tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post695793901735678844..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Eli can retire Part XII - The commenters get something rightEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71121505745521252422010-05-19T14:19:24.749-04:002010-05-19T14:19:24.749-04:00"And you cannot state, as Anonymous does, tha..."And you cannot state, as Anonymous does, that these, or any events of this type, would be, or are worse due to temps."<br /><br />Wrong. Can, and have, and will again; fully supported by empirical data and ecological theory. <br /><br />"Even if you could, you would then have to take the additional step of making the blanket statement that all temp rise is due to AGW"<br /><br />Wrong again. Multiple interacting factors, already discussed that. Do you listen?<br /><br />But then I guess you know more about it than Steve Running and anonymous and I do.Jim Bouldinhttp://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/bouldin/index.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10451768304170524092010-05-19T01:50:27.389-04:002010-05-19T01:50:27.389-04:00Bitching about the environment I don't mind. E...Bitching about the environment I don't mind. Environmentalism? All for it but it needs to be realistic and manageable. And possible.<br /><br />Alarmism I have no time for and I find it to be counterproductive to actually getting something accomplished which has value.<br /><br />It's been a gas. Greenhouse of course.<br /><br />BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55125769822823248252010-05-18T20:13:56.035-04:002010-05-18T20:13:56.035-04:00BillSpock seems obsessed with the notion that all ...BillSpock seems obsessed with the notion that all environmental problems are anthropogenic, or at least promoting the idea that other people believe that to be the case. Where did you read that, BillSpock? Here?<br /><br />For instance, what's up with this?<br /><br /><i>...you cannot state, as Anonymous does, that these, or any events of this type, would be, or are worse due to temps. Even if you could, <b>you would then have to take the additional step of making the blanket statement that all temp rise is due to AGW.</b> In other words, none of this is natural.</i><br /><br />Why would anybody have to ascribe all climatic temperature rise as as AGW-related in order to form a connection between some amount of anthropogenic warming with some other process? Who besides you has promoted that notion? Why are are you so keen on portraying people you've never met as monomaniacs? <br /><br />I think you've let people bitching about the environment get under your skin. Relax, already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-328382141836324702010-05-18T17:50:05.591-04:002010-05-18T17:50:05.591-04:00And what you seem to have missed, M, was the earli...And what you seem to have missed, M, was the earlier posts discussing the relationship between forest management with no specific mention of altitude. Deciding to cherry pick data discussing ONLY high altitude forests would be, and is, disingenuous. Not to mention, he specifically discusses lodgepole pine. Perhaps, if you had actually read the linked article--there's that comprehension thing you're so proud of--you would have noticed the title...<br /><br />"Effects of fire return rates on<br />traversability of lodgepole pine forests<br />for mountain pine beetle: Implications<br />for sustainable forest management"<br /><br />See where it specifically addresses the very same tree he discusses? I can see where that might be confusing.<br /><br />In addition, Anonymous demonstrated no evidence that forest issues IN GENERAL--the overall topic of the discussion--are not affected by other issues aside from climate change. I have provided more than enough data from many reputable sources that speaks to that fact. <br /><br />You folks are a strange breed that you cannot simply admit when something really IS NOT a direct result of anthropogenic climate change. One track mind is a term that seem appropriate. It would be funny if it wasn't so strange. Says a lot about the alarmist frame of mind and speaks to the reason why I am so leery of those who have their blinders on and see only green. Climate has its place. But it is not the primary factor in issues regarding pests and fire events. And you cannot state, as Anonymous does, that these, or any events of this type, would be, or are worse due to temps. Even if you could, you would then have to take the additional step of making the blanket statement that all temp rise is due to AGW. In other words, none of this is natural. So that is two separate theories which BOTH must be true for the argument to fit. Then you must ignore all the other factors involved which are equally, if not more, important. Better to ignore those factors altogether anyway since it would detract from the sound of the siren.<br /><br />Keep it up. I am sure you will convince each other since, with few exceptions, it would seem this tidy club is not really open to any rational discussion from anyone who is not already on board. Strictly the party line. <br /><br />BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35317660780496865922010-05-18T17:03:09.212-04:002010-05-18T17:03:09.212-04:00"...it would seem you have a little more evid..."