What is Digg?99 Comments
- blackjack06, on 08/15/2008, -3/+29 This is NOT due to climate change. This is widespread throughout California and it is due to Smokey the Bear. The last 100 years of forestry policy has been to put out every fire no matter what. The natural cycle of burning that cleans up and thins out our forests has not been able to occur. Look at pictures of the San Bernardino Mountains at the turn of the century, they are park like forests with trees spaced far apart. Then look at pictures from today, they are trash forests now; choked with scrub everywhere.
Yes we have had drought the last few years but this would not be a problem if the number of trees were at the natural level. Their are way to many trees and chaparral competing for the limited water and as a result are not only dying from drought but also the bark beetle that they at one time could fend off.
If you look at the San Sierra Pedro Martyr (sp?) mountain range in Mexico you will see a modern analog for the forests here in southern California. And guess what, they don't have a fire suppression policy and their forests are FINE! Open and park like with NO huge fires. Why? Because their are thousands of small fires a year that thin out the forest and control the growth. The flames are no more that a foot high. Here on the other hand, where forests are allowed to grow unchecked we have crown fires (30 meters or more) that completely decimate entire stands. Even trees that can survive or even depend on fires can not survive in the conditions we have created. And our fires are not an acre or two in size like in Mexico, they are 30,000 acres destroying everything!
End rant...buried - BigManOnCampus, on 08/15/2008, -27/+50Buried for being inaccurate.
"Widespread tree death" - Inaccurate
The Santa Rosa Mountains are a small range sandwiched between a well-wooded range on the border of the inland empire, and the very dry California desert. We're not talking about massive tree extinctions along the cascades or some-such.
"Climate Change Caused" - - Unsupported speculation
Because of it's proximity to a major desert, and proximity to the one place where all the smog from So.Cal usually gets blown east, the death of these trees can be explained using other methods.
Reading the article, it sounds like they speculated on this cause themselves.
---> "Plants are dying out at the bottom of their ranges, and at the tops of their ranges they seem to be growing in and doing much better," said Anne Kelly, lead author of the study and a graduate student in the Department of Earth System Science at UCI. "The only thing that could explain this happening across the entire face of the mountain would be a change in the local climate."
Ms. Kelly is probably fantastic in Earth Science. However, her Earth Science degree means she's a jack-of-all trades with regards to the Earth and probably knows little specifics about tree biology, desert ecology, or climate. It's smart that she said "local climate", very smart. It also intelligently distances herself from claiming what the submitter attempts to be claiming, that worldwide human-induced climate change is causing widespread tree death in California.
And people say I'm crazy for being skeptical. - Sonan, on 08/15/2008, -6/+19"Many of these trees were my friends. Creatures I had known from nut or acorn."
- azzhair12, on 08/15/2008, -3/+12not only has it been super hot here, but its been incredibly humid. thunderstorms in socal in August are uncommon, to say the least, and we had one complete with bolt lightning last night. weird times.
why do people hate california so much? or is it just trendy to jump on the hate bandwagon cus you aren't here? - badenglishihave, on 08/15/2008, -0/+7Exactly... people forget that Native Americans (or Indians, what have you) INTENTIONALLY started fires across the prairies ages ago because it helped keep the grass/shrubs at a reasonable level and fertilized the soil. These "save the planet" types have more often than not hurt the planet.
- bestsoccerdog, on 08/15/2008, -4/+11Well global warming must not be in Florida. 7 or 8 years ago temperatures would easily reach 100º+, now, we're lucky if it gets to 95º, and frankly, it's too cold at 95º.
- OfNumbers, on 08/15/2008, -4/+10If I've learned anything in my time here at Digg, it's that - = +.
- whiteknives, on 08/15/2008, -2/+7It's not warmer climate control that kills these shorter trees/shrubs. It's fire protection. Trees are protected, therefore they live longer / grow taller than they would naturally. These taller trees suffocate the smaller shrubs on the ground. We need to let these forests burn naturally and stop interfering with lightning strike fires - even if homes are in danger. Once you burn down a forest, the shrubs grow back first - and thrive.
