Global Warming Solved! Scientists Find Reforestation Can Cool The Surface By 2-6°C Relative To Grassland Area. [Huang et al., 2020] (Novick et al., 2020).

How long is since Tony Abbot told the dills this.

Of course climate change has nothing to do with their agenda. It is simply the tool the greenies/lefties want to use to destroy western democracy, to install their dream of socialism/communism on us.

Dear Hasbeen,

So the greenie tree huggers were right, it's just a matter of planting more trees.

Are you going to don your tie-dyed tee-shirt and give them a hand?

And it is great you have referenced an article clearly stating that AGW is real and needs solutions to combat it. Never thought I would see that day from you. Congratulations on at least making this small step.

But you really do need to stop drinking from the coolaid at NoTricksZone old chap.

They twist, turn, misshape and mishandle studies like these all the time.

They have come to the understanding that planting more trees has a localised cooling effect and now they are trawling around trying to get supportive papers so they can claim they have an easy way out.

Just wait for studies of the effect on our atmosphere due to COVID-19, it'll be a massive improvement. But, once the travel junkies fall back into their indisciplined gallivanting GW will again be fashionable !
Jet planes are major contributors to air pollution.

Steely we already have twice as many trees in Oz today, as stood at first settlement, Shown by satellite observation & CO2 is helping them multiply rapidly. Time for Europe to do it's bit.

As an aside, I bought a turf farm to run my horses. I planted over 500 trees, of which about 100 have survived. Part of that was I planted 200 Paulownia trees, highly recommended 30 years ago as highly successful agroforestry for grazing properties, providing shade & forage.

I watered the damn things through 3 years of low rainfall, only to have all bar 3 of them turn up their toes with root rot in the first wet year. Others were removed as undesirable.

The real success story in trees in SE Qld is silky oaks, [Grevillea robusta]. Not all that surprising as they are native of the area. I planted a few, which are now self seeding all over the place, & surviving both wet & dry conditions robustly, [like it].

Not great shade trees, they are beautiful & produce excellent timber for furniture.

I'll be very surprised if you could rival my tree planting over the last 50 years. I'm a great believer in using trees, but only as I wish. Damn fool greeny council rules about not cutting trees are a real hindrance. When some councils rules prevent property owners removing undesirable trees, you would be a fool to plant more in those districts.

Hasbeen,

No doubt about ya China, you are a real chocolate!

Dear Hasbeen,

You write; “Steely we already have twice as many trees in Oz today, as stood at first settlement”

I have heard that figure bandied around before and whenever I have asked for evidence it has never been furnished. Are you going to be the first?

As to your 50 years tree planting record I agree I probably wouldn't come close besides which mine have mainly been mixed species around riparian areas so not done in bulk.

The utter over-exploitation of the timber resources in this country is a sad tale and the story of the red ceder is a case in point.

“However, as can be imagined, despite Governor King, in 1802, issuing a general order banning cedar cutting without authority, cedar cutting continued unabated.  It extending up the coast of New South Wales reaching the Tweed River by the 1860’s.  Then into Queensland, and finally reaching the Barron, Daintree and Jonstone rivers in north Queensland by the 1870’s.”

But they were still hard at it 30 years later.

“In 1834 an Illawarra correspondent to the Sydney Herald , complained of the disorderly conduct of the cedar thieves, referring to them as “a set of lawless people, addicted to bushranging and cattle stealing”.  Another correspondent claimed that they had “kept the district in a state of drunkenness and iniquity for years.”   The cedar cutters certainly led hard and lonely lives, living with even less comfort than the stockman – plying through the dense forest, physically slaving from dawn til dusk, wet, cold, filthy . . .  They were not popular with the settlers, nor stockmen, who looked upon them as unruly intruders.  Raping the landscape of Red Cedar, above the law, they actually had no rights whatsoever on the land.”

http://poi-australia.com.au/australian-red-cedar-toona-ciliata-var-australis/

As to the study that Notricks is frothing over the authors are not climate scientist but were looking at the local impacts of the cooling effects of forest coverage. Over course providing shade and increased evapotranspiration will have a greater cooling effect than grasslands. These guys were just confirming common sense.

SR, why do you want to make yourself look a fool. You really can't be as naive, or expect others to be, as your last post would indicate.

We have all read the reports of the early explorers who found a park like continent, the product of aboriginal burning. Scattered trees with open grassland was the rule.

You surely know of Francis Birtles In 1912, he became one of the first people to make a west to east crossing by car from Fremantle to Sydney in a Brush Runabout. He also made a number of other crossings on completely road less territory. Not even a modern 4WD could repeat those journeys, without a D9 bulldozer in front clearing a path through the modern scrub.

