whitebark pine going down

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by iceaura, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,074
    So the whitebark pine is in serious trouble, and both the fact and the circumstances match the predictions of the climate change folks.

    http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/news.cfm?id=2144374843

    Apparently extinction cab happen, but slowly - at least, on human scale. Regardless of extinction, we will be living without large forests of whitebark pine very soon.

    The thread issue is one of description: if we lose the forest of them, have we lost the essential thing itself? As trends continue, many beings that do not actually disappear will become much different in effect - we lose not the corals but the reefs, not the elm but the elm canopy on our streets, not the smelt but the smelt run,
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,788
    I would suggest that humans are part of the problem, not only when we are the cause of loss of habitat, but also when we try to protect land by naming it a park and then intervene in the process by preventing forest fires that naturally occur.

    We want things not to change, and yet change is the hallmark of nature's palette. In the Yukon, the spruce budworm has been of ongoing concern for many years now.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Hardly the result of Climate Change.

    As far as susceptability to climate change goes, trees can and do migrate and
    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not really.

    Humans don't live that often where these trees do (high up, Pinus albicaulis is typically found growing at alpine
    timberline or with other high-mountain conifers just below the timberline and upper montane zone)

    Indeed almost all the places in the US where these trees are found (97%) are already in Federally protected forests.

    The trees are also very widespread in British Columbia and Alberta (more area than the US stands as they can live at lower elevations as they move North)

    Yes, putting out forest fires are one of the key reasons these trees are in decline.

    See previous post on the unintended consequences of fire suppression.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,074
    Maybe not, but it matches the predictions perfectly. If you recall, the climate change alarmists took heat from the bozo crowd for predictions that alpine forests in temperate zones were likely to suffer first and most, from water and heat stress vulnerability to spreading fungal and bacterial disease, from the expanding ranges of pests (bark beetles were mentioned specifically), and from their bounded habitat.
    Except the ones already at some kind of geographical limit, the upper reaches of alpine soil availability or the edges of coasts or the like.

    And they do not migrate quickly. Change that happens in a century or two can catch them.

    As predicted by the climate change folks, trees like the whitebark pine get in trouble first.
     
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    But the whitebark pine trees have been in serious decline for a century following the 1910 introduction of the exotic disease white pine blister rust and their decline has been exacerbated by our fire prevention policies, so NO, you can't blame their decline on human induced Climate Change.

    And no, they have no particular georgraphical limit (they don't live on coasts), indeed their range in the Western Rockies is ~1,500 miles from Southern California nearly to Alaska, and YES they can migrate rather quickly, because as I pointed out, they are spread by a bird, the Clark’s nutcracker, and of course, humans can proactively help them migrate.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  10. occidental Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    According to the link in the op:
    http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/news.cfm?id=2144374843

    And from the 90-day finding in part:
    and
    Federal Register: July 19, 2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat:
    http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/whitebarkpine/75FR42033.pdf


    Clearly the US Fish and Wildlife dept. feel that they can in part blame the threat to whitebark pine on human induced Climate Change. Are you saying theyre lying?

    How quickly? Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim of how fast these trees can migrate?
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,074
    How does their increasing vulnerability to blister rust and their recent inundation by bark beetles since 1910, exactly as predicted by the climate change alarmists, remove blame from climate change?

    Their ecological niche is fairly narrow, throughout their range.
    They have nowhere suitable to go they don't already live, and they are endangered throughout their range.

    And climate change so far has been very rapid, and seems to be accelerating. Even if there were somewhere for them to pioneer into, nutcracker stashing is unlikely to be fast enough at spreading them into the alien place.
     
  12. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    this is old news . No not all the trees are dieing . Lots are quite healthy and flourishing. Yes Pine Beetle is a problem . Yes a lot has to do with fire suppression. Federal lands are at risk because of mis management of the forests . Why ? Cause they bend to the whim of sidewalk scientist with good woo woo. The best thing to do is to cut the shit out of the woods and give it away . A yeah that is what the plan is and but loads have come out of the forest already thanks to Obama stimulus money . Joy Joy cause they got what you call target areas . Now get this . Were the people live that can do the job and have no work cause it is there lively hood can't bid the work cause not enough of the other people that do other jobs still have jobs . Unemployment is not high enough even though the people that do the work are unemployed . O.K. check it out . The people that live by the university and go to school full time qualify cause most of them have either part time jobs or are unemployment do to going to school . They can bid the work . No that is pretty fucked up management if you ask me . They call it hub zones . Only our government would think something like that up. Me starving excavator friends are mad as hell about it .
    O.K. there is hope . A scientist has discovered that the Pine beetle is extra sensitive to sound . Very interesting research .
    So here is the low down side walkers, federal land is a disaster sick over grown with down fall that is contributing to green house gases because of decay of the forest . No touchy policy of non management . Next is State land cause they do a better job of management from being more localized and knowing what is good for the state . Next is private ownership be cause they own it and want it to be healthy cause they own it and live off of it , so it has to be sustainable .

