BajaNomad

Update: this post is an FYI only. It is not an attempt to convince anyone, change any minds or force any change in personal...

 Pages:  1  2

wessongroup - 2-26-2016 at 05:26 PM

The "reports" are not from the "media" .. rather from the Scientic Community and/or Government Agency who's job it is to "study" things and report findings .. Good or Bad

That the "media" picks them up ... is to be expected ... as controversy is their "Bread and Butter"

And I don't think you or I will see ... what ever happens in 40 to 50 years from now ... know I will not

And I'm sure that others have contrary thoughts on this topic than mine ... which is also expected and welcomed :):)

Would get pretty boring if people didn't disagree ... on: Vehicles, Tires, fishing gear, et al

Toss another log on the campfire and get me another beer :biggrin::biggrin:

[Edited on 2-27-2016 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 2-27-2016 by wessongroup]

elgatoloco - 2-26-2016 at 06:30 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Ateo  


flocking brillant! :lol:

4x4abc - 2-26-2016 at 08:11 PM

going back to the original article in the NYT - the observed dramatic sea level rise (NASA) has been 1/10" per year over the last 20 years.

However, sea level has been 20 feet HIGHER during the last interglacial period (125,000 years ago). And as recently as 20,000 years ago the sea level was 400 feet LOWER than today. All that without human intervention. No cars. No CO2.

At the going rate of 1/10" per year, we'll see a rise of roughly a foot over the next 100 years.
Might not even be enough to reach David's palm tree.
Will it live another 100 years?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

wessongroup - 2-26-2016 at 08:56 PM

To be fair, the entire article should be referenced ...

Also the time period "referenced" in the article is 2,800 years .. which in the Geological time scale ... is not even a speed bump

And any projections on how fast, would be a function of all factors combined on the planet which influence a increase in the volume of water in the ocean's ... in total

Quote: Originally posted by Whale-ista  
Seas Are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 Centuries

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/sea-level-rise-glo...

The worsening of tidal flooding in American coastal communities is largely a consequence of greenhouse gases from human activity, and the problem will grow far worse in coming decades, scientists reported Monday.

Those emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the ocean to rise at the fastest rate since at least the founding of ancient Rome, the scientists said. They added that in the absence of human emissions, the ocean surface would be rising less rapidly and might even be falling.

The increasingly routine tidal flooding is making life miserable in places like Miami Beach; Charleston, S.C.; and Norfolk, Va., even on sunny days.

Though these types of floods often produce only a foot or two of standing saltwater, they are straining life in many towns by killing lawns and trees, blocking neighborhood streets and clogging storm drains, polluting supplies of freshwater and sometimes stranding entire island communities for hours by overtopping the roads that tie them to the mainland.

Such events are just an early harbinger of the coming damage, the new research suggests.

“I think we need a new way to think about most coastal flooding,” said Benjamin H. Strauss, the primary author of one of two related studies released on Monday. “It’s not the tide. It’s not the wind. It’s us. That’s true for most of the coastal floods we now experience.”

In the second study, scientists reconstructed the level of the sea over time and confirmed that it is most likely rising faster than at any point in 28 centuries, with the rate of increase growing sharply over the past century — largely, they found, because of the warming that scientists have said is almost certainly caused by human emissions.

They also confirmed previous forecasts that if emissions were to continue at a high rate over the next few decades, the ocean could rise as much as three or four feet by 2100.

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change
The issue can be overwhelming. The science is complicated. We get it. This is your cheat sheet.

Experts say the situation would then grow far worse in the 22nd century and beyond, likely requiring the abandonment of many coastal cities.

The findings are yet another indication that the stable climate in which human civilization has flourished for thousands of years, with a largely predictable ocean permitting the growth of great coastal cities, is coming to an end.

“I think we can definitely be confident that sea-level rise is going to continue to accelerate if there’s further warming, which inevitably there will be,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in Germany, and co-author of one of the papers, published online Monday by an American journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In a report issued to accompany that scientific paper, a climate research and communications organization in Princeton, N.J., Climate Central, used the new findings to calculate that roughly three-quarters of the tidal flood days now occurring in towns along the East Coast would not be happening in the absence of the rise in the sea level caused by human emissions.

More Reporting on Climate Change

The lead author of that report, Dr. Strauss, said the same was likely true on a global scale, in any coastal community that has had an increase of saltwater flooding in recent decades.

The rise in the sea level contributes only in a limited degree to the huge, disastrous storm surges accompanying hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy. Proportionally, it has a bigger effect on the nuisance floods that can accompany what are known as king tides.

The change in frequency of those tides is striking. For instance, in the decade from 1955 to 1964 at Annapolis, Md., an instrument called a tide gauge measured 32 days of flooding; in the decade from 2005 to 2014, that jumped to 394 days.

Flood days in Charleston jumped from 34 in the earlier decade to 219 in the more recent, and in Key West, Fla., the figure jumped from no flood days in the earlier decade to 32 in the more recent.

The new research was led by Robert E. Kopp, an earth scientist at Rutgers University who has won respect from his colleagues by bringing elaborate statistical techniques to bear on longstanding problems, like understanding the history of the global sea level.

