>Western US river. >actually completely dry 2/3rds of the year

>An estimated 1 million acres (0.4 million ha) of riparian forest occupied the Central Valley
that cant be accurate as the Central valley in total is only approx a million acres (20,000 sq miles)

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central-valley.html

read the paper you lying piece of shit
Learn what riparian forest means--it was forested wetlands. I know you've never seen forested wetlands but they are indeed considered heavily forested compared to what you have now.

Yes, I didn't say there were no grasslands I said there were way more forest. Let me geuss, you also work for the logging cartels--you certainly use their dishonest logic.

The water migrated.
Water doesn't LEAVE the planet.
Everything gets recycled.

yes, lets just clear out the aquafers, get rid of all the water in biomass and make sure the soil absorbs no water.

You midwits are truly amazing.

> - t. actual moron

what is your house built of?
what do you wipe your ass with?
wood and wood pupl is part of 80% of every essentail consumer and commercial goods in te the country.

timber is an actual renewable resource.

wow, Boomers to the maximus.
My house is built with what building code required--not what is best

>ree the TP argument
I use hemp TP wich is exponentially better than anything else

>wood pulp is part of 80% essential consumer goods
You're lying

>timber is renewable
Timber is not a forest--forests are not renewable. That is the biggest timber lie of them all. A doug fir lives 600 to 1000 years--most lowland rainforest evergreens live about that long.

Renewable means can come back in a human lifetime: simply not true of a forest and never will be.

Basically I'm being gang fricked by timber shills and moronic boomers and you're all clearly moronic and don't know how to think without big timber propaganda feeding you lines.

The reliance on big timber is because of AINCENT building codes and prohibitions on better materials. It isn't the best material for most of what we use it for and if it wasn't SUBSADIZED it would be obvious how inefficient it is to use for what we use it for.

Keep lying--I've debunked your garbage half truths and delusions but I expect more.

>read the paper you lying piece of shit

>The riparian shrublands, woodlands, and forests covered in this synthesis occur on the floodplains and terraces of major streams and rivers of California's Central Valley.

The first sentence of your paper clearly indicates the forests were only in specific areas which make up a small percentage of central valley. The majority of the land mass in the central valley was, in fact, grasslands. This is long known, well established fact.

BTFO by your own paper LOL.

For those without a calculator:
>1 square mile is 640 acres
>20,000 x 640 = 12,280,000 acres
I didn't mention actual forests or grassland but saying that 1 million acres was obliterated of just riparian forests is well within the area we're discussing.

>Quotes a paper
>Doesn't link which one they're quoting
Keep being dishonest--that's you're entire argument is dishonesty.

You sound like every timber shill I've ever talked to.

Even the bay area was which is just insane if you look at it now

I never mentioned the bay area you cancerous liar.

So, In conclusion: CA obliterated most of it's old growth, almost all of it's redwood forests, almost all of it's lowland wetlands and replaced it with monoculture, houses, and managed forests that are cut down every 60 years and now I have a bunch of morons on the internet trying to down play how much CA has fricked it's forests.

Simply amazing how evil you people are.

>So, In conclusion
You claimed the central valley was mostly forests before white man. It wasnt. No amount of reeeeing or insults or logical fallacies on your part changes that fact. You lost.

>dude trust me
I have produced multiple sources but you ignore any facts contrary to your delusion. Its called cognitive dissonance.

Please shut the frick up. The central valley was mostly grasslands with forest in riparian zones...which were only a small percentage of the total area. Any more from you is just cope and lies.

>Any more from you is just cope and lies.
>lol--hmm, who made this map I wounder.
thanks for making my point. You were wrong and now you are coping. I would link the source but since you are such a stupid c**t I am not going to. Its easy to find the map. just search the title.

>written
*posted
I haven't linked any of my papers.

>So not only have you provided no links to support any of your arguments
wtf??? you are just trolling right?

https://i.imgur.com/xRty971.jpg

Please shut the frick up. The central valley was mostly grasslands with forest in riparian zones...which were only a small percentage of the total area. Any more from you is just cope and lies.

It wasn't though. It was mostly marshlands and the foothills were logged. The southern valley was arid. The whole point was the forests that recharged the rivers were removed; you're just spinning your wheels on how much was removed... here is my pont almost all of the forest in the central valley was obliterated and those wetlands and forests charged the aquifers and fed the climate cycle--not anymore.

>Eldarodo county and Senoma.
lol. niether of those counties are in the central valley. so funny.

>Eldarodo and Simona don't boarder the central Valley
>They were the earliest logging settlements and they just stopped there--I swear bro
JFC, you don't know shit about forestry or geography

>So not only have you provided no links to support any of your arguments
wtf??? you are just trolling right? [...]

>If I post an image but no source to where I got that image that totally counts as a source
I can't tell if you're gaslighting or really are this moronic.

>Western US river
>actually completely dry 2/3rds of the year

>doesn't know what a riparian forest is or how it relates to rivers
>Doesn't know anything about logging
>Shilles forestry talking points instead of talking about rivers
Priceless

You haven't provided any source to any valid evidence

You are a liar making shit up and not substantiated any of it.

