Who would have thought – apparently a few degrees of global warming won’t make the cold North Eastern states of America, and Eastern Canada, into blazing hot uninhabitable deserts.
Northeastern North America as a potential refugium for boreal forests in a warming climate
A future for boreal forests
Conservation under climate change presents the challenge of predicting where will be suitable for particular organisms and ecological communities in the future. D’Orangeville et al. assess the probable future range for boreal forests in eastern North America, which are expected to be subject to large temperature increases in their natural range. Using tree-ring data from many thousands of forest stands, they delineate the geographical extent of the region where tree growth responds favorably to higher temperatures and where the forest should persist at least until 2070.
Abstract
High precipitation in boreal northeastern North America could help forests withstand the expected temperature-driven increase in evaporative demand, but definitive evidence is lacking. Using a network of tree-ring collections from 16,450 stands across 583,000 km2 of boreal forests in Québec, Canada, we observe a latitudinal shift in the correlation of black spruce growth with temperature and reduced precipitation, from negative south of 49°N to largely positive to the north of that latitude. Our results suggest that the positive effect of a warmer climate on growth rates and growing season length north of 49°N outweighs the potential negative effect of lower water availability. Unlike the central and western portions of the continent’s boreal forest, northeastern North America may act as a climatic refugium in a warmer climate.
Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6292/1452
The press release;
The Most Hopeful Place On Earth For Climate Change
Eastern Canada’s black spruce forests are one of the largest untamed wilderness areas on Earth. And in refreshingly optimistic news, parts of this ecosystem are expected to flourish in a warmer world, creating a refuge for species escaping drought-stricken regions to the south and west.
That’s the conclusion of a sweeping new analysis of black spruce trees across 225,000 square miles of forest in Canada’s Quebec province. The research, published today in Science, offers clues as to how this vast ecosystem will fare under human-caused climate change. While the boreal forest’s southern and western regions are likely to struggle with drought in a hotter future, parts of eastern Canada north of the 49th parallel could see a net benefit as the growing season lengthens.
“Climactically speaking, this looks like a system that can take what we think is going to happen in the next 20 or 30 years,” Harvard ecologist and study co-author Neil Pederson told Gizmodo. “It’s hope. It’s a bright spot.”
The boreal forests of North America and Eurasia are some of the most pristine wildlands on the planet. In addition to providing habitat for dozens of charismatic animals, from moose and caribou to foxes and migratory birds, they’re a massive carbon sink, locking away hundreds of billions of tons of organic matter in their soils. That means these forests are not only a sanctuary for biodiversity, but an important regulator of global climate.
“The trees are telling us that it might not be so bad.”
Read more: http://gizmodo.com/the-most-hopeful-place-on-earth-for-climate-change-1782054245
How do they get drought from warming? I was under the strong impression that cooling was associated with droughts, not the reverse.
Since we evolved to suit the sub-tropical forests and plains of Africa surely we should be grateful that through our own efforts (supposedly) we are returning to a more ‘natural’ temperature for humans? Let’s get rid of these un-natural cold temperatures we have been having for decades and return to our proper climate! LOL
I keep saying, the global warmist freaks want another Ice Age.
But these HyperSpecialistsWithoutRealWorldKnowledgeOutsideTheirMyopicView focus with laser-like intensity and atomic force microscopy on their own specialty and calculate things to 7 figures after the decimal point – and Presto! – doom’n’gloom predictions and then…
Send more money!
I just arrived back from a weekend at the Oregon
Coast. The place we were at was loaded with driftwood; tons of huge trees down on the beaches. I wondered if it was permissible to cut them up for firewood or other useful purposes.
I guess it is, because just before leaving, a walk to a different part of the beach found the stump of a quite large conifer of some sort, that had clearly been hacked at as the stump was cut clean across, with about a 5 ft. diameter. Although the end was just plain saw cut, the tree rings, were very prominent, and I might have been able to count them on the spot.
But I took to good high res photos of the stump surface, in bright sunlight, so I will be able to use those photographs, to tell the temperature, the wind direction, the wind speed, the rainfall amount, the direction of the rainfall. All kinds of stuff I can read off that stump just like Mikey can.
