Feeds

back to article Pine trees' scent 'could prevent climate change really being a problem'

A "major enigma" has been cracked in atmospheric chemistry, revealing the details of a negative feedback mechanism which could "actually limit climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world". Can't smell the forest for the trees around here The negative feedback in question is the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Smelling of pine forests

I used to use Norska deodorant for the pine smell (In my defence it was the early 80's), but I think it went off the market due to cfc propellants.

Looking forward to a comeback for this. I'll keep it in the black wood-effect cabinet with the brushed silver and red trim.

AC just for the sheer shame the memories bring back.

7
0
Bronze badge
Paris Hilton

Re: Smelling of pine forests

Ahhh....pine-ing away for your old memories then :)

Not forgetting Jade East, English Leather, Polo, Brut, and Kouros...sometimes generated negative feedback of their own ....

Paris, well, because....

4
0

Re: Smelling of pine forests

"NATURE" can only find the elitist directed, false paradigm, 'feudal science'....

see "Becoming A TOTAL EARTH Science Skeptic" at the "ppjg.me" site....

1
3
Boffin

Agenda

I must have missed the day when Lewis wrote about known positive feedback mechanisms that really could make climate change a big problem.

24
19
Silver badge

@ Thought About IT

"I must have missed the day when Lewis wrote about known positive feedback mechanisms that really could make climate change a big problem."

Why the fuck would he bother? There's already a whole industry dedicated to doing that.

29
8
Silver badge

Re: Why the fuck would he bother?

In order to appear less unbalanced?

12
15
Silver badge

Re: Why the fuck would he bother?

If you want balance, watch the BBC where they ask for homeopath's opinions on medical emergencies.

Oddly, however, the standing orders on journalistic policy at the Beeb are explicitly NOT to report items that cast doubt on climate change nor offer debates on the subject.

Maybe this is our balance.

29
2
Silver badge

Re: Why the fuck would he bother?

You must have missed Lord Lawson on BBC Radio 4's 'Today' programme, then.

8
0

Re: @ Thought About IT

"Why the fuck would he bother? There's already a whole industry dedicated to doing that."

I was going to say the same, but as you have already said it I'll just say that I would probably quite enjoy reading* Lewis' take on the obvious, if unstated in the source, flip-side of these two:

If turbines can tame hurricanes...

If the hotter 'hots' are getting hotter, and the global average is stalled, then the colder 'colds'...

*I rather actually enjoy reading Lewis' articles, even if it is mainly because I get to peek into the soiled mind of the occasional CAGW, geo-engineering advocate/loon).

8
4

Re: Why the fuck would he bother?

> the standing orders on journalistic policy at the Beeb are explicitly NOT to report items that cast doubt on climate change

I guess they screwed up yesterday then when they posted the same thing -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26340038

I hope this is true and it has a major limiting effect.

Even if it does it still won't make the deniers correct, just lucky. Opinion and guesswork can align with facts but that doesn't validate that they were right all along any more than correctly 'predicting' a coin toss does.

10
11
Bronze badge

Re: Why the fuck would he bother?

Perhaps not, but it would make us right in that we have always said all along we shouldn't waste billions in funds on an issue that we don't fully understand and so may well be wasting the money while other countries carry on polluting and gaining economic advantage.

20
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ Thought About IT

The UNSW article was from a University known for being about as biased as they come, certainly as biased as the BBC.

Obviously anything that comes from Stanford is equally biased in favor of AGW because that's where the funding is.

All education is suspect because they are ALL "Beleibers" it's a religion doncha know?

I built windmills in the late 80's here in the US and one went to Cardiff and I don't care HOW you build them or what you make them out of; they will not stop or slow down Hurricanes because the tower and blades will just break off like a twig in the face of that kind of storm.

I call bullshit.

5
4
Facepalm

Re: Why the fuck would he bother?

Yes, let's study only things we do understand. Who would like to do research on things we do not understand? Right? Oh, wait....

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: Agenda

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of places in the media where you can read about any positive feedback mechanisms. If you read/watch mainstream media you'd be hard pressed to find anything remotely balanced in climate science.

If you think every single journalist must provide balanced views then there are many more who are failing in this by not providing news that goes against AGW than there are guys like Lewis who are failing in this by not providing news that goes for AGW.

