Japan's Cherry Blossom 'Earliest Peak Since 812' (bbc.com) 163
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The cherry blossom season, Japan's traditional sign of spring, peaked at the earliest date since records began 1,200 years ago, research shows. The 2021 season in the city of Kyoto peaked on 26 March, according to data collected by Osaka University. Increasingly early flowerings in recent decades are likely to be as a result of climate change, scientists say. The records from Kyoto go back to 812 AD in imperial court documents and diaries. The previous record there was set in 1409, when the season reached its peak on March 27.
"In Kyoto, records of the timing of celebrations of cherry blossom festivals going back to the 9th Century reconstruct the past climate and demonstrate the local increase in temperature associated with global warming and urbanization," according to an earlier paper published in the scientific journal Biological Conservation. Since about 1800, the data suggest the peak date in Kyoto has gradually been moving back from mid-April towards the beginning of the month. This year, the season began in Hiroshima on March 11, eight days earlier than the previous record, which was set in 2004, according to Japan Forward.
"In Kyoto, records of the timing of celebrations of cherry blossom festivals going back to the 9th Century reconstruct the past climate and demonstrate the local increase in temperature associated with global warming and urbanization," according to an earlier paper published in the scientific journal Biological Conservation. Since about 1800, the data suggest the peak date in Kyoto has gradually been moving back from mid-April towards the beginning of the month. This year, the season began in Hiroshima on March 11, eight days earlier than the previous record, which was set in 2004, according to Japan Forward.
I know it's controversial (Score:2, Insightful)
But is it time to start building the climate engineering aircraft? [sciencedaily.com]
From my time on this planet, if there is one thing I'm absolutely certain about, we will not cut emissions to anywhere near the level that would be required to stop climate change. I actually do no think we will cut them at all beyond what would happen anyway as renewables become more economical than oil.
It just won't happen. Everyone wants 'the government' to fix the problem but when you ask who is prepared to give up foreign holidays, or d
That's a dumb idea. David Keith is an oil shill... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides going into the whole ocean acidification thing [wikipedia.org] which this doesn't solve but actually promotes...
You are being a useful idiot.
That unsigned piece of garbage you linked? Scroll down to references. The part that says "Peter J Irvine, David W Keith".
Well, Dave ol boy's bread and caviar is running a business [wikipedia.org] where his main preoccupation is coming up with clever ideas how to keep those N. Murray Edwards tar sands oil dollars coming in.
Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]
That's why he publishes crappy "studies" which are then PR-usable by people spreading FUD about renewable energy and pushing for more and longer use of fossil fuels.
Something for oil industry to point at and claim that burning tar ain't really that bad, all things considering.
BTW, this is the same guy who claimed that WIND POWER WILL CAUSE EVEN MORE GLOBAL WARMING. [slashdot.org]
Oh yeah... That's also bullshit, in case you're wondering. [slashdot.org] Poor science, poor math, bullshit all the way down.
Oh... And that "brimstone miasma dispensation by heavier than air winged aero-crafts" idea?
That's AGAIN [slashdot.org] - Dave ol boy doin some good ole self-dealin.
Author of the "study" is Gernot Wagner, an economist and a co-director [wikipedia.org] of Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program - with David W. Keith.
It is pure nonsense BTW.
It talks about tens of thousands of flights of non-existent planes (12000 flights in 2035, 60000 in 2047), which would have to be designed and built, reaching the number of around 100 planes, flown from some 40 global bases, spreading millions of tons of SO2 all over the globe...
We're talking pan-global cooperation just so we could produce more acid rain, while also burning wast amounts of oil as money is being shoveled into aircraft industry's pockets.
All of which does a big fat ZERO to actually reduce the carbon already in the air OR the continuous pumping and dumping of more carbon into the atmosphere, directly damaging more than just climate. [theatlantic.com]
It's a mad scientist's masturbation fantasy for a Jules Verne world of an Empire Earth with no borders, where ecology is not yet a word.
Which is what Dave ol boy and his ilk are.
Dangerous kooks with mad scientist megalomania who will shill for anyone who'll pay them to create their PR slides and other FUD.
Don't be his useful idiot.
You want to geoengineer like a big boy? Plant some fuckin trees and demand more parks.
A single 10-year-old tree [urbanforestrynetwork.org] will suck up some 22 kg of CO2 per year.