I have even seen claims that you can actually tell the age of that tree from those rings. Well I guess only the living age of the tree. Maybe I can figure out how long it has been dead too.
Remember that a tree stump is a two dimensional portrait of a three dimensional object. And if it was a living tree, and you did a core drill, instead of a beheading, you will get a one dimensional sample of that three dimensional object.
There is one glitch to this. I think I mentioned that this was beach driftwood, which means it could have come from Alaska or Canada, or even from the local Oregon or Washington (even California) forests.
So I have no idea which way was north on this tree when it was a tree, instead of a stump.
Well not to worry, the ring thickness goes through at least four complete cycles, from paper thin rings, to rings almost a half inch thick, as you go around the stump.
So this tree should be amine of information just like the Yamal Charlie Brown Christmas tree, but that information will all be about some unknown place.
There’s a lot of insectile boring in about the middle of the ring count, but at the moment, I can’t tell if this was insect or bird activity way back when this was the surface of the trunk, or whether this is post mortem insectivation.
Well If I can get a look to see which is the best picture, I will try to get it to Anthony to sub for the Yamal tree.
Quite a few years back the was an article in Nat Geo, about the Bristlecone pines in the
White Mountains of California.
There’s a picture of a stump still engrounded, which was left by a researcher. He had just got a Masters degree, in botany or bology or something, and he wanted to find out how old bristle cone pines were, so being of sound mind and MS enshingled, he found what looked loke an old tree, so he cut it down with a say, and cut a slice off it, to take back to his lab. Well to his amazement, he found that this tree was around 5,000 years old, so he excitedly showed his handiwork to his peers.
In horror, they asked him if he had ever learned about core drilling, while mastering his Botanicals.
Well somewhat red of face he hied back to the white mountains, now with a nice shiny new core drill, and he started coring and boring Bristlecone pines till the cows came home.
He found lots of old BC trees up there.
He never ever found another one that came within 500 years as old as the one that now sits detrunked out there in the White Mountains.
This MS rocket scientist cut down the oldest known Bristle Cone pine tree, just by being dumber than a box of pine cones.
G
And that isn’t counting the CO2 fertilization effect.
Once again, they’ve omitted any discussion of the most important effect of increased atmospheric CO2.
Tom Yoke
June 16, 2016 at 11:37 pm
Once again, they’ve omitted any discussion of the most important effect of increased atmospheric CO2.
———————-
Probably (close to a certainty) because that is a joke, and a clear “pink unicorn”.
It is pretty clear that greenery in this planet increases only during a warming trend.
The only way to consider the CO2 as with a significant potential effect on greenery is only if CO2 causes warming and therefore causing AGW.
For the last 150 years there has being an increase of ~120 ppm but still Sahara is a dry desert place and many other places like Gobi show that desertification is still in full force .
From Wikipedia:
“The Gobi Desert is expanding at an alarming rate, in a process known as desertification. The expansion is particularly rapid on the southern edge into China, which has seen 3,600 km2 (1,390 sq mi) of grassland overtaken every year by the Gobi Desert. Dust storms, which used to occur regularly in China, have increased in frequency in the past 20 years, mainly due to desertification. They have caused further damage to China’s agriculture economy.”
Only looking in short term (from the short-term lookingglass or crystal-ball) with no any regard for long term can lead to conclusions like CO2 is causing increase of greening or increase of biomass, or that there actually is any significant greening in overall actually happening.
Looking carefully it shows that in both long term and short term it is humidity and precipitations that are the main cause of the variation in the biomass aka greenery.
There is places in Africa that clearly show that in short term. there is places there that in one season are lash watery and swampy and in the next season turn in to dry bone places, only due to humidity and nothing to do with CO2 emissions or concentrations.
In long term also all data at the best show that this planet has being going through a desertification trend during the last ~7k years of the cooling trend and still keeping on it.
There no any sign of it been halted even temporarily or stooped as supposed to have being if AGW real and happening.
Another thing, variation of ppm(s) in CO2 concentrations have no any significant effect in plants because the share of the biomass in the “river” of CO2 flux is insignificant, especially in a case of very short residence time of CO2 in atmosphere.
The plants do not even “feel” the variation of ppm(s) but do feel greatly the variation of humidity to a real point of even starvation.
