From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Paul Kolk
Latest junk science from the BBC:
Climate change threatens the health and survival of urban trees, with more than half of species already feeling the heat, according to a new study.
City-dwelling oaks, maples, poplars, elms, pines and chestnuts are among more than 1,000 tree species flagged at risk due to climate change.
Scientists want better protection of existing trees and for drought-resistant varieties to be planted.
Trees have cooling effects and provide shade, making cities more liveable.
Many trees in urban areas are already stressed because of climate change, and as it gets warmer and drier, the number of species at potential risk will increase, said Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez of Western Sydney University in Penrith, Australia.
City and street trees can improve physical and mental health, are important in social integration and can mitigate the effects of temperature rises – something that hit home during the pandemic, he said.
“All these benefits are mainly provided by big mature trees so we need to make sure that what we are planting today will get to that stage where they can provide all those benefits for future generations,” he told BBC News.
The researchers used the Global Urban Tree Inventory – a database recording more than 4,000 different trees and shrubs planted in 164 cities in 78 countries – to assess the likely impact of global warming on the trees planted along streets and in parks.
Of the 164 cities analysed, more than half of tree species are already at risk in some cities due to rising temperatures and changes in rainfall. And by 2050, this proportion is predicted to rise to more than two-thirds.
Climate risk for species in urban areas is particularly high in cities in tropical regions, and in vulnerable countries such as India, Niger, Nigeria and Togo.
In the UK, the researchers looked at five cities: Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, London and York.
They found that drier weather under climate change is expected to have a big impact on trees, particularly in York, London and Birmingham.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62928362
Maybe Ms Briggs might like to explain where this “drier weather” is!
https://www.ecad.eu/utils/showindices.php?b72050nfpuklf58nnc809tm4sg
Last time I checked, Kew Gardens was still very verdant:
And up here in Yorkshire, I would hardly say we are turning into the Sahara!
https://www.ecad.eu/utils/showindices.php?b72050nfpuklf58nnc809tm4sg
How much does Helen Briggs get paid to regurgitate this drivel?
I’m almost tempted to watch, just to see how they can possibly twist the evidence to support such an insane assertion.
The trees are loving the extra CO2 and when they get it, they need less water too. Ms Briggs should have a talk to the trees.
By definition wouldn’t an urban tree be one planted by a government, organization or individual? In my hometown the city planted trees in parks and along streets. Almost all Norway Maple along with some Siberian Elm(?) and others. The Elms were prone to disease and branches and large limbs would break off. Same with the Norway Maple but not nearly as bad. Now all the trees are getting old and our city foresters and university folk speak bad of them, they were the wrong trees to plant, they are prone to disease, they aren’t long lived and on and on. Of course there is no mention of how poorly the trees were attended to in the parks and others public spaces or that the trees planted along the streets were the responsibility of the homeowners. Although you’re not suppose to do anything to them without the cities approval or that some homeowners took care of their trees and some neglected them. It isn’t a tree problem or a climate problem it is a government problem. I have waited years for the urban foresters to come and trim or clean up their trees but in the end I end up doing it myself or paying an arborist to do the work I can’t. So please, spare me the trash talk about climate change and take responsibility for the piss poor job you are doing.
“There is a reasonable amount of science associated with the climate debate but all things considered, never has so much rubbish been espoused by so many people on so little evidence.”- Professor Garth Paltridge.
Agree on the junk science.
It’s like they abolished the law of photosynthesis because of the key positive contributor CO2.
It is not climate change that is the destroyer of urban trees.
If the UK is an example and Sheffield in particular, then look no further than the local council to see who is chopping down perfectly healthy mature urban trees.
NB If you are looking for who is destroying rural trees and entire forests then look no further than the EU declaring wood burning power stations are net zero and must continue to be used????
In “The Big City” to my South, the trees on the sidewalks had circular cast iron grating that allowed rain to get through to the roots. I’ve seen the same in other cities I have visited, but not always and not everywhere. The trees with adequate soil exposure seemed to do just fine.
–
Before my time there were boulevards that had a median strip down the middle with grass and trees. The trees did well in those strips and grew quite large. Then they cut down the trees and removed the median strips to create an extra lane or two for traffic. They planted trees along the sidewalks as replacements.
–
But now “The Big City” is losing trees as they are being cut down to put in new bike lanes from the extra five feet or so they get from removing the trees.
–
The trees in “The Big City” are not surviving, but it has nothing to do with Climate Change™ and everything to do with Climate Change™ policy of putting in bike lanes everywhere possible.
If city trees are having problems could it be because they are not indigenous to the cities? Where I live most of the city trees were planted by the city or the residents based on criteria other than natural selection.
They measured nothing that relates to their claimed predictions. They are forecasting disaster based on their own biases and preferred story line. Absolutely not science – this is pure propaganda from zealots with an agenda.