Link one paper kid, ONE, and try to support it with any sort of coherent argument--you've not done that at all in this thread.

>I literally quoted you
but you convienently left off the
>some oak savanna and riparian forests but lots of marshes, vernal pools and lakes.

because you are a disingenous asshat. You are either incredibly autistic and moronic or I have been trolled hard. either way you still lose. lol

>It was riparian forests, brush and old growth that got more arid as you went south.

Are you calling John Muir a liar? lol You're done.

AN EARLY ACCOUNT OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PRAIRIE
There are several accounts of the flower-rich flora of the Central Valley in the era before large-scale
agriculture, but perhaps none as eloquent as this, from John Muir:

The Great Central Plain of California, during the months of March, April, and May, was one smooth, continuous
bed of honey-bloom, so marvelously rich that, in walking from one end of it to the other, a distance of more than
400 miles, your foot would press about a hundred flowers at every step. Mints, gilias, nemophilas, castilleias,
and innumerable compositæ were so crowded together that, had ninety-nine per cent of them been taken away,
the plain would still have seemed to any but Californians extravagantly flowery. The radiant, honey-ful corollas,
touching and overlapping, and rising above one another, glowed in the living light like a sunset sky—one sheet
of purple and gold, with the bright Sacramento pouring through the midst of it from the north, the San Joaquin
from the south, and their many tributaries sweeping in at right angles from the mountains, dividing the plain
into sections fringed with trees.
— from The Mountains of California by John Muir, 1894

>It was riparian forest
lol. there was some. but only along waterways. dont you know what riparian means?

"Although detailed ecological accounts do not exist, a few early observers did record general descriptions of California grasslands. The writings of Juan Crespí, a Spanish priest whojourneyed from Baja California to San Francisco Bay in1769 – 1770 and then from San Diego to Monterey in 1770,were full of descriptions of places with “everything very grass-grown” (Crespí 2001: 309). Spanish mission periodjournals of other early Europeans such as Francisco Garcés,Pedro gayes, Juan Bautista de Anza, Pedro Font, Josef JoaquinMoraga, Francisco Palou, George Vancouver, Georg vonLangsdorff, and others also commented on the productive pastoral environments that they encountered (Coues 1900;Priestley 1937; Bolton 1930, 1931, 1966; Paddison 1999).These observers’ accounts of the vegetation were extremely general and it is clear that descriptions such as “good grass,”“much grass,” and “level and grassy”

"The historical spatial extent of California’s grassland area was enormous- 5.29 million hectares;

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1525/9780520933972-010/html

> The writings of Juan Crespí, a Spanish priest who journeyed from Baja California to San Francisco Bay in 1769 – 1770 and then from San Diego to Monterey in 1770,were full of descriptions of places with “everything verygrass-grown”

A paper about the fricking coast, jfc, you don't even read the shit you post.

That was the paper you posted, moron
you're bad at this--if you're going to lie don't be so obvious about it.

time traveler here. can comfirm that you literally couldnt walk 10 feet without stepping on a fricking beaver dam

The native tribes talk about the beavers--they had a decades legal battle trying to prove to the CA government that beavers were native and they finally reintroduced some I think last year.

traveled by land the whole time and entered into and described the central valley for the first time by euros.
>If i make up a quote that isn't in the paper--obviously lying about it--no one will notice.

Pathological liar strikes again.

>Doesn't site any sources
Yes, you're a pathological liar and have repeatedly made false clams that were unsubstantiated.

and you've just done it again.

Keep lying kid or learn how to post a source--you're both dishonest and moronic.

Yes, I'm very bad at debating a disengenous liar that makes up their own facts. Humulation isn't something you understand because it's obvious credibility isn't something you care about.

>Ree let me make up more citations and not link a paper--ree

Every time.

>you've just done it again.
You are welcome to believe that but its wrong. His diaries are well known and well sourced. You can continue to spew delusional rants against your own made up boogeyman but it doesnt change the fact that you are wrong. The central valley of CA was mostly grasslands before white man. Some oak savanna and riparian forests but lots of marshes, vernal pools and lakes.

any reply from you is schizo cope.

no link to source of citation
im done doing your work. You could easily find it if you wanted. but you dont/wont because you dont want to be proven wrong. again. lol.

of course, none of your quixotic delusions changes the fact that central valley of CA was mostly grasslands before white man. Some oak savanna and riparian forests but lots of marshes, vernal pools and lakes.

>you've just done it again.
You are welcome to believe that but its wrong. His diaries are well known and well sourced. You can continue to spew delusional rants against your own made up boogeyman but it doesnt change the fact that you are wrong. The central valley of CA was mostly grasslands before white man. Some oak savanna and riparian forests but lots of marshes, vernal pools and lakes.

any reply from you is schizo cope.

>any reply from you is schizo cope.
>rabbi.
lol. and you wonder why you are all alone

>you lied about your quotes
I didnt. I provide links because you are a fu cking moron of an asshat and not worth the effort. Its quit easy to find his diaries. but you will not instead continue to be wrong. lol.

>hurrdurr if im wrong its becuase you are a rabbi.
Do you have any idea how fricking moronic you are?

