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

Originally posted by VoidHawk

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!

I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the board again.....In case it was...ummm...glossed over.

YouSir

Originally posted by mbkennel

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.

edit on 3-2-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

AGW is a BS assumption.

Climates changed long before humans existed, swinging from total land tropics to total ice age; all pre human.

We have shown that the climate would change regardless of humanity, so how do we quantify the effect of humans on and a portion blame? The truth is we cannot scientifically do so, as the climate/ecosystem is an interconnected system.

You cannot empirically prove humans alter the climate, the best you can do is *assume*. And yet still, so what if humans make the planet warmer, what of it?

I too am scratching my head and saying "duh!"

Surely it's obvious that trees affect climate and weather systems. Just as extent of sea surface does the same, just as areas covered in ice affect climate, just as areas of savanna do the same, just as mountain ranges and glaciers and coasts affect climate. Just as cow farts do and the painting the roof of your house white does.

Everything is connected and the butterfly effect is real, however to suggest trees as the driving force in climate is overstating the case.

By far the greatest factors in climate change are the sun, and earths variable orbit. Anyone believing man is the culprit can not have ever have witnessed the difference between day and night or summer and winter. Sure man has an effect, but its like the butterfly whose flapping wings eventually contribute to the creation of a hurricane. Man is insignificant in terms of climate change and 'unintended' AGW is so miniscule that it's akin to flapping our arms.

CO2 has been much higher in the past, and is essential for plant and tree growth,which in turn provides oxygen. Man has only existed for a tiny amount of Earths history yet the climate has always been changeable.

Also temperature records have only been kept for a blink of eye in terms of Earths lifespan and it would be unscientific to tart up climate theories as categorical climate fact. Stating that the earth may have warmed recently even if true does not tell us what temperatures will be like in future.

Does Earths distance from the sun vary?
Yes by over 3 million miles. As a result the suns radiation upon the Earth when the orbital eccentricity is at perihelion is 23% more than at aphelion. That's huge!

Do the season lengths vary?
Yes they do cyclically, and by several days.

Does the Earth wobble?
Yes it does and depending on where the axis points, causes both more extreme and milder variations in seasons in the hemispheres.

And those are only some of the cycles that the earths orbit and climate experiences. So when a number of these cycles line up we and earth find ourselves with either hotter or cooler global periods.

People should look at Milankovitch cycles.

Double post.

Originally posted by merkins
I too am scratching my head and saying "duh!"

Surely it's obvious that trees affect climate and weather systems. Just as extent of sea surface does the same, just as areas covered in ice affect climate, just as areas of savanna do the same, just as mountain ranges and glaciers and coasts affect climate. Just as cow farts do and the painting the roof of your house white does.

Everything is connected and the butterfly effect is real, however to suggest trees as the driving force in climate is overstating the case.

By far the greatest factors in climate change are the sun, and earths variable orbit. Anyone believing man is the culprit can not have ever have witnessed the difference between day and night or summer and winter. Sure man has an effect, but its like the butterfly whose flapping wings eventually contribute to the creation of a hurricane. Man is insignificant in terms of climate change and 'unintended' AGW is so miniscule that it's akin to flapping our arms.

CO2 has been much higher in the past, and is essential for plant and tree growth,which in turn provides oxygen. Man has only existed for a tiny amount of Earths history yet the climate has always been changeable.

Also temperature records have only been kept for a blink of eye in terms of Earths lifespan and it would be unscientific to tart up climate theories as categorical climate fact. Stating that the earth may have warmed recently even if true does not tell us what temperatures will be like in future.

Does Earths distance from the sun vary?
Yes by over 3 million miles. As a result the suns radiation upon the Earth when the orbital eccentricity is at perihelion is 23% more than at aphelion. That's huge!

Do the season lengths vary?
Yes they do cyclically, and by several days.

Does the Earth wobble?
Yes it does and depending on where the axis points, causes both more extreme and milder variations in seasons in the hemispheres.

And those are only some of the cycles that the earths orbit and climate experiences. So when a number of these cycles line up we and earth find ourselves with either hotter or cooler global periods.