There is a parallel relation and clear correlation between desertification and glaciation, in a cooling trend.
Both have a reducing impact on the biomass and greenery in overall, which makes the claimed effect and impact of CO2 concentration variation in to the biomass a joke.
Unless CO2 causes climate change, CO2 can not cause increase or decrease of the biomass, by causing blooming or starvation of it
And the reason why the AGW “science” is not very keen on it is because is very easy debunked and in return showing clearly that AGW is not happening.
From this angle is not hard to see why so much weight in short term and its terminology of “droughts” and “floods” with no any regard whatsoever of long term and it’s associated terminology of desertification.
cheers
whiten
Thanks.
I note you refer to the Great God Wikipedia, which even I can edit.
I haven’t, recently, but . . . .
The rest of your comment, I suggest, is taking longer term views – interesting, but they do sometimes miss MWPs, or Minoan Warm Periods; or Little Ice Ages, – and so on.
Me – I prefer warmth – but I am concerned that we may get coolth.
Coolth Kills.
Now I appreciate that that is the attributed [not necessarily real] motive of some of the extreme warmistas. Not all, note.
But some want a global population about 12 or 14 times that of China’s largest urban agglomeration.
See –
http://www.citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html
& which has London, little old London, at 23, with 14,400,000 people.
Auto, in little old London.
whiten; you really need to talk with all those botanists who disagree with you.
Not to mention those greenhouse owners who spend their own money to increase CO2 levels.
The real world once again disagrees with what you wish to believe.
Whiten, as Auto has already noted, you rather hilariously cited Wikipedia as an authority. The AGW alarmist politicization of Wikipedia is well known to everyone who has been paying attention.
Here are some citations that you might consider instead. Hopefully WordPress will allow me to list several. There are hundreds.
From NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Geophysical Research Letters
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tim_Mcvicar/publication/261541229_Impact_of_CO2_fertilization_on_maximum_foliage_cover_across_the_globe's_warm_arid_environments/links/00b49534c7b1a62b87000000.pdf
Geophysical Research Letters
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.7214&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Global Biochemical Cycles
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95GB02381/full
Consider that CO2 levels have increased by 40%. Long running “FACE” (Full Access Carbon Enrichment) experiments suggest that a very conservative estimate is that this has increased the planetary biosphere productivity by at least 10%.
Put this in purely human terms. Since there are 7 billion people on the earth, 700 million are now being fed by productivity increases due to CO2 fertilization.
Whiten, are you a “denier” of this very solid science?
Whiten, as Auto has already noted, you rather hilariously cited Wikipedia as an authority. The AGW alarmist politicization of Wikipedia is well known to everyone who has been paying attention.
Unfortunately WordPress will not permit multiple citations. Google “satellite greening CO2 fertilization” as an example search. There are thousands of peer reviewed papers which verify the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect.
Here is a map from NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Consider that CO2 levels have increased by 40%. Long running “FACE” (Full Access Carbon Enrichment) experiments suggest that a very conservative estimate is that this has increased the planetary biosphere productivity by at least 10%.
Put this in purely human terms. Since there are 7 billion people on the earth, 700 million are now being fed by productivity increases due to CO2 fertilization.
Whiten, do you really want to be a “denier” of this very solid science?
Since they use tree ring measurements it seems they commited the very same two “mistakes” Mann did. First, as you said, they assinged the cause of all the growth to temperature increase and none to CO2 fertilization, and second, they perceived the increase of tree ring thickness as a bad thing, when it is actually a very good thing. Trees are growing faster, That is the important fact. It is not about Gaia, Gaia is a mental construct, it is not real, it is not alive. Trees are real, they are alive, and they are growing faster. If they don´t see that, they are not ecologist or environmentalists.
Tree rings are all about how much rain, how few insects and other issues affect trees. It has very little to do with mere temperature. Every 20 years we get bug infestations where they eat everything and having lived through one such, the sound of insect pests crunching the leaves is loud! Birds get super fat eating these bugs, too.
From day one, tree experts have been very upset about ‘climate experts’ misusing tree ring data.
Trees, like just about all living things have an optimum temperature. Above that, or below that, then growth slows. If trees are above their optimum temperature, a decrease in temperature would cause an increase in tree ring size.
