Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

[Jantar]

Out of curiosity. Has anyone ever performed any research on areas (temperature, soil erosion etc...) pre and post tree cover over a large area?

Varvara Vetrova from Landcare research is doing that study right now. Results are probably still a year away.

[Ocean1]

Varvara Vetrova from Landcare research is doing that study right now. Results are probably still a year away.

In the meantime, atmospheric conditions in the US have improved dramatically in the last few decades, on the back of a massive increase in forest acreage.

Sometimes empirical data doesn't need to be quantified.

[mashman]

Varvara Vetrova from Landcare research is doing that study right now. Results are probably still a year away.

Is that the first study anyone has produced along those lines?

And thanks.

[mashman]

In the meantime, atmospheric conditions in the US have improved dramatically in the last few decades, on the back of a massive increase in forest acreage.

Sometimes empirical data doesn't need to be quantified.

And production in Asia

[Voltaire]

99+% of the human population (incl me and others you may or may not think similar)

Yes - see above

No. Reading them may do, but is no certainty, and certainly not absolute.

Are you happy now I have answered your questions?

How is your combi and did you get the hub cap links I sent you?

I fall into the 99%, I've left my run on being a mover and shaker too late.

So its really like being at the pub and talking shit without the beer

From time to time I do a bit on my Kombi's, work seems to have cut into my time lately.

[Jantar]

Is that the first study anyone has produced along those lines?

And thanks.

There have probably been many other studies as well. I recall reading one back in the mid 1970s that showed rainfall effects pre and post forestation, but don't remember the authors or any other details.

[husaberg]

Is that the first study anyone has produced along those lines?

And thanks.

if you are talking the amount of carbon sequestered, you don't need a study. You just need a calculator.
As its a carbon rich crop (ie timber)you just need to work out the total yield harvested (missus the waste product) divided by the yield per hectare, divided by the years until yield.
best case scenario is 30m3 per hectare per year; the national average is around 23m3 per hectare per year. (of timber)
You then use the calculator to work out the carbon content.
Here is a list of works carried out.
http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/forestry/pfs...tion-rates.htm

Out of curiosity. Has anyone ever performed any research on areas (temperature, soil erosion etc...) pre and post tree cover over a large area?

Plenty of studies on erosion that's where the regional councils get the Resource consent rules from regarding the harvesting and plantings.

[mashman]

There have probably been many other studies as well. I recall reading one back in the mid 1970s that showed rainfall effects pre and post forestation, but don't remember the authors or any other details.

Thanks. I found this, but it seems to be more of a study of studies. Bummer that they can't really measure what they want to because of the background noise.

[TheDemonLord]

Sometimes empirical data doesn't need to be quantified.

I take issue with this - Can you give an example where Quantifying a data set leads to a negative outcome? Either the data supports a conclusion (in which case Quantifying it is just prudent statistical practice) or it doesn't (in which case Quantifying it helps us avoid drawing false conclusions)

[Ocean1]

And production in Asia

Well why do you suppose the US forestry has grown so much? They gave up growing most of their own food even earlier than they gave up making most of their own shit.

But, however, exporting your gardening and labour doesn't mean you're exporting your environmental responsibilities, the cost of which should be built into the cost of production no matter the location.

[Ocean1]

I take issue with this - Can you give an example where Quantifying a data set leads to a negative outcome? Either the data supports a conclusion (in which case Quantifying it is just prudent statistical practice) or it doesn't (in which case Quantifying it helps us avoid drawing false conclusions)

When the purpose of the data is nominal and the effect of one of the possible variables is orders of magnitude greater than the next largest factor then the numbers are pretty much redundant.


And then, any meaningful manipulation of the actual numbers is only of any use to someone who actually speaks the language.

[mashman]

Well why do you suppose the US forestry has grown so much? They gave up growing most of their own food even earlier than they gave up making most of their own shit.

But, however, exporting your gardening and labour doesn't mean you're exporting your environmental responsibilities, the cost of which should be built into the cost of production no matter the location.

I dunno, coz they planted on land that wasn't being used since ages ago? Didn't "we" all?

Eeeeeeeyeuk, built into the cost of production sounds like it goes directly against environmental responsibility. Alas...

[SPman]

You are so full of shit that you going over the same crap over and over. It's not the science when you falsify (balance without disclosure) the facts. It is just simple lies told to manipulate the gullible (that's you).

You guys crack me up

Most of us are not scientists, engineers, or doctors. I have studied some science at Uni, enough to know that Scientific Method is one of the most rigorous of all human research and knowledge. Simply put, everyone checks everyone else's work.

That is the medical equivalent of having a cardiac surgeon, neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, present in the room each time you visit the GP.
Not that science is perfect, but scientists are careful not to make mistakes, because they know other scientists will find them. Finding a mistake in another scientists work is about as good as it gets for a scientist.
Engineering appears more rigorous, but that is because things are over engineered.
But bridges don't generally fall down, so engineers must know what they are doing.
Similarly if I needed heart surgery I would get a cardiac surgeon, not Alan Jones or Rupert Murdoch.
If you understood Scientific Method you would know how scientific theories like Climate Change are formed and evaluated.

They are formed to explain real world measurements and results, and they are constantly evaluated by well qualified experts who have the detailed knowledge to carefully evaluate and conduct experiments to prove/disprove theories.
Now if 97% of engineers told me a bridge was under engineered and likely to fall down, I would not drive over it.

If the so called flaws in CC theory were real, how come they don't convince 97% of the scientific experts in this area, who are qualified to judge?

Oh yes, of course.....they're all "sucking off the public teat" and modify the data to suit their results!

[Jantar]

.......... If the so called flaws in CC theory were real, how come they don't convince 97% of the scientific experts in this area, who are qualified to judge?.........

Because that 97% you are so fond of quoting is a fallacy all on its own.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp...#ixzz1A5px63Ax

"This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout."


The same survey was repeated at a Climate Sceptics conference 3 years ago and 100% answered the survey in the affirmative.

The questions were:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[iYRe]

You guys crack me up


Now if 97% of engineers told me a bridge was under engineered and likely to fall down, I would not drive over it.

If the so called flaws in CC theory were real, how come they don't convince 97% of the scientific experts in this area, who are qualified to judge?

Oh yes, of course.....they're all "sucking off the public teat" and modify the data to suit their results!

So.. 97% (in a flawed survey the number is far far less than that.. its been discounted multiple times now) of (not actual) scientists, who stand to gain millions, if not billions of dollars in research grants (the climate "science" industry is worth billions now), and who are known to, and actually report on and state how much they manipulate the data to make it "conform to expected temperature levels", should be taken as authoritative over the thousands of other proper scientists from varying disciplines who have studied from their various fields and determined that even were it not manipulated, it cant possibly be true, since the "Science" shows something completely different?

Honestly, if this was not a government/UN sanctioned ponzi scheme, its perpetrators would be in prison for fraud by now.