Volcanic Eruptions Caused Ancient Warming And Cooling

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am still waiting for a continuation of the discussion on MEAN vs EXTREME. I think the word you really want is MEDIAN, a much more signification measure. An occassional outlying number can skew a mean value, where median gives you a better idea how those values dispersed, something more meaningful.

When reporting the household income in the United States, almost all sources will use the "Median Income". Ever wonder why this metric is being used instead of the "Mean Income"?

The "Median Income" for the the US in 2004 is $43,389 while the "Mean Income" is at $60,528 which is about 40% higher. (Source: US Household Income)

Wait a minute! This means that there are a lot of high income earners that bring the average up. Remember back in college or high school?

The media always used "Median Income" since about half of the readers will feel better (I earn more than half of the individuals in the United States) but if they use the "Mean Income", there will be less happy readers.

[HAL 9000 96]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

Their numbers are decreasing. Thats a fact. They may spread a little but they are not annhilating trees as they initially did. Nature is bringing them back into check. Slower than the initial explosion, but nonetheless. As I said, they only affect 60 - 150 year old trees, and have no effect (other than paving the way) on the younger trees. The droughts are also not as bad as they were initially. But again, you're using weather to substantiate GW, which is what you said I cannot use to unsubstantiate it. You cannot say they are worse than they've ever been. Droughts have happened throughout all of history. It affects different areas in different ways.

I am really glad you're using something other than non-science to try to understand the progression of the pathology of these forests, but arguing that because one thing that has obvious root causes that can be more than natural as having happened in the past as an excuse to instantly discredit a present effect is very irrational.

Furthermore- actual forest biologists (yes, those pesky ones that actually work in those forests) are quantifying beetle populations in these affected areas in the Northern Rockies. End result? Beetle populations rise with every new invasion of virgin forest. The only way of this happening is if the MEAN temperature (not median, mind you- but the overall average temperature in the new areas) is increased to a point where the beetle can successfully create a feeding niche on well-hydrated (read: NO drought) forests.

This creates a population boom.

AS the food source decreases, the beetle population crashes. This is standard ecology. Perhaps this is where you are stuck?

Then by natural mechanisms, the beetle population expands. Where it can't sustain a population, it crashes further more. Where it can, it continues.

Since new areas are opening up where new populations can be established, that is exactly where they go. They seek greener pastures, and they are finding them.

That has nothing to do with extreme and random droughts as a function of seasonal weather patterns and everything to do with the climate shifting, thusly facilitating their expansion in the first place.

Finally, this is occurring over the last few years. Which means that temperature has increased on the mean over that time. Thereby creating a niche for these beetles where previously there was none.

Can you see the logic and progression in that Joe?

[HAL 9000 96]

I am still waiting for a continuation of the discussion on MEAN vs EXTREME. I think the word you really want is MEDIAN, a much more signification measure. An occassional outlying number can skew a mean value, where median gives you a better idea how those values dispersed, something more meaningful.

When reporting the household income in the United States, almost all sources will use the "Median Income". Ever wonder why this metric is being used instead of the "Mean Income"?

The "Median Income" for the the US in 2004 is $43,389 while the "Mean Income" is at $60,528 which is about 40% higher. (Source: US Household Income)

Wait a minute! This means that there are a lot of high income earners that bring the average up. Remember back in college or high school?

The media always used "Median Income" since about half of the readers will feel better (I earn more than half of the individuals in the United States) but if they use the "Mean Income", there will be less happy readers.

LOL

I know what you mean. It would be a median value for the non-outlier set of data. Very similar mathematically to the actual mean value if the distribution were bell shaped (normally distributed).

Since we are not discussing seasons where daily extremes are taken into a mean-skew perspective- in other words... when these data sets are evaluated, they likely have a method for analyzing these extreme data points (outliers) that would give more skewed results in the end.

I think the simplest way would be to go 1.5 X IQR but I am sure some of those data points may be included due to forests being very capable (as well as these beetles) to be able to withstand the occasional extreme temperature day.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

Their numbers are decreasing. Thats a fact. They may spread a little but they are not annhilating trees as they initially did. Nature is bringing them back into check. Slower than the initial explosion, but nonetheless. As I said, they only affect 60 - 150 year old trees, and have no effect (other than paving the way) on the younger trees. The droughts are also not as bad as they were initially. But again, you're using weather to substantiate GW, which is what you said I cannot use to unsubstantiate it. You cannot say they are worse than they've ever been. Droughts have happened throughout all of history. It affects different areas in different ways.

