Next Time Will Be Really Bad

In 2011, NPR said climate change at Yellowstone Park was making bears and pine beetles hungry and was making it “very difficult for trees to regenerate at the highest elevations”

Is Climate Change Making The Nation’s Bears Hungry? : NPR


SUNDAY, MARCH 25, 2012

Study: Climate prompts beetle population explosion

By Daniel Strain ScienceNOW

Call it the beetle baby boom, (Climate change could be throwing common tree killers called mountain pine beetles into a reproductive frenzy. A new study suggests that some beetles living in Colorado, which normally reproduce just once annually, now churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year. And that could further devastate the region’s forests. Pine beetles, which scuttle from New Mexico north into Canada, are trouble for trees, says study co-author Jeffry Mitton, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Colorado, Boulder.”

25 Mar 2012, Page 2 – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette at

The following year the pine beetle infestation stopped, but experts warned next time will be much worse because of “climate change.”

Environment: Are Colorado’s majestic high country spruce forests next on the bark beetle hit list? | Summit County Citizens Voice

In 2018 “The Conversation” said Yellowstone trees had recovered very well from the 1988 fires, but warned that next time will be much worse due to climate change.

Here’s how forests rebounded from Yellowstone’s epic 1988 fires – and why that could be harder in the future

The Conversation also said they believed in the “free flow of information.”

The following year “The Conversation” banned conversation about climate.

The Conversation’s ban on climate change ‘deniers’ fails basics of academic rigour

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Next Time Will Be Really Bad

  1. arn says:

    It should be much easier for trees at highest elevations to regenerate
    as they have now 35% more co2 to do so.

  2. John Francis says:

    Never gave a thought to varying % stratification by altitude.
    If true , I was in the dark.
    BTW, to all, considering the volume of crude taken out of the ground it seems obvious that it did not originate from rotting plants and critters. That’s why I bristle over ” fossil fuels”.
    Immanuel Velikovsky (spelling?) wrote “Worlds in Collision” as one theory .

    • GWS says:

      Read Gould’s, “Deep Hot Biosphere.”

    • arn says:

      My problem with fossil fuels is that the organic stuff on its way down to become oil would have to pass groundwater and contaminate it all around the world.
      But for some reasons groundwater is not affected by this eternal process of decomposing organic life > oil deep underground.
      So this old Russian theory is a nice alternative imo.

      I think i need to explain this a bit more (or my English is simply to Biden in terms of understanding and writing.)
      I did not mean a varying % by altitude,
      though this may exist to a certain ,but very small degree as result of thinner air or gravitational effects(otherwise we may see a bizarre reverse trend in terms plant density the higher we get as result of CO2 surplus).

      My 35% are related to the not man made CO2 levels 100 years ago which were around 300 ppm.
      Nowadays it is about 410 which is around 35%+.
      These additional 35% should also lift the treeline in those regions where CO2 concentrations were the limiting factor (and not cold and/or dry weather)
      as the required CO2 concentrations for trees and plants are reaching higher altitudes.

    • D. Boss says:

      Actually not only is there a theory by some Russians, but actual geologic data on what depths oil comes from that supports it. Hydrocarbon “crude” oil appears to be made at depths far below the rotting bio materials or fossil depths.

      I don’t have a link handy but the theory is that some combo of radioactive decay and hot conditions promotes a natural manufacture of these compounds. So in fact “crude” oil is a renewable resource. (most likely LENR as opposed to “hot” nuclear reactions – see below)

      Furthermore, huge quantities of hydrocarbons are found on most other planets – so some natural process either created them or continues to generate them.

      I agree that the term “fossil fuel” is a misnomer and I too find it annoying given the evidence much of the stuff mined from the earth is not of a fossil origin.

      Actually here is one link with evidence of “Abiotic”

      But there are more and the key is to use the term Abiotic in the search. I recall reading a paper on this, where not only methane but actual crude oil seems to have an Abiotic origin, with daughter products of U and Th decay and some chemical [catalytic] process involving Fe and it’s ionic forms.

      I find this very intriguing and plausible, especially with the notion Iron plays a catalytic role in these various transmutations. I’ve studied and experimented with some rather esoteric stuff regards physics and chemistry. I believe what we don’t know about reality far exceeds what we think we know!

      I have performed carefully controlled experiments in my old lab which demonstrated LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), and they are real. It is a largely dismissed topic in mainstream scientific thinking, but we know with certainty that is more like a religious dogma than real science.

      It has been demonstrated, first by Kervran but others too, that biological transmutations are routine. Inorganic LENR also occurs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.