Planting a forest of those is around 2.5 tons of carbon sucked up annually, per acre.
I.e. At 45000000 tons of CO2, that we're putting out annually as a species, in 10 years we could be breaking even by planting some 18000000 acres of new forests.
That's a mere 72843 square kilometers of new forests - or about one Czech Republic of new forests.
Or less than a square kilometer of new forests per every 100000 humans on the planet.
I.e. One new park per every 100k people on the planet.
Or if you want it another way,
+1 informative (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No idea why you are ranting that much.
You have an idea how much flight contributes to CO2 in percent of all?
Guessed so ...
Re:That's a dumb idea. David Keith is an oil shill (Score:5, Informative)
I.e. At 45000000 tons of CO2, that we're putting out annually as a species, in 10 years we could be breaking even by planting some 18000000 acres of new forests.
I beg your pardon? 45 megatonnes? We're putting out annually as a species perhaps 45 GIGAtonnes. So please adjust all your numbers by three orders of magnitude. So you're asking for 73 MILLION square kilometers of new forests, or, 53% of total land area in form of new forests (and that includes Antarctica)? Good luck with that.
Or if you want it another way, should every US family plant 20 trees we'd zero-out the entirety of global emission of CO2.
From your own numbers, should every US family plant 20 trees, they'd zero-out about only 1% of that family's annual CO2 emissions, which is around 45 tonnes per US family per year. It's not even compensating for that family's emissions, not to mention fixing the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I.e. At 45000000 tons of CO2, that we're putting out annually as a species, in 10 years we could be breaking even by planting some 18000000 acres of new forests.
I beg your pardon? 45 megatonnes? We're putting out annually as a species perhaps 45 GIGAtonnes. So please adjust all your numbers by three orders of magnitude. So you're asking for 73 MILLION square kilometers of new forests, or, 53% of total land area in form of new forests (and that includes Antarctica)? Good luck with that.
Or if you want it another way, should every US family plant 20 trees we'd zero-out the entirety of global emission of CO2.
From your own numbers, should every US family plant 20 trees, they'd zero-out about only 1% of that family's annual CO2 emissions, which is around 45 tonnes per US family per year. It's not even compensating for that family's emissions, not to mention fixing the rest of the world.
Then I guess we'd better get hot, if you'll pardon the pun, with technological solutions. Bitching and berating don't seem to be doing the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:World forest cover increased by 7% since 1980s (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting fact that armchair climate scientists like to ignore, is that global forest cover increased by 7% over the last 30 years. In Europe, forest cover increased by 30%.
You fail to point out that while there is a net increase in forests overall, the areas gaining forests are in places previously too cold to support such life [independent.co.uk].
Tree loss in the tropics is caused by agricultural expansion, while the new growth areas is in regions which were previously too cold to support such flourishing life, suggesting global warming is causing previously unidentified changes to the planet’s landscapes.
The study, which took two years to compile, also found the earth’s bare ground cover – natural vegetation – has decreased by more than 3 per cent, most notably in agricultural areas of Asia.
Huh, how about that. The increase in forests is probably tied to climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting fact that armchair climate scientists like to ignore, is that global forest cover increased by 7% over the last 30 years. In Europe, forest cover increased by 30%.
You fail to point out that while there is a net increase in forests overall, the areas gaining forests are in places previously too cold to support such life [independent.co.uk].
And you fail to point out: that those areas are not in Europe
Germany has indeed an extreme increase of forrest since 40 years. Most certainly not due to global warming.
Huh, how about that. The increase in forests is probably tied to climate change.
Nope, it is due to more efficient agriculture.
Re: (Score:2)
Between 1990 and 2015, global forest area declined by 3%,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Listen: so far as I'm concerned, if our species has to go back to an agrarian, subsistence existence, where you live and die within a days' walk of where you were born, with tech like it's 1900, then no, nobody is going to go for that. We have to find better solutions than just giving everything up, and people need to stop fighting those solutions, stop with the conspiracy theories that 'the government is trying to control us and keep us down' or wha
Re: (Score:2)
UK is really in a sad state thanks to it's leadership, the idea that eating manufactured sandwiches at work is a reckless luxury and using antiquated road infrastructure is a sin of the masses just goes to show you how browbeaten the population has become. Does anyone really expect solutions from such a situation? Obviously not, they already have a solution in mind.