I am really glad you're using something other than non-science to try to understand the progression of the pathology of these forests, but arguing that because one thing that has obvious root causes that can be more than natural as having happened in the past as an excuse to instantly discredit a present effect is very irrational.

Furthermore- actual forest biologists (yes, those pesky ones that actually work in those forests) are quantifying beetle populations in these affected areas in the Northern Rockies. End result? Beetle populations rise with every new invasion of virgin forest. The only way of this happening is if the MEAN temperature (not median, mind you- but the overall average temperature in the new areas) is increased to a point where the beetle can successfully create a feeding niche on well-hydrated (read: NO drought) forests.

This creates a population boom.

AS the food source decreases, the beetle population crashes. This is standard ecology. Perhaps this is where you are stuck?

Then by natural mechanisms, the beetle population expands. Where it can't sustain a population, it crashes further more. Where it can, it continues.

Since new areas are opening up where new populations can be established, that is exactly where they go. They seek greener pastures, and they are finding them.

That has nothing to do with extreme and random droughts as a function of seasonal weather patterns and everything to do with the climate shifting, thusly facilitating their expansion in the first place.

Finally, this is occurring over the last few years. Which means that temperature has increased on the mean over that time. Thereby creating a niche for these beetles where previously there was none.

Can you see the logic and progression in that Joe?

THis report disagrees with you. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publicat...eetleReport.pdf

It is happening, but GW as a reason is just grasping at straws. It has much to do with drought, densely packed conifers, and unequal age distribution. And as the report explains, this is not the first time they've been in outbreak stage.

[HAL 9000 96]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

Their numbers are decreasing. Thats a fact. They may spread a little but they are not annhilating trees as they initially did. Nature is bringing them back into check. Slower than the initial explosion, but nonetheless. As I said, they only affect 60 - 150 year old trees, and have no effect (other than paving the way) on the younger trees. The droughts are also not as bad as they were initially. But again, you're using weather to substantiate GW, which is what you said I cannot use to unsubstantiate it. You cannot say they are worse than they've ever been. Droughts have happened throughout all of history. It affects different areas in different ways.

I am really glad you're using something other than non-science to try to understand the progression of the pathology of these forests, but arguing that because one thing that has obvious root causes that can be more than natural as having happened in the past as an excuse to instantly discredit a present effect is very irrational.

Furthermore- actual forest biologists (yes, those pesky ones that actually work in those forests) are quantifying beetle populations in these affected areas in the Northern Rockies. End result? Beetle populations rise with every new invasion of virgin forest. The only way of this happening is if the MEAN temperature (not median, mind you- but the overall average temperature in the new areas) is increased to a point where the beetle can successfully create a feeding niche on well-hydrated (read: NO drought) forests.

This creates a population boom.

AS the food source decreases, the beetle population crashes. This is standard ecology. Perhaps this is where you are stuck?

Then by natural mechanisms, the beetle population expands. Where it can't sustain a population, it crashes further more. Where it can, it continues.

Since new areas are opening up where new populations can be established, that is exactly where they go. They seek greener pastures, and they are finding them.

That has nothing to do with extreme and random droughts as a function of seasonal weather patterns and everything to do with the climate shifting, thusly facilitating their expansion in the first place.

Finally, this is occurring over the last few years. Which means that temperature has increased on the mean over that time. Thereby creating a niche for these beetles where previously there was none.

Can you see the logic and progression in that Joe?

THis report disagrees with you. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publicat...eetleReport.pdf

It is happening, but GW as a reason is just grasping at straws. It has much to do with drought, densely packed conifers, and unequal age distribution. And as the report explains, this is not the first time they've been in outbreak stage.

Try reading my post again Joe.

If you go to the second paragraph after the one you paraphrased from, you'd realize something about that drought frequency. And how that is independent of the beetle species being present in these forests for millennia.

Furthermore- the report is not one that delves into the issue of causality is it?

