Oldest trees grow faster because of warming Bristlecone pines, the world's oldest trees and growing at high altitudes in the American West, have been undergoing a growth spurt since 1950, fuelled by increasing temperatures, researchers say.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... ROUGHT.MP3
"If the snow melts earlier, the mountains won't be able to hold onto water for as long. They won't be as effective as water towers for us."
Now call me stupid, but WTH is this guy saying? Is he really claiming that the snow on the mountain is really a basin of water that feeds the trees (while on the mountain) and when it melts, the water flows away, and is lost? And if only the snow would be staying longer, the water would be "stored" longer?
Isn't snow on a mountain (of rock, right? Not sand or clay) useless until it melts and flows down the mountain?
"If the snow melts earlier, the mountains won't be able to hold onto water for as long. They won't be as effective as water towers for us."
Now call me stupid, but WTH is this guy saying? Is he really claiming that the snow on the mountain is really a basin of water that feeds the trees (while on the mountain) and when it melts, the water flows away, and is lost? And if only the snow would be staying longer, the water would be "stored" longer?
Isn't snow on a mountain (of rock, right? Not sand or clay) useless until it melts and flows down the mountain?
You'd be surprised how much snow mountains have on them in areas where there's no direct sunlight. Back when I was a teen I recall hiking the mountain that overlooked Midway. The mountain peak is just over 1200m and on a hot(mid 20s+) June day just over the peak on the North side I was surprised by 2-3ft of snow.
Above the Tree Line is certainly very noticeable, especially for very tall mountains, but it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the Snow Pack that feeds streams comes from below the tree line.
That is not my point. My point not the snow on the mountains (hell, I am looking at it RIGHT now...), my point is that mountains are supposed to be water towers, and actually HOLDING the water... They claim the "warming" makes the snow melt earlier, so the mountain is not a "watertower" as long anymore. I call bs. I don't know really how to explain it either
There is a reason that we have an "above treeline", right?
"If the snow melts earlier, the mountains won't be able to hold onto water for as long. They won't be as effective as water towers for us."
Now call me stupid, but WTH is this guy saying? Is he really claiming that the snow on the mountain is really a basin of water that feeds the trees (while on the mountain) and when it melts, the water flows away, and is lost? And if only the snow would be staying longer, the water would be "stored" longer?
Isn't snow on a mountain (of rock, right? Not sand or clay) useless until it melts and flows down the mountain?
You'd be surprised how much snow mountains have on them in areas where there's no direct sunlight. Back when I was a teen I recall hiking the mountain that overlooked Midway. The mountain peak is just over 1200m and on a hot(mid 20s+) June day just over the peak on the North side I was surprised by 2-3ft of snow.
Above the Tree Line is certainly very noticeable, especially for very tall mountains, but it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the Snow Pack that feeds streams comes from below the tree line.
I was up at Dog Mountain in August last year and there was still six feet of snow...and really that isnt that high up. But you are right Sandorski, you need to hike to see this stuff. Interesting stuff though.
I live in the mountains, I know
That is not my point. My point not the snow on the mountains (hell, I am looking at it RIGHT now...), my point is that mountains are supposed to be water towers, and actually HOLDING the water... They claim the "warming" makes the snow melt earlier, so the mountain is not a "watertower" as long anymore. I call bs. I don't know really how to explain it either
There is a reason that we have an "above treeline", right?
I believe the Tree Line exists due mainly to the thin atmosphere. As for "Water Tower", I think that comparison is somewhat accurate, but not quite literal. An actual Water Tower has the Water at the top of the Tower, a mountain doesn't necessarily operate in the exact same manner though.
That's very interesting, but there is no record of the last warming trend, you know, WHEN THE ICE AGE ENDED. So much for the global warming crowd.
The last ice age, practically speaking, is not yet over. There are many areas that have historically been ice-free and warmer that are currently smothered in ice or suffering from excessive cold.
My point is that the warming of the climate over the past 20,000 years is not yet over. We're just seeing the end of a very long process and we're arrogant enough to assume that we caused it.
I believe the Tree Line exists due mainly to the thin atmosphere.
In the lower latitudes, you're right. In the northern latitudes the tree line is a function of altitude, general wind speed, and average temperature. A great place to see this phenomenon in along the Alaska coast. When you're in Juneau the tree line is roughly around 600-700 metres. But when you get up to around Anchorage the tree line is around 400-500 metres.
South of Anchorage, in the Aleutian Islands, the functions of average cold and wind reduce the tree line to sea level. It's pretty neat to see how the tree line varies from one area to the next and there can be pretty noticeable variations even within the distance of a few kilometres. Like how the tree line in Skagway is higher over the White Pass than it is just 30 km west near Haines.
That's very interesting, but there is no record of the last warming trend, you know, WHEN THE ICE AGE ENDED. So much for the global warming crowd.
The last ice age, practically speaking, is not yet over. There are many areas that have historically been ice-free and warmer that are currently smothered in ice or suffering from excessive cold.
My point is that the warming of the climate over the past 20,000 years is not yet over. We're just seeing the end of a very long process and we're arrogant enough to assume that we caused it.
I totally agree with that.
This apparently is news.
OK, so why then is this not news?
Mount Washington opens two weeks early
or any of the hundreds of similar more snow on the mountains articles over the last few years.
According to Chinese state-run news, snowstorms led to the relocation of over 2,000 residents after over 1,000 houses collapsed in Hubei and Anhui provinces.
http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_ch ... 38222.html