Cold temps and Pine Beetles
Elk
I had a biologist tell me several years ago, the reason for the beetle infestation, is due to not getting enough consecutive days of sub zero temps.
With the record breaking cold front, can anyone confirm or deny this be the case?
It helps but early fall and late spring freezes are better for killing them. In mid winter they have high alcohol levels in them which acts like anti-freeze.
maybe liver damage........
In BC , we used to have about a two week cold snap, every January, with sustained temps of under minus 30 Celsius which killed the beetles. Warmer temps and an extremely lackluster response to the first invasions cost us millions of trees.
It helped here in Michigan with the ash borers a few years ago. Hoping this current cold spell kills some more. I actually have some ash trees growing vigorously and several recovered after the cold we had a few years back.
Craig
Every invasive pest that arrives and makes a nuisance of itself, it said to be propagating by " climate change"...Well , if that's true, the opposite should also be true, we should be rid of ash borer and beetles come summer of 2021....we'll see if that happens.
Hint: We have spruce bark beetles in Alaska!
Pete
Yes, and our beetle-march was halted here in NoCo a few years ago by just such a cold snap. But it has to happen at just the right time, as Glunt explained.
Fire also does a great job of knocking them back, but Smokey the Bear sort of ended that practice, which then created millions of dead trees, which in turn created massive fuel sources for the fires we have now. And when the beetles were ravaging, the "scientists" assured us that fires wouldn't burn as hot or dramatically in beetle-killed forests so there was no need to do preemptive mitigation. Except they were WAY wrong. Believe the science.
This cold definitely helps us with the ash borers. Obviously it's not going to get rid of them, but it can really set them back. I don't mind this cold if I know it's helping to save some of our ash trees for the time being.
Beetle infestation is also due to lack of fires. They do the job that fires should. But we suppress fires so much the forest gets sick
"...which then created millions of dead trees, which in turn created massive fuel sources for the fires we have now."
That's simply not true. Whether a tree is beetle-killed dead, or live standing and extremely dry due to hotter and drier conditions, does not change the amount of forest fuel in the way that many seem to think. In fact, studies are showing that beetle-killed areas are not as prone to causing crowning fires in live trees. The moisture content in live trees, and wind, contribute to more destructive crowning fires. And that makes sense if you take a minute to consider that once a beetle-killed tree looses its needles, it has LESS fuel than when it was alive.
Our recent fires had more to do with longer fire seasons due to climate conditions than the beetle-kill. But the beetle-kill is also due to warming temperatures not killing as many bugs as they over-winter in the trees. Either way, a warming climate is the ultimate cause.
"Believe the science." Indeed.
I hope this recent Okie Polar Express (-14 last night) kills off a few ticks. I'm getting to think that cold weather effects on insects is a myth.
"studies are showing that beetle-killed areas are not as prone to causing crowning fires in live trees."
Thats simply not true. According to the USDA studies of the 2020 fires, forests with significant beetle kill are MORE prone to producing crowning fires. Beetle kill is also more prone to spotting fires out ahead of the main fire. Less fuel from needle drop, but much more combustible fuel because a beetle killed tree has 10x less moisture than a live tree, according to USDA scientists.
Interesting that someone whose entire career was dependent upon carbon forcing into the atmosphere is now a climate alarmist after retiring.
Areas north of Fairbanks and above the Arctic Circle had beetle kill when I drove the Dalton Highway this past August. Routinely the temperatures there without adding the wind chill factor are in the -40 and colder. I am going to venture out that the beetles probably bore deeper or that temperature alone is not a major detriment to them.
Really Lou? Do you think that if I hadn't been a pilot, there would have been fewer air miles flown? And what does that have to do with the subject? My career as a pilot DID put me in a position to not only have to study and observe weather, but also to see the changes over decades. It also let me see dramatically, the increasing sprawl of human development.
Anyway, here is a quote from National Forest Service research: "Single-age stand conditions and warm climate patterns have led to a large-scale outbreak of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) throughout the Rocky Mountain West. Once infested, trees die, and their needles turn red. Scientists have debated the effect these beetle-killed trees might have on fire behavior, but little is yet known. For example, beetle-killed trees lose their needles over time, and once all the needles have dropped, crown fire danger largely disappears."
While dead trees may ignite and burn more easily, unless there has been significant new growth, they don't increase the amount of fuel available than before they died.