(It really doesn't)

The box in page 7, along with the paragraph on top of it, say a few things that should point to the causation, in case you'd like to discuss those topics next. You might not like what those scientists come up with.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

HAL YOU LYIN LIBRUL ####### WHAT ABOUT THEM BEETLES HUH!!! YEA DATS RITE THE BEETLES ARE DYIN AND IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE AND GLOBAL COOLING NOT TO MENTION THEM DANGED LIBRUL WINDMILLS THEY KEEP GETTIN STUCK IN!! BUT YOU DON WANNA TALK ABT THAT DO YA!!!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

Their numbers are decreasing. Thats a fact. They may spread a little but they are not annhilating trees as they initially did. Nature is bringing them back into check. Slower than the initial explosion, but nonetheless. As I said, they only affect 60 - 150 year old trees, and have no effect (other than paving the way) on the younger trees. The droughts are also not as bad as they were initially. But again, you're using weather to substantiate GW, which is what you said I cannot use to unsubstantiate it. You cannot say they are worse than they've ever been. Droughts have happened throughout all of history. It affects different areas in different ways.

I am really glad you're using something other than non-science to try to understand the progression of the pathology of these forests, but arguing that because one thing that has obvious root causes that can be more than natural as having happened in the past as an excuse to instantly discredit a present effect is very irrational.

Furthermore- actual forest biologists (yes, those pesky ones that actually work in those forests) are quantifying beetle populations in these affected areas in the Northern Rockies. End result? Beetle populations rise with every new invasion of virgin forest. The only way of this happening is if the MEAN temperature (not median, mind you- but the overall average temperature in the new areas) is increased to a point where the beetle can successfully create a feeding niche on well-hydrated (read: NO drought) forests.

This creates a population boom.

AS the food source decreases, the beetle population crashes. This is standard ecology. Perhaps this is where you are stuck?

Then by natural mechanisms, the beetle population expands. Where it can't sustain a population, it crashes further more. Where it can, it continues.

Since new areas are opening up where new populations can be established, that is exactly where they go. They seek greener pastures, and they are finding them.

That has nothing to do with extreme and random droughts as a function of seasonal weather patterns and everything to do with the climate shifting, thusly facilitating their expansion in the first place.

Finally, this is occurring over the last few years. Which means that temperature has increased on the mean over that time. Thereby creating a niche for these beetles where previously there was none.

Can you see the logic and progression in that Joe?

THis report disagrees with you. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publicat...eetleReport.pdf

It is happening, but GW as a reason is just grasping at straws. It has much to do with drought, densely packed conifers, and unequal age distribution. And as the report explains, this is not the first time they've been in outbreak stage.

Try reading my post again Joe.

If you go to the second paragraph after the one you paraphrased from, you'd realize something about that drought frequency. And how that is independent of the beetle species being present in these forests for millennia.

Furthermore- the report is not one that delves into the issue of causality is it?

(It really doesn't)

The box in page 7, along with the paragraph on top of it, say a few things that should point to the causation, in case you'd like to discuss those topics next. You might not like what those scientists come up with.

But you'll use anything as a propaganda for GW. My pee being blue would be proof for you.

Bark beetles have nothing to do with GW.

[HAL 9000 96]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

Their numbers are decreasing. Thats a fact. They may spread a little but they are not annhilating trees as they initially did. Nature is bringing them back into check. Slower than the initial explosion, but nonetheless. As I said, they only affect 60 - 150 year old trees, and have no effect (other than paving the way) on the younger trees. The droughts are also not as bad as they were initially. But again, you're using weather to substantiate GW, which is what you said I cannot use to unsubstantiate it. You cannot say they are worse than they've ever been. Droughts have happened throughout all of history. It affects different areas in different ways.

I am really glad you're using something other than non-science to try to understand the progression of the pathology of these forests, but arguing that because one thing that has obvious root causes that can be more than natural as having happened in the past as an excuse to instantly discredit a present effect is very irrational.

Furthermore- actual forest biologists (yes, those pesky ones that actually work in those forests) are quantifying beetle populations in these affected areas in the Northern Rockies. End result? Beetle populations rise with every new invasion of virgin forest. The only way of this happening is if the MEAN temperature (not median, mind you- but the overall average temperature in the new areas) is increased to a point where the beetle can successfully create a feeding niche on well-hydrated (read: NO drought) forests.

