Rocky Mountain forests are dying, report finds, blaming climate change
 

The main evergreen and aspen tree species making up Rocky Mountain forests are dwindling and likely will die out dramatically by 2060, according to a report by science advocacy groups.

It's not clear what will replace them.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Rocky Mountain Climate Organization report, unveiled Wednesday, draws on U.S. Forest Service data documenting tree deaths and projecting future growth based on climate.

It found that aspens, already seen to be vulnerable to drought, will decrease by 45 percent in Colorado and 61 percent across a six-state region. It found that the amount of land suitable to sustain conifer species ? lodgepole pines, Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine ? will decrease by at least 50 percent.

The groups blame climate change driven by human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, which has hit forests with droughts, higher temperatures, intensifying fire and insect infestations.

"These aren't tiny, rare tree species on the brink. They are massive, widespread species, the characteristic species of Rocky Mountain forests," the union's chief climate scientist Jason Funk said.

Forest survival "really is up to us," Rocky Mountain Climate Organization president Stephen Saunders said. "The extent of changes depends, in very large part, on whether we reduce emissions."

Colorado natural resources assistant director Lisa Dale, acknowledging "dramatic changes in forest composition," cautioned that individual species dying "doesn't mean entire forests are dying."

Among the findings:

? The rate of trees dying from no obvious cause has doubled over the past few decades.

? If emissions of heat-trapping gases keep increasing, the land around the region that is suitable for lodgepole pines could decrease by 90 percent, for ponderosa pine by 80 percent, for Engelmann spruce by 66 percent and for Douglas fir by 58 percent.

? Bark beetle outbreaks over the past 15 years killed more trees than ever recorded over 100 years ? across 46 million acres.

? The average annual frequency of wildfires burning more than 1,000 acres increased by 73 percent between 1984 and 2011.


http://cmsimg.coloradoan.com/apps/pb...ew-fire-hazard

http://summitvoice.files.wordpress.c..._03-726138.jpg


http://www.mirrranchgroup.com/media/IMG_1424-001.jpg


http://www.denverpost.com/environmen...ce=most_viewed

Obviously 12clicks and some of the other local geniuses will be in here with an explanation.
Just relax.
Man has never done anything wrong.

********** is evil...etc etc

looks like the last pic is the pine beetle :disgust

acid rain

As things warm up, everything for the insects speeds up. With an increase of just two or three degrees Celsius (about four or five degrees Fahrenheit) in average temperatures, some species have doubled their reproduction rates as well as their tree consumption.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...CWO_story.html

i am not sure about the bark beetle, but for the pine beetle it isn't so much about the increased temperature increasing the insect activity.. it was more the lack of 'cold winters' not being able to kill the larva in the bark of the trees.. so, these bugs just ripped through huge amounts of forest in very little amount of time

oddly enough, it's a whole forest industry of it's own.. 'blue wood'

From the actual research document:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...ull-Report.pdf



anyone care to explain this non-sequitur?




/

This conclusion also needs clarification as related to the solution here being fixing climate-change:

Oh well. Just add it to the big list of things caused by global warming:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm



.

What clarification do you need? Its getting hotter.

Is anyone claiming climate change begun in the past year?

Years of living dangerously? :thumbsup

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

http://www.naturallywood.com/sites/d...?itok=Vh0jQ3dH

Clarify how a 5 year hot and dry spell over 10 years ago in the rocky mountains = longterm man-made global climate-change and consequently requires radical changes for everyone on the planet to save the rocky mountain whitebark pine.

I think the scientists left out a key contributer- Christmas. All those Christmas trees getting chopped down.

we should ban Christmas.

That was just one out of many things from your cherry picked info.

And it is more than just the 'rocky mountain whitebark pine'. Its the aspens, the blue spruce pines, the douglas fir, bristlecone pines, lodgepole pines, basically the whole forests.

You live in southern cal, where do you think your water comes from?

settle down. Do you treat everyone who asks questions this way? Or just those who are working to try to better understand this specific issue?

I don't think about where my water comes from, I know exactly where it comes from.

I noticed you dodged my first question and deflected my second one.

Treat everyone what way? You're sounding somewhat delusional.

speaking of cherry picked info, let's get the facts straight on your sensationalizing this issue.

1. It's not "basically the whole forest." far from it, that is even addressed in the article(s)

2. it's 3 fucking species of trees, whitebark pines, quaking aspens and pinon pines.

