"Roger Dewhurst" writes:
...

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...


I heard a yeejit on the BBC early last Sinday proclaiming that global
warming is proven as the leaves are still on the trees.


Perhaps someone should tell the ****wit that it is day length not
temperature that controls flowering, budding and leaf fall.

So what is your explanation for the observed belated leaf fall?

You are probably suffering from the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) syndrome
that has affected the reasoning powers of many posters on this news group.
Science, especially ecology, is anything but simple, and trying to form
explanations for nature using a single factor invariably fails.

Deciduous trees in northern Europe's forests have only been in place for a
few thousand years, having migrated there following the end of the
glaciation. Genetically they will be adapted to southern European annual and
climatic conditions.

The photoperiodism they display will be linked to this environment, and it
is likely that the timing of leaf axil scism is considerably later than the
timing of 'wintery' temperatures in the northern part of a species range.
This could happen because useful photosynthesis can still occur in late
autumn at low latitudes. So in typical high latitude autumnal weather, low
temperature may trigger definitive changes in the leaf ahead of the normal
photoperiodic changes that lead to leaf drop.

I do not know if this hypothesis has any observational or experimental
results to confirm or deny it, but I think most people would agree it is a
more constructive way of responding to other's posts than your snide
trolling.

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

"Roger Dewhurst" writes:
...

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...


I heard a yeejit on the BBC early last Sinday proclaiming that global
warming is proven as the leaves are still on the trees.


Perhaps someone should tell the ****wit that it is day length not
temperature that controls flowering, budding and leaf fall.

So what is your explanation for the observed belated leaf fall?

Selective choice of trees? Lack of wind?

You are probably suffering from the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) syndrome
that has affected the reasoning powers of many posters on this news group.
Science, especially ecology, is anything but simple, and trying to form
explanations for nature using a single factor invariably fails.

Deciduous trees in northern Europe's forests have only been in place for a
few thousand years, having migrated there following the end of the
glaciation. Genetically they will be adapted to southern European annual
and
climatic conditions.

I think you will find that most of the flora evolved in the Tertiary period
and earlier. Thus the various species went through ten or more period of
glaciation and interglacial warming.

R

"Roger Dewhurst" wrote: ...

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

"Roger Dewhurst" writes:
...

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...


I heard a yeejit on the BBC early last Sinday proclaiming that
global
warming is proven as the leaves are still on the trees.


Perhaps someone should tell the ****wit that it is day length not
temperature that controls flowering, budding and leaf fall.

So what is your explanation for the observed belated leaf fall?

Selective choice of trees? Lack of wind?

Or clutching at leaves instead of straws as you are doing.

You are probably suffering from the KISS (keep it simple, stupid)
syndrome
that has affected the reasoning powers of many posters on this news
group.
Science, especially ecology, is anything but simple, and trying to form
explanations for nature using a single factor invariably fails.

Deciduous trees in northern Europe's forests have only been in place for
a
few thousand years, having migrated there following the end of the
glaciation. Genetically they will be adapted to southern European annual
and
climatic conditions.

I think you will find that most of the flora evolved in the Tertiary
period
and earlier. Thus the various species went through ten or more period of
glaciation and interglacial warming.

Well it seems you haven't much of a clue about natural selection in plants.
Perhaps you might find time to at least get the basics before trying to
debate matters.

You might also like to note that trees don't grow on, or under, glacial ice.
Which is why I proffered the possibility of southerly provenances of
deciduous trees coming in rapidly behind retreating glaciers at the start of
the Flandrian IG, thus having a lag in adaptation to the upper latitudes
being colonised. This seems most likely when one realises the glaciations
probably persist ten times longer than the IGs between them.