I’ll demonstate how to use the French Curve to turn the pessimism upside down:
Wouldn’t it be interesting, if it was the case, that the “going into” or “coming out of” Ice Age conditions, that is what kills the trees, and now that we’ve warmed up a bit, they are doing better ? Some bad losses, but doing better now. Wouldn’t that be a nicer outlook for you wrt this particular case ?
Perhaps we need to see data on this subject. Until then you need not despair.
While I respect NASA, their observation are no less “observational” in “general terms” that someone looking out their window.
IMO, now that we are “focusing” on causality and consequences of GW and CC with dedicated instruments used by experts, I tend to believe the latest and “specific” information that is emerging from the data.
I’m also interested in what happened to the trees after the “peak” mortality they mention in 1970/1980.
We’ll just have to wait until more snow cover disappears in different areas. Unfortunately (perhaps fortunately) this is a slow process and takes decades to reveal itself. One thing is clear, even if we manage to transplant new trees to more favorable sites, we’ll have to wait a 1000 years to witness trees of “just the right size” (as Romney puts it).
Um..did the cold in 1970 kill all the remaining old trees ? What kind of climate were these trees just saplings under ? When did they proliferate ? In cold or warm ?
What if these are warmish climate shallow soil trees which were ravaged by the cold snap of the 1970’s ...aerosols making Anthropogenic Global Cooling, don’t you know.
Well, I have been looking out my window in NO. Idaho for the last 10 years and I have observed less snow and even as I am not a scientist, I am a skeptic and I do wonder about the cause. Vermont is not a single conversational example. The pattern is world wide, more or less.
Isn’t Europe getting more snow than the usual?
True, but GW is especially damaging in the colder polar regions and the marginal climates of the tropics. One can cite that draughts around the world have increased. The GW brings with it climate change, thus it is to be expected that weather patterns are shifting as well as causing the current migration of animals and fauna.
From what I read, the weather phenomenon known as the Artic Oscallian is due to the shifting of the jet stream. It has nothing to do with GW.
How disturbing would it be to think that the very best strategy wrt these trees, is to do nothing, and keep the fingers crossed in hope we never get to 1970’s Coming Ice Age conditions again ? ( Fingers crossed against possible Solar Influence cooling )
How disturbing would it be to think that the very best strategy wrt these trees, is to do nothing, and keep the fingers crossed in hope we never get to 1970’s Coming Ice Age conditions again ? ( Fingers crossed against possible Solar Influence cooling )
Something like “In God we trust” and keep polluting our air, oceans, rivers, soil, ourselves, with wanton disregard for the consequences? We have become virulent parasites, killing our host.
And the jet stream is independent of the earth’s temperatures?
I dunno. Is it?
Nothing is independent. Everything is connected and especially when an organism is parasitic it depends on it’s host. Our host is the earth and we need not be parasitic. With a little restraint and forethought our host can feed us forever, excluding a planetary (not man-made) disaster.
I’ll demonstate how to use the French Curve to turn the pessimism upside down:
Wouldn’t it be interesting, if it was the case, that the “going into” or “coming out of” Ice Age conditions, that is what kills the trees, and now that we’ve warmed up a bit, they are doing better ? Some bad losses, but doing better now. Wouldn’t that be a nicer outlook for you wrt this particular case ?
Perhaps we need to see data on this subject. Until then you need not despair.
I wonder how these trees have survived 1000 years and just have begun to die in the past few hundred years. Anything different today that did not exist a thousand years ago? Man made pollution. Today more species go extinct than ever before. Also no connection to polluted oceans, rivers, soils? Or clear-cutting millions of acres of forests, the earth’s natural CO2 scrubbers?
As DeGrasse Tyson says, there are three stages of accepting change,
a) denial (it’s not happening)
b) it’s not our fault (so we need not do anything different)
c) I knew it all along (when it is too late to do anything about it)
I’ll demonstate how to use the French Curve to turn the pessimism upside down:
Wouldn’t it be interesting, if it was the case, that the “going into” or “coming out of” Ice Age conditions, that is what kills the trees, and now that we’ve warmed up a bit, they are doing better ? Some bad losses, but doing better now. Wouldn’t that be a nicer outlook for you wrt this particular case ?