My point was not so much a judgment on those actions, but that we have had a (hopefully) once in a lifetime event that has shown there is an alternative way to structure our cities that reduces emissions while still keeping things going. It won't be for everyone, but for many work from home is going fine. Yet rather than embracing this and supporting it, the UK govt just wants things 'back to normal'. Again, my point is that if they cannot even grasp the opportunity in this massive event, what is the hope t
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that individual action is responsible for climate change is pretty thin. We live in a society.
Society is made up of individuals, so if most individuals change their behaviour, so does society. To a degree it is already happening in some countries where climate change is an election issue, unluckily a good chunk of the population depends on emitting CO2 to make a living and doesn't want to change.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends how you count it. Fossil carbon emissions are the proximate cause. But too many people are the cause of the unsustainable fossil emissions - in the last 100 years the the global population roughly quadrupled, while the US population more than tripled. But per-capita fossil carbon emissions have also been rapidly increasing for much of that time as well.
If we held per-capita carbon emissions where they are today, I believe (don't quote me, it's been a long time since I lookup up the numbers) we'd
Re: (Score:2)
If you would cut the amount of people to half: the emissions would still be to high.
It would only postpone the problem, by a bit more than twice the years.
The point is: it is energy production with fossile fuels that is the real root problem. Not the amount of people.
we'd have to reduce the global population by something like 95% ...
Sure, but it is much easier to cut emissions by 95%
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly I should have been more explicit that we have so many "too many people", that removing them isn't a realistic solution to the problem.
As for the carbon footprint of people in different countries - it maps pretty well to what stage their industrial revolution is at. Leave only the lowest per-capita emitting countries, and within a century or so their per-capita emissions would rival our own as their own industrial revolutions extend throughout their population. And the global population would quite
Dear Liza (Score:2)
"Murder" is ridiculous, but what's so terrible about mandating having less kids in the future (through fines/penalties)? It beats everyone suffering. Right now, with our welfare system in the US, we support the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism, as currently implemented, needs growth so there are new customers.
More importantly, society needs young workers to support the old. China for example has a huge demographics problem coming due to their one child policy. Not only is there a generation of single children, but soon each child will have to support 2 parents in their retirement. In China it is more apparent as there are hardly any pensions but even in the west, those pensions etc need a young work force to support them.
As it is, with
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, society needs young workers to support the old.
That's right. And more to do the laundry as it's clearly impossible for automation to do such tasks. The issue is not numbers of workers.
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not number of workers, it is quality and number of workers, especially in the industries that are resistant to automation, like perhaps creating the automation.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism, as currently implemented, needs growth so there are new customers.
I don't understand that. What's wrong with having the economy, very slowly, slow down over decades?
Re: (Score:2)
If the economy is not growing, then the stock market is not growing, and the average return on investment becomes zero. Which mean's every dollar one investor gains has to come out of another capitalist's loss.
That's not inherently a bad thing - a roughly static economy was the norm throughout most of human history until a few hundred years ago. But most of human history didn't have capitalists in power, rigging the rules so that they would pretty much always win. And all modern economies are founded on t
Re: (Score:2)
For most people, not much. For the super rich who want to increase their wealth, well it is easier to increase wealth if new wealth is created and the super rich are the ones writing the rules generally.
Re: (Score:2)
Current trends predict my kids will be alive at the moment the earth has the most people it ever did, or ever will. That's a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>If the population is ever-growing,
It's not - it's declining rapidly everywhere that cheap birth control, family planning education, and decent medical care are common. Except where there's strong religious opposition (Catholics, mostly)
However, the places with the lowest per-capita carbon emissions mostly aren't included in that list, and with population pressure removed and no more technological influx from the more developed nations, their cultures would be under far less pressure to change. And the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The number of people makes the problem worse - but since the only way to solve the current crisis by eliminating people is to wipe out virtually the entire species within a decade or two, it's not really a productive conversation to have in relation to the crisis. Only in relation to the longer-term problem.
Plus, the population problem is already pretty much solved in virtually the entire developed world, with most such countries demonstrating negative population growth excluding immigration. And we know
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, the population problem is already pretty much solved in virtually the entire developed world, with most such countries demonstrating negative population growth excluding immigration. And we know how to pretty reliably solve the problem in developing nations - medical care, ...
Well, the "excluding immigration" kind of ruins the concept that it's "solved". And, not to be harsh, but medical care maintains the population number, not reduces it.