As to low temps killing pine beetles; they are more susceptible in the fall and spring to freezing temps. Mid-winter temps have to be below -30º F for 5 days to have much of an effect according to CSU studies.
Yep, John Kerry and Al Gore can see all those things from their private jets too. Seems like if you truly cared about the alleged effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, your conscience would have led you to quit and become an electric Uber driver. But I guess everyone can rationalize....
Your quote is from an old paper unrelated to any actual studies, hence the disclaimer "little is yet known". The link I posted is from numerous studies done following the fires. heavily beetle killed forests this past summer. Scientists debated it previously and some even maintained the fires would be less catastrophic in beetle killed forests, and reduce crowning. They now know that is not the case.
Oh Lou just bitter old guy trying to virtue signal....remember this is the guy that wrote a rambling post on how we all should get checked daily for Covid.... ignoring how that might actually work... the idea of it seemed noble...and for a lefty that's enough...I know your a smart guy so tie part of you brain behind your back it just be fair...
Ash trees do not recover from EAB
A cold snap will not have any meaningful impact on the progression of EAB
Any kind of dead timber burns much hotter and much longer than a live tree will and that is what creates the problem. Even if a living stand has a crown fire, the fire is much less intense and many of the trees will survive since they are fire adapted to sustain short bursts of heat from fire.
Lou, there you go again using actual observed results! Don't you know it is much more better to go with a hypothesis and call it science?
I hope the cold has some impact but it's doubtful. Same for our exploding tick numbers in PA and now NE Ohio.
I was a practicing forester/land and resource manager for 21 years. I’m still a registered professional forester. I’m not taking wildfire advice from a retired pilot. Because there’s a good chance he’s wrong.
Cold weather isn’t going to kill the ash borer or the beetles responsible for the vast devastation in the western USA. It might slow them down. But, that’s all it’s going to do. The biggest influence in stopping the infestation in the coniferous forests of the west is fire. Fire will indeed kill them off like the plague. Both of them. Along with most other similar parasitic relationships in forests. But, cold weather unless months and months long, won’t.
So let's be consistent. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry own a private jet. Trump, on the other hand, had a B727 converted to a plush private jet from 1997 - 2011, when he replaced it with a B757 until 2017. Then he used a B747 like a private jet to go from his work place in DC to his resort in Florida nearly every weekend.
But studies have concluded that one person driving a car is responsible for the same amount of green house gases as he would as a passenger in a jet that is 80% full over the same distance. And you would have a tough time driving some of the routes I flew.
But you will, no doubt, give me shit, and Trump a pass. And the economy would grind to a halt without pilots.
Kerry does have a private jet. When questioned about the hypocrisy he replied, "Its the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle".
I stand corrected about Fat Albert. No private jet, but he has a carbon footprint 34X an average American. But that's ok, because the left doesn't have to do what they want to force others to do.
I don't care about Trump's plane, because like John Kerry, he was traveling the world for a higher calling.
And all those people you flew around? They could have all driven to their destinations in electric vehicles and saved the planet from destruction in (now) 10 years. Every time you flew me to San Jose I was paralyzed with guilt the whole trip, and I'msure you were too. So really, you were sort of an enabler. The bus driver on the highway to hell. ;-)
I have carbon credits for sale. $50/ton. For a couple grand anyone feeling guilty can wash their hands of their sins for a while.
The point is Trump is not going around bitching about global warming bs on one hand, while burning tons of fossil fuel on the other. The other 2 morons mentioned are. What a yutz
It's very simple. Beetle killed trees produce hot dry fuel that burns extremely fast in hot fires. The needles on the ground in beetle killed areas can and are 6" to 8" deep, fuel that burns very hot and fast. There is a big difference in a fire in a beetle killed area compared to a fire in a green healthy forest. If you've ever seen and heard a fire roaring in a beetle killed area, you'd understand. And you'll understand how a green tree a hundred yards away can just explode into fire from the hot heat. The fires in beetle killed areas sterilize the soil because of the heat from the fire. This is why several areas in beetle killed fires aren't growing anything years after the fire. When walking in areas after a hot fire, the top soil will be white upwards to a foot and a half down, sterilized.
I met some U of Wyo researchers last summer who were studying sterilized soil in a beetle killed forest, still barren three years after the fire. This is not how soil behaved in green forest fires and they were surprised that nothing was growing. When the wind blew it was black smoke.
Where I live, the Cameron Peak fire burned both. In the non beetlekill areas, green grass was sprouting in October while the fire was still burning east. Long ridges of green timber are unburned. In much of the beetle- killed/deadfall forest, the soil is glazed and may not recover for decades.
