Slashdot Mirror
One Third of California's Trees Are Dead (sfgate.com)
"There are about 21 million acres of trees spread across California's 18 national forests, and the latest figures show 7.7 million of them -- more than one-third -- are dead." An anonymous reader quotes the San Francisco Chronicle:
California's lingering drought has pushed the number of dead trees across the state past 100 million, an ecological event experts are calling dangerous and unprecedented in underlining the heightened risk of wildfires fueled by bone-dry forests. In its latest aerial survey released Friday, the U.S. Forest Service said 62 million trees have died this year in California, bringing the six-year total to more than 102 million.
Scientists blame five-plus years of drought on the increasing tree deaths -- tree "fatalities" increased by 100 percent in 2016 -- but the rate of their demise has been much faster than expected, increasing the risk of ecologically damaging erosion and wildfires even bigger than the largest blazes the state's seen this year.
An ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey says that on the bright side, this gives scientists a good chance to study how trees die.
Scientists blame five-plus years of drought on the increasing tree deaths -- tree "fatalities" increased by 100 percent in 2016 -- but the rate of their demise has been much faster than expected, increasing the risk of ecologically damaging erosion and wildfires even bigger than the largest blazes the state's seen this year.
An ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey says that on the bright side, this gives scientists a good chance to study how trees die.
Next up: lung cancer causes smoking!
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
I'm a little unclear here. Do you believe droughts are visited on states that vote Democrat?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well most populous areas of CA would be a desert wasteland if it were not for civil engineering. Maybe ought to let it revert it it's natural environment.
As long as Nestle is still getting their water, who cares if the trees gets theirs.
No, just that they're bad at water management.
See also: Flint, MI.
And He's coming for you, too.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I am going to support them financially by buying as much almonds as I can.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
What are they supposed to do, drink salt water ?
Most of the water for California comes from the Sierras from snow pack, or from the Colorado River (again, snow pack) not the ocean.
Sure there are always some dead trees in a forest, as anyone who's ever hunted or rambled in a forest knows. But one out of three? And from drought? It's not normal for the historical period.
However... There have been prehistoric droughts in California lasting decades, even centuries. Since we know this from tree rings, we know some rain must have fallen, but less than we are accustomed to as "normal" in historic times. These have been correlated to "radiative forcing", natural climate change mechanisms such as variations in the Earth's orbit and volcanic activity. Warmer Earth == drier California.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Aunt that a shame.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
What are they supposed to do, drink salt water ?
Of course not. What they should do is build some nuclear power plants and desalinate the water. There is no shortage of water but it does take energy to make it suitable to drink or water crops. Any shortage of energy they have in California is self imposed. Their policies against nuclear power because of a mistaken association with nuclear weapons does fit my definition of being brain dead.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That would be well & fine for those areas from which the water was directly removed. The millions of trees the article is talking about, however, are mostly in the mountains and the associated foothills, upstream from where the water is eventually redirected. The trees get their water from precipitation, either directly as rainfall or from later snow melt. The years of drought have reduced the amount or rainfall, and removing every bit of infrastructure in the state's water system won't change that one bit, so please save you armchair engineering.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Contrary to popular belief, not all of California is arid desert. The trees TFA is talking about are not cultivated crops or or ornamental trees planted in urban/suburban areas, they are pine and Sequoya trees naturally occurring across thousands of square miles of subalpine forest in the Sierra Nevada region and in the hardwood/conifer forests found in the Pacific Coastal Range. Some of these ares receive far more than 80 inches of rain in an average year, and many of the affected trees are hundreds of years old.
As for the most populous areas in the state being desert, I could be pedantic and point out that potential natural vegetation in LA, San Diego, and the bay area would be predominantly chaparral, grassland, and coastal sage scrub, but I do get your point. However, those aren't the parts of the state that TFA is concerned with.
There are invasive non-indigenous inspect species that are killing large swaths of California forest. Its not just drought problem.
Which would serve the purposes of drinking water, but watering entire forests? Impractical doesn't even begin to describe it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most of California is not a desert. It's a diverse region from desert to mountain to swamp to rainforest.
The majority of the crops are grown in the central valley, most of which is definitely not a desert (only in the far south-west end does it get close to desert naturally). It gets plenty of rain, and likely would be deciduous forest except most of the rain happens in the winter (instead of year-round), which is why irrigation is important.
There is currently an anti-farmer campaign going on in California, and there are good arguments for re-negotiating (some of the water allocations along the south of highway 5, by Patterson, are ridiculous, for example); but there is a lot of resistance to change, because if the water rights are ever re-negotiated, municipalities like San Francisco would probably lose their senior water rights status. Those holders guard their rights fiercely.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Never ever do some back-of-the-envelope calculations like the average rain fall of the whole of California being something like 500 mm rain per year, which means that the amount of water you have to desalinate to replace rain would be about 424,000 km times 1/2 meter, or about 212 cubic kilometers, which weigh about 212 billion metric tons. To evaporate 1 kg of water, you just need 2,26 Megajoule, and for 212 billion metric tons, it's just shy of 500 trillion Megajoule. Each year. Just to achieve that, you need 15 Terawatt of continuous power.