Re: (Score:2)
Excluding immigration is very important to understanding the problem though - if the population growth isn't actually happening in Europe, US, etc., then nothing you do in Europe, US, etc. will slow it down. Virtually all global population growth now occurs in the developing world, most of it in Africa, and we know how to stop it.
>medical care maintains the population number, not reduces it.
Naively, yes. But birth control and family planning education alone don't seem to be enough to convince people to
Re: (Score:2)
If the population is ever-growing, then so too are the holes in our energy bucket. Eventually, there won't be enough solar panels, windmills and batteries, not to mention the other required natural resources. "Murder" is ridiculous, but what's so terrible about mandating having less kids in the future (through fines/penalties)? It beats everyone suffering. Right now, with our welfare system in the US, we support the opposite.
The entire world outside of Africa is already below the replacement level in birthrate, and is on track to reach a ceiling in a few decades and then start to decline, except for the effects of people moving around (immigration).
Africa has not joined this world-wide pattern yet, but may catch up in a couple of decades -- the fact that all of Latin America has joined this trend is a fairly recent thing.
Your belief's about the "welfare system in the US," seems to be based on political propaganda from a few dec
Re: (Score:2)
The entire world outside of Africa is already below the replacement level in birthrate,
When the numbers actually decrease, then I'll believe that.
Your belief's about the "welfare system in the US," seems to be based on political propaganda from a few decades ago.
Didn't we just spend $3000 / year / kid? "Hey honey, now it's not so bad; we can afford to have another..."
You should try to keep up more.
I didn't pay extra for the insult, so thank you!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
OK boomer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He's modded as flamebait because Slashdot doesn't have a -1 poor reading comprehension.
The article doesn't say the prior record low was in 812 A.D., they say that is when the record keeping started. The scatter plot on the page makes the trend obvious, with a serious downturn starting about 1800.
Consilience of evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
In science, we look for a consilience of evidence. When 1000 pieces of evidence support a warming world, it is not a powerful counterargument to find 1000 different explanations that do not involve a warming world. You could say that maybe the satellite measurements [woodfortrees.org] are a result of Russian tampering, and maybe the surface station measurements [woodfortrees.org] suffer from urban heat island effect, and maybe the earlier break-up dates for the the Nenana Ice Classic [realclimate.org] are a result of over-skating, and poleward migrations of tropical cyclones [pnas.org] and species [usda.gov] may be related to the Earth's magnetic field, etc.
It's much less compelling to invoke 1000 different explanations when there is one that explains them all. Especially when that one is anticipated by the laws of physics [rsc.org].
When multiple sources of evidence are in agreement [woodfortrees.org], the conclusion can be very strong even if none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a concilience of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstand science, or are being overly pedantic in trying to map rules for the science of medicines to other sciences, or are just being obstinate while mistakenly thinking you are merely being sarcastic.
The observations are necessary for science. Otherwise some stupid troll would claim "there is no pandemic unless you conduct a trial to verify that people are getting sick", when it's easy to see that someone is sick just from observation, and determine that it's a new virus by observation
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of climate changing technology was in Japan 1200 years ago?
The season started quite late 1200 years ago. The previous record early start was one year in 1409, but even then the average start date was quite late. On average, the start date had been pretty flat but has been trending earlier since the 1800s. Check the graph: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/... [bbci.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Caring for trees better does not make them flower earlier, it makes them bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I know it's controversial (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you're mistaken? There was no significant global peak in 1409, though that was around the beginning of a period of global cooling - the "little ice age" (*not a real ice age) And the trend since the Industrial Revolution shifted us to fossil power in a big way around 1840 clearly is unlike anything since the the glaciers receded around 12,000 years ago, see for yourself: (only the last 2000 shown here, the previous 10,000 look much the same as the left side of the graph)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And unlike when the glaciers receded we're now in an interglacial period, which judging by the geologic record is pretty much the most unstable state the planet can be in - a brief warm period in an ice age during which the glaciers recede to the poles. If we undergo a similar warming period now the planet will be tipped back into it's normal "hothouse" state like when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, a good 5-10C warmer than today. And if we continue current carbon emission trends, that transition will be faster than ever before, wiping out most life on Earth (as has happened several times before).
Re: (Score:2)
One warm year in 1409 does not make climate. The weather is always variable year to year with the odd weird year rather then a clear trend like for the last 200 odd years.