Knifeman gets points for using the word “yutz” I haven’t heard that in 40 years.
I think we need clear-cuts designed as fire breaks in some areas. The clear cuts in my spot turned basically miles of thick lodgpole stands with very little grass or browse into a patchwork of cover and feed. The elk numbers improved.
Plus, we can make a little money off the timber instead of watching it turn to ash and consume people's homes (which requires more wood to rebuild) when it takes off.
I do too Glunt. But, liberal policy that favored world development of timber markets, versus the American market, has ensured the demand for the vast timber reserves on National Forest property, stand to old age and become bird food. Instead of contribute to American growth and prosperity created by harvesting a renewable natural resource on our own soil.
There is little wander why we Americans will never reclaim those rights again. Because too much money has been spent to feed the blind sheep into believing something as absurd as science is proving global warming. It’s just arrogant to assume we have the ability to make that claim as the truth.
Never mind their often overlooked intentions don’t cover their own actions. It’s intended only for the common folk they look to rule. With legislation if need be. But, so far that hasn’t proven necessary. Because half of us are dumber then a rock and gullible for a cause to feel good about that requires no real exertion. Other then preaching down to the lowly fools beneath their self proclaimed mental prowess.
“ Believe the science.”
Therein lies the hope, Lou. Good science recognizes when it sent things FUBAR and learns from mistakes.
Glunt, USFS has recommended mosaic clearcuts as the preferred method going forward. My wife is working with them and several other agencies on a mitigation plan for our community and the surrounding NF.
“ Believe the science.”
Therein lies the hope, Lou. Good science recognizes when it sent things FUBAR and learns from mistakes.
You guys should know better than to argue with Ziek he's smarter then everyone. Did he honestly say that John Kerry doesn't have a private jet? Ha that's almost as funny as his hypocritical a&# taking his wife mountain lion hunting after voting for Polis.
Technically sheik is correct only a moron owns a jet. Kerry qualifies in the moron department but You form a leasing company that buys the jet and you rent it from the leasing company. Kerry is a moron of staggering proportions but I bet he has good accountants.
“ Federal Aviation Administration records reportedly indicate that the family of John Kerry, the Biden administration’s top environmental policy adviser, owns a private jet.
The FAA's registry shows a Gulfstream Aerospace jet owned by Flying Squirrel LLC — the name previously reported for Teresa Heinz Kerry's private charter jet company, Fox News reported. The company's listed address matches of the Heinz Family Foundation, the news outlet reported.
According to FAA records, the jet's registration certificate was issued in July of 2005 and expires in October of 2023.
The Guardian has reported that private jets have been estimated to emit up to 40 times as much carbon per passenger as commercial flights.
During his 2004 presidential run, Kerry's campaign made 60 payments to his wife's charter jet company, totaling $273,171, the New York Post reported at the time. And in 2013, his executive branch personnel financial disclosure showed Kerry owning "over $1,000,001" in assets for "Flying Squirrel LLC" through his wife.”
The Leftist here just can’t stop lying. Especially when trying to defend a ludicrous position.
Own it, charter it, whichever. My kids are working through getting an education on Zoom. Think how many more climate battles can be fought in a week of Zoom meetings with other governments vs one trip to Paris on a private jet where you stay at luxurious hotels, eat wildly expensive food, shake a few hands and commit millions of our tax dollars to ridiculous climate programs.
I think I read somewhere that the pine beetles only attack the old and sick trees, and they do not bother the younger, healthier trees, thus insuring the forest stays healthy. Seemingly, it is nature's way of handling such adverse conditions. I don't know if it is true or not.
It hit hard here. It does spare young trees but millions of healthy mature trees were lost. Mature trees have the tissue and sugars the beetles need to thrive.
Unfortunately, survival rates of seedings are way lower after an infestation. The mature trees in a healthy forest increase fungi and nutrients in the soil the seedlings use.
Logging is the best thing for the forest and the creatures that live there... I also think they have done studies that say open areas increase the snowpack IMHO
I admit I missed that. John doesn't actually own the jet, it's in his wife's name. Same thing though. But at least the carbon footprint of a Gulfstream is minute compared to a B727, or B757. "...private jets have been estimated to emit up to 40 times as much carbon PER PASSENGER as commercial flights". But I understand Knifeman's point. As long as you deny and lie about reality, I guess that justifies ignoring it.