This creates a population boom.

AS the food source decreases, the beetle population crashes. This is standard ecology. Perhaps this is where you are stuck?

Then by natural mechanisms, the beetle population expands. Where it can't sustain a population, it crashes further more. Where it can, it continues.

Since new areas are opening up where new populations can be established, that is exactly where they go. They seek greener pastures, and they are finding them.

That has nothing to do with extreme and random droughts as a function of seasonal weather patterns and everything to do with the climate shifting, thusly facilitating their expansion in the first place.

Finally, this is occurring over the last few years. Which means that temperature has increased on the mean over that time. Thereby creating a niche for these beetles where previously there was none.

Can you see the logic and progression in that Joe?

THis report disagrees with you. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publicat...eetleReport.pdf

It is happening, but GW as a reason is just grasping at straws. It has much to do with drought, densely packed conifers, and unequal age distribution. And as the report explains, this is not the first time they've been in outbreak stage.

Try reading my post again Joe.

If you go to the second paragraph after the one you paraphrased from, you'd realize something about that drought frequency. And how that is independent of the beetle species being present in these forests for millennia.

Furthermore- the report is not one that delves into the issue of causality is it?

(It really doesn't)

The box in page 7, along with the paragraph on top of it, say a few things that should point to the causation, in case you'd like to discuss those topics next. You might not like what those scientists come up with.

But you'll use anything as a propaganda for GW. My pee being blue would be proof for you.

Bark beetles have nothing to do with GW.

Oh come one Joe... I think you got more potential than that. Try sticking to the substance like you did a few posts ago- you were doing good. Wrong... but good. Its a good start.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

Their numbers are decreasing. Thats a fact. They may spread a little but they are not annhilating trees as they initially did. Nature is bringing them back into check. Slower than the initial explosion, but nonetheless. As I said, they only affect 60 - 150 year old trees, and have no effect (other than paving the way) on the younger trees. The droughts are also not as bad as they were initially. But again, you're using weather to substantiate GW, which is what you said I cannot use to unsubstantiate it. You cannot say they are worse than they've ever been. Droughts have happened throughout all of history. It affects different areas in different ways.

I am really glad you're using something other than non-science to try to understand the progression of the pathology of these forests, but arguing that because one thing that has obvious root causes that can be more than natural as having happened in the past as an excuse to instantly discredit a present effect is very irrational.

Furthermore- actual forest biologists (yes, those pesky ones that actually work in those forests) are quantifying beetle populations in these affected areas in the Northern Rockies. End result? Beetle populations rise with every new invasion of virgin forest. The only way of this happening is if the MEAN temperature (not median, mind you- but the overall average temperature in the new areas) is increased to a point where the beetle can successfully create a feeding niche on well-hydrated (read: NO drought) forests.

This creates a population boom.

AS the food source decreases, the beetle population crashes. This is standard ecology. Perhaps this is where you are stuck?

Then by natural mechanisms, the beetle population expands. Where it can't sustain a population, it crashes further more. Where it can, it continues.

Since new areas are opening up where new populations can be established, that is exactly where they go. They seek greener pastures, and they are finding them.

That has nothing to do with extreme and random droughts as a function of seasonal weather patterns and everything to do with the climate shifting, thusly facilitating their expansion in the first place.

Finally, this is occurring over the last few years. Which means that temperature has increased on the mean over that time. Thereby creating a niche for these beetles where previously there was none.

Can you see the logic and progression in that Joe?

THis report disagrees with you. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publicat...eetleReport.pdf

It is happening, but GW as a reason is just grasping at straws. It has much to do with drought, densely packed conifers, and unequal age distribution. And as the report explains, this is not the first time they've been in outbreak stage.

Try reading my post again Joe.

If you go to the second paragraph after the one you paraphrased from, you'd realize something about that drought frequency. And how that is independent of the beetle species being present in these forests for millennia.

Furthermore- the report is not one that delves into the issue of causality is it?

(It really doesn't)

The box in page 7, along with the paragraph on top of it, say a few things that should point to the causation, in case you'd like to discuss those topics next. You might not like what those scientists come up with.

But you'll use anything as a propaganda for GW. My pee being blue would be proof for you.

Bark beetles have nothing to do with GW.

