What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
191 Comments
- shinythings, on 01/22/2009, -5/+76You know what else is killing the trees, not allowing controlled forest fires.
- twiztidsinz, on 01/23/2009, -6/+28Sensational Headlines?
Headline: "Climate Change Killing America's Trees at Ever Faster Rates"
Description: "Trees in western North America are dying at faster and faster rates, and climate change is likely to blame."
Headline is a definitive statement.
Description offers Climate Change as a possibility. - zacharytelschow, on 01/22/2009, -11/+32So increased temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are bad for trees? Huh?
- dusanmal, on 01/23/2009, -8/+27The title should have been "Evolution in progress - trees less capable of adapting to the new climate perish"
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -5/+22Well, good thing the facts of global warming don't hinge on Al Gore's word, then. If Al Gore were a scientist, maybe attacking his credibility would make sense. However, since he's not a scientist, since he's not the one producing the research, attacking his credibility really has no impact on the science of global warming.
- PorchSong, on 01/22/2009, -4/+21You are dead on. Something has to replinish the soil. If you hike through Estes Park and the Rocky Mountain National Park, you will be shocked how much dead wood debris (i.e. Fuel) is lying around. The park will literally go up in a massive fireball if that stuff ignites--so at this point a controlled burn is out of the question as there is simply too much fuel lying around. Jump over to the National Forrest (borders the National Park) and because they are less restrictive of camping and fires, all that fuel has been burnt and the forrest is healthy (well except for the pine beatle).
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -5/+21I had to bury this *****!!! A dubious one or two degree temperature change is killing trees???
--------------------
Uh, actually yeah. But you're not a scientist so what the ***** would you know. We all appreciate your input from your conspiracy theory websites, but I think most of us here depend on logic and peer reviewed research and observation from thousands of real climatologists, most of which aren't paid by special interests. I studied it for 3 years, and its as real as any other science. Listening to your ***** about it being fake is like listening to someone trying to tell me the earth is flat. Climate Change has a scientific consensus that rivals newtons law.
You can go ahead and call other people sheep, but you're the one who blindly believes in conspiratorial ***** without actually researching and learning about the issues. Who's really the sheep? You're a pathetic hypocrite.
Do yourself a favor, get out of your dad's basement and get some fresh air. Maybe hit up the library while you're at it, you might learn something. - waltlove09, on 01/22/2009, -5/+20I agree with shinythings, controlled forest fires are a must.
- chriskzoo, on 01/23/2009, -22/+37Correlation != causation
Didn't a "climate change" in the first place allow those trees to grow there? - HumanNouveau, on 01/23/2009, -4/+16I'm no expert, but I think the central issue there is adaptation. Some things will like the new environment better than others. Life will go on. As I understand it, the faster the change, the less time for adaptation, the less abundantly (at least temporarily) life will grow in a given area. I'm sure some things are going to love the change.
As I'm sure humans will learn to live with the change. I can't see how climate change kills everything. But it sounds like it can whittle things down a lot. - angusm, on 01/23/2009, -1/+13The article suggests that the increased mortality rate could be due to increases in the numbers of tree parasites (which thrive in warm, dry conditions) and reduced water, due to generally drier conditions and changes in the availability of water through the year (i.e. warmer weather leading to less snow and earlier snow melts).
Trees that thrive in dry conditions are likely to be smaller and less commercially useful, so this has a potential economic impact. And if you're counting on trees to act as a carbon sink, a reduction in forest cover is bad news. You're looking at the beginnings of a positive feedback loop and any engineer will tell you that uncontrolled positive feedback is bad news.
As to whether humans can cope with climate change, it's likely that we will. That doesn't mean that climate change will make the planet a more pleasant place to live. Most of the less optimistic scenarios point to loss of crop-growing areas due to drought and desertification, as well as 'extreme' weather conditions. That has consequences that will affect us all in unpredictable ways, no matter where we live. - wissler, on 01/23/2009, -17/+28The climate has been through radical changes countless times throughout the history of the world. The question is, will we make ourselves go extinct by taxing/regulating our economy out of existence and futilely trying to "fix" the climate ourselves, or will we adapt to inevitable climate change?
- DrDragun, on 01/23/2009, -0/+11When the heat causes weather patterns to shift... then yes. A formerly lush valley might dry up, and a formerly dusty plateu may start getting dumped on.
Moving the rain systems from point A to point B does not move the forest from point A to point B because there is unlikely to be fertile soil. It takes a very long time for fertile soil capable of supporting a forest to be formed even if a new area starts getting rainfall. - JABro, on 01/23/2009, -6/+16I love how the article doesn't address at all the issue of non-native invasive beetles that attack the trees. Check out the Asian Longhorn beetle (just one example) and what it is doing to maple trees throughout the US.