People should look at Milankovitch cycles.

. Amen. We cannot extract and aportion blame.

reply to post by VoidHawk


The Met office is categorical in its findings. The earth is warming up. If people (not scientists) choose to cherry pick small finds and calibrate trends from them that is their choice. However that is not science. So far in this thread I have not seen the trends of global warming contended with any reasonable science.

The article you sourced is critical of short term forcast. We had a wet summer. So what. This has nothing to do with climate change. It is misleading

Further the article states the MET office has made errors. This idea is based on a hypothetical model that has not been tested. Not really a very good foundation for coming out with such bold claims. The earth is warming up and the sea is warming up. The data is there for the reading and has been for some time now.

The first decade of this century has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record. New figures released today in Copenhagen show that - despite 1998 being the warmest individual year - the last ten years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature, maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

The Met office.

reply to post by merkins

CO2 has been much higher in the past, and is essential for plant and tree growth,which in turn provides oxygen. Man has only existed for a tiny amount of Earths history yet the climate has always been changeable.

PPM of CO2 have not been this high on the planet for milllions of years. Recent evidence suggests you need to travel back 15 million years plus to see an atmosphere with similar levels of CO2 . That is disturbing the earth was a very different place back then. We have been through cycles of cooling and warming many times since and have not seen such levels of C02. You do not have to be Einstein to realise we are producing CO2 and polluting are atmosphere.

Have a read if you are interested.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Also temperature records have only been kept for a blink of eye in terms of Earths lifespan and it would be unscientific to tart up climate theories as categorical climate fact

Nothing unscientific about it what so ever. There are many ways to extrapolate the earths temperature and atmospheric conditions from past environments. For example you can look at diatom frequency and type in rock or sediment. You can look at pollen types in peaty areas. You can look at CO2 concentration in ice sample. I could go on but you get the idea.

The Milankovitch cycles do not address current atmospheric conditions. Easily explained here.

Satellites have measured the incoming solar radiation to our planet since 1978. Like the number of sunspots, satellite data demonstrates solar radiation has been declining in the last part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century. However, the Earth’s temperature has continued to climb over the same interval (my posting entitled Read more: www.motherearthnews.com...

www.motherearthnews.com...

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by Ghost375

 

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.

The most common climate models cannot produce accurate, repeatable "forecasts." They depend upon subjective, speculative "proxies" and questionable or "adjusted" assumptions about actual behavior. They fail to account for H2O as cloud cover or water vapor.

AGW theories are, by definition, non-verifiable and certainly not subject to objective replication (i.e., you have to accept the modeler's assumptions to get a similar result).
The subject Report, published in a peer-reviewd Journal, is the result of documented measurement, instead of guesswork; big difference.

Global warming skeptics will undoubtedly claim this new model is the most accurate, even if only one scientist is making the claim.

This was not the work of "one scientist."

"Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics"

A. M. Makarieva1,2,
V. G. Gorshkov1,2,
D. Sheil3,4,5,
A. D. Nobre6,7,
B-L. Li2

1Theoretical Physics Division, Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
2XIEG-UCR International Center for Arid Land Ecology, University of California, Riverside, CA
3School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia
4Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Kabale, Uganda
5Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia
6Centro de Ciência do Sistema Terrestre INPE, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil
7Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Manaus AM, Brazil

www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

Do you even read what you post, or do you just spout out whatever comes to mind?
Search for specific keywords, and you will find that it is a follow-on to other, preliminary observations of the same effect.

You know what else they'll do?

No, but I'm sure you've got a similarly-unfounded idea.

"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.
...
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!

Of course, as with all AGW propagandists, it MUST be man's fault, since Nature would never hurt us.

First, some men have been working hard to increase forestation and reforestation:
Rising forest density offsets climate change: study
Canada sets aside its boreal forest as giant carbon vault
The Great Reversal, an increase in forest density worldwide, is under way
33-country survey reports 50 percent increase in sustainably managed tropical forests

Second, "environmentalists" are aghast that people would rather re-foredt than buy "carbon credits:"
Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace

Finally, as it turns out, greater progress and economic growth might actually help the environment:

As incomes go up, people often focus first on cleaning up their drinking water, and then later on air pollutants like sulfur dioxide.
As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources ... .
This global decarbonization trend has been proceeding at a remarkably steady rate since 1850, according to Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University and Paul Waggoner of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.

www.nytimes.com...