Why not read the actual study prior to getting snotty trying to answer questions you don't have answers to.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...ull-Report.pdf

again, I simply asked a question and this is your retort.

Nice job getting people to agree with you to change their lifestyle to save the trees.

:1orglaugh

Colorado natural resources assistant director Lisa Dale, acknowledging "dramatic changes in forest composition," cautioned that individual species dying "doesn't mean entire forests are dying."

Wildfires are not usually that bad thing, as the forest doesn't usually die. In generally, there has to fires to some extent as many species rely on it.

Bark beetle problem can be reduced by not having planted or otherwise modified single tree specie homogeneous forests. Forests having dirrerent trees slow down the spreading and populations, and areas with different trees act like a firewalls.

You're right. Some guy that spends all his time trolling on a porn board has convinced me climate change is a hoax. :1orglaugh

You really have nothing better to do with your time, do you.

Well, if you change the composition of the trees, it will affect to the whole ecosystem. But surely something will live there, even if it would became as a desert.

umm, you're here too, brainiac. So don't try some 3rd grade level logic leap that it's OK for you to post here but somehow my posts are a waste of time troll because you can't answer a fucking legitimate question or 2 I ask.


:1orglaugh

I don't live on this board like some, but the times I come here all I see is you trolling people about climate change. Seems odd considering where you live there's not enough water to water your lawn.

You climate change alarmists need a new recruitment strategy.

Certainly the brainiacs behind settled science of man-made climate change can come up with a better plan than expecting people to entirely change their lifestyles while

1. you do not.

2. you require others to blindly agree with something you do not understand.

3. You do not allow questions.

4. You label those that ask questions as trolls while dodging and deflecting those legitimate questions.

Like that's getting record sign-ups. :1orglaugh

Says the guy who blames almonds for California's drought, and of course **********'s Chevy Volt. :1orglaugh

And I don't recall asking anyone to sign up for anything, just posting a news article that for whatever reason made you extremely paranoid and defensive.

says the guy who thinks we need to save the trees in Colorado so we can water lawns in Los Angeles. Like that makes sense. And you'd do yourself a favor by trying to understand the commercial agriculture of this state and how non-indegenous crops such as almonds are draining resources. Or you can maintain your finger pointing at people like me who simply ask questions.


:1orglaugh

So try and spin it all you want, I simply asked very valid questions. You can say You do not know, it's OK.. Or you can make it about me based on your bizarre internet psychological profile, I couldn't give a shit. typical though. :1orglaugh

family business is texas tea or equivalent

quoted for answers.

You can keep my family out of things. I won't get into how ridiculous it is to bring up family simply because I asked a couple valid questions.

the epically funny part about you 2 is how I haven't disagreed with the article.

Yet I'm paranoid and defensive because I dared to inquire about a couple points of the study.

Thanks for proofing my point this isn't about curbing pollution, this is about hypocritical people who feel the need to be elite over others.

fully my intention. you have just mentioned the generational connection to the industry before.. and it explains the bias

what bias? Obviously you 2 feel the need to distort things, but I'll give you a chance. Quote one single fucking post of mine where I've stated manmade global warming is bullshit/fraud/illegitimate.

1 single fucking comment.

And fill me the fuck in richard. what the fuck is your intention on mentioning what the fuck my family does just because I ask relevant questions.

Fill us all the fuck in huh.

Dynamo's problem is that he has a predetermined opinion that climate change and global warming are nothing to worry about, and that animals, environments, clean air and water are non-issues that should never be considered for any reason whatsoever because they clearly have no value to him. He also tends to think that if he hates the person, the message must also be wrong. (Al Gore for example).

But instead of taking the time out of his obviously busy schedule to read some books, do some research, he instead asks others to try to change his point of view. His approach to this is the same thing he reads Google. Instead of reading general news and science, he uses Google to find articles that support is predetermined views and opinions.

This may not entirely his fault however. When you google "news", many people are served news they are likely to click on, which itself is a kind of defacto-bias.

