
102M dead California trees 'unprecedented in our modern history' - Mz
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dead-trees-20161118-story.html
======
jonmc12
Was curious how this drought compared to direct human impact on trees, quickly
mashed together some facts.

There just over 400B trees live around the world, 7.3B in California. Thats
1.8% of estimated world tree population vs holding 0.5% of people population.

301M of 4.9B (6%) trees died in Texas drought of 2011. Drought in California
currently accounts for 102M (1.4%) of trees in the state dying.

Also note California has about 1 tree per person in the world. The worst
famine in 150 yrs would kill 30M humans / year if it happened today. This
considers the % of human deaths / year by famine of 1876-1879 as a benchmark.
The article would imply 72M trees dying / year per drought in California. Not
sure how comparable that is given different lifespan / reproduction rates, but
kinda interesting.

Worldwide people cut down 15 billion trees each year. Maybe 7B for fuel, 6.5B
for paper/etc and 1.5B for lumber. If this was distributed equally (which its
probably not in reality), that would be equivalent of 274M trees cut down by
humans in California / yr.

The global tree count has fallen by 46% since the beginning of human
civilization.

[1] [http://time.com/4019277/trees-humans-
deforestation/](http://time.com/4019277/trees-humans-deforestation/) [2]
[https://www.quora.com/How-many-trees-are-cut-down-a-day-
for-...](https://www.quora.com/How-many-trees-are-cut-down-a-day-for-paper)
[3] [https://www.quora.com/How-many-trees-are-in-
California](https://www.quora.com/How-many-trees-are-in-California) [4]
[http://www.chron.com/news/article/2011-Texas-drought-
slaught...](http://www.chron.com/news/article/2011-Texas-drought-
slaughtered-301-million-trees-3893965.php) [5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines)
[6] [https://ourworldindata.org/famines/](https://ourworldindata.org/famines/)

~~~
joshvm
Current (highly uncertain) estimates of the number of trees globally are
around 3 trillion.
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7568/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7568/full/nature14967.html)

The uncertainties are pretty large, but it's reasonable to assume that 400
billion is very much a lower bound.

~~~
TheRealDunkirk
So here I come along, as a mechanical engineer who's made a living writing
software and administrating servers and networks, with a more-than-passing
interest in climate science and what it might mean for mankind. In just these
2 comments, I see a perfect example of what puts me off to try to wrap my head
around the "debate."

First guy says there are 400B trees, down around 50% from the beginning of
time. That puts the original figure at about 800B. Second guy says there are
actually 3T trees presently, which would mean an almost 400% increase over the
first guy's original figure. Both cite sources, which I'm sure are well
researched, exhaustively written, were presented in peer-reviewed journals,
and which made their authors famous, and got lots of grant money for their
respective universities.

Which am I supposed to believe? That we're killing off all the forests, or
we're drowning in them? It's one figure, but it makes all the difference in
the argument, and the laws which might be written AROUND that argument.

I'm not asking for clarification. I'm just pointing out that there are
reasonable people who are interested in the discussion, and care about the
outcome, but get put off by the inconsistencies in the facts by the published
reports. (And don't get me started about reading the studies themselves. They
are purposely obfuscated with domain-specific language, which would require a
degree to decipher.)

~~~
Retric
You assume the estimate is based on numbers of trees instead of acres of
forest. Two groups may measure the same coastline using different resolutions
and end up with significantly different numbers. Likewise depending on the
minimum size you get vastly different tree counts.

PS: Younger forests have more trees and significantly less wood.

~~~
jblow
He's not assuming anything. He's saying garbage in, garbage out. How can there
be a reasonable discussion if we don't even know what the thing is we are
trying to discuss?

~~~
Retric
Read the papers. He is arguing that they are using the same definition without
doing so, thus removing his credibility.

------
kozikow
We ([https://tensorflight.com](https://tensorflight.com)) are working on
utilizing deep learning for detecting trees the most affected by drought in
aerial images collected by UAVs, among other things. We detected several
hundred K trees last week.

Contact me (kozikow@tensorflight.com) if you want to get involved in any
capacity (either as client, partner or coworker).

Disclaimer: I am a cofounder.