Perhaps we need to see data on this subject. Until then you need not despair.
I wonder how these trees have survived 1000 years and just have begun to die in the past few hundred years.
That’s just it. The forests seem to have grown when it was warmer, and gotten killed by the cold snaps.
Whereas everyone was gnashing teeth over warming, it’s the cooling that kills these trees.
How disturbing would it be to think that the very best strategy wrt these trees, is to do nothing, and keep the fingers crossed in hope we never get to 1970’s Coming Ice Age conditions again ? ( Fingers crossed against possible Solar Influence cooling )
Something like “In God we trust” and keep polluting our air, oceans, rivers, soil, ourselves, with wanton disregard for the consequences? We have become virulent parasites, killing our host.
Write4U, these are other subjects. I was asking about the temperature and the trees getting their roots frozen again if we return to 1970ish cold.
This subject is not about all pollution and disregarding all consequences. To switch to bitchin about, say mercury pollution - now - is not good form. It’s like complaining that you’re going blind, but when shown that you are not going blind, you then complain that you are going deaf and nobody is listening.
And the jet stream is independent of the earth’s temperatures?
I dunno. Is it?
Nothing is independent. Everything is connected and especially when an organism is parasitic it depends on it’s host. Our host is the earth and we need not be parasitic. With a little restraint and forethought our host can feed us forever, excluding a planetary (not man-made) disaster.
I assume that the reason why you’re getting all philosophical on me is because you’ve looked it up by now and learned that the evidence for the shifting of the jet streams due to GW is not there, right?
And the jet stream is independent of the earth’s temperatures?
I dunno. Is it?
Nothing is independent. Everything is connected and especially when an organism is parasitic it depends on it’s host. Our host is the earth and we need not be parasitic. With a little restraint and forethought our host can feed us forever, excluding a planetary (not man-made) disaster.
I assume that the reason why you’re getting all philosophical on me is because you’ve looked it up by now and learned that the evidence for the shifting of the jet streams due to GW is not there, right?
George, Liu, Curry, et al. coincidentally complement your discussion as of…yesterday. It’s brand new(s). http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/05/impact-of-declining-arctic-sea-ice-on-winter-snowfall/
Dr Curry has been a moderate, and has garnered much abuse for it.
Here you also get to see evil Heartland recipient evil David Wojik commenting to Dr. Curry, and see input from Tonyb, an evidence collector.
And the jet stream is independent of the earth’s temperatures?
I dunno. Is it?
Nothing is independent. Everything is connected and especially when an organism is parasitic it depends on it’s host. Our host is the earth and we need not be parasitic. With a little restraint and forethought our host can feed us forever, excluding a planetary (not man-made) disaster.
I assume that the reason why you’re getting all philosophical on me is because you’ve looked it up by now and learned that the evidence for the shifting of the jet streams due to GW is not there, right?
And the jet stream is independent of the earth’s temperatures?
I dunno. Is it?
Nothing is independent. Everything is connected and especially when an organism is parasitic it depends on it’s host. Our host is the earth and we need not be parasitic. With a little restraint and forethought our host can feed us forever, excluding a planetary (not man-made) disaster.
I assume that the reason why you’re getting all philosophical on me is because you’ve looked it up by now and learned that the evidence for the shifting of the jet streams due to GW is not there, right?
So they found a correlation between the decline of Arctic sea ice and snowy winters. Great.
Interpretation is everything here. To some this means there is evidence that CO2-caused AGW is causing some heavy snow.
To others it means as the arctic sea ice goes away, the ice age for us down here, comes on.
To me, Dr Curry says if you know this years ice, and geographically locate it and find out what it’s doing, you can do some prediction for next year’s snow in certain regions. ( corrected to “seasonal prediction”- “know this years autumn ice and predict the following season’s snow”
As prediction for sea ice gets further, then snow prediction can go beyond seasonal prediction.)
