seriously think that the climatologists who assert AGW (which is to say, virtually all of them) don’t know this?

You are aware that there is virtually complete scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

Additionally, I wonder why someone would come here and virtually as a first post find issue with some trivial point re. AGW rather than simply state outright that they think it is bunk. If you believe AGW is real but simply think the issue re. snow cover is wrong, then you should make that clear. (Though I doubt that given your other post re. the Heartland institute’s pseudoscience). If, OTOH, your aim is to discredit AGW then first of all you are going about your aim in a manner which is less than completely open. Secondly, I have to wonder what makes you think you know better than the scientists who actually study the phenomena professionally.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
dougsmith - 05 March 2012 12:40 PM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 12:33 PM

From Wiki;

...Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming…

One could infer that it got warmer after that : )

Do you seriously think that the climatologists who assert AGW (which is to say, virtually all of them) don’t know this?

I do not think that, but thank you for the opportunity to embrace it if I wanted to.

You are aware that there is virtually complete scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

Please try to respond to the post, thank you.

It got warmer after the LIA, agreed ? That date matches the noticed decline start up.

Thank you. To you it may be a trivial point. Others were disgusted and inflamed by the implications of what we did to these trees.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 01:09 PM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 12:58 PM

Please try to respond to the post, thank you.

Your post appears to be a smokescreen for a broader agenda. It is the broader agenda which is the issue with this thread and your response, so please respond to my question about your broader agenda.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
dougsmith - 05 March 2012 01:27 PM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 12:58 PM

Please try to respond to the post, thank you.

Your post appears to be a smokescreen for a broader agenda. It is the broader agenda which is the issue with this thread and your response, so please respond to my question about your broader agenda.

DougSmith, you are offering ad hom attack. Would you not consider staying on topic ? Or at least tell me what rules you will accuse me of breaking ?

I can respond to your questions specifically, though they do not pertain to this topic in particular.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 01:36 PM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
   
1 of 6
1