~~~
blondie9x
After those areas have been detected and a pattern emerges what are the
resulting action items? Can building models actually help mitigate the losses?

~~~
kozikow
Selective irrigation can deliver water to trees with the most need for water.
There is no good automated system for selective irrigation yet without human
irrigators or expensive installation. Autonomous irrigation drones will happen
at one point.

I must add that so far we have been focusing on orchards rather than forests.
We are looking into expanding to forests and we have been in touch with the
government.

~~~
arcticfox
> Autonomous irrigation drones will happen at one point.

Will that be cost effective? Water seems enormously heavy for what it is. Or
will they be automated land irrigators?

------
fred_is_fred
Welcome to pine bark beetles California. We had them before they were cool.
Signed - Colorado, Montana, Idaho et al

~~~
wavefunction
We need large and widespread forest fires to combat the beetles and rejuvenate
these biomes. There's a reason the beetle epidemic coincides with expansive
human habitation of the West and poorly considered forestry policies.

~~~
rabboRubble
Montana has had the major fires in and around the park system. The trees that
are left are still heavily affected by beetle blight.

~~~
wavefunction
Of course they are. The fires burn the trees with the beetles, and the fires
also clear dense forest leaving meadows that the beetles won't traverse.

~~~
rabboRubble
The fires in question weren't from recent years. These lands and tree regrowth
are in the burn areas from the late 1980's and 1990's.

The types of pines that burned in Montana require fire to procreate; fire
causes the cones to open spreading seeds. No fire no new trees. There are no
meadows after burn. After 10-20 years, you have dense thin tree regrowth. The
beetles do great there.

Link to tree type: [http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/lodgepole-
pin...](http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/lodgepole-pine-trees-
love-forest-fires/)

------
tomcam
These trees have been too big and too numerous the last 50 years or so. Some
sort of cull was to be expected. Lightning has traditionally been nature's way
of cutting back undergrowth and surplus trees but that's no longer considered
an option.

~~~
kpennell
That's an interesting perspective

~~~
Implicated
He's not alone with that perspective. [1]

> Due to decades of fire suppression, a changing climate, and a shortage of
> forest restoration efforts, there are significant areas of overgrown,
> diseased, dry, and threatened forests throughout the 25 million-acre Sierra
> Nevada Region. While fire has historically been a natural part of the Sierra
> ecosystem, the unnatural conditions in our forests today can lead to fires
> that do far more damage than good.

1\. [http://www.sierranevada.ca.gov/press-room/sierra-wildfire-
wi...](http://www.sierranevada.ca.gov/press-room/sierra-wildfire-wire/state-
of-the-sierra-nevadas-forests-report-says-forests-are-in-decline-immediate-
action-is-needed)

------
theparanoid
They've been cutting trees in Yosemite for hazard prevention. Driving is like
playing frogger.

------
pfarnsworth
More will grow in its place, like what has happened throughout history.

------
Esau
I wanted to read this article but the LA Times is evidently a member of the
annoying website design committee.

------
codecamper
Global warming is not real! (Will the world really just accept this from
Trump? Don't mean to turn on a flame war but it's really about this. Think
global warming is bad now? How about in 20 more years?)

I hope Zuckerberg & Brin will do something to improve the direction things are
going. New billionaires seem much smarter than the old ones.

~~~
almostApatriot1
why should conservatives care about California, at state that consistently
votes lib?

~~~
cool_look
Look, I'm not American, but why would they foresake a state because of the
state's predominant Voting habits?

1 in 3 voted Republican, are they going to be thrown to the wolves because of
the other 2 ?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016)

I know Chris Christie is implicated in blocking traffic in New Jersey, but
punishing a state is a whole different league.

~~~
reddytowns
The way US voting works, each state gets a bunch of electoral college votes,
and these determine the presidency. If over 50% of the population of a state
votes for a candidate, all their electoral college votes are designated for
that candidate.

If one party has no realistic way of reaching that 50% margin, then any
concessions they offer would be useless as far as getting their candidate into
the presidency.

~~~
seanp2k2
We also have this in the US:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering)

(Drawing voting districts to make them advantageous to one party or the other
depending on who gets to draw the lines)

We really need to move to popular vote instead of all these games.

