back to article CSIRO breaks Australia into 90m x 90m grid to map soil carbon

CSIRO has published what probably amounts to one of the largest datasets ever assembled in Australia: an assessment of organic soil carbon on a 90 metre x 90 metre grid, nationwide. It'll hardly surprise anyone that it's taken four years to get the data ready for release. The 2010 organic soil carbon map includes around two …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Charles Manning

    “innovative prediction methods”

    Baseline data is DATA. The real gathered stuff.

    Here they have gathered some data, then filled in the blanks with remote sensing (ie using mathematical models and proxies) and “innovative prediction methods” (ie. mathematical models).

    Of these, only the first is actually DATA.

    What is really dangerous is then using models on top of models - which they will be doing if they use this model generated "data" as a baseline.

    From this we will see scientists of the future making sweeping 90%-certainty predictions.

  2. Denarius Silver badge

    innovative ?

    the word has become so debased as to mean "latest hot fad" or guess unfortunately. Only 30 cm deep ? One wonders how a country consisting mostly of SFA with trees that grow very deep roots and underground stashes of water and starch in very hard "soils" has been sampled enough to give any meaningful evaluation. Before the comments rise about the density of surface vegetation where some 4WD managed to get to, I suggest that a third of the landmass is never visited and from the air shows a vista of dull scrub No doubt the researchers tried hard to get some real data. My quibble is that unless it was well funded, enough ground truth checking cannot have been done. Well funded science in Oz is an oxymoron.

  3. Diogenes

    innovative prediction methods

    In other words a wild a**e guess

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. Goat Jam

    What is the purpose of this?

    Is this yet another attempt by the CSIRO to push their climate change catastrophe nonsense?

    Are they attempting to show that soil carbon is a good or a bad thing?

    If they prove that (the non-existant) climate change we are (not) experiencing increases soil carbon levels will that be touted as a disaster or a boon?

    Do they understand that if you have no soil carbon you basically have sand.

    You can't grow stuff in sand.

    I expect that this is just another monumental waste of resources by the CSIRO who are desperate to push their Agenda 21 crap in Australia.

    Every living thing is carbon. When you eat, you are eating carbon. Demonising carbon as some sort of poison is simply insane.

    Why we need to "map carbon levels" across Australia is something that is only understandable by ecotards and global warming true believers, of which Mr Chirgwin is one.

    Not surprised that this article is simply a regurgitation of the rubbish spewed out of the CSIRO with no insights or attempts to put this press release in to any sort of context.

    I truly despair at the state of science today, I really do.

    Also reporting.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021