Oh come one Joe... I think you got more potential than that. Try sticking to the substance like you did a few posts ago- you were doing good. Wrong... but good. Its a good start.

Many areas are showing earlier and longer winters which are wreaking havoc on the beetles. And I'm sorry, but it isn't true that they go after young healthy, well watered trees. They go after dryer older weaker trees. A lot of the trees in these forests you mention are the same age, and that is asking for trouble at some point. Because the problem that afflicts one tree is easily afflicting the other because of the same favorable conditions.

[HAL 9000 96]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

Their numbers are decreasing. Thats a fact. They may spread a little but they are not annhilating trees as they initially did. Nature is bringing them back into check. Slower than the initial explosion, but nonetheless. As I said, they only affect 60 - 150 year old trees, and have no effect (other than paving the way) on the younger trees. The droughts are also not as bad as they were initially. But again, you're using weather to substantiate GW, which is what you said I cannot use to unsubstantiate it. You cannot say they are worse than they've ever been. Droughts have happened throughout all of history. It affects different areas in different ways.

I am really glad you're using something other than non-science to try to understand the progression of the pathology of these forests, but arguing that because one thing that has obvious root causes that can be more than natural as having happened in the past as an excuse to instantly discredit a present effect is very irrational.

Furthermore- actual forest biologists (yes, those pesky ones that actually work in those forests) are quantifying beetle populations in these affected areas in the Northern Rockies. End result? Beetle populations rise with every new invasion of virgin forest. The only way of this happening is if the MEAN temperature (not median, mind you- but the overall average temperature in the new areas) is increased to a point where the beetle can successfully create a feeding niche on well-hydrated (read: NO drought) forests.

This creates a population boom.

AS the food source decreases, the beetle population crashes. This is standard ecology. Perhaps this is where you are stuck?

Then by natural mechanisms, the beetle population expands. Where it can't sustain a population, it crashes further more. Where it can, it continues.

Since new areas are opening up where new populations can be established, that is exactly where they go. They seek greener pastures, and they are finding them.

That has nothing to do with extreme and random droughts as a function of seasonal weather patterns and everything to do with the climate shifting, thusly facilitating their expansion in the first place.

Finally, this is occurring over the last few years. Which means that temperature has increased on the mean over that time. Thereby creating a niche for these beetles where previously there was none.

Can you see the logic and progression in that Joe?

THis report disagrees with you. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publicat...eetleReport.pdf

It is happening, but GW as a reason is just grasping at straws. It has much to do with drought, densely packed conifers, and unequal age distribution. And as the report explains, this is not the first time they've been in outbreak stage.

Try reading my post again Joe.

If you go to the second paragraph after the one you paraphrased from, you'd realize something about that drought frequency. And how that is independent of the beetle species being present in these forests for millennia.

Furthermore- the report is not one that delves into the issue of causality is it?

(It really doesn't)

The box in page 7, along with the paragraph on top of it, say a few things that should point to the causation, in case you'd like to discuss those topics next. You might not like what those scientists come up with.

But you'll use anything as a propaganda for GW. My pee being blue would be proof for you.

Bark beetles have nothing to do with GW.

Oh come one Joe... I think you got more potential than that. Try sticking to the substance like you did a few posts ago- you were doing good. Wrong... but good. Its a good start.

Many areas are showing earlier and longer winters which are wreaking havoc on the beetles. And I'm sorry, but it isn't true that they go after young healthy, well watered trees. They go after dryer older weaker trees. A lot of the trees in these forests you mention are the same age, and that is asking for trouble at some point. Because the problem that afflicts one tree is easily afflicting the other because of the same favorable conditions.

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Don't copout yet and say i'm not a scientist so I can't know anything.

Lets talk about the facts. Which i gave you. Dr. Hal

Its a fact that the beetles were triggered by the droughts, and the fact that the trees are so densely packed, all roughly around the same age, that allowed the beetles to destroy millions of trees rather quickly (which are still standing there.) The numbers have decreased since 2002 when that report was written, but there is plenty in that report that disagrees with you. And get this.... It was written by scientists!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Now there is something that seems to be absent from this whole GW thing.

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Don't copout yet and say i'm not a scientist so I can't know anything.

