Irony Upon Ironies

One afternoon last week I was driving along Route 24 and I noticed that there was a long expanse of woods, across from the Morristown Airport. I was very intrigued by this particular spot because I could tell the trees were very old and large, and also very much "in decline," a polite forestry euphemism for "dying." I could tell even from a distance because the branches have little or no "terminal growth" another forestry term for new, young branches at the tips.

So when I got home I looked at a map on the 'tubes to figure out how I could get into this place without having to park on the freeway. It is unusual because with New Jersey's tax code, property owners with large lots get a very significant break for farmland/woodlot assessment, so there aren't many places where big dead trees aren't promptly removed for firewood.

I almost fell off my chair when I saw that this giant property is the original Exxon Campus comprising hundreds of acres. For those who don't realize, Exxon is a chief source of funding for the deliberate, evil misinformation campaign they have launched along with other fossil fuel interests, to confuse people about the science of climate change. They are criminals. So on Sunday, I headed up to invade their territory. On the way, I passed Washington's Headquarters, which is very beautiful, so I stopped to see what the trees looked like there.

Predictably, evidence of poisoning from toxic greenhouse gases abounds.

This enormous stump was probably here with George Washington.

Trees may look okay to the casual observer, from a distance, like this one in front of the cottage.

But the bark is falling off.

It is piling up on the ground beneath.

This collection has in the forefront a newly planted maple that didn't have enough energy to push off its leaves last fall, and so they are still hanging, brown and dried; a tall pine that is too thin on the right; and next to it on the left, a pine that is virtually bare of any needles whatsoever.

Here's a close-up for those who want to be really morbid.

After a bit of cruising around with my GPS I finally located the entrance to the property owned by Exxon and yes, Irony Upon Ironies!

I drove to the back of the property - which is a gigantic corporate park now with huge buildings, roads, and parking lots - to the untended woods along the freeway. You can see how huge many of the trees are, tall above the equipment stored at the back lot.

So what follows are photos I took, just walking through an acre or so of the woods. That's the freeway berm in the rear.

It was just shocking to see the wholesale death of magnificent old trees.

It is just one after the other.

Some places are so tangled with broken branches it was hard to get through.

There is a mix of hardwoods - hickory, oaks, and beech.

More dead trees along the berm.

Here is a sad example.

Sometimes they crack in the middle.

There are damaged branches above and damaged trunks at the base.

Bark is flying off.

There literally isn't one single tree that doesn't have damage to some extent.

It doesn't matter which species, or how old.

Words fail me.

Above is a great contrast of big dead fallen trees with the twisted sapling in the foreground, its trunk split.

How do people work in those buildings without noticing the rumble of gigantic trees crashing?

Or hear the young trees screaming?

It must be painful to have your bark do this.

In very little time, nothing will be left standing in these woods.

Also missing is any kind of understory - the earth beneath the trees is lifeless.

Where is the rest of this tree? Perhaps some logs have been taken from parts of these woods.

Outside of the section left undeveloped, the trees in the groomed landscape are dying just the same.

Each tree in this row along the drive has damage to one degree or another.

It's hard to depict just how massive that cut stump in the foreground is. The diameter is far greater than the tree behind it. This row is in between buildings, not back in the woods.

Perhaps there are so many trees dying so quickly they can't keep up with removing them.

And the recently planted trees that line the roads between buildings are uniformly sickly. The pines are losing needles.

The needles that remain are discolored.

One after the other, it's the same story - thinning, turning brown, and all their energy thrown into cones.

It's the exact same situation for the deciduous, ornamental nursery stock.

Every single trunk has the same sort of splitting and decay. I could have walked a mile and taken pictures of each one, planted about 20 feet apart, with identical damage. But I had had enough.

What a relief to come home and see the sparkly Cold Brook and the fields and hills beyond,

and the sheep peacefully grazing in the last light of the afternoon.

junipers and yews and cedars, oh my!

The pigment of evergreens has become hideously bizarre. Some just turn yellow, and lose needles, like this cedar.

Quite a few have only brown needles remaining.

But like this decrepit barn, every last one of them is irreversibly decayed, and just creepy.

The weirdest colors are found on these bruised, blackened yews and junipers, which should shine a nice green.

This disgusting hue is to be found in the unkempt wild and in landscaped settings as well. It's just, well, gross.

This video should be plane obvious:

For Nature, Every Day is 9/11

Not Really Epic

I pass this gate on a regular basis. It's obviously private property, and I don't know who it belongs to.

It has been amusing me to watch the lichen spread on the stone wall, it almost looks like it is being gradually whitewashed. I could see from the crowns of the trees beyond the wall that they are dying.

I decided to climb over the wall and have a peek.