So even if they could prove with scientific certainty, that none of the couple of dozen other things that affect tree growth have changed, they still could not say with certainty that an increase in ring size meant the climate got warmer.
The following is a photo of a cross-sectional slice of a 60+- year old tree as denoted by the number of “tree rings” or yearly “growth rings” …… that vary in width from quite wide or thick to quite narrow or skinny ……. and you can pretty much bet that no two (2) of those “rings” are exactly the same width.
And the only thing those “tree rings” can tell you is that the years of the wide width rings were good growing years ……. and the years of the narrow width rings were poor growing years.
And you can guess why it was a good growing year ….. but there is really nothing about those “narrow growth rings” that will tell you why it was a poor growing year.
http://www.caelumobservatory.com/mlsc/treering.jpg
Yearly rainfall looks chaotic
yet there is a pattern if you put them in the hale nicholson cycles.
Tree rings do not tell the whole story!
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AihvuZiDhsg&w=898&h=505%5D
henryp said:
Now I don’t have a clue as to what “hale nicholson cycles” are …. but I do know for a fact that a tree of the same species, …. and the same age, …. that is or was growing 100 yards away from the above pictured tree ….. could very well have a completely different “ring” pattern.
And “YES”, ….. the spring/summer (growing season) rainfall could have been yearly “chaotic”.
Or the spring/summer (growing season) air temperatures could have been yearly “chaotic”.
Or the spring/summer (growing season) cloudiness could have been yearly “chaotic”.
Or an EARLY spring (growing season) could have been yearly “chaotic”.
Or a LATE spring (growing season) could have been yearly “chaotic”.
Or extreme winter temperatures harmful to the “leaf buds” could have been yearly “chaotic”.
Cheers
Somehow, I seriously doubt that the tree are going to notice even a 2°C increase. Their annual temperature ranges are far more than a few degrees of tepid temperatures.
Black Spruce researchers aka buffoons vacationing on the public dole.
I don’t doubt it (2C being noticed) at all. There is always a limit where a tree can grow. Add 2C and the treeline will start moving. How bad is that is a totally different question. IMO climatic effects are so badly swamped with other factors, like random fluctuation that you mentioned, not attributable to climatic shift, that I really have difficulties to panic. My countrymen doing forestry seem to agree with me and those who do not agree are people doing neat indoor activities with computers.
But a hair shirt vacation compared to snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef
Makes me thing of the time last summer when it was 45C and I pointed my IR thermometer at various points around the garden and recorded the highest temperature of 67C on the bitumen where the weeds seemed quite comfortable.
Don’t give the alarmists more freakouts! Now they will claim that weeds will kill us.
emsnews — Good one! — Eugene WR Gallun
“Their annual temperature ranges are far more than a few degrees of tepid temperatures.”
Yeah, but [ insert tendentious, overly-complex, buzzword-laden, nebulous, multiple dubious factor-dependant verbosity here ].
Heavenly beautiful…… 🌷
http://img-ipad.appcolt.com/img/1/8/1829-3-the-lorax-dr.-seuss.jpg
The problem is that the trees are stressed by their concern and fear of CO2 rise and they are not looking after themselves properly.
“And in refreshingly optimistic news, parts of this ecosystem are expected to flourish in a warmer world, creating a refuge for species escaping drought-stricken regions to the south and west”
How are those species going to escape? Road, rail and air? Long hikes? Teleportation?
How are those species going to escape? Road, rail and air? Long hikes? Teleportation?
Plants usually die when conditions are too harsh. Plants have two principal methods to adapt. First, they produce seeds that are spread by the species-specific manner, by wind, or using for example birds to spread them, so some of the seeds will fall into better suited place for the species, while of course some will fall in a place badly suited. Since conditions vary at very short spatial and temporal distances, the seeds don’t need to go so far in a generation.
The second way to adapt is the genetic variation. Many plant species have a polyploid set of chromosomes, so they have plenty on alleles that may express for the same locus. The ability to create genetically variable seeds is one of the primary factors that keep species vigorous. In woody plants, this of course takes time, usually from 10 to 40 years per generation, but on the other hand, plants create huge amounts of seeds to make sure each and every useful combination keeps appearing to the position seeds end up.