I could show you the 10,000 acre paddock across the river from me. It is typical of millions of acres in Oz today. Cleared to open forest grazing in the mid 1800s, by tough men with axes & fire, we used to train our eventers there at full gallop. You could not walk a horse through much of it to day without being scratched to pieces by the overgrown scrub. It is so bad now that even the roos have moved to my place

The owner found he could not earn the cost of maintaining the paddock by grazing it. Defeated he had signed a sale contract with Japanese interests.

I could show you millions of acres so overgrown that it is virtually impenetrable by man or beast, that was once good bush grazing

I'm sure you must know this, why do you deny the obvious?

Dear Hasbeen,

Let's look at your original claim: "Steely we already have twice as many trees in Oz today"

You are now talking about scrub. Any bloody 'fool' should know the difference.

Within 5 years of Captain Fyans getting to the new township of Geelong on Port Phillip Bay he was lamenting there was not a serviceable tree within 20 miles of the town, just grey ghosts. This bloke was the police magistrate with the nickname 'Flogger Fyans' for his harsh treatment of miscreants, but even he complained bitterly of the squatters 'ruining the country' by denuding it of trees across the Western Districts.

I hope you will understand that anecdotal evidence has its part it is hardly what is needed to prove your point does it. Do you have anything more substantial to offer?

SteeleRedux,

No, he's talking about 230 years ago when there were 10x more forests just before they started felling all the trees to clear the virgin land for farming.

when the far leftist Michael Moore declares solar and windfarms a total scam you know that the cat is out of the bag. Still we have gutless Governments wasting my money on this environmental vandalism. One thing you learn about Marxist is that no matter how much evidence their is of corrupt science, universities and scammers they just dig in deeper. You will never have a rational discussion.

I'm just waiting until the realization that global warming is actually just localized warming due to something they called the " island heat effect." Which basically means cities create more heat. It's not a global warming thing due to the atmosphere, it's smog in cities, concrete and pavement instead of natural greenery, tall buildings and the electricity and heat produced from them. Maybe once we get past the scams and scare politics, we can actually see ways to be enviornmental without throwing everything else away in the process.

Hasbeen,

I believe your quote was in support of tony Abbott for his policy to plant 1 million trees, however planting 1 million trees, while cutting down a few million is akin to taking one step forward and a few kilometres back.

As for your comment about more trees today than at first settlement, might I suggest you do some sort of research - even David Littleproud disagrees with you.

In kindy, they taught us that English ships brought convicts to Australia and returned to England - in the words of George III, "laden with as much timber as they can carry". Consider also Norfolk Island for trees to use as masts.

In 1870 Governor Philip decreed and I quote :-" that the poorly controlled cutting of trees on crown lands and the indiscriminate removal of forest on crown lands alienated to leasehold and freehold would soon leave no land for permanent production of wood. He proposed moves to be made in Parliament towards the
establishment of permanent reservations, and in 1871 reserves were
gazetted in the Murray and Clarence River districts."

It was not until 1875 that special officers to supervise the reserves were appointed, one of them being William Carron, who, as Collector of the Botanic Gardens, had reported on existing reserves and recommended others. He was made ‘inspector of forests and forestry ranger for the Clarence River district’. Our first forest ranger.

It was another forty years after the establishment of these first reservations before the step was taken to set up a government authority to carry out a policy of forest conservation, backed by appropriate legislation, in 1908.

Common sense would suggest that after 120 years of logging and deforestation the situation would not be rectified by planting trees during a century where there was a global depression & 8 wars, communism, Pol Pott amongst other things. Somehow planting trees during the most part of last century wasn't foremost on peoples minds.

If you require further clarification might I suggest a book published by Australian National University titled "A history of forestry in Australia".

A very simplistic approach is trees. Abbott is very simplistic too.
Carbon to be available it has to be at ground level not floating around in heaven.
More fake news needs to be studied to come up with at least some sort of believable antidote. You will just have to live with alternate power supplies as coal is near dead.

Dear NNS,

You write; I'm just waiting until the realization that global warming is actually just localized warming due to something they called the "island heat effect”.

Really? Mate, after all that you have read on the topic including discussions on this very forum you have gone and retreated to that rubbish? Even some of the most ardent sceptics have trotted out that line in nearly a decade.

Me, I'm just waiting until the realisation that global warming is due to the excess CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is finally accepted by the little band of hold outs who serve to amuse and bewilder the rest of us.