Next time, try to do a bit of study before making sillay assertions. Or, ask your mom for help.

jw

Originally posted by Ghost375
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!

Rubbish!
In what may become a threat to the AGW movement for redistribution of wealth and de-industrialization, scientists have found that the world's forests are growing denser and removing CO2 at higher rates than anyone, including the IPCC, believed.

Rising forest density in many countries is helping to offset climate change caused by deforestation from the Amazon basin to Indonesia, a study showed on Sunday.
The report indicated that the size of trees in a forest -- rather than just the area covered -- needed to be taken into account more in U.N.-led efforts to put a price on forests as part of a nascent market to slow global warming.

"Higher density means world forests are capturing more carbon," experts in Finland and the United States said of the study in the online journal PLoS One, issued on June 5 which is World Environment Day in the U.N. calendar.

www.reuters.com...

The report, based on a survey of 68 nations, found that the amount of carbon stored in forests increased in Europe and North America from 2000-10 despite little change in forest area. And in Africa and South America, the total amount of carbon stored in forests fell at a slower rate than the loss of area, indicating that they had grown denser.

The United States has had among the most striking shifts -- timberland area expanded by just one percent between 1953 and 2007 but the volume of growing stock surged by 51 percent.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
AGW is a BS assumption.

Climates changed long before humans existed, swinging from total land tropics to total ice age; all pre human.

Indeed. And people died before anyone invented the gun. Ergo, the gun doesn't kill any one ....?

A causes B. B can occur without C. That does not mean that C cannot also cause B. Simple logic, even a chid should be able to understand. But something which certain religious fundamentalists would have you rather not accept.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by merkins

 

CO2 has been much higher in the past, and is essential for plant and tree growth,which in turn provides oxygen. Man has only existed for a tiny amount of Earths history yet the climate has always been changeable.

PPM of CO2 have not been this high on the planet for milllions of years. Recent evidence suggests you need to travel back 15 million years plus to see an atmosphere with similar levels of CO2 . That is disturbing the earth was a very different place back then. We have been through cycles of cooling and warming many times since and have not seen such levels of C02. You do not have to be Einstein to realise we are producing CO2 and polluting are atmosphere.

Studies have confirmed much steeper rises in global temperature than presently observed (i.e., the "Industrial Age").
The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM,) caused the Earth's temperature to rise by about 6 degrees about 50 million years ago.
The Middle Miocene Climate Optimum (MMCO) was 3°C higher than present about 15 million years ago, yet Antarctica was warm enough for a lake and trees then.
The Pliocene warming event, about 4.5 million years ago had CO2 levels similar to today’s, but there was no sea ice, and sea levels were higher.

[A]t the moment, geologically speaking, we are still living in an ice age, by which we mean that there is permanent ice cover on the Earth at the poles. This is not a trivial distinction; the Earth behaves very differently when there is ice to reflect light back to space.

At the time of the PETM, there is no such cover, and not only that, the Earth started much warmer as a whole before entering into the global warming event.
Like or not, the Earth is actually almost as cold as it gets at this present moment in time; significantly colder than at the end of the Paleocene. Moreover, levels of CO2 were significantly higher before even entering into the PETM; before all that excess carbon was dumped.

www.science20.com...

In what may become a threat to the AGW movement for redistribution of wealth and de-industrialization, scientists have found that the world's forests are growing denser and removing CO2 at higher rates than anyone, including the IPCC, believed.

jw

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
AGW is a BS assumption.

Climates changed long before humans existed, swinging from total land tropics to total ice age; all pre human.

Indeed. And people died before anyone invented the gun. Ergo, the gun doesn't kill any one ....?

A causes B. B can occur without C. That does not mean that C cannot also cause B. Simple logic, even a chid should be able to understand. But something which certain religious fundamentalists would have you rather not accept.

edit on 3-2-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

Silly reply.

