Reduction of snowpack may stunt tree growth and reduce CO2 sequestration

[Crick]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[Crick]

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."

 

[Defiant1]

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."

Is that why there are no sugar maple trees left where there is no significant snowpack?

 

[Crick]

It means what it clearly states. A loss of snowpack leads to reduced growth in such trees.

 

[saveliberty]

It means what it clearly states. A loss of snowpack leads to reduced growth in such trees.

Weird, considering it is snowing MORE...

 

[Crick]

The article clearly states that snow fall is beginning later and ending earlier. That does NOT mandate a change in precipitation, just snowpack.

Figure 1. Change in Total Snowfall in the Contiguous 48 States, 1930–2007

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

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...

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

God are you stupid.

NO..

Stupid is when you take a snipet of 5 years and then project out making predictions while you ignore empirical evidence of the past changes in the earths climate, which clearly disproves the projection. This paper does exactly that... And yet you 'believe'.... You have stupid down pat!

Or maybe its just ignorance of the facts and the inability to think critically using the scientific process.

 

[Crick]

You criticizing anyone for their knowledge of the scientific method is about as ironic as ironic can get.

 

[jc456]

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.

projected changes

Hahahaahaha

 

[jc456]

You criticizing anyone for their knowledge of the scientific method is about as ironic as ironic can get.

ditto for you!!! you can't get out of your own way grasshopper.

 

[Crick]

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.

projected changes

Hahahaahaha

Why is it you believe that YOU can project the future of climate change but that others - particularly actual research scientists with actual climate models - cannot?

 

[skookerasbil]

lol...."95% reduction in snowpack".

Crick..........man, what a sucker!

Future climate cannot be predicted by computer models. The IPCC has said so dummy!!

 

[westwall]

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.

"MAY" the favorite word of charlatans, palm readers, and climatologists, the world over. A word that means nothing, yet which global warming propagandists, like you, salivate over.

 

[westwall]

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.

projected changes

Hahahaahaha

Why is it you believe that YOU can project the future of climate change but that others - particularly actual research scientists with actual climate models - cannot?

What is hilarious is you believe climate models that are proven to be less than worthless because they have a built in bias. No matter what numbers you punch in to them, they ALWAYS predict warming.

 

[jc456]

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.

projected changes

Hahahaahaha

Why is it you believe that YOU can project the future of climate change but that others - particularly actual research scientists with actual climate models - cannot?

I projected nothing. I am one of those who know the climate haters are projecting, and it doesn’t bother you.

 

[Crick]

You have projected that the Earth will not get warmer, that sea levels will not rise, that alternative energy sources will not work, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.