I realise to do so will severely impact your world order so we need to be ready to extend compassion to those who will inevitably struggle.

All the best.

If you keep repeating that garbage often enough SR you might actually convince yourself it is true.

Hasbeen you old chocolate, you must have a hell of a lot of money tied up in the fossil fuel industry because it is so obvious that you are really shite-scared of AGW and its consequential climate change of being a reality.

You gotta give it to old Hassy, if nothing else he is persistent at claiming global warming is a scam. Not long back he had irrefutable evidence the plant was cooling not warming. Hassy's claim was based on some sort of nonsense, was it something to do with his geraniums dropping their petals early, or was it based on his 97 year old neighbour up the road who has kept records for the last 175 years of his chooks laying, not sure what it was, but like this one, it was another one of his ridiculous claims about GW.

To Steele Redux.

The heart of the global warming and the climate change (and whatever term is used next for the same thing) is whether the science behind it is trustworthy, if the observations are accurate, and if the pridictions for the future are accurate.

The science element is foggy at best when it becomes a social movement to blame anything and everything on climate change, including the fires in Austrilia, instead of looking for what can be done about reducing the risk of fire by managing the land or the resources better. Nonetheless the science about it talks about how CO2 increases heat. The way that's shown (from a link posted on OLO) is to record a tempature of two isolated enviornments one with a huge amount of CO2 pumped into it. And the other without.

This experiment is not a good representation of the world we live in and that can be discovered by just streight observations of the world around us. Islands have not disappeared. The rates of ice melt from the poles are one month loudly stated, and then quietly if a person is interested in the enviornment a quieter article later talks about the observation of ice sheets reforming. The observations around the "science" is doggy at best, and aimed at trying to scare the public for one more decade, before another alarming emergancy is put on the stage again.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Which leads to the pridictions. Oh the horror stories of the pridictions. Let's just avoid the issue completely and say there are two stories going on. One that pridicts a massive fallout somewhere and a fallout soon, and the other pridicts a range of range of tempatures to increase, and they have a complex to looking graph to show the many different predicted tempature ranges without much data to point to their reliability. If that doesn't scream con job to you, then I don't know what does.

The issues with climite science is that there are no reliable readings. And the closest enviornment to match the highschool experiment of CO2 in a tube measuring tempature, is a city wide use of cars and electricity creating more smog and more heat in a condensed area. There is no atmospheric issues that we can record, and as far as I know there is no reliable data of tempature fluctions away from city wide island heat effects.

The data points to the island heat effect. Namely localized polution, heat increased by heat sources from buildings, and lack of greenery. Not to global climate change.

Wake up and open your eyes Steele. It sucks but the whole thing around climate change doesn't add up. I use to believe in it till I paid attention enough to see the holes. We take crap care of the enviornment and the world around us, and that battle for for being more enviornmental conscience is a worthy while cause. However that battle is a localized one. Cleaning up your trash, taking care of your city and possibly looking for ways to cool the island heat effect around the cities is the only real issue. It's not a global one. Unless you consider where the trash goes. (Ocean dumping). But that's not global warming either, that is trash management and poisoning the area with trash, not tempature increasing.

Co2 in the upper atmosphere is trash and needs not be there.

For all those who have brains that simply cant handle math, & those who are too damn lazy to bother trying, there is one simple fact that must scream confidence trick.

All the "authorities, NASA, The Oz weather bureau, & the equivalent in the UK, France, Germany, & many other western nations are continually homogenising, & otherwise bastardising, the weather statistics.

Any right thinking person would have to wonder just why every "correction" to the official record always somehow reduces the temperature of the older records, by up to a couple of degrees. Most of the warming claims by the con artists are in those "corrections", not in any actual temperature readings.

Anyone who doesn't start to smell the rat in the woodpile in these "corrections", is just too dumb to bother talking to, or has skin in the scam.

Dear Hasbeen and NNS,

You two are regulars Bill and Bens.

One says in his wilfully ignorant rant that it can all be explained away by the 'heat island effect' without any regard to the serious efforts by weather departments to account for it by 'homogenising data', but to the other this homogenising effort makes the temperature record completely unreliable.

Tell you what, why don't the both of you go into a little room and sort out what it is to be. Is adjusting the raw temperature data to account for the heat island effect acceptable or not?

Lunacy writ large.

With it being so cold so early in the year BOM are going to have to find another way to fiddle the data for 2020. Maybe Steelie could give them some advice on how to deny the facts.

A month or two means nothing. We are talking since 1950 in AU. Atmospheric co2 has never been bigger.