...it would seem you have a little more evidence to sift through before you make such an unqualified blanket statement. Because there seems to be no shortage of forestry experts who disagree with your assertion that this is that simple."<br /><br />Bill: you might try reading comprehension: Anonymous above was quite clearly making a distinction between high altitude and low altitude forests (though maybe you missed the SEVEN paragraphs in which he mentioned these differences, sometimes even with asterisks). You have demonstrated no evidence that the forestry experts which you quoted were talking about high-altitude forests. <br /><br />-M (not a forestry expert, but I do pride myself on basic reading comprehension abilities)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65906569784911008512010-05-18T15:50:49.400-04:002010-05-18T15:50:49.400-04:00Yeah, yeah, the gravity comparison ran its course ...Yeah, yeah, the gravity comparison ran its course a few years back. Apples and oranges and you know it.<br /><br />As to the screed by Anonymous, I guess these folks, in addition to all the others I have linked, don't know what they are talking about since they seem to be of the opinion that thinning and moderation of fire suppression practices will have a positive effect...<br /><br />http://www.forrex.org/jem/ISS51/vol10_no2_art10.pdf<br /><br />And from the article...<br /><br />"Over the past century, the number of fires<br />in British Columbia has decreased and<br />the area attacked by MPB has increased."<br /><br />And...<br /><br />"Both long fire cycles and fire suppression<br />yield an older age-class structure that is<br />highly susceptible to beetle attack."<br /><br />And...<br /><br />"The combination of early harvesting and moderate<br />fire suppression yields a long-term forest structure<br />that minimizes both susceptibility and traversability<br />for MPB."<br /><br />So, with regards to this comment...<br /><br />"The massive fires seen in the higher elevations of the Rockies are due to climate-change, **not** fire-suppression."<br /><br />...it would seem you have a little more evidence to sift through before you make such an unqualified blanket statement. Because there seems to be no shortage of forestry experts who disagree with your assertion that this is that simple.<br /><br />BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19581352155856910282010-05-18T11:43:06.554-04:002010-05-18T11:43:06.554-04:00Westerners should understand the difference betwee...Westerners should understand the difference between lower-elevation Ponderosa/Doug-fir forests and the higher elevation Lodgepole-pine and spruce/fir forests. Their fire regimes are very different.<br /><br />Low-elevation forests have been greatly impacted by fire-suppression. Ponderosa forests have historically been subjected to frequent, low-intensity fires. Hence the ponderosa's thick bark and lack of low-hanging branches (adaptations to frequent ground-fires).<br /><br />The case is very much different for lodgepole-pines. Lodgepoles have paper-thin bark that provides little protection from fire. The lodgepole pine fire strategy is to "burn rarely but intensely" and to grow back faster than the competition after a fire.<br /><br />The average fire-return interval for Rocky-mountain lodgepole forests is on the order of a century or more -- so 20th-century fire-suppression efforts have not had the same impact on lodgepole forests that they have had on the drier, lower-elevation forests. <br /><br />Furthermore, lodgepole forests are naturally very dense -- this can be verified by tracking down 19th-century historical photos. If you see a dense lodgepole forest, it's not that way because of fire suppression -- that is simply the natural state of a lodgepole forest.<br /><br />When you get above the lodgepole belt into the spruce/fir regime, fire-suppression has played even less of a role. Spruce/fir forests historically have burned very rarely -- once every two centuries or more. Before global-warming kicked in, there just wasn't enough time between the melting of the previous winter's snowfall and the arrival of fall snowstorms for the forest to dry out enough to burn. But that has changed.<br /><br />The massive fires seen in the higher elevations of the Rockies are due to climate-change, **not** fire-suppression. <br /><br />Folks, next time you are in the Rockies, take a good hard look at a ponderosa pine. Note the thick bark; note the lack of low-hanging limbs on mature ponderosas. Then take a good hard look at a lodgepole pine. Note the paper-thin bark -- note the large number of low-hanging limbs. Ditto for blue-spruce and hemlock trees. Note the low-hanging limbs that reach the ground and can act as fire ladders. *Very* different from low-elevation ponderosas.<br /><br />In summary -- low elevation forests like the Ponderosa/Doug-fir forests are adapted to frequent, low intensity fires.