Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

reply to post by jdub297


All we have to do is extremely slow down our pollution and quit wanting what we don't really need. We have to quit all this chemical crap that disrupts our Ecosystem. This can give the earth a chance to heal itself. Sadly that is not a viable concept with the present Economic structure of the world.

reply to post by Cosmic4life

You do not know my qualifications

I don't need to know your qualifications, no one is qualified to 'diagnose' anyone from one anonymous post on an internet forum.

You're not acknowledging guilt, you're wallowing in it.

I think you don't fully comprehend meanings of words. I think AGW is fact, I don't recall throwing a tantrum or railing at anyone over it, nor have I thrown myself on the floor begging the universe for people to 'get it', and I certainly haven't pulled my blankets over my head with a box of tissues.

For both you and the OP

Meet the Climate Denial Machine

I love this jab at global warming advocates:

Of course, basic science tells us that any theory should be verifiable and subject to disproof; something that AGW advocates have refused to consider, and harshly criticized; frequently resorting to disparaging those who challenge basic “climate science” assumptions and “the consensus” that adheres to the AGW party line.

Because this theory is equally verifiable and subject to disproof as AGW is!
Pretty damn hypocritical.

Global warming skeptics will undoubtedly claim this new model is the most accurate, even if only one scientist is making the claim. You know what else they'll do?

"Global warming isn't caused by humans! It's caused by lack of forests!" and who has been destroying all the forests? Humans!! Then after saying that, they'll make fun of anyone who suggests we need to plant more trees.

reply to post by Ghost375


TLDR for my post:
if forests drive climate change, and humans have been destroying forests for the past 150 years, who is really responsible for climate change?
This study indirectly proves climate change is man-made!

Considering that tress serve as the planets lungs, chopping them down would change the climate. Air currents would change. Planting trees would be a great way to repair the atmosphere. More oxygen less carbon dioxide.

I did some research on this subject and wrote a paper about it just over two years ago.

Like the quoted paper in the OP, I did not delve into the AGW/GW debate but focused instead on the effects of deforestation and subsequent conversion of the land for agriculture.



Most flora (including that grown for food) will actually absorb more oxygen during its cycle to maturity and won't actually start to offset the carbon dioxide until the flora has completely matured.

Once mature, the flora will then convert more CO2 to oxygen in daylight than it will convert oxygen to CO2 in darkness.

But ONLY after the flora has matured!

In the case of agriculture, the crop will never be able to offset the said CO2 that was produced during its growth as it is removed as soon as it's matured.


So why does this matter?


Roughly 70% of this planets flora(forests, savannas, etc) have been removed to make way for agricultural land.

That is 70% of the planets plant life is now producing more CO2 than oxygen because it never gets a chance to mature completely and live long enough to offset the carbon produced during its growth cycle.


The Australian government ignored me - I got a "thanks very much, we'll check it out" - two years ago when I brought this to their attention. Hopefully, as more scientists investigate the impact of agricultural land on our planets climate, this will come to the fore in the MSM and action can be taken to educate farmers on how to set up their fields to avoid making our planet uninhabitable.

The climate changes has done since day dot.... Are we helping things along, sure might be, But at the end of the day the only reason we all can express our opinions is due to the progression of technology, with technology come pollution. If you want to change, If you want things to change then we all will have to abandon technology all together cars battery's computers all have pollution offsets. Atm this stage of our technology progression we have no real way of dealign with the pollution. Land sea or air, As they all matter.


In stead of complaining about pollution spending millions on research on climatic change how about put that money in to research on devices that will negate the pollution all together, For example Atmospheric water farming can be adapted to filter Co2 and Co. If installing on every roof top that would go a long way to help keep a balance, And that is just one mechanism.

reply to post by jdub297


I seriously don't understand, I thought this already was accepted science and common sense. Of course the forests are the main players in climate, I've never thought different. That's why I've often repeated the fact that man is the only animal who destroys forests, a stupid and socially deviant act. So I'm experiencing a "Huh?" at this article, as if it's major news. Huh?

reply to post by Legion2024


The problem is that there are plenty of viable means of replacing what we use up to run our technological and industrial world but much of what AGW denial is about is keeping the status quo which is dependency on limited resources, limited equals lots of money for the owners and refiners of those resources. If people can be convinced that we're not really doing any harm than there's really no need to shift away from anything and the same people that fund AGW also fund the propaganda that all alternatives are failures. I'm sure though that these people have their asses entirely covered and have alternatives ready to launch when we run out of oil etc... after even more damage has been done.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Legion2024

 

The problem is that there are plenty of viable means of replacing what we use up to run our technological and industrial world but much of what AGW denial is about is keeping the status quo which is dependency on limited resources, limited equals lots of money for the owners and refiners of those resources. If people can be convinced that we're not really doing any harm than there's really no need to shift away from anything and the same people that fund AGW also fund the propaganda that all alternatives are failures. I'm sure though that these people have their asses entirely covered and have alternatives ready to launch when we run out of oil etc... after even more damage has been done.

