What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Amazon's #1 most gifted product view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
73 Comments
- grinsy, on 09/06/2008, -2/+15These are the largest trees on the planet. The General Sherman is over 100' in circumferance at it's base. They live thousands of years and once flourished dating back to the Jurassic Period.
Anyone who has the chance should take time to wander through Giant Forest in Sequoia National Park. It will help you put perspective in your life.
http://www.sequoiaparksfoundation.org/ - Brianne416, on 09/06/2008, -4/+13Wow, this is doing a lot of damage. I know the climate change has affected the Spruce trees in Alaska. The Spruce Beetle's normally die in cold winters, which kept their numbers down. Now with the raising temperatures they are becoming an epidemic to these Spruce trees. Climate change is affecting so many trees in different ways. I wonder how many old species of trees are going to be killed until the world does something.
- jcorn1, on 09/06/2008, -3/+11That really saddens me. I love those ancient giants.
- lucy22, on 09/06/2008, -8/+15Such beautiful old trees. They need to find a way to save them. It is kind of sad really, they manage to live hundreds of years and man made climate change could be their downfall.
- sockpuppets, on 09/07/2008, -4/+10I think you're being a bit of a sap and not seeing the forest through the trees. Let me axe you this: what wood you have us do? Leaf the planet?
- smurfsahoy, on 09/07/2008, -8/+13Man was around BEFORE sequoias were in most of their current range in California. In fact, we (as in humans, native Americans, that is) allowed them to expand their habitat to where it is now by way of setting agricultural fires to clear out low brush. This helped the oak trees, which humans were basically farming for wood and acorns, and also incidentally aided the redwoods, which are similarly fire resistant. Over the course of the last 5000 years or so, the redwoods became far more prevalent in the region as a result.
The trees owe US a favor if anything, not the other way around. It pisses me off when people treat nature as some sort of monolithic thing of beauty that never changes and is worse no matter how we change it. We would only be undoing what WE did in this situation (assuming we are the cause of any of this at all, that is). How would that be disrespecting nature?
source:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n8_ ... - paker, on 09/07/2008, -1/+5Ship them to the south pole. It's growing.
- angryredplanet, on 09/07/2008, -5/+9Disprove the science - then come and chat. If it is truly junk science, it shouldn't be that difficult to disprove.
There is a plethora of data. I can and have in the past linked to pages upon pages of it. To a denier it wouldn't matter, you'd simply regurgitate something that Michael Crichton wrote in his best selling book, or re-review the tenets of Al Gore's lifestyle, or link in some conspiracy theory on how all the scientists are getting paid off by the government for global socialism. Using poor debating tactics to manipulate opinions instead of looking at the findings from the science and scientists for your conclusions just indicates your level of understanding of this problem.
If you don't look, you won't see - clearly you enjoy walking around blind? - Wakkyweed, on 09/07/2008, -7/+10But everyone knows that global warming isn't real! And even if it is real, all the trees have to do is migrate to a cooler climate as the temperature changes and they'll be just fine. Those trees didn't live thousands of years without learning a few survival tricks!
- waydee, on 09/07/2008, -5/+8By looking at the data?
- smurfsahoy, on 09/07/2008, -2/+5Essentially, sequoias in most areas of California are nothing more than invasive, human introduced weeds. Not poster boys of the primordial mother nature.
- brianpass, on 09/07/2008, -2/+5or not so man made , who is to say that this is not the normal evolution of our plant , unless you are immortal .
boy people believe anything that is shoved in there mouth . - spucky, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3@spaz
You don't have a clue about scientific methodology, do you?
I form a hypothesis and do a bunch of studies not only to prove that I'm correct, but more importantly to find out if I am wrong. I don't want to present my findings and have someone ask "what about this" that I can't answer. It destroys careers. In my case, it can set me back a long time (and I am a peon), in your case the engine just pings because you pumped the wrong gas.
The burden of proof is not on the one making the original assertion, you knuckle dragging mouth breathing inbred moron. The burden of proof is on the scientific method and anyone who has half a brain (that excludes you, obviously) can work to falsify (that means find something that shows that the original supposition (that is the original hypothesis, *****) is not true) the claim. - jayrok, on 09/07/2008, -4/+6Great, so now what will 30-something hippies talk about when they run their mouths about their family trip on the weekend?
- DrVoltron, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2I'm glad to see someone mention this. Actually, with increasing night time temperatures in Alaska and Canada, significant new areas of forests are being devastated by beetles. The resulting increase in CO2 (increase because those dead trees are no longer taking CO2 out of the atmosphere) has become significant. This is an excellent example of a positive feedback in Climate Change.
- tomarocco, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Drilling in the ANWR and clear cutting the Sequoias. Thanks GOP. What's next on the list? Reinstating slavery?
- smurfsahoy, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3Yes, they were. Perhaps if you had actually read my post, you would have understood this point.
The way California is becoming now (which is more hostile to redwoods) is actually the way it naturally WAS before humans came around and terraformed it for their own purposes a few thousand years ago. And its reverting back has much more to do with the fact that we now discourage wildfires (rather than creating them on purpose) than it has anything to do with global warming. - gkiltz, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3or not!
As long as those things have been there, don't you think they've been through climate shifts before. It may take out a few, but a re-producing population will survive. It alraedy has survived so many changes!! - zacharytelschow, on 09/07/2008, -2/+4A load of yelling at the moon liberal bullcrap out of California. This article, and the men cited in it, are a waste of space.
