Skip to main content
Topic: Deer in the Headlights (Read 22016 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #120
Look it up David - Byram's Fire intensity Equation. The gold standard and undisputed for 70+ years.

Fuel load is the one thing we can control and we don't - whether that's a function of funding, green policy or bureaucratic ineptitude or a combo i don't know.

The 2010 RC into the 2009 fires received multiple recommendations that 8% be burnt annually on a rolling basis to maintain low load The RC finally settled on 5%.

Both Victorian and NSW State Governments burn about 2% a year. Both Premiers should be sacked as far as I am concerned.

There's your problem right there. Noting drought doesn't help. Yet our greatest drought - the Federation Drought that went from 1891 to 1903 was well before the mania of carbon dioxide reared its ugly head.

And agree, the 1939 fires dwarfed the current (Victorian fires) every which way - area, property and human life loss.

To attribute this to 'climate change' is facile. Extremely facile and not supported by any verifiable data globally.

Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #121
My Country (written in 1904)

The love of field and coppice
Of green and shaded lanes,
Of ordered woods and gardens
Is running in your veins.
Strong love of grey-blue distance,
Brown streams and soft, dim skies
I know, but cannot share it,
My love is otherwise.

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror
The wide brown land for me!

The stark white ring-barked forests,
All tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold hush of noon,
Green tangle of the brushes
Where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree-tops,
And ferns the warm dark soil.

Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When, sick at heart, around us
We see the cattle die
But then the grey clouds gather,
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady soaking rain.

Core of my heart, my country!
Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine
She pays us back threefold.
Over the thirsty paddocks,
Watch, after many days,
The filmy veil of greenness
That thickens as we gaze ...

An opal-hearted country,
A wilful, lavish land
All you who have not loved her,
You will not understand
though Earth holds many splendours,
Wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country
My homing thoughts will fly.

**
Dorothea Mackeller
Finals, then 4 in a row!

 

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #122
The first most reliable bullcrap detector you can have is when you hear or read someone claim rising temperatures will lead to widespread global drought, try and sell that drought claim to the people in Bangladesh or Jakarata, or the Pacific Island nations! (For example parts of tropical Thailand are in an extreme drought, while further down the peninsula parts of Malaysia and Indonesia are flooded. Regions most would generalize as having similar climates all year round!)

What the data tells scientists is that the two primary effects will be rising average sea levels and weather regions shifting, some areas becoming dryer while other areas will become wetter. This is coupled to more extreme weather events, driven by larger differentials between high and low pressure regions. From what I've read this is likely being driven by a shift in the latitude of the circumpolar flows.

Of course these are all theories but the early signs are the scientists have got it right, as North America sees blizzard and tornado events in locations they are not previously recorded, and we may even find increasing frequency of tornado type events in parts of SE Australia. Other natural changes need to be considered, for example Victoria is currently inundated with Portuguese Man-O-War, and local fishermen are catching species that to quote them "We don't have down South!", as sure of a sign as you will find that there is a shift in ocean temps and currents.

Is it permanent or just temporary? Who knows because it takes more than a human lifetime to determine that! A reality right wing nutters like Andrew Bolt and Craig Kelly cling to as they make global assertions from cherry-picked data, they sit waiting for small localised contradictions to appear in the exposed data so they can crow about it, a tactic they learned from Christopher Mockton and the Tobacco industry designed to cast doubt on the science and data.

LP, I gather you're some sort of scientist. You should be more sceptical.

Most climate scientists (who rule the roost) are climate modellers eg Schmidt at GISS, Mikey Mann etc.

Sea level rise - the rate of rise has not increased one iota (and the satellite data is crap on SLR - the error far exceeds any change measured).

ps the Pacific Island spin - what qa crock. We have very reliable data (and a recent study said many of t he islands are in fact getting bigger) - http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml

After all, we're in an interglacial, temps should be rising as should sea level.

Noting we emerged from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s - of course we should warm after that...and thank f... too.

Is this warming unprecedented? No. The Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period (once called Optimums for a reason) were all significantly warmer, nor is the rate of warming unprecedented.

This is irrefutable.

The 1910- 40s warmed just as fast. With no rise in CO2. Then when CO2 was really cranking up, the planet cooled from the mid 40s to the late 70s. The world was crapting itself about another ice age right through the 70s. Fact.

if anything the high resolution ice core data suggests CO2 lags temperature (800yr+ lag) which is a far more scientifically sound proposition.

The AGW theory is a poor theory, has not been empirically proven - EVER - and the observed data (remember the scientific method?) simply debunks the theory. QED as they say.

The models are crap - the climate sensitivity attributed  is simply way overstated.

It's all about politics, money and control of the populace.

