Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Environmental scientists at UC Berkeley are saying that there are too many trees in the California’s forests. The researchers say fewer trees would leave more rain water available to meet the state’s demand.
...
He said in Yosemite National Forrest, for example, there were 40 fires allowed to burn out over decades and that his study shows that, as a result, there was more water supplies in streams in rivers.
In addition, Stephens said, that with more trees in the Sierra, the more snow that collects on them and evaporates, rather than feeding surface water.
Other scientists, however, argue that the more trees there are, the better because they help remove carbon dioxide from the air, which they say contributes to global climate change.
So what do they want? Water or air for breathing?
Or do we only operate in crisis mode? When we need water, we cut down the trees. If we feel we need trees, we plant trees.
----------------------------------
One of the comments...
"There Are Too Many Environmentalists In California, Soaking Up The Much Needed Common Sense."
Seriously, maybe there are too many people soaking up water that the trees need.
Environmental scientists at UC Berkeley are saying that there are too many trees in the California’s forests. The researchers say fewer trees would leave more rain water available to meet the state’s demand.
... He said in Yosemite National Forrest, for example, there were 40 fires allowed to burn out over decades and that his study shows that, as a result, there was more water supplies in streams in rivers.
In addition, Stephens said, that with more trees in the Sierra, the more snow that collects on them and evaporates, rather than feeding surface water.
Other scientists, however, argue that the more trees there are, the better because they help remove carbon dioxide from the air, which they say contributes to global climate change.
So what do they want? Water or air for breathing?
Or do we only operate in crisis mode? When we need water, we cut down the trees. If we feel we need trees, we plant trees.
----------------------------------
One of the comments...
"There Are Too Many Environmentalists In California, Soaking Up The Much Needed Common Sense."
the only thing their is to much of in California are "people and morons" trees were there way before the people came and started sucking up all the water to feed golf courses..
People are very angry about liberals for some reason.
Anyway, here's the important bit from the "article" almost everyone seems to be overlooking:
Quote:
Stephens said research shows that after a century of firefighters suppressing forest fires, rather than letting them burn, water that flows into streams has diminished.
At one point, we decided fire is bad. Fire kills plants and animals and threatens human property and lives, so fires were aggressively fought in these public spaces.
We now know that small but frequent wildfires are vital to the health of forests, so most if not all national parks have switched to controlled burns, either man or nature made, which are closely monitored.
Sometimes people get it wrong, and later find evidence that hey, this isn't the best way to do things. So we, like rational people, change the way we do things. Fire not bad. Fire good. Sometimes. If you want to shake your fist every time someone says "We did it this way, it was wrong, we're going to try doing it this way now" that's fine, but that's how science works. Just in case you didn't know.
But I would imagine the density of trees in our national parks is a very small problem compared to all the ways we humans used and waste water. I don't want to see a single tree cut down to give us "more water" until every sprinkler system in California is turned off.
Environmental scientists at UC Berkeley are saying that there are too many trees in the California’s forests. The researchers say fewer trees would leave more rain water available to meet the state’s demand.
...
He said in Yosemite National Forrest, for example, there were 40 fires allowed to burn out over decades and that his study shows that, as a result, there was more water supplies in streams in rivers.
In addition, Stephens said, that with more trees in the Sierra, the more snow that collects on them and evaporates, rather than feeding surface water.
Other scientists, however, argue that the more trees there are, the better because they help remove carbon dioxide from the air, which they say contributes to global climate change.
So what do they want? Water or air for breathing?
Or do we only operate in crisis mode? When we need water, we cut down the trees. If we feel we need trees, we plant trees.
----------------------------------
One of the comments...
"There Are Too Many Environmentalists In California, Soaking Up The Much Needed Common Sense."
I agree with the water side.
trees need to be pruned and balanced to a large extent.
those forest fires contribute to GASP CO2, PLANT FOOD,
well plant air lets just say
but also Cal has a problem of not enough water don't forget.
thus it would be wise to let people cut the trees up and move them into other areas.
MY PLAN WOULD BE TO actually have CITIES carry them.
BUT NOT regular trees.
FRUIT trees would be BEST.
such that food would be easier accessible right?
beggars no longer need to beg for food.
instead you can just say.
oh look a fruit you can go pick it.
please do not ask me to pay for your meat consumption thanks.
but then again police would have to police the area for a while until fruit prices drop dramatically and picking a large amount of fruit is banned/and would fine a person if they take more than 1-2 at a time.
frowned upon lets just say.
Why we have trees that produce NOTHING but things to look at I do not know.
Location: 3.5 sq mile island ant nest next to Canada
3,036 posts, read 5,868,526 times
Reputation: 2170
Maine is 90-95% trees. If this hypothesis were true then Maine should be in the most severe drought for centuries. Not knowing much about the "Left Coast" (nor wanting to) I would still hazard a guess that golf courses and overpopulation are the main causes of California's drought; not trees. Sometimes these over-educated idiots are our own worst enemies.
"There Are Too Many Environmentalists In California, Soaking Up The Much Needed Common Sense."
What is it with right wing idiots constantly bringing up 'common sense'? If they themselves had common sense they would defer to people who actually know what they're talking about.
You know you are falling through the looking glass when you have conservatives defending trees. When Ronald Reagan was running for the presidency he made an infamous comment that trees were responsible for air pollution.
However going to the OP, crazy conservatives are making a left/right issue where none exists. As I read the article, an environmental scientist made a observation that cutting down trees would result in more water going into streams and reservoirs after storms. Which observation seems plain to me.
Now California as we all know has a severe water crisis. He put out a proposal to alleviate the crisis and conservatives jump down his throat. During times of crisis we should not discourage debate by ridiculing proposals that you disagree with, as conservatives are want to do, but to hear them out and debate them.
I agree with conservatives as well as most likely many liberals that the idea is ludicrous. Implementation may be the proverbial the cure is worse than the disease.
Last edited by TreeBeard; 09-27-2014 at 06:53 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
