Australia Under Fire Worst in Decades.. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 02:51:18 pm
content: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/01/australia/australia-fires-explainer-intl-hnk-scli/index.htmlit looks like from the map, Dave is surrounded. hope he is well over there... dont forget your tinfoil cap and fume extractor Dave!

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 03:49:08 pm
content: Absolutely horrible Situation... I hope things get under Control soon!Question to the Aussies:How much is Government to blame? I have seen a lot of angry people vent against the Prime Minister - is it justified?How much of the Fire is due to Humans Activity and what is the "normal" in heat season?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 04:12:50 pm
content: Quote from: SerieZ on January 06, 2020, 03:49:08 pmI don't think you can blame human activity directly. Getting on fire is what large forrests do. Part of nature. Look at the bright side: what has been burned this year can't burn next year.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 04:18:15 pm
content: I am asking about Unintentional (and Intentional!) arson versus "natural" ocurring fires as I have my doubts a Fire on this scale is all "natural".Then again I am talking out of my behind.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 05:08:50 pm
content: To me it seems Eucalyptus have evolved so as to make wildfires rage as fast and wide as possible past a certain tipping point of drought.

author: Specmaster
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 05:49:44 pm
content: It is the Eucalyptus that has been blamed along with the wind that has allowed it jump such large gaps this time around, its trapping fireman by encircling them. I don't know where Dave lives, is he out in the sticks or in the city? I hope he and the family are OK.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 06:07:23 pm
content: Hope everyone is safe! We have friends in Melbourne and called them yesterday, they seem ok but say they have trouble breathing. I just saw this video on YouTube and wondering if this was such a good idea. I mean she managed to save her home and lived to share the footage but how incredibly risky is this:

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 06:13:00 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 06, 2020, 05:08:50 pmThis appears to be the case. The Eucalyptus, and other flora and fauna around them, appear to need these wild fires to drive cycles of renewal.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 06:31:17 pm
content: Quote from: edy on January 06, 2020, 06:07:23 pmif the wind is blowing to her from the raging fire, she can instantly knocked out if without a shield. i guess she got lucky. i visited a village burnt down by fire, not so many houses maybe like 30-50 houses, no more fire, just smokes and glowing red woods everywhere, the wind is enough to made me run for cover. i cant imagine how much energy blowing in that case fire left right front back and top. and i suspect it will be very difficult to breath too as you race for (hot) oxygen with surrounding big fires.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 08:07:03 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 06, 2020, 06:13:00 pmThat's putting a friendly spin on it. Could be that it was competing with more drought adapted species, or species more successful at recolonizing forests partially killed by drought. Wildfire as scorched earth warfare for resources. It's Australian nature after all.

author: richnormand
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 08:16:15 pm
content: Quote from: SerieZ on January 06, 2020, 03:49:08 pmNot an Aussie but:Here is a report mentioned on reddit that I saw yesterday. No idea how accurate this is. The Garnaut report to the government apparently dates from 2008. Note the line about the climate change effect should be clearly visible by the 2020s....If that is true the govt was fully aware. Also, elsewhere, I remember reading that budgets for firefighters had been reduced in that time period...Looks like Lucas published several papers on bushfires:Here is one of many. The concluding remarks (2007) are disheartening.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 08:50:52 pm
content: Found a nice simple map:http://google.org/crisismap/australiaSurrounded by bush fires but under control from the blue advice symbols.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 09:02:08 pm
content: re: edy video:Goes to figure the moment you need to put out a fire, all you have is a hose with a slit in the side that can only shoot 20 feet. You get a glimpse of what she is using about halfway through, before she puts the dust mask on.That footage is intense. It looks like Fallout 3.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 09:14:10 pm
content: There's a lot to cover. In Australia, the line between in the sticks and in the city is trivial, unless you're in CBD type areas. The fires in the national parks surrounding Sydney, like the Blue Mountains, were very close to heavily populated areas. In general, the areas affected by fire are interspersed with heavy vegetation, people and buildings.The smoke has been a major issue. It comes and goes from day to day, but a couple of days ago, the smoke cloud hanging over NSW/ACT was severe and was the size of several American states put together. At one point I estimate visibility was down to only a couple hundred meters. Millions of people were having to breathe that, with obvious negative health effects.I don't know about "blaming" government, but I would say that people are no where near prepared enough for large bushfires in most areas, and I think government could play a role in helping. Buildings need a major rethink in these areas to increase fire resistance. People need more equipment and greater water reserves on hand to deal with spot fires. I won't say people should stay to fight large fires, because you really need training and good equipment. I know from experience how quickly you can get disoriented and debilitated from smoke, and you can easily be surrounded and overcome by fire when you don't know what's happening.Even when not directly affected by fire, one big issue is people's reliance on fuel, power and a functioning transport network. When areas of the southeast coast were isolated and without power, it became obvious how many people didn't have backup power, and so food spoils in the fridges. The shops were running out of food because trucks also couldn't get into those areas. To make matters worse, these areas were packed with tourists. When the evacuation orders were issued, fuel stations were packed and running out of fuel because of the mad rush to get out.In america, there's people called preppers. At least from what I've seen, they're usually portrayed in a kooky paranoid light. But in Australia if you live in a rural or semi rural area, I don't think it would be unreasonable to think along such lines.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 09:30:24 pm
content: Quote from: edy on January 06, 2020, 06:07:23 pmIndeed incredibly risky. I hope she used protection against the smoke otherwise she won't be getting very old.Quote from: John B on January 06, 2020, 09:14:10 pmEven in the Netherlands the government recommends to have a stock of non-perishable food & water to last a couple of days so the idea of being prepared isn't that crazy.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 10:38:29 pm
content: Quote from: SerieZ on January 06, 2020, 03:49:08 pmIf this is too political, can delete. But if you want to understand the anger, there is a summary and video here:https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/ekmro0/dear_your_majesty_friendlyjordies/fdcq6ky/youtube.com/watch?v=buw5WufsP5k

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2020, 10:55:39 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on January 06, 2020, 10:38:29 pmYep, the news that the PM was secretly ran away for holiday, while his country & people was fighting the fire was a international news here locally too, people here were dropping their jaws when reading it.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 01:10:16 am
content: Quote from: Marco on January 06, 2020, 05:08:50 pmYes and what's stupid is eucalyptus have been widely planted in Southern Europe and California, making fires there worse.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 01:41:27 am
content: Quote from: Specmaster on January 06, 2020, 05:49:44 pmUsing this:Quote from: MrMobodies on January 06, 2020, 08:50:52 pm... I've placed a dot where Dave's lab is located - and he lives not too far away from the lab. As you can see, this is somewhat in the geographical centre of the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area - which is principally a suburban environment which has scatterings of parks and a few bushland reserves. These areas are served by local fire brigades which (although not always easy) havebetteraccess to much of the area than bushfire situations.As such, Dave is not under any direct threat - aside from the risk of having a hot ember drop from the sky and cause a problem ... which is something that most people more than a few kilometres from a fire zone do not lose any sleep over.What we mostly think about is the impact to those affected, both firefighters and affected communities.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 01:44:35 am
content: Quote from: edy on January 06, 2020, 06:07:23 pmIt is incredibly risky, but I salute the people who put a lot of effort and take that kind of risk to save their house. The video mentioned that the family had a fire bunker to retreat to. In the video it is a young 19 years old woman saving her house by taking huge risks; in her mind the house was worth it. I salute her.This remind me of the people who prepare for a coming flood by building a water dam around their house, install several sump pumps in their basement, several water pumps around the house, several power generators, have huge reserve of gasoline, and than will remain awake for several days non-stop to make sure their house stays dry.I salute them all.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 03:10:16 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 06, 2020, 09:30:24 pmEEVBLOG use to be a prepper ridiculer place.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 03:12:03 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 07, 2020, 01:10:16 amRecall Portugal have have serious problem with that.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 06:32:47 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 06, 2020, 09:30:24 pmFrom the households I've known its very unusual in Australia to have any disaster preparation, much less common than in NZ or Europe. The messaging is also relatively weak in some states:https://www.emergency.nsw.gov.au/Pages/for-the-community/get-ready/emergency-kits.aspxCompared to a more specific plan for 3+ days self sustained:https://www.ses.vic.gov.au/get-ready/emergency-plans-and-kitshttps://getready.govt.nz/prepared/household/supplies/Compare this to the towns with people appearing in the media (traditional or "new"/social) complaining that the water and sanitation is out when it hasn't even been 24 hours. Closely followed by the exasperation that the mobile phone network is out and there is no power.All thats before the complexities of fire specific clothing/equipment, which despite being literally given away:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Fire_Unit#NSW_Community_Fire_Unitsagain very few households take up the assistance, but turn up and expect the "government" to support them individually and immediately.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 06:43:25 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on January 06, 2020, 10:55:39 pmPM appears in small country town complete with his carefully curatedpropagandamedia entourage, and then forcefully touches and grabs people who explicitly didn't want to be bothered. Taking the politics out of it, if someone doesn't want to talk to you or be near you, don't get even closer and try to grab at them.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/australia-fires-woman-forced-to-shake-prime-minister-scott-morrison-hand-cobargo-disappointed-in-wildfire-response/and another person at the same location, same forced physical contact:https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/firefighter-refuses-to-shake-prime-minister-scott-morrisons-hand-in-cobargo/news-story/beb7a2ef6f7f8efe90369d8aede75514If a member of public touched the prime minister when they declined, imagine the response from the security detail.Both sides of politics get snubbed for their positions. But compare how the slightly less socially inept opposition leader of the time handled it:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-09/federal-election-grindr-melissa-price-peter-dutton-handshake/11096580

author: andy3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 07:08:55 am
content: Glad to hear that Dave and the gang is safe.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 07:37:52 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 06, 2020, 04:12:50 pmIgnoring the average temperature anomaly due to (in great likelihood) human-caused climate change?

