In all of California, there is no greater shrine to nature than the giant redwoods of the Northern California. WUWT readers may remember this article which talks about the threat to giant redwoods, due to a supposed global warming induced lack of coastal fog, which these trees need as part of their life cycle:
One more thing to worry about – fog shortage
From the University of California – Berkeley via Eurekalert:
Fog has declined in past century along California’s redwood coast
Analysis of hourly airport cloud cover reports leads to surprising finding
California’s coastal fog has decreased significantly over the past 100 years, potentially endangering coast redwood trees dependent on cool, humid summers, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, scientists.
Of course, like some “climate denial” video our friend Peter Sinclair might edit, the fog research conclusion was soon shown to be a “crock” in itself:
Last summer the San Francisco Chronicle carried a story about research on fog and climate with a different conclusion:
The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it’s about to get even foggier. That’s the conclusion of several state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study predicts that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won’t be soaring everywhere.
Well, now the same scientist that published the fog decline story has spawned another story in the San Francisco Chronicle that flies in the face of his earlier study.
Here are some excerpts from the story:
The $2.5 million Redwoods and Climate Change Initiative has allowed Sillett and other specialists from Humboldt State and UC Berkeley to set up shop in some of California’s last remaining old-growth redwood groves. The researchers are climbing, poking, prodding, measuring and testing everything, including molecules of coast redwood and giant sequoia trees on 16 research plots throughout the ancient trees’ geographic range.
The plan is to chart the health of the trees over time and use laboratory analysis of carbon and oxygen isotopes to figure out how the trees have reacted in the past to climate and weather conditions.
“Embedded in this tree ring is a remarkable record of climate,” said Todd Dawson, the director of the Center for Stable Isotope Biogeochemistry at UC Berkeley, as he held up a core sample from a Montgomery Woods redwood. “Based on what has happened in the past, we can really project what will happen in the future.”
This was interesting:
Laboratory testing of tree-ring data is now so advanced that scientists can determine things like whether tree growth in a certain year was the result of fog or precipitation. Scientists intend to plot biological changes in redwood tree rings dating back 1,000 to 2,000 years, with particular emphasis on effects that might have been caused by the industrial revolution.
I assume then, that they have fog and and precipitation measurement records spanning 1000-2000 years that allow them to verify this?
Here’s where the older fog research and the newer tree ring studies collide with our current climate, bold emphasis mine:
Redwood studies thus far have come up with some confounding results. Redwood trees are known to thrive on summer fog, and it was believed that they grew more slowly as they aged, but studies by Sillett and others show redwood growth increasing, in some cases doubling, over the past century. That’s despite a 33 percent decrease in the amount of fog along the Northern California coast since the early 20th century, according to a study by Dawson.
Anthony Ambrose, a postdoctoral research fellow at the UC Berkeley department of integrative biology, said the growth spurt could be the result of more sunlight and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which generally increases plant growth.
“Maybe it is because there is a CO{-2} increase while there is still enough moisture,” Ambrose said.
This incovenient finding doesn’t bode well for the people (Peter Sinclair, Joe Romm) pushing: The “CO2 is Plant Food” Crock.
But just in case you think this is just another argument among friends over a few tree rings, I’ll remind readers of this story:
Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause
The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.
Yeah, damned inconvenient these findings.
Now that California voters have reaffirmed their commitment to CARB’s favorite AB32 law reducing CO2 emissions, I’m waiting for the inevitable lawsuit from the Sierra Club which will argue that reducing CO2 will hurt the giant redwoods. It is after all, what the Sierra Club does.
h/t to Steve Mosher
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Louise is checking with her Community College Professor for guidance, but in the meantime, let me fill in for her.
Anthony, how much is the Chronicle paying you for this shameless shilling of their newspaper?
REPLY: Heh, you must be laboring under the misconception that newspapers are flush with money these days – Anthony
I wish they would make up their minds
Redwoods, as a long-lived species, is certainly worth studying. The problem is that researchers are coming at them with an agenda. The likelihood of confirmation bias is high. Let’s see a comprehensive analysis of the whole ecosystem’s biological, geological, and chemical spheres before proclaiming any conclusions about causes.
“even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won’t be soaring everywhere.”
At an intersection on the Eyre Hwy in Sth Australia there is a sign to “Somewhere Else”, is that where the warming is?
In that vein, Anthony, how much are the Redwood Trees paying you for this shameless shilling of their forest!?!?
I’m waiting for the “giant redwoods are outgrowing their strength as a result of too much CO2, scientists believe.” stories to surface.
I hope that the EPA doesn’t read The Chronicle or the authors could be in for a rough time.
I took this as possibly advocating for old growth trees being better at carbon sequestration than young growth. Therefore old growth must not be cut because then cutting old growth contributed to AGW. So, besides AGW advocates conflating logging with deforestation they would say that old growth is critical to preventing climate change and a crime against humanity.
I’m sure that’s just me seeing this as a forester.
With all the tourism to the trees, you’d certainly expect there to be a local increase in CO2. I’m waiting for some true believer to ask for signs requiring people to hold their breath while in the redwoods, but I won’t hold my breath ;o)
Do you think that these so-called climate scientists will ever realize that continually contradicting themselves does nothing to enhance their credibility ?
“more sunlight and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which generally increases plant growth.”
Quick, someone alert the world’s farmers.
This is one of the greatest ‘doh’ stories of all time. I must admit i was a bit alarmed with the initial fog story. Since Los Angeles was experiencing fog this summer that exceeded 10 miles inland I was confused as to why Northern California had so little. And i was also alarmed that for the life of me I could not understand why more sunshine and CO2, and a relatively wet period resulted in redwood die-off. So now we know. It was all BS.