Based on extensive geological evidence, scientists already knew that the sea level rose drastically at the end of the last ice age, by almost 400 feet, causing shorelines to retreat up to a hundred miles in places. They also knew that the sea level had basically stabilized, like the rest of the climate, over the past several thousand years, the period when human civilization arose.

But there were small variations of climate and sea level over that period, and the new paper is the most exhaustive attempt yet to clarify them.

The paper shows the ocean to be extremely sensitive to small fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature. The researchers found that when the average global temperature fell by a third of a degree Fahrenheit in the Middle Ages, for instance, the surface of the ocean dropped by about three inches in 400 years. When the climate warmed slightly, that trend reversed.

Interactive Graphic
How Much Warmer Was Your City in 2015?
Interactive chart showing high and low temperatures and precipitation for 3,116 cities around the world.

OPEN Interactive Graphic
“Physics tells us that sea-level change and temperature change should go hand-in-hand,” Dr. Kopp said. “This new geological record confirms it.”

In the 19th century, as the Industrial Revolution took hold, the ocean began to rise briskly, climbing about eight inches since 1880. That sounds small, but it has caused extensive erosion worldwide, costing billions.

Due largely to human emissions, global temperatures have jumped about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century. The sea is rising at what appears to be an accelerating pace, lately reaching a rate of about a foot per century.

One of the authors of the new paper, Dr. Rahmstorf, had previously published estimates suggesting the sea could rise as much as five or six feet by 2100. But with the improved calculations from the new paper, his latest upper estimate is three to four feet.

That means Dr. Rahmstorf’s forecast is now more consistent with calculations issued in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically reviews and summarizes climate research. That body found that continued high emissions might produce a rise in the sea of 1.7 to 3.2 feet over the 21st century.

In an interview, Dr. Rahmstorf said the rise would eventually reach five feet and far more — the only question was how long it would take. Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.

“Ice simply melts faster when the temperatures get higher,” Dr. Rahmstorf said. “That’s just basic physics.”

[Edited on 2-23-2016 by Whale-ista]


[Edited on 2-27-2016 by wessongroup]

monoloco - 2-26-2016 at 09:07 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
My panic and drama comments are NOT necessarily Baja Nomads, but primarily the rest of the media reports that push the one side of this debate and discounts the other side in uncomplimentary terms. How is visual proof flat-earthy? To believe that in our lifetime Miami, San Diego, and other ocean cities will be underwater, well it seems so "Chicken Little" like behavior (I am hoping all here know that story).
What was that about Miami?
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/25/opinions/sutter-miami-clim...

Whale-ista - 2-26-2016 at 09:41 PM

This is an interesting report about Miami and saltwater intrusion into the city streets, sewers etc. It reminds us: Not all impacts will be visible, depending on the geology of an area.

Some salt water will infiltrate underground, pushing inland and contaminating groundwater, causing drinking/irrigation water to become salty. (taste the SQ water recently?)

So- Is the sea rising? Yes- but it won't be visible in some places. It will, however, change the local water quality.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-mi...

David K - 2-26-2016 at 10:09 PM

Lack of fresh ground water (from pumping out or drought) and not rising sea level is what draws sea water into ground water.

mtgoat666 - 2-26-2016 at 10:40 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Lack of fresh ground water (from pumping out or drought) and not rising sea level is what draws sea water into ground water.


Do you have a photo that proves that?

Whale-ista - 2-26-2016 at 11:59 PM

I hope you took time to read the New Yorker article. Also, both conditions can exist at the same time. In the case of the low lying areas of Miami, it is unlikely they are able to draw out enough freshwater to create the flooding described by the writer.

However, in Baja, So Cal and elsewhere- it's likely we now have a combination of over-exploitation of groundwater by industrial scale farming and thirsty people too. Add encroachment of saltwater -for any reason- and we have major problems along the coast- whatever the cause.

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Lack of fresh ground water (from pumping out or drought) and not rising sea level is what draws sea water into ground water.


[Edited on 2-27-2016 by Whale-ista]

willardguy - 2-27-2016 at 12:07 AM

gosh you're all so adorable I don't know who to believe!:wow:


wessongroup - 2-27-2016 at 12:38 AM

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/drought-impact.html

SFandH - 2-27-2016 at 08:50 AM

Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc  


However, sea level has been 20 feet HIGHER during the last interglacial period (125,000 years ago). And as recently as 20,000 years ago the sea level was 400 feet LOWER than today. All that without human intervention. No cars. No CO2.



I often see statements like the above, made for the purpose, I think, to somehow discredit anthropogenic climate change. But the fact that the planet has warmed naturally in the past, does not in any way eliminate the possibility that this time it is due the burning of fossil fuels for the past 175 years or so.

[Edited on 2-27-2016 by SFandH]

David K - 2-27-2016 at 09:18 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Lack of fresh ground water (from pumping out or drought) and not rising sea level is what draws sea water into ground water.


Do you have a photo that proves that?


YES! I have photos that do prove the sea level is not higher, so it couldn't be the cause... and it has been often stated that farmers pumping out fresh water has caused it to become saltier.

Whale-ista - 2-27-2016 at 09:35 AM


thank you- interesting images and information.


Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/drought-impact.html

Whale-ista - 2-27-2016 at 09:43 AM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc  


However, sea level has been 20 feet HIGHER during the last interglacial period (125,000 years ago). And as recently as 20,000 years ago the sea level was 400 feet LOWER than today. All that without human intervention. No cars. No CO2.



I often see statements like the above, made for the purpose, I think, to somehow discredit anthropogenic climate change. But the fact that the planet has warmed naturally in the past, does not in any way eliminate the possibility that this time it is due the burning of fossil fuels for the past 175 years or so.

[Edited on 2-27-2016 by SFandH]


Thank you for this important point:the RATE of change, plus the extreme shifts, makes this very different from the previously observed cycles.

Also factor in a much larger and more established population: Humanity can't just pickup and move entire coastal cities to new locations, as they had to do a few times in the middle ages.

We will have a hard time managing these extreme higher/lower air and water temps, droughts/floods, tides etc. with billions of people being impacted.

David K - 2-27-2016 at 10:09 AM

I am just wondering, is there some belief that humans are somehow an alien species on this planet?

I am a believer that humans are a part of this planet, a natural part just like all other earthly plants and animals. Of course, maybe those who think humans are not, explains why they think any climate change is unnatural and human caused, despite that climate changes without humans and always has? Nature (Mother Earth, God, or whatever) can deal with natural events... it has for billions of years.

Has anyone who thinks the tiny areas where humans live and create pollution, ever been out on the ocean, far enough out where you don't see land? Well, that is what MOST of the earth looks like. Then you have polar ice caps, mountains, deserts, plains, forests, jungles, swamps, lakes, and finally towns and cities... Man's footprint is still not as huge as some here believe. Highway One destroyed natural vegetation about 100 meters or more wide through central Baja in 1973, a real shame and a scar for many years. Yet, go another 100 meters into the desert and that is still what most of central Baja look like... untouched. Some human activity is damaging and needed for basic living. It is still minute when compared to the damage from flash floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc.

I am all for clean air and water and not trashing the planet, but to think humans are mightier than the planet, mightier than Nature (Mother Earth, God, etc.), and has the ability to change global climate and sea levels, is just not happening.

Mexitron - 2-27-2016 at 10:50 AM

If you were a botanist David you might think differently---for example the Great Plains--one third of the US--are essentially gone---farming and cattle have either overrun them or had secondary effects. The vast California grasslands are almost completely transformed from native bunchgrasses to annual European invasive grasses and weeds. In Baja and much of the southwest US Tamarix have choked off waterways---take a look at the Rio Grande valley sometime---hundreds of square miles of non-native Tamarix that has suffocated the original ecosystem and pumps vital water supplies into the atmosphere---the Pecos River is a trickle now because of that. Come out to Texas and see non-native Ligustrum, Bamboo, and Nandina choking out the Oak Woodland understories. Story is the same around the world.

David K - 2-27-2016 at 10:57 AM

Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a "natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you!

MMc - 2-27-2016 at 11:09 AM

I am no expert in this field in any way, shape or form.
If we see a problem and deny we have a issue, shame on us for ignoring it.
If we do something to change and correct the issue, then we all win.
If we do something to change or correct the issue and it does not change the problem, what have we lost.
If man was to reduce his footprint in this world the world might be a better place. This of course ignores the that rest of the world wants their share too.
I am pretty fatalistic with humans controlling the world. The world will keep spinning, we might not be a factor.

4x4abc - 2-27-2016 at 01:27 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  
If you were a botanist David you might think differently---for example the Great Plains--one third of the US--are essentially gone---farming and cattle have either overrun them or had secondary effects. The vast California grasslands are almost completely transformed from native bunchgrasses to annual European invasive grasses and weeds. In Baja and much of the southwest US Tamarix have choked off waterways---take a look at the Rio Grande valley sometime---hundreds of square miles of non-native Tamarix that has suffocated the original ecosystem and pumps vital water supplies into the atmosphere---the Pecos River is a trickle now because of that. Come out to Texas and see non-native Ligustrum, Bamboo, and Nandina choking out the Oak Woodland understories. Story is the same around the world.


Love it! You opened an important door.
The aggressively invasive homo europaeus albescens killed 20 million of the native inhabitants. Choking the original ecosystem. Erasing all traces of other species.
Visit some of the cancer spots (LA, New York etc) and see how Asian, Black etc homo subsets are creating sick new environments.

But you would rather focus on the Tamarisk from Africa. Brought over by the Jesuit padres. I am sure David has that covered in his new book.
Without the Tamarisk early farming would not have been possible. Thriving even on the poorest water (including salt), creating fast wind protection and soil erosion management. Providing strong wood for construction.
Now that we don't need them any more, it's called an invasive species.



mtgoat666 - 2-27-2016 at 01:28 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  


Has anyone who thinks the tiny areas where humans live and create pollution, ever been out on the ocean, far enough out where you don't see land?


Dk,
Go sail offshore anywhere in the world. You rarely go a mile without finding floating human trash. The floating visible trash is just a small amount relative to the dissolved and sunk pollutants.

You are being pig headed to think man's pollution does not change the ecosystem.

If you approached mission history with the same inflexibility, your book would be garbage data.

David K - 2-27-2016 at 02:04 PM

The ocean is NOT the source of man made pollution. Try reading again my reply. I deal in facts and allow readers to form opinions rather than telling people what they should think.