Prove to me AGW, empirically, and quantify it. Clue you can't.

Originally posted by jdub297
In what may become a threat to the AGW movement for redistribution of wealth and de-industrialization, scientists have found that the world's forests are growing denser and removing CO2 at higher rates than anyone, including the IPCC, believed.

jw

I fail to see it a 'threat' but nonetheless, some good news:

www.sciencedaily.com...

A negative feedback

reply to post by 1nquisitive


It's not silly at all. It's simple common logic.

But what do you mean by AGW?

This is AGW:

www.sciencedaily.com...

So is this:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Maybe you can prove that no human activity has any effect on temperatures? And no, quoting the Bible doesn't count.

Originally posted by mbkennel

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.

edit on 3-2-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Assuming that those holes in the thinning Ozone layer have gone away....

....the holes are still there.....and Solar radiation passes right through.

Not to mention that the Earths Magnetic field is what directs energy to the poles and as I mentioned the Earths Magnetic field is weakened at an accelerating rate...there are already field anomaly's in the Southern Hemisphere.

And lastly there will never be a Greenhouse effect on Earth....this is not Venus.

C...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

It's not silly at all. It's simple common logic.

But what do you mean by AGW?

This is AGW:

www.sciencedaily.com...

So is this:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Maybe you can prove that no human activity has any effect on temperatures? And no, quoting the Bible doesn't count.

edit on 3-2-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

I never mentioned anything 'biblical' once, did I? Thus your unwarranted strawman personal attack is void. In fact, it's pretty pathetic you had to bring religion into this.

And if you read my posts you'll actually see my position re: AGW.

Recap - AGW is erroneous, as it pins the blame on human activity. When, in fact, we all know the ecosystemis interconnected and every factor influences all the others, at every level.

What you cannot do is quantify and a portion blame...ie. you cannot say ”humans are X% to blame".

Sorry couldn't resist ..



C...

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
AGW is erroneous, as it pins the blame on human activity. When, in fact, we all know the ecosystemis interconnected and every factor influences all the others, at every level.

What you cannot do is quantify and a portion blame...ie. you cannot say ”humans are X% to blame".

And therefore you are absolutely 100% certain that humans are 0% to blame and nothing will persuade you otherwise (else you'd have acknowledged - or proffered scientific objections to - the examples I posted links to above)

That's religion for you - whether you recognise it or not.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
AGW is erroneous, as it pins the blame on human activity. When, in fact, we all know the ecosystemis interconnected and every factor influences all the others, at every level.

What you cannot do is quantify and a portion blame...ie. you cannot say ”humans are X% to blame".

And therefore you are absolutely 100% certain that humans are 0% to blame and nothing will persuade you otherwise (else you'd have acknowledged - or proffered scientific objections to - the examples I posted links to above)

That's religion for you - whether you recognise it or not.

edit on 3-2-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

Is your comprehension impaired - what part of what I said implied i was 100% certain humans haven't contributed to the ecosystem? I'm pretty sure I stated the opposite, actually. Putting words in peoples mouths only discredits yourself.

Again-for the more research remedial amongst us yes, the ecosystem is interconnected, yes everything affects everything else. No, unfortunately we canopy quantify nor ordinate the 'blame'.

Thank you, jdub297.

Every day, the mainstream media, the far left, the czar staff, Al Gore, and especially hussein soetoro himself, blames US citizens for causing worldwide man-made global warming.

While not true yet, the reality of man-made global warming will come from Brazil, not the US, as the systemic destruction and clearing of the Amazon Jungle (Rain Forrest) reaches critical percent.

There is a high probability that hundreds of members of this very website personally know Al Gore. To those of you who personally know him, why not suggest to Al Gore to travel to Brazil and admonish the Brazilian government to terminate the rain-forrest destruction? He won the Nobel Peace Prize, they have no choice but to take him seriously.

Endless blaming of US citizens for a future problem that needs to be solved in Brazil, will only accelerate the initiation of irreversible climate changes.

Thanks.