Reduction of snowpack may stunt tree growth and reduce CO2 sequestration

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Crick, Dec 5, 2018.

  1. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,509
    Thanks Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +4,347
    Researchers conducting a 5-year-long study examining snow cover in a northern hardwood forest region found that projected changes in climate could lead to a 95 percent reduction of deep-insulating snowpack in forest areas across the northeastern United States by the end of the 21st century. The loss of snowpack would likely result in a steep reduction of forests' ability to store climate-changing carbon dioxide and filter pollutants from the air and water.

    Snowpack declines may stunt tree growth and forests' ability to store carbon emissions

    The world does not need more accelerating feedbacks to AGW but, as Stephen Crane told us, the fact has not created in the Universe any sense of responsibility.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  2. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    56,363
    Thanks Received:
    8,376
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +38,576
    Frost starts at the surface and goes down the entire depth of tree root systems dumbass. They do not actively exchange CO2 during their dormant stage of winter.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,509
    Thanks Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +4,347
    I believe the effect is due to stunted growth. Perhaps you should have read the article first.

    "The experiments we conducted suggest snowpack declines result in more severe soil freezing that damages and kills tree roots, increases losses of nutrients from the forest and significantly reduces growth of the iconic sugar maple trees."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Defiant1
    Online

    Defiant1 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    5,834
    Thanks Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,548

    Is that why there are no sugar maple trees left where there is no significant snowpack?
     
  5. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,509
    Thanks Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +4,347
    It means what it clearly states. A loss of snowpack leads to reduced growth in such trees.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  6. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    56,363
    Thanks Received:
    8,376
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +38,576
    Weird, considering it is snowing MORE...

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,509
    Thanks Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +4,347
    The article clearly states that snow fall is beginning later and ending earlier. That does NOT mandate a change in precipitation, just snowpack.

    [​IMG]

    Figure 1. Change in Total Snowfall in the Contiguous 48 States, 1930–2007[​IMG]
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]




    This figure shows the average rate of change in total snowfall from 1930 to 2007 at 419 weather stations in the contiguous 48 states. Blue circles represent increased snowfall; red circles represent a decrease.

    Data source: Kunkel et al., 2009
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  8. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    14,921
    Thanks Received:
    3,127
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +14,338
    :auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:


    What a dope... Limited their study to the last 5 years and then failed to go back to the 1930's when the same thing occurred but far worse..... You must love you some pseudoscience crap...
     
  9. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,509
    Thanks Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +4,347
    God are you stupid.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  10. Sunsettommy
    Online

    Sunsettommy Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    Another far into the future modeling scenario, which means it is NOT a testable set up. You forgot The Scientific Method again, which means the 5 year study is worthless!

    "Researchers conducting a 5-year-long study examining snow cover in a northern hardwood forest region found that projected changes in climate could lead to a 95 percent reduction of deep-insulating snowpack in forest areas across the northeastern United States by the end of the 21st century."

    bolding mine
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page