Zombies are the living dead, which is what's happening to California forests due to climate change. A full 20% of the forest species in the Sierra Nevada are no longer suited for the growing conditions.

Stanford-led study reveals a fifth of California’s Sierra Nevada conifer forests are stranded in habitats that have grown too warm for them. Thattsa a BIG wood pile they have there.

https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/28/zombie-forests/

"The study’s first-of-its-kind maps paint a picture of rapidly changing landscapes that will require more adaptive wildfire management that eschews suppression and resistance to change for the opportunity to direct forest transitions for the benefit of ecosystems and nearby communities. Similarly, conservation and post-fire reforestation efforts will need to consider how to ensure forests are in equilibrium with future conditions, according to the researchers. Should a burned forest be replanted with species new to the area? Should habitats that are predicted to go out of equilibrium with an area’s climate be burned proactively to reduce the risk of catastrophic blazes and corresponding vegetation conversion?"

Not exactly original thinking there. Canada has been studying and using warmer climate trees in their reforestation programs for the past ten years I know of. Selecting a new species for introduction into an existing environment is complicated, involving many considerations and bounding the unknowns.. Feedback is ultimately lengthy when it comes to forests.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Zombies are the living dead, which is what's happening to California forests due to climate change. A full 20% of the forest species in the Sierra Nevada are no longer suited for the growing conditions.
>
>Stanford-led study reveals a fifth of California’s Sierra Nevada conifer forests are stranded in habitats that have grown too warm for them. Thattsa a BIG wood pile they have there.
>
>https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/28/zombie-forests/
>
>"The study’s first-of-its-kind maps paint a picture of rapidly changing landscapes that will require more adaptive wildfire management that eschews suppression and resistance to change for the opportunity to direct forest transitions for the benefit of ecosystems and nearby communities. Similarly, conservation and post-fire reforestation efforts will need to consider how to ensure forests are in equilibrium with future conditions, according to the researchers. Should a burned forest be replanted with species new to the area? Should habitats that are predicted to go out of equilibrium with an area’s climate be burned proactively to reduce the risk of catastrophic blazes and corresponding vegetation conversion?"
>
>Not exactly original thinking there. Canada has been studying and using warmer climate trees in their reforestation programs for the past ten years I know of. Selecting a new species for introduction into an existing environment is complicated, involving many considerations and bounding the unknowns. Feedback is ultimately lengthy when it comes to forests.

More climate-change nonsense. The problem is that forests are grossly
over-grown from a century of putting out the fires that were a natural
part of the ecosystem here. The forests are no longer natural, but
man-mismanaged.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 10:48:07 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Zombies are the living dead, which is what's happening to California forests due to climate change. A full 20% of the forest species in the Sierra Nevada are no longer suited for the growing conditions.
> >
> >Stanford-led study reveals a fifth of California’s Sierra Nevada conifer forests are stranded in habitats that have grown too warm for them.. Thattsa a BIG wood pile they have there.
> >
> >https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/28/zombie-forests/
> >
> >"The study’s first-of-its-kind maps paint a picture of rapidly changing landscapes that will require more adaptive wildfire management that eschews suppression and resistance to change for the opportunity to direct forest transitions for the benefit of ecosystems and nearby communities. Similarly, conservation and post-fire reforestation efforts will need to consider how to ensure forests are in equilibrium with future conditions, according to the researchers. Should a burned forest be replanted with species new to the area? Should habitats that are predicted to go out of equilibrium with an area’s climate be burned proactively to reduce the risk of catastrophic blazes and corresponding vegetation conversion?"
> >
> >Not exactly original thinking there. Canada has been studying and using warmer climate trees in their reforestation programs for the past ten years I know of. Selecting a new species for introduction into an existing environment is complicated, involving many considerations and bounding the unknowns. Feedback is ultimately lengthy when it comes to forests.
> More climate-change nonsense. The problem is that forests are grossly
> over-grown from a century of putting out the fires that were a natural
> part of the ecosystem here. The forests are no longer natural, but
> man-mismanaged.

You skimmed the article too fast. The problem with the zombies is failure to regenerate, which is undergrowth. The reason for that is basic botanical science. Global warming comes into the picture from inspecting the climate record of temperature and rainfall to discover how the basic botanical requirements are not being met.