Re: (Score:2)
One warm year in 1409 does not make climate. The weather is always variable year to year with the odd weird year rather then a clear trend like for the last 200 odd years.
Yup. BBC has a chart [bbci.co.uk]. The trend was pretty flat until recently. 1409 was an extreme outlier. 2021 was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Different types of meat have different carbon footprints with chicken and pigs being much better then cows, so rather then becoming vegan, you can shift the type of meat you mostly eat. Cutting down on meat would be good too.
Right now prices are enforcing these changes a bit, beef is expensive as well as meat in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That too, at that I'm not sure that people can exist as pure vegans without supplements but throw in some eggs, dairy etc. The problem is the people who insist on eating meat like the poster I replied to.
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-industrial warming (Score:3)
Since about 1800, the data suggest the peak date in Kyoto has gradually been moving back from mid-April towards the beginning of the month.
1800 was far too early to have seen any impact from AGW, indicating other factors are influencing this trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming could not have affected climate in Japan? Perhaps not global, but Japan was entering the mechanized era. Many people today are not aware of the extent of coal pollution during the Steam era and what it did to local climates and local health.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people today are not aware of the extent of coal pollution during the Steam era and what it did to local climates and local health.
That's true, I am not aware. What did coal pollution during the steam era do to local climates?
Japan was entering the mechanized era.
Not until 1853.
Re: (Score:2)
The pollution wasn't measured as carefully or scientifically as it is now. Measurable effects such as the retreat of glaciers have been monitored since 1850. I see your point that full industrializatoin of Japan did not start until the latter part of the 1800's.
Industrial cities, such as London during the steam era and today, have a "heat island" and are normally several degrees Fahrenheit than their surroundings.. Pollution is one of the factors that creates it, literally "darkening the sky" in the time of
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the raw data (linked in the summary, scroll down) you can see that it only really started to move quickly in the 1950s.
Between 1800 and 1950 it only moved about week. Since 1950 is has moved about 2 weeks, so something like 4x the previous rate of change.
Re: (Score:2)
1800 was far too early to have seen any impact from AGW, indicating other factors are influencing this trend.
1800 was the peak in a graph that was moving slowly indicating something we already knew: phantomfive is a moron who doesn't know how to interpret a graph.
Re: (Score:2)
You still haven't learned how to use hyperlinks. Hint: you can link to comments on Slashdot.
Ah those where the days. (Score:2)
Ah for the days when we had people being pedantry about the length of a season [slashdot.org].
Snowfall on cherry blossoms (Score:5, Interesting)
I was also thinking it has been a long time since seeing yukizakura (snowfall on blooming cherry blossoms) which is beautiful. It didn't even snow this year in Tokyo I think. Although actually there seems to have been yukizakura last year, then none for 10 years before that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Changing is Natural (Score:3)
It will continue to do so, regardless of human activity.
"Oceans rise, empires fall" isn't just a Broadway song lyric. That's literally the way things work.
Re: (Score:3)
Mass extinction events are also natural. Doesn't mean I want to be part of the upcoming mass extinction that warming will cause.
Agreed that the Earth will be fine. We won't necessarily be, however, and while I've no idea if that matters to you, it does to me.
Re: (Score:3)
And trees will die on their own, eventually. So it doesn't matter if we cut them down. Clearly, humans have a massive impact on the earth, and yet there are deniers who think we are tiny and puny and cannot affect nature in any way. Note that Europe once had a massive forest that is only in bits and pieces these days because of human actions. The Amazon forest is still there but anyone who thinks humans are too little and puny to ever destroy it entirely are naive, and those who think the loss of the Am
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Temperature naturally changes gradually over 10,000 years. Humans sped that up to do it in 100 years, so no thanks, I don't want most of life wiped out in the next 20 years.
Genetics? (Score:2)
Do we have samples from 1200 years ago that could be sequenced to compare with the modern genetics?
Cherry trees don't become ancient - they have a lifespan and must be replaced.
Almost certainly the arborists in Japan are selecting prize specimens for the cherry blossom display. Frankly there are probably experts on ornamental cherry generics who weren't asked for input on this article.
Never forget Gell-Mann.
Re: (Score:2)
That argument just doesn't hold water. (Score:2)
That said, it is not evidence to the contrary either. Having been as warm as it is now does not mean the rate of change is healthy, just that some conditions have been similar and did not indicate disaster.