Animals, on the other hand, have extensions that we call legs, which they use to move around. Many animal species can move miles in a generation, even when the legs are pretty small. Some of the animals have specialised legs called wings, and they are capable of moving thousands of miles twice a year. So your suggestion about air is correct. There is also a documented case of domesticated pests called rabbits using local train to get shelter and move around, so your suggestion about rails is also right to some extent. Insects go simply by the wind.
However, if you are concerned about some mice living on island being incapable to escape, we might want to found a Rescue Patrol. I’m sure your good work would not go unnoticed.
Birds fly thousands of miles every year to deal with climate fluctuations. They returned to my mountain just the other day! Hammer the bird feeders which chickadees dominated all winter. The chickadees are really angry about all this.
So with a little bit of evolution we will see trees flying south for the northern winter.
Hugs said:
Now I liked your comment about “genetically variable seeds keeping species vigorous” simply because it reminded me of the uniqueness of Apple and Peach trees, most any Apple or Peach tree.
One might say they are both “genetically vigorous”, in the same way as are humans, because one never knows, or can even predict, ….. what a fertilized “seed” is going to produce until after it is sprouted, birthed and/or “bears fruit”.
And for those not learned on the subject, ….. if you want two or more of the same “type” of apple or peach trees …. you have to graft them. If you plant a seed from an apple produced by your favorite apple tree, ….. you will get a different “type” of apple tree everytime.
Why, via human-built, hundred billion dollar Eco-Corridors, of course, silly! Creates jobs!
Good news! This is the second recent paper correctly describing RCP8.5, the worst of the four climate scenarios used in AR5.
The standard description in papers before was a “business as usual scenario” — or just using it without description.
Still no mention of RCP8.5’s unlikely assumptions, but this is progress.
British Columbia for example covers an area approx 4 times the size of Britain that is essentially a massive
forest. Assuming you drive a Prius you could drive from south to north in a week or so and you would see
almost completely uninterrupted forest getting bigger and bigger thanks in part to that wonderful plant
food CO2 . Despite forest fires , pine beetle and humans the scale of forest and the habitat provided is
staggering in scale . Thanks to a warming world plants , forests and animals are better off . What’s so scary about that ?
There be monsters
Scary???
Why that is were Bigfoot “sightings” always occur.
eritas
Trees are doing well in cities that are up to 16 degrees hotter than the surrounding country side.
Shhh! The Greenies will become aware that the superficially thriving city trees are actually suffering in silence.
“Trees flourish and thrive in extreme temperatures and conditions”
“2. City trees face hotter temperatures than trees in nearby wooded
areas because the large amounts of asphalt and concrete absorb and
reflect heat. City temperatures are 9°F to 12°F hotter than surrounding
wooded areas”
http://www.domtar.com/files/paper/Surviving_and_Thriving_G6-8.pdf
What troubles city trees greatly is lack of water due to pavements and homes. Trees always grow much better in the countryside.
So we should look for flocks of greensheep uprooting trees in the city and moving the to the countryside to “save” them?
The above website is for children- makes you weep!
Indeed, it is enough to drive one to tears. I’m also thinking this was another study they could have done without.
Temperature going up inside the leaf used to mean (for the previous 23 million years when CO2 was below 400 ppm outside them) that O2 in solution didn’t go down the same rate CO2 in solution would. Rubisco enzyme would then increasingly engage with O2 , which meant it would “take on/breathe” oxygen in a dynamic termed photo-respiration.
Yet elevated CO2 in C3 plants, like study cited tree, has a side effect of raising Rubisco handling of CO2; which correlates as less O2 interacting with Rubisco. Plants have a pathway that serves to clear up potential reactive oxygen that is a natural byproduct of photosynthesis as light rises in the day.
MAP (Mahler ascorbate peroxidase) pathway results in electrons
shunted to O2 by a chloroplast subsystem (PS1), which could otherwise become super-oxide (reactive oxygen species), be made into H2O (instead of reactive oxygen). Trees are well adapted to long periods of dry roots; they deal with heat impacting evaporation of internal water.