- MorganMghee, on 01/23/2009, -0/+9Pull up a satellite image of where you think large forests are. Now zoom in, further, further, see those patches? Zoom in again and compare them to the distance key.
Most of worlds forests gone by 2100http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0815-forests.html
Hundreds of acres of Amazon forest gone in one monthhttp://news.mongabay.com/2006/0815-forests.html
85% of original rainforests already gonehttp://www.lizasreef.com/hope%20for%20the%20rain%2 ...
Regardless of if you think the contribution humans are making is the cause, certainly you can't fail to see a correlation based on grade school science and the facts you can verify with your own eyes. Trees and other flora create the air we breath. They do it for free and in the process capture the pollution that is detrimental to our well being from both the air and water. More than 20% of the WORLDS oxygen is created by the Amazon forest alone..http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm and as the site above explains 85% of that forest is gone. The worlds forests produce 40% of world oxygenhttp://www.saveasnowman.org/SAS/HumanImpact/Docs/F ... and HALF of them are gone now "Half of the forests that originally covered 48 percent of the Earth's land surface are gone. Only one-fifth of the Earth's original forests remain pristine and undisturbed."http://www.earthrestorationservice.org/page/73/for ... Certainly this can only be making things worse, on an EPIC scale. The ocean flora is also diminishing, it makes up another large chunk of our C02 in, Oxygen out system. Debris in the air blocking the sun, pollutants in the soil and water, all lead to fewer plants to clean it up, fewer plants to create the air we need to breath, and eat. - DrDragun, on 01/23/2009, -7/+16Even skeptics of cap-and-trade concede that a 3-4C temperature shift will result in a reduction of up to 90% of the arable farming land and food production worldwide.
(link borrowed from conservative-leaning Drudge Report's front page today)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500 ...
Just because 2 degrees seems like a small number in your head, doesn't mean you have any scientific basis to try to discredit the massive effect that it could have on the biosphere. - jinif, on 01/23/2009, -3/+11From the article:
“The authors’ argument is based on rejecting the alternatives and showing that warming was correlated with increased mortality,” he said. “The direct evidence that warming caused the change, or even that the observed warming was sufficiently large to have caused the mortality change, is not there.” - wunksta, on 01/23/2009, -3/+11just because it can happen naturally doesnt mean its ok for us to do it
- uberchaoslord, on 01/23/2009, -0/+8Natural forest fires also keep the populations of Pine Beetles in check - the beetles surge, kill off mass chunks of forest, but then those dead trees burn up in a forest fire. People need to get less involved, not more.
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -3/+10I betcha you're a ***** moron!
- regeya, on 01/23/2009, -0/+6I don't suppose all that pollution from China helps much, either.
- OrangeTide, on 01/23/2009, -0/+6He brings up two interesting points. The issue of climate change must be presented in a way that fits common sense, else us poor stupid non-scientists aren't going to accept it.
And both sides of the global warming debate has already been used as propganda to open up various unnecessary government pork and to rip off consumers through misleading and downright false advertising.
It is little wonder that people are skeptical of climate change when many out there is trying to use the issue to scam them. - inactive, on 01/23/2009, -0/+5They are a must, unlike using the reply button. That's optional.
- kyoobeh, on 01/23/2009, -0/+5Well, from my understanding its a combination of things.
Prescribed forest fires or smart logging could help the situation.
But there are other factors to be considered.
bark beetles!
compare one year life cycle with that of a two year life cycle:
http://www.hcn.org/issues/278/14864
Mountain pine beetles are one of the most industrious members of the genus Dendroctonus — loosely translated as "tree killers" — and every outbreak confirms the aptness of their grim scientific handle:
http://www.hcn.org/issues/278/14853
"So the outbreaks are a typical scientific puzzle: The closer you look, the blurrier the picture seems to get. But even many ecologists admit that a couple of general statements are in order here. The number of red — and dead — trees in the region is breaking records. So are thermometer readings. "We’re seeing changes in (mountain pine beetle) activity from Canada to Mexico," says Logan, "and the common thing is warming temperatures." - regeya, on 01/23/2009, -1/+6I'm not sure why you're being Dugg down. For some reason it's more important to hypothesize that global warming is to blame, rather than to be skeptical and actually FIND OUT what's causing the problem...
- uberchaoslord, on 01/23/2009, -0/+5No.
"Global Warming" = what they called it when the rising temperature of the planet met their theories, so we could induce fear and get grant money.
"Climate Change" = what they call it now that the planet isn't warming, but they still want government money. - jeffbw, on 01/23/2009, -1/+6You're not paying attention. The consequences of letting this happen will be completely catastrophic to civilization, and non-reversible. It'll be like a nuclear holocaust, without the radiation.