On a related note, during the Great Depression, redwoods were planted as an experiment in a reforestation effort on the Island of Kauai . They were one of a dozen or so ‘desirable’ species planted in groves to test compatibility and self-propagation. Some of these turned out less that desirable. Slash Pine and some Eucalyptus turned out to be really scary fire hazards. The redwoods were planted at about the 3,500 elevation. They grew. Fast. At a pace some estimate may be 5 times faster than in Ca. They reproduce slowly, so are not a significant threat to native flora. They are beautiful trees, but still babies by Ca. standards. And growth has slowed down dramatically as they aged. They have weathered numerous hurricanes well and a are very positive feature of Kokee State Park.
It is interesting how Sinclair’s movie mocks Lord Monckton -“CO2 is what? It is plant food!” But fortunately for all of us, Lord Monckton is exactly right and nothing in the movie indicates otherwise. Also even though the movie is generally reasonable and does state many facts, Sinclair and many scientists mistake weather for climate. The last 30 years is only the warm half of a 60 year climate cycle and the movie continues to state that “these warming trends are EXPECTED to continue”. Much of warming science today follows this same thread – “warming of 3 or 4 degrees C will cause ____ (fill in the blank)” for some extreme and negative outcome. The first problem is that even if warming does continue it cannot be shown that based on past patterns that more than about another degree of warming will probably occur by 2100. And secondly, very few studies have focused on the positive aspects of slight warming. And finally most of the latest studies show no long term extreme weather effects over the past 100 years. There have certainly been extreme weather events but they are part of a natural climate pattern that more and more shows a 60 year cycle (and apparently is now beginning to proceed into a cooling part of that cycle) .
All good propaganda movies seem quite reasonable until you dig a little deeper into the material.
Well, it’s better than we thought, and it’s worse than we thought. All at the same time.
Finally, fair and balanced climate reporting. More, More. Bring it on!
CO2 should lawyer up and sue the EPA for defamation
“more sunlight and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which generally increases plant growth.”
generally ? When do those two factors not increase plant growth?
The true believes in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming will quickly spin this by claiming this “rapid and unnatural growth, induced by the known greenhouse gas CO2, will enervate the trees and they will all die.”
Actual data collected in the field will not sway a true believer; facts and data simply increase the rate of angular rotation.
“Redwood studies thus far have come up with some confounding results. Redwood trees are known to thrive on summer fog, and it was believed that they grew more slowly as they aged, but studies by Sillett and others show redwood growth increasing, in some cases doubling, over the past century. That’s despite a 33 percent decrease in the amount of fog along the Northern California coast since the early 20th century, according to a study by Dawson.”
Confounding? To a botanist?
Who ARE these people? Higher CO2 concentration causes more efficient use of water. I’ve explained it many times here. Gas exchange is carried out through microscopic pores called stomata. Stomata iris open and closed as required and the mechanism that controls the opening is referred to as the closest thing to a muscle that plants have. When there is a higher concentration of CO2 in the air the gas exchange happens faster and the stomata don’t need to open as far or as often. Water is lost when the stomata is open.
Thus it makes perfect sense that Redwoods would prosper in higher CO2 even if there less moisture available.
I have a genuine question, as an interested civilian: if increased CO2 levels contribute to increased plant growth, then the treerings generated are also larger. So how come those famous tree-ring proxies are called an indicator of temperature?
CO2 is harmless and beneficial:
click1
click2 [see “Key Findings”]
click3 [they claim faster growth is due to “ozone.” But it’s a C: BS article]]
click4
click5
In a hungry world, more CO2 is better.
Wijnand says:
“I have a genuine question, as an interested civilian: if increased CO2 levels contribute to increased plant growth, then the treerings generated are also larger. So how come those famous tree-ring proxies are called an indicator of temperature?”
Good question.
It’s not just redwoods. Here in the Deep South, where many farmers (me included ) have acres planted in pine, cedar, maple, hickory, oak, and other hard and soft woods , those are growing faster also. This is not necessarily a good thing, since fast growth woods are generally less desirable than slow growing and hence denser wood. Denser wood is stronger, more stable, higher quality, and therefore more desirable ( and pricier ) for construction, furniture, musical instruments, etc. than fast growth. Fast growth wood is generally not good for much other than pulp, fiber board, and other cheap products – or converting to ethanol, which is another disaster story.
Sam Hall says:
November 27, 2010 at 10:47 am
Where there other limiting factors like insufficient nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus to name the major nutrients. Also micronutrients like sulphur, magnesium, calcium, copper, zinc, molybdenum, and iron can be limiting factors although these are usually only a problem in seawater. Just off the top of my head. On land it’s usually the big three (NPK – the primary listed ingredients on virtually all fertilizers) where deficiency is common along with insufficient (or too much!) water. pH can also be a limiting factor.
I got one in my garden 🙂 Brought it home from there like 25 years ago, moved it twice in the early years. There’s no fog where I live, but it grows like a champ. It’s my little baby, I take pics every year. The neighbors already start bickering because it obstructs their view.
Conifers have stomata? Guess so. Something I should have known.
A quick check found http://www.savetheredwoods.org/research/grant_detail.php?id=35 which sound uncomfortably close to whale saving, but it links to a master thesis at http://www.savetheredwoods.org/media/pdf_jennings.pdf . On think in the thesis I hadn’t realized is that redwood leaves change greatly between low level and high level leaves. On the east coast, red oaks are one of my favorite examples, and is largely driven by sunlight and probably transpiration. In redwoods, tree height and water management have a big roll, and that appears to affect leaf morphology.
My guess is that redwoods can adapt across a few seasons a lot better than any of the hand wringers expect.
Neat trees. I’d hate to have one fall on my house, though.