author: DTJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 08:11:26 am
content: It's a bit sad seeing all the climate change deniers coming out on social media here in Australia.Post their daft memes of that Greta Thunberg girl and make claims about how "we had a hotter day back in 1972" or intelligent comments such as "lightning has caused the fires not climate change".The fires have probably been started by a lightening, by accident, by arson and other things. The fact that we have had very poor rains and much warmer than average temps over a few years means all the bush is much drier so when it burns it burns much hotter and harder.In Perth on the west coast we had a very hot December with all sorts of records broken. Perth had a run of >40°C / 104F days, close by regional areas were getting 44°C / 111F.After a week or so of this the heat headed east feeding their fires. I think the west coast got off lightly be cause we have less dense forests and less hilly terrain where the fires were.At the moment the roads between Western Australia (state) and the eastern states are cut off for fires. I think its been like it for 4 or 5 days and another 4 or 5 days is to be expected.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 08:21:34 am
content: Quote from: DTJ on January 07, 2020, 08:11:26 amAnd the east-west rail line !

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 08:41:43 am
content: Quote from: SerieZ on January 06, 2020, 03:49:08 pmYes, totally justified. The Federal and NSW state government have contributed a lot to making these fires worse.Pardon the pun, but you pretty much have to light a fire under both governments before they will act.https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/12/30/21039298/40-celsius-australia-fires-2019-heatwave-climate-changeQuoteQuotehttps://independentaustralia.net/article-display/gladys-berejiklian-slashes-fire-service-budgets-while-nsw-burns,13307Quotehttps://www.crikey.com.au/2019/11/11/nsw-bushfires-budget-cut/QuoteQuote from: SerieZ on January 06, 2020, 03:49:08 pmNone of this is normal for NSW:Higher temperatures than ever before.At 2 to 5 years withoutanyrain in manyareas.Huge build up of leaves and dead tree branches, as a direct result of the above.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-07/fuel-reduction-burn-debate-rubbish-says-vic-fire-chief/11849522Quotehttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-03/scientific-modelling-not-coping-with-current-bushfires/11839356QuotePersonally I don't think the Prime Minister Scott Morison resigning will solve anything.The entire government needs to resign, they don't listen to expert advice, they wait till things become a total disaster to act, then they don't do enough to solve it anyway.They are lazy, they are inept, and they are almost useless.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:06:06 am
content: Quote from: station240 on January 07, 2020, 08:41:43 amI'd say the same no matter who was in that office.QuoteYou just described the core perception of any political leadership. Put in a different government and the only reason things would change is as a reaction to the current situation - and that is going to be the same for the incumbent.20-20 hindsight is apolitical - and things are going to change regardless. Either way, there will be criticism of whatever changes are made.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:50:31 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 07, 2020, 09:06:06 amThis old chestnut. Every government is terrible! Therefore let's not bother and let the nutters that cut everything and give handouts to massive oil companies run the government.No, some governments are objectively better than others, and it shows when you have disasters like this.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:25:44 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 06, 2020, 04:12:50 pmBefore this changes into a "climate change caused this" debate, let me settle something for those unfamiliar.Having grown up in Sydney, currently living in a bushfire prone area and being a former firefighter I can tell you that most fires are almost all lit by humans, either deliberately by arsonists or accidentally by people working with welding equipment, having open fires, letting off fireworks etc...For the remaining 15-20% of fires, they are mostly lit by lightning.Climate Change doesn't even factor into what's happening here. Firefighters everywhere have been predicting a severe fire season for many years which never came (until now). The fuel loading was extreme because there was insufficient back burning or clearing performed in the areas that were impacted.No amount of "climate action" would have prevented this. The legislation needs to change and the rules relaxed on what can be cleared.The climate doesn't cause more extreme fires, fuel density does. Last time I checked, thefire triangledidn't include climate.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:29:57 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 07, 2020, 10:25:44 amClimate change creates the circumstances that allow for fire, such as extremely dry and hot seasons with no rainfall for months or even years.While climate change is not the direct cause of the fires (it is not like a hot sunny day means trees self-combust) it can certainly be part of the problem, and indeed will make the situation worse in the future as global temperatures increase. For published research, Lucas (2007) as mentioned elsewhere in this thread.Forestry management is important, but it would be better if we didn't try to make the problem even harder by warming the climate beyond anything seen in thousands of years.While the basic fire triangle doesn't include climate, the fire triangle for wildfires does.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle#/media/File:Fire_Triangles.jpg

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:37:02 am
content: Quotehttps://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/03/climate-change-sends-beetles-overdrivehttps://www.ucsusa.org/resources/rocky-mountain-forests-riskhttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/02/rocky-mountain-national-park-map-shows-climate-change-threats/Indirect, subtle, but in the long run significant contributions that knock systems off balance. And, suddenly, you get more fuel.edit: Yes, the link does not relate to Australia, but shows that even small changes in the climate can significantly affect conditions for fires.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:43:09 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2020, 10:29:57 amYears of drought is not uncommon in Australia followed by years of above average rainfall. This has been happening well before "climate change" was coined and activists which have little to no insight began gluing themselves to the streets of Sydney.The fuel loading has been increasing because of this cycle, year after year. "Fire seasons" are normal here but this was well overdue (by about 5 years) and little was done to mitigate it. Even the recommendations following Victoria's last severe fires weren't followed. The amount of fuel being added year after year hasn't increased, but the interval between it being removed (either by human intervention or a fire) has. The severity of these fires and the loss of homes were directly related to human inaction, nothing else. I shall reserve any future comments on this matter, as I see this thread getting de-railed and locked fairly soon.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:56:00 am
content: What Halcyon just said. ^ ^ ^

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:10:07 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 06, 2020, 09:30:24 pmSure, but preppers are the extreme version who build their own underground shelter with 2 years worth of supplies for the impending nuclear winter and with weapons to defend themselves in a zombie apocalypse...If that was to happen and these guys were the only ones to remain you probably would be better gone

author: Alfons
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:12:56 am
content: So is completely normal, no debate, otherwise the thread will be closed?I think it is good that we are not going to collapse and do not have a lot of political discussions here, but it is always difficult to remain silent on such issues. I fear that here in Europe we will increasingly feel climate change.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:41:00 am
content: This has happened before, but even worse. On Black Saturday, there were 173 lives lost. The difference now and 10 years ago is there are more people living in these bush fire prone areas. One reason is lack of affordability of housing in cities, so people move to where it is cheaper in rural areas. You can barely buy any house in Melbourne under $1 million now. The federal politicians are 100% to blame for housing being out to reach for many Australians, especially the young. Another reason is the Greens and their tree hugging stupidity that has caused people to lose homes, as we found in the Black Saturday bush fires.As I said in another post, the government needs to fire rate homes before they are built in rural areas. 2000 homes have been lost. It is time for these pen pushers to get their act together.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:51:03 am
content: People make some bizarre adjunct statements when they are driven by ideology, rather than research, evidence, and logical deduction. Things like "These are the worst fires for decades. Its because of human induced climate change.". They say these things with a straight face, and I think many of them have convinced themselves that those two sentences actually form a coherent argument.The above should stand on its own, but supporting statements may be needed for the ideologues out there. The first statement indicates that fires of similar severity occurred a few decades ago, before the effects of industrial society were nearly as great as they are now. So, however much industrial activity may have changed things, the fires provide no supporting evidence for it. The only clear effect of human activity is the large scale damage to property resulting from the mismanagement of settlements in areas known by the people of Australia, for thousands of years, to be prone to this kind of devastation.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 12:10:46 pm
content: Every time I look intoAGW, I decide that CO2 increasing from 0.03% to 0.04% has nothing to do with it, or at least there's no positive feedback effect from that small CO2 change, perhaps I should be shot.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 12:19:53 pm
content: she be right mate, its not the end of the world. no meteor showers, no scattered earthquakes

author: aargee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 12:20:30 pm
content: I think the best thing we can do is listen to the scientists, the specific scientists who are experts in their field. Not some ideologically driven politician or arm chair expert quoting it was hotter/worse back in the day or some geologist espousing his expertise in climatic research.Science, by its very nature, is truth. Everything else is speculation and stories.This might be informative:https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/07/visual-guide-see-how-australias-bushfires-are-raging-across-the-country

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 12:34:38 pm
content: Quote from: aargee on January 07, 2020, 12:20:30 pmIn practice these days science is about keeping the grants flowing. Everything else is just papers produced to keep up the cross-citations, to keep the grants flowing. Nothing can be trusted in the modern world. Nothing could ever be trusted until it was extensively replicated, but replication studies are a rarity these days because they are systematically suppressed.