- robfrye, on 08/16/2008, -1/+5""Widespread tree death" - Inaccurate" Clearly someone who doesn't live in SoCal. Our National Forests are truly depressing now days - this really is a widespread problem that has become a major issue. It affects all the forested regions in Southern California, in all areas, metropolitan or not. I don't understand why, other than politics, you would try to debunk a story like this with clearly no firsthand knowledge.
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -1/+5It's caused by Aliens, Bigfoot families, Ghosts, visions of the Virgin Mary, UFOs, and Gods of all sorts.
- biotch, on 08/16/2008, -1/+5""Climate Change Caused" - - Unsupported speculation
Because of it's proximity to a major desert, and proximity to the one place where all the smog from So.Cal usually gets blown east, the death of these trees can be explained using other methods."
Couple problems with those theories.
1. Smog levels in southern California climbed steadily through the 80s but have actually retreated since then. The study starts in 1977.
Source:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/polltren ...
2. The desert was there long before we were and has not changed dramatically enough to coincide with the death rate of trees at lower elevations. - Math, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4Here in Australia, there's been increased rainfall over the desert, but we're having massive droughts in the areas where food is actually grown, and many of our existing river systems are drying up.
You can't grow food in the desert, even with increased rainfall, so this is definitely a very bad thing. - Aliwalla, on 08/15/2008, -3/+6I want to know if Canada is becoming a warmer place to live.
- Richandler, on 08/15/2008, -0/+3There were some huge fires in that area if I'm not mistaken....
- biotch, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4Well thats an interesting way of putting it which sounded suspect because you dont specify which 40 years. So i looked it up. And the 40 years you are talking about of course occurred at the beginning of the century when c02 levels only increased about 5%. (About 300ppm to 315ppm.)
Since then c02 levels have increased about 17% (315 to 370ppm) meaning c02 levels are increasing at an increasing rate. So no... it doesnt actually blow a hole in the anthropogenic warming argument. It only says that 5 percent is negligible compared to 17%. - biotch, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2yeah I think this year the temperature is on pace to drop even globally so thats no surprise, however the temperature is quite sporadic from year to year. When you look at the trend through multiple years however the trend is moving upwards.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ - breezytrees, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3hey look, that graph shows temperature has increased a little bit over the past 100 years..... out of the 5.6 billion years our planet has survived.
That must mean the coming of the apocalypse. We are all going to die. QUICK DO SOMETHING.
Oh wait. Here's an article stating by 2020 we are going to be facing massive global cooling, because apparently the sun will be undergoing a cooling period known as the schwabe cycle. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d067 ...
This must also mean we are all going to die. QUICK DO SOMETHING. Oh wait. They said this in the seventies. Nothing happened. Oh, and in the eighties they said the world was going to run out of food by the year 2000. Nothing happened.
Today, the democrats have their global warming, and the republicans have their war on terror. Both sides were so effective at driving those fears into the American population's brains that both sides are now drinking each others cool-aid. Republicans are spouting off nonsense about joining the kyoto treaty, and democrats like Obama are considering invading Iran.
It's called politics. Fear-mongering is just a political game politicians play with us normal-folk to get to power. - biotch, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2smurfsahoy,
Well apparently I had some bad info about the beginning of the century..... and I should of sourced it to avoid confusion ... i apologize.
However your claim that cooling occurred for 40 years is incorrect, look at the graphs yourself. Temperature raised till about 1943, tanked for a few years and then remained fairly steady but reached its lowest point after that in 1964. After that it trended upwards since.
http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/giss_2 ...
And as you will see below, CO2 levels were fairly steady through the time period just before that. At the tail end of that time period, CO2 levels begin to skyrocket coupled with other clean air acts causing atmospheric changes, and temperature seems to follow suit convincingly.
