World's forests can adapt to climate change

[DarrinS]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/11/climate-change-forests-water-amazon




It is generally acknowledged that a warming world will harm the world's forests. Higher temperatures mean water becomes more scarce, spelling death for plants – or perhaps not always.

According to a study of ancient rainforests, trees may be hardier than previously thought. Carlos Jaramillo, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), examined pollen from ancient plants trapped in rocks in Colombia and Venezuela. "There are many climactic models today suggesting that … if the temperature increases in the tropics by a couple of degrees, most of the forest is going to be extinct," he said. "What we found was the opposite to what we were expecting: we didn't find any extinction event [in plants] associated with the increase in temperature, we didn't find that the precipitation decreased."

In a study published todayin Science, Jaramillo and his team studied pollen grains and other biological indicators of plant life embedded in rocks formed around 56m years ago, during an abrupt period of warming called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. CO2 levels had doubled in 10,000 years and the world was warmer by 3C-5C for 200,000 years.

Contrary to expectations, he found that forests bloomed with diversity. New species of plants, including those from the passionflower and chocolate families, evolved quicker as others became extinct. The study also shows moisture levels did not decrease significantly during the warm period. "It was totally unexpected," Jaramillo said of the findings.

Klaus Winter of the STRI added: "It is remarkable that there is so much concern about the effects of greenhouse conditions on tropical forests. However, these horror scenarios probably have some validity if increased temperatures lead to more frequent or severe drought as some of the current predictions suggest."

Last year, researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre reported that a 2C rise above pre-industrial levels, widely considered the best-case scenario, would still see 20-40% of the Amazon die off within 100 years. A 3C rise would see 75% of the forest destroyed by drought in the next century, while a 4C rise would kill 85%.

Jaramillo found that the plants he studied seemed to become more efficient with their water use when it became more scarce. But he also cautioned that future risks for the world's plant species did not end with climate change. Human action would continue to determine the fate of the world's forests, he said.

"What the fossil record is showing is that plants have already the genetic variability to cope with high temperature and high levels of CO2.

"Rather than global warming, the [trouble] for tropical plants is deforestation. The fossil record shows that, when you don't have humans around, the plants can deal with high temperatures and CO2."

[DarrinS]

I'll go ahead and post this to save her time.




That "scientist" is just a repug shill for Big Oil!

[boutons_deux]

Tell that to the US aspens and other trees being wiped out by beetles moving to higher (warmer) altitudes.

This bitch and all like her are shills paid by BigCarbon.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24275529/

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080423/080423-beetles-hmed-11a.grid-6x2.jpg
(red trees = dead pine trees, pine needles turn that color when they fall off a tree, seeing enough of them on a tree itself indicates a dead tree)


DENVER — An outbreak of mountain pine beetles in British Columbia is doing more than destroying millions of trees: By 2020, the beetles will have done so much damage that the forest is expected to release more carbon dioxide than it absorbs, according to new research.


The outbreak has affected about 33 million acres, or about 51,562 square miles, of lodgepole pines. Bark beetles also have killed huge swaths of pines in the western United States, including about 2,300 square miles of trees in Colorado.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24275529/

While we might quibble about the effects of CO2 or man made CO2, this effect is quite measurable.

These forests are not tropical forests mentioned in the OP. They also happen to be a source of jobs, and economic activity.

Those areas got *just* warm enough to be suitable for that beetle and BAM! There goes decades worth of lumber.

I shudder to think what will happen during the first fire season drought in such areas.

Anyone remember when Yellowstone burned down? I was hundreds of miles away, but could smell it, and the haze made it possible to look at the then red sun without much discomfort at high noon.

[TeyshaBlue]

Tell that to the US aspens and other trees being wiped out by beetles moving to higher (warmer) altitudes.

This bitch and all like her are shills paid by BigCarbon.

lol. It's a dude.
According to a study of ancient rainforests, trees may be hardier than previously thought. Carlos Jaramillo, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.

:rolleyes

[baseline bum]

Tell that to the US aspens and other trees being wiped out by beetles moving to higher (warmer) altitudes.

This bitch and all like her are shills paid by BigCarbon.

That's been really nasty to grizzlies up north, as nuts from whitebark are one of their primary food sources.

[boutons_deux]

Some big name "religious" asshole said a couple days ago that the grizzlies should be killed because man is more important. Must be a Dominionist nut job.

[TeyshaBlue]

Some big name "religious" asshole said a couple days ago that the grizzlies should be killed because man is more important. Must be a Dominionist nut job.

I'm guessing this person was a bitch too, eh bitchslap? :lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

I've been going to the Rockies for over 40 years and they have had pine beetle infestations off and on all that time that I know of. Blaming pine beetles on "global warming" is just another bullshit claim that continues to undermine Global warming alarmists credibility.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I've been going to the Rockies for over 40 years and they have had pine beetle infestations off and on all that time that I know of. Blaming pine beetles on "global warming" is just another bullshit claim that continues to undermine Global warming alarmists credibility.