- outreach417, on 09/07/2008, -4/+6dugg in 1973
- ChappyChaps11, on 09/07/2008, -3/+5What would the Earth do without forest managers! The earth and all its wonderful life would be screwed with out them.
- khouros, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3"Drill baby, drill" needs to be the Republicans' "Dean scream." Scary how simple-minded people allow themselves to be.
- smurfsahoy, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1That's how Phelps swims so fast. It's evolution! Yay!
- ChappyChaps11, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Well I'm taking your authization to spell that word away for one. And for a two, you don't have the right to decide for everyone else either. Moot points ftw. And it IS arrogant.
- Kreigster, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1The reason the sequoias have survived the last 250 million years is because the tilted slope of the Sierras allows them to slowly migrate up or down in elevation to avoid excessive warming and cooling. I suppose human caused climate change could happen fast enough that they would not be able to keep up.
- smurfsahoy, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Are you for real? You're just flat out wrong about pretty much everything you wrote or implied.
Native Americans didn't give a rat's ass about the sequoias. I mean, maybe they thought they were pretty, sure, but that's just guesswork, and they just as easily might not have - we don't know. Either way, the sequoias were NOT the practical reason they set fires. Oak trees were, since they provide high energy-mass ratio firewood and nutritious acorns, and require very little intensive agricultural effort.
The sequoias just piggybacked on the Native Americans' efforts, like a parasite. In fact, if those people were purely industrious or strapped for resources, they should have been pissed at the sequoias for out competing the more useful oak trees.
So they didn't do ANY work to protect and grow sequoias, and sequoias were NOT natural resources. Nor is there evidence that sequoias have ANYTHING to do with their ideals or mores. Plus, you're making the ridiculous assumption that native americans would somehow be insulted if we didn't carry on their old agricultural practices. That makes no sense - would YOU be insulted if, in 50 years, nobody is using coal power plants anymore? No? Well that's our industrial heritage. According to you, people with advances in energy production would be trampling on our culture's ideals and mores by moving on to better technology.
Oh by the way, there IS evidence that almost every culture in history has disliked duplicitous, misleading rhetoric. So it's significantly more likely that YOU as a person are against their cultures and mores than it is that discontinuation of unnecessary horticultural practices is. - inactive, on 09/07/2008, -2/+3Dugg because I live in the Santa Cruz Mnts. I LOVE IT. Beauty and peace all day.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1How come you see the phrase "Climate change" now and not "global warming" as we did 4 years ago?
- Rotzooi, on 09/07/2008, -2/+3Let's drill those trees for oil!
- DrVoltron, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1While I agree policing peer to peer file sharing is a bad idea.
This is not relevant to the topic at hand. - tsquez, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1of it could hurt them as well as all the other plant life on the planet....duh!
- smurfsahoy, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1The trees exist in their current habitat due to humans setting fires for the last 5000 years, allowing sequoias to outcompete low brush. Managing fires will probably kill them, and likely has a lot to do with the current problem.
Even just letting natural fires do their thing is not enough. We would have to ENCOURAGE more fires than natural in order to maintain the sequoias, because that's what we did to put them there.
See 7th comment down on this page. - zacharytelschow, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Well, evidently if a single federal employee says something stupid, it comes from "the Fed."
FTA: "I wouldn't be surprised if in 30 years we see their death rates go up."
And I wouldn't be surprised if that guy was dropped on his head as a child. Repeatedly. - diablozx9, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1How old are you?
I was listening to the same drivel from tree hugging hippies in the 70s.
END OF THE WORLD ,, ICE AGE COMING.
Give it a rest. - Skates, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Are you serious? These trees have been through a lot worse and have survived...
- Rippleeffect, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2I'm more worried about our forest fires destroying them than global warming. Poor forest management and fire management has led to too much growth. These trees require fire to live, but not when the fires are too large.
- Skates, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1I completely agree, they have seen worse...
Watch, we will get dugg down for the logical thought! - nick111, on 09/07/2008, -2/+2@diablozx9
Here you go : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article76 ...
Now ***** off you illiterate *****. - inactive, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0There have been other studies that have also shown climate change is causing pine trees to migrate upward in southern california.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/08081 ... - idathunkit, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0I can't imagine risking this...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/2838325167_861 ...
This is a view from near my backyard in Arcata, Ca.
The 2nd Death Star's shield generator was destroyed not far from here. (That bit of forest was destroyed unfortunately.) - vbullinger, on 09/07/2008, -4/+4Thank you for this extremely important article.
We should give up our national sovereignty, impose a global carbon tax and implement a really stupid and corrupt "cap and trade" system that is the wet dream of globalists everywhere. All this... for the sequoia trees. - DigitAl56K, on 09/07/2008, -2/+2"They need to find a way to save them."
Climate change: Always somebody else's problem. - khouros, on 09/07/2008, -2/+2''Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do too little.''
- paker, on 09/07/2008, -4/+4"Using poor debating tactics to manipulate opinions instead of looking at the findings from the science and scientists for your conclusions just indicates your level of understanding of this problem."
Sounds like Al Gore's movie. - GorfTron, on 09/07/2008, -5/+5How did this make it past the Bush Anti-Science gauntlet?
- eq2s, on 09/07/2008, -2/+2Anybody read this as "Feds Warn Climate Change Could Harm Giant Sequoias"?
- 1smartguy, on 09/07/2008, -0/+0I had to log in to upvote that. If this was reddit, it would have branched off into a huge pun thread.
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