author: Alfons
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 01:02:31 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 07, 2020, 11:51:03 amIt's not just about the fire in Australia. And the fact, that something like this happened before, does not explain the worldwide increase of Temerature on our planet in such a short period of time. The only consolation will be that it will not burn in the burned areas next year. And if I followed the argument, that we humans have no influence on it, this statement would also be just ideological and would say: The only reason to stick to it is the concern about the economic conditions.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 01:16:36 pm
content: For "Australian bush fires of January 1857, 1909 and 1939" jump to 2m11s:

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 03:27:26 pm
content: Thanks for all the Insights it was very helpful to shine some light on the matter for me.Quote from: gabinetex on January 07, 2020, 02:56:32 pmThat is not what he is saying and your implication is not helpful at all.He has a point in what much of what is called "Science" today lacks one fundamental thing:Repeatability.Just look at what calls itself Science these days with all the SJW type of Social Studies and questionable peer reviews. Itisa Problem.Also:Question Authority(or don't)

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 03:40:00 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on January 07, 2020, 11:41:00 amYou hit the nail on the head here. While climate change, as a background factor, is certainly something, the fact is more people are living in areas which previously had natural fire cycles. When there was no people there, regular fires are not really an issue. When people move in, they try to "manage" the environment, i.e. prevent small fires which lead to a build up of fuel. That buildup needs to be managed, at cost. When a drought + heatwave hits, the fires become catastrophic.Similar thing happens with flooding. People move into low lying, flood prone areas. They then try to manage small floods by channeling water flows at a local level. This tends to make the problem worse downstream. When you get a heavy rain season, the flooding becomes catastrophic.Malthus writing in 1798, pretty much had it right. Except that 99% of the wealth we generate goes into the hands of 1%, who of course can afford not to care about the other 99%.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 03:43:41 pm
content: Quote from: SerieZ on January 07, 2020, 03:27:26 pmClimate science is not Social Studies, so the point is irrelevant.As for repeatability: we have one Earth. How many times should we run this experiment to determine if climate change is a problem?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 03:54:56 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 07, 2020, 12:34:38 pmThis is just wrong. And frankly people on this forum should know better. You all benefit from the outcomes of science and engineering; it is not just a circle jerk for grant money.Science is continuously replicating and testing existing as well as new hypotheses.We know:- CO2 has a warming effect on the planet, that an increase of 0.03% to 0.046% (by ~2030) seems negligible, but in fact is 50%.- These things can be modeled by an amateur in a real greenhouse at higher concentrations. You can measure the forcing effect by testing this in a lab. You can see the effect by observing microclimates.- Humans emit ~40 GtCO2e annually, and we can roughly calculate the amount of CO2e required to increase that concentration to higher levels (it's approx 600 GtCO2e, so we have about 15 years left business-as-usual)- We know from models and historical records what will likely happen if we go up 50% increase in CO2, we also know what has happened in the last ~70 yrs.- We are *potentially* beginning to feel the effects of a <1'C rise, but we are very likely to feel the effects of a 2C or beyond rise.Corollary:- 100ppm of carbon monoxide is a tiny amount of gas, but is enough to kill a human within ~4 hours of exposure.- Just because the measure of CO2 in the atmosphere is "only 0.04%" does not mean that CO2 has no effect - would you tell the person who died from CO poisoning of 100ppm that it was all a conspiracy?- While global warming may not actually directly CAUSE the fires, it can increase the LIKELIHOOD of them. While some people can smoke cigarettes for 50 years and not get lung cancer, smoking increases the likelihood of lung cancer.Also, I find it really quite funny that people keep chanting on about how this is some grand conspiracy, when actually it seems that the majority of world governments (bar the odd microstate) don't want to actually take any action. Not a particularly good conspiracy.

author: larrybl
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 04:49:16 pm
content: Yesterdays post from suspiciousobservers has a different perspective.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 05:12:20 pm
content: Quote from: SerieZ on January 07, 2020, 03:27:26 pmThe repeatability problem is not confined to the iffy sciences any more. Biology is riddled with it, and chemistry and physics are getting infected with it too. The only thing that keeps engineering reasonably clean is that at the end of the day products produced from published papers either work or don't. Replication is just not treated with the respect it deserves. People can't get funding for it. People can't get the respect they deserve for doing it. When someone is caught making up data for their research, universities tend to protect them in case the adverse publicity affects their flow of funding. Its a mess.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 05:26:27 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2020, 03:54:56 pmEmphasis on the word CAN. Throughout history climate has been changing. I'm not denying climate change and my own observations also say it does get warmer but pinning every natural dissaster on CO2 levels is just too far fetched. That is just fear mongering (FUD).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 05:31:31 pm
content: Quote from: aargee on January 07, 2020, 12:20:30 pmNo. Even science is truth by majority.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 06:08:52 pm
content: Quote from: larrybl on January 07, 2020, 04:49:16 pm"Be suspicious when told not to question"

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 06:42:20 pm
content: Quote from: DTJ on January 07, 2020, 08:11:26 amIts saad to see you and others so indoctrinated you cant even see the green forest by using rime and reasoning insteadblindly listen to con artists using the tool of falsified science intended for a very specific agenda then only can see the burning trees! So you have to proof that the world will end in 10 years as Greta and AOC and the rest (Soros) of the technocratic liberal globalist sadists says or maybe you revert to All Gore who once said that earth would end in 2016. Please provide proof of the science behind those statements.Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott BloomGreenPeace founder Patrick Moore about climate hoax part1GreenPeace founder Patrick Moore about climate hoax part2Corbettreport many episodes about climate change hoax and the people behind it,assume "his royal highness" will censor this again!https://www.corbettreport.com/The most honest scientists who hides behind the Technocracy movement.Elon Musks grand dad was over lord priest in the Technocracy movement expose.technocracy.newsRead IC TV exposing GRETA, her background, her parents, her ancestor nobel price winner who also was into Nazzi eugenics. Its a very well made fact based expose.https://redice.tv/red-ice-tv/top-10-reasons-why-greta-thunberg-is-a-fraudIn 2018 Sweden had 82+ large forest fires going at the same time so many Gov requested help from the EU and tons of Polish, German firemen drove all the way up to the Swedish outback with their fire trucks to help, and Italian fire props came as well a big .to you all! Personally i had one of those fires blazing at a relatives house and their neighbours. We got together managed to put it out with help of ONE retired (1961) local farmers fire truck! GOV nowhere to bee seen!Large parts of Sweden belongs to the Russian taiga type of forest(birch ash, spruce, pine, oak) so when its bone dry and logging companies have been in they leave a huge carpet of fire fuel loads , in our case it was an ash who roots lost grip in the dry soil and toppled over a power line causing a short setting the whole carpet of branches on fire.If the logging companies had cleared the ground from this branch carpet, the power line owned cleared the line areawhich is required by law most likely there would not had been a fire, unless a lightning, arson or accident welder, smoker, natural quarts crystal , a broken glass bottle, camper sausage fire etc did.2018 was extremely dry year despite all those fires not a single one, no MSM, no radio no TV did blame the fires on climate change! Now isnt that a peculiar circumstance knowing its GRETA country run by liberal globalist shmucks?I do! Where was their "climate change" Soros NGO balls in 2018?2019 was a moist year and EXTREMELY green with superb harvests in along time! Of course that was CO2 fault.In either case or 2018 green 2019 bone dry or 2018 and 2019 bone dry with fire the climate change scammerswould still say; its because of man climate change! Its the same old strawman non debatable argument theyhide behind to push their agenda, the financial scam.Edit: I also forgot to tell that 2019 was a stunning insect year so much it became a problem.Its fascinating to see EVVBLOG a forum for and by the engineers so utterly uninterested in theirown religion TECHNOCRACY instead outright do all it can not to discuss it, as if it was intentionally?!GRETA Soros Climate change is all about political and financial power, greed, the psychopathic need to control and dictate over people using various tools like fake science, but most of it is FEAR MONGERING something GRETA even confessed she does.The last thing i heard about GRETA was she got a honor doctorate from some moronic Belgian University.For what one might wonder, as Fear Mongering expert? Apparently she was nominated for Nobel peace pricesame stuff Obama and Kissinger got two most technocrats ever seen besides Rockefeller and Rotchilds.As if it was not enough already steps the psychopath Bill Gates in with his patents on aerosoling the entire planet to shade it of from the frekking SUN, the mass murder moron he really are.Oboy! the stupid technocratic asshole Bill Gates confesses on patent paper its the frekking SUN who causesthe GRETA Soros climate change and not MAN as he claimed the week before he filed the patents.Its all about the money.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 07:10:58 pm
content: Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 06:42:20 pmquite convincing the way he spoke but... i dont find the logic. he said "CO2 is food for life, if we stop using fossil fuel today, plants and trees will die in 2 years" it sounds bollock to me as before automobile and industrial age, plants and trees grow, not die, it is us (and natural disasters) who cut them down.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 07:46:58 pm
content: Maybe i am wrong but apparently those small parts of Australia not hostile to humans are now heavily affected by wildfires. We'll see what will be left after February after five months of wildfires and whether something similar will happen every year from now on. So sad. No idea where they bring those homeless people.Prospects for 2030 are even longer wildfire seasons. Australia could become the first continent where human civilization breaks down due to climate change.Regards, Dieter