>His dairies are well known
Odd you say that because you clearly haven't read them.
It is generally agreed upon that The early Spanish were not concerned about the fauna and regularly categorized anything animals would eat as "grass."

There are also reports of dense forests and massive expanses of beaver dams in the central and north vallies.

You're citing a single source that you clearly haven't read or read anything about.

Truly impressive that mental disorder you have.

>I provide
I didnt provide...but you are afraid to look. lol.

Yes, you're making unsubstantiated claims.
Thanks for clarifying.

You hate nature, don't give a shit about forests or wetlands and your entire exsistence in this thread is to parrot big timber lies about the historic biomass of north America.

You aren't unique or original and your lies are obvious.

>No source
yes, you're lying
that has been established

Debunked

Sorry, you only get to tell so many lies before I'm bored. Dude was in south central valley than moved west of the coastal range and out to san fransisco.

Everything else is you lying and pilpul. I've already provided the proof, multiple times, that debunks your fantasay of grassland.

Considering you've admitted to being a subhuman multiple times, I see why your 80IQ is struggling to comprehend anything technical.

So, in conclusion:
You don't know even the basic forest types
You don't know anything about wetlands
You don't know anything about beavers

and most importantly: :you're a pathological liar that's been caught lying multiple times.

wait wait wait
full stop
You don't even know that herd animals eat trees and you're trying to argue about a biome?

What is wrong with you? Just stop, you're embarrassingly ignorant.

>Pilpul

>Americans clearly have zero idea how much ecological devastation happened 150 to 200 years ago during westward expansion.
You're not American - so shut up about America. Get your own house in order before you talk about mine, Eurocuck.

>Everyone who knows significantly more about me regarding the environment and who knows a bunch about the history of the US environment must be european
American education at it's finest. Ironically you learned none of the things I'm posting about in public school--and I doubt you ever learned them to be honest.

The United states obliterated it's beaver population and forests between 200 and 150 years ago and the evidence is overwhelming on the west coast--especially the southwest.

I bet you think the "great dustbowl" just magically happened--if you even know what it was (which I doubt).

I guarantee you have no idea what the army corps of engineers did as a response.

What is it about me talking about the history of devastation in north America and it's impact on north American weather systems that makes you so mad?

Some of the details are debated but the total impact is not.

I'm not a euro--I cry thinking of what they did
I'm literally shitting on California and American environmental policy!
Frick the Gretta cult and carbon-israelites but humans have obliterated stable weather systems creating "climate change" and the prime drivers are: Destruction of wetlands and Destruction of Old Growth forests.
Not "forests" -- Old Growth forests. You don't cut down a 2,000 year old battery system (Temperate rain forests) every 50 years and expect to avoid consequence.

The entire PNW should be 1,000 year old trees--which is was 200 years ago when they started obliterating them. Hardly any are left.

Funny, because you don't know the difference between a riparian forest, a wetland forest, a savannah and grassland and have ignored all the historic information describing the old growth in the central valley.

Also, you mouth breathing moron, if you're going to pilpul try knowing the basics of what you're lying about.

Deer, for example, are considered "browsers" but eat small trees and shrubs. Anyone that lives anywhere near deer or elk would call you full of shit if you claimed they didn't eat baby trees and shrubs.

so are you still lying or moronic?

At no point have you come remotely close to disproving any of this statement:

ecosystems can be restored--they won't come back on their own though.
Everything around the Caspian sea used to be forested to the east and north for hundreds of miles and now it's all desert because of centuries of human occupation--even that can be restored... if the will was there.
[...]
And this is how the timber industry lies. Your misleading fact is because the US deforested 75% of it's forests 150 to 200 years ago... so you're comparing the forest at it's all time low to now... you're also not talking about Biomass. The trees they cut down were 600 to 1000 years old and managed forests are cut every 50 years.

Half of Texas and most of Oklahoma used to be old growth forest.
Most of the easter seaboard has been logged multiple times.
The Willamette valley and what is now the agriculture corridor in California used to be heavily forested.

Again, and to clarify: density is at an all time low--nearly the entire PNW had thousand year old trees most of which are now cut in 50 year cycles on a patchwork pattern. There is less than 1/5th of the biomass in the remaining PNW forests as there was 150 years ago and the coastal forests are hemorrhaging topsoil.

Lumber shills are evil lying sacks of shit.

Your entire argument is pilpul and lies and your obsession with lying is legion.

>autismo cope
You do not seem to have the capabilities to have a rational conversation. the central valley was mostly grasslands and seasonal wet lands with some oak savanna and riparian forests. No amount of cope, autistic sperging or moronic gibberish changes that.

>tries to downplay the ecological devastation of the central vally.
did none of that. I simply pointed out the FACT that the central valley was predominantly graslands and seasonal wet lands before white man. You couldnt handle being wrong and sperged out beyond belief. You are unable to be reasonable or rational. You should stop

There used to be way more beaver dams. Up until about 10 years ago the common lie was there never was beavers in central CA and now the current lie is that "ree it was all grass"

file:///C:/Users/Tay10k/Downloads/Beaver%20Sierra%20Nevada%20(2).pdf

Thanks for making my point lol