It seems to me that the issue of Pine beetle mortality in western pines is just a little different than John Kerry's Learjet travel. I have no idea how many are going with him in his jet, and if it is more carbon efficient than hop-scotching around making connections, so he can be in his meeting in Iceland or not. I am sure Fox and Friends will be glad to give me their unbiased opinion. That said, I am familiar with forest management, and would like to see see more proactive management of our national forests. Just standing back and waiting to put our wildfires is not pro-active and will continue to lead to more and more burned over land. As a Forest Service employee, working a career in timber management, I can say I have dealt with some cantankerous loggers. Some tried to get away with about anything they thought they could, but I have not dealt with one that was as hard to control, and damaging to the land as some of the wildfires we are seeing. Pine beetles are a symptom of the condition the forests are in.
I couldn't agree more swede. I have suggested the same thing to our local Fire department and the Forest Service rep I work with in my forest management program. If they had better incentives for landowner's to manage their properties, perhaps more would. The money spent before a fire would surely help offset the cost of fighting a fire. The slight tax break we get for being in an approved forest management plan doesn't even result in break even. It's about a wash AFTER the initial expense of getting approval. But I would still do it regardless. I wish more landowners would. I'm finally closing in on completing fire mitigation on my 50 acres of overgrown ponderosa forest. I have a couple of neighbors that are also doing fire mitigation on their 40 acres, but many others that haven't/don't. Whether that limited an area will have any impact on protecting our properties, hopefully we'll never know.
I have little experience with large scale logging other than what I have seen done. Not very pretty. In many cases, some years after it's done what develops is a dog-hair forest of same age trees. Once their done clear-cutting, there is no further "management". Actually managing a forest for health is cost prohibitive. While clear-cutting may help short term by removing ALL fuel, it's primarily done for profit not forest health. As for large areas of beetle kill; there doesn't seem to be much profit incentive to clean it up. I know I can barely give my firewood away.
Reality? The reality is people like you are apparently to stupid to realize you're being duped.
Or you are. I'll put my money on the consensus of the researchers and climatologists.
Down to I know you are but what am I? The same concensus that told us we are heading into a new ice age a few years ago. The ones that told us we have 12 years and the earth will burn up? You really are a yutz. Tell me o genius, what is the earths perfect temperature supposed to be?
Where I worked at the end of my career there was 300,000 acres of saw log sized timber that was not there in 1900. Much of the other parts of the pine forest had been heavily ingrown with true fie and Douglas-fir. While the environmentalists were crying about clear-cuts which we had very few of, and threatening to sue over salvaging fire killed timber, the timber harvest was not keeping up with the new growth. The forests are much denser than they would be if fire had not been excluded. The result is the forest is stressed and vulnerable to pine beetles. Where I worked there were almost no elk until in the 1970s. It had been good Mule deer country. Now the Mule deer population is down as the elk are out competing them for winter forage and the forest is not producing the deer food it used to. As the forest got denser the elk have come in and multiplied to where ODF&W is charged with keeping their numbers down. Sure Lodgepole pine comes back like dog hair. That is natural. It lives to the ripe old age of about 80 years, then dies off. It usually gets burned over and the new forest springs up in the place of the old. When the Forest Service was harvesting timber it was for many years returning more money into the treasury than it took in. Forest management paid for itself and then some. That included planting, thinning, harvesting, road maintenance, and every other cost item associated with multiple use. I guess people would rather see dead timber than stumps. That is a choice. I just hope people realize all they are getting for their decisions. Knifeman: I disagree with your post. No one is "stupid" just because they disagree with anyone else or, have different values. I am actually thankful God has given no one a franchise on all knowledge or brain power.
Ermine......” Beetle infestation is also due to lack of fires. They do the job that fires should. But we suppress fires so much the forest gets sick!”
It’s that simple! Natures ways are not always in sync with the mess we created.
"I'll put my money on the consensus of the researchers and climatologists." Where did this idea that these people are selfless angels just calling balls and strike for the sake of humanity...they are people and people tend to be selfish and self promoting and ANY grant Money or positions of grandeur in this line of work you better spew the same positions as you masters or you will be humiliated and banished...people that don't see this are fools...
The problem with that theory is that I can see at least some of it with my own eyes. Glaciers receding, permafrost melting, more frequent severe weather events, etc. Not every thing is a conspiracy.
