Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

MarkGraham
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:19 pm

Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by MarkGraham » Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:11 pm

Doing some summer evening reading on the end of the last ice age 14,000 years ago. Apparently the cold water infusion into the Pacific from the collapse of the western Canada ice shield shifted the jet stream 7 degrees of latitude northward (about 500 miles). This shifted the rain band in from the Pacific from southern California to northern California.

Apparently during the latest ice age northwest California was mostly grasslands, like the Bald Hills. It was dry and cool. Frost in the winter. No redwoods. Instead southern California was wet with large forests. So maybe 14,000 years ago Big Sur defined the northern end of the redwood range, not the southern end.

Now say the redwoods shifted north 500 miles, following the shift in the jet stream. How long would that take? If the northward expansion is 500 feet per year, this whole shift would take 5,000 years. So the northern end of the redwood range filled in about 9,000 years ago.

Given the oldest trees in large groves are generally 2,000 years old, this would mean the current oldest redwoods in the northern redwood parks could be only five "redwood lifetimes" removed from the original redwoods that occupied those forests.

Now maybe the forests shifted north and south with earlier ice ages, but it is likely the current redwood forests in northern California are less than 10,000 years old.

I don't see any research estimating the age of these forests, maybe someone can provide a reference and chime in.

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by Don » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:16 pm

Mark-
Oddly enough, yesterday's Anchorage Daily News had an article peripherally related to your post. One of the photos in the article showed a fossilized metasequoia stump at the (current) water's edge in Kachemak Bay (some 100 miles south of Anchorage, near Homer, Alaska). "Millions and millions of years old" it is judged to be. Seemed right in view of the stump, and of the apparent warming climate, to plant metasequoia seedlings. The planter is Ed Berg, a retired research scientist from Anchorage who was studying a spruce bark beetle outbreak several decades ago. Quoting the article, "That historic research 20 years ago made the world's first proven link of a major biological event to climate change".
-Don
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

User avatar
M.W.Taylor
Site Admin
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:45 am

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by M.W.Taylor » Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:08 am

Mark, So we see human carbon emissions are obviously not to blame for climate change in the pacific northwest 14,000 years ago. It was actually a natural cycle. And the Earth's climate is always in flux. And the extremes are far greater than what we see today.

Climate change is real. Are we the main cause of ? partly to blame ?

Time will tell.
Last edited by M.W.Taylor on Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MarkGraham
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:19 pm

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by MarkGraham » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:00 pm

I see your point MT. Studying climate change in and of itself is like studying the effect of day following night. It is sure to happen. It is a fact CO2 concentrations have gone up due to the Industrial Age, what are the positive and negative effects of that. Trees like the increased CO2, I would think.

User avatar
KoutaR
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:41 am

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by KoutaR » Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:22 am

Michael,

You believe in a conspiracy of climate scientists?

Kouta

User avatar
dbhguru
Posts: 4550
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:34 pm

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by dbhguru » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:16 pm

Kouta,

I'm reluctant to weigh in to this discussion, but can't resist making a few comments. My recent visit to Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, MA really caused my eyes to bulge. Climate scientists there are working on heavy duty information systems to ever better monitor what is going on across the globe. Most are far removed from the politics of the issue. No conspiracies. Just hard science in a monumentally difficult area that can't be reduced to left or right politics, and certainly not to simple sound bites.

Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Co-founder, Native Native Tree Society
Co-founder and President
Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest
Co-founder, National Cadre

User avatar
KoutaR
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:41 am

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by KoutaR » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:53 am

Michael,

I am not 100% sure if I understand your message 100% correctly, but I think your theory does not stand a critical examination. Perhaps the most important reason is that there is a HUGE support to the "climate sceptists". Not from scientific institutions but from oil industry. Secondly, the dream of a scientist is to find ground-breaking theories and inventions, not agree with the others. So, why a climate scientist, who only thinks of his income, wouldn't try to prove the human-induced climate change is not true, fincanced by the oil industry, the Koch brothers and others? Could the reason be the same why nobody tries to prove Earth is flat? Even the top name of the sceptists, Richard Muller, turned his mind a few years ago and admitted "Humans are almost entirely the cause".

Kouta

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by mdvaden » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:47 pm

KoutaR wrote:Michael,

I am not 100% sure if I understand your message 100% correctly, but I think your theory does not stand a critical examination. Perhaps the most important reason is that there is a HUGE support to the "climate sceptists". Not from scientific institutions but from oil industry. Secondly, the dream of a scientist is to find ground-breaking theories and inventions, not agree with the others. So, why a climate scientist, who only thinks of his income, wouldn't try to prove the human-induced climate change is not true, fincanced by the oil industry, the Koch brothers and others? Could the reason be the same why nobody tries to prove Earth is flat? Even the top name of the sceptists, Richard Muller, turned his mind a few years ago and admitted "Humans are almost entirely the cause".

Kouta
If you didn't understand his message, consider that the dream of a scientist varies. There are real scientists, and there are other with degrees who pretend to be scientists. Science can become contaminated in the same way any other profession can be contaminated. But this entire discussion can be boiled-down to a simple point. Hardly any scientists, real or pretenders, deny there were monumental climate changes in the past. So from almost every political or scientific point of view, that's agreed upon and admitted. But when it comes to news, brochures, school education etc., the lion's share of that obvious trend by nature is strategically stuffed into a dark closet where it gets little consideration. The obvious lesson from history and evidence, is that nature SHOULD be throwing huge climate changes at us again several times in the thousands of years ahead of us. And the present could be just as likely a time to receive nature's change as any other point in history.
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by Don » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:56 am

I have been often loath to wax political in this forum, but tonight, I must say....
It's becoming evermore and conclusively apparent, where the real FAKE NEWS has been coming from, and who were those who were/are REALLY CROOKED...

As one living in Alaska where we have verifiable proof of climate change OUTSIDE OF THE NATURAL RANGE OF VARIATION in average yearly temperatures, from more than two decades ago. Who'd have thought that Manafort and Cohen would turn patriotic and tell the truth?!?! We are experiencing a 'watershed moment' somewhat removed from rising sea levels, or....?
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

User avatar
M.W.Taylor
Site Admin
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 11:45 am

Re: Northern California Redwood Forests - Not That Old?

Post by M.W.Taylor » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:05 pm

KoutaR wrote:Michael,

You believe in a conspiracy of climate scientists?

Kouta

Kouta,


Depends on who we are talking about. I assume most climate scientists strive to have integrity so I would say no. Climate scientists are working with the data that is available to them. As to why NOAA changed historical records, I do not have enough information to question why they did it. Maybe it was justified. It appears to me the Earth is warming significantly. Climates scientists are studying the consequences of this warming trend and now to mitigate its effects. Of course I believe in global warming.

The 64,000 question is:

What is causing the warming.
Last edited by M.W.Taylor on Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:52 pm, edited 12 times in total.

Post Reply

Return to “California”