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 08:16:42 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on January 07, 2020, 07:10:58 pmWell... before the industrial revolution the CO2 levels where trending downwards to levels which would threaten plant life.According to this article low CO2 levels in the past nearly got 'us' killed too:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 08:52:31 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 07, 2020, 11:51:03 amWell said, sadly other posters in this thread are making similarly poor connections between these events to argue the other direction.Quote from: VK3DRB on January 07, 2020, 11:41:00 am"worse" depends on your choice of metric, a small fast fire in a built up area compared to a vast slow fire in sparsely populated areas can both be "worst" on different measures. Given the season has a long way to go and the vast fires are still unconfined/uncontrolled/uncontained its likely this season will top the damage, area, and economic impact figures as "worst". Hopefully people heed the warnings and move out of the areas so any fast changes won't cause large numbers of deaths again.On buildings, "Fire rate" only apply to new residences, caused communities to complain about the costs when rebuilding bunt out towns, and only slightly improve a buildings survivability. The significant improvements are beyond any mandatory standards, and rely on disciplined and prepared owner occupiers. Green belts in cities are a source of fire risk so the overlays for any mandatory fire proofing would be enormous and impractical. Consider the reverse argument, some people would like a disposable house that they plan to leave when faced with any fire threat. Right now they can't do that in some regions as the building regulations require what they see as wasteful investment in a building.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:02:28 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 07, 2020, 10:43:09 amFuel loads and management of them is a very political subject but a very important one that needs to be discussed in the context of these fires, it certainly has had a big impact on the result. But then you wander back off on your nonsense "argument"Quote from: Halcyon on January 07, 2020, 10:43:09 amHuman inaction could include failing to act on climate change....

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:02:49 pm
content: Quote from: gabinetex on January 07, 2020, 08:54:40 pmI love that one, exemplifies the whole GRETA indoctrination ideology and procedure and after all its been shown its the same people whos behind climate change agenda who sits on the boards and stocks of the companies who manufacturers roundup, oil, weapons, power, food, medicine etc and thats the whole point of this man-made-climate-change hoax!IT'S a FREKKING FINANCE SCAM!But people dont want to know that because its a conspiracy and we cant talk about conspiracy because it does not exist some blind fooled people on EEVBLOG says!Dr. Patrick Moore is not and never has been a paid lobbyist for Monsanto," Charla Lord, a spokesperson for Monsanto.https://www.newsweek.com/patrick-moore-scientist-who-offered-and-then-refused-drink-glyphosate-weed-317289https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16027-what-happened-when-patrick-moore-was-challenged-to-drink-a-glass-of-glyphosateQuote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 09:02:28 pmYou have to make up your mind on which one climate change.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:16:31 pm
content: Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:02:49 pmWhy? Fires have many factors affecting their outcomes, trying to distill it down to a single point is ridiculous. Trying to say climate change (or any one aspect of it) is the only thing that mattered is just as stupid as saying any one other thing was the most important point. Add to that the extreme non-linear nature of wild fires, where small changes can have enormous effects.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:18:50 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 09:16:31 pmSo how are you going to stop volcanoes, tsunamis, earth quakes, sand storms, siberian forest fires larger then Germany etc etc?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:25:17 pm
content: There is just one thing to learn from all this: if you don't want your home to burn at some point then don't live in a friggin' forrest. Same goes for volcanos, earth quakes and tsunamis BTW. These are perfectly avoidable; don't live in a place prone to these kind of threats.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:28:45 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 07, 2020, 09:25:17 pmAnd an extension to that as i noted in the CA fire thread dig down a tank full of water and set up a sprinkler system on your house so those tiny glowing flakes can be taken out to prevent setting the house on fire a seen on many videos, while all trees around the house still green.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:34:38 pm
content: Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:18:50 pmNew taxes, seems to be the solution for every otherproblem.Which always end up in the hands of the already rich of course.Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:02:49 pmBeen obvious for years.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 09:57:39 pm
content: Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:18:50 pmThe discussion is fires, there are probably human activities which could change the risk/occurrences of those first 3 (nuclear weapons testing comes to mind) but to say there is nothing that can be done about reducing the risk of fires is just continuing your pointless "point scoring". More internet points for you!

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:02:15 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 09:57:39 pmWell its you who claims the internet point:Quote

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:08:32 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on January 07, 2020, 12:10:46 pmThe weight of modern scientific evidence suggests that doubling CO2levels does cause an increase in global temperatures and there are positive feedback effects, such as snow melting, leaving bare dark rocks and ocean which soak up more heat from the sun and ice which contains dissolved greenhouse gasses to melt.What other things, which are currently backed up by modern science, do you think are BS? Do you believe in the flat earth, creationism or similar bollocks? Perhaps electrons are little fairies?Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2020, 03:54:56 pmObviously the weather is making the fires worse, but it's impossible to pin it all down to climate change. Whilst temperatures continue to rise globally, natural and local variations will always exceed them. The weather will always balance itself out. When one region is very hot and dry, there will be another region anomalously cool and wet. As far as the current state of affairs in Australia is concerned, it's probably linked to the sudden stratospheric warming over Antarctica last year and a positive Indian Ocean Dipole. The flooding in East Africa and drought in Australia are opposite sides of the same coin.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50602971The same thing occurs in other parts of the world too. The UK so far has had a mild winter, due to a positive North Atlantic Oscillation, but it's colder than normal in Iceland, parts of south eastern Europe and the Middle East.https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/gpc-outlooks/ens-mean/nao-descriptionClimate change will increase precipitation, as well as global temperatures, so a degree hotter in a drought or an extra 50mm rainfall in a storm can make all the difference, in some situations.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:14:10 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2020, 03:54:56 pmThis is just wrong. And frankly people on this forum should know better. You all benefit from the outcomes of science and engineering, so its important to stop their descent into just being a circle jerk for grant money.People on this forum know academics. They talk with them. The primary goal of any organisation is to survive. There's nothing wrong with what the scientists do, apart from a few real frauds. The problem is the bizarreness of the funding games they have to play. Even those who don't know any academics can see things like Peter Higgs' talk in relation to his Nobel prize, where he talks of how his seminal paper couldn't happen today. It took him 5 years to produce. Today he'd quickly be thrown out if he didn't publish papers frequently, or didn't get enough citations in an impact analysis. These things are gamed. Find an academic the other side of the world. Agree to put their name on your next paper, and your name on theirs. Now you've both upped your paper count, as extra names don't count against you, unless you add too many. Then you agree to somehow cite each other's work, and your impact assessment rating goes up.Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2020, 03:54:56 pmReally? There term "replication crisis" gets lots of responses in a search, and they aren't all about the iffier of the sciences. Something like cold fusion was so cheap and easy to replicate that lots of people tried, and failed, and the whole thing was quickly shot down. Once the cost of replication requires applying for a grant it rarely happens.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:25:34 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on January 07, 2020, 07:10:58 pmTotal bullshit to claim that. As you say we've cut down a lot of trees, so somehow two years now is a bigger deal than 2 years when there were more trees a few hundred years ago?Quote from: nctnico on January 07, 2020, 08:16:42 pmAn interesting article with good information, but points like this are absurd:QuoteSo whats the safe level of smoke in a room before a smoke alarm goes off, 500+ug/m3? Do you think living in an environment even half of that level is safe? Hell no. Its incredibly bad for your health.Similar has been shown with CO2, once you go over about 1,500 or so, you start getting "dumber" and reaction times drop off.Anyway, I think the main issue is not the absolute CO2 level, but hitting a tipping point where climate changes become much more drastic:https://www.businessinsider.com/hothouse-earth-climate-change-tipping-point-2018-8