- Troy64, on 01/23/2009, -1/+6Greenfyre doesn't usually show up until later in the day. I assure you he will be here with all of his links to his blog.
- greenfyre, on 01/23/2009, -4/+8Yes, when it leads to drought, water stress, heat waves, etc ... which is what? grade 4 comprehension of weather?
- mediahaze, on 01/23/2009, -1/+5Everyone should check out this radio show run by the CBC in Canada. It's called Ideas and tackles a number of issues. One of their last shows talks about the climate, how the pentagon views global warming, how global warming is either believed in/or not based on ideological values...not the facts. And a bunch of other things.
Extremely interesting discussions.
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3
( Direct link )
More about the show.
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/index.html - evilbob333, on 01/23/2009, -1/+5"The mounting deaths could fundamentally transform Western forests because tree reproduction hasn ’t increased to offset losses"
Have they tried playing some Barry White for them? - OrangeTide, on 01/23/2009, -2/+6Would climate change turn agricultural producing regions into deserts and swamp other regions with floods and hurricanes? If so it seems like that might be an economic disadvantage, you know displacing millions of people and trying to feed millions of starving people with your reduced agricultural output.
- noen, on 01/23/2009, -2/+6Fire is also a natural occurrence. Therefore I think you should set yourself on fire and "adapt" to the naturally caused changes and stop bitching.
- Brassbud, on 01/23/2009, -2/+6I used to take hikes with a forester that would point all the dead trees and bitch about the beetles. I can't recall him ever bitching about climate change though.
- noen, on 01/23/2009, -2/+6And... and... Al Gore is FAT!!
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -0/+4@OrangeTide
It all just goes to show the importance of science education, which we need desperately in this country. You're right - most lay folk aren't really trained to differentiate the science from the people using the issue for their own personal gain. I mean, on one hand you've got people running around slapping "green" on everything to make a quick buck, and an other other hand, I swear there's a group that I'm convinced is dedicated to using global warming as a way to discredit science in general, and fuel the anti-science attitude in this country. - inactive, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3Yeah I can't help but agree with macwierdo42 and OrangTide, people will always try to exploit the system in all aspects no matter what, and it is quite unfortunate.
- mediahaze, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3@srussell8570 ... Its was the same way in the 50's and 60's with smoking...
It was not about facts but rather about ideologies... It's not about whats right or wrong...it should be about the facts and minimizing risk.
Gee.. The data we have points to smoking being bad for you...Na I'll keep smoking..its not real ( Worst case..man dies of lung cancer)
Gee...The data we have points to human induced global warming which has disasterous consequences for the plant....Na I'll keep polluting...its not real ( Worst case, Billions die due to crop shortages, epidemics) - greenfyre, on 01/23/2009, -1/+4Obviously you can't see the forest for the trees.
Obviously they mean far beyond the natural rate ... was it really necessary to point that out??? - brandita, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3Where's the Lorax when we need him?
- jeffbw, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3Yeah, it's all a hippie plot.
- greenfyre, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3"Climate Wars" is really excellent, jsut as the man says.
- bobbknight, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3However, Goulden thinks the authors should have hedged a bit more on their claim that warming is responsible for the increase in tree deaths.
“The authors’ argument is based on rejecting the alternatives and showing that warming was correlated with increased mortality,” he said. “The direct evidence that warming caused the change, or even that the observed warming was sufficiently large to have caused the mortality change, is not there.”
The big problem here is that the real reason will not be ascertained until it's to late. - MorganMghee, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3"Half of the forests that originally covered 48 percent of the Earth's land surface are gone."http://www.earthrestorationservice.org/page/73/for ... I think we've done about all the 'thinning' we can handle for now. Please, do the satellite search I mentioned above, you may begin to percieve the gravity of the problem. You can get an idea of what I mean here, be sure to click on each picture individually and then again to get the full size view. http://cid-182233b6b71469e2.skydrive.live.com/self ...
- regeya, on 01/23/2009, -1/+4I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that Greenfyre does a lot of spam for his own blog...
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -0/+2I actually feel bad for you, that you worry that much about what other people do.
- Trent1492, on 01/23/2009, -1/+4Your back yard is not the globe.
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -1/+4Blah blah blah, climate change is liberal propaganda, blah blah blah, liberals are bleeding heart ***** morons, blah blah blah.
I don't even have to read the comments on this thread to know that's what's being posted. - R34C7, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3Well, here in Colorado for example the Pine Beetle that would normally be killed because of cold or fought off with moisture in the trees is now prevalent and is completely killing the pine population.
- miken32, on 01/23/2009, -1/+4Warmer climates help the beetles survive the winters. There hasn't been a cold enough winter for years to kill them off, that's why there's so much destruction going on.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 200 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is