<br /><br />Higher-elevation forests (lodgepole and spruce/fir) are adapted to very rare, high-intensity crown-fires. <br /><br />Fire-suppression has greatly impacted the former, but *not* the latter. Up until the last decade or so, those higher elevation forests were *never* subjected to frequent fires.<br /><br />In summary, anyone who thinks that we should have been trying to burn/thin lodgepole-pine and spruce/fir forests simply doesn't know what he's talking about.<br /><br />Folks who want to learn more should bookmark this link: http://www.ucsd.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=18197 <br /><br />UCSD/Scripps will soon be making available at that link a recording of the Charles Keeling Memorial Lecture given by Dr. Stephen Running (a forestry/climate-change expert), the same lecture that I attended last week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39397406935345013792010-05-18T08:46:17.031-04:002010-05-18T08:46:17.031-04:00I thought I got a whiff of smoke, so here I am...
...I thought I got a whiff of smoke, so here I am...<br /><br />#1. Does slash in the forest, outgas COO too?<br /><br />#2. What does a graph of chainsaw sales over the last sixty years, world wide, look like?<br /><br />When I was fresh outta the nest... my momma told me, "go where the biggest pile of food is at". Beatles don't like to work as hard as a starling, so they like the bark, softer that the sap wood. Dried out sapwood is their FAV. That's because their next stop, is the heartwood; oh no.( Watch for pitch-outs!<br /><br />But hey, it is much easier to model the bugs, than it is to water a National Forest... I wonder if this is like the worlds coral reefs dying? How much pee, drugs, hormones, and the rest of the crap we pass through our bodies have on these, life forms? If it was that simple, I am sure someone in the sea of science would have done a big study on the world wide dive spots; that are dead & dying...if not; the next sound you hear will be the feet of scientists, as they run to the airports to begin the study of the OZ reefs; & the beach bunnies:) My what a footprint...say hi to Al.<br /> <br />I have to get busy now, the overnight temps are staying above 50' F. Everything is getting bigger but they do get tougher, all at the same time---go figure. That's the system we got though, what is a bird to do?<br /><br />Flap---Flap-on...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14203020525913457512010-05-18T06:30:50.939-04:002010-05-18T06:30:50.939-04:00Bill said: "Since anthropogenic global warmin...<i>Bill said: "Since anthropogenic global warming is but a theory..."</i><br /><br />Which is good enough. Until another theory comes along which debunks AGW theory, the case against AGW is thus far non-existent.<br /><br />Proof is for maths. Gravity is just another scientific theory.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38187733959598188472010-05-18T01:20:44.963-04:002010-05-18T01:20:44.963-04:00caerbannog the anonybunny,
I thought you posted o...caerbannog the anonybunny,<br /><br />I thought you posted only for the benefit of others so they don't have to live with me. At least you managed to avoid the personal attack.<br /><br />I notice that your emphasis only tells us that more fires are associated with warmer temps, fewer in colder, wetter years, not that they are caused by the temperature specifically. Only that they correlate which, frankly, is not surprising. Probably some sort of ignition source was involved too. I also notice that the article is 4 years old and contains this gem...<br /><br /><br />"Whether the changes observed in western hydroclimate and wildfire are the result of greenhouse gas–induced global warming or only an unusual natural fluctuation is beyond the scope of this work."<br /><br /><br />Now, given that the last 25 years I have lived in the western US there have been regional droughts which are not without precedent, and overall pretty stable snowfall and pack on average, I would suggest the intensity and frequency could have been mitigated were there not 100 previous years when Smoky Bear told us fire was bad.<br /><br /><br />With that said...<br /><br />I presume you will accept UCAR as a reputable source? Note the date as it is a bit more recent than 2006 and, strangely, directly contradicts the final paragraph of your posted link...<br /><br />http://www2.ucar.edu/news/prescribed-burns-may-help-reduce-us-carbon-footprint<br /><br /><br />"Wildfires often destroy large trees that store significant amounts of carbon. Prescribed fires are designed to burn underbrush and small trees, which store less carbon. By clearing out the underbrush, these controlled burns reduce the chances of subsequent high-severity wildfires, thereby protecting large trees and keeping more carbon locked up in the forest."<br /><br />And...<br /><br />"In the western United States, land managers for more than a century have focused on suppressing fires, which has led to comparatively dense forests that store large amounts of carbon. But these forests have become overgrown and vulnerable to large fires. Changes in climate, including hotter and drier weather in summer, are expected to spur increasingly large fires in the future."