With the exception of trees that threaten the driveway, like the one above, nobody has been cutting or clearing the fallen branches and trunks, so it's possible to get a good sense of just what percentage of trees are dying in this location.

And I would estimate it's close to 100%. In addition to all the logs on the ground, the standing trees uniformly exhibit symptoms of decline.

It's an incredible sight.

Sometimes, the trees break at some point along the trunk, and in other cases they keel over bringing up huge clumps of roots and dirt.

These roots ripped out of the earth are much taller than I.

Here it is clear that the standing trees will soon join those already lying on the ground.

Some stumps are hardly recognizable.

Think how many must have already rotted away to the point where they are not there at all.

There were no young trees that could regenerate the forest, other than a few seedlings like this one, from the past year. Nothing from a foot high to 10 or 20 feet.

The storm story on the front page of HuffPo is headlined: “Epic Snowstorm Batters East Coast: Trees Are Starting to Come Down”

Please note, trees are not supposed to fall down because it is snowing. Trees evolved to survive much worse snowstorms than this (note the very last excerpt below). If it was normal for them to fall down because of snow, they would have all fallen down by now and we wouldn’t have any left.

There are many areas of untouched woods, where there are more trees lying on the ground than there are standing. Why? We are poisoning them with toxic greenhouse gases. They cannot breathe (photosynthesize) in the atmospheric anarchy of our fuel emissions.

Here are sections from the article. We can expect much more of this as the dying trees fall:

“A blizzard battered the Mid-Atlantic region Saturday, with emergency crews struggling to keep pace with the heavy, wet snow that has piled up on roadways, toppled trees and left thousands without electricity.

“Things are fairly manageable, but trees are starting to come down,” said D.C. fire department spokesman Pete Piringer, whose agency responded to some of the falling trees.

“Maryland Transit Administration spokeswoman Jawauna Greene said the underground portion of the Metro could reopen later Saturday but it depended on the weather conditions.”

“We have trees on the overhead wires, trees on train tracks. We can’t get anything out,” she said.

“Hundreds of thousands of customers across the region had lost electricity and more outages were expected to be reported because of all the downed power lines.”

“The biggest snowfall for the Washington-Baltimore area is believed to have been in 1772, before official records were kept, when as much as 3 feet fell, which George Washington and Thomas Jefferson penned in their diaries.”

This link is to an article at Climate Progress, about the EPA decision to push for more use of biofuels. In the comments I have been trying unsuccessfully to find out who, if anyone, is taking into consideration the effects of emissions from burning ethanol. It seems not even those who are enlightened about climate change want to deal with that question!

Mad World

Snow Day

Early yesterday morning it was blissfully peaceful. I forgot about TEOTWAWKI for a few moments when I woke and the world looked blue, and remembered instead a winter long ago, when I was 13 years old. A series of Nor'easters hit Ipswich, and there was so much snow there was nowhere to put it.

It was piled in steep mountains along the roads, and it was endlessly amusing to clamber to their peaks and leap into soft drifts. The streets were reduced to narrow footpaths through white canyons. The schools closed for over two weeks, and helicopters were dispatched to drop food to the most isolated areas of town.

One night when the snow was coming down so thickly it was impossible to see more than a few feet, I ventured outside in the dark. It was so exciting to be alone in such a massive storm. I sat under a laden pine and just listened to the sound of the snow falling, billions of fat sparkly flakes that eliminated any other consideration.

When my children were little, we would scoop up fresh snow in bowls and pour maple syrup on it, and eat it with a spoon. Now, I know the snow is brimming with invisible toxins.

But it is still beautiful to behold.

There is a cavern, on the far side of the Black River, that always is curtained by huge icicles in freezing weather.

The pines at Purnell are becoming more and more spindly.

These two have what foresters refer to as "tufted" growth, from losing inner needles.

The cows were out early in the morning, snuffling aside the snow to graze.

I had to go to a store in the afternoon, and took pictures along the way home. That hedge used to be solid green.

The indigenous cedars were never a particularly bright green, but the needles are now brown, and many are a funereal blackish hue.

Many of the trunks are becoming hollow. I think this one looks sort of like "The Scream!"

Just as bark is falling off maples and oaks, the trunks of cedars themselves are splitting.

The one above is splitting from the base, and the one below is rotting fast.

I found another magnolia that produced seeds, which I have never seen before.

This picture conveys the typical look of untended woods.

I believe that is shagbark hickory - but the pieces of bark on them are curling away from the trunk.

These two large cryptomeria are about 30 years old. They have gone from thick and green to this sickly sight.

Here are the honey locusts along my street. First, the tops broke off, in the past two years.

Now, the remaining trunks are splitting.

They reveal rot, and fungus.

And some are so hollow, you can all the way through to the sky on the opposite side!

Hello, sky!

In spite of the purportedly cold weather, this forsythia bush is blooming.

