0
0
votes
Article Rating
California trees 'smart response' to drought
89 Comments
October 20, 2014 8:09 am
I live in the middle of a second growth Redwood forest in the coastal mountains of California near the bay area. None of the young trees are shedding any needles. The older ones (this area was logged about 125-150 years ago) have been shedding needles and even small sub branches. Overall though their health is fine and I have been amazed at the amount of young sprouts (clones) along the bases of the middle aged trees.
October 20, 2014 9:45 am
The company selling Subarus in the US has a magazine called Drive. The fall edition has an article by Jason Frye titled Goliaths From Another Age – Coast Redwoods.
The opening line mentions “fog.”
The 2nd page of the article mentions some of the things that grow on the trees up there in the fog, including huckleberries and a 40-foot western Hemlock.
http://www.drive.subaru.com/fall14-redwoods.aspx
October 20, 2014 10:10 am
Practically every giant sequoia currently alive survived two droughts of longer than 100 years. We haven’t really even had a “three year drought”, we have had three years of below “average” rainfall. That is not a drought. Years with below average rainfall are just as frequent as years with above average rainfall, Years of EXACTLY average rainfall are rare. Going back over hundreds of years, this “drought” is nothing. We had a six year drought in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s and every single one of those trees survived it.
October 20, 2014 10:24 am
Another spin of observations to fit the human caused climate change belief system.
Increasing CO2 helps plants to be more drought tolerant.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
If you want a sneak peek of what CO2 will do to plants in the future, go to this link and view the data from hundreds of studies that show the effects of elevated CO2 on plants. Go to the “plant growth data base”
http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php
Photosynthesis:
Sun + H2O + CO2 = Food/Sugars + O2
Sun +H2O +(more)CO2 = (more)Food/Sugars +O2
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm
Amazing how the beneficial effect of CO2 to plants, can be twisted into causing the exact opposite using speculation. Who could deny photosynthesis and why would it not be included in any impartial/objective discussion related to plants/trees and increasing CO2?
A reduction in the number of stoma that need to be open all the time on the leaf CAN reduce the amount of moisture required by the plant by a small fraction.
I’d point out that the plant producing more sugars is specious since the plant produces “as much sugar” as the sun allows in an environment that has CO2 above median availability. If you want to talk CO2 and Sunlight, just look up crop and sunlight data from maple syrup farming. An industry hundreds of years old with hundreds of years of records – some kept on a daily basis – might be interesting research for someone ACTUALLY interested in Climatology.
October 20, 2014 10:40 am
So the Giant Sequoia is smart enough to *adapt* to changes in its environment by shedding high-maintenance/low-productivity foliage and maintaining only the more productive foliage that gets more sunlight. It would appear that the vegetation in California is more intelligent that the research ecologists.
October 20, 2014 12:07 pm
The subfamily Sequoioideae (consisting of giant sequoia, redwood, and metasequoia) has been around for at least 150 million years. They’re Jurassic. Dinosaurs used to munch on them, back when the Earth was 20+ degrees warmer.
If anything has impacted the distribution of Sequoioideae, it has been the Pleistocene Ice Ages, global mega-cooling, continental glaciations, etc.
Warmer is Better for sequoias.
PS – a typical giant sequoia tree produces upwards of half a million viable seeds per year, which is bio-ironic since any organism that lives for 3,000 years is not all that desperate to reproduce. Some folks (call them what you wish) would like to see the ancient giants burned to the ground so that seedlings will thrive, but IMHO that is perverse idiocy.
Interesting, those metasequoias. Thought to have been extinct until a remnant population was found in Sichuan Province, China, in 1941. The “Dawn Redwood” is its common name. Well, we are about climate and the Dawn Redwood is germane because there are fossils of this tree from Ellsmere Island at near 80 N Latitude (!) from the Eocene. Consider this and you will come to understand that “we” _understand_ very little about climate and the processes that shape climate. CO2? Pffffttt!
October 20, 2014 4:24 pm
“Scientific procedure” often reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. I could easily come up with “proof” that the area I live in (coastal mountains of northern California) is experiencing exceptional warming/cooling/drought/precipitation/decline of flora & fauna/increase in flora & fauna. Pick one. My response will depend upon the place, season, time of day and personal expectations.
Today, for instance, I can confidently report that there is no drought in California, because looking out my window I can see that it is raining and there is water running in the gutter. However, the deer population has somehow drastically diminished in the last 24 hours, as there are none currently visible from where I stand, whereas yesterday I saw several throughout the day.
I think that about sums up climate “science.”
P.S. The coastal redwoods depend far more upon fog & dew than measurable precipitation. Otherwise they would have died out in this region long ago…
Editor
October 20, 2014 9:18 pm
Has he never looked at the forest floor? Covered in needles. Sometimes very think. Where does he think they come from? Was there a drought then? Sigh.
Sure, it may drop more in a drought. Or because they were old. Or shaded now. Or… Leaping to the idea this is an adaptation to Global Warming is perverse.