Survival of the leaf is tied in to limiting the reactive oxygen potential damage to leaf cells; which is why mention MAP
neutralizes light’s electron surfeit & hydrates the cells. In addition
this trees’ leaves have substantial structural design/composition to minimize water loss from their leaf.
As for the claim this forest is better at prospering than plants elsewhere, should this have some validity, I have a further comment on that. Ideally tomorrow can find time to develop it.
I own a fair amount of forest and every 20 years, harvest it. I live on a mountain and I am amazed at how fast the trees are growing now compared to say, 1978. It is green everywhere! The entire Northeast, after our government did free trade and killed off a great deal of the farming here after a flood of farm products poured in mainly from the subsidized EU farmers, nearly all the farms up here shut down and instantly, the forests took over.
Now, our community makes its money from processing oak and other hardwoods which the world wants because it is very good wood and I am finally making money again. Trees love CO2. No longer starving.
Rising CO2 levels will lead to an epidemic of obese trees.
The situation actually is ‘boreal forests globally in severe trouble – this one area is an exception’
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/boreal-forest-being-driven-to-tipping-point-by-climate-change-study-finds-1.3198892
http://cafeblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/bs_meter.jpg
Excellent Summary!
Your comment on the science expressed at the link I gave, is that?
What about:
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-alaskan-boreal-forest-carbon-trees.html
” (researchers) found that fire frequency in a 2,000-kilometer swath of the Yukon Flats is higher today than at any time in the last 10,000 years”
Or:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150611161304.htm
shows temps are shifting the boreal forest in Alaska…
That Alarmist pseudo-science is top-drawer. Good job!
Article #1implies (but does not quantify), that there is a millennium scale reduction in carbon storage. Are you saying people are responsible for that?
Article #2 is about White Spruce specifically and states that it is spreading in some areas and retreating in others. Do you think these forests never changed before Europeans found them?
Alaskan records indicate warming since at least 1800. Did we do that?
Are you able to suppress the bias you brought to this issue and actually look at the totality of facts instead of cherry picking those that support your eco-political prejudice? The lives and well being of millions of people depend on people like you being responsible about sorting out the truth of this. That requires an open mind. You could hardly have read these articles without seeing their critical weaknesses as support for AGW. That is intellectual dishonesty.
There were zero fires in 90% of Canada, the US Northeast and Great Lakes region 20,000 years ago, too!
Mile thick ice, though, was a bit of a problem.
Studies that seek to prove things that are obviously not true, deserve no better.
Pseudo studies by propaganda groups deserve to be laughed at.
Given the fact that for the last 100 years or so, we have been fighting all forest fires and have finally wised up and stopped that nonsense, it’s hardly surprising that forest fires are up. The forests have 100 years of burning to catch up on.
The fact that a few tenths of a degree in warming has caused boreal forests to modify their boundaries is hardly surprising.
Nor is it in the least bit worrisome.
I take it that you are one of those morons who actually believes that the earth doesn’t change, unless man causes it.
Griff said:
Griff, the “shifting” of boreal forests due to changing temperatures is old, OLD news ….. that some of us have known about for many years, ….. such as, to wit:
And also this:
Griff quoted, to wit:
Griff, educate yourself on the ABSOLUTE necessity of forest fires in many locales of North America, including the Yukon and other areas in Alaska and British Columbia.
To wit:
From the CBC- so commie B.S. until proved otherwise
It says that worldwide the boreal forest is “mostly intact”
The rest is all could, might and mindless speculation.
If you really can’t see that, I despair for your ability to avoid political lies or other con artists
There’s plenty of evidence of change in boreal forests… all this WU article is doing is pointing out an exception to the rule.
Climatic refugium? Is that gonna be the new catch phrase?
Know what else the trees are telling us – make that, screaming at us? They are screaming “we want MORE CO2, not less, you morons! Oh, and BTW, what makes you pathetic creatures think you can control what the climate does? Hubris much?”
The other day, Ents were demonstrating in front of the White House demanding more CO2 or else they will grow roots and tear up the WH.
Yah, but… Ents aren’t a big enough voting bloc, so the Whitehouse thinks the Ents can be ignored or dismissed as “in the pay of Big Oil.”
(I liked your comment above about zero forest fires due to those inconvenient glaciers, emsnews. I don’t think the researchers were taking the long view, but when it comes to climate, that’s the view that really counts.)