Could you please list a few and the pollution variant, Though the mineral/material refinement to the product manufacturing stages to transport to repair and replacement and at the end the effects of storage or throwing away the old used products..?

reply to post by Legion2024


Well I'm not a scientist but I do know that many products we use petroleum (various grades of plastic) for could be replaced with something I can't mention due to T&C's. And obviously wind, solar and hydrogen are viable replacements for energy. As for metals and rare earth materials used in transmission or conduction... I'm not sure but one way to fight environmental impact of those technologies is to increase the life-span of such devices.

This isn't new. I've read this some time ago. For example Madagascar. They took the arable land and grew exports like Vanilla for the rich, and the people there work the fields but have very little food out of their waqes. The gangsters running this country allowed clear cut logging and devasted all the land the people survived off it.

It takes planting trees, and bushes, and vegetation, to bring about climate change, change droughts into rain.

reply to post by Kali74


The T@C violation is only about 70% cleaner, That is still 30%, Just like anything It is all ways just a matter of time. Think of it this way, If you put the plug in the bath and you have a drip the outcome will eventually be the same as turning the tap on full. Just one takes longer then the other.

Maybe it is time we need. To come up with new ways of dealing with pollution.

The simplest solution I see with a possible Co2 build up is to straight out convert it, Though massive re-vegetation programs, But Co2 is only a small part of the entire problem.

The right questions need to be asked, but I fear the questions and possible viable solutions are fulling on deaf ears. Due to greed and control.

I do feel it will take a massive negative sudden change before Humanity acts in a more progressive way.

The climate is changing and there is nothing we can do about it. Slow it down though cut in emissions maybe, Then that brings in to question the life span of those pollutions, If we are all ready seeing a negative effect of all ready existing pollution then that effect will be happening for a good 80 to 120 years to come, So the compounding problem will escalate regardless, even if we cut emissions that have not even been created yet. Remember it is existing pollution that is causing the possible effects we are seeing today.

reply to post by Legion2024


I really get what you're saying and you're right. There's only plugging the leak solutions at the moment, but it's what we have and it seems silly to deny ourselves right out of it, doesn't it? We're a brilliant species, we can get out of this mess. We just need to let the innovators, innovate.

reply to post by Kali74


We will work it out, we can see the problems the focus now need to be directed away from the studies and more on application.

For example Co emissions from cars and trucks can be collected though a filtration system on cars and trucks. Have a collection date every week of Co and re-utilizes the pollution just like we can for Co2.

Edit.. There is no getting out of climatic change, that is a consistent, we will need to eventually adapt, Be it i n100 years or 100,000 years. It is only a matter of time.

reply to post by jdub297

Once you have to say "peer reviewed" and "prestigious" I have to guess you are trying to convince more than just yourself because if it were both - we would certainly know of it. Cornball scientist paid by the Koch Brothers. Next.

If we cared about the environment we'd have a deposit on batteries and hazardous items, we never would have allowed some things like PAMPERS, without knowing how we were going to get rid of them, we would have made businesses who pollute, PAY. Put the money in education and come up with a solution for disposal. Problems cancel each other out if you plan ahead.

This is interesting in the way that ; maybe we always detail too far into our own teachings and subjects.. and in this manner common human "6th sense" would come into effect.. for anything; unfortunate only some are able to feel those details...and the rest use power for greed...

What im saying is the destruction of main forestry's around the globe sense the beginning of our industrial revolution and before - We should automatically assume (sense) too take; and replace.. No. We didn't think ahead then...

Also this brings too ; the thought of how forest(s) and main areas; how they started.... in the exact geographic locations around our globe- Its almost like this world was already planned in the structures needed to inhabit and expand and enrich life... to start it. Weather patterns and alike - It was all (by chance) all put in a perfect eco-system... Too the root; I know we are much connected if we choose too whats around us - too the simple and nature forums it enriches us with-- Heh... maybe plants will strike back (The Happening, 2008)

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Cosmic4life

 

Oh you mean those scientists funded by vested interests.. The world has been cooling for the past 10 yrs...where's your Anthropological Global Warming now ?? hmmmm ??