F..., we can't predict weather a few weeks out, how can we believe anything the muppets say about 2100?

Nor does data suggest storms or other natural disasters are more prevalent. Quite the reverse in fact.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #123
According to fireys, there hasn't been enough hazard reduction burning done in the past 12 months or so because they haven't had favourable conditions in which to do the burns. This is mostly because everything is too dry. There are strict conditions that have to be met before they can do a hazard reduction burn, and they just haven't had enough opportunities to do what they want and need to do

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #124
LP, I gather you're some sort of scientist. You should be more sceptical.

Most climate scientists (who rule the roost) are climate modellers eg Schmidt at GISS, Mikey Mann etc.

Sea level rise - the rate of rise has not increased one iota (and the satellite data is crap on SLR - the error far exceeds any change measured).

ps the Pacific Island spin - what qa crock. We have very reliable data (and a recent study said many of t he islands are in fact getting bigger) - http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml

After all, we're in an interglacial, temps should be rising as should sea level.

Noting we emerged from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s - of course we should warm after that...and thank f... too.

Is this warming unprecedented? No. The Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period (once called Optimums for a reason) were all significantly warmer, nor is the rate of warming unprecedented.

This is irrefutable.

The 1910- 40s warmed just as fast. With no rise in CO2. Then when CO2 was really cranking up, the planet cooled from the mid 40s to the late 70s. The world was crapting itself about another ice age right through the 70s. Fact.

if anything the high resolution ice core data suggests CO2 lags temperature (800yr+ lag) which is a far more scientifically sound proposition.

The AGW theory is a poor theory, has not been empirically proven - EVER - and the observed data (remember the scientific method?) simply debunks the theory. QED as they say.

The models are crap - the climate sensitivity attributed  is simply way overstated.

It's all about politics, money and control of the populace.

F..., we can't predict weather a few weeks out, how can we believe anything the muppets say about 2100?

Nor does data suggest storms or other natural disasters are more prevalent. Quite the reverse in fact.

When I'm "told" to believe the science, I know it's BS.  People are so 'effin gullible, they now hold it to be the absolute truth.  It's not.







Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #125
Jack,

They haven't done enough in the past decade!!

If it's about resources, give them the resources.

20 men can do in 1 day, what 1 man can do in 20?
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #126
Firstly Flyboy77, relax nobody is blaming you personally for climate change, you are not the isolated cause so there is no need to be so defensive. Certainly though you and everybody contributes to climate change, and it's the result of a very complex set of circumstances which all of humanity and nature drives.

Most climate scientists (who rule the roost) are climate modellers eg Schmidt at GISS, Mikey Mann etc.
All scientists are modellers, that is how science works, you try to find a way to model a process(with algorithms or math) and see if your hypothesis(model) fits reality before deciding if your model is any good and worth persisting with, which means trying to defending and destroying your own work.

Skeptics use the term "modeler" to try and cast a derogatory perception of scientists like the scientists are some nerd sitting in a basement making a model out of icy-pole sticks or airfix kits, when you hear or read that modeler argument you know the person making that claim is the ignorant one!


Sea level rise - the rate of rise has not increased one iota (and the satellite data is crap on SLR - the error far exceeds any change measured).
Firstly, the median is a statistical analysis, the error bars are an indication of the confidence in data and a trend can still be clearly exposed. If the rate of rise was continuous or had remained the same for hundreds of years most of the land we are located on would not exist, the sea level rise figures quoted are averages across the globe and like the wind speed in a weather report the peaks and troughs will be much higher than the average, and it's the peaks and troughs that do damage to the way we live!

No scientist claims that nothing changes, the claim nothing changes is the realm of uninformed skeptics.

ps the Pacific Island spin - what qa crock. We have very reliable data (and a recent study said many of t he islands are in fact getting bigger) - http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml
There is no scientist generally claiming islands are shrinking or getting bigger.

Sea level rise and total land area are not necessarily connected, primarily because historically changes in land from tectonic or erosion processes happens faster than historical changes in sea level, and when ice melts the underlying land might rise increasing the total area.(See your next point!)


After all, we're in an interglacial, temps should be rising as should sea level.
Isolation(cherry-picking) of facts doesn't make a point valid, scientists look at the big picture which includes sea level, CO2 levels, methane levels, atmospheric temperatures, wind speed(at sea level and high in the atmosphere), ocean flows, ocean temps, ocean acidity, creature behavior/migration, vegetation changes, etc., etc..

Noting we emerged from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s - of course we should warm after that...and thank f... too.
There are any other number of effects such as CO2 levels or ocean acidity levels that are now changing that didn't change in previous ice-ages, the scientists who are not climate scientists (geologists, archaeologists and paleontologists can confirm this by study dozens of such historical events including the most recent ice age as well as any of the others which happen on 100000 year cycles on average). btw., Recently Ice Age is the normal state of the planet, the Interglacial Periods are just a few percent of history over the last few million years!