[Edited on 2-27-2016 by David K]

May be helpful for future postings on controversial topics

Whale-ista - 2-27-2016 at 02:41 PM

FYI...
ChangeMyView: or, How to change someone’s mind, according to science

Summary:

"...research suggests that the arguments that end up changing people’s minds have certain dynamics. Numbers are important: The more people that try to persuade the original poster, the greater the likelihood of changing their view. So is timing: Those who write back first to the post first are more likely to persuade the original poster than those who write later, as the lefthand chart below shows."

To see charts, follow the link below.

Partial post:

The universe is constantly clamoring to change your mind about something – whether it’s in the form of Twitter feuds, political debates or Mountain Dew’s horrible “puppy monkey baby” Super Bowl ad. But how many of these appeals to alter our views really succeed?

A new paper from researchers at Cornell University sheds some light on how and why people are convinced to change their minds. The researchers analyzed nearly two years of postings on ChangeMyView, a forum on the internet community reddit where posters present an argument and invite people to reason against them.

These arguments on ChangeMyView range widely in terms of topic. “People don’t define who they are, their genetics and environment do,” reads one. “Zoos are immoral,” says another. “I think that the vast majority of Bernie supporters are selfish and ill-informed,” reads one thread, which received 1125 comments in one day.

Unlike the mindless clashes you often see on Twitter or Facebook, commentors on ChangeMyView explain their reasoning at length. The forum also requires the poster let others know when their view has changed by awarding the other poster a ∆ (a “delta,” the Greek letter used in math to denote change) and explaining exactly what modified their view. By looking at these exchanges, the researchers can study exactly what persuades people outside the laboratory and also have access to mass quantities of data.

Their research suggests that the arguments that end up changing people’s minds have certain dynamics. Numbers are important: The more people that try to persuade the original poster, the greater the likelihood of changing their view. So is timing: Those who write back first to the post first are more likely to persuade the original poster than those who write later, as the lefthand chart below shows.

Interestingly, the researchers find that some back-and-forth exchange between participants is a sign of success in convincing someone, but that a lot of it is a sign of failure -- shown in the chart below on the right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/how-t...

One Thing IS Certain................

MrBillM - 2-27-2016 at 03:06 PM

Those with the power to effect significant change are NOT posting HERE.

Or, pondering the wisdom of those posts.

The profusion of "social-media" forums have merely supplanted (in exponential numbers) the various "Letters to the Editor" in print media allowing (many) readers to vent and delude themselves that they're having some sort of influence over important events while allowing others to be entertained.

And, there's nothing wrong with that.

But, you DO have to wonder about those who take seriously their efforts.

THAT is a bit Delusional.

Still, as long as everybody is enjoying themselves, it's all harmless (and costless) Fun.

MMc - 2-27-2016 at 03:20 PM

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.”
Mark Twain

Ateo - 2-27-2016 at 04:30 PM

Quote: Originally posted by MMc  
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.”
Mark Twain


And with that, I'm closing this thread. :)

micah202 - 2-27-2016 at 04:37 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Ateo  
And with that, I'm closing this thread. :)



,,,rather presumptuous of yer :biggrin:

wessongroup - 2-27-2016 at 07:21 PM

Personally I have more concern over the drought ... than rising sea levels ... at this time

Making enough water for all human needs, is a difficult proposition

Cisco - 2-27-2016 at 07:41 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a "natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you!


"So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on."

Not for the one that is replaced David.

And if that one was your food source and the predating species is poisonous you are pretty well screwed.

micah202 - 2-28-2016 at 02:17 AM

.

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. Bertrand Russell

.

wilderone - 2-28-2016 at 08:50 AM

The natural world is not religion nor politics.
Tamarisk was introduced as an ornamental plant and has been used for windbreaks, shade and control erosion along stream banks. But they increase the salinity of the soil, making the land unproductive for agriculture and recreation. In Wyoming: Since clearing his land of invasive plant species [tamarisk and russian olive], [there] has also [been] a revival of bird populations. “I’ve got pheasants like I’ve never seen before. Yes, tamarisk was planted as wind breaks prior to the dust bowl era in the dust bowl states. How did that work out?
Unpenetrable tamarisk along stream banks prevent migration and limit food scavenging for animals. The eco-system includes animals, birds, reptiles, insects - all interconnected. An acceptance of this obliteration of an element of our world is shameful.
So. Agreed. There are plenty of human-caused problems that adversely affected a healthy ecosystem. Fast-forward 75 years – are we wiser? Can human beings now reverse some of the damage? Let’s hope so.
PS: if people in coastal towns are seeing their streets flood due to rising tides, I would have to say that is hard evidence. Evidence of ...?
Multiple choice:
1. Sinking land masses
2. Rising tides
3. Faulty measuring tapes
4. Mass delusion of citizens

bezzell - 2-28-2016 at 09:09 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wilderone  
The natural world is not religion nor politics.



ahh but there's one of the major problems!
A common denominator (sp) for ALOT of these deniers ...
- they actually believe that once upon a time, a snake spoke
- they actually believe that once upon a time, a tree caught on fire and started talking (I chit you, not)
- they actually believe that when you expire, you'll go to a special place and meet up with your pets!

there's really no point in trying to educate these 'believers'.

