Jump to content

You're currently viewing the forum as a Guest
register-now-button_orig.png
and join in with discussions   
ask migration questions
message other members

..and much much more!

BacktoDemocracy

Australia and Climate Change

Recommended Posts

It is good to be skeptical as the scientists are so often wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without adequate management and fire reduction burn offs, the ferocity of Australia's fires will continue to incur an "exponential effect" to the point "no firefighting force known to man" can stop them, says bushfire specialist Roger Underwood. Mr Underwood said he is "very worried" that the "tone of the debate has gone downhill disastrously," in relation to the bushfire crisis in the nation. Mr Underwood told Sky News host Peta Credlin the "focus" should be on the real problem, the problem which is "possible to fix". Mr Underwood said as the build-up of fire fuel continues to get larger, an " exponential effect of increasing fire intensity" is felt. He said it could get to the point where "no firefighting force known to man anywhere in the world will be capable of stopping [the bushfires], it's as simple as that".


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parley said:

It is good to be skeptical as the scientists are so often wrong.

yep, flat earth

  • Like 2

Drinking rum before 11am does not make you an alcoholic, it makes you pirate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Perthbum said:

yep, flat earth

Yes that was an example where the prevailing wisdom was very wrong.

  • Like 1

I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Parley said:

Without adequate management and fire reduction burn offs, the ferocity of Australia's fires will continue to incur an "exponential effect" to the point "no firefighting force known to man" can stop them, says bushfire specialist Roger Underwood. Mr Underwood said he is "very worried" that the "tone of the debate has gone downhill disastrously," in relation to the bushfire crisis in the nation. Mr Underwood told Sky News host Peta Credlin the "focus" should be on the real problem, the problem which is "possible to fix". Mr Underwood said as the build-up of fire fuel continues to get larger, an " exponential effect of increasing fire intensity" is felt. He said it could get to the point where "no firefighting force known to man anywhere in the world will be capable of stopping [the bushfires], it's as simple as that".

As the fire chiefs have said the window for controlled burns is shortening as the fire season lengthens.  Weather and ground conditions have to be just right for controlled burns...as these carry risks.

They simply do not have sufficient windows to carry out any more burns and these are no panacea in any event.

With climate change we are just going to have to accept that bushfire conditions will be worse in the future.

  • Like 2

Timeline: 309/100 Sent 7/8/13, Money Taken 9/8/13, CO appointed 3/9/13. Med 3/12/13. Police check 4/12/13. VISA GRANTED 8/4/14, Subclass100. Recce August 2014. Arrived 30 July 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gbye grey sky said:

It really is simple.

CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas blocking the sun’s heat from escaping our atmosphere back into space.  Man is pumping huge quantities of CO2 into the air and the measurable ppm (parts per million) is very significantly higher (and climbing) than at any time since man walked the surface of the earth.

When man’s activity in a post-industrial world is the only significant variable contributing to this rise then, yes, it is man-made (anthropogenic) climate change.

Why do you have so much trouble coping with this?  It is so obvious that you have to tie yourself in knots trying to find crackpots proposing anything other than what is right in front of your nose.

Once everyone accepts the problem then the actions become obvious and urgent.  Which is why those in power manipulate people like you, they want to keep the gravy train chugging along for as long as possible....even beyond the point of no return.

Still not confirming how much is man made and natural, all you have done is given your opinions . 

 

Incorrect. The only solid evidence we have from historic climate is that temperature changes drive CO2 levels. That is based on well known physics (Henry's Law). We had a ice age with CO2 10 times higher than they are now (Ordovician). There is nothing to indicate that current CO2 levels will lead to any significant warming (see Lewis/Curry 2018) and are most likely to be beneficial for humanity.

you will dismiss this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/29/recently-dropping-global-temperatures-demonstrate-ipcc-claims-are

 

It's worth the effort to actually save the environment rather than pretending that solar panels and electric cars do that.

 

 

4693CE2C-3CE6-4B2B-B480-BF1E2B066697.jpeg

77004BC1-8512-4D5F-8271-1EA437F1648F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the big, big problems is the short time we have measured the climate. The world is old- but our science is new and we really shouldn't draw conclusions in our short lifetimes. We are conceited and arrogant to think that we can. Just trends and popular ideas- like the hole in the ozone layer was. I often think the Aboriginals have more clues than we do because their history is a lot longer than ours.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, starlight7 said:

One of the big, big problems is the short time we have measured the climate. The world is old- but our science is new and we really shouldn't draw conclusions in our short lifetimes. We are conceited and arrogant to think that we can. Just trends and popular ideas- like the hole in the ozone layer was. I often think the Aboriginals have more clues than we do because their history is a lot longer than ours.