.....and hockey sticks breaking
.....and hockey sticks breaking
Wow your a guy who gets around doing you own Glacier and permafrost studies....you know with your own eyes. But it is man caused and if it is and that is a big if WTF do you do about it while we cripple our lives and economy virtue signaling to the world the rest of the world does whatever they want and the worst is your new best Buddy Bidens bedfellows the Chinese. While secretly and not so secretly they and the rest of the world laughs at us...
The world changes and has LOOOONG before we strapped on a loin cloth I have walked through the the high plains of Wyoming for miles and can see by the river rocks and with my own eyes and mind said wow this used to be an ocean or giant river or lake. But I'll bet those dam caveman were reckless with burning Mammoth turds to heat their grog and now sadly its all gone. Reckless hairy bastards.
When this all first became public awareness and Al Gore predicted by now we would be dead apparently not so accurately cause we would all be dead.... but I digress the founder of the weather channel put up a million bucks to debate him on the subject he wisely laughed it off instead of using this as a prime opportunity to put it all to rest once and for all...... wasn't he the captain of the debate team and a seasoned debater....certainly with such overwhelming evidence he would rip a weatherman a new one but he balked...
Gore has never accepted a challenge to a debate with anyone who actually has facts. Starting with the fake Gore-Mann "hockey stick".
The climate changes. I haven't found anyone who doesn't understand that. The issue is whether we are a significant factor in that change. Then, even if we are, do higher taxes and less freedom stand a chance of actually impacting the climate enough to offset the hardship. Whether you believe climate change is man-made or not, thriving, free, prosperous people are the best chance at creating new and innovative solutions to reducing pollution and being more energy efficient.
I love when we have good frosts down here, pest pressure in my spring crops is normally down following chilly winters.
And the glaciers melt, and they find artifacts in the exposed areas. It proves beyond a doubt that the earth has been warming and cooling forever. How can you not see that. Are you closing your eyes and ears and saying la la la really loud? Real records have only been kept for a few years in the big scheme of things. How many thousands of years have we been here? There is just not enough data to prove any theory on us warming the planet. Follow the science man! Again, what is the earths perfect temperature supposed to be? How warm or cold was it 300 years ago, or 400, 0r a thousand? Truth is you dont know. Nobody does, The religion of glorbal warming is a fraud. It is there to separate you from your money, plain and simple. You bought it hook line and sinker.
Forgive me if I don’t trust a bunch of well funded “climatologists”
I don't know if it kills bark beetles but I know it keeps a lot of the cabin riff raff home in the city:)
"...the earth has been warming and cooling forever."
And all the dead and extinct animals and people weren't any more prepared for it than we are. Heck, Texas is in crises over a little cold snap.
Maybe point those wind turbines to the north and blow the jet stream back to where it’s suppose to be. Given the “climatologists” know where that should be.
Believe the science? What science? You can find studies from scientists from all sides promoting their own personal agenda. So pick the one that makes your liberal arss feel good and run with it.
And as we hillbillies say,”bless your little heart “.
Knife man, they do know what the temps have done over the past 400,000 years. The Vostok ice cores show four identical cooling-warming signatures, evenly spaced. We are at the peak of the fourth signature now. They also show that the CO2 buildup on the atmosphere FOLLOWS the warming.
This is the origin of the phony Gore-Mann "hockey stick", which conveniently omitted the rapid cooling that preceded each warming period. We just emerged from what honest scientists call a "mini ice age".
I wasn't here eons ago, nor will I be here eons from now, so I'll live for today and let you guys that will be here 400,000 years from now worry about then, although I must say I don't know how you sleep at night worrying so much about something that's out of your control..
I just laughed and coffee shot through my nose.... "Heck, Texas is in crises over a little cold snap." thanks for a good laugh your funnier than a barrel of monkeys when you try yo be "all smart"... its because they became too reliant on silly stuff like windmills and solar panels.... what they windmills froze??!! the winds not blowing and the sun is not shining...!!!!! Its Trumps fault!!!! and racist!!!!
Thank you Lou, Where I sit writing this.
10,000 yrs ago 2 mile thick glaciers were moving through our region. They melted during one of those warming trends.
Those glaciers. Which have a name that escapes me, were millions of years old and there are remnants of it in parts of Canada. The global warming alarmists say it will be totally melted in 300 yrs. So it’s been receding for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. and somehow it’s now the U.S. fault.
^^^ fake news, not possible. There wasn't anyone around burning fossil fuels to warm the earth and melt them :)
I'm still waiting for an alarmist to tell me what the ideal earth temperature should be. Whenever I ask the question, I get stammers and blank looks.