And that is why I think this is being framed as support for the claims of climate alarmists. Perhaps they think they have to prej
But that's impossible!!! (Score:2)
Spring can't move! Just last week everyone here proved that the only way to measure seasons was based on the calendar!! [slashdot.org]
Clearly the Cherry trees should be basing their bloom on a fixed offset from March 21st.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we know that COVID-19 doesn't interact with the Cherry trees to cause this early bloom?
This "corona" virus so so different from anything we've ever seen in history and unlike any known corona virus in all of history. Therefore we don't know that this doesn't have an effect on Cherry trees.
Correlation is not causation, but it is plausible that the cause of this is something like the lack of pollution due to lockdowns, or climate effects due to the collapse of aviation. It does seem quite a coincidence that this has happened now.
But no, the virus is not infecting cheery trees. I'm pretty sure they do not have ACE2 receptors.
Re: (Score:3)
But no, the virus is not infecting cheery trees. I'm pretty sure they do not have ACE2 receptors.
The world could certainly use more cheery trees - especially after the year we've had.
Re: (Score:3)
"So different from anything we've seen in history"? Do look up the "Spanish flu" from the World War I era, it was similarly widespread and devastating, infecting roughly half a billion people and killing roughly 50 million. Details differ, but the scale is familiar.
No, they're not saying anything yet (Score:5, Insightful)
It's saying it's an unusual event. If it happens once every few hundred years, then probably nothing to worry about. If we break the record again and again year after year, then maybe we can consider taking our collective heads out of our ass and stop making lame excuses.
Re:No, they're not saying anything yet (Score:5, Informative)
They're saying the average has been moving back as well:
Since about 1800, the data suggest the peak date in Kyoto has gradually been moving back from mid-April towards the beginning of the month
We don't have to rely on this particular record alone though. We have direct temperature measurements that show a trend that should be more than enough to "consider taking our collective heads out of our ass and stop making lame excuses".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying the day light hours are getting longer? Should be easy to measure.
As for temperature, the cherries, plums etc consistently flower earlier when it is a warm spring here, and the opposite too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strange that the trees in my yard, bloom when the temperature is right.
Changes every year.
Which is probably true for 90% of our European trees.
Oh: and the trees in Thailand also only bloom when the temperature is right. As "photoperiod" is not really happening there, and in Europe they do not like to bloom.
You are just silly. Perhaps you want to open a biology book and check what plants flower why and when?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all plants depend on the photoperiod. Cherries seem to be more weather dependent then some.
Attempting to look up some info on this, first there seems to be cultivars of marijuana with cherry in the name, they're all photoperiod dependent, unlike the autoflowering types of marijuana which are age dependent and ignore daylight hours for flowering.
I did find this, https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] which goes into seedling growth in various prunus species including sour cherries. Seems to be dependent on th
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's saying that as a slashdotter he is being contrarian and will argue to the death against anyone, and is far too busy to actually even read the article to do research to back up the contrarian claims. We already know that any random slashdotter is infinitely better at science than any paid scientist (being paid clearly makes them biased), has better political solutions than any actual politician, and knows more about medicine than any medical doctor, and thinks that their experience writing in PHP m
Re: (Score:2)
Trees and plants are photoperiod species. They reply to light cycles, not temperatures. This is why a bonzai version of the same tree will bloom at the same time as his outdoor kin, when left indoors in a window that gets full sun. This is also why early winters and early cold spells kill tress like the japanese red maple, because photoperiod has not told it to go dormant. Temperature affects nutrient uptake and crop production, not bloom and dormancy.
I got a cherry tree in my back yard.
I'll surround it with grow lights and then in January when the average low is -16C we can test your hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At that temperature you will cause it to go out of dormancy and you will kill it. They go dormant to protect themselves. Do it above freezing. Like when its > 45F. Make sure you arent using kmart grow lights. Use full spectrum LED at around 20k lumen. You should see blooms around 16/8 light period. Will take about 2 weeks for blooming to kick in.
You know I was joking right?
You may be correct if temperature is within a certain range, but unless you have some data I'm not aware of I doubt light levels matter when it's significantly below freezing.
And the data I did find confirmed that temperature affects when trees bud [springer.com].
In fact, the very fact that the time of the cherry blossom is fairly variable seems to be a very strong piece of evidence against your assertion that it's almost entirely based on something as invariable as the daily light levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the kind of tree.