<br /><br /><br />Now, I left the "changes in climate" part in there so as to not be accused of cherry picking, though you can read the article yourself. The point is, it seems pretty clear that a better course of action in decades past would have put us in a position for less intense fire events now and in the future. Had we done this, the perception would likely not be that we are in trouble due to massive fires, because they wouldn't have been so massive. Since anthropogenic global warming is but a theory--though admittedly the "scientific consensus"--and not assured to happen--hence the "are expected" hedge--it would seem to me that there is plenty we could and should have done, and the issue of fire and pests is far more complex than, "it's warmer, because of us, for sure, and that's the primary, #1 problem, and it's our CO2-spewing fault, period."<br /><br />BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31597500261623906802010-05-17T20:15:54.300-04:002010-05-17T20:15:54.300-04:00Bunnies hiding behind pseudos like carrot eater. ...Bunnies hiding behind pseudos like carrot eater. How clever!willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-442368745406319482010-05-17T20:00:37.274-04:002010-05-17T20:00:37.274-04:00From http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/31...From http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940, emphasis added.<br /><br /><i><br />Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, <b>where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt</b>.<br /><br />...........<br /><br />For example, the effects of fire exclusion are thought to be profound in forests that previously sustained frequent, low-intensity surface fires [such as Southwestern ponderosa pine and Sierra Nevada mixed conifer (2, 3, 10, 11)], <b>but of little or no consequence in forests that previously sustained only very infrequent, high-severity crown fires (such as Northern Rockies lodgepole pine or spruce-fir (1, 5, 12)]</b>.<br /><br />............<br /><br />The overall importance of climate in wildfire activity underscores the urgency of ecological restoration and fuels management to reduce wildfire hazards to human communities and to mitigate ecological impacts of climate change in forests that have undergone substantial alterations due to past land uses. <b>At the same time, however, large increases in wildfire driven by increased temperatures and earlier spring snowmelts in forests where land-use history had little impact on fire risks</b> indicates that ecological restoration and fuels management alone will not be sufficient to reverse current wildfire trends.<br /></i><br /><br />--caerbannog the anonybunnyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33416585672054369942010-05-17T19:05:22.592-04:002010-05-17T19:05:22.592-04:00...back to Bill: "Do I think that putting up ...<i>...back to Bill: "Do I think that putting up the idea insect migration due to warmer AGW caused temps without honestly discussing the myriad other factors in play..."</i><br /><br />What <b>precisely</b> makes up this myriad of other factors? A simple list will do.<br /><br />Cue something like: <i>"You don't even know them yourself?"</i> and a complete sidestepping of an answer.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76701880128902952232010-05-17T18:55:23.126-04:002010-05-17T18:55:23.126-04:00Bill says: "As for your last statement about ...<i>Bill says: "As for your last statement about the next MWP..."</i><br /><br />?? Hmmm. I was talking about the next version of the composite of graphs. The one that'll have more forcings and feedbacks over the last 1300 years. Oh, if you'd care to point out what's been causing most of the warming over the past 50 years other than GHG's, feel free to do so. Like I said, it's not Antarctic sea ice extent.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22769407327038496332010-05-17T18:32:47.974-04:002010-05-17T18:32:47.974-04:00Good to see this discussion come round to somethin...Good to see this discussion come round to something productive...and that pizza and beer were mentioned, which happens entirely too infrequently around here.Jim Bouldinhttp://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/bouldin/index.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66984471153517977112010-05-17T18:02:29.395-04:002010-05-17T18:02:29.395-04:00Ron,
My rhetorical question was not intended to s...Ron,<br /><br />My rhetorical question was not intended to shift the discussion. It was a real question, albeit one to which I believe I know the answer. I simply believe using one's real name when attempting to state the validity of scientific information would be helpful in establishing credibility. And using one leads to the inevitable question of why. And I don't buy the "we're scared of the denialists" argument. What, is somebody going to hurt you because of your beliefs? That seems a bit over the top. Sorry if you are that paranoid. Even sorrier if there really those out there who have that much hatred and vitriol.