Just warm enough so your pod isn’t all shrunk up in the winter and doesn’t stick to your legs in the summer.
"I'm still waiting for an alarmist to tell me what the ideal earth temperature should be. Whenever I ask the question, I get stammers and blank looks." Jac.
That is a common question designed to try and make the questioner look intelligent. There is no one "ideal" temperature. The last time I looked, the earth takes an elliptical orbit around the sun, tilts and has more or less water facing the sun than at other seasons. Maybe these are some things that have an effect on earth temperatures, but I don't know much as an average dummy.
I will hand it to the left. "Climate change" is a great issue. It will always change so it never goes away. Weather creates dire situations all the time so there is always a crisis at the moment, up ahead or just behind us. Everything we do might effect it so there is no limit to what behaviors and activities need regulating.
The left is really good at stirring people up...spinning things.... lying and creating narrative that the simpletons buy...being angry....and think success in Government is how many re-tweets you get. What they Are REALLY bad at is actually creating common sense ways to tackle problems or move the ball down the field in any form or fashion that is good for the populace. Really bad at it. Their touch is toxic and don't take my word for it look to where they govern the heaviest... always a nightmare. It amazes me they can actually look into the camera and say "We are here to make it better" when that has NEVER been true.. When I first heard of the Green New deal I thought this is so insane is has to be a gag.. but here we are.
John Kerry says less than 10 years until catastrophe. It was nice knowing you guys.
Most Everyone has blankets, jogging pants, sweat shirts, jackets, etc..... If you don’t, that one is likely on you. Life is about preparation. For everyone. If that’s gotten lost it’s nobodies fault but the people who lost it.
If people are freezing to death in Texas, it’s due to something besides a tragedy. If people can’t figure out how to melt snow for water, it’s something besides a tragedy. If people are poisoning themselves in a shut up garage with car exhaust, it’s something besides a tragedy.
People are responsible for their own well being in these facets of life. Not being responsible for such simple tasks isn’t a tragedy. It’s ignorance of reality. I hate it for the lives lost. I really do. But, let’s not get messed up on why it’s happening.
John Kerry says less than 10 years until catastrophe. I hope he is right but not because of Climate change but because of their lunatic policies and hate for America... I think the way they are going ten years if being dam generous
If Washington DC is our answer to "climate change", we are all in deep chit. Paraphrasing Reagan: Govt. isn't the answer. Govt is the problem. This will become crystal clear in the next 10 years, if we last that long...
We absolutely must not only flatten the climate change curve, we must crush it then reverse it!!!
And we must do it quick enough that I can get drawn for the wooly mammoth that will once again live in abundance along the lush shores of the Great Lakes.
Swede, the question is intended to make the subject look stupid. Which it does. Alarmists try to set "goals" for temperature rise, which are based on models that are almost always wrong. Then when we had a cooling period for a few years in the early 2000s, the preeminent climate scientist at the Hadley Center couldn't explain it and got caught, in their own words, "hiding the decline" by tricking the data. And they got caught.
From everything I have read, I am convinced we are experiencing real climate change. The polar icecaps are melting and we are witnessing severe weather events at a rate that is very troublesome. I am not sure what has brought it on. Maybe it is all carbon emissions. Maybe it is just a normal evolution in the climate. That said, I do not see how asking stupid questions enhances your argument. I am not impressed that the Hadley center can't explain some climate variation. That does not change anything. I am not a doom and gloom person, but my name is not Pollyanna either. If the climatologists are right, and we are experiencing a climate change that is ongoing, forest management needs to change. A minor climate variation in the early 2,000s, if true, is no basis to say "never mind, it is all a liberal hoax".
There is no question we are experiencing "climate change". Just as we always have since the planet was either created or formed (take your pick). The question is about how much is anthropogenic.
The Hadley Center is the world repository of climate information. A prominent group of scientists there got caught manipulating data to hide the temperature decline, in dozens of email threads. This was absolutely a conspiracy among scientists to alter the data to produce a false outcome.
As for asking a "stupid question", climate alarmists discuss anthropogenic climate change in terms of degree or two of temperature increase as causing a global crisis. The question is relevant because earth temperature has never been stable, ever, so who is to say that the planet might not be better off with a degree or two of increase? What is the ideal temperature? What is the ideal "climate"? Who made who the Supreme Being to declare that the climactic events we are experiencing aren't a net positive for the earth as a whole? Why is this troublesome?