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:31:27 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 07, 2020, 10:08:32 pmIf you go back far enough C02 was 1500ppm.QuoteWell AGW isn't proved (to my satisfaction), only a few decades ago we were all preparing for the coming ice age, how did they manage to miss the previous 150 years of global warming.QuoteIf you know what electrons are let us know! At school I sat next to someone who was absolutley convinced electrons where littlegreenballs, I asked a few times how he knew they weregreen.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:32:32 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on January 07, 2020, 10:25:34 pmMore specifically, CO2 is a powerful narcotic. If people are trapped in an airtight place most dramas depict them desperately gasping for breath as the oxygen runs out. In reality you'd probably be in a horrible state of panic for a while, but as the CO2 rises you'll fall asleep, and eventually die in your sleep.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:36:14 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 07, 2020, 05:26:27 pmWell sure. But it's like smoking or asbestos. There's a chance you won't be injured by either. Right now we're running a test tube experiment on the Earth. We're turning up the Bunsen burner and seeing what happens.I don't believe every element of climate science - for instance I think models looking into 2100 are far fetched and optimistic. So much can change in that time. And even the 1.5C predictions that say things like, we need to emit less than 600GtCO2e to stay within temperature limits have significant error bars on them.But I know a few things with relative certainty. The first issue is that fossil fuels are just unsustainable on a finite planet with finite resources. We extract the lovely black goo, refine it and burn it in our cars, when we could surely do so much more with it. That kind of natural resource is precious. The second issue is there are documented air pollution issues. You only need to look at say New Delhi or Beijing in peak summer when all the cars are idling and all the factories are spewing crap into the air, it becomes toxic to humans and is bad for the climate (NOx and related exhaust gases are far more potent than CO2 and are often released by poor combustion). Thirdly if you take our current commitments we are looking at something like 3.5'C warming by 2050; we're already at 1'C and *possibly* noticing effects, most climatologists believe 1.5-2C is survivable (with basic adaptations), and 2.5C+ is where things start getting pretty bad for a lot of people. The climate hasn't been that warm in thousands of years, but it's *never* (outside of cataclysmic events such as meteor impact) warmed that quickly, so quickly that very little can adapt to the changing weather.Of course to deny what fossil fuels have done for humanity would be foolish. We would not be at our level of technical advancement without the energy they provided. So we will almost certainly have to continue burning fossil fuels (e.g. for aviation), but in other areas we can look at more sustainable ways to power cars, the electricity grid, and perhaps buy a bit less crap every Christmas that ends up in the ewaste pile next year.Knowing all that we know, and knowing we *probably* introduce (on a preponderance of the evidence) dangerous warming into the climate, it doesn't seem like it's worth the risk. There are error bars on everything, but I'd err more on the side of caution given this is the only planet we have, and there's very little data that points towards climate change being good for us.And knowing that climate change makes seasons drier, reducing rainfall and increasing temperature, in an arid-desert climate like most of Australia, then I think we can say "this increases the risk" with reasonable confidence, and that's not a good thing. Just like smoking cigarettes may not give you lung cancer, but it increases the risk by ~50%.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 10:41:39 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on January 07, 2020, 10:31:27 pmThat was before humans existed of course!QuoteWhy is it the only thing which hasn't been proven to your satisfaction? There are plenty of people who will lose a lot of money if we move away from fossil fuels and those are who are responsible for some very effective propaganda.They were partly right about global dimming, cooling the earth's climate. It's just they missed the CO2's warming effect. It's possible that cleaning things up i.e. filtering out particulate pollution will increase global temperatures further, by a reduction in global dimming.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:04:07 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 07, 2020, 10:32:32 pmThat's one of the unfortunate 'bugs' in human evolution. Humans have no way of detecting low oxygen - it's build up of CO2 that causes the discomfort and gasping. Put a human (and probably most other animals) in a flushed Nitrogen atmosphere or use CO2 scrubbers and they will lose consciousness in perfect comfort (or even a state of euphoria).Hypoxia low oxygen is a serious danger in many situations, from military pilots and astronauts, to people handling liquid nitrogen in poorly ventilated labs. A supreme creator would have remembered to include an O2 sensor!If we'd been alive when CO2 was anywhere near 1500ppm we would have beenextremelyunhappy campers, regardless of available O2 levels. At some point in the future, someone's going to get the last opportunity to gasp 'I told you so!'.P.S. Incidentally, pure Nitrogen was suggested as an alternative for use in the death penalty in the US (there was a BBC documentary, around the start of the problem with lethal drug supply). Apparently it wasn't considered appropriate as there was no suffering involved.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:04:48 pm
content: These huge wildfires are one of the positive feedback effects. They generate a lot of additional CO2 without serving for anything useful. I read that the CO2 total emission of Australia will be about 50 % higher for 2019.As far as i know certain types of dust (which by this time arrived above South America) cause a strong greenhouse effect, too.Regards, Dieter

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:09:38 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on January 07, 2020, 11:04:48 pmEr, no. The CO2 emissions will be greater for 2019, but in subsequent years similar plants will regrow and take back the CO2. This is not like slash and burn in many parts of the world, where the goal is to clear the forest once and for all, and replace it with small agricultural plants that soak up far less CO2 than the burned trees emitted.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:34:00 pm
content: We may hope so, but who knows. Without rain, the recovery may be slow and during that time there will be a positive feedback effect.Regards, Dieter

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2020, 11:43:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 07, 2020, 08:16:42 pmso what caused CO2 drop last time? people stopped using fuel?Quote from: nctnico on January 07, 2020, 09:25:17 pmyou can live in the middle of desert and get away from those. its ironic that most populations are actually live in those high risk area. volcano produces fertile soil, tsunamies are where the fishes are, forrest is where you can get and build your shelter, free fuel, shade, proteins etc. almost always good things come from bad things, they have attraction factor, its inevitable... much better than starvation and hunger disaster risk on a desert.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 12:41:59 am
content: Interesting news is that Au Aboriginals(i call the The Originals, like a pop band name) demands the killing of 10k dromedars/camels as they cause havoc due to the drought. Lots a BBQ for the Aussies i perhaps or is the meat exported?https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/indigenous-leaders-give-goahead-for-massive-cull-of-10000-feral-camels-in-remote-south-australia/news-story/99b32183f8cd55470bda221b64223095https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/shooters-get-green-light-to-cull-10000-feral-camels/news-story/628b6454ed43e67ba1412d72d5389250https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-latest-victims-of-australias-record-drought-10-000-1840855241

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 12:46:18 am
content: Outback Oz is so vast the logistics of meat recovery is most likely unprofitable.My guess they'll bring the choppers and just cull them to waste.The roo's were considered a pest way back when too as they competed with farm livestock for the little tucker that was available and in many rural areas they've been mainly wiped out.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 12:50:37 am
content: Quote from: tautech on January 08, 2020, 12:46:18 amWhat a waste! So its going to be mass murder from choppers! I wonder if friends of the earth and friends of the animals is going to protest? is that why the word cull is used instead of kill in the MSM to sorta preemptively calm down reactions?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 01:00:33 am
content: Quote from: MT on January 08, 2020, 12:50:37 amWhere gubbermint departments are concerned; lowest cost and fastest result = best solution.We had similar here where the great trophy species Thar, an introduced game species was declared to be doing damage to the pristine mountain flora and fauna (for 100+ years) that there were choppers sent into the mountains despite the howls of protest from the hunting clubs.The first bird crashed shortly after takeoff (like some karma event) killing all highly experienced cullers and pilot then a rethink was undertaken that maybe.......private shooters/trophy hunters might just do the job for free !

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 02:00:07 am
content: Regarding the question if people are to blame, some actually are:https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/07/australia/australia-fires-police-action-trnd/index.htmlHowever, if climate change is to blame for these fires is a complex subject and "being convinced" is not helpful with that. I don't think trying to answer these questions using go/no go answers will ever be possible for the complexity involved as you can only be certain about what contributes with a probability. Categorically ruling out non-negligible factors is a problem in many areas, just saying. 50 years ago many things were called negligible that actually were not.Of course there were cases in which scientists are more interested in funding than to find truth, but that does not make them representative for the whole group or the statements they came up with (especially if those were of the go/no go variety). Those are scandals of its own plus the gray area in between, we'd need to be concerned should this be the new normal and not a scandal.All kinds of people will try to make money out of this and some will try to bias and manipulate as much as they can, but they do this anyway anywhere as long as they benefit from it. Some just do it because any change means opportunity to profit, if the change is necessary is not their foremost concern. That is probably one of the reasons how bullshit startups get funding or obviously bad decisions make their way to the top, just for their disruptive potential. No conspiracy needed for that, it is just plain simple greed and stock market manipulations.It is human to abstract things, especially when no decisive answer is given or possible and then do the chinese whispers game, so it is important to at least know the source, in the ideal case readable by anyone.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 02:59:14 am
content: Interesting to note is how some fires is because of climate-change, not man-made-climate-change. While someother fires is because man-made-climate-change but only if they are in CAL and AUS but not in CAN ,SibRUS and SWE.Still i havent heard much that tornadoes, earth quakes, volcanoes, meteorite impacts Tjeljabinsk, Tunguska, isbecause of climate-change or man-made-climate-change. But in time i assume the climate cultists will find some fantastic powerpoint graph to prove it, btw GRETA newer visited China to complain about man-made-climate-change, thats strange, assume shes to bissi striking outside Swedish parliament as usual or sailing on that Rotchilds catamaran she did..In the mean timeDr Michael Mann hockey stick diagram climate change guru lost his court caseto Dr Tim Ballwho had accused Mann for science fraud basically as he refused to provide the source for the data to his hockey stickdiagram by endlessly trying to stall the court.https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/QuoteAnd as many already know for some man-made-climate-change is a religion, for some others higher up it's abonafide chance to make truck loads of money while the rest suffers for not fixing the real issues, homelessness, poverty,work etc, as in financial socialism for the 2% elites while brute force capitalism for the rest 98% and on and on it goes.The amount of GRETA "HowDareYou" memes is stunning, best branding pysop since IKEA and Pippi Longstocking!

author: Prophet2020
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 03:04:57 am
content: It's why I stay in Canada! I don't mind the snow/cold.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 03:26:23 am
content: Quote from: Prophet2020 on January 08, 2020, 03:04:57 amIronically, many of the places which are now charred wasteland would have had a good load of snow about 6 months ago. We also had an usual amount of precipitation along with freezing temps last winter just inland of the SE coast of Australia, so I got some good footage of proper snow. Also proper snow drifting in the car. We don't really swap summer or winter tyre compounds here, so as you can imagine it's pretty sketchy (read: fun) on snow with hard compound tyres.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 04:14:21 am
content: Quote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 08:52:31 pmBuildings cannot withstand a firestorm no matter what they are made of in all practicality, but most houses catch fire due to ember attack. I bet your bottom dollar the replacement buildings will almost all have "slapdash" timber frames rather than steel. Wooden fascias rather than cement sheet like Hardiplank, wooden trusses rather than steel trusses, and wooden windows rather than aluminium, and wooden exterior architraves rather than steel. Steel frames are more expensive due to the higher labour component (unless you erect the frame yourself which I did), but what value do you put on a life? Maybe the government should subsidise steel framed homes. After all, it is the reckless policies from Labor and Liberal politicians (most of whom are real estate investors) over the past 20 years who have made housing in cities unaffordable for many Aussies.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 05:23:48 am
content: Quote from: Prophet2020 on January 08, 2020, 03:04:57 amyou actually got benefit from those CO2 contributors / wildfires imo. but for those who live in drought or max temperature area, they may get benefit if people stop using fuel. anyway if either ice age or green house effect strikes, hopefully those "equatorans" are the last man to standand i guess thats where all refugees should be heading to if they want survivality in case of another climate disaster.

