http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...global-warming
Printable View
Since when did forests become climate change experts?
:nope
:rollin
Nothing new here. EVERYTHING causes global warming. Even when it gets colder and snows more, it's evidence of global warming.
People are getting bored of this topic.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I agree.
:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Clearly the solution is to cut down the conifers that are taking the place of the larch thus, "allowing the vast, snow - covered ground to reflect the sunlight and heat"Quote:
Larch trees drop their needles in the fall, allowing the vast, snow-covered ground in winter to reflect sunlight and heat back into space and helping to keep temperatures in the region very cold. But conifers such as spruce and fir retain their needles, which absorb sunlight and increase the forest's ground-level heat retention.
Problem solved. Global destruction averted.
Artificial Leaf Could Be More Efficient Than the Real Thing
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...tories+2%29%29
Now that's cool and it looks like it was licensed to Tata. That's a company that has it's shit together.
The forests changing just proves we don't have to worry about climate change, since nature will adapt.
Or a big ass forest fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerelmo
Erm... if the point of cutting down trees was to allow the snow to reflect sunlight, I don't think a big ass forest fire would accomplish that goal. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Errr...you really think it would never snow again?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Touche! :toast Hoisted by my own petard. Whatever that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
The flora and fauna of the Earth were constant until automobiles were invented.
Sincerely,
T.Rex
The flora and fauna have changed before and life still exists, therefore, no amount of man-made change could have any sort of negative influence over the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Sincerely,
DarrinS
I agree man can definitely change the environment. 200+ years ago South Texas was pretty much all fertile grassland. The Indians would burn it off every spring as the buffalo moved north. Then we invented barbed wire and the concept of fencing private property. No more burns and the mesquite, brush and prickly pear took over...
which of course begs the question...which was "natural?"
I think the more important thing is determining how much man can change the climate in any given area, and then, determining which climate change is beneficial overall and which isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Obviously, not an easy task.
1) A century of CO2 emmisions have raised the global temp. anomaly by 1 degree. If you believe Al Gore's psy-fi docudrama, this will eventually lead to cities being inundated with sea water.
2) Nature can also lead to cities being inundated with sea water.
Of (1) and (2), which do we have indisputable evidence for?
Answer:
Did anyone else read that as the changing forests increasing the global temperature? What if it has been a factor all along, rather than a feedback?
Why are climatologists "stuck on stupid" in calling everything a positive feedback, instead of seeing that maybe their theory is wrong?
Science begins with "I don't know." Skepticism is suppose to rule, and you are suppose to do all to disprove a hypothesis instead of building arguments to support one.
This is a good thing Manny. Serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence...uman_evolutionQuote:
The "Stoned Ape" hypothesis of human evolution
McKenna hypothesized[citation needed] that as the North African jungles receded and gave way to savannas and grasslands near the end of the most recent ice age, a branch of our tree-dwelling primate ancestors left the forest canopy and began to live in the open areas outside of the forest. There they experimented with new varieties of foods as they adapted, physically and mentally, to their new environment. McKenna also called last glacial period hominids "fruit eating" in what he calls a gender-equal "paradise [...] the golden age of humanity" that he dated as ending 10,000 years ago.[17] However, the most recent ice age, also known as the Last glacial period that stretched from 110,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago, when meat-eating, biologically evolved Homo-Sapiens were already in Europe. Capability for language, present in the human FOXP2 gene was already developed.[citation needed]
According to McKenna's hypothesis, among the new food items found in this new environment were psilocybin-containing mushrooms growing near the dung of ungulate herds that occupied the savannas and grasslands at that time. To support this hypothesis, McKenna referenced the research of Roland L. Fisher.[citation needed] The cited work by Fischer does not mention paleo-anthropology, Africa, or the ice ages.[18][19][20][21] Echoing Fisher on the effects of psychedelics, McKenna claimed that enhancement of visual acuity was an effect of psilocybin at low doses, and supposed that this would have conferred an adaptive advantage. He also argued that the effects of slightly larger doses, including sexual arousal, and in still larger doses, ecstatic hallucinations and glossolalia — gave selective evolutionary advantages to members of those tribes who partook of it. There were many changes caused by the introduction of this psychoactive mushroom to the primate diet. McKenna hypothesizes, for instance, that synesthesia (the blurring of boundaries between the senses) caused by psilocybin led to the development of spoken language: the ability to form pictures in another person's mind through the use of vocal sounds.
About 12,000 years ago, further climate changes removed psilocybin-containing mushrooms from the human diet.[citation needed] McKenna argued that this event resulted in a new set of profound changes in our species as we reverted to the previous brutal primate social structures that had been modified and/or repressed by frequent consumption of psilocybin.
Beware the mushroom. You DO NOT want to overindulge. Bad Bad JuJu.
A petard is a metal cage, often on a long boom. It was filled with gunpowder and then swung towards a wall in a seige with the intent to breach the wall with the resulting explosion.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
(entry also explains phrase)
Winter is over, time for the birds to sing, flowers to bloom, and liberals to start global warming threads once again.