Anyway Dynamo, this is the last time I will ever say anything to you. First, the warming of the planet is a very, very real thing, and the effects can be found everywhere. Stop believing everything that the Koch Brothers tell you and do your own research. And even if you can't, and even if you won't believe that it is man made, the problem is still there and It deserves the worlds attention much more than any idiot fat-ass'ed Kardasian. Stop being so lazy. If you think that someone's post about XYZ is wrong, don't just dismiss it. Go to the Googletron 5000 and look it up yourself, read it, understand it, and if you still think its wrong, say so WITH backup and links. CONTRIBUTE to the conversation and general knowledge of the planet instead of just being yet another Sarah Palin.

I'm not here to be lectured by hypocritical volt drivers. I asked specific and valid questions. You can make this about me because you don't know what the fuck you are droning on about or you can simply say you have no clue about what the fuck you are talking about.


either way, you look like dolts unable to carry on an adult discussion.

another bump for answers.

I like dynamo, he seems intelligent, so when he picks out a sentence or two from a 64 page report and pretends he is being sincere its obvious he is simply trying to bait.




If you really want to know the answer then why don't you simply ask the researchers? Their contact info is on the site you keep pasting, but in case you missed it here it is...

http://www.ucsusa.org/about/contact-us.html

Please let us know what they tell ya.

I get it. so asking a specific question in your *humble* view is trolling. got it. no specific questions allowed. Regardless of the fact the question sums up the conclusion, as it's fucking stated in the study, it must be a question asked about more than a sentence or 2.

A question about 3 sentences is OK eh. But those must be 3 sentences in a row or else questioning means question asker is troll.

makes sense. keeps it simple for you.

Anyhoo, feel free to point out how my question distorts the conclusion, that's your accusation right? That by "picking out a sentence or 2" and inquiring about that, my intent was to pretend sincerity in a thinly veiled plan to troll bait.

feel free to fill us all in on how you arrive at that conclusion.

or you can say I'm cherry picking part of what you said and distorting your point also.

either way.

Some trees are dying. Cry me a river. My front lawn is dead because we are in a drought.

Sorry, climate change is natural. This is an expected part of a cycle. We are coming out of an ice age. Nothing in the world is going to change this.

nevermind the fact not a single one of you climate alarmist asked yourself the same questions. If you even read the article, you bought it hook line and sinker, no questions asked.

Even when there is a valid question- if there is no known abvious cause to the dying trees, how can the researchers conclude the solution is for everyone to make lifestyle changes to stop manmade climate change?

I know this is GFY but really, asking this question isn't harmful to the discussion, this thread and certainly not to curbing pollution, instead it's an opportunity to point fingers.

Yes, even dying is natural, but somehow cops don't like if you shoot people. They think that you have to something to do with the shooting if you shoot people. It's a puzzle.

Slight modification. :)




.

I arrive at my conclusion by your 'I'm just trying to understand the issue' :1orglaugh

And your comment that the world should change over an obscure tree no one has ever heard of when you know (or should know) better. If you truly don't understand the impact the Rocky Mountains have over the entire SW US then I gave you way to much credit.

Yes, that is being a true troll, and yet you continue. Are you feeling ok today?

Again, contact them. Hell, you can even talk to someone on the phone about it....

Contact Us

National Headquarters
Two Brattle Sq.
Cambridge, MA 02138-3780
Phone: (617) 547-5552
Fax: (617) 864-9405

Washington, DC, Office
1825 K St. NW, Ste. 800
Washington, DC 20006-1232
Phone: (202) 223-6133
Fax: (202) 223-6162

West Coast Office
500 12th Street, Suite 340
Oakland, CA 94607-4087
Phone: (510) 843-1872
Fax: (510) 843-3785

Midwest Office
One N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1904
Chicago, IL 60602-4064
Phone: (312) 578-1750
Fax: (312) 578-1751

This man made climate change thing isn't just about Rocky mountains, not to speak of just the trees. Also, there were listed reasons for dying trees in the first post.

What it comes to decision making, future is always uncertain.

I know you prefer ducking and dodging questions, but your comment just begs the question-

Where in the fuck did I ever say that?

And I couldn't give a shit how much credit you give me for who knows what the fuck.

I'm feeling great today, thanks for asking. *See, it is easy to answer a question.

Yes, we are tought to be in interglacial period and at the end part of current one.

Although, as some people doesn't seem to trust anything, not at least to some goofy scientists predictions, so it's safe to say that we don't know where we are heading. Otherwise there would be error in logic. If one don't trust predictions regarding this man made climate change, why would predictions about ice ages be correct?