author: I wanted a rude username
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 05:57:41 am
content: Quote from: MT on January 08, 2020, 12:41:59 amIt's a pity they'll just be shot. Camel is a tough meat, but when minced makesdeliciousburgers. Slightly sweet flavour, really interesting. A+++ would eat again.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 06:32:57 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 07, 2020, 03:43:41 pmThe point isnotIrrelevant as the problem is not limited to Social Sciences as much as you might dislike this fact.You cannot solve something by Ignoring it. (Same goes to Climate btw)And if you Ignore one of the most basic Steps of the Scientific Method (Repeatability) I do not think of you as much as a Scientist - Sorry.I have absolutely no Problem with Climate Science btw, I believe it to be a serious Problem - I do however have a Problem if it is used to further a certain Political Agenda by Alarmism and shoddy facts (Feminist and Marxist Thunberg Crowd). Mainly thanks to people who are not actual Scientist - like most of the times and just jump on the bandwagon as an excuse for their own gain.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 06:50:05 am
content: Sorry, this is nothing but shabby. Those people aren't corrupt as many contributors here are, but they are worried. They are willing to learn from scientists and want to promote the results of science in order to get the necessary changes done. On the contrary: Denying human made climate change using some strange kind of humor has become a cheap way of attracting attention. But it remains a very stupid attitude.Regards, Dieter

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 07:14:35 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 07, 2020, 11:09:38 pmIt depends if the forests regrow. The "forestry commission" (or whoever manages forests in Oz) may decide it is better to clear areas where wildfires have previously burned because the risk of a future fire is high. Also this may be taken as an opportunity to build a road/more of a town with cleared land. Finally, these trees take 30-odd years, if they do regrow, to start absorbing a similar level of CO2.Land use is responsible for a lot of CO2 equivalent emissions - for instance see the concern over the Amazon being burned/cut down to plant soy crop to feed cattle - cutting the forest down may not directly emit much CO2 but you have removed a carbon sink so you are effectively adding emissions in.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 07:19:44 am
content: Quote from: MT on January 08, 2020, 02:59:14 amQuoteFor a more neutral source on this. Ball apologised for his defamation, Mann's case was dismissed due to delay and the court did not rule on any defamation claims.The Medevial Warm Period was about 0.2C hotter than the 1951-1980 average. Current temperature is about 0.8C hotter than 1951-1980 average.Greta has not visited China probably for several reasons: (1) I am sure the Chinese government would not welcome her [you do need a visa to even set foot in the country], and (2) She does not speak Mandarin ... the majority of Chinese people do not speak English as a second language [beyond simple phrases] - less than 1% of the country is fluent.It is very easy to attack a 16 year old, how about attacking the actual *science* instead?

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 10:32:53 am
content: I am not a climate change denier. However the knee jerk reaction to say "Wildfires are caused by global warming" is mostly conjecture from the media.I mean it's intuitive that if you make an area warmer, you are likely to make it drier and ... and ... so on. But this is not science, science is about studying the data and testing that hypothesis against the data. Surprise, surprise.However there is currently no scientific consensus and in fact there are quite a few studies showing the opposite, a decline in the number of fires over the past century.Example:https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345It should be noted that while the number has been reducing the extent of fires and the cost associated with them have been rising.I have also seen, though did not save the source, counter articles (though not papers/studies) cautioning any trust in wild fire data from more than a few decades ago, due to anomalies in how they were reported and recorded resulting in high numbers of duplicate fires, incorrectly raising the fire counts.Other studies in the western US have linked summer temperatures to fire occurrences showing a quantitative relationship between temperature anomaly and fire rate.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 11:24:14 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2020, 10:36:14 pmThat is a poor analogy to say the least. If you look at the weather patterns then you'll see extreme weather isn't new. Again, claiming that there is some relation to Australian bush fires and climate change due to CO2 emissions from human activity is way too far fetched. There is no data at all to link these. Bush fires have happened since plants exist.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 12:12:21 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on January 08, 2020, 10:32:53 amQuite right, you need to look at it in the context of all the other exceptional weather events that have occurred over the past couple of years.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 12:14:50 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on January 08, 2020, 10:32:53 amYou're right but nobody sensible is saying "climate change causes fires", they're saying "climate change might increase the risk of forest fires" (as your paper indeed indicates, while fires may be reducing in number, they are getting more severe and harder to control.)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 12:27:40 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2020, 12:14:50 pmIt would seem to me that a reduction in the number of fires (on a lesser scale) is exactly the sort of precursor to having a more severe fire. Instead of several smaller fires reducing the available fuel in less dramatic events, the fuel builds up to very high levels, so when itdoesgo up, the result is disastrous.Curiously, lack of controlled fuel reduction burns is one of the complaints being levelled at the current situation - and it's one which has compelling logic.

author: I wanted a rude username
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 01:04:06 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 08, 2020, 12:27:40 pmThis has been known for decades in Australia, so itissurprising that the fuel load was allowed to get this far out of control.Hopefully this isn't the kind of thing that each subsequent generation forgets, only to be rudely reminded.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 01:34:57 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 08, 2020, 11:24:14 amThere is some data linking temperatures and fire rate and severity, other data linking CO2 levels to temperature and further data linking man-made CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels.However, it is still very difficult to correlate a single extreme weather (or wildfire event) to man made CO2 emissions. All scientists can say is there is an increased probability of extreme weather due to temperature increase.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 06:08:41 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on January 08, 2020, 01:34:57 pmA correlation isn't proof of anything. Just a hint to dig deeper. Many other factors (likes changes in politics causing less maintenance) need to be ruled out first.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 06:34:00 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 08, 2020, 06:08:41 pm... and a theory is just a guess and the Earth is flat...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 06:45:41 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 08, 2020, 06:08:41 pmThat's true, but temperature does affect dryness quite a lot - increasing humidity in some place, while increasing aridness in others - so you would expect temperature to alter fire risks in one direction or the other.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 07:09:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 08, 2020, 06:08:41 pmIt isn't proof but it can form part of a hypothesis. With further investigation you can begin to link cause and effect.One thing, I believe, is fairly universally agreed, even among many climate change deniers (or "it's changing but humans aren't the cause"-ers), is that warming of the scale proposed is likely to be quite bad, causing significant changes to weather and summer high temperatures.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 09:15:47 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2020, 07:09:04 pmThat is exactly what I wrote.QuoteBut still not enough proof that it can lead to fires. Wheater is basically random except for seasonal changes. There can be other factors like fires not happening for a long time so there is a huge buildup of fuel. Or just neglecting to take preventive measures.Either way a warmer climate is nothing more than an inconvenience. Even if the sea levels rise. There should be a lot more focus on reducing pollution because that is what is killing people on a massive scale right now.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 10:05:09 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2020, 07:19:44 am1:You neutral?!This is not about some Tim v.s Mann frekking apology or not its about science fraud, dude! Grow up!2: I understand you are butt hurt, its the typical reaction religious people do after yapping a tirade of soso technical nonsense, tampered data, silly points and ludicrous excuses just what we have seen pouring out from man-climate-changers cultists over the years. Peculiar how you constantly avoid to mention TECHNOCRACY and Soros NGO's.Quote3:Yeah, while you and the Soros liberal globalist cabal dont have zero qualms about using a under age girl who have documented aspergers, obsessive–compulsive disorder and selective mutism for your sinister agenda? Shame is on you fear monger dude!GRETA attack her self's with the Sorors provided fear mongering "science" so there you go.Here, did you deliberately miss it? lots of questioning of your pseudo science!https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/australia-under-fire-worst-in-decades/msg2861404/#msg28614044: The whole purpose of Mann's stalling of the court because he didnt want to release the data.Not only that just recently its said that IPCC's algorithms have been tweaked to fit the tampered data.5: Michael Mann should apologize for tampering with data for an agenda rather conduction proper science.6: One of the classic things people of your kind do is to attack and accuse people of different opinions is to sinisterlyand sneakily accuse them to be climate change deniers while hiding behind a strawman .Just as you exemplified your self in this thread:Quote from: tom66 on January 08, 2020, 07:09:04 pmNo one is a climate change denier, for obvious stated reasons, climate change all the time but that argument dont fitclimate fear mongers agenda also for obvious reasons. The kind of arguments coming from climate change fear mongers is on the same sinister level and type as of the flat earth'ers and JFK "one magic bullet" and frekking solaroadways and orange IT juice press, and carbon heating elements and other fraudster folks.I cant even bother to reply to your: Why GRETA probably didnt go to China nonsense, its so stupid.Oh! dont forget the climate change fear mongers ""11000-scientist-says"" hoax, that one went debunked pretty fast i recall, MickyMouse and all!https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/07/11000-climate-scientists-petition-includes-a-bunch-of-fake-names/Trumpeted out by the most scientific correct MSM there ever been with that famous reporter(MI6 agent) Luke Hardingfriend of Mr Steele the Russia dossier hoax man!https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-sufferingI just love even numbers 500million this , 11000 that...Experts say, listen to the expert, listen to the honest scientists.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2020, 11:50:15 pm
content: Geography, annual climate fluctuation, forest species and habitation has everything to do with Aussie's current predicament.The Eucalyptus genus of 1000+ species is an inherently flammable tree that self limbs and has established itself as the dominant species over millions of years of evolution is warning enough of impending wildfires let alone the mostly dry continent it thrives in. Place human habitation into this equation and the apparent wish that some have to live amongst these ticking fire bombs let alone the recent unwillingness to mitigate the risk by burning the fuel/slash and it's little wonder the current situation has arisen.Forests in general are NOT imminently flammable as many tree species are not predisposed to freely burning especially where there is a mix of species. Those that emit flammable saps and resins when exposed to heat are of the greatest danger especially in an artificial plantation setting however the local climate type has everything to do with the risk plantations fires propose.Mitigation of the fire risk to persons and property is the only way forward for Oz, beit by only building in cleared locations, reducing fire risk by burning slash or mandatory installation of emergency sprinkler systems.No doubt the Aussie insurers will draft new requirements for those needing cover in fire prone regions.There's not to many options for those living in the dry parts of Oz but those that have historically survived fire make damn sure there's zero fuel for fires close to their homesteads .......like would you plant crops like flammable trees or wheat right up to your door ?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 12:32:16 am
content: Quote from: gabinetex on January 08, 2020, 11:14:46 pmWhich of course is utter and all unscientific BS, so how hot was it in 1423 in AU or 1322, 102 BC? perhaps your science is nuts to begin with? Your picture is all biased, incomplete and lack basic science.This is on of the ways the fraudster science climate fear mongers do the "experts say" way:Climate scientists told Guardian,So who are these scientists Guardian refers to? Well they dont tell, of course they dont tell,as its by purpose and intent , then they publish a temperature curve Data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorologystarting from 1910.And for finale Guardian ends their scientific journalistic hillbilly moon shining article by saying:Support The Guardian from as little as €1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 01:32:51 am
content: https://youtu.be/CSQlJx76b64