On 2023/06/19 8:25 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 10:48:07 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Zombies are the living dead, which is what's happening to California forests due to climate change. A full 20% of the forest species in the Sierra Nevada are no longer suited for the growing conditions.
>>>
>>> Stanford-led study reveals a fifth of California’s Sierra Nevada conifer forests are stranded in habitats that have grown too warm for them. Thattsa a BIG wood pile they have there.
>>>
>>> https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/28/zombie-forests/
>>>
>>> "The study’s first-of-its-kind maps paint a picture of rapidly changing landscapes that will require more adaptive wildfire management that eschews suppression and resistance to change for the opportunity to direct forest transitions for the benefit of ecosystems and nearby communities. Similarly, conservation and post-fire reforestation efforts will need to consider how to ensure forests are in equilibrium with future conditions, according to the researchers. Should a burned forest be replanted with species new to the area? Should habitats that are predicted to go out of equilibrium with an area’s climate be burned proactively to reduce the risk of catastrophic blazes and corresponding vegetation conversion?"
>>>
>>> Not exactly original thinking there. Canada has been studying and using warmer climate trees in their reforestation programs for the past ten years I know of. Selecting a new species for introduction into an existing environment is complicated, involving many considerations and bounding the unknowns. Feedback is ultimately lengthy when it comes to forests.
>> More climate-change nonsense. The problem is that forests are grossly
>> over-grown from a century of putting out the fires that were a natural
>> part of the ecosystem here. The forests are no longer natural, but
>> man-mismanaged.
>
> You skimmed the article too fast. The problem with the zombies is failure to regenerate, which is undergrowth. The reason for that is basic botanical science. Global warming comes into the picture from inspecting the climate record of temperature and rainfall to discover how the basic botanical requirements are not being met.
The climate has never been static. There were previous warmer periods
and colder periods that had nothing to do with humans - ice ages, warm
periods, etc.
Forests adapt - just like everyone else. Tree lines change over time.
Heck in Alaska a glacial retreat is uncovering a forest that grew 1,000
years ago...when it was warmer than now.
https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
And a mountain pass that was used from around 300AD to 1000AD until
advancing ice - indicating a colder climate change - buried it:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/world/viking-mountain-pass-norway-scn/index.html
John :-#)#

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:03:30 -0700, John Robertson <jrr@flippers.com>
wrote:

>On 2023/06/19 8:25 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 10:48:07?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zombies are the living dead, which is what's happening to California forests due to climate change. A full 20% of the forest species in the Sierra Nevada are no longer suited for the growing conditions.
>>>>
>>>> Stanford-led study reveals a fifth of California’s Sierra Nevada conifer forests are stranded in habitats that have grown too warm for them. Thattsa a BIG wood pile they have there.
>>>>
>>>> https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/28/zombie-forests/
>>>>
>>>> "The study’s first-of-its-kind maps paint a picture of rapidly changing landscapes that will require more adaptive wildfire management that eschews suppression and resistance to change for the opportunity to direct forest transitions for the benefit of ecosystems and nearby communities. Similarly, conservation and post-fire reforestation efforts will need to consider how to ensure forests are in equilibrium with future conditions, according to the researchers. Should a burned forest be replanted with species new to the area? Should habitats that are predicted to go out of equilibrium with an area’s climate be burned proactively to reduce the risk of catastrophic blazes and corresponding vegetation conversion?"
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly original thinking there. Canada has been studying and using warmer climate trees in their reforestation programs for the past ten years I know of. Selecting a new species for introduction into an existing environment is complicated, involving many considerations and bounding the unknowns. Feedback is ultimately lengthy when it comes to forests.
>>> More climate-change nonsense. The problem is that forests are grossly
>>> over-grown from a century of putting out the fires that were a natural
>>> part of the ecosystem here. The forests are no longer natural, but
>>> man-mismanaged.
>>
>> You skimmed the article too fast. The problem with the zombies is failure to regenerate, which is undergrowth. The reason for that is basic botanical science. Global warming comes into the picture from inspecting the climate record of temperature and rainfall to discover how the basic botanical requirements are not being met.
>
>The climate has never been static. There were previous warmer periods
>and colder periods that had nothing to do with humans - ice ages, warm
>periods, etc.
>
>Forests adapt - just like everyone else. Tree lines change over time.
>
>Heck in Alaska a glacial retreat is uncovering a forest that grew 1,000
>years ago...when it was warmer than now.
>
>https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
>
>And a mountain pass that was used from around 300AD to 1000AD until
>advancing ice - indicating a colder climate change - buried it:
>
>https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/world/viking-mountain-pass-norway-scn/index.html
>
>John :-#)#

And there's no reason to think that the climate of 1900 was somehow
ideal.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:48:07 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Zombies are the living dead, which is what's happening to California forests due to climate change. A full 20% of the forest species in the Sierra Nevada are no longer suited for the growing conditions.
> >
> >Stanford-led study reveals a fifth of California’s Sierra Nevada conifer forests are stranded in habitats that have grown too warm for them.. Thattsa a BIG wood pile they have there.
> >
> >https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/28/zombie-forests/
> >
> >"The study’s first-of-its-kind maps paint a picture of rapidly changing landscapes that will require more adaptive wildfire management that eschews suppression and resistance to change for the opportunity to direct forest transitions for the benefit of ecosystems and nearby communities. Similarly, conservation and post-fire reforestation efforts will need to consider how to ensure forests are in equilibrium with future conditions, according to the researchers. Should a burned forest be replanted with species new to the area? Should habitats that are predicted to go out of equilibrium with an area’s climate be burned proactively to reduce the risk of catastrophic blazes and corresponding vegetation conversion?"
> >
> >Not exactly original thinking there. Canada has been studying and using warmer climate trees in their reforestation programs for the past ten years I know of. Selecting a new species for introduction into an existing environment is complicated, involving many considerations and bounding the unknowns. Feedback is ultimately lengthy when it comes to forests.