Any individual source can have a bias, so the best way to avoid or minimize bias is to choose multiple sources. If you're in the UK, going to the BBC and the Reg would be a good way to get a more balanced view of global warming. Those sources may be identical in other stuff so perhaps you choose two different sources if you want a balanced view of politics in the UK and yet others if you want a balanced view of banking regulation.

10
0
Silver badge

@ sabroni

"'Why the fuck would he bother?' In order to appear less unbalanced?"

I'm just wondering if you have ever made any comments to the effect that AGW-alarmists should also be "less unbalanced" (although they certainly *are* "unbalanced" although in a different way) or whether your idea that only AGW skeptics should be "balanced" and that it's perfectly okay for you to be an intellectually dishonest hypocrite - which seems to be the AGW-alarmist way.

11
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: @ Thought About IT

Agreed...just like Millibrain and Camerooooooon with his windfarm windfall....

I think XKCD says it best: http://xkcd.com/556/

I remember bonnie prince chuckles talking about a building being a carbuncle....

He should have a look at what the windmills are doing to Europe (and CA, etc.).

I used to live near Altamont in California....they were beautiful, in an odd sort of way...

until you drove by them, and heard the Whoooa Whoooa Whoooa and saw the

shadows flashing by....all of a sudden, not so graceful anymore.....

P.S: We need a broken (burning, etc.) windmill icon....

3
0
Bronze badge
Coffee/keyboard

Re: Agenda

Er, what positive feedback mechanisms? All the theories proposed to date have been shot down.

5
4
Bronze badge
Coffee/keyboard

Re: Why the fuck would he bother?

Your comment, "Opinion and guesswork can align with facts" is amusing because you've missed the main point, which is that if your carefully worked out and computer modelled theory produced wrong answers. They don't align with the facts.

5
1
Silver badge
Flame

Re: positive feedback mechanisms?

What about the warming climate reducing the extent of boreal forests, thus reducing the cooling effect of organic aerosols?

Help, help, we're all going to burn...

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: @ Thought About IT

Ahem!

In 1997 I said goodbye to the only woman I'd ever loved, and drove North following Comet Hale Bopp, passing at dawn through the Altamont pass where hundreds of metal monks were doing Tai Chi to welcome the day....

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: @ turtle

You can read as much as you like into my simple answer to the simple question. I didn't ask him to be more balanced, I merely suggested that it might be a reason for him to mention the positive feedback theories.

Check my other posts (just click on my name) you'll see your name calling is unfounded and just plain fucking rude.

You prick.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Even if it does it still won't make the deniers correct

Actually, it does. Our contention all along has been that the data (screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Warmist Cult not withstanding) don't match the models so the models are utter bollocks.

5
1
Silver badge

Re:Check my other posts

Don't need to. I follow Lewis's articles with some regularity and recognize your nom de plume.

I'd say he's spot on and quite justified. Now, I know you limeys have different standards about name calling, but I was quite under the impression that telling the truth was still more than sufficient to obtain dismissal of charges about impugning one's honor.

1
1
Bronze badge

So it's OK to spray my 'pits as long as it's pine scented?

0
0
Gold badge
Happy

Yes, but remember not to use pine-scented bleach...

Talking of which, I found some Christmas mulled wine spiced bleach in Sainsbury's this Christmas. I really do wonder what marketing people are on sometimes.

7
0
Happy

A present for Father Jack for when the Toilet Duck runs out?

6
0
Silver badge

Probably all that mulled wine spiced bleach they were sniffing.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

OK to spray my 'pits as long as it's pine scented?

Sure, better yet, use pine tar like the Yanks do on their rou ^h^h^h baseball bats....be like Mr. stiffy on a bad day.....

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Scented bleach-

can't be very good at bleaching. The same goes double for coloured bleach, pink or blue etc.

0
0
FAIL

Phew

Thank god for that, now we can carry on burning fossil fuels to our hearts' content safe in the knowledge that pine trees are guaranteed to save us from catastrophic climate change. Cheers, Lewis!

16
8

Re: Phew

Why is it that if you don't believe in MMGW you automatically must want to burn tonnes of fossil fuels? That's the biggest issue with the whole climate change debate these days. It's shifted so you can't talk about sustainability without being absorbed by this practically religious debate. Do you honestly believe that if we invented a magical box tomorrow that gave you unlimited clean energy the world would be fine? We're still pumping ass loads of chemicals into waterways, dumping plastic in our seas etc. What use is crippling our economy and pumping all our money into some futile attempt to stop the climate from changing when we're destroying everything else anyway? I've never seen Lewis ever advocate that the status quo is good, merely that we don't need to become tunnel visions on a myth

34
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Phew

This. I think the GW crowd is doing the earth a disservice. If it doesn't heat up the planet, that does not mean it's fine to do. Mkay? Greedy slime...

