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
James Barker says: November 28, 2010 at 7:38 am
The redwoods have thrived for thousands of years, without regard to the climate (weather)…
Replace “thousands of years” with “~100 million years”.
Redwoods have been transplanted all over the world where they grow just fine and reach maturity. They are not “climate limited”.
Why has their “natural” range not expanded beyond Ice Age refugia? Because redwoods do not produce viable seed. A single tree can produce a million seeds a year, but none of them germinate. Redwoods spread by layering and root suckers.
Interestingly, western red cedar is also a sterile seed producer, but has spread during the Holocene beyond coastal refugia as far east as the Rocky Mountains. Evidently they were transplanted, because they occur in widely separated groves.
WRC was the single most useful tree to western Indian cultures. They called it “The Tree of Life” and used the roots, leaves, bark and wood for shelter, clothing, and utensils.
Brian H says:
November 29, 2010 at 10:55 am
> Ric W., 11-17 11:34;
> A very unusual and almost appropriate typo/malaprop, Ric:
> “On think in the thesis I hadn’t realized”
The best puns are accidental 🙂
I’ve been dropping the ‘e’ in ‘one’ lately, I have no idea why. Similarly switching ‘think’ and ‘thing’ (hmm, I get ‘thick and thin’ right). This may be one of the first times I got both together.
—
On perforating redwoods – we perforate Sugar Maples in New Hampshire late each winter, the trees can fill in the hole drilled for the taps surprisingly quickly.
Redwoods have to deal with forest fires. One line of defense is to be tall so the crown is way above ground level. Another is thick spongy bark that doesn’t burn well. Even then, fires can get into the heartwood and burn out large cavities but the tree often survives.
Redwood lumber is naturally insect and rot resistant, which is why it’s used in decks and other outdoorsy stuff. A few cores each year (too small to drive through!) shouldn’t be much of a challenge to a living tree.
MikeD:
Fascinating info on nonviable seeds. Do you have any idea what it would take for the seeds to become viable? Wouldn’t they at one time have spread by seed by virtue of the fact that seeds even exist? It is my understanding that from fossil evidence it is known that the genus “Sequoia” and its close relatives once was common all over the entire northern hemisphere including Greenland, Alaska, Spitsbergen, Siberia.
Looks like a trip to the uni library may be in order for me.
Here’s another thing to worry about – when global warming destroys rainforests, there is an increased danger of dinosaurs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/8167807/Global-warming-destroyed-rainforests-300-million-years-ago.html