I guess you could also say that denying this is not a problem undermines the deniers credibility.

[CosmicCowboy]

I guess you could also say that denying this is not a problem undermines the deniers credibility.

I say the recent surge in pine beetles is directly related to the recent surge in Somali pirates.

That makes just as much sense as blaming it on man caused global warming.

Prove me wrong.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I say the recent surge in pine beetles is directly related to the recent surge in Somali pirates.

That makes just as much sense as blaming it on man caused global warming.

Prove me wrong.

prove me wrong first

[boutons_deux]

The beetles are vulnerable below certain temperatures, which kept them from living at higher/colder altitudes. Irrefutable, y'alls is bitch slapped again.

[CosmicCowboy]

The beetles are vulnerable below certain temperatures, which kept them from living at higher/colder altitudes. Irrefutable, y'alls is bitch slapped again.

Here again, confusing weather variations with climate change. You're the only bitch that consistently gets slapped in here.

[johnsmith]

prove me wrong first

CC provided his logic (past experience), you provided nothing.

Burden of proof falls on your shoulders.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd like to point out that "forests being able to adapt" doesn't quite equal "feel free to pollute because forests can just adapt".

Forests may be able to adapt, but that doesn't mean there there might not be negative short and/or long term repercussions for the environment us humans prefer.

[MannyIsGod]

I've been going to the Rockies for over 40 years and they have had pine beetle infestations off and on all that time that I know of. Blaming pine beetles on "global warming" is just another bullshit claim that continues to undermine Global warming alarmists credibility.

The infestations in at their current level are certainly due to a lack of cold winters. Pine beetles at their current populations are only maintained due to the lack of sub freezing temperatures over extended periods in the winter.

No one said that they were new. Its the fact that the warming climates have made it worse.

[MannyIsGod]

Here again, confusing weather variations with climate change. You're the only bitch that consistently gets slapped in here.

Weather is a matter of days. Year after year of warmer winters is a climate issue and not a weather issue. The prolong warming that has led to the beetle's current levels is not a weather issue but in fact a climate issue.

It is certainly plausible to say that this is not AGW that has led to these beetles population growth since most of AGW's affects will occur in the future but it is also logical to assume that further tempature rises will lead to a greater occurence of these types of events.

So just to be clear, I don't blame the pine beetle's on AGW but I do think AGW will make these type of situations more common.

[MannyIsGod]

I'd like to point out that "forests being able to adapt" doesn't quite equal "feel free to pollute because forests can just adapt".

Forests may be able to adapt, but that doesn't mean there there might not be negative short and/or long term repercussions for the environment us humans prefer.

Darrin isn't programed to use this type of logic.

[DarrinS]

Would the world continue to warm from the little ice age, even without humans?

Answer: Yes

[CosmicCowboy]

Weather is a matter of days. Year after year of warmer winters is a climate issue and not a weather issue. The prolong warming that has led to the beetle's current levels is not a weather issue but in fact a climate issue.

It is certainly plausible to say that this is not AGW that has led to these beetles population growth since most of AGW's affects will occur in the future but it is also logical to assume that further tempature rises will lead to a greater occurence of these types of events.

So just to be clear, I don't blame the pine beetle's on AGW but I do think AGW will make these type of situations more common.

Is weather really a matter of days? I realize that as a meteorology student you have probably been exposed to more weather related theories than I have but in my experience some "weather" changes can last years...

As a part time farmer/rancher I am painfully aware how variations in the water temperature in the Southern Pacific Ocean can effect rainfall in San Antonio, Texas.

We have experienced periods of rainfall/drought all my life as these ocean temperatures bounced up and down. Some of these droughts lasted for years and were quite extended.

In my unsophisticated, uneducated view this is change in weather and not climate change.

The same with the freezes in the Rockies...They have had warm winters and beetle infestations before, and hard winters that killed them. They will have hard winters again and the beetles will die again. These things happen beyond the influence of man.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, an educated argument can be made that the death of these mature trees from the beetles is actually beneficial to the long term forest ecosystem.

[Yonivore]

BTW, an educated argument can be made that the death of these mature trees from the beetles is actually beneficial to the long term forest ecosystem.
Oh, pish posh! Everyone knows we'll be better off when Al Gore and Barack Obama turn back the tides (Which Barack began after the 2008 election) and reverse global warming! Lord knows, an extension of the growing seasons, globally, is less preferred than frozen tundra in Acapulco!

[MannyIsGod]

Is weather really a matter of days? I realize that as a meteorology student you have probably been exposed to more weather related theories than I have but in my experience some "weather" changes can last years...

