Reply With Quote
El Nino and La Nina are definitely climate conditions and not weather conditions.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/pre...MJO/enso.shtml
The main El Nino forecast page for NOAA is on the Climate Prediction Center's site.
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.)
El Nino and La Nina are definitely climate conditions and not weather conditions.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/pre...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?
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.
How do stands of forests, and their ecology, going back 1000s of years "benefit" from being destroyed by invasive species of beetles?
Man is ting in his bed, and it stinks.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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:
Nowadays the Grove looks a lot more like the 1890s photo than the 1960s thanks to natural and prescribed burns though.
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 bas . Just shut the 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.
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.
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.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:
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:
Nowadays the Grove looks a lot more like the 1890s photo than the 1960s thanks to natural and prescribed burns though.
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.
This is too easy.
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.
Repugs and Yoni tell the same old lies over and over again. Works really well to dupe the sheeple and bubbas.
Being an inattentive jerk pisses people off. Course you probably figured that out long ago.This is too easy.
Tell me Yoni, which is better: being a lazy, careless jerk, or the attention it draws to you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