Is this warming unprecedented? No. The Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period (once called Optimums for a reason) were all significantly warmer, nor is the rate of warming unprecedented.
Again, warming and cooling are cyclic, in isolation they mean nothing but that doesn't mean now is the same as before. Skeptics can cherry-pick thousands of such events and listing them by the hundreds or thousands just makes hundreds or thousands of the same wrong point.

This is irrefutable.
But you see it's not, and the skeptic offers it in isolation and then claims now is the same and before when it clearly isn't.

The 1910- 40s warmed just as fast. With no rise in CO2. Then when CO2 was really cranking up, the planet cooled from the mid 40s to the late 70s. The world was crapting itself about another ice age right through the 70s. Fact.
As mentioned Ice Age is normal in the most recent history, a history that long surpasses human history and won't end when humanity disappears. Change is normal, no scientist is claiming that things don't change, what scientists are generally claiming is that we should not do things that contribute to the problem and that we should do things to minimize potential harm and not just ignore consequence for short term benefits.

if anything the high resolution ice core data suggests CO2 lags temperature (800yr+ lag) which is a far more scientifically sound proposition.
Ice forms out of phase with changes in CO2, warming and cooling events, it's a lack of understanding about the measurement tolerances and resolution(time frame +/-) that skeptics use to twist that data.

The AGW theory is a poor theory, has not been empirically proven - EVER - and the observed data (remember the scientific method?) simply debunks the theory. QED as they say.
There is nothing in the data that debunks any hypothesis of global warming or cooling, the concept of "absolute proof" is a term used by skeptics, scientists only talk in probabilities. Maybe the ozone hole never happened like the moon landing!

The models are crap - the climate sensitivity attributed  is simply way overstated.
You claimed above the climate scientists are only "modelers", now you feel you have to disparage the models like they are an important antidote to the skeptical argument!

It's all about politics, money and control of the populace.

F..., we can't predict weather a few weeks out, how can we believe anything the muppets say about 2100?

Nor does data suggest storms or other natural disasters are more prevalent. Quite the reverse in fact.
All of this last bit exposes more about yourself and your personal view of the world than anything about climate science. You confuse short term accuracy and variation with long term trends, and in this skeptical debate is hidden the ideology effectively take up the mantle that we need not act because we'll be long dead! It's a piece of crap argument that effectively puts the burden on ancestors so we now can just keep crapping wherever we like!

The Force Awakens!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #127
No I don't. You want me to put up the data I will.

All you've done is hit me with rhetoric. Pick a sub set and take a crack with specifics not rubbery words...like isolation.

UAH's most recent satellite data? 0.55C rise in temperature in 41 years. And even NASA admits we're on the cusp of a big GSM.

Ocean acidification (not acidity) - the ocean is basic (alkaline) - always has been and will always be alkaline (even under the impossible RCP 8.5). Acidification is a fear mongering term - a misnomer. They've measured a drop of 0.1 to date (how they measure that on a global scale is moot given day to day and episodal movements in any one location can dwarf that drop).

You want a lesson on the scientific method?

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "

AGW has failed, consistently at step 5. Fact. Or even at 4 in reality as all the fear is a function of the modelling and sfa else.

End of the day it's the alarmists, in fact, who deny and it's the alarmists who cherry pick.

Clearly your back ground includes little or no knowledge of the geologic timescale - I suggest you brush up on that  ;)

And yes, as a matter of fact, if the models have no ability to predict - they are all but useless - and a massive waste of taxpayers' money.

You should listen to Freeman Dyson, one of the great thinkers of the modern era. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hswLwqRIW8&fbclid=IwAR3xR7DD83u_Uj3xVvJnM-RffjWIYdKPdtN7MtsY4RmS5Ds60YhtHBVuYZc
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #128
Jack,

They haven't done enough in the past decade!!

If it's about resources, give them the resources.

20 men can do in 1 day, what 1 man can do in 20?
As I understand it's not a lack of resources, rather that the conditions are not compatible with hazard reduction burning (the fuel is too dry, the winds are too strong, temperatures are too high etc.). There just haven't been enough suitable days to do the work required

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #129
You should listen to Freeman Dyson, one of the great thinkers of the modern era.
Don't be scared Flyboy77, change is OK even if it's change from the old ways of burning coal and oil or driving combustion engine cars, Hyundai will still sponsor us!

