The University of Queensland’s Dr Clive McAlpine said their research showed the clearing of native vegetation had made Australian droughts hotter.
“Our findings highlight that it is too simplistic to attribute climate change purely to greenhouse gases,” said Dr McAlpine of UQ’s Centre for Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Science.
The study titled “Modelling Impacts of Vegetation Cover Change on Regional Climate” will be published later this year in Geophysical Research Letters.
Read the full article in The Sydney Morning Herald entitled, ‘Land clearing blamed for climate change.’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The article says “Dr McAlpine said they used an advanced climate modelling system based at the CSIRO…”
That’s not research. It’s virtual research. Is there any evidence that the model is accurate in its processing? Accurate results don’t mean that the internals of the model are 100% correct.
We can’t know anything perfectly, that’s the history of science. Despite that, the march of science has been an incredible success story.
John; rather we were flying blind without a model?
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/
Well if the compass is wrong then you are flying blind.
Gavin,
Your point being?
Surely you are not implying that just because the “Let’s Get Kevvie Elected” campaign being run at the tax payer funded Workers’ Collective says it might, may, could be wrong to buy a certain aircraft that means it is so.
Hell, you would have to believe in Al Gorebullism to fall for that.
Hang on a bit, Spiv alert!
McAlpine said, “Australian native vegetation holds more moisture [than what?]that subsequently evaporates and recycles back as rainfall.”
And irrigated crops hold even more moisture that subsequently evaporates and recycles back as rainfall.
“It also reflects into space less short-wave solar radiation … and this process keeps the surface temperature cooler and aids cloud formation.”
Hold on, if it reflects less short wave radiation then it is retaining more solar energy. And if it is retaining more solar energy then it will produce net warmer temperatures.
It seems like DNRM are using the facts like a drop down menu, again. The conventional wisdom is that a reduction in vegetation cover increases albedo and hence, reduces mean temperatures.
But these dudes appear to have focussed on daytime radiative impacts rather than mean changes comprised of both hotter days and cooler nights.
And then there is the little matter of that 90 million hectares of woodland thickening that the scumnoscenti have gone to such outrageous lengths to avoid any mention of or any consideration of the impacts.
It is the output of a climate model. It has been done in association with people from the Queensland Department of Natural Resources. Of course its BULL$HIT.
The story is being run today by Rural Press: http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=46488
But we won’t get to see the published research paper until later in the year.
I wonder how they modelled past vegetation cover. … they assumed there were more trees in the past in western Queensland?
Jennifer: three key statements..
“Native vegetation moderates climate fluctuations, and this has important, largely unrecognised consequences for agriculture and stressed land and water resources.”
Australian native vegetation holds more moisture that subsequently evaporates and recycles back as rainfall.
It also reflects into space less shortwave solar radiation than broadacre crops and improved pastures, and this process keeps the surface temperature cooler and aids cloud formation”
A personal observation – each mature specimen in the native woodland is a pyramid of moisture provided it stays alive.
What a breathtakingly vacuous observation, Gavin. Do you have any plans to say something coherent?
As usual Mottsa the spruiker bully boy hasn’t read it. A childish mocking tirade from tantrum land. Is it definitive work – maybe not but they have done some really interesting research and the paper is worth digesting. You don’t easily get published in GRL.
A comparison of pre-European and modern day land surface parameters
shows a strong decrease in the vegetation fraction, LAI and surface roughness over
eastern and southwest Australia, and an increase in albedo for all regions of LCC
(Auxiliary material 1). The direct changes in surface roughness by changing woody
vegetation cover causes an increase in the strength of surface winds by reducing
aerodynamic drag [Lawrence, 2004], while a change in stomatal resistance modifies
surface evaporation rates, latent and sensible heat fluxes and planetary boundary layer
properties [Sellers, 1992]. The impact of decreased surface roughness, which was
9
strongest along the coast of New South Wales and southwest Western Australia, is an
increase in surface wind strength and sensible heat fluxes, resulting in a subsequent
change in the Bowen ratio. The increase in the near-surface wind amplified the shift from
moist northeast tropical air to cooler and drier southeast flow from the Tasman Sea,
resulting in the decreased precipitation.
[18] The simulated warmer and drier conditions in eastern Australia are
cumulatively impacting on surface and sub-soil moisture, and likely to be affecting
vertical moisture transport processes, changing the partitioning of available water
between runoff and evaporation. This has important, largely unrecognized consequences
for agricultural production and already stressed land and water resources. Further, the
simulated increase in temperatures in the sensitivity experiments, especially in southern
Queensland and New South Wales, for the recent 2002/2003 drought, is consistent with
the observed trend of recent droughts being warmer than previous droughts (1982, 1994)
with a similar low rainfall [Nicholls, 2006].
The turkeys have not yet released their paper, Flukey, so how could I read it at all? And it is all just a simulation based on assumed pre-settlement vegetation values.
“consistent with an observed trend of (only two) recent droughts ..” Yeah, right, these guys are far too professional to make extrapolations and generalisations from only two climatic events, aren’t they? Well, no, that is exactly what they did.
All you have given us is words in space, Luke, and not a scrap of verifiable data. Par for the course from Shonk Central.
By the way, have you noticed that SLATS (the report on the satellite scans) has excluded the area of new regrowth in the clearing analysis? Another year or so and it will have been completely erased from the official radar, along with the (steadily increasing) portion of clearing taking place on land that was bare in 1990.
Just another day in the Ministry of Truth, in the brave new green utopia.
Well boofhead it’s called “making a phone call” which anyone can do. The other technique which is somwewhat more sophisticated is “making an email”. By these techniques you see you can traverse gaps between you and the other party – some call it space – others on a higher plane call it the ether. Then you undertake what we call “communication” to obtain information. This is usually preferred to what you do, which is fabrication e.g. there is only one sole source of this species.
“Not a scrap of verifiable data” – well how would you know – have you also made a phone call? The models actually do quite a reasonable job of representing the last century’s climate statistics.
As usual you’ve made a total numb nuts of yourself doing your now ritualistic libellous slag-off. You’ve totally underestimated what’s involved and what was done. You’re so far out it’s hilarious.
I wouldn’t mind if you made a serious critique but your childish attack on a paper you have not read is far from a far go.
As I said – is the work definitive and the last word. Of course not but it’s very interesting nonetheless. The WA fence line contrast is dynamically very interesting as one example. Also the wind factor is increasingly of interest in tree-grass micrometeorological interactions.