Seriously: how can you be so uneducated?
Have you lÃooked at the data before commentin (Score:2)
Here is one , taken from washington post , serviceable enough.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
That downward trend you see since 1800 roughly ? That should have gone back up to repeat the previous centuries. It did not. It continued downward (earlier dates) Does not look like a
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible to make decent estimations if we know how to translate calendars kept in different eras. It was important for people to have general calendars so they would know when yearly events occurred. But to think anyone knew the exact day, a
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying that the world was just as warm in 1409 as it is today? But global warming?
No what we're saying is that you were dumb enough to jump on a soundbite rather than looking at the graph with the trendline.
Seriously do you guys go to a special school that promotes your flavour of thinking? I feel like simply flunking school isn't enough, you actually have to put effort into being quite as much of a moron as a climate change denier.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They can thank the Chinks for being the world's largest polluters.
Not everyone is as stupid as you thankfully [ourworldindata.org]
America is much worse.
And that's in absolute numbers, not even considering America has only 1/4 the people China does.
Re: Talk to their neighbors (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like they got a choice to be frank.
China and North Korea and other primitive states *wish* they had the psychological warfare skills that the US think tanks have. They resort to totalitarian force only because they are still unable to make people *want* what they want. We're much further in the west. We don't need force anymore. And as a cherry on top, we can make them blame themselves, if they notice they do not actually want it.
Re: Talk to their neighbors (Score:5, Insightful)
Chinese people can see how much better their situation is compared to their parents/grandparents.
They don't have two sides each claiming to be the solution to everything and the other side is always wrong about everything.
It's natural for them to assume they are in the better situation now, because of the actions of their government.
No need for psychological warfare skills just yet. But they still use it to emphasis how good they did. It helps to point out how badly other places are doing too.
So they are still using it. And if that growth ever stops, you can bet all the practice they have will come in handy.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like they got a choice to be frank.
China and North Korea and other primitive states *wish* they had the psychological warfare skills that the US think tanks have. They resort to totalitarian force only because they are still unable to make people *want* what they want. We're much further in the west. We don't need force anymore. And as a cherry on top, we can make them blame themselves, if they notice they do not actually want it.
I could see NK being primitive, but China? Sure, they still lag behind 1st world countries, but primitive? It ain't. And let us not point to Rural China (since we have our own waves of troglodyte undevelopment in Rural America.).
We aren't in the 60's anymore. We aren't one to call anyone primitive, certainly not the 2nd largest economy on the planet that is already giving us a run for our money on the AI, e-commerce, infrastructure and high-value-added services.
PS. This is not an endorsement of China o
Re: (Score:2)
Not 50%, 25% (Score:3, Interesting)
The propaganda fed to Americans are deafening. It's pretty insane what the normal American's world view is. 50% vote for Trump because of how far from reality their world view is.
Not 50%. 25% actually... and Trump still lost the popular vote (as he would again on 2020). It was because of the lowest turnout on record on 2016 while competing with the most unlikable candidate the DNC could pick (HRC, which to be honest was very unfair, but that's another story.)
So, it is not 50%. It was 25%. I could agree with you if your argument is/was that 50% of the voters were so stupid for staying home because they bought the "Trump and Hillary are both the same evil" fallacy of the "wronger-th
Re: (Score:2)
Of that 25%, probably the vast majority of those always vote R no matter who is there. Why waste time paying attention to campaigns or being educated on the issues when they already know what lever to pull? Same happens on the D side. The elections really happen in the middle but a relatively small minority who think about things. The media uses pejorative terms like "undecided" though, as if they were wishy washy numskulls, or "swing states" which is dumb because that ony applies to one race out of the
Re: It's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
For Earth there isn't. That's true. ;)
For us, there kinda is.
And for our society and the enviroment we need, there definitely is.
Strangely, some people got it into their heads, that humanity and even our society must survive. Humans are weird, am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
A string of unusual results is only unusual when the runs are independent. But we don't reboot the planet each night for a fresh start. The conditions from yesterday influence today, which influences tomorrow.
In other words, the chances of breaking the record in year X are much higher when year X-1 also broke records, compared to the chances of breaking records when X-1 was "normal".
Or do you think the thermal mass of the system is so low that there cannot be cycles that last longer than a year?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)