Are you serious? I honestly cannot believe you have never heard or read how we now. Here is just a small part.

 

Cold Climates, Warm Climates: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?

By Gavin Schmidt — January 1999

When we see pictures of dinosaurs basking in tropical heat or wooly mammoths shivering in an ice-covered tundra, how do we know that they lived in such climates? We can tell indirectly from sediments and deposits laid down during these periods. The presence of tropical plant and animal remains at the polar latitudes indicate that significantly warmer conditions must have existed as compared to today. Conversely, the absence of tree pollen in the tundra probably means that conditions were too cold for trees to grow.

For more quantitative information you have to look in the oceans, and in particular, at the deep sediments that lie on the bottom of the seas. There, a steady rain of shells from small, surface-dwelling animals falls continually, eventually building up hundreds of meters of sediment. These sediments preserve the shells of these small animals for millions of years, all the way back to the age of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.

Fig. 1: Photo of foraminifera

Figure 1: Magnified (400x) photograph of a left coiling N. pachyderma foraminifera. (Photo: Deep Sea Repository at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University.)

The most important of these animals, foraminifera (or forams for short), make their tiny shells from a form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). This carbonate is found in many common geological features, such as the White Cliffs of Dover, which were once at the bottom of the sea.

What makes calcium carbonate important? The carbonate, originally dissolved in the oceans, contains oxygen, whose atoms exist in two naturally-occurring stable isotopes, 18O and 16O. The ratio of these two isotopes tells us about past temperatures. When the carbonate solidifies to form a shell, the isotopic ratio in the oxygen (written as δ18O) varies slightly depending on the temperature of the surrounding water. The change is only a tiny 0.2 parts per million decrease for each degree of temperature increase. Nevertheless, this is sufficient for us to be able to estimate the temperature of the water in which the forams lived millions of years ago. From this, we can see that temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were about 10-15°C warmer at the time of the dinosaurs than they are today!

There is a complication, however. The δ18O value in the shells depends critically on what the δ18O value was in the surrounding sea water (H2O), and that can be as variable as the temperature! This variability arises because when water evaporates, the lighter molecules of water (those with 16O atoms as compared to those with 18O) tend to evaporate first. Therefore, water vapor is more depleted (fewer H218O molecules) than the ocean from which it evaporates. Thus, the ocean has more 18O in places where lots of water evaporates (like the sub-tropics) and less where it rains a lot (like the mid-latitudes).

Similarly, when water vapor condenses (to make rain for instance), the heavier molecules (H218O) tend to condense and precipitate first. So, as water vapor makes its way poleward from the tropics, it gradually becomes more and more depleted in the heavier isotope. Consequently snow falling in Canada has much less H218O than rain falling in Florida. Changes in climate that alter the global patterns of evaporation or precipitation can therefore cause changes to the background δ18O ratio.

In addition, the great ice-sheets that once covered North America, consisting of snow falling in what is now Canada, were very depleted in 18O. Now, enough water was held in these ice sheets to reduce the global average sea level by about 120m. Furthermore, there was also enough depleted water trapped in the ice to increase the average isotopic content of the oceans. And so the first thing we see when we analyze the shells from the bottom of the ocean, is the waxing and waning of the great ice sheets over the last 3 million years (figure 2). The same pattern over the last 400,000 years can also be seen in the isotopes measured in ice cores drilled from the remaining ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Fig. 2: Istotopic ratio plot

Figure 2: The variations of 18O in carbonate averaged over a large number of different cores (in order to isolate a global signal) over the last 600,000 years. Most clear are the regular oscillations of the glacial ice volume which follows small changes to Earth's orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch forcing).

In consequence, the many records of δ18O in ocean sediments and in ice cores, contain information about the temperature, evaporation, rainfall, and indeed the amount of glacial ice — all of which are important to know if we are to understand the changes of climate in the Earth's history. Unfortunately, trying to disentangle these multiple effects is complicated since we have one measurement with many unknowns.

The paleoclimate group at GISS is working to try to decode these records using the latest generation of numerical models of the atmosphere and ocean circulation. In those models, we have included most of the physics necessary to simulate the distribution of δ18O in the oceans and the atmosphere. In addition, we have developed models of foram ecology that allow us to estimate at what depths in the ocean and at what season the carbonate forms on average.