The flowers though were nipped by frost. This is a very bad trend. Already, I have seen buds swelling on fruiting trees, and magnolias.

By the end of the day, most of the snow was gone. But we are expecting even more, starting tomorrow!

A careful read of this article in Science Daily leads inexorably to one appalling conclusion: scientific experts - let alone average people - have absolutely no idea what is going on in the atmosphere. There are so many emissions reacting to each other and to radiation that it's anarchy in the skies.

Yesterday, according to ClimateProgress President Obama said this:

"By the way, remember acid rain? That’s how that got solved, was basically what happened — the Clean Air Act slapped a price on sulfur emissions. And what ended up happening was all these companies who were saying this was going to be a jobs killer, et cetera, they figured it out. They figured it out a lot cheaper than anybody expected. And it turns out now that our trees are okay up here in New Hampshire. That’s a good thing. So we should take a lesson from the past and not be afraid of the future."

Of course I'm completely in favor of his policy to cap carbon emissions, but here was my reaction to his rosy assessment:

Sorry, Obama, the Clean Air Act was not the success greenwashing industry and government pretend it is, and the forests in New Hampshire and everywhere else are decidedly NOT healthy. Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Charles Driscoll, but any internet search about acid rain will reveal the lasting, persistent damage and the ongoing deposition from multiple sources:

"larryo: So on acid rain. It’s below the radar of the media these days. Any idea why?

cdriscoll: I sent you the Science Links report and paper we did a few years ago to try to bring it back to the public attention. I think it is because the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments addressed the problem in part and the media and public have the perception that the problem is solved. Also other national and global environmental problems have emerged."

from this interview: http://dsc.discovery.com/ earth/ im-interview/ acid-rain-driscoll.html

It’s not going to be possible to solve our emissions problems if we don’t start getting realistic about the scope of the impacts.

I might have added these links (but that would have put me into moderation purgatory): This information from Virginia contains the following ominous passage:

"Scientists knew that the 40 percent [reduction in admissions] was not going to be enough to stop acidifying streams in some places," Bulger says. "That number was never scientifically based. It was a compromise."

This is terrifying because it is exactly what all sorts of policies to address global warming propose to do - make compromises that aren't based on the science. That approach didn't work for reducing acidity in soils, streams and lakes - killing fish, vegetation, amphibians and birds - and it's not going to save humans from catastrophic climate change, either! You can't argue with Mother Nature - she doesn't care about the Senate, the Congress, the lobbyists, or even you or me.

And for anyone who really wants to wallow in the theatre of the absurd, here is a story from ten years ago in the New York Times, exemplifying just how quaint is any concern about toxic emissions.

And now, an uplifting palindrome (or semordnilap? whatever...) that has had over 10 million views on YouTube!

The Book of Eli

I saw this movie last weekend and I have to say, it was sort of ridiculous. I mean, there was supposedly this dire shortage of water even for drinking never mind washing, but in typical Hollywood fantasy marketing, the female lead had a perfect complexion, without the slightest blemish. Riiiigghhht!

Nevertheless, it is worth seeing for the vision of the coming collapse of ecosystems, and human civilization. A Mad Max scenario, like this one, will most likely prevail (although of course, I hope it won't). Among the outcomes depicted are lawlessness, cannibalism, and rampant sexual attacks. Buckle your seatbelts, etc.

Simon Shares a Popsicle

The first thing I read this morning was a summary from Colorado State University Extension, titled "Air Pollution Affects Local Trees" about the effects of ozone on vegetation. It's worth reading for the matter-of-fact descriptions of damage and symptoms, and the distinct lack of alarm. Ozone causes plants and trees to die, ho hum.

Now I have to admit I am grateful to Andy Revkin. In general I dislike him, because he has had a uniquely valuable forum at the NYTimes to address climate change, which he has squandered thanks to an unconscionable lack of passion or conviction. It is more typically my wont to describe my feelings for him thusly, (to a friend):

He is the reason I stopped reading the NYT after being a faithful subscriber for 30 years, every morning with my coffee, for everything from food to fashion to politics. I forget which vanity-filled loathsome article did it, but something he said made me realize he is all about Andy. God I hate him. He has so much undeserved influence and is piddling it into a vacuous mirror of self-agrandizement.

But in this interview at e360.yale.edu, he did a creditable job (which may have been accidental) of describing a fundamental breech between the approach of environmentalists and climate change scientists towards educating the public:

"e360: Do you think the fact that most people are really still not paying attention or are that concerned about this issue, do you think that’s a function of the media and scientists not communicating it well, or is it a function of people not really reacting to a problem or situation that seems very far off into the future?