Originally posted by purplemer
Your claim the earth is cooling is based on fallacy. The last ten years data shows some of the warmest years on record. 2005 was the hottest year on record the following years have been cooler in comparision. However this is not cooling.

I found this.

Analysis Britain's Met Office has come under fire for two pieces of crystal-ball gazing involving global temperature and British rainfall. On Christmas Eve, the Met's temperature prediction for the UK was quietly revised downwards, and only merited a press release this week after physics blog Tallbloke's Talkshop noticed the change.

along with this.

The new temperature prediction is 20 per cent lower than the previous estimate, with a mean deviation of 0.43°C above the 1971 to 2000 average over the next five years. If it holds true, then global temperatures will have experienced a 20-year standstill, with no statistically significant warming.

Source. Its an interesting read!

Originally posted by StrangeOldBrew

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew

 

AGW has been proven to be false...

Notice that these days it's called Climate Change and not Global Warming.....

Also notice that Global temps have been trending towards cooling...not warming.
I
Oh and CO2...well plant life converts that to Oxygen.....no CO2 = no Oxygen....

It's a scam to tax you.

So why do we have climate change and increased energy ?

Well, we have always had Climate Change ... the increased energy coming into our atmosphere is due to a weak and weakening magnetic field...more energetic particles and rays are penetrating our atmosphere, this is set to continue until the Magnetic field flips and then stabilizes, returning to its full strength, until then get used to it.

...and also get used to politicians telling you it's all your fault and demanding taxes to solve the unsolvable.

C...

Good god did you even read a word I wrote? I neither said that AGW is true, nor did I say it was false. I said its a meaningless topic to debate and that I really don't give a crap about it.

Can you provide a coherent argument, with sources, that refutes the fact that humans are having a negative impact on BIODIVERSITY and ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS by way of resource exploitation, environment encroachment, and industrial pollution? Can anyone quote any study by any scientist that would refute this claim?

Global climate change is a useless topic to debate, because if true, it would only be an indication of the extent to which humans have done irreversible damage to the planet's ecological systems. If false, the fact still remains that humans are destroying the planets ecosystems through the ways I described above. So as you see, either way its a pointless argument, and yet people use it to distort and confuse the slow thinking public into thinking that anyone who supports environmental protection and conservation is a nature nazi trying to push some kind of tax agenda and that all we care about is whether global warming is real or not.

Get your heads out of your asses and read what I've written here. I swear reading comprehension on this website is extremely poor. It seems people read the first sentence of a post and then just blurt out their media controlled presupposed diatribe on their black and white view of the topic.

edit on 2-2-2013 by StrangeOldBrew because: (no reason given)

Yes, the environment is interconnected and everyhting, on every level, has some effect on everything you else.

The crux of the matter is the Qn "what is objectively 'better' for human existence?".

A warmer earth supports more life.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew

 

AGW has been proven to be false...

This is false

Notice that these days it's called Climate Change and not Global Warming.....

This is half true, "climate change" is the consequence of "global warming" and is scientifically accurate because the consequences will be far from a uniform increase in temperature everywhere.

Also notice that Global temps have been trending towards cooling...not warming.

This just a lie.

Oh and CO2...well plant life converts that to Oxygen.....no CO2 = no Oxygen....

This is irrelevant, nobody is proposing "eliminating" plants or CO2 or something ridiculous like this.

It's a scam to tax you.

It's a nonscam to shift industrial preferences away from processes which are harming people.

So why do we have climate change and increased energy ?

Well, we have always had Climate Change ... the increased energy coming into our atmosphere is due to a weak and weakening magnetic field...more energetic particles and rays are penetrating our atmosphere, this is set to continue until the Magnetic field flips and then stabilizes, returning to its full strength, until then get used to it.

The energy input of energetic particles (solar wind) on equilibrium temperature is negligible---it is solar radiation and the boundary condiions in the atmosphere (i.e. the NATURAL plus the human-caused increase to the greenhouse effect) which matter quantitatively.

Just a few seconds of thought shows this is silly. Particles enter the atmosphere the deepest near the magnetic poles, giving the Aurorae Borealis and Australis. As it turns out these are near the geographical poles, and it's quite cold there. This means that the effect of solar radiation on climate is much larger than particle radiation, otherwise people would be flying from snow-bound Florida to bask in the warm beaches of Alaska.

...and also get used to politicians telling you it's all your fault and demanding taxes to solve the unsolvable.

It's not unsolvable if people stop lying and deluding themselves---and each other---about the consequences of the laws of physics.