Here is a graph which shows greehouse gas levels skyrocketing just before the temperature skyrockets in our century. You can see how they remain fairly steady (slight growth), before that.
http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/20th_a ...
For a further explanation of what is being presented there you can read this.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6 ... - heymike, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2Search "Pine Beetle" and you will get an opinion.
- biotch, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2No son... cooling means the global temperature is GOING down.
Warming means it is going up.
It was going up from 63 on. That is WARMING. The value being lower at some point or higher at another does not describe its movement.
And holy ***** how can you say it doesnt match the levels??
You do understand there is a delay right?
Its right there.
The line goes up... then temperature goes up soon after.
The line goes straight, and temp cools.
Then the line skyrockets, and soon after, the temp skyrockets.
This is a worthless argument, I can see why you deny warming at this point, you deny obvious information even when it is presented right in front of your face.
The sun's activity has already been shown not to be the cause of warming and cooling... or at least not the only cause..
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sun ...
cheers - biotch, on 08/19/2008, -0/+2It trends up FASTER at that '75 point but starts trending up from before then about 63.... so 36 years is false as well.
The 13 years before that ('50 - '63). The temp goes up and right back down (barely lower) to where it was. That is not a cooling trend. You dont get to just include that in a blanket 40 year cooling claim. However if you must by technicality call it cooling because the temp is actually a miniscule bit lower at 63, then you can at least notice that the cooling slowed until it actually started rising from 63 on. And you certainly dont get to claim that from 63-80 was cooling when the temp was actually rising.
The actual cooling period is from about 42 - 50. Hardly even a trend given the sporadic nature of the atmosphere. After that if you include till 63, the cooling slows and then begins to rise in 63.
I dont see any significant movement from aerosols and convincing reactions from the temp. and frankly I dont really care because they arent much of a problem anymore as the graph shows.
In any event. As you can see, greehouse gases are not very eventful in the first half of the century. They jump a little bit, and right after that, the temp goes up. Then they stay fairly stable, and after that the temp cools. Once greehouse gases skyrocket, so does the temperature soon after. If you refute that, then source it. It is obvious that greenhouse gases are at least having an impact on the global temperature. - goodolboykt, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Yeah most of the trees in the San Bernardino Mts. were killed by the bark beetle infestation, due to the trees becoming weak from long term drought.
- inactive, on 08/16/2008, -2/+4this just in! the long held theory that CO2 is beneficial if not necessary to plant life has been turned on its ear! it turns out it KILLS TREES!!!
ban CO2! for the environment - TrevorBradley, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2It's too ***** hot today here in Vancouver.
- RDinSB, on 08/15/2008, -3/+5Just remember.... Scientist don't know anything, the Bible has all the answers and Climate Change is not real!! /sarcasm
- papastout, on 08/15/2008, -2/+4I was in Lake Arrowhead (San Bernardino Mountains, So CA) and was saddened to see ALL the pine trees were brown and lookng sickly. Whatever the reason, it's just sad.
- greenfyre, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Nah, we just don't like nonsense Good for Plant Growth Myth debunked http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Good-for-Plant-Growth- ...
- greenfyre, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1As long as you ignore reality, sure
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Yet more CO2 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/yet-more-co ...
How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 ...
The Human Hand in Climate Change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Myth 'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions'http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610 ...
Attribution of 20th Century climate change to CO2 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
Humans cause climate change, US body accepts http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg1992 ...
Who do you blame? UN hired Wookies? - smurfsahoy, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1You're making this far more complicated than it has to be.
The world temperature was some temperature X in 1940 or 42 or whatever. For 35 or so years, the temperature never got that high again. The end. Cooling.
Whenever you talk about cooling or warming, you inherently have to pick a reference starting point and ending point. Since we are arguing about this supposed 40ish year period, the obvious starting point and ending point is on either end of that scale. Your analysis from the last post involves changing the reference points constantly, such that the comparisons don't make sense anymore. That's not how it works with this kind of data.