The largest nuclear power units ever being in use were the soviet RBMK-1500 reactors, which had 1500 MW output each (Tchernobyl used the smaller RBMK-1000). You would need 10,000 of the largest nuclear power plants ever built, just to replace the rain of California.
Those insects are taking root strongly because the trees have been under significant stress for years due to...
you guessed it: drought!
Only I can judge you.
Well, the article does not tell us what percentage of trees are normally dead, or historical average. They just say a lot are dead and the rate has increased. So what is the difference on a historical basis? Seems like that would be good to relay in the article.
To evaporate 1 kg of water...
You don't typically evaporate water to desalinate. You just pump it through reverse osmosis filters. Much less energy (but still I doubt it's practical to replace California's rain that way).
Yes - agricultural water use accounts for about 75% of the water usage in Ca. However the trees aren't dying from rivers being sucked dry. They're dying from no rain.
..........FULL STOP.
Proposing desalinization in California the definition of being brain dead: no matter how many nuclear plants you build, it would create vastly more expensive water than the market is willing to buy. Nobody seriously thinks there's any shortage of fresh water in California -- it's a shortage of sufficiently cheap water in the desired places. The shortage of cheap water in desired places is because of issues that come up whenever we attempt to store or move water from one place to another -- it's impossible to get a diversion tunnel or a dam build for the past 30 years or so because of environmental concerns. If you want a rabid republican complaint that's not brain dead, the rational complaint would be about California's courts insisting on protection of certain fish species being more important than giving the farmers all the cheap water they want.
Personally I think the court's priorities are correct for the moment, because the water issues are not severe enough to seriously impair the state's agriculture -- if they ever are, we'll let the fish die, but at the moment there's no need to ruin ecosystems.
This space intentionally left blank
You mentioned LFTR which tells me you've seen something about them before. You should know that one big benefit of LFTR is that it can reach temperatures that are much higher than that of typical nuclear reactors, temperatures that make desalination much easier (and therefore cheaper) to do. Putting the LFTRs in the Midwest means that there is considerable distance between the reactors and the sea where we'd like to source the water, likely destroying the benefits of using LFTRs.
You should also know that LFTRs cannot melt down, at least not like solid fuel reactors. Putting them in an earthquake prone place like California should not be near the problem that it would be for solid fuel reactors. It should be considered in the design, for sure, but excluding nuclear reactors from California sounds to me to be beyond paranoia. I think we can figure out how to build LFTRs in California and gain the benefits that LFTRs can provide.
Also, I believe the security risks associated with nuclear power plants is overblown. Added to that LFTRs are useless for weapons even though it is a "breeder" style reactor. There are two kinds of breeders, fast spectrum uranium-plutonium cycle and thermal spectrum thorium-uranium cycle. The uranium used in the fast spectrum is U-235 and U-238, and the plutonium bred from it is Pu-239. U-235 and Pu-239 are potential fuels for weapons. LFTRs breed thorium into U-233. Thorium is useless for weapons, and a weapon from U-233 is only theoretical, people tried and failed to use U-233 in a weapon core. LFTRs are also problematic for weapon production because any uranium taken from it will be contaminated with U-232, U-234, and U-236, all of which are difficult to separate from U-235, are highly radioactive, and generally make the uranium undesirable for weapon use. LFTRs might contain some Pu-239 in the fuel but it will likewise be tainted with other Pu isotopes making it useless for weapons.
No doubt a LFTR power plant would be a target for sabotage or terrorism but no more than any other power plant. No need to require them to be placed only on military installations. They'd need security, that's for certain, just no more than a typical coal fired plant.
From what I've seen the biggest threat to nuclear power plants are the domestic eco-terrorist types. These people don't want to steal any nuclear weapon material, they just want to make a lot of noise to send some sort of message. The only message they are sending to me is that nuclear power would be much safer if they weren't trying to send a message about how unsafe they are.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If droughts were a regular feature in that part of the world, then THE FUCKING TREES WOULDN'T BE DYING FROM IT. They would have already evolved to deal with it. But species that are NATIVE to the afflicted regions are dying off IN DROVES. That means they are NOT adapted, which implies that such events are rare at best, hence why they are DYING.
No, it's not a good thing.
~X~
Most other developed nations that utilize a lot of desalination (Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, etc.) actually pay less than 1/3rd per liter for desalinated water than we pay for water in Ventura County. If we could desalinate our water, we should be able to - theoretically - slash our water costs by a factor of 3...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
To be fair, actually, most of the trees dying in California are not natives, at least not in that location. Most of the places with lots of pines on them now used to be full of something else. For instance, in Lake County, CA the land was covered with redwoods up to the ridgeline between here and hopland, and oaks thereafter. First, there was a lot of slash and burn to create cattle land. Then, the federal government paid $1 for each black walnut tree planted, as an inducement to the settlers to destroy the oaks that the natives depended on for food. The walnuts have never been an economic benefit to the region, although some people grafted a more desirable variety onto the stumps of some of their trees and have been able to make a little money.
Droughts are a regular feature in California, and the trees are dying from it because they are in areas where they're not supposed to be, and because redwoods dramatically alter climate, and they are missing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"