Imagine being so confused, that your interpretation of the 'human footprint' is just the roads (scars) and buildings and the actual footprints. (vs the change in the atmosphere's / oceans' chemical composition etc. and that all is under control of a magic-man in the sky. :o:o:o)

Ni modo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aannOZw2shY

[Edited on 2-28-2016 by bezzell]

vandenberg - 2-28-2016 at 09:47 AM

Quote: Originally posted by bezzell  


all is under control of a magic-man in the sky. :o:o:o)

Ni modo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aannOZw2shY

[Edited on 2-28-2016 by bezzell]


Not a magic man, but a deity with a beard.:biggrin:

THOSE Believers.......................

MrBillM - 2-28-2016 at 10:35 AM

At least, are not intending to cut off your Head should you disagree with THEIR beliefs.

As far as all of those "individual" acts which attract doubt and ridicule, it simply boils down to ONE question.

Is there a Divine Being or NOT ?

Such a Divinity "could", without question, make anything occur and defy ALL so-called Natural laws so the "referenced" events ONLY hinge on that ONE central question.

Was the Universe a result of a Supreme plan ?

Or, was it created from the coming together and explosion of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ?

The latter sounds as silly as the former is made out to be.

AND, that latter can NEVER be PROVED.

The rest is just trivial pursuit over details.


Mexitron - 2-28-2016 at 10:46 AM

Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc  
Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  
If you were a botanist David you might think differently---for example the Great Plains--one third of the US--are essentially gone---farming and cattle have either overrun them or had secondary effects. The vast California grasslands are almost completely transformed from native bunchgrasses to annual European invasive grasses and weeds. In Baja and much of the southwest US Tamarix have choked off waterways---take a look at the Rio Grande valley sometime---hundreds of square miles of non-native Tamarix that has suffocated the original ecosystem and pumps vital water supplies into the atmosphere---the Pecos River is a trickle now because of that. Come out to Texas and see non-native Ligustrum, Bamboo, and Nandina choking out the Oak Woodland understories. Story is the same around the world.


Love it! You opened an important door.
The aggressively invasive homo europaeus albescens killed 20 million of the native inhabitants. Choking the original ecosystem. Erasing all traces of other species.
Visit some of the cancer spots (LA, New York etc) and see how Asian, Black etc homo subsets are creating sick new environments.

But you would rather focus on the Tamarisk from Africa. Brought over by the Jesuit padres. I am sure David has that covered in his new book.
Without the Tamarisk early farming would not have been possible. Thriving even on the poorest water (including salt), creating fast wind protection and soil erosion management. Providing strong wood for construction.
Now that we don't need them any more, it's called an invasive species.




Unfortunately the Tamarisk species you are referring to is Tamarisk aphylla which was used as you say. That species is not particularly invasive. Since you are not a botanist I can understand your error. Tamarisk ramosissma is the culprit I am referring to and it was generally used as an ornamental and is from Eurasia. If you don't enjoy or appreciate intact ecosystems then the discussion can end here.

Mexitron - 2-28-2016 at 11:01 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a "natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you!


Well you can justify anything with the 'big picture' thinking. Who is to say that Hitler didn't have many beneficial results either? He took an impoverished economy with runaway inflation and turned it around into an economic success story. But I'm sure you don't want the rest of the crap that came along with him. There's always good and bad sides, its a matter of choice--personally I favor keeping ecosystems relatively intact. When one invasive species such as Tamarix takes over its replacing many different plant species and the insects and animals that are adapted to them that have been evolving for millions of years.

4x4abc - 2-28-2016 at 11:51 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  

Unfortunately the Tamarisk species you are referring to is Tamarisk aphylla which was used as you say. That species is not particularly invasive. Since you are not a botanist I can understand your error. Tamarisk ramosissma is the culprit I am referring to and it was generally used as an ornamental and is from Eurasia. If you don't enjoy or appreciate intact ecosystems then the discussion can end here.


Define "intact" ecosystem.

Like Galapagos where all present species invaded at one point from somewhere else?

Intact and nature don't really go well together.

Per definition, nature means constant change. Everything in the universe is in the process of changing. Nothing will be like it was yesterday. Nothing.

Restoring today into yesterday? Ask your children. They have an answer.

And as a reminder. A tamarisk from Eurasia is bad, you say. All the various humans after Columbus (or the Vikings , whatever you prefer) were a good development?

David K - 2-28-2016 at 12:02 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a "natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you!


Well you can justify anything with the 'big picture' thinking. Who is to say that Hitler didn't have many beneficial results either? He took an impoverished economy with runaway inflation and turned it around into an economic success story. But I'm sure you don't want the rest of the crap that came along with him. There's always good and bad sides, its a matter of choice--personally I favor keeping ecosystems relatively intact. When one invasive species such as Tamarix takes over its replacing many different plant species and the insects and animals that are adapted to them that have been evolving for millions of years.


Great example of when a 'natural event' is overly destructive and obviously not a positive change! Thank you!

Barry A. - 2-28-2016 at 01:22 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cisco  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a "natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you!


"So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on."

Not for the one that is replaced David.

And if that one was your food source and the predating species is poisonous you are pretty well screwed.