    If you don't know this shit you are not really qualified to make judgment about the state of health of the forest . Yukon Sheher can make judgment and debate with a clear conscience cause she lives and breathes the wilderness and knows first hand the health of the forest she lives in .

    Aurthur Right on , I am with you on this . We also need to mitigate the forest of the beetle kill plain and simple. To bad the housing market crashed and there ain't much use for the lumber . That is the reason the forest service can't contract the lumber out of the woods . The Irony. You may think I don't know . Well la de Da de Da I am working with the D.N.R.C so blow , if you don't know who they are , cause if you don't you don't know shit about it and are reacting to hocus pocus guess work of woo woos that got one right by chance
     
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    gee
    i am so depressed i have taken to reading some paleobiology for comfort
    that and a bowl of soup

    thanks for nothing ice
     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, the threat, as IN THE FUTURE, that predicted climate change will be a threat:

    Will result = Future

    But their decline is not because their range has yet shifted based on the minor amount of warming we have so far had in the US. Indeed, in other recent scientific reports about this tree, climate is not mentioned as a factor:

    http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p063/rmrs_p063_198_202.pdf

    And

    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ecological_restoration/v028/28.1.keane.pdf


    Yes, the report says that at a rise of 3 C they would need to move at 1,000 m per year, and they also say that: Pinus albicaulis may have an advantage in its ability to migrate given that its seeds are dispersed by Clark’s nutcracker. As mentioned above, Clark’s nutcrackers can disperse seeds farther than the wind-dispersed seeds of other conifers (McCaughey et al. 1985, Tomback et al. 1990, 1993 in Keane and Parsons 2010, p. 58).,

    And we find the range of dispersal of the Clark's nutcracker is 10 times that which is needed:

    Interestingly in a true symbiotic relationship, the Clark's nutcraker chooses locations to cache the seeds which are ideal for the trees to germinate and grow in.

    Arthur
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Because the literature specifically excludes it.

    Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests are declining across most of its range in North America because of the combined effects of three factors (Arno 1986, Kendall and Keane 2001).
    Then they list the THREE factors:

    First, there have been several major mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus
    ponderosae) outbreaks that have killed many cone-bearing whitebark pine
    trees

    The effects of an extensive and successful fire-exclusion management
    policy since the 1930s have also reduced the area burned in whitebark
    pine forests, resulting in a decrease of suitable conditions for whitebark pine
    regeneration

    Finally, the introduction of the exotic fungus white pine blister rust (Cronarium
    ribicola) to the western United States circa 1910 has killed many five-needle
    pine trees, and whitebark pine is one of the most susceptible to the disease
    (Hoff et al. 1980, Keane and Arno 1993, Murray et al. 1995, Kendall and
    Keane 2001).

    Which they summarize:

    The cumulative effects of these three agents have resulted in a rapid decrease in mature whitebark pine over the last 20 years.

    Then they add a note about climate change:

    predicted changes in northern Rocky Mountain climate brought about by
    global warming could further exacerbate whitebark pine decline

    Which is about predicted changes in the future and not yet blamed for their decline.

    Yes, they are endangered due to a rust, beetles and our fire management principles. I find it interesting that you focus on the least of their problems when the MAIN issue that we need to deal with is changing our fire management practices. (it makes the Rust and beetle problem worse as well)

    There is no significant evidence that it is accelerating.
    The World Meteorological Organisation said that 2010 was the joint warmest year on record, tied with 1998 and 2005, or in other words, we still haven't seen a rise in average global temperature in over a decade. So while it's staying warm (The globe is ~half a degree over the 1960-90 average) for the last 12 years it has not increased over that average.

    Still, assuming that it will again start to increase at the rate it had been since 1960-90 till it's peak in 1998-2010, and continue for the rest of the century that would represent a warming of ~1.3 degrees by the end of the century or less than HALF what was used in the analysis that suggested that climate change would eventually cause a negative impact to the Whitebark pines.

    Of course there is, they can go up since they live near the tree line, and the tree line will move up with warming making new areas available (since there won't be trees there already) and the Clark's nutcracker does a good job of caching seeds in suitable germination sites.

    Arthur
     
  16. occidental Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    Great news. Glad to hear the birds are going to solve that problem for us.
     
  17. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Arthur you are stating to sound like forester . Oh Sweet Melisa You would like her . She can speak your language bro . Dude you got my respect
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,074
    No, it isn't. It's the recently established fulfillment of prediction.
    Where? If by "lots" you mean about 20%, and if by "healthy and flourishing" you mean they have not yet started to die off en masse, - - - OK.