Thank you!
Never mind the Ents, it’s those apple trees ya gotta look out for. You don’t want to get beaned by one of their apples which they will hurl viciously for almost no reason at all. They almost took out Dorothy after all.
unfortunately, there is no warming, so the increase in vegetation will end soon;
you are all just fooling yourself.
looking at the rate of change, per station (54 in total), not looking at means, but rather at minima and maxima, I find it is getting cooler, not warmer…..
Thanks for the good news on tree growth. My compost works best with leaves. Now that the rain has stop for awhile my garden is coming alive. The leaves on my grape vines have restarted sprouting, as well as the other vegetation. Lost cucumbers and the actual grapes themselves from too much rain.
Now the roots are driving deeper, this will increase nutrient uptake to the plants and tree leaves for a better compost for winter crop.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/2525+Cemetery+Rd,+Santa+Fe,+TX+77517/@29.4048942,-95.1152732,203m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x8640816457822d97:0xa20960b9b9e5626d!8m2!3d29.404893!4d-95.114699
old view but still growing
Spring was quite late this year and now, just this last week, we have active sunspot activity plus good old CO2 and my trees are growing at a mad, mad rate and are very pleased with all this. And the wild turkey chicks have hatched and are marching behind mom and dad while eating insects…and the other wild birds are outside my window, quarreling over the bird feeders.
Enough to give a global warmist a heart attack.
Surely though, there must be a polar bear floating on an iceberg somewhere they can latch onto. I mean, they must not lose all hope!
A real heart attack, or a computer model of a heart attack?
The biggest threat to those forests pictured in the post is the spruce budworm infestation. And once again, it is a cyclical phenomenon, though they will try to link it to global warming.
“Scientists are investigating how climate change may be influencing a spruce budworm outbreak in Quebec’s forests.
An area the size of Belgium on Quebec’s North Shore is now affected by the highly destructive insect, which feeds on the young needles of white, red and black spruce and balsam fir trees.
Spruce budworm populations go through cyclical fluctuations and reach outbreak proportions once every 30 to 40 years, leading to widespread defoliation and massive losses for the forest industry.
The spruce budworm population in Quebec has been steadily increasing since 2006, and more than 3.2-million hectares of forest have been affected.
The federal government has invested $6 million to control the outbreak in Quebec.” CBC News
So let me get this straight. The unspoken message is to prepare to go North? Now what could go wrong with that idea?????
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Yep. The North will be the perfect escape. For who or what I can’t imagine.
Go south, go south
2014 was the end of the last gleissberg cycle
2016-87 = 1929
you know what happened 1932-1939?
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
Go west young man.
Why go west?
Henry, look at the 60-66 year cycle and you will find that the atmospheric cycle that caused it has just past. The currents that drive the gulf up through Texas started to dissipate in 2006. Thus the 7-11 year cycle has come to an end. Look at the early 40’s for the up coming weather. I have begun looking at the military information to try and get more on what the weather was like after the dust bowl.
I disagree. The Gleisberg is more persistent.
look at tables II and III
clearly there is a 80-100 weather cycle, that is determined by the [type of] energy-out from the sun.
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
Henry, Thank you. This is great information. But with all cycles they will fluctuate. I believe that the same cycle in the 1930’s weather pattern has just pasted. In the fact that here in Galveston county Texas I spent 4-6 hours a day during 07 through 12 or 13 during many periods throughout the spring and summer seasons trying to keep plants watered. The rain patterns prior have seemed to come back with a vengeance. I will keep reading to improve my knowledge.
Thank you for all you do.
Because if they went east, they would fall into the Atlantic.
They just couldn’t help themselves though, switching to CAGW mode towards the end. Like clockwork!
The London Plain tree is an interesting case of man, nature and luck getting together to produce a hybrid able to withstand some harsh conditions
The Secret History Of The London Plane Tree
Once again skeptics are proven correct.
If they looked at old tree rings, did they happen to notice the preserved tree stumps now reappearing from under the ice in Alaska and northern Canada? I wonder what their explanation is for that, in this “warmest ever” world.