My understanding is that some 98 to 99% of all species that have ever inhabited this planet have gone extinct over the eons. Do we think that somehow man is going to change that trajectory in any meaningful way? I have a problem with that type thinking when it is applied to say more than your personal back yard.

mtgoat666 - 2-28-2016 at 01:26 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Barry A.  
Quote: Originally posted by Cisco  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a "natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you!


"So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on."

Not for the one that is replaced David.

And if that one was your food source and the predating species is poisonous you are pretty well screwed.


My understanding is that some 98 to 99% of all species that have ever inhabited this planet have gone extinct over the eons. Do we think that somehow man is going to change that trajectory in any meaningful way? I have a problem with that type thinking when it is applied to say more than your personal back yard.


Given that Homo sapiens has been wiping out species at a relatively rapid rate, I suspect the other species would cheer to see Homo sapiens go extinct. Maybe your dog will miss you, but all the other species will cheer Homo sapiens extinction.

Barry A. - 2-28-2016 at 02:16 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by Barry A.  
Quote: Originally posted by Cisco  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a "natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you!


"So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on."

Not for the one that is replaced David.

And if that one was your food source and the predating species is poisonous you are pretty well screwed.


My understanding is that some 98 to 99% of all species that have ever inhabited this planet have gone extinct over the eons. Do we think that somehow man is going to change that trajectory in any meaningful way? I have a problem with that type thinking when it is applied to say more than your personal back yard.


Given that Homo sapiens has been wiping out species at a relatively rapid rate, I suspect the other species would cheer to see Homo sapiens go extinct. Maybe your dog will miss you, but all the other species will cheer Homo sapiens extinction.


As you admit, that is all speculation, Goat. But even if correct, that would be a typical and logical hypothetical response from those species losing out (those that can think, that is). As you know, mass destruction of many species has often been caused in minutes, seconds even (Asteroid impact) totally by Natural causes, and man is not involved. But yes, it is amazing what 'man' can do when he sets his mind to it, but even man has trouble destroying species on the scale we are talking about here. I do worry about the lack of 'cost analysis' when we talk too ambitiously about changing things in Nature, however.

Yes, perhaps "my dog" would miss me, but not having a dog eliminates that tragic possibility-----see, I AM sensitive to other species.

wessongroup - 2-28-2016 at 04:58 PM

"but all the other species will cheer Homo sapiens extinction."

This may be moving a bit into Anthropomorphism :biggrin::biggrin:

As for the introduction of "other" species into another environment ... The Federal Government and states try to keep that to a minimum ... Same for other Nations too

Think the Mediterranean Fruit Fly ... there are other Class I pests which we® must deal with ... all the time

[Edited on 2-29-2016 by wessongroup]

Mexitron - 2-29-2016 at 02:37 PM

Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc  
Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  

Unfortunately the Tamarisk species you are referring to is Tamarisk aphylla which was used as you say. That species is not particularly invasive. Since you are not a botanist I can understand your error. Tamarisk ramosissma is the culprit I am referring to and it was generally used as an ornamental and is from Eurasia. If you don't enjoy or appreciate intact ecosystems then the discussion can end here.


Define "intact" ecosystem.

Like Galapagos where all present species invaded at one point from somewhere else?

Intact and nature don't really go well together.

Per definition, nature means constant change. Everything in the universe is in the process of changing. Nothing will be like it was yesterday. Nothing.

Restoring today into yesterday? Ask your children. They have an answer.

And as a reminder. A tamarisk from Eurasia is bad, you say. All the various humans after Columbus (or the Vikings , whatever you prefer) were a good development?


Why do you keep bringing up subsets of humans when the subject is about humanity at large having a footprint---not the footprint of man against other men.
"Intact" ecosystems have many layers of species diversity from mychorizae, soil bacteria, fungi, insects, flora and fauna---these have evolved over a long time into relatively stable systems that did not generally get new introductions on a constant and large scale---even the Galapagos and Hawaiian islands were gradually coalesced. This current onslaught on ecosystems is creating dead zones other than the invasive plant thriving. Barry, as a park ranger you should know the value of species diversity. Yes, the universe is constantly changing and species diversity helps ecosystems do just that. Its like growing one type of corn--a disease comes along and wipes it out--well, you're toast. But if you are growing ten types of corn you're only out 10 percent and you can survive.

Barry A. - 2-29-2016 at 03:58 PM

Mexitron-------you make some thoughtful points. I would counter with the point that David K. is constantly making----"Man is part of Nature", if I understand Evolution properly. Who can say that "intact ecosystems" don't include the changes brought on by man, even if extreme? For example in Yellowstone Natl. Park-------the attempt at preservation of "intact ecosystems" there via man's "Fire control" resulted over a few years in a disastrous situation when it finally did burn out of control--------talk about your "dead zones". In that case "dead" was not quite the result, but close, and certainly a drastic change that will take many years to possibly revert to pre-man levels, if ever, as is true with all presumed "dead zones". If we had allowed fires to burn naturally as they had for eons, then the result would have been, according to your theory as I understand it, all ok?!?!? The truth as I see it is that man has only a rudimentary idea of what an actual intact ecosystem is, and he is often wrong or partially wrong. To stop in it's tracks a man-devised project because some very obscure creature or plant is present just seems like folly and arrogance to me, and just might be counter to the natural development of things if man is truly a part of nature.. I am willing to take that chance, but you apparently are not? THAT may be the bottom line. Still, you points are deeply thought-provoking, to me anyway.

