We're moving in circles here. Everything you ask has already been answered in previous posts. If I can admit that I lack the information to judge on the situation in North America, why can't you simply admit that you lack the information to judge on the situation over here? Instead, you insist that your opinion is the only right one because it's your opinion. That's unscientific and - pardon my frankness - quite tiresome .
Ok, explanation for XYZ :
(everyone else, particularly those who remember my previous posts, please feel free to skip forward to the *** line where you will find 2 links that will allow you to form your own impressions)
my source is myself and my 20 years of work for the Ministry For Man And The Environment (recently renamed to Ministry for Environment And Health: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria...t_and_politics
) which make me more of an expert on these matters than most people (certainly more than any poster here) It's my job to analyze and attempt to buffer the ecological consequences on a daily base.
As I pointed out 3 posts ago (post #107 in this thread) these effects are far from being a mere nuissance but have caused the highest flood on record in Bavaria (and these records include archeological proof as far back as the early Pleistocene http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weichsel-Kaltzeit
sorry, this wikipedia entry is not yet available in English, there is a French version, though ).
In addition, the species shift you consider so irrelevant means the complete extinction of not only the immediately concerned tree species but of the whole ecosystem based on them. We are talking about several hundred species here.
If you reread the thread, you will see that I pointed this connection out as well. (confer
description of the wool-thread-game)
Also, the consequences of acid rain in my region is - as I pointed out - only one single example. There are others galore. I deliberately picked that one since it's a comperatively local phenomenon and hence the connections (how one thing leads to another) are more obvious than is the case with global effects of larger ecological damage. This makes it a good example to use on laypersons.
One can't explain rocket science to a charwoman, but you can reasonably assume she understands it if you let go of an air-filled but untied balloon and explain to her that both apply the jet force principle. (Iguana
, do you agree with this example? This is your field of expertize, I believe)
The problem with you laypersons (no offense meant, only stating a fact) is that you have an unfortunate tendency to focus on just one tiny facette of the things and completely overlook all the others, including the consequences, particularly the indirect ones. I'd say you don't see the forrest for the trees but in this context (i.e. forrest dieback) it would be a bad metaphor.
Maybe you'll trust your own eyes? Have a look at these satellite pics:
The grey stuff is fallen dead trees, the dark vertical lines are still standing dead treetrunks. I zoomed in on 5 living ones. Feel free to zoom back and look how far the dead zone goes. You will notice that it stretches towards the east. This is - as I elaborated in post #107) the preferred wind direction in that region.
The area is Europe's biggest national park: no felling of trees nor reforrestation are allowed. About 25% of the roads may be used by hikers, leaving the paths is strictly forbidden, the central zone into which I zoomed is even off limits for park rangers, so that there is zero anthropogene influence on the trees apart from immisions through the air.
If you believe the pictures might be outdated: here's a webcam that updates every 30 minutes. The needle-less trees are no deciduous trees but dead fir trees as you will see if you follow this link in summer.
And if after all this proof you, XYZ,
still claim there's no dying forrest I'll draw my own conclusions from the facts you offer and deduct that a) you still believe in Santa Clause and b) you need stronger glasses.