As a man of God I would think you'd see this as God's will.
I'm eyeing some land in North Dakota. Figure hunt it for a few years and then start a pineapple plantation.
I suspect what is acceptable climate change is a matter of perspective. Is a two foot rise in ocean depth acceptable? Is a thawing of the polar ice caps ok? Do we really need Florida? Scientists are always working with and manipulating data. Is it nefarious? I see charts on the Covid 19 being manipulated to remove daily and even weekly spikes. Is that nefarious or just depicting trends? I hear climate change deniers going out on a cold day mocking and asking, "where is the global warming" we have been hearing about? They are conspicuously quiet when we we are experiencing multiple huge wildfires, hurricanes and typhons in various places in the world. I understand that scientists make mistakes and incorrect predictions. I would still rather bank on them, than than someone trying to nit-pic their cumulative assessments.
Genesis 2: 15 "Then the Lord God took man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it." NASB God did not instruct Adam to trash the garden, and He did not tell him to keep his hands off and let it go to rack and ruin either. The command was to "cultivate it and keep it." I think that is still a very sound principle, and should apply to forest management, and global warming.
I am fine with measures being taken to mitigate the problem of global warming. Maybe that is because I have not been asked to do anything I consider unreasonable.
Texas and Oklahoma could’ve used some global warming last week!
Hahaha! "Acceptable climate change" is one of the most arrogant statements ever. The climate has never stopped changing, and there is no "acceptable" because the climate will continue to change even if we all live in the dark and ride around in pedal cars. Florida may be underwater someday. My place here at 8500' used to be beachfront property. That's how the planet works.
Bottom line is, the climate has always changed, temperatures have always cycled up and down, oceans have risen and fallen, glaciers have always expanded and receded, and the only thing that has really changed over time is the way scientific studies are funded, the push toward predetermined outcomes in order to continue to receive funding, and the embrace by the Left and their alarmist media to amplify this into a method of controlling peoples lives, removing freedoms and smearing the opposition.
The perjorative smear "climate denier" means anyone who isn't shrieking in fear and who is properly questioning politically-driven science, when in fact, the proper term should be "anthropogenic climate change skeptic". Plenty of climate scientists fit that label. And the skepticism is warranted, considering how wrong the predictions and models have been. In 2000, the lead climate scientist at the Hadley Center, Dr. David Viner, said this: "Snowfalls are now a thing of the past. Within a few years, snowfall will be a rare and exciting event. Children aren't going to know what snow is." Huh. And this guy gets paid a lot of money to spout that garbage. Now we're being told that we have 11 years until life on earth is doomed. Sure.
Rahm Emanuel said it best - "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
I am not trying to be a pseudointellectual. I have read that climatologists are trying to limit earth climate (temperature) increase to 2* C. That is what they consider "acceptable". It it being "arrogant"? I have heard of Dr. Viner. I thought he is a noted university climate professor, but I do not know the man. I would think you might just ask yourself who is being arrogant? Is not picking out some point you disagree with, and talking like you know more that the collective wisdom of noted scientists, studying the subject, putting yourself on a pretty high platform?
Nope, I read a lot, study it a lot, and have discussed this ad nauseam with a good friend, recently deceased, who was one of the top climate scientists in the world, who has testified before Congress and led the top hurricane science team in the world for decades.
Why do left-funded climatologists think 2 degrees (actually 1.8 degrees Celsiusl believe that will be the magic number, considering they have been so wrong. Why do lthey think that can be achieved if only the U.S. and Euro nations agree to destroy our economies? Phil Jones, one of the very top scientists caught cherry-picking and falsifying data for the IPCC reports in Climategate, admitted there has been no significant warming for 15 years.
I just state facts and quote scientists. There are plenty of collective scientists who have been eliminated from the IPCC reports, and whose team studies have been refused to be accepted into the "Club" peer reviews. I don't speculate. It's easy to get to the bottom of the whole scam if you do a little research on your own. And in the end, only God knows the answers. How arrogant are we to believe we can outmaneuver God's will. Do you really believe man is more powerful than God?