"Forests reacting to changing climate"
If it had been a factor all along, we would be able to tell by the species of trees found in any given fossil record. We certainly have rather recent evidence of the types of tree in any given area to know whether they are conifers or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You didn't really read the article did you?
fifyQuote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Were the Russian trees afflicted by the same disease that hit Alaskan trees?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Alcoholism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sec24Row7
Did YOU read the article??
"In Alaska, where the larch were largely devastated by a disease outbreak in the late '90s, vast swathes of forest are becoming inhospitable to the dominant white and black spruce."
Edit:
Does this article ever even SAY this is happening in Siberia? I couldn't find it. This just postulates that it will happen with continued warming...
And I guess it blames the disease that hit Alaskan trees on climate change?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sec24Row7
You don't get it. They blame diseases and pests on global warming too. I remember a few month back someone in here was blaming the pine borers out west on global warming. The fact that there have been pine borers for as long as I can remember (50 years) was considered unscientific and unacceptable argument against that hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sec24Row7
I guess that post was a capitulation on your part?
Because it is. How is the fact that there have always been pine beetles somehow invalidate the idea that climate change is providing them with better living conditions?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Pine borers require certain rather narrow temperature bands for their reproductive and other lifecycle processes, if memory serves.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Increasing temperatures a smidge made vast swaths of territory open to them that had previously never seen them, exposing tree populations to a new predator that they had no defenses to.
Not dissimilar to the decimation of north american human populations by imported small pox.
It isn't the fact that there have been pine borers or small pox for centuries, but what happens when you open up new ecosystems to those organisms.
Your argument is unscientific and illogical.
"Because there have always been pine borers, then pest outbreaks can't be blamed on global warming".
No one blaming increased temperatures ever claimed that there were no outbreaks or pests before recently.
That is, in essence a strawman argument.
More like an attempt to find some humor. I do that occasionally. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sec24Row7
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what your point actually is.
And you're assertion that we have more pine borers because of man caused global warming is ALSO total bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
As winter temperatures go up and down beetle populations go up and down.
We had seven relatively warm years (good for beetles).
The alarmists were screaming "global warming killing forests!"
THEN we have had 4 years in a row of colder winters (bad for beetles).
*crickets*
Cold winters are good for crickets?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Sec24Row7
Wait, what? I've read nothing about pine beetle infestation numbers going down because of the weather (the western US winters have not been nearly as cold as the east iirc). I have read about declines in certain areas due to the beetles killing off so many of the trees they don't have enough of a food source to support such a large population but not because of the cold.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Can you provide a link or two?
Just did a quick search.Quote:
If all the infected acres were plotted on a map of Montana, the beetle epidemic would have touched about 5.6 million acres in the past decade. The outbreak appears to have faded in areas around Helena and Butte, where it is running out of trees. But it's growing around Lewistown and the Flathead Valley.
"It's continuing to move east out of the Big Belts into Little Belts, Snowys, Judiths and Moccasins (mountain ranges)," said Montana State Forester Bob Harrington. "We're seeing entire stands of ponderosa pine hit, and smaller trees we wouldn't have thought susceptible."
But foresters are also seeing some resilience in pine groves where thinning has occurred before beetles reach the area. And it appears 2009's October cold snap slowed beetle progression in some areas, although the effect seems very limited.
The 2010 winter's sub-zero periods probably weren't enough to do any serious beetle damage, because the insects had already hardened up their cold defenses.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/art...cc4c002e0.html
Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemics – Congressional Research Service Report for Congress 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12965052/C...n-Pine-Beetles
Mountain pine beetle epidemics have occurred in lodgepole pine forests for thousands of years. Epidemics lasting 5 to 20 years occur at irregular intervals, affecting large areas and often killing more than 80% of the trees of more than 10 centimeters (about 4 inches) in diameter.
The current mountain pine beetle epidemic in Colorado and Wyoming is extensive, but it is unclear whether the current level is unprecedented. Most researchers note that mountain pine beetle epidemics are known to have occurred in lodgepole pine forests, but that the current epidemic is more extensive than has been seen in the past century. However, one source noted the loss of 15 billion board feet of lodgepole pine timber from mountain pine beetles in Idaho and Montana from 1911 to 1935. Although the current epidemic is extensive, it may be normal and natural. Some researchers have stated: Even though insect outbreaks greatly affect forest ecosystems, they may not be detrimental from a long-term ecological perspective. Such disturbances may in fact be crucial to maintaining ecosystem integrity, a situation ... described as “normative outbreaks.”
And thats a fine viewpoint. It may be natural. It may not. I would most certainly allow for the possibility that this is not directly caused by climate change.
What I also allow for, is that as the temperature rises due to climate change, events like this will occur more often even if this one is not caused by climate change. Also, this outbreak may have occurred with or without climate change but that doesn't mean increased warming has not exacerbated the situation.
But nothing I've read shows that the outbreak is ending due to cold winters.
Also, most of the literature I've read on the outbreak do claim its the largest by a good margin that we know of.