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 01:50:42 am
content: On behalf of Australia take your climate unbelieving asses and shove your heads back up there!Cheap shots from the other side of the planet with little to zero knowledge of LOCAL topography let alone the Forrest makeup make you a complete waste of space, bandwidth and while AUSTRALIANS are suffering losing property and in some cases dying it is totally out of order so unkindly piss off!

author: aargee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 02:01:25 am
content: It is certainly interesting watching a bunch of armchair experts in this forum speaking right out of their field of qualification.Almost Facebook like. Not that I will be any different but widely reading the science:Earth is getting warmer.Seasons of fire here in Aus are getting longer and starting earlier.Areas are burning that have never burnt before. Rainforest, that has become so dry that it burns, this is an ecosystem that has no coping mechanism for fire.These are the effects of climate change. This is the change to the norm. It's not the fact we are actually having fires.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 07:23:59 am
content: Quote from: gabinetex on January 08, 2020, 11:14:46 pmTo a point.The problem is when anecdotal observation becomes the focus of attention and objective analysis is passed over. Such correlations gain an undeserved level of credibility and soon become the cornerstone of debate which is often heated and nigh on pointless.(1) A question: There is a declared correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2-BUTwhich is thecauseand which is theeffect?(2) Prove your answer. (Saying "it's obvious" is a complete fail.)Applying the Scientific Method takes a discipline which is not commonplace in any general population - and is completely absent in the media and politics. But it is essential in getting to the understanding to actappropriately.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 08:19:27 am
content: Quote from: MT on January 09, 2020, 12:32:16 amThere are many ways to reconstruct historic temperatures:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_recordThe current situation is unprecedented inallof human history.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 08:27:39 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 09, 2020, 07:23:59 amAt a fundamental level, increasing CO2 (or other "greenhouse" gas) concentrations will increase the energy flow to the earth:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcingYou're free to try and find some negative feedback that will compensate for that.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 08:59:10 am
content: Quote from: MT on January 08, 2020, 10:05:09 pmUsing the words butthurt, "Soros conspiracy", etc immediately make your post completely disregardable. We're talking about factually observable things, not your bullshit conspiracies that are milked out by Fox News and right wing radio, et al.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 09:17:42 am
content: Given that CO2 levels are high enough to cause an increase in temperature and that increase in temperature will cause issues there needs to be a shift from the denial that we can fix this in time and acceptance that we can't.That doesn't mean we should stop trying to reduce CO2, but, we also have to consider that even if we cut our global carbon emissions to zero overnight the CO2 in the atmosphere has created a negative outward energy flow and that CO2 is going to be in the atmosphere for decades, centuries, possibly millennia to come, so the temperature will keep rising for a while till it hits a new equilibrium.So, we will see the negative effects of this and there is very little we can do about it, even if we cut carbon emissions to zero now.What I see happening is pretty much nothing at all, or very little on a global scale right up until the main financial centres like London, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Singapore start flooding. Then billions of dollars will miraculously appear and geo-engineering projects will be forced in, whether they are safe or not. Sulfur dioxide, aerosols, genetically modified plankton, carbon capture etc. etc.Right now we need to slap the futurist idiots with grandeur ideas for reducing carbon, the move to alternative fuels still made with fossil fuels, stop the belief that if we move everything to electric we can run it all on renewables. All of these things are fine, but they are future tech, not now tech. We need to immedaitely move to low/zero carbon energy generation and currently we only have solar, wind and nuclear with the later being the only real, "now tech" we have to compensate for intermittency of renewables.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 09:33:37 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 09, 2020, 08:59:10 amI agree, we need violent marxist global revolution now and all the darn right wingers just are evil deniars! Better put them in Camps!Idiot.You are part of the very Problem with this Inflationary blame talk left wingers just love which prevents reasonable people from searching forSOLUTIONS.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 09:36:41 am
content: Quote from: paulca on January 09, 2020, 09:17:42 amIf we (somehow) cut all global CO2eq emissions to zero by tomorrow, then we would be able to arrest the warming. It would probably settle around 1.2-1.5'C above 1950 norms, which has been agreed to have *some* negative effects but overall will be manageable.Of course that is never going to happen, it would literally require every major economy to shut down overnight, for everyone to stop driving cars and flying planes. Most policymakers seem to assume we can hit net zero by 2050 but even that seems optimistic, especially when emissions climbed this year as for every year previously for the last 100 or so. Even 2050 net zero would get us past 2'C warming and if we melt more methane permafrost or reduce the albedo of the Arctic further there could be additional feedback warming effects that we do not know about yet.I think we should start looking at carbon negative technology and stratospheric aerosol engineering (injecting sulfur dioxide or similar high-albedo gases into the troposphere to offset warming by creating a cooling effect.) And we need to start engineer crops to withstand higher temperatures and drier seasons, protect areas from wildfire and flooding, and save vulnerable species.I don't want it to get to a point where these are an emergency solution. We need to properly think about this in the next decade because we cannot continue increasing CO2 concentration and expect no negative effect.Quote from: SerieZ on January 09, 2020, 09:33:37 amThe mistake you make is assuming I am a left winger, I am a free market capitalist. I just am sick and tired of the negative externalities that the big oil companies and polluters create not being paid for. The market is inefficient because polluters do not pay for pollution. This is econ 102.You can have a successful capitalist world economy and no global warming if you actually adopt policy to control our limited resources. (Tragedy of the Commons anyone?)