Lets talk about the facts. Which i gave you. Dr. Hal

Its a fact that the beetles were triggered by the droughts, and the fact that the trees are so densely packed, all roughly around the same age, that allowed the beetles to destroy millions of trees rather quickly (which are still standing there.) The numbers have decreased since 2002 when that report was written, but there is plenty in that report that disagrees with you. And get this.... It was written by scientists!

Lumber Industry Scientists, no doubt!

[HAL 9000 96]

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Don't copout yet and say i'm not a scientist so I can't know anything.

Lets talk about the facts. Which i gave you. Dr. Hal

Its a fact that the beetles were triggered by the droughts, and the fact that the trees are so densely packed, all roughly around the same age, that allowed the beetles to destroy millions of trees rather quickly (which are still standing there.) The numbers have decreased since 2002 when that report was written, but there is plenty in that report that disagrees with you. And get this.... It was written by scientists!

You are claiming this causality when the report deals with seeking preventive strategies. Please tell me exactly where it is an absolute. An absolute that you are extrapolating incorrectly.

(In other words, you gave me facts that are not in the report...)

That is one problem with you- you think you got a definitive 'disproving' source and all you really got was ONE source that states obvious things. The beetle is an opportunistic predator and all the things they state are very true about it- population boom whenever trees become weakened. Population explosions occurring more frequently (hm that should say something- I am repeating myself I know). Weak tree densities increasing population booms...

All these things, at least to a careful reader, should say very obvious and clear things. If you want to delve deeper into the text I welcome it so- it only makes the punctate (defined on a yearly, seasonal basis) pattern (an indicator of climate shift) of higher population explosions seem painfully obvious to see.

Discarding a conclusion from data that isn't there... well... perhaps requires a bit more reinventing of what constitutes rational thought.

[HAL 9000 96]

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Now there is something that seems to be absent from this whole GW thing.

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Don't copout yet and say i'm not a scientist so I can't know anything.

Lets talk about the facts. Which i gave you. Dr. Hal

Its a fact that the beetles were triggered by the droughts, and the fact that the trees are so densely packed, all roughly around the same age, that allowed the beetles to destroy millions of trees rather quickly (which are still standing there.) The numbers have decreased since 2002 when that report was written, but there is plenty in that report that disagrees with you. And get this.... It was written by scientists!

Lumber Industry Scientists, no doubt!

Indeed. Adaptation meaning mechanisms that the beetles can employ to prey on more than one weak food source. You may be referring to human adaptation... thereby circumventing the cause altogether. Engineering the planet may also end up being one road we don't want to go for the potential to open up more cans of worms politically and environmentally.

And yes... imagine that... industry scientists may have a financial interest in healthier forests. Dead trees are not very usable in lumber usage. They are usable for biomass power though... but the current cost of harvesting this dying/dead wood is more expensive than just cutting it and letting nature run its course.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Now there is something that seems to be absent from this whole GW thing.

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Don't copout yet and say i'm not a scientist so I can't know anything.

Lets talk about the facts. Which i gave you. Dr. Hal

Its a fact that the beetles were triggered by the droughts, and the fact that the trees are so densely packed, all roughly around the same age, that allowed the beetles to destroy millions of trees rather quickly (which are still standing there.) The numbers have decreased since 2002 when that report was written, but there is plenty in that report that disagrees with you. And get this.... It was written by scientists!

Lumber Industry Scientists, no doubt!

Indeed. Adaptation meaning mechanisms that the beetles can employ to prey on more than one weak food source. You may be referring to human adaptation... thereby circumventing the cause altogether. Engineering the planet may also end up being one road we don't want to go for the potential to open up more cans of worms politically and environmentally.

And yes... imagine that... industry scientists may have a financial interest in healthier forests. Dead trees are not very usable in lumber usage. They are usable for biomass power though... but the current cost of harvesting this dying/dead wood is more expensive than just cutting it and letting nature run its course.

Adaption all the way around. I am fascinated from my own observations, of how the wild birds have adapted over the years, in their dealing with humans. It seems they have lost their fear of humans, as I watch them steal food, even organize ambushes. The raccoon population also has become rather notorious in their efficiency at waylaying unsuspecting suburbanites in outlying areas. Al this greenbelting has brought nature in close proximity with humans again.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Lone Ranger