Pilot
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,208
- Location
- Oregon
- Tractor
- JD 770, Yanmar 180D, JD 420 (not running), had a Kubota B6200
The thread was closed before I could comment. No one addressed the validity of the pics, which I believe are relevant. Here we go:
Those pics don't mean a thing.
Take 2 minutes to give it some thought.
Consider, what time of year were each of the pics taken? Were the early ones taken in winter, early spring, late spring and the later ones taken in mid or late summer? Note all the green in the later pics. All taken in summer. The early ones? We don't know.
How much snow fell in the area each year the pics were taken?
In some pics they show trees now where the glacier supposedly was 100 years ago. Compare the pics carefully. Camera location can do a lot to tell a story--or a lie. Glacier scoured rock doesn't make soil fast enough to allow trees, which grow very slowly in Alaska, to populate the areas shown.
Our home in Montana was on glacial till--the glaciers retreated about 10,000 years ago. Soil was a mixture of rock and very poor soil. We had trees only because an Oregon volcano erupted and deposited 6" of soil on top of the glacial till. You don't get trees where the glaciers retreated just 100 years ago.
I've been to Alaska. While in the Air National Guard, and a forester in my civilian job, I was interested in tree growth rates. I checked an area being cut for a right of way--NOT located on a recent glacial site. Stumps were about 3" in diameter and rings were so tight I couldn't count them.
Any time you see before & after pics be a little skeptical, ask when each of the pics were taken, what were the seasonal and yearly weather differences? Do the purported conclusions seem reasonable? Don't be easily taken in.
Those pics don't mean a thing.
Take 2 minutes to give it some thought.
Consider, what time of year were each of the pics taken? Were the early ones taken in winter, early spring, late spring and the later ones taken in mid or late summer? Note all the green in the later pics. All taken in summer. The early ones? We don't know.
How much snow fell in the area each year the pics were taken?
In some pics they show trees now where the glacier supposedly was 100 years ago. Compare the pics carefully. Camera location can do a lot to tell a story--or a lie. Glacier scoured rock doesn't make soil fast enough to allow trees, which grow very slowly in Alaska, to populate the areas shown.
Our home in Montana was on glacial till--the glaciers retreated about 10,000 years ago. Soil was a mixture of rock and very poor soil. We had trees only because an Oregon volcano erupted and deposited 6" of soil on top of the glacial till. You don't get trees where the glaciers retreated just 100 years ago.
I've been to Alaska. While in the Air National Guard, and a forester in my civilian job, I was interested in tree growth rates. I checked an area being cut for a right of way--NOT located on a recent glacial site. Stumps were about 3" in diameter and rings were so tight I couldn't count them.
Any time you see before & after pics be a little skeptical, ask when each of the pics were taken, what were the seasonal and yearly weather differences? Do the purported conclusions seem reasonable? Don't be easily taken in.
