Misanthropic Scott says:

#29 – Paddy-trOll,

English much?

Darfur: http://tinyurl.com/39a8d7

BigBoyBC says:

I think it’s those “Happy Cows” in California making “Happy Cow Farts” causing global warming, so I’m giving up “Real Californa Cheese” to save the planet…

Well it makes about as much sense as anything Al Gore and his Climate Cronies come up with…

Paddy-O says:

# 34 Misanthropic Scott said, “At least I back up my claims with links.”

It is utterly breathtaking how uneducated you really are.

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce032599.html

Wretched Gnu says:

“Bad forest management”, John? I wonder how the forests survived all those millennia without their homo sapien “managers”…

bobbo says:

#35–amaramadingdong==theres that highfaluting language trying to fly high above the issue, but you FAIL.

Of course FACTS matter. FACTS define your range of options.

Silly of you to say the relevant issues don’t matter and then you completely contradict yourself by picking a side, the issue, and the resolution.

Don’t you have any kind of “6th Sense” that kicks in to warn you when you are going out in public without your pants on?

meetsy says:

There have been many mass tree deaths. Think of the Dutch Elm Disease which decimated the shade trees in most very town in America. There was the Amercian Chestnut tree blight, which killed off 90-99% of the historic and grand stands of trees all along the Eastern Seaboard.
A LOT of things kill trees, including man and man’s intervention. In the late 1970’s there was an alarming trend noted in the Sierra Nevada forests (Tahoe area/Donner area) that trees were turning yellow and dying. These were pine trees, and mostly long needled pines. It was a huge news story..and covered by many media outlets. (I’m sure few remember this.) Anyway, the finger pointing was at car polution, lead gas emissions, and the like. The focus by newspapers was to push the hot topic of the day “eliminating lead from gasoline” and how we need to limit the numbers of cars driving through the mountains.
When “scientists” are quoted in newspapers, there is a tendency to make it “newsworthy”. You see it often, and it’s always suspect when an article edits out the names (as often happens with these articles) or alters or selectively quotes. In this case, all it cites is “global warming” which may be, may not be the case. However, as JCD, I went “whoooaaaa there, what?”
There are dozens of things which kill fir and pine trees and the source paper did cover a number of them.
The REAL important part of the report was left out: “Given the evidence that recent climate-induced ecosystem changes are now so abundant, society needs to discuss policies that will help humans adapt to the changes under way, said Veblen. In the context of wildfire management, land managers need to reconsider the effectiveness of both fire suppression and fire mitigation efforts, including fuel reduction projects like timber thinning, he said.” (quoted from the Science Daily article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090122141222.htm)
Conifer trees can be damaged and/or killed by a variety of pathogens. The most common tree diseases fungi. Fungi lack chlorophyll so they must feed by parasitizing trees. The size of these fungi might be microscopic, or large, like mushrooms or conks. Some tree diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses. Some of the diseases are spread via soils and roots (aka-airborne and soilborne spores)some by bugs.
Sure, wamer/wetter, colder/drier can all make trees more likely to be stressed, and ideal conditions help bugs spread disease. (Keep in mind, some of our “old growth” forests include trees that have been around for a while. The oldest known tree is in a Giant Sequoia stand in Humbolt County it’s thought to be about 2200 years old.)
They’ve seen swings in seasons, and in the overall warming trends of the last few hundred years (For instace, the picture of Washington Crossing the Delaware has ice on the river, a normal occurance.) Most climatologists agree, the Revolutionary War took place within a climatological era known as the “Little Ice Age,” a period beginning about 1350 A.D. in which average wintertime temperatures abruptly turned cooler in the North Atlantic region, and persisted that way for roughly 500 years. The reality is, we just don’t KNOW enough. Maybe this warming is linked to the current solar activity, and the weakening of the magnetic poles. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926105021.htm). Maybe the climate changes are because the polre are getting ready to FLIP.