If you fetishise CO2, then planting trees is a perfectly acceptable way to somewhat reduce the level of that gas in the atmosphere. Even those who know that slightly increased CO2 levels are a passing concern can appreciate the greening of the immediate environs and, perhaps, even the lower temperatures.

And its clear that the gaseous fertiliser is indeed greening the planet and that the great deforestation scare was just that - a scare. Already we see places like Australia experiencing an increase in forest cover although I've not come across anything that would suggest a doubling from pre-modern times.

I did see figures showing that the USA has about 40% more forest cover now as compared to pre-Colombian times, but that was mainly due to the spectacular reductions in the buffalo herds which allowed the forests to expand.

Hasbeen will need to be more careful in his selection of papers to reference. He doesn't realise that, to some here, perfectly valid papers become retrospectively erroneous the moment they are mentioned by Pierre Gosselin. Of coarse, those people hilariously think that's called 'following the science'.

When more than half the purported increase in the temperatures is due to retrospective record adjustments, any field of endeavour not as corrupt as climate science would question that data. But so long as the adjustments yield the required results, that seems Ay-OK to those same 'followers of the science'.

Dear mhaze,

Good to see you resurface after your Corona virus debacle.

You say; "When more than half the purported increase in the temperatures is due to retrospective record adjustments"

Rubbish.

SteeleRedux,

I wouldn't rush to see the post-Wuhan virus mhaze yet. Haven't you been watching 'Walking Dead' on TV?

SteeleRedux.

Is my information willfully ignorant, or is it that I'm just paying attention to where the information is coming from.

Look it up yourself and tell me if you find data of tempatures that are outside urbinzed areas. And see if that data is accurate or if there are issues with the equipment for recording tempature data in remote areas. You'll see the issue I've found. The big data that leads to rising tempatures are all in or around urban city areas, that would be affected by the island heat effect that they are recognizing are the same as the tempatures of surrounding areas.

As for who's argument is correct for why climate change has turn into a BS in bull crap. consider this, if you lie once you have to cover your tracks with another lie or the truth that the first lie was a lie would be discovered. If Hasbeen's observations of doctored information is correct, then that supports that they lie to uphold the ongoing con of running climate panic emergencies for their doctral theists, or for their pride and not being found out that their life's work is a fraud. Have you seen academics argue with eachother on competing theories? There is a pride issue, as well as the income issue and losing their grants and their reasurch

Dear NNS,

With respect young chap you have completely dodged the question.

"Is adjusting the raw temperature data to account for the heat island effect acceptable or not?"

SR wrote: "Rubbish".

You know, SR, when you write such fact-laden essays, assembling all manner of incontrovertible data such as this, its impossible for me to argue against.

There's nothing like a carefully researched, factual takedown.

And that was nothing like a carefully researched, factual takedown!

Or is it just standard SR...I don't want that to be true, therefore it isn't.







Hasbeen,

I too am a great fan of Grevillea Robusta. I have a copse of them along a rear fence-line which is watered by the treated overflow from our envirocycle septic system. I'm a little envious that you have them self-seeding....its not warm enough here to get that but I have become rather adept at propagation.

The best part is that all manner of 'honey-eaters' adore the Robusta flowers and parrots, especially migratory black cockatoos, feast on the abundant seed.

I'm not sure how much CO2 they absorb, but its something

SteeleRudux.

I can't dodge a question if you never asked it. Now that you've asked it here's my answer.

The tempatures should not be adjusted and still be considered anything reliable. That isn't data. That's making it say what you want it to say.

Keep the real temperature records, the real data. And add an explaination to hypothesize why it's warmer in urban areas then it is in remote areas. But keep the real data. If the hypothesis fits the data then it's a plasible explaination. If the data is adjusted to meet the required hypothesize then there is no research being done, no actual data being recorded.

Now speaking of dodging the question, how about the one I asked you. Do you have any reliable data of temperature records rising in the remote places far from cities and homes? I'm not asking to prove my point that there isn't data out there. I'm asking so you have an oppurtunity to challange my point that the island effect is all there is to global warming data. If you have something to point to, then do it. If not, then that is a big hole in the climite change narrative. All that reasurch and lacking a criticial piece of data.

To Steele Redux.

It's been a few days. Am I to assume that you have no actual data to point to from outside of a city that already is known for the island heat effect. Nothing to contribute to a record of warming in the world outside of the cities?

'Cause you know, this isn't the first time you drop off when confronted with something that you have no answer for. Even if it was a direct question for you.