> More climate-change nonsense. The problem is that forests are grossly
> over-grown from a century of putting out the fires that were a natural
> part of the ecosystem here. The forests are no longer natural, but
> man-mismanaged.

That might be A problem, it's not THE problem.

Are the forests in Canada 'grossly over-grown from...'? Because the
problem was clear in Canada a decade or three ago, when the winters
weren't killing off softwood tree (bark beetle) parasites fast enough.

It's not entirely 'man-mismanaged' burning that's killing trees. We humans are both the
cause, and the victims, of global warming. The trees are only the victims..

Stop leaning on little anti-science crutches, and pay attention to the
data instead.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 19:32:27 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:48:07?AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Zombies are the living dead, which is what's happening to California forests due to climate change. A full 20% of the forest species in the Sierra Nevada are no longer suited for the growing conditions.
>> >
>> >Stanford-led study reveals a fifth of California’s Sierra Nevada conifer forests are stranded in habitats that have grown too warm for them. Thattsa a BIG wood pile they have there.
>> >
>> >https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/28/zombie-forests/
>> >
>> >"The study’s first-of-its-kind maps paint a picture of rapidly changing landscapes that will require more adaptive wildfire management that eschews suppression and resistance to change for the opportunity to direct forest transitions for the benefit of ecosystems and nearby communities. Similarly, conservation and post-fire reforestation efforts will need to consider how to ensure forests are in equilibrium with future conditions, according to the researchers. Should a burned forest be replanted with species new to the area? Should habitats that are predicted to go out of equilibrium with an area’s climate be burned proactively to reduce the risk of catastrophic blazes and corresponding vegetation conversion?"
>> >
>> >Not exactly original thinking there. Canada has been studying and using warmer climate trees in their reforestation programs for the past ten years I know of. Selecting a new species for introduction into an existing environment is complicated, involving many considerations and bounding the unknowns. Feedback is ultimately lengthy when it comes to forests.
>
>> More climate-change nonsense. The problem is that forests are grossly
>> over-grown from a century of putting out the fires that were a natural
>> part of the ecosystem here. The forests are no longer natural, but
>> man-mismanaged.
>
>That might be A problem, it's not THE problem.
>
>Are the forests in Canada 'grossly over-grown from...'? Because the
>problem was clear in Canada a decade or three ago, when the winters
>weren't killing off softwood tree (bark beetle) parasites fast enough.

Transporting plants and plant parasites and various critters between
countries and continents (in pallets, shipped fruits and veggies,
luggage, wood chips, whatever) is indeed changing things. The end
condition must be everything everywhere. Nature will just have to get
used to it, unless we can engineer some serious viruses.

Some day there will be no races, one language, same homogenization
idea.

>
>It's not entirely 'man-mismanaged' burning that's killing trees. We humans are both the
>cause, and the victims, of global warming. The trees are only the victims.
>
>Stop leaning on little anti-science crutches, and pay attention to the
>data instead.

There is an assumption among the greenies that Earth was somehow a
perfect unchanging Eden until the Industrial Revolution churned out
CO2. Any change of any sort is sin.

That's total nonsense. The climate has always been changing, in fact
getting better lately, and more CO2 is great for life.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:50:41 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 19:32:27 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:48:07?AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Zombies are the living dead, which is what's happening to California forests due to climate change. A full 20% of the forest species in the Sierra Nevada are no longer suited for the growing conditions.

> >> More climate-change nonsense. The problem is that forests are grossly
> >> over-grown from a century of putting out the fires that were a natural
> >> part of the ecosystem here. The forests are no longer natural, but
> >> man-mismanaged.
> >
> >That might be A problem, it's not THE problem.
> >
> >Are the forests in Canada 'grossly over-grown from...'? Because the
> >problem was clear in Canada a decade or three ago, when the winters
> >weren't killing off softwood tree (bark beetle) parasites fast enough.

> Transporting plants and plant parasites and various critters between
> countries and continents (in pallets, shipped fruits and veggies,
> luggage, wood chips, whatever) is indeed changing things.

There's no evidence that the Canadian die-offs had any such
cause. Bark beetles were ALWAYS present, but the trees
tolerated 'em. When the die-off happened, it killed the trees,
and the beetles in the next season had no habitat.

> >It's not entirely 'man-mismanaged' burning that's killing trees. We humans are both the
> >cause, and the victims, of global warming. The trees are only the victims.
> >
> >Stop leaning on little anti-science crutches, and pay attention to the
> >data instead.

> There is an assumption among the greenies that ...

Doesn't cause what we observe happening, i.e. plant species becoming
nonviable in their traditional settings. So, that's just bafflegab and deflection.