@ Tom in Texas
I know the (last 43 years) Gleisberg from my own data on maxima and minima
(as shown earlier on this thread)
looking at rainfall is also interesting, chaotic year-to-year, yet it [always] works like the pendulum of a clock
But, but but —- what about them cute little rat thingies on the tiny island barely above sea level…?? Oh yeah… they all drownd’ed. As white-coated specialists in endangered species watched and counted down to zero, gleefully anticipating the demise for its publicity value.
“We shall avenge your death.”
“This is taking too long.”
“Get off my leg!”
“Now little fella don’t struggle, just let it happen.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nn8YubD01sk
But perhaps Eccles’ “l talk to the trees: that’s why they put me away” is more appropriate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e61uC-5s9VU
There are no inductive inferences.
Karl Popper
@MarkW
going west or east is dumb
going south is smart
during the coming cooling period
go figure
Going south in a cooling period is only smart if you live in the Northern hemisphere. It might surprise you to learn that not everyone does.
Howdy
yes it is true
i who live in the SH should move north towards the equator
glad to know somebody knows what to do when the big drought starts.
@Samuel
I am convinced that rainfall (water) is the dominant factor that would influence tree growth.
You can believe what you want, but your story of great differences between trees standing 100 yards apart is hard to accept.
if you want to learn about solar cycles, there is no easy way.
It is a long way to Tipperary…
@ HenryP
In many locales, rainfall is a dominant factor, …… but is really unimportant in other locales.
Tree growth does not depend on any rainfall ….. iffen those trees are growing at a Desert Oasis, …. or growing on the “flatland” of a river channel with their roots in the “water table” ….. or growing on the banks of a lake, river, stream or pond,
HenryP, I can only offer you “the FACTS”, …. it’s your option to believe or not believe them to be true.
A tree out in “the open” will grow faster than multiple trees in a group.
Mineral nutrients in the soil can be different 50 to 100 yards apart.
Soil moisture decreases as elevation increases, …. thus a tree growing 50 to 100 yards up on top or on the side of a hill DO NOT HAVE ACCESS to as much ground moisture as do the trees growing down-slope or at the bottom of the hill.
Trees that are growing in “the shade” of hills, mountains, buildings or the canopy of other trees …. for a portion of every day … do not grow as fast as a similar tree that is not “shaded”. The morning Sunshine never strikes the trees growing on the Western side of a hill until the afternoon. And the trees growing on the Eastern side of the hill gets no direct Sunshine during the afternoon.
And HenryP, just what makes you think I need to “learn about solar cycles”? Or was that just an “ad lib” for lack of something knowledgeable to say?
So
compare tree rings of trees at same altitude and latitude….
going south in a period of global cooling makes sense to me
you tell me why
@ HenryP
I am not sure what you are asking me to tell you.
Anyway, my learned opinion (given my AB in Biological Science which included Botany) is, …. the use of “growth rings” as proxy data for determining past weather or climate conditions of hundreds to thousands of years BP (Before Present) is little more than an act of futility on the part of the researcher.
HenryP, ‘click’ this hyperlink and read about the Science of “growth ring” dating, ….. Dendrochronology
But don’t get too excited when you read where it states …… “used to determine certain aspects of past ecologies (most prominently climate)” ….. simply because 1 or 2 or a few ancient timbers, that no one knows where they were timbered at, makes for a highly questionable “climate guessing” game.
Dear Sam
I appreciate your comments and they do make great sense to me.
I know a lot about chemistry and about stats.
Your comments tell me exactly what the problem is –
which I faced as well when putting together my own graphs of global minima and maxima:
you have to design a very specific sampling procedure if you want to make the tree rings tell you something important.
perhaps, like me, it would help if you balanced your (tree) samples to zero latitude and a certain altitude and look only at the [average] rate of changes in size per annum?
Unfortunately that is already 3 parameters, which is one too many.
@Sam
perhaps to further clarify:
my sample of weather stations here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/16/claim-the-trees-are-telling-us-it-might-not-be-so-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-2239042
is balanced on latitude (to zero)
I figured longitude would not matter as long as we looked at the change per annum
I remember having an argument with Anthony about the validity of the graph as altitude was excluded as a factor.
I think in my case, altitude does not matter as long as we look at the rate of change, which is an absolute figure.