And I don't even care if there was slight cooling, or it stayed even, or there was slight warming. All I'm trying to show is that the temperature does not at all match the CO2 levels. Temperature barely moved at all, while CO2 went exponentially upward.
And again, you're not understanding your own CO2 graph at all. Read the website you gave me that explains it - that line labeled CO2 in your graph is NOT showing you CO2 concentrations. It's telling you what CO2's relative ASSUMED impact was on temperature change during those years compared to other sources of greenhouse effects. And it's all based on a model, not measurements.
This is a graph of actual CO2 concentration and temperature, which is what we are talking about:
http://www.manchesterismyplanet.com/pictures/globa ...
As you can see, about 1/3 the amount that CO2 has risen since the industrial revolution occurred during those 35-40 years. And the rise of CO2 has been very predictably steady and exponential. - greenfyre, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1So show us how the science is wrong: "How we know we're not wrong about climate change" http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/O ...
Links to climate science http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/globalwa ...
Climate Data Links http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/
Some links to valid science http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm - greenfyre, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1You want to pretend that historic climate change is something newly discovered and that this somehow puts anthropogenic climate change into question. Hello!!!
Of course there has been climatic variation throughout the Earth's history. You know, I know, the climate scientists know because they are the ones who discovered it!
It's very simple basic stuff. It's taught in bloody grade 4 for crying out loud. It's in every 'How and Why Wonder Book' that a 6 year old reads, so stop pretending it's some freaking great revelation.
The scientists know about it, it is part of the science, It's accounted for in the models. They know far more about it than you or I and they are the ones saying that this is NOT part of the same patterns
There has always been variation, and all climate events have causes. Orbital variations, sun cycles, volcanoes ... there is always causes.
No one is saying those things have stopped happening. Of course they are happening. How in God's name would anthropogenic climate change stop all other climatic factors? Those variations are still happening, and anthropogenic climate change is happening as well. It is _on top of_ not instead of. No one ever claimed different, so you saying this as if they had is idiotic. - badenglishihave, on 08/15/2008, -1/+2I had to read that a couple times before I realized what you said. Of course, I'm drunk.
- bradleyland, on 08/15/2008, -1/+2Wow, who knew fires, forests, and economies had so much in common?
- smurfsahoy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1No... it's 1940 to 1980. I'm not sure what planet's data you're looking at. Significantly toward the latter half of the century, not the beginning, while CO2 levels were definitely skyrocketing already.
The rest of your post is, of course, contingent on your confusing interpretation of graphs. - beauley, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1For those of us with children, "don't forget to turn out the lights" is a normal echo heard daily throughout the home almost like a broken record. For most of us here in the U.S., it is our way of reminding our children that energy today costs money, maybe a little too much.
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Environmen t/We-Are-A-Nation-Of-Energy-Waste.15854
We Are a Nation of Energy Waste - greenfyre, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Climate Change is Good for Plant Growth Myth debunked http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Good-for-Plant-Growth- ...
- greenfyre, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Apparently you would not know science if it bit you in the ass; your compatriots make a bunch of easily falsifiable claims plus links to debunked nonsense and never even looked at the actual science - and if you can't tell the difference...
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I'm not trying to say we aren't destroying the environment by polluting the water and the ground. And I'm all for being more green, but to say that Humans are causing the earth to warm up by driving in our cars or through our factories is crazy.
There is not enough evidence to prove that we are causing global warming. Environmental scientist are know to be alarmist just like the oil pipeline that was built in Alaska the environmentalist said that building the pipeline would damage the caribou herds and put them close to extinction they were wrong in fact caribou herds increased. 30 years ago it was supposed to be Global Cooling they were wrong.
Us as Humans and human activities only contribute .28% of CO2. The biggest impact that creates Global Warming is Water Vapor which we only contribute .001%. If we as Humans contribute an increase of 30% CO2 gasses that means that we only add .084% more CO2 gas to the atmosphere.
Man made Global Warming is not accepted by every climate scientist in fact they still don't know how clouds come into play in all of this. I'll believe Man Made Global Warming when every climate scientist agrees that the theory is unable to be disproved and right now there is still evidence that it can be disproved that has not been debunked.