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 11:26:06 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 09, 2020, 09:36:41 amMaybe not a left winger, but a Tesla/Musk fanboy for sure. You're parroting the externalities thing with his own words!When you say "polluters do not pay for pollution" don't you realize that YOU are the polluter (not "the big oil companies")?Did you buy something in aliexpress? Banggood? Amazon? Took a plane for holidays? Drove hundreds of kms to see your mum? Took a weekend in YellowStone? Turn on the A/C in summer? Heating in winter? Ate some fish that comes from the other end of the planet? Etc. Etc. Etc.Call them dealers, YOU are the addict.The earth is like a car parked under the sun. It was white and now it's turning light gray but don't worry it won't suddenly become a black body so you aren't going to die if T increases (maybe!) a ˚C/century, it has happened before, so don't panic!But you sure will without the FFs energy. That's the real problem. Focus you fack.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 11:29:38 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 09, 2020, 07:23:59 amExactly! However doing the science and math takes time.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 12:02:16 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 09, 2020, 11:26:06 amYes! Consumers ARE the problem. BUT so are the big oil companies/think tanks/politicians/special interests who continue to spread lies and misinformation about AGW.The pollution produced by refining oil into petrol is about 40% of that produced by burning it in the car so don't say that the big oil companies and big energy companies are not some of the biggest polluters. And they are as responsible as big tobacco was for the rise in smoking rates.Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 09, 2020, 11:26:06 amI drive an electric car (plug in hybrid) so about 80% less emissions as it mostly runs on electricity with a petrol engine for longer trips. The next car will be full Battery-EV - this was just a practical and affordable car for me at the time. It was purchased used and was the most expensive car I have ever purchased, but I got it because it was important to me.I buy my electricity from a company that promises to supply 100% renewable and charge my car at night (and run other appliances) when possible when carbon emissions from grid usage are at their lowest.My home is well insulated and I'm getting an air source heatpump fitted in the next few years to heat it from renewable electricity instead of gas. No air con; just a fan and a window if it gets hot. And a home solar system with battery pack is also on the horizon.I'm also eating meat free when I find a good meal, completely dairy free (oat & almond milks - highly recommended, better for your health anyway), recycling packaging where possible, buying in bulk to reduce packaging. And no fish, because as you well know, it's pretty bad for our ecosystems.I am not perfect and everyone enjoys the benefits of fossil fuels. One would be a fool to deny how good we have it as a result of burning fossil fuels. But in many cases, consumers do not have a choice. Public transport is slow or nonexistent, so you must own a car in many areas to get to work or the shops; UK homes all (almost universally) come fitted with gas boilers with poor insulation and an ASHP/GSHP is thousands to install, so to say that the average person (UK average salary is £27,000) has the possibility to really make any meaningful change here when an electric vehicle costs more than a petrol car and alternatives for them don't exist, is foolish.Unfortunately the only way we can make this planet livable for humans in the long term is if we move away from fossil fuels. So we face a dilemma here. We should have begun the change 20 years ago and it is now at the point where even if we make some of the most drastic changes we won't be able to get to net zero in time. In order to get to net zero carbon in a capitalist economy we need to make polluters pay for the negative externalities. Not everyone will be interested in renewable technology so that is why we tax carbon emissions, so that if you use more petrol or more electricity from a nonrenewable source then you pay more for it.The best proposals for a carbon tax (imo) have it returning to the citizen as a dividend at the end of the year. So everyone gets the same dividend but the more carbon your lifestyle produces the more you spend on the tax. This incentivises people and companies to provide for the market now the externality is paid for. Net zero additional costs but shifts behaviour. These revenue neutral taxes have been tried in Quebec and Sweden and have been immensely successful.The big corporations will fight a carbon tax tooth and nail because it means that the downstream consumers will start moving towards more carbon efficient sources which means they lose business. Look at the lobbying against Cap and Trade (related) in the USA, so much so even Obama could not pass it under a Democratic congress.Like everything look at the money. There is money in renewable technology but it is about 1/100th the money that the oil industry receives alone as subsidies in the US.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 01:58:58 pm
content: This thread has gone to hell.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 02:25:46 pm
content: The usual crew of serial climate change dicks decided to encamp on the suffering of others. Seriously out of order and time they grew up and developed some sort of moral compass instead of one handed typing on their pet subject.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 02:34:40 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 09, 2020, 12:02:16 pmIts amazing how they can ensure that the electrons flowing into your loads only come from a renewable source. There must be some amazing engineering going on to achieve that when all the power goes over a common grid.

author: FreezeSSC
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 03:30:58 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 09, 2020, 07:23:59 amCO2 and other greenhouse gasses absorb energy at certain IR wavelengths, this causes the molecules to gain kinetic energy and release it in the form of vibration, the effect is it warms other molecules it interacts with as they collide. Since not all IR wavelengths are absorbed the wavelengths that pass through continue to the earths surface which then gets either absorbed or reflected, since absorption causes a rise in temperature the earth then emits energy at wavelengths that get absorbed again by CO2 as it leaves the planet. Greenhouse gases are akin to accumulators in that they store energy and limit the thermal rise time of the planet.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 04:03:03 pm
content: Quote from: FreezeSSC on January 09, 2020, 03:30:58 pmYou've simply described the greenhouse effect. Something that is easy to reproduce in a lab, in isolation from other effects, and measure with precision. Nature is much messier, because many things are happening in parallel. For example, the greenhouse effect suggests things should be hotter than they are right now. However, when you burn fossil fuels you also put particulates, sulphur compounds, nitrogen compounds, and other mess into the atmosphere and these cause global dimming. If you stopped all fossil fuel consumption tomorrow you would quickly see a jump in the Earth's temperature as the dimming will quickly reduce, while the CO2 hangs around. Not all CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. The seas absorb a lot of it, making them more acidic. Hurray for less global warming. Boo, for harming sea life. Researchers are only just starting to get to grips with the methane being released from melting tundra, and the posssibility of methyl hydrates on the ocean floor being released as the oceans change. Its all so complex that nobody knows the full picture. If you don't know the full picture you have no clear idea of the true consequences of any action that might be taken.What we need is a lot less BS based on individual talking points, and a lot more objective research to flesh out the full picture. Good luck with that in the world right now, where protesters are so delusional they stop our most environmentally friendly transport, like electric commuter trains.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 04:17:43 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 09, 2020, 01:58:58 pmits eevbloggers tradition! perfectly not surprising. its just a matter of mods having a bad day or not... maybe dave is okay, or busy on something. his video 7 days ago is not about how hard life is under fire. so i guess this is not his problem..Quote from: coppice on January 09, 2020, 02:34:40 pmhttps://tv-english.club/articles-en/discover-great-britain-en/the-largest-dams-in-the-uk/if someone doesnt believe over unity, this is it... btw, earth is not like (a crippled and limited) man made automobile that can become grey or black overtime, its an intelligent and very well designed big recycling and self sustaining engine. and people keep relating the word "religion" with climate change movementwhy they do not think?

author: Prophet2020
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 04:20:05 pm
content: I hadn't even realized that Australia could even get snow before today! I'm sure you hear that often from non-Australians.Surprisingly, my province doesn't make "snow tires" mandatory, so quite a lot of people take their chances with their "all seasons" which leads to quite a few upside down vehicles in the first few snowfalls. Even here they forget how to winter drive each year.Well, stay safe out there!

author: FreezeSSC
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 04:27:09 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 09, 2020, 04:03:03 pmYes, all these points are true and most are predicted by climate models, the oceans are indeed absorbing more CO2 resulting in warmer ocean temperatures, we also know that the thermal emittance of the earth has changed as measured by IR spectrometers in satellites since the 70's. As the science continues I'm sure they'll be able to better predict with more accuracy long term effects but those that try to paint it as some conspiracy theory simply aren't looking at the underlying principles.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 04:56:28 pm
content: But that still doesn't translate to a weather prediction. You can easely measure the climate is getting warmer on a global scale over a long period by collecting data points over many years. Looking for trends in weather on a local scale is much harder if not impossible. IOW: you can't really link a weather related event (rain or drought) to a climate which gets warmer.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 05:20:11 pm
content: Quote from: FreezeSSC on January 09, 2020, 04:27:09 pmVery few people are calling it a conspiracy. What most of us are pointing out are place where people are claiming X shows Y, when it doesn't, and places where people claim they know what is going to happen, when they have little more than an outline idea.

author: FreezeSSC
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 06:06:38 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 09, 2020, 05:20:11 pmOk then maybe I misunderstood, where I'm from there is a multitude of climate change deniers but yes anyone saying a specific weather event is caused by climate change is misguided, climate change can only portray a long term trend of weather patterns.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 07:23:43 pm
content: What part of take the Climate crap elsewhere is to hard for you Dickheads?

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 08:58:04 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 09, 2020, 07:23:43 pmI never understand what forces people to read threads they don't like or don't agree with, there's quite a few long running threads here that I would find mildly annoying - so I just never click on them, it also saves quite a bit of time.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 10:01:25 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 09, 2020, 08:59:10 amYEEEES! Finally came the liberal globalist Extinction Rebellion cult member out the closet by line, hook and cookie!Btw, i actually met and shaken hand and spoken with Greta, i do proper background research you know while you not one hit wonder climate change bozo.QuoteLive as you preach , park your hybrid car oil and lithium dependent dude! Buy bicycle for two, dont fart methane and carbon dioxide if you can!Its so telling how these bozos comes out as soon there is an event somewhere to quickly steer the debate to blame it on climate change...

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 10:28:56 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 09, 2020, 01:58:58 pmImagine if every post in this thread had to cite a reputable scientific source?Its sad people who are quite intelligent otherwise get dragged into these conspiracies. I'm all for discussing them and their merit, but its clearly gone beyond that when you see personal attacks and blind faith.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 10:42:54 pm
content: I saw this today and it's making me think harder about giving up eating beef than anything I've ever come across (I know the environment arguments, but this goes much deeper!)https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683(Yes, I know it's not just beef).

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 10:58:21 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on January 09, 2020, 08:58:04 pmThe FACT this is about MY COUNTRY you small minded twit and yet again the usual suspects got on the Climate BS mode !This thread is so far OT it is insulting Off Topic !

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 11:01:59 pm
content: UK recently blocked a trade deal for US chlorinated chicken! It was said to be sub standard to that Britons are used to?!Even the scientifically correct Guardian says USA have backward food standards!https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/us-chlorinated-chicken-trade-deal-agricultureWhenever i im UK i always make sure i have at least one Fish and Chips to support the small scale local business ,but Extinction Rebellion people told me i was 50% evil because of the fish part and should replace that with chocolate dipped ants!Why are climate change cultist so eager to make us all eat insects? Not even a salad is allowed anymore!People are so angry these days, seams its the "victimization" agenda or so who makes it.

author: gnif
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2020, 11:07:09 pm
content: This thread is off topic and has become a blight... locked