<br /><br />Not knowing who a person is when they put up a blog piece on an AGW ("alarmist" in the current lexicon) site pointing to insect migration as some proof of the AGW theory draws suspicion. Is the blogger in question an expert on forestry? Is he an entomologist? Or both? Or neither? In this case, I know he is neither.<br /><br />Ron, again, I never stated temps never reach -30F. Well, I did, but I corrected myself in the very next post stating that those temps are never sustained. <br /><br />Do I believe climate has not affected insect migration patterns? NO. It entirely and positively part of the process. Do I think that putting up the idea insect migration due to warmer AGW caused temps without honestly discussing the myriad other factors in play is a sketchy argument? Yes. It's the easy explanation, but not the only one, and that is where I have issue. AGW is always the easiest scapegoat. <br /><br />Here in CO people like to point to the brown trees and say, "See, AGW is killing the forest! It never gets cold enough anymore!" But it is not that simple here, and I believe it is likely not so simple further north either. The forest is dying here, no doubt. But it isn't the first time, nor the last. Perhaps the most widespread in 100+ years, but there are other factors which have been discussed and it isn't because all of a sudden it's a few degrees warmer.<br /><br />J. Bowers,<br /><br />So any and all warming of the last 50 years is 100% caused by human activity, i.e. GHGs? Were it not for humans, the climate would have remained static? Because if GHGs are the lone issue, that is what you are saying. And I am skeptical that is the case. <br /><br />As for your last statement about the next MWP and the severity of it with all "the other bits and bobs", can I borrow the time machine you used to see the future for more basic, and selfish, functions like getting powerball numbers?<br /><br />BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48493596193994591542010-05-17T17:43:49.286-04:002010-05-17T17:43:49.286-04:00we're bunnies, you idiot, not dogs.
vicious b...we're bunnies, you idiot, not dogs.<br /><br />vicious bunnies with sharp pointy teeth.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74467050598886078972010-05-17T16:13:11.154-04:002010-05-17T16:13:11.154-04:00A best reason for pseudonyms is to hide the fact t...A best reason for pseudonyms is to hide the fact that we're all dogs. <br /><br />Here's a dog that could turn into a creative machine:<br /><br />http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/15/why-a-tale-of-a-post-modern-genius/willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27814794360136869782010-05-17T16:06:43.872-04:002010-05-17T16:06:43.872-04:00Spock says: "As for greenhouse gasses J., I s...<i>Spock says: "As for greenhouse gasses J., I saw your lovely link, and one would have to accept that they, and they alone, are the problem."</i><br /><br />Aren't they? And there I was putting the composite together for ages and didn't notice.... except for...<br /><br />If you're referring to the last 50 years, you so dead wrong oh pointy eared one (it wasn't Antarctic sea ice extent what did it, guv'n'or). And if you refer to the MWP, wait for the next version with insolation, a serious lack of volcanic eruptions and other bits and bobs.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72739772314234182502010-05-17T15:32:38.970-04:002010-05-17T15:32:38.970-04:00Pseudonyms--lots of reasons. Sometimes I use them...Pseudonyms--lots of reasons. Sometimes I use them and sometimes not. I never used to use them until being stalked by a denialist asshat who complained to my employer, sent me harrassing emails at my workplace. <br /><br />I have since determined that since much of the denialist crowd is unhinged, prudence is justified.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16385389907241411482010-05-17T14:25:51.049-04:002010-05-17T14:25:51.049-04:00There are many reasons people use pseudonyms. Usi...There are many reasons people use pseudonyms. Using one consistently establishes a reputation. Did you ever read the Federalist Papers in gradeschool history class? <br /><br />Another good recent example:<br />http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/05/blog_matters_who_is_revere.php<br /><br />"... You know what we think, how we react, a lot about our life histories, how old some of us are, what we do for a living, our political and religious views, our areas of expertise, numerous opinions about a large variety of things, what makes us mad, what motivates us, etc., etc. How many people do you know all those things about? Knowing our names wouldn't tell you much more and might even be misleading...."Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35391497523824383782010-05-17T13:10:18.757-04:002010-05-17T13:10:18.757-04:00Bill - we understand that your question is rhetori...Bill - we understand that your question is rhetorical and an attempt to shift the discussion from the focus of this thread - which is a discussion of the *effects* of warming on western forests.