October 21, 2014 12:46 am
Sequoia are amazing! It is just utterly awesome that any single living thing can be three and a half thousand years old! Wow. The world is an amazing place, and anybody who thinks we know all there is to know about this planet is suffering from delusional arrogance.
P.S. Note to my American Cousins – I am a First Nation Briton, a Gael, and I do not use the word awesome lightly #;-)
October 21, 2014 4:32 am
We could easily end all droughts in the USA just by taking water from where it is plentiful and getting it to where it is needed. LA, New York city and Boston already get their water from many miles away so all we have to do is ramp that up.
That will create jobs, which is something else the USA needs.
It’s all about cost. There will never be a shortage of water on Earth, just a shortage of cheap abundant clean water. Increasing energy costs will tend to make abundant and cheap water all the more a distant memory in many places.
In CA, 25% of the cost of providing municipal water is in the cost of energy. Energy prices up, costs up. Delivering water over 3000 miles will cost more, much more. At some point, desalinization may make sense. Today it does not for most areas.
There is a lot of area where efficiency can be increased. There are perhaps 5000 small rural water districts in CA serving less than 1000 homes. Most of these systems with multiple pumps do not monitor energy used per volume of water used. Often times, the most efficient pumps are not moving most of the water. And – most systems are demand based, and pump when tank or reservoir levels require water. Pumping intelligently, navigating around peak energy cost periods favors 13c/kWH over the 44c/kWh. The problem is that typical SCADA (supervisory control and data data acquisition) systems are too costly for the small water districts. Think $100K to $400K. I work with a technology that can achieve efficient pumping and monitoring, with remote control for 5 to 10% of the price of SCADA.
Joe G:
If you choose to use wind and solar, please do so. All you want.
But do NOT require the rest of the working taxpayers to pay for your hobbies of wind and solar.
Desalinization can be efective, but only in limited areas for what amounts to emergency supplies only. It is just too expensive to desal enough water to supply as many as wants fresh water. Cheap fresh water, that is.
Now, when the public wants to spend enough for bath water by buying little plastic bottles at the store …
Long distance, cross-country pipes pumping horizontally (no mountain ranges!) make sense only when water prices get to the $100.00 per barrel range.
Now, they (city water prices) are are the order of cents per acre-foot: 25.00 per month per 1000 cubic feet.
Or $25.00 per 2374 “barrels” of water.
Or $0.0105 per barrel….
Now, to pump “up” from the 900 foot elevation at Kansas up to the continental divide, then down to the Utah and Nevada desert basins, then “up” across the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges … That’s about the same distance and difficulty as building the transcontinental railroad …
To RACookPE: Please don’t dismiss wind and solar as viable alternatives to toxic fossil fuel and nuclear power sources. Had the former been subsidized as long and as heavily as the latter (thanks to the magnanimity of “working taxpayers”), renewable alternatives would be making full-scale contributions to our power supply by now.
The key to sustainable and reliable energy—as reliable as anything can be on this volatile globe anyway—is to use what is most readily available for the least amount of cost and environmental damage on a region by region basis. In many areas that would mean more than one source. We have been heating our household water supply with solar panels for the last thirty years. Our unsubsidized-by-your-tax dollars “hobby” has saved us a heap of cash with very little maintenance. We are in a heavily wooded area without enough direct sunlight to keep photovoltaic cells charged, otherwise we would be using PV for all or part of our household electricity.
Besides being indoctrinated into believing that alternative energy sources are inadequate for the task, our society is afflicted with the dogma that some distant central agency has the right to control our power supply. Yes, they do maintain “wind farms” and solar arrays, those unnatural industrial monocultures spread over hundreds of acres, but that is just another example of how government backed corporations “manage” natural resources and claim to be “green.” Do we really need or want Big Brother to control the source, delivery means, infrastructure and pricing of our energy? Like kept animals it’s easier—nothing to think about until the power goes out or the decaying (PG&E San Bruno) gas lines erupt…
Sorry for the long post, but I am sick of hearing the false mantra “wind and solar can’t supply our society with enough energy” repeated ad nauseam. They can make a large contribution and without the danger of nuclear meltdowns!
P.S. In regards to the elaborate and costly scheme of moving water from places of abundance to locales that have no business trying to support large urban populations—Los Angeles and Las Vegas come to mind—that has been the basis for wars and invasions for millennia. It is also the elaborate house of cards that southern California has been living in for the last century. If SoCal were forced to rely on its own locally sourced water exclusively, L.A. would become a ghost town in short order. There are more intelligent and less invasive ways to manage human habitation while maintaining a high quality of life.
October 22, 2014 1:24 pm
Dr. Paul Mackey October 21, 2014 at 12:46 am
P.S. Note to my American Cousins – I am a First Nation Briton, a Gael, and I do not use the word awesome lightly #;-)
I am of celtic origin too but that makes us the second nation since the ‘ancient britons’ were there before the celts. 😉
Marilynn,
We have technology, and we h ave fossil fuels. So we don’t need slaves.
To see what those are worth: put your car in neutral, shut off the engine, and then push it about twenty miles down the road. Then explain what a $4 gallon of gas is really worth.