As a part time farmer/rancher I am painfully aware how variations in the water temperature in the Southern Pacific Ocean can effect rainfall in San Antonio, Texas.

We have experienced periods of rainfall/drought all my life as these ocean temperatures bounced up and down. Some of these droughts lasted for years and were quite extended.

In my unsophisticated, uneducated view this is change in weather and not climate change.

The same with the freezes in the Rockies...They have had warm winters and beetle infestations before, and hard winters that killed them. They will have hard winters again and the beetles will die again. These things happen beyond the influence of man.

Weather is only measured in days. You may be confused because they both basically mean the measurement of the same thing but weather is up to two weeks while climate is anything on a larger scale. When you talk about whether or not December will be cold you're talking about climate. When you talk about whether or not it will rain over the next few days that is weather.

Weather can't really be the source of a pine beetle infestation of this sort because it builds up over the course of many years - even decades. That by definition is a climatic issue.

Like I said, this doesn't mean its a lasting or long term change but what it means is that the climate over decades has warmed and this has caused the pine beetles to thrive. What it does mean is that if humans cause the planet to warm then over the next few centuries we can expect more events like this which would be directly related to human activity. It may or may not be beneficial on a longer time scale and thats certainly up for debate. If you go back and read my long history of posts here I have always maintained that AGW comes with beneficial side effects such as warming the climate in areas such as Siberia and allowing for further agriculture. Its a complex issue that is not all bad and not all good but its almost impossible to tell which end of the spectrum it will ultimately lie on (although the US military seems to think its chaotic and thus negative - take their opinion for what its worth).

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, pish posh! Everyone knows we'll be better off when Al Gore and Barack Obama turn back the tides (Which Barack began after the 2008 election) and reverse global warming! Lord knows, an extension of the growing seasons, globally, is less preferred than frozen tundra in Acapulco!

An extension of the growing season means dick if the upper air patterns are changed and your annual rainfall drops off a ledge.

[CosmicCowboy]

Weather is only measured in days. You may be confused because they both basically mean the measurement of the same thing but weather is up to two weeks while climate is anything on a larger scale. When you talk about whether or not December will be cold you're talking about climate. When you talk about whether or not it will rain over the next few days that is weather.

Weather can't really be the source of a pine beetle infestation of this sort because it builds up over the course of many years - even decades. That by definition is a climatic issue.

Like I said, this doesn't mean its a lasting or long term change but what it means is that the climate over decades has warmed and this has caused the pine beetles to thrive. What it does mean is that if humans cause the planet to warm then over the next few centuries we can expect more events like this which would be directly related to human activity. It may or may not be beneficial on a longer time scale and thats certainly up for debate. If you go back and read my long history of posts here I have always maintained that AGW comes with beneficial side effects such as warming the climate in areas such as Siberia and allowing for further agriculture. Its a complex issue that is not all bad and not all good but its almost impossible to tell which end of the spectrum it will ultimately lie on (although the US military seems to think its chaotic and thus negative - take their opinion for what its worth).

So our El Nino/Nina influenced periods of rainfall/drought are the result of climate changing back and forth? (Temps going up/down/up/down etc.)

[MannyIsGod]

El Nino and La Nina are definitely climate conditions and not weather conditions.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml

The main El Nino forecast page for NOAA is on the Climate Prediction Center's site.

[CosmicCowboy]

El Nino and La Nina are definitely climate conditions and not weather conditions.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml

The main El Nino forecast page for NOAA is on the Climate Prediction Center's site.

So could other up/down/up/down climate influences also effect the variations in winter temperatures in the rockies and the subsequent beetle infestation/die offs?

[MannyIsGod]

Yes of course, although it is important to note that most of the big climatic indicators are not on the scale of decades. We have gone through many ENSO changes during this period of warmth. There are a lot of climatic patterns that change and have effects over the US.

We are unable to attribute the warmup in the rockies to a single known climate factor at this time and it certainly isn't something that changes as much as ENSO.

This is actually one reason AGW gets such traction in the scientific community. Despite the many known climate osculations we know about - including the solar max and min - the global temperature is rising. I don't know if the cause of the warmup is AGW since AGW theory states that the majority of the heating is going to come in the future and that we've only just now begun to feel its effects but I do know that AGW is likely to make situations like this unfold in many different ways.

[boutons_deux]

How do stands of forests, and their ecology, going back 1000s of years "benefit" from being destroyed by invasive species of beetles?

Man is shitting in his bed, and it stinks.

[CosmicCowboy]

How do stands of forests, and their ecology, going back 1000s of years "benefit" from being destroyed by invasive species of beetles?

You're a city boy aren't you?

Old growth pine forests are the least productive forest ecosystem out there...they block the sun and choke out beneficial habitat/undergrowth.