    All of which appear to be emerging as critical and unprecedently lethal due to a change in the climate.

    As predicted - to great ridicule, IIRC, by the sort of people who think if a pine beetle kills a tree then climate change is exonerated.

    Pine beetles have been around forever. Forest fires have been suppressed only in areas. Blister rust hits stressed trees harder and does better in the warmer regime. Meanwhile, the decline is general.
    But as noted, it is now so blamed. By professional foresters. Because those predictions seem to have come true.
    Your conclusion ("in other words") does not follow. Take a stats course.

    We have seen a rise in average global temperature over the past decade. We have in particular seen a continuing rise in North American montane "average" nightly and winter temps (the ones that protect the whitebark pine from beetles, fungus, et al).
    There's nowhere much to disperse them to. They're alpine trees - mountains get smaller with altitude, lack years of soil accumulation and adequate water retention, etc. Vapor pressure deficits and freeze thaw cycles are even more serious at higher altitude, with thinner air and less available water. And so forth.
    I've worked with foresters who sound like that. I've heard professional foresters basically repeat that exact argument: that it's not the weather that's killing the trees, it's the beetles, so climate change is not to blame.

    It isn't any less obtuse because a forester says it.
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not needed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Unlike your claim of acceleration of the rise in global temps, instead the global temps have nearly stopped rising, which is what that horizontal blue line represents. According to the NOAA temp data, the trendline for the rise in temps for the last decade has been a very mild .001 C per year, in contrast from 1971 until 1999, the trendline for the rise per year was 16 times greater.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

    Hadley Centre Temp data is running a bit cooler than NOAA's and has the global Air/Sea trendline for the last 10 years at 0.0 C per year.

    http://www.hadobs.org/ (note first column is the annual Anomaly, I didn't use 2011 data as it is only a partial year, but as you can see 2011 is off to a very cool start)

    As to your other claims, they are totally unsubstantiated except via your handwaving.
    The reports I linked to clearly listed the 3 things causing the decline, and climate wasn't one of them. They suggested that in the future, a warming climate COULD make it worse.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
  20. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    I think you have been indoctrinated by the Tau people . I think it would be good if you come to the forefront of reality . The past has already happened
     
  21. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Foresters study the Forest ? They are the ones that do the real science in the forest . Jeeze Lawees any way . "Steven Running" google Him . He will give you woo woo science to support your cause . He will give you validation you seek . Does it make it true , his new voodoo that he do ?
    Got to go I am procrastinating . I got a new addiction. It is all you wonder land people . Got to get back to the mundane .

    I got news for all you enviros with your pitch forks and torches . I ain't going to tell you hopefully ( ME big Mouth don't get me in trouble now ) until the deal is complete and we take possession. Don't want no law suits getting in the way of world salvation
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,074
    No such claim is at issue. I made no such claim. And I think you know that. I think your attempt at deception there is deliberate - a purposeful rhetorical technique, revealing once again your lack of integrity.

    You drew an obviously and very simply invalid conclusion from some data, revealing incompetence at statistical analysis, was the claim. It stands - unless you would prefer it be included among your deliberate attempts to deceive?
    You listed three factors predicted by the AGW monitors - in advance - to be likely sources of trouble as consequences of a warming trend.

    Then you asserted such fulfillment of prediction was evidence against the AGW alarmists.

    That's kind of stupid.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2011
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No such lack of integrity.

    I said: your claim of acceleration of the rise in global temps

    You did indeed make that claim:

    And
    Was exactly what you posted in this thread, it's been warming this last decade and that this warming (climate change) seems to be accelerating.

    Unless you want to now claim that by accelerating "climate change" you didn't imply that warming was also accelerating. Good luck with that since this whole thead has been about the effects of WARMING.

    No invalid conclusion was drawn and clearly no attempt to deceive was made since the data sources were linked to and the results presented as the mathematical slope of the trendline for the specific periods referenced.

    Indeed, the data from the Hadley Centre shows, that the global Air/Sea temperature trendline for 2000 through 2010 is a flat 0.0 C per year.

    A trendline of 0.0 C per year for that period indicates no warming over the last decade and the trendline for the most recent decade is signifcantly less than the trendline for the preceding decade, hence no indication of acceleration in warming either.

    (And 2011 so far is running nearly 1/2 degree less than the average of the same months of the last decade)

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt (note first column after the date is the average yearly temperature anomaly used in this analysis)

    Nope,
    I stated, as the scientists so stated, that Climate Change might IN THE FUTURE add to the problems faced by the trees.
    They made it quite clear, when they listed the three issues that had caused the decline of the trees, that Climate Change so far has not been a significant issue affecting the trees.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2011

Share This Page