<br /><br />You began with a mischaracterization of the position of most in this thread by positing a strawman (and I quote): "Yes. Certainly improper forest management had nothing to do with pine beetle infestation. It's all climate change"<br /><br />No one claimed that improper forest management had nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Then you moved on "Temps in CO NEVER reach -30F" which is clearly wrong but concluded that post with "Temperature is the absolute most minor factor in this process " which is, in my opinion, a defensible position in Colorado.<br /><br />Your next post allows that "climate change" is involved - but then you make some (frankly) silly arguments about why temps don't matter. In higher alt and lats, winter temps matter. In lower alts and lats, a longer year (allowing multiple generations) matter.<br /><br />The next post again makes the argument that many factors are at play (a point we agree on), but complains that the Eli's original post makes it seem that AGW is the only cause of beetle problems. Eli's post is a repetition of the EPA's findings that was looking specifically at the effects of warming on the forests. That warming allows for an extension of beetle ranges to higher alts and latitudes and can in some cases allow multiple generations in its traditional ranges has not been disputed by you in any rational manner. The EPAs findings on this are not in (creditable) dispute - you just don't like that they don't also talk about forest management - but that is not the issue at hand.<br /><br />So if the point you want to make here is that there are many factors affecting beetle population, most of us are in agreement. If you want to argue that forest management is a bigger factor than temperature profiles, you could make that case, there are good arguments and lines of evidence supporting that. But if you want to argue that warming temperatures don't encourage increased beetle populations and ranges - you have not made your case and the evidence does not support you.Ron Broberghttp://rhinohide.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42243942825385174682010-05-17T12:00:03.995-04:002010-05-17T12:00:03.995-04:00In the Northwest forests, clear cuts alter drainag...In the Northwest forests, clear cuts alter drainages. The soil temps in summer go to 100' F+. Surrounding growth suffers, trees go into stress. Beetles infest trees without deep root structures. Sap runs out of tress, killing them. Lots of food for the beetles and with the lighter-than-normal... winters that we have had over the last 25 years there are weak trees everywhere. The clear cuts from Missoula to Seattle are visable everywhere. Watersheds are hurting. It boils down to Forest Service practices, by any letter, everywhere as the major source of timber problems. And the agencies will study their problems to death. Stand on a clear cut in summer on the side of some mountain and see how hot it really can get in the mountains. I say this in the spirit of PNS, as an 'outsider'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73931746773918630802010-05-17T11:52:40.377-04:002010-05-17T11:52:40.377-04:00Never said it never got that cold, only that it wa...Never said it never got that cold, only that it was never sustained. See my addendum to that effect.<br /><br />As for anonymous posting dilbert and Ron, my name is Bill Walsh. William actually. Does that make it better for you? And I don't have a blog espousing what I purport to be fact regarding, dare I say it, global issue. And listing a few who do use their real names does nothing to explain why others like Eli and Tamino hide behind pseudonyms. My question, which you conveniently avoided, is why? What is there to gain? Better question, what is there to hide? <br /><br />Of course, that question, in my opinion, is rhetorical given that I know who both those people are in reality, and it seems fairly clear why they choose to at least try to remain anonymous. Wouldn't want to annoy those with the deep pockets, right? <br /><br />Smacks of hypocrisy. <br /><br />Spock/BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32239042672887249752010-05-17T00:59:45.388-04:002010-05-17T00:59:45.388-04:00And just in case anyone out-of-state is wondering,...And just in case anyone out-of-state is wondering, -30F is uncommon but not unheard of in Colorado. Just browsing USHCN for Colorado gives me several stations that have seen -30F (including Gunnison, Spock). ;-)<br /><br />And I was looking for 5-day moving averages, not individual lows. However - that is the low. What I am unclear on is the complete definition of a "sustained -30F." I doubt that you can get a station in Colorado that has ever seen a 5 day run where the high was -30F, although the USHCN stations are probably all in mountain valleys, not on the slopes so don't take the USHCN as the final word on montain temps.<br /><br />So Spock's skepticism about the winter lows not being sufficiently cold to play much of a role in controlling beetle population in Colorado is not misplaced. Certainly most south-slopes around 9000' or below are probably warm enough not trigger a winter kill in most years. But his knee-jerk exclamation that CO NEVER sees -30F is clearly wrong.Ron Broberghttp://rhinohide.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com