Those beetles serve a purpose to thin/kill trees. They die, they fall or burn, they rot, and provide rich soil/fertilizer for new beneficial growth that can be utilized by the birds and animals.

Why do you think the forest service lets forest fires burn now as long as they don't threaten humans?

[Yonivore]

An extension of the growing season means dick if the upper air patterns are changed and your annual rainfall drops off a ledge.
I'll take my chances with warmth over cold any day.

I can irrigate a crop before I can get it sprout out of 2 feet of ice.

[boutons_deux]

Fires are a natural occurrence, and are well known to assist in stabilizing and enriching the ecoology. People building homes in forests are supportable as people who build on the beach.

invasive beetles are totally different story.

"productive" for you means productive for loggers and paper companies, because it's a bizarre word to apply to a natural ecosystem.

[baseline bum]

Why do you think the forest service lets forest fires burn now as long as they don't threaten humans?

Not to attack you CC, but fires aren't left to burn to protect undergrowth; they're usually left to burn explicitly to destroy undergrowth. A forest with growth so thick that light is blocked out is completely unnatural and a direct result of our nation's policy of 100% fire suppression for almost 100 years. The dense forests you speak of wouldn't exist without that policy. For example, see these two photos of Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias in Yosemite National Park:

The first of these was taken in the 1890s I believe, before 100% fire suppression became national policy:

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7010/mariposa1k.jpg

The second of these was taken in the 1960s, after the Grove hadn't burned in more than 60 years due to fire suppression policies:

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3188/mariposa2p.jpg

Nowadays the Grove looks a lot more like the 1890s photo than the 1960s thanks to natural and prescribed burns though.

[Yonivore]

Not to pick nits and, I'm genuinely curious how you're going to reconcile this, but; after reading this...


A forest with growth so thick that light is blocked out is completely unnatural...
Don't forests generally arrive at that state, er, naturally?

[baseline bum]

Not to pick nits and, I'm genuinely curious how you're going to reconcile this, but; after reading this...


Don't forests generally arrive at that state, er, naturally?

No, you ignorant bastard. Just shut the fuck up when grown people are talking if you can't bother to read and process what anyone else writes. Stick to the kids table with your box of crayons; draw on the wall, wet yourself, do what you like, but you're not welcome at the adult table.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fires are a natural occurrence, and are well known to assist in stabilizing and enriching the ecoology. People building homes in forests are supportable as people who build on the beach.

invasive beetles are totally different story.

"productive" for you means productive for loggers and paper companies, because it's a bizarre word to apply to a natural ecosystem.

You obviously have reading comprehension issues. Why would I think beetles and fires were productive for logging? You need to sit on the sidelines too and let the adults talk.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not to attack you CC, but fires aren't left to burn to protect undergrowth; they're usually left to burn explicitly to destroy undergrowth. A forest with growth so thick that light is blocked out is completely unnatural and a direct result of our nation's policy of 100% fire suppression for almost 100 years. The dense forests you speak of wouldn't exist without that policy. For example, see these two photos of Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias in Yosemite National Park:

The first of these was taken in the 1890s I believe, before 100% fire suppression became national policy:

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7010/mariposa1k.jpg

The second of these was taken in the 1960s, after the Grove hadn't burned in more than 60 years due to fire suppression policies:

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3188/mariposa2p.jpg

Nowadays the Grove looks a lot more like the 1890s photo than the 1960s thanks to natural and prescribed burns though.

BB, mature redwoods are a bit of an aberration. They are much more "fireproof" than your average forest and you are correct, thinning the underbrush makes for healthier redwoods if that is your goal.

As for mature pine forests, they are almost "sterile" when it comes supporting birds and wildlife. There's simply nothing at ground level in the way of forbes, berries, seeds, new vegetative growth, etc. for animals/birds to survive on. I've spent thousands of hours in the mountains, hunting, fly fishing, horse pack trips, etc. I kept a condo in Crested Butte on the western slope of Colorado for many years. All the "life" is found in the old clearcuts, recovering burn areas, forest fringes, etc.

[Yonivore]

No, you ignorant bastard. Just shut the fuck up when grown people are talking if you can't bother to read and process what anyone else writes. Stick to the kids table with your box of crayons; draw on the wall, wet yourself, do what you like, but you're not welcome at the adult table.
This is too easy. :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

If you have to tell someone you're trolling you're not doing it right.

[Yonivore]

If you have to tell someone you're trolling you're not doing it right.
If you have to keep posting the same thing over and over and over again, you're not doing it right.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs and Yoni tell the same old lies over and over again. Works really well to dupe the sheeple and bubbas.

[Winehole23]

This is too easy. :lmaoBeing an inattentive jerk pisses people off. Course you probably figured that out long ago.

[Winehole23]

Tell me Yoni, which is better: being a lazy, careless jerk, or the attention it draws to you?