wessongroup - 2-29-2016 at 04:21 PM

Agreed .. Mexitron brings a steady hand to the discussion

Would only offer that entire planet is an ecosystem

And what does man bring to this ecosystem which is overall positive to the "ecosystem" ... when looking at a "natural system"

It would certainly appear to be negatives ... as man changes the ecosystem for one purpose ... the benefit of one species ... not all ... And man's attempts to "manage" it's impact can be viewed currently around the planet

And yes the human is part of the ecosystem ... big difference it is one player in the "system" which does not have to follow the same laws of nature ... which all other factors in the ecosystem do which would appears to be causing problems in a number of area's

The indians used to set fires to burn off the overgrowth to allow for more feed for the "game" ... just something they picked up over a few thousand years ... and worked fine till the Europeans arrived and management changed

[Edited on 2-29-2016 by wessongroup]

DianaT - 2-29-2016 at 04:34 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
Agreed .. Mexitron brings a steady hand to the discussion

Would only offer that entire planet is an ecosystem

And what does man bring to this ecosystem which is overall positive to the "ecosystem" ... when looking at a "natural system"

It would certainly appear to be negatives ... as man changes the ecosystem for one purpose ... the benefit of one species ... not all ... And man's attempts to "manage" it's impact can be viewed currently around the planet

And yes the human is part of the ecosystem ... big difference it is one player in the "system" which does not have to follow the same laws of nature ... which all other factors in the ecosystem do which would appears to be causing problems in a number of area's

The indians used to set fires to burn off the overgrowth to allow for more feed for the "game" ... just something they picked up over a few thousand years ... and worked fine till the Europeans arrived and management changed

[Edited on 2-29-2016 by wessongroup]


Yes, I agree with this.

Homo Sapien Sapiens have been quite prosperous if that is defined by multiplying.

Yes, humans are a part of the system, but my question is; Is there any other species who destroys its own environment. And if the answer is yes, I am seriously interested in knowing which species does so. And does it destroy its own environment so quickly and completely?

At times, humans have changed behavior and brought back some of the destruction etc., but ...............

SFandH - 2-29-2016 at 04:37 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  


And what does man bring to this ecosystem which is overall positive to the "ecosystem" ... when looking at a "natural system"



Beer and potato chips, but of course.

Just finished off a bag of Ruffles, or ROOF-lays, as our Mexican friends say. Washing them down with cold TKT light.

Let's see the palm tree photo that disproves decades of scientific research by 1000s of scientists around the world. Quite remarkable when you think about it.

bajaguy - 2-29-2016 at 04:56 PM

It all changed when Smoky Bear showed up.


Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  


The indians used to set fires to burn off the overgrowth to allow for more feed for the "game" ... just something they picked up over a few thousand years ... and worked fine till the Europeans arrived and management changed

[Edited on 2-29-2016 by wessongroup]

SFandH - 2-29-2016 at 04:58 PM

Quote: Originally posted by DianaT  
Is there any other species who destroys its own environment. And if the answer is yes, I am seriously interested in knowing which species does so. And does it destroy its own environment so quickly and completely?



A plague of locusts - not good.

wessongroup - 2-29-2016 at 05:17 PM

This could be an example of something being introduced into an Ecosystem ... With little benefit to the "whole"

$2.5 million Bugatti Chiron set to claim world speed record

http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/bugatti-chiron-fastest-...

I enjoy the abilities of human's to create all kinds of things ... however, the need of an ecosystem of having the worlds fastest car ... brings very little to the "ecosystem" in positives IMO

[Edited on 3-1-2016 by wessongroup]

SFandH - 2-29-2016 at 05:28 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
This could be an example of something being introduced into an Ecosystem ... With little benefit to the "whole"

$2.5 million Bugatti Chiron set to claim world speed record

http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/bugatti-chiron-fastest-...



I dunno wesson, that's a head scratcher. But I think there is a benefit to ecosystem with the Bugatti Chiron at 2.5 mil a copy. Think about it. If it were the only car available the lines at the border going north would be a heck of a lot shorter. Unless you were in the pedestrian line, that is.




zoom, zoom

[Edited on 3-1-2016 by SFandH]

wessongroup - 2-29-2016 at 05:56 PM

Not sure how it would work with a "A plague of locusts" .. :lol::lol:

[Edited on 3-1-2016 by wessongroup]

SFandH - 2-29-2016 at 05:58 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
"A plague of locusts" .. :lol::lol:



A good metaphor for mankind, doncha think?