And alternative power doesn’t come close to the low cost and efficiency of fossil fuel power.
Yes dbstealey… that’s a good point. A well fed human can do about 1kWh a day worth of labor. Some states have energy as cheap at 9 cents per kWh, so for about a dime worth’s of energy per day, an entire human slave’s work can be replaced.
Marilynn: You are dearly confused. Yes – solar hot water heating is fairly efficient. But you are way off base with your idea of subsidies. I don’t understand how people can be so fooled.
A subsidy means something very specific. You have been duped into thinking a tax return is the same as a subsidy.
For Solar companies, there all sorts of subsidies, for green energy:
1) the Feed In Tarrif (that all rate payers chip in to subsidize the extra cost to utilities when they have buy the solar energy at higher rates).
2) the 30% rebate check people get for buying solar.
3) the money given to solar and wind power companies
4) Green Loans and grants
5) absolutely huge Carbon Credits
But that you people call a tax write off a subsidy, shows you don’t understand what you are talking about. The write off lets the company get some of THE MONEY THEY EARNED back.
Put another way, oil companies are not given other people’s money. Green companies are given other people’s money.
The entire prosperity the US enjoyed could not have been possible without cheap abundant energy. Without the oil and fossil fuels you hate so much, we’d be a 3rd world country.
It would have been impossible for people like you to have solar since it would not exist today without funding.
October 25, 2014 12:25 am
Good grief, I guess I took a potshot at the god of fossil fuel and the devotees are irate.
Please don’t insult me with comments like “you are dearly confused,” “you have been duped into thinking,” “fossil fuels you hate so much,” and “people like you” wouldn’t have solar. Do you really think I am that stupid?
If you are not aware that the petroleum industry has been and continues to be subsidized, then YOU are the one who has been duped and I have nothing more to say. Ciao
[Shakes her head and walks away…]
Definition of potshot. “a criticism, especially a random or unfounded one.”
So you know your statement is unfounded. I am not the one who called you stupid. It seems that insult was self inflicted.
I can see that argue quoting bumper sticker slogans. This tactic always leaves people irritated because they don’t understand the foundation of the slogans they spew. You do not seem to know what the word subsidy means as applied in business. I explained it to you, because I felt you made an unfounded statement. Then you came along and said as much.
October 25, 2014 12:52 am
Marilynn in NorCal October 25, 2014 at 12:25 am:
You say all sorts of things without having perspective. You wrote “Sorry for the long post, but I am sick of hearing the false mantra “wind and solar can’t supply our society with enough energy”
Well, check out which two industrialized nations have the first and second highest electricity costs in the world.
Denmark enjoys the number one highest electricity costs in the world. They also have the most wind turbines installed per capita.
Germany has the second highest costs for electricity. They also have the most PV solar panels per capita. So guess what Germany, who used to be hailed as a model for all countries, is doing now to combat high electricity costs? They have been building many new coal plants. They also use brown coal which is dirtier than black coal.
People have the opportunity to learn from very costly mistakes. So instead of getting irritated and sick, maybe you could learn that what you claim is IMPOSSIBLE. Maybe that’s what gets you saying unfounded things.
October 25, 2014 1:06 am
Marilynn in NorCal October 25, 2014 at 12:25 am:
++++++++++
You should know that Oil and Gas companies pay 43% of their revenue in total taxes. They pay about 25% of their revenue to the Federal government. The Federal corporate tax rate is 35%. So, instead of the full corporate tax rate of 35%, their deductions help reduce their burden to 25%. You call this a subsidy. In this case, they are getting some of THE MONEY THEY EARNED back.
They are NOT subsidized (given other peoples’ money) as you said. You should know this before you blather on with pot-shots.
Solar and Wind companies are given money taken from tax payers. They are a net drain on societies wealth. They guarantee higher energy prices. PV solar panels are toxic and will never be non toxic. There would be so much poison material in land fills if they were a significant source of electricity. And you would be screaming bloody murder when you had to freeze to death in the winter or sweat to death in the summer because you would not be able to afford the hugely expensive energy prices. More poor people would simply dies as a result of your unfounded advice.
Attacking industries that are responsible for energizing our country with low cost abundant energy, with false or misleading statements is nasty. So I’ve come to give you some information. Don’t take my word for it, I assume you want to know truth. I gift it to you.
Instead of stressed-out plants, he found young trees that looked pretty happy, he said. But at some point, he glanced upward and saw something startling.
“The foliage had died back on a much larger sequoia above me,” said Stephenson, a sequoia authority who works for the U.S. Geological Survey. “It’s not happening to all of them, but there is a subset of bigger trees showing stress. It makes sense, but it surprised me a little.”
The brown needles on a 3,000-year-old tree are a smart response to drought, Stephenson said. The trees dump their old foliage when they get drought-stressed and focus on new growth.
But the bigger takeaway: Nature may hold a few surprises as the climate warms this century for giant sequoias and other plants and animals. California’s intense drought is giving scientists a valuable sneak peek.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/10/18/4184871_giant-sequoias-may-surprise-us.html?sp=/99/217/&rh=1#storylink=cpy