1
1
Silver badge
Pint

Physics, Chemistry, Biology

In order of increasing importance to the climate models.

In order of increasing difficulty to include in the climate model.

5
2
Silver badge
Coat

Re: Physics, Chemistry, Biology

You forgot economy... THE most important factor in climate change...

22
0
Silver badge

Re: Physics, Chemistry, Biology

It was biology that made the planet this cold in the first place.

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Physics, Chemistry, Biology

except that biology on this level is nothing but applied chemistry and physics.

But hey.. Biology is still counting bugs in the night, just like it was ... oh wait.. it wasn't even that a century ago...

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: Physics, Chemistry, Biology

"You forgot economy... THE most important factor in climate change..."

No that would be politically correct twats using it as a windmill to tilt against.

Anyone else see PMQs the other day when Milliband attempts to discredit Cameron by trying to get him to acknowledge that there are some AWG sceptical Tory MPs? Of course he called them deniers.

PMQs generally makes me want to puke, but, boy, that one was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Of course Cameron being an almost equally slimey twat could only be evasive.

2
1
Silver badge
Pint

Re: Physics, Chemistry, Biology

Economy, yes.

Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Physcology, Socialogy, Economics...

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Physics, Chemistry, Biology

Which wouldn't be so bad except they don't even have the physics bit worked out properly yet.

0
0

vast forests... those things we're busy cutting down for housing estates or to raise mutant beef to feed the satanic mills of the Golden Arches?

5
6
Bronze badge

mutant beef forests

Since when were there pine trees in the amazonian rain forest?

5
0
Flame

Actually, we're cutting down the trees because

then we can burn them in "CO2 neutral" biomass power stations.

(having shipped them across the ocean in bunker diesel powered ships).

You know it's fucking stupid when even the Guardian quotes people calling it an insanity.

May 2011 http://science.time.com/2011/05/10/why-does-the-ipcc-want-us-to-cut-down-trees/

April 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/02/eu-renewable-energy-target-biomass

May 2013 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22630815

5
0
Facepalm

that reminds me

Will take the polar bear unfriendly Subaru turbo to the golden arches drive through and order a couple of "Mutant Beef" quarter pounders.

Its ok, I have a pine tree on the farm

0
2

Re: mutant beef forests

There aren't any, but the largest forest isn't the Amazon, it's the Taiga covering Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia and much of norther Asia

2
0
Silver badge

Re: mutant beef forests

Ah yes... But that doesn't look as good in the Papers.

Nevermind that the Amazon *as a fully mature rain forest* is rather insignificant in the global carbon cycle, as it's total input/output is next to even. ( and before peeps start howling... that one is scientific FACT.. Get over it. There are plenty of other reasons why it's a Bad Idea to indiscriminately destroy a mature rainforest on the scale that happens now, but CO2 balance is not among them.)

Now the (semi)permafrost steppe plains.. There's a true carbon sink for you, especially if it keeps thawing out. Grasses and herbiferous plants building layer upon layer of eventually-to-be peat.

But it's a lot less Glamorous than a rainforest...

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: mutant beef forests

Whale Oil Beef Hooked

1
0
Silver badge

Re: it's total input/output is next to even.

minor nit: true so long as the rain forest remains in place. When you burn it you do transfer a fair portion of the previously cycle locked carbon into the atmosphere.

But I concur the Warmist Cult distorts the real facts in this case.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

this could help to account for the fact that the world's temperature, following significant warming in the 1990s, has been stable for the last 15 years or sohas been stable for the last 15 years or so

Also, its possible that the "significant warming in the 1990s" was linked to the reduction in aerosol particles from changes made to combat acid rain and/or the ozone hole - these changes meant a reduction in the production of the sorts of particles that reflect sun/heat out of the atmosphere while the sooty particles that trap the heat remained the same

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Exactly...

what the issue is and we ALREADY did all the cleanup we CAN do in the first world.

Have you seen what 10% of China looks like under an Orange Alert? Like mid 1800's London, thats what.

BTW, the US EPA and the Liar in Chief want to ban all woodstoves in the US

3
3

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.