Mexitron - 3-1-2016 at 05:07 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Barry A.  
Mexitron-------you make some thoughtful points. I would counter with the point that David K. is constantly making----"Man is part of Nature", if I understand Evolution properly. Who can say that "intact ecosystems" don't include the changes brought on by man, even if extreme? For example in Yellowstone Natl. Park-------the attempt at preservation of "intact ecosystems" there via man's "Fire control" resulted over a few years in a disastrous situation when it finally did burn out of control--------talk about your "dead zones". In that case "dead" was not quite the result, but close, and certainly a drastic change that will take many years to possibly revert to pre-man levels, if ever, as is true with all presumed "dead zones". If we had allowed fires to burn naturally as they had for eons, then the result would have been, according to your theory as I understand it, all ok?!?!? The truth as I see it is that man has only a rudimentary idea of what an actual intact ecosystem is, and he is often wrong or partially wrong. To stop in it's tracks a man-devised project because some very obscure creature or plant is present just seems like folly and arrogance to me, and just might be counter to the natural development of things if man is truly a part of nature.. I am willing to take that chance, but you apparently are not? THAT may be the bottom line. Still, you points are deeply thought-provoking, to me anyway.


Well I wasn't talking about saving EVERY species I was talking about the impact of invasives on ecosystem health. Yes it gets a little too principled to stop large projects that benefit many people to save one subspecies that was never very numerous anyway. We have to balance this stuff all out. That said, we are currently in what scientists are calling the Holocene extinction event and we are the cause---the number of species going extinct is on par with previous extinction events and those didn't happen every 100 years but only occasionally over a billion years so that should be some food for thought as well.
And, with the coming genomics revolution, who's to say we won't have the capability to restore species (aka 'Jurassic Park') or be able to alter genes in invasives to make them die off regionally. Maybe we can even use invasives as fuel for cellulosic ethanol plants--one way to help the ecosystem and have it pay for itself.

monoloco - 3-1-2016 at 09:02 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  
Quote: Originally posted by Barry A.  
Mexitron-------you make some thoughtful points. I would counter with the point that David K. is constantly making----"Man is part of Nature", if I understand Evolution properly. Who can say that "intact ecosystems" don't include the changes brought on by man, even if extreme? For example in Yellowstone Natl. Park-------the attempt at preservation of "intact ecosystems" there via man's "Fire control" resulted over a few years in a disastrous situation when it finally did burn out of control--------talk about your "dead zones". In that case "dead" was not quite the result, but close, and certainly a drastic change that will take many years to possibly revert to pre-man levels, if ever, as is true with all presumed "dead zones". If we had allowed fires to burn naturally as they had for eons, then the result would have been, according to your theory as I understand it, all ok?!?!? The truth as I see it is that man has only a rudimentary idea of what an actual intact ecosystem is, and he is often wrong or partially wrong. To stop in it's tracks a man-devised project because some very obscure creature or plant is present just seems like folly and arrogance to me, and just might be counter to the natural development of things if man is truly a part of nature.. I am willing to take that chance, but you apparently are not? THAT may be the bottom line. Still, you points are deeply thought-provoking, to me anyway.


Well I wasn't talking about saving EVERY species I was talking about the impact of invasives on ecosystem health. Yes it gets a little too principled to stop large projects that benefit many people to save one subspecies that was never very numerous anyway. We have to balance this stuff all out. That said, we are currently in what scientists are calling the Holocene extinction event and we are the cause---the number of species going extinct is on par with previous extinction events and those didn't happen every 100 years but only occasionally over a billion years so that should be some food for thought as well.
And, with the coming genomics revolution, who's to say we won't have the capability to restore species (aka 'Jurassic Park') or be able to alter genes in invasives to make them die off regionally. Maybe we can even use invasives as fuel for cellulosic ethanol plants--one way to help the ecosystem and have it pay for itself.
Mankind has become an invasive species and nature will deal with us as it does with other invasive species.

BajaTed - 3-1-2016 at 10:00 AM

Lets extrapolate to the extreme; mankind is learning the lessons needed to exist on other planets and not screw them up too.

See ya'll on the other side of the universe in a couple of eons.

it's all a test of faith in HUMANS in the interim.






gnukid - 3-1-2016 at 12:40 PM

Those interested in sea level rise and the article may appreciate these articles on the topic of recent work by Justin Gillis and the study by Stefan Rahmstorf et al referenced in NYT.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millen...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/27/what-to-do-about-the-f...

https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-acceler...

From the first link posted above...

David K - 3-1-2016 at 02:37 PM

Interesting graph from 400 B.C. to 2000 A.D. showing the sea level has gone up and down many times, but from 5 cm. to under 15 cm. overall. The net rise in the ocean after 2,400 years is not even 10 cm. (less than 4 inches). wow. :rolleyes:



When the difference between high tide and low tide, every day, is measured in feet, does 4 inches mean our days are numbered?

What made the graph dive down in the past? Who says it won't dive down again? I am surprised the sea level change is so tiny over 2,400 years.

wessongroup - 3-1-2016 at 03:41 PM

Hey ... What's with that "Hockey stick" in 2000 :):)

But, I do agree the changes which have been measured are small .. as one would expect, given the volume under discussion ... all oceans on the planet does create something rather large to measure

Wonder what their findings and/or measurements were in 159 AD on the west cost of North American or South America

However, not to sure about the "measurements" taken in BC and for a number of Centuries prior to the 20th Century ...

Measuring abilities and/or instrumentation has changed somewhat

[Edited on 3-1-2016 by wessongroup]

David K - 3-1-2016 at 05:16 PM

Yup, a big fuss over 4 inches in two thousand years. I would be more worried about an asteroid hitting the earth than sea level rise. So, as they say in Jamaica, 'don't worry mon'.
 Pages:  1  2