Study: Yosemite's giant trees disappear: climate change a probable cause

@1txsage1957 on twitter says "Yosemite's giant trees disappear"

The study was conducted through the analysis of data from the 1930's to the 1990's . . . do I really need to point out that we have only begun to see the climate "begin" to change in the past decade or two?

The study is wrong to conclude that "climate change" played anything more than a very small secondary factor over that period of time.

The predominate factor during that period of time was our asinine forest management policies that viewed all natural forest fires as being "bad".

The fact that you are "still" arguing in defense of this study is bewildering.

Growing periods with little water can lead to decreased rates of diameter and height growth. This is happening due to recent drought and other changes and also the fact that smaller trees compete for whatever water is there. Drought is indeed an impact of climate change that can effect the most protected forests, and lack of water to these old trees leads to the point where tree tissues and processes are damaged.That is what their studies found over time, and therefore, there is absolutely no misinformation in this article that I posted if you read it, and I was also not and have no intention of arguing with anyone about it. You once again can argue alone.

I'd certainly take it up with the authors if they were on this thread.

But, I'll also take it up with anyone that is passing this assertion around (that climate change has already shrunk our trees) as if it were actually true . . . and that person just happens to be you.

As soon as you stop posting things that are incorrect, I'll stop arguing with you. =)

Then take it up with the authors.

LoL. Yes Jan, you are correct in that climate change will most likely have an adverse effect on our National Parks.

However, the shrinking in the average diameter of trees since the 1930's has far far more to do with the Park Service preventing natural forest fires than climate change.

Will climate change compound this problem? Probably. But to presume or insinuate the shrinking of trees over the past 80 years was due to climate change, is incorrect.

"Before the government began to suppress forest fires early in the 20th century, frequent small fires cleaned out the underbrush. Large ponderosa pines often grew in open stands with densities between 20 and 55 trees per acre. Now, as a result of preventing forest fires, much smaller trees often grow in the same places with densities of 300 to 900 trees per acre."
-Washington Post
http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/nelson/fires.pdf

Effects Of Climate Change On Yosemite National Park

I'm afraid for the bristlecone pines...

"The suppression of natural wildfires in the park also allows younger trees and shrubs to grow, increasing the competition for the water that is around."
-There's your culprit.

When I read your title I was surprised that a BBC article would ignore the obvious answer . . . but they are just skirting it to drum up the sensationalism surrounding climate change . . . which is a factor and may become a more dominant factor in the future, but it's not the root cause of decline in large trees since the 1930's.

The fact that National Parks are protected make them even MORE susceptible to overcrowding of flora due to the lack of natural forest fires.

Even more of an issue, is that some species of large trees actually DEPEND on natural forest fires to assist in their reproduction.

Take the Giant Sequoia for example, which relies on forest fires not only to clear out competing vegitative growth, but to actually release the seeds to begin with via the fires drying out the cones and allowing the seeds to disperse.
https://fp.auburn.edu/sfws/sfnmc/class/gs.html

Wow, what a rip off scheme! So the utility companies come up with some flimsy "conservation" plan like putting molding around your doors and windows (which you can do on your own) and that translates into their getting more profit off of continuing to burn coal? It's just like this supposed new crackdown bill on credit card companies... they won't be hurting from it, they will simply raise rates for everyone to make up for what they may lose otherwise. And you're right, it does hinder people from conserving because they don't really see it serving a purpose. Conservation efforts should mean that the company participates in giving them cheaper electricity to begin with by using solar or wind to provide the energy, and the customer getting rebates for actually conserving. Not being penalized with higher rates under the guise of environmentalism. We all need to get off the grid!

Jan,
Take a look at this. The Las Vegas Sun reported it in their May 17 paper.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/17/nv-energy-stands-gain-late-add/
Excerpt:
NV Energy lobbyists inserted into the Senate’s key energy legislation last week a provision that would partially sever the link between energy consumption and the utility’s profits — allowing the company to recoup through higher rates any revenue lost to conservation.
The state’s consumer advocate, however, says the provision amounts to a bailout of the utility masquerading as environmentalism.
There was no time to provide analysis or mount a defense.

Just how or what is the incentive for the individual to conserve energy, help the planet and live within their means if corp. like this can do this?
If it happened here, what other states have experienced the same thing?

This makes me want to cry.
I have been in Yosemite several times and have been awed by the number and hieght of the trees.