Remember: the suppression period is ~80-100 years, but for most lodgepole in the Rockies the FRI is ~150-250 years (wide variations in location, elevation, aspect and mean precip.).

Best,

D

It is not an unnatural occurance, but it was exacerbated due to a mild drought that has weakened the trees.

It is expected to require sustained sub-zero temperatures for at least 2 weeks to serious drop the beetle population – not a normal occurance in the forests of CO for most years

Preventing forest fires from ever burning through these lodgelpole forests has kept alive trees that would have otherwise died off — trees which become old, weak and susceptible to the ravenous pine beetle.

That said, I couldn’t agree with Joe more, for NBC to complete ignore such a critical component of the outbreak is irresponsible.

As I see it, this is key. Throughout history, there have always been jokers in the deck — the effects no one predicted. I’m afraid Mother Nature may have a few more jokers up her sleeve this time, too.

By the way, Central America has just suffered an intense rain, with resulting heavy flooding.

BTW, for others, OR lodgepole occupies a different niche than in the Rockies, and in the PacNW this makes it more resilient to beetle infestation. Scale.

Best,

D

(a) From the New York Times, 9/25/1998
“[Because of mountain pine beetles] By the year 2000, most of the lodgepole pine in Oregon ”will be dead, whether it is harvested or not’, said Ed Blaydon, a marketing specialist for the four national forests in southeastern Oregon.” (Lodgepole pines are alive and well in Oregon in 2008)

(b) From the New York Times, 6/6/1989
[in Summit County, Colorado, because of mountain pine beetles] in 1986 [...] green vistas turned rust

(c) From the New York Times, 12/6/1932
“Director Horace Albright reports that he is greatly worried about the situation in the Yellowstone, where the mountain-pine beetle threatens the destruction of the lodgepole pine, which constitutes 80 per cent of the park’s forests”

(d) From the New York Times, 10/6/2007
“the mountain [pine] beetle refuses anything short of a high altitude. Here it abounds in destructive numbers, especially in the West: and as fast as it travels through those salubrious regions down go vast quantities of pine”

If you’d read the article of 101 years ago, you’d think we’d have no trees left whatsoever by now. It didn’t happen. One worders why.

[JR: 101 years ago we hadn't entered a multi-decade period of warming and desertification. That's why.]

ps the not-so-mild 2008 winter has not killed as many beetles as expected. perhaps temperature is not that important.

[JR: Temperature is one of several factors that act synergistically, as my post and the science says. Again, one should distinguish between happens year-to-year versus what happens over extended period of time.]

pps you take as a given that local “warmer, drier” conditions are consequence of global warming. on what basis?

[JR: I don't take it as a given. I take it on the basis of the scientific literature. If you've read the post than you know about the "global-warming-type drought." I will blog more on this after the election.]