Revkin: It’s pretty primal. Which explains why there are some advocates for action on climate who keep trying to link the here-and-now events: Australian wild fires, or the tree die-off [in North America]. If they can make the point that these changes that you’re seeing viscerally in your landscape now are the result of this thing, maybe that will be more likely to change people. But there, too, the causal linkage between a regional change and human-driven warming of the climate through the buildup of greenhouse gases is one of the hardest things to do confidently."

My comment was:

Yes, that would be me. Losing our trees is intolerable to those of us unwilling to cheerfully relegate our children to the slow suffocation of the hermetic existence you seem resigned to for them.

But you miss the point, which is that the level of greenhouse gases makes it impossible for them to photosynthesize and produce chlorophyll and guess what? Wheat and corn and soy and melons and green beans all need to photosynthesize too. And so, we're not talking about some romantic attachment to trees, we are talking about food.

I would personally like to see Mr. Revkin make like a reporter and call the USDA and the Forestry Service and the USGS and get some real numbers from them.

Today everywhere I look I run into this story and feel like I'm Alice gone through the looking glass. It is about a long term study in Maryland purporting to show that - thanks to rising levels of CO2 - trees are growing faster. This is presented as though it's a good thing - you know, the old "CO2 is food for plants"!

Leaving aside the fact that the human equivalent of that theory would be that bingeing on a high calorie diet and getting fat is good for humans in the long run (uh, it's not), it completely ignores the effects of the "other" greenhouse gases - nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, acetaldehyde - that bathe the trees in toxic ozone and acid rain. How this study could find trees thriving in Maryland is astonishing.

So, I wrote a letter to the lead author, copied below, to find if any "trick" has been employed to "hide the decline". And the only other thing I would note is that the funding for the project is from HSBC Bank. A quick search on Yahoo for "HSBC" greenwash (which means, posturing for public relations or advertising purposes to be environmentally friendly while actually pursuing decidedly unfriendly policies) yielded 46,700 results. Just sayin'!

Here's my letter:

Dear Dr. Parker, Today in Science Daily I read this report of your study indicating that trees are growing faster because of higher concentrations of CO2. I do not doubt this and in fact the FACE project in Wisconsin supports your findings. However, my observations that trees are in decline and in fact dying in Eastern forests at unprecedented rates does not seem to be reflected in your study. I am very interested to understand why this should be. How recent are your measurements - does your analysis include the past 18 months? I date the onset of an obvious, widespread and rapid decline to late summer of 2008. Is there any other way that your study could be set up so that it would not reflect tree decline? Do you exclude dead trees from growth measurements, for example? I look forward to corresponding with you and as I live in Northern NJ I am hopeful I will be able to come to the Smithsonian Center to tour your plots. It would be a great pleasure to meet you and get more details about your project, if your time permits. In any event I look forward to seeing your forests first hand. I have been posting photos of trees and links to research at www.witsendnj.blogspot.com. This post in particular has a video of the FACE CO2 and ozone projects. Sincerely, Gail Zawacki Oldwick, NJ

Study: U.S. Trees Dying at Alarming Rate

This photo is from an essay in Time, about dying trees, published just about a year ago. It's pathetic that the same scientists quoted in the article haven't yet made the connection between tree decline and poisonous emissions, even though I've written to all of them so it's not like it's an alien notion. What charlatans! They are taking tax-payer money, ostensibly to protect us from toxins, and yet they blithely ignore the most existential threat to the human race in all time, which would be, crop failure from atmospheric toxins. Shame upon them! I'm talking about you, Nathan Stephenson!

Mongabay has published an analysis of the movie Avatar, which details the real-world exploitation of indigenous peoples by big corporations that steal natural resources through morally bankrupt and violent means.

In the "what is killing trees" department, today I found this article in Science Daily, which notes that there are huge increases in:

The substance HFC-23, or trifluoromethane, (which is) a byproduct of chlorodifluoromethane, or HCFC-22, a refrigerant in air conditioners and refrigerators and a starting material for producing heat and chemical-resistant products, cables and coatings.

After much searching for information about this alarming compound

(one pound of HFC-23 released into the atmosphere traps heat 14,800 times more effectively than one pound of carbon dioxide)

I eventually found this related report about emissions of that stuff from grocery store refrigerators, in the UK. It is clear that HFC-23 is increasing rapidly in atmospheric concentration, and that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 - but I can't find a single bit of research about what direct health impact, if any, it might have on humans or vegetation. It's truly amazing how willing we are to accept a potentially lethal product contamination into our environment without protest.

I suppose that shouldn't be any surprise, because the identical urge to ignorance is behind the utter lack of oversight on so many other chemicals and technological processes (like genetic modification) that are being spewed by profit-seeking industry into our food, water, and air, and even simple things like cosmetics.

Speaking of ignorance, here is a very funny essay on rampant human stupidity, with a scientific percentage of incidence -courtesy of our friend on the West Coast, RPauli!