This sequence of models allows us, for the first time, to map simulated climate changes directly from the model to the carbonate in the sediments — the actual data that paleoceanographers have measured. Initial experiments have focused upon the large climate changes that occurred during the melting of the ice sheets between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago. The closer the modeled changes match those seen in the sediments, the greater the confidence we have in the realism of our models.

While this new approach is unlikely to show that mammoths spent their time on the beach enjoying the sun, it may provide better understanding of the complicated sequence of events that marked the end of the ice age. It should shed light on the very rapid climate changes that have occurred in the North Atlantic and Europe at the end of the last ice age. Those particular changes have been associated with changes in the amount of heat carried poleward by the Gulf Stream. If we can understand that process, we may be better able to estimate the probability of its recurrence as a possible consequence of continued global warming.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

  • Like 1

Drinking rum before 11am does not make you an alcoholic, it makes you pirate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Parley said:

It is good to be skeptical as the scientists are so often wrong.

Tell me which ones

Einstein

Gallileo

Von Braun

Just back that statement up

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Parley said:

It is good to be skeptical as the scientists are so often wrong.

Scientific knowledge is never fixed.....but when the theories and the forecasts based on credible peer reviewed science are then borne out, scepticism ultimately just becomes denial of reality. 

  • Like 1

Timeline: 309/100 Sent 7/8/13, Money Taken 9/8/13, CO appointed 3/9/13. Med 3/12/13. Police check 4/12/13. VISA GRANTED 8/4/14, Subclass100. Recce August 2014. Arrived 30 July 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rallyman said:

Still not confirming how much is man made and natural, all you have done is given your opinions . 

 

Incorrect. The only solid evidence we have from historic climate is that temperature changes drive CO2 levels. That is based on well known physics (Henry's Law). We had a ice age with CO2 10 times higher than they are now (Ordovician). There is nothing to indicate that current CO2 levels will lead to any significant warming (see Lewis/Curry 2018) and are most likely to be beneficial for humanity.

you will dismiss this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/29/recently-dropping-global-temperatures-demonstrate-ipcc-claims-are

 

It's worth the effort to actually save the environment rather than pretending that solar panels and electric cars do that.

 

 

4693CE2C-3CE6-4B2B-B480-BF1E2B066697.jpeg

77004BC1-8512-4D5F-8271-1EA437F1648F.jpeg

I read this when it came out. It is a thoroughly disingenuous piece.  Of course CO2 is not the only, nor even the primary, driver of global client but it is an important component.

The point is that it is the prime variable in the past 150 years so it is a nonsense to dismiss it as the cause of the predicted increase in global temperatures.

Why choose to believe the crackpots rather than the mainstream. I think you, like the author perhaps, cannot handle the truth.

It is not simply a matter of preserving the environment. It is about preserving our way of life. If we concede that we need abundant energy for this then it must be sustainable.

Solar and wind are our best options as at 2020. 

  • Like 1

Timeline: 309/100 Sent 7/8/13, Money Taken 9/8/13, CO appointed 3/9/13. Med 3/12/13. Police check 4/12/13. VISA GRANTED 8/4/14, Subclass100. Recce August 2014. Arrived 30 July 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, simmo said:

 

So very sad 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/01/2020 at 09:41, Parley said:

Without adequate management and fire reduction burn offs, the ferocity of Australia's fires will continue to incur an "exponential effect" to the point "no firefighting force known to man" can stop them, says bushfire specialist Roger Underwood. Mr Underwood said he is "very worried" that the "tone of the debate has gone downhill disastrously," in relation to the bushfire crisis in the nation. Mr Underwood told Sky News host Peta Credlin the "focus" should be on the real problem, the problem which is "possible to fix". Mr Underwood said as the build-up of fire fuel continues to get larger, an " exponential effect of increasing fire intensity" is felt. He said it could get to the point where "no firefighting force known to man anywhere in the world will be capable of stopping [the bushfires], it's as simple as that".

Yet the RFS in both QLD and NSW said that even on areas that have been burned off, unless that burn-off had happened within the previous 12 months,  it had shown no effect on stopping the fires.  So that would mean to be effective burn offs would need to occur every winter which is just impossible for the mammoth size of the nation.

The current Government would be only to happy to blame it on a lack of management and pretend it can be fixed, even if that lack of management happened under their own federal watch (becauser they can then blame it on the States). 