Read this article and you will see that the climate models that they use could very well be wrong.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/08061 ... - phrenzy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Hmm, who to believe... Diggers who demonstrate confirmation bias by seeking out anecdotal and simplistic "evidence" to refute climate change ( volcanoes, and it being cold in normally hot places are the usual nonsense) OR "SCIENCE Daily" who has been around since 1995.
Does this mean I feel that we should ban cars or tax the ***** out of gas? No. It means, at least stop spouting ***** and contribute to the legitimate knowledge base of this legitimate study rather than spouting ***** you've heard from paragons of truth like Rush, Hannity and O'Reily
Did you ever think that maybe you don't want to believe you or anything you do is doing any damage to future generations because it's just uncomfortable to think about? - phrenzy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+113 years as an online science journal is not bad considering the net didn't really "take off" until the late 90s.
I'll await your demonstration of expertise and credentials on the matter of climate science. - ThinkOutTheBox, on 08/15/2008, -4/+5The reason why I don't believe Global Warming: Because for some reason in order to save the earth the tax payers are going to have to pay even more money to save it. So when it comes to Global Warming the government says give us even more money so we can be more powerful and you will save the planet.
Personal I think what we are experiencing is a Pole Shift. Our Solar System is coming up on the center of the galaxy which will have effects that we don't know of. - azzhair12, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1oh those are some awesome comebacks, im totally stealing this one - "Good, move east. That's what the middle of the country's for: people who gave up on their dreams."
this one gets a close 2nd - "And they say things like, 'Aw, this place is great, but I like SEASONS...' So do I, thats why I live in a place that skips the ***** ones." - eryximachus, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1You think it's unlikely the desert has anything to do with this? You think the desert has been there forever?
You fail at understanding climate trends. - biotch, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Best,
No one is refuting that greenhouse gases actually generate heat. So to suggest that Gore would be making up some story about greenhouse gases causing cooling, as if he is just making up some BS about greenhouse gases causing warming, is moot.
The globe does go through shifts in climate naturally but the current shift that is being measured is far greater than historical standards. For one, c02 levels are far higher (in very recent years) than we've ever measured in our total of 420,000 years (through multiple ice ages) of study. This now famous graph shows historic c02 levels.
http://ryanthibodaux.greenoptions.com/files/images ...
For 2, According to NASA, the temperature has increased about .8 - 1.2 degrees C, depending on which planetary region you measure, within the last century.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
It takes a drop in 5 degrees over a couple thousand years to trigger an ice age. Beach front property just might not be worth the problems that would come with such a sudden shift. - robfrye, on 08/16/2008, -1/+2Yeah, 'Global Warming' is an unfortunate title that leads many who are not familiar with the specifics of climate change to make blanket statements such as this. Climate change causes changes in weather patterns. Because of this, some areas may be cooler than they were before, because their normal weather patterns are being disrupted. The areas that we need to stay cool, like the arctic and antarctic, are heating up at a noticeable pace. Which will not bode well for Florida, unfortunately.
- cliffzdude, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Yes indeed. Here in FLA a few years back we had a rash of forest and brush fires. In the following wet season the state prescribed a whole lotta controlled burns to get things back into natural balance. The locals of some 'burbs bitched, and got the controlled burns stopped. The same people were outside crying when their homes burned down. I really do feel for anybody who loses their home. But let the forest guys do their jobs where we've not let nature do its job. I clearly remember one of the "bitchers" complaining that some ash was falling onto his patio. The guy wanted to stop the controlled burns because he may have to hose off a few square yards of concrete.
- Aliwalla, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Because I've been in England for the entire "summer" and it's been "hot" for approximately three days.
- Jamihabs, on 08/15/2008, -1/+2And just when we thought it was about to get hot, this started.
http://current.com/items/89201663_dearth_of_sunspo ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
.jpg){kind=link}