“A comparison of meteorological pressures and the strength of the geomagnetic field suggests a possible controlling influence of the field on the longitudinal variation of the average pressure in the troposphere at high latitudes. If so, changes which occur in the pattern of ‘permanent’ depressions in the troposphere as the magnetic field varies (for example, as the non-dipole component of the field drifts westwards) may be accompanied by climatic changes.” (citation: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5437/abs/247131a0.html)
Even NOAA isn’t quite sure how much sunspots and solar flares might affect earth weather/climate changes. “From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth’s climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth’s climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina?”
(source: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php)
JCD is right to question this b.s. being run in newspapers — the current logging practices (clear cutting) one area has an UNKNOWN impact on the adjacent “virgin” forests. The widespread practice of replanting forests with 99% the same stupid Douglas Fir may be a problem. There is more to this than a knee jerk reaction “ooph, global warming”.
We ARE having a crisis on the earth…from the dead zones in oceans, to the massive honeybee die-off, to the massive die off of Oak trees and other hardwood shrubs in California…aka Sudden Oak Death. I’ll agree, we have screwed the Earth, and continue to do so. Factor food production, the massive overuse of chemicals (from fertilizer to bug killers), and the horrid rollback of clear cutting rules (used to be that adjacent plots could not be cut, with Bush..that all changed…whole hillsides are cut at once..causing massive flooding, soil errosion, and mini-climate changes.) If you ask anyone recently affected by the floods in WA state if they think that clearcutting contributed to their misery, you get an OVERWHELMING “YES!”
But, to just say “oh yeah, global warming” in lockstep, without considering other factors is akin to blaming autism on a preservative in children’s vaccinations.
It’s the EASY ANSWER, not the right, or complete one. It’s like the ants description of an elephant…

bobbo says:

#41–meetsy==what you say would have more credibility if I didn’t know that bristlecone pines are by far the oldest organisms on earth if you don’t include reproduction by mitosis, budding, etc.

As it is, you are full of data and void of information.

Paddy-O says:

# 42 Misanthropic Scott said, “Now let’s discuss the link. It’s a translation of an article by an author who has not yet been able to get the content published anywhere.”

This is stuff I learned from world history text books in High School. I found the material on the internet by searching for text strings I could remember (long time ago).

Did you go through school in the public education system?

amodedoma says:

#40

What I mean is the whole Idea of digging holes for resources and filling holes with trash. The whole planned obsolescense thing. That and the idea of using scarce and toxic fuel sources for energy generation. Start with the things you can do something about and work toward the goal. Scarce resources cannot be sustained indefinitely that’s why their use should be restricted, not encouraged. If we capture all the energy possible from nature, water, wind, wave, sun, and for fuel we use hydrogen, nothing is consumed and nothing is lost that’s what I mean by sustainable. If we encourage (subsidise) recycling and manufacturing done with easily recycled materials that’s a step in the right direction.
Or we could do nothing and wait till we’re up to our necks in our own trash on a planet nobody would want to live on.

bobbo says:

#48–RBG==organisms do need to evolve if they are going to survive competition especially in a changing environiment. I can see science using the convention of that formulation.

You are also accurate about the timing of celestial events.

So, what I don’t understand is this notion that plants love CO2. I googled the phrase and I see dipshits in blogs making the reference but not “the scientific community.”

http://google.com/search?q=%22plants+love+co2%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Misanthropic Scott says:

#46 – Paddy-O,

I checked slide 23. It’s not that clear. All of the rest of the numbers on that page are only for the arctic. I think the slide is worded badly and likely is including only the arctic.

Or, perhaps they are presenting a minority opinion since so much of the peer reviewed work I’ve read states exactly the opposite, that despite the improvements in some locales, global warming will reduce overall food supply.

I think pages 79 and 96 of this book make it much clearer what the global effect is forecast to be. And, it is not pretty.

Global Warming and Agriculture: http://tinyurl.com/bo46wb

At least though, for a change, you have backed up your claim and made me think there may be some doubt on the subject. I would not consider that one paper conclusive, however.

deowll says:

The media nit wit said it was global warming. The Scientists just said a lot of trees are dying.

Part of it may well be a lack of forest fires to get rid of the older sick, and diseased plants in what amount to natural burn zones and prevent over crowding.

Of course we hav imported only God knows how many plant/tree killing organisms from fungi to bugs.

Did acid rain stop or something?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#55 – Paddy-O,

The study I posted is even clearer and contradictory to yours. So, perhaps it’s clear that the results will be unpredictable. Are you willing to bet billions of lives that your story is right and mine is wrong?

pdcant says:

anthrowarmglobe bigots, an early computer term is GIGO, which describes your “proof” of your rhetoric based on programs without enough data. Here’s your “climate” weather causation: http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotplotter.htm?PHPSESSID=ld362g8d4tm8jsub32orit3ri0

pdcant says:

I forgot Tiny for #58: http://tinyurl.com/awcm57