If your heart surgeon states you need an operation to survive you wouldn't ask a quantum physicist like Dyson Freeman for his second opinion, just like we can't have climate scientists telling us about the safety or validity of a Freeman Dyson quantum physics experiments at CERN! Even if Dyson believes Human Induced Climate change exists, and argues that global warming doesn't or can't be derived from the data, or is exaggerated, it's just an opinion or another interested but non-specialist person. Even Dyson used specialist mathematicians and experimentalists to assist him with aspects of his work, just like scientists use engineers and engineers use tradespeople!

As you well know the intricate details are way beyond the scope of this forum, when you offer trivial bits of cherry-picked data you do a disservice to forum members in offering them a mostly vitriolic response worthless in anything other than exposing an ignorance or fear whether it be willful or naive. When I debate this topic I debate the issue, not you or any other individual. It's obvious "economic growth" is an unsustainable concept which ultimately leads to economic collapse and the global environment being trashed. Several major municipalities around the globe have realized this and are dropping GDP as a measure of performance as a result.

I've spent enough time today wasted describing to how the science and scientists do not make broad assumptions or conclusions, and your retort reverts to broad labels and generalised conclusions which clearly fall outside a rational realm. When most rational scientists discuss global warming or human induced global warming they are very careful not to discuss the course of action in terms of blame.

Scientists discuss global warming in terms of risk not absolutes, and there is no reasonable or sensible argument that can be made to not act in the mitigation of that risk. If there is a chance we contribute to that risk, then we should do whatever we reasonably can to reduce our contribution, it's that simple!

It's truly ironic that supporters of the capitalistic system, those embedded in never ending growth, arguing against the concept of being thrifty or frugal with resources! They live in empires where profit is partially defined by reduction of waste and improved efficiency, they even publish Kanban charts, provide 6-sigma training and publish triple baseline financial reports. Yet they rally against sensible global changes that will potentially minimise or mitigate human induced climate change while improving overall efficiency. Do you see the irony?
The Force Awakens!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #130
Ocean acidification (not acidity) - the ocean is basic (alkaline) - always has been and will always be alkaline (even under the impossible RCP 8.5). Acidification is a fear mongering term - a misnomer. They've measured a drop of 0.1 to date (how they measure that on a global scale is moot given day to day and episodal movements in any one location can dwarf that drop).
We should probably applaud the ocean, it's doing it's best to absorb as much CO2 as possible, if the situation changes things would be very dire!

That 0.1 is a nice way to trivialize the process required to make that level of change, billions or trillions of tonnes of CO2 absorbed or emitted. It is a foible of human perception to judge these events as a percentage change on a global atmospheric scale. Our entire existence occurs inside a thin film volume bounded by less than 1% of the atmosphere and oceans. We could trivialize changes using averages that are accounted for over the full volumes, but that might bear no resemblance to what happens in our thin atmospheric surface film of existence!

Offering the 0.1 average as an argument for minimal human induced change is making the same trivial mistake as the average weather report wind-speed example I discussed earlier, the serious climate effects are experienced in the peaks and troughs. You even indirectly debunk your own point in the sentence highlight, you are not being logically consistent, I think the problem is referred to as self-referential inconsistency!
The Force Awakens!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #131
UAH's most recent satellite data? 0.55C rise in temperature in 41 years. And even NASA admits we're on the cusp of a big GSM.
Do you know what a GSM is, the time span it occurs over, and it's global effects?
The Force Awakens!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #132
Ocean acidification (not acidity)
.
.
.
Clearly your back ground includes little or no knowledge of the geologic timescale - I suggest you brush up on that  ;)
If you wish to get persnickety, that would be background wouldn't it?

Can you sell me a brush? ;D

Unlike some skeptical commentators I know enough about deep time not to confuse CO2 or global temperatures from the Hadean or Achean(FFS, lunatics quoting relative Hadean temperatures as proof the earth isn't warning!) with the post-Proterozoic Cenozoic or as it may now become cynically known the Pyrozoic! And probably I know just enough not to equate effects that happen over tens or hundreds of years like recent CO2 rise and a Grand Solar Minimum(GSM), with geologic processes that occur over thousands or millions of years like an ice age! ::)
The Force Awakens!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #133
UAH's most recent satellite data? 0.55C rise in temperature in 41 years. And even NASA admits we're on the cusp of a big GSM.
Do you know what a GSM is, the time span it occurs over, and it's global effects?
Come on don't leave me hanging, the anticipation is killing me, I yearn to learn!
The Force Awakens!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #134
Sorry Chalky but you’re way off the mark there. We’ve never experienced anything like the intensity, extent and duration of the current bushfires ... and we’re still not in the peak bushfire season.

Sorry, Chalky Old Son, but DJC is spot on. And those on the ground, facing these fires, who've faced and studied firefighting for decades, say the same thing.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17