I have no problem with agreeing with the "that we know of" part considering that the transcontinental railroad was only completed 140 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Forest by Chernobyl 25 years later.
http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intr...d-Forest-s.jpg
Whether or not warming trends are man-made is not really all that relevant to the science involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
If warming trends continue, as climate scientists suggest, then we will see infestations in areas of higher elevation, and farther north than we have seen in a long time.
This is apparently what is happening from what I have read.
*No one* is claiming that these infestations have never happened.
*No one* is claming that infestations are not natural.
If you are trying to peg either idea on "global warming believers", that is a distortion. I don't think you are trying to be purposefully dishonest here, but it sure seems that you aren't being overly careful about re-stating others' ideas either.
Meh. If long term trends are for warming, man-made or otherwise, then we will see these things in areas that they haven't been seen in. Time will tell.
None of the links provided actually said that we have had "4 years in a row of cold winters", by the way. These things range over a good chunk of North America, and supporting that statement would require a lot of data that you have not presented yet.
Do you conveniently forget the things I have brought up in the past?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
We have had a major change in average solar activity from about 1900 to about 1950. This alone, with the lag time things need to take place in nature might be the cause. This lag time is also seen in the latent energy of then ocean, as it takes several decades for the currents to move from the antarctic to equatorial, equatorial to northern hemisphere, and all the other paths.
Funny think is, tree ring records do so much already to show that anthropogenic warming as the major cause is a myth. The alarmists like to ignore the tree ring proxies for that reason.
Consider this too. Why are all Stradivarius violins make from trees that grew during a certain era. No one to date has been able to copy the violins qualities with any other wood.
Trees do tell a story.
Fify...Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Is that a gangster term or something?
Ebonics?
WTF is it?
I assume it means you are undecided on something, like a 50% agreement.
Can we keep the talk to actual job required English so us old fogies understand?
I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Everything is global warming. Even global cooling.
WTF do beetles have to do with this article? The larch trees in Alaska were killed by a DISEASE!!! (I mean its right there in the article)
And wait... Local weather isn't an indicator if global warming (or lack thereof) right? Isn't that what we are told every time someone pasts something like "UK coldest winter in 40 years"...
So how do these pestilences skip their LOCAL weather pattern and get affected by GLOBAL climate change hrrrm?
And the OP isn't a strawman when there are so many factors?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
When it comes to trees, insects are sometimes called a disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sec24Row7
Regardless, the point is that it was something else besides temperature.
Stand corrected... Stupid arborists... Lol confusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It means "fixed it for you".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Shows how much I'm not in the groove with the younger people...Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Anyone here from MIT?
Closest here is a cousin of mine got his PHD there.Quote:
Originally Posted by mouse
MIT is over rated. Trust me I debate with them on a weekly basis and they back down 24/7 since no one there seems to be anymore educated than your average UTSA professor. they don't have any information about the Home brew Computer Club they hardly know wtf Altair is, most computer topics die a quick death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
They don't have any education in Radiation and most of them at the MIT facebook page are all born after 1987 so they don't engage in Chernobyl or radiation topics.
They have no idea about how old the earth is and anyone who Quotes Darwin never replies to my questions.
You would think i would have a harder time with the MIT Krew then the ST Politics Krew but to be Honest Chump,wildCobra,RandomLie, and Hater are light years ahead of those fools.
(I give props where props are due)
LOL...
I don't know what it's like there today, but my cousin went there more than 30 years ago. maybe things have changed and its overrated now, but he has done real well. It was real good then.
Altair? Do you mean the computer, the star, the corporation, the NASA project, or something else?
Why would they associate themselves with the Homebrew Computer Club? They have better things than studying history.
Fixed It For YouQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I had to ask too. It isn't all that apparent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Respectfully:
No. A strawman argument is when you distort someone else's argument in some purposefully dishonest fashion.
Example:
Wild Cobra: I think we should lower taxes a bit. (actual position)
RandomGuy: Getting rid of all taxes would be the stupidest thing in the world. (distortion of actual position, generally coupled with some kind of ridicule)
It is called a "strawman" because it is somewhat similar to taking a sword to a "strawman" target made to look like someone, defeating it, and then saying "look I defeated this guy". All you have done is defeat an idea of your making, not the actual idea of someone else.
Your usage of "strawman" here seems to be a misnomer of some sort.
Awww....Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
So you and others accuse me of your common practice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Go visit the MIT site and engage in conversations find out for yourself.
Don't go by what I say.
No I was talking about the first personal Pc introduced to the public.Quote:
Altair? Do you mean the computer, the star
http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos.../newaltair.jpg
If you have to ask then maybe this topic is over your head. But then again you do need to learn about the Altair so in a way your totally excused.Quote:
Why would they associate themselves with the Homebrew Computer Club?
Not talking about the Home brew computer club is one thing, but even then it's like talking about NASA and not ever bringing up Apollo 11
"not knowing" about the home brew computer club is another thing.
It's like talking about automobiles and not knowing where Detroit is.
If you can't see the point then I can see why you question me.
So true, different ways of folding paper is much more effective use of collage research time.Quote:
They have better things than studying history.
MIT researchers create programmable self-folding origami sheets
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingte...mi-sheets/2293