Jac, I understand your point. I am just an retired timber manager. I worked timber sale prep and logging management. I too worked with specialists and scientists. I ultimately respected them. One of the things I noted was that, the experts disagree. But, as a saw logger, I did not pick and choose my scientists. As a person with many years living and working in the forest, I sometimes could better predict what was going to happen in a certain situation, than they could. Still I respected their opinions. When it was my signature going on the approval or disapproval, I was responsible. Usually I went with the specialists. I found it better to err on the side of the experts. But sometimes I went against them. I knew what I had hanging out when I went my own way. In Matthew 16: 2-3 Jesus said the people He was talking to could tell what the weather is going to be, but they could not tell the signs of the time. Maybe some climatologists were with the Pharisees and Sadducees. You quoted Rahm Emanuel. I will quote an old ranger. "It is best to err on the side of the angels." You are a good man Jac. I will leave it there.
I think we can all agree it’s a good thing to lower emissions, generate less waste ETC. But with the US lowering emissions every year and the air and water cleaner than it was 20 yrs ago.
We have time to move into the new energy age naturally, as technology allows a smooth transition. The Govt setting reasonable goals and standards isn’t a bad thing.
As long as technology and industry can keep up and thrive from it.
Closing new safe pipeline construction and putting the same petroleum on rail and highways just for the politics and Optics is not rational. Neither is closing clean coal and natural gas fired power plants before the technology exists to store renewable energy.
I was watching an offshore fishing show and it had a segment on a company making plastics out of hemp. It degrades after 30 days in water. Then marine life can actually eat it. Now this is how it should be done. Capitalism and innovative solutions. Not politicians getting rich by setting up slush funds with our money to route trillions to their political backers, family and friends businesses. IE Solyndra, and shovel ready jobs
Texas and Oklahoma could’ve used some global warming last week!
"I have read that climatologists are trying to limit earth climate (temperature) increase to 2* C. That is what they consider "acceptable". It it being "arrogant"?"
Yes, it is. Considering there were what, dozens, maybe hundreds of significant climate change events with extreme, even catastrophic consequences that took place prior to man ever crawling out of the primordial slime. But this time, it's man's fault and only politicians and $$ driven scientists can save us. The same politicians that want us fossil fuel free by 2035, but can't prevent rolling blackouts in the summer,while rechargable auto's sat. Decrease demand? Sure. You won't like it, however. Our lifestyle WILL be impacted. Fret not...the the homes of the annointed elite will still be cool in the summer, warm in the winter, their private jets will get them to exotic places, where they can tool around in the Med on 1/2 a billion dollar yachts whilst discussing how to force change on the commoner.
Arrogant? It's the epitomy of arrogance.
The epitome of arrogance of hypocrisy? Check out "climate saver" Leonardo DiCaprio's little energy saving fishing boat. That's all you get for 700 million. And he and his other woke friends can jet then helicopter to it for parties. To celebrate saving the earth, I guess.
"...with extreme, even catastrophic consequences that took place prior to man ever crawling out of the primordial slime. But this time, it's man's fault ..."
When climate change occurs this quickly, it's caused by some triggering mechanism. But it doesn't really matter what is causing it. WE ARE NOT PREPARED FOR IT. And we are doing very little to prepare for it, or try to mitigate it.
"...the climactic events we are experiencing aren't a net positive for the earth as a whole? Why is this troublesome?"
That depends on what you think "positive" is. The EARTH doesn't really care. The point is, the change will not be good for people. Adapting to these changes WILL be painful. Regulation is necessary to try to mitigate it, and prepare for it, because too many people choose to ignore it , or deny it, because right now that's easier. Climate getting warmer, or colder, anything but the status quo that our infrastructures were designed for, IS a major problem.
"But it doesn't really matter what is causing it. WE ARE NOT PREPARED FOR IT. And we are doing very little to prepare for it, or try to mitigate it."
Prepare for what, chicken little? End times? Day After Tomorrow type scenario? It doesn't matter what's causing it, but we need regulations for mitigation purposes. Good God man, you sound like little hysterical Greta Thunberg.
The ones telling you, you are going to die, or live in some post apocalyptical world are the same ones living in 66,000 sq ft mansions, with multiple private jets, yachts, estates all over the world, flying across the world to dicsuss how YOU must change your lifestyle.
Hope those shackles rest easy on your neck. You earned them.
You can’t reason with plain ole stupid.
The hypocrisy touch’s every topic.
Gun rights, they will have armed guards
Fences/walls. Only around the capital and their Mansions.
Covid rules,
Green energy restrictions
John Kerry owns a beach front home Bill gates owns a beach front home Leonardo DiCaprio owns an island in Belize
Seems like they are betting the oceans won’t rise.