They obviously have a primary interest in deflecting any attention away from climatic change which they are unable to effect.   So the answer is that there is no answer, and if there were, you wouldn't get it from "Right At Night" on Sky Australia, heavily linked to the coal lobby.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

"Nationalism is an infantile disease, it is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein

  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slean Wolfhead said:

Yet the RFS in both QLD and NSW said that even on areas that have been burned off, unless that burn-off had happened within the previous 12 months,  it had shown no effect on stopping the fires.  So that would mean to be effective burn offs would need to occur every winter which is just impossible for the mammoth size of the nation.

Correct, however hazard reduction is, at best, hit and miss even when it has been undertaken immediately prior to fire activity. Many destructive fires have passed over hazard reduced areas very simply by way of ember showers, and spot fires. Embarking upon a massive national or even state based hazard reduction progam is not the answer. Where I live, in 2015, 200 houses were lost to a local bushfire, yet at the same time my locality had been subject to a significant hazard reduction program within the previous 12 months.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dusty Plains said:

Correct, however hazard reduction is, at best, hit and miss even when it has been undertaken immediately prior to fire activity. Many destructive fires have passed over hazard reduced areas very simply by way of ember showers, and spot fires. Embarking upon a massive national or even state based hazard reduction progam is not the answer. Where I live, in 2015, 200 houses were lost to a local bushfire, yet at the same time my locality had been subject to a significant hazard reduction program within the previous 12 months.

 

Fuel reduction is the major issue and what Aborigines did for centuries.

This will all come out in the Royal Commission. It won't totally prevent fires of course but they will be a lot less destructive.

  • Like 1

I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Parley said:

Fuel reduction is the major issue and what Aborigines did for centuries.

This will all come out in the Royal Commission. It won't totally prevent fires of course but they will be a lot less destructive.

The experts think otherwise.  Fuel reduction can only be accomplished at ground level.  Climate change has the fires crowning (travelling in the top of the canopy).  Fuel load reduction will have little to zero effect.  Too much time listening to 2GB/Sky 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Parley said:

Fuel reduction is the major issue and what Aborigines did for centuries.

This will all come out in the Royal Commission. It won't totally prevent fires of course but they will be a lot less destructive.

We do not need yet another Royal Commission in relation to bushfires. There have been many such reviews since the 1980s, and yet, here we are with another conflagration, and lawyers the richer for it.  I spent what seemed endless months over a number of years, in court in relation to fires.

The legal fraternity lives on Mars in this respect.

The law does not exetend itself into disaster simply because there are no laws relating to catastrophe. Therefore holding yet another RC into bushfires we find lawyers way out of their footprint making recommendations that have nothing to do with law.

Fuel reduction, is by far, not the major issue,.  Bushfires are about people and not about bush necessarily.

 

Edited by Dusty Plains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dusty Plains said:

We do not need yet another Royal Commission in relation to bushfires. There have been many such reviews since the 1980s, and yet, here we are with another catatrophy, and lawyers the richer for it.  I spent what seemed endless months over a number of years, in court in relation to fires.

The legal fraternity lives on Mars in this respect.

The law does not exetend itself into disaster simply because there are no laws relating to catastrophe. Therefore holding yet another RC into bushfires we find lawyers way out of their footprint making recommendations that have nothing to do with law.

Fuel reduction, is by far, not the major issue,.  Bushfires are about people and not about bush necessarily.

 

There will always be bushfires. But by managing the fuel loads makes a massive difference in their intensity.

There will be big changes to the laws after the RC.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bulya said:

The experts think otherwise.  Fuel reduction can only be accomplished at ground level.  Climate change has the fires crowning (travelling in the top of the canopy).  Fuel load reduction will have little to zero effect.  Too much time listening to 2GB/Sky 

The fuel and intensity makes them uncontrollable.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve seen fire like a snake going through the bush, the crown fires often coming a bit later or all at the same time. No rhyme nor reason. It hides and smoulders for days sometimes and suddenly starts up again with a gust of wind. I hope if they have another of these royal commissions they get people from the bush on it and not townies pontificating.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, newjez said:

Unfortunate

But there you go.

Nothing to do with climate change.

  • Like 3

I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parley said:

Nothing to do with climate change.

Not directly no.

But it does highlight some of the issues faced with fuel reduction.

You do need a good idea of what lives in the bush you are going to burn.

Or else you could cook a lot of koalas or other endangered vulnerable species.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×