Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[chrispmartha]

Tony427 said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Adjustments generally appear to warm the present and cool the past.

Further to this, here's how the adjustments have had the opposite to what the propaganda machine (as endlessly repeated in here by turbobloke) wants you to believe:



https://twitter.com/DekeArndt/status/1217990279279...

Hate to do this but as a person has been promoted as an expert and someone of standing in the science communitywe should all listen to, I leave this here.

University of Oklahoma. Batchelor and Masters.

Centre of Excellence in Climate Science . Not. 401st ranking in the world. And a weather forecaster.

Next.



Yep I am convinced.

Did you think he created the graph?

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/14...

[durbster]

chrispmartha said:

Tony427 said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Adjustments generally appear to warm the present and cool the past.

Further to this, here's how the adjustments have had the opposite to what the propaganda machine (as endlessly repeated in here by turbobloke) wants you to believe:



https://twitter.com/DekeArndt/status/1217990279279...

Hate to do this but as a person has been promoted as an expert and someone of standing in the science communitywe should all listen to, I leave this here.

University of Oklahoma. Batchelor and Masters.

Centre of Excellence in Climate Science . Not. 401st ranking in the world. And a weather forecaster.

Next.



Yep I am convinced.

Did you think he created the graph?

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/14...

Err yeah. I read Tony427's post a few times but am still a bit puzzled what the point is.

That was just the easiest place I could get an image to post in here, and I always share the source because I'm not embarrassed about them or trying to hide anything

[Skyedriver]

There's a meeting of business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland at the moment.
these people have flown in from all over the world. Have they not heard of conference calls?
Just watched Trumps 747 flying in, does he really need such a big aeroplane or even a private one at all.
Waiting for him were at least 4 large vehicles all with their engines running.
One of the topics under discussion this week are climate change.

and finally, Greta Thunberg is there, how did she get there as she "gave up flying to save climate change"

[turbobloke]

Pogo stick and trains?

Pielke Jr: The Inconvenient Facts On Australian Bushfires – Study finds ‘the role of human-caused climate change has not yet been detected’.

"According to the latest research looking at the issue, the role of human-caused climate change in Australian bushfires has not yet been detected."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/1...

[chrispmartha]

turbobloke said:

Pogo stick and trains?

Pielke Jr: The Inconvenient Facts On Australian Bushfires – Study finds ‘the role of human-caused climate change has not yet been detected’.

"According to the latest research looking at the issue, the role of human-caused climate change in Australian bushfires has not yet been detected."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/1...

Not unusually you cherry pick one quote from an article which doesn't really fully support your own bias, why not cherry pick these quotes?

"First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds."

"organizations like the IPCC and @ScienceBrief are absolutely essential to the integrity of science as viewed by politicians and the public, whatever their political predispositions happen to be."

"The climate issue is so deeply politicized that some will cheerlead the politicization of the issue, some even going so far as to even deny any connection between climate change and fires at all. Nowadays, the politicization of scientific issues is often intense, but it is not uncommon. Climate change of course is an extreme example of science that is variously hyped and denied, making it difficult for non-experts to tell the difference. And using your political preferences to sort what you think is good science from bad is never a good idea."

[turbobloke]

Based on IEA projections carried forward for emissions per capita we'll be Zero C around 2030 2040 2050 2060] 2070 2080 2090 2100 with luck.

How dare we! Don't tell Greta, it might not go down too well.

[Langweilig]

[turbobloke]

chrispmartha said:

turbobloke said:

Pogo stick and trains?

Pielke Jr: The Inconvenient Facts On Australian Bushfires – Study finds ‘the role of human-caused climate change has not yet been detected’.

"According to the latest research looking at the issue, the role of human-caused climate change in Australian bushfires has not yet been detected."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/1...

Not unusually you cherry pick one quote from an article which doesn't really fully support your own bias, why not cherry pick these quotes?

"First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds."

"organizations like the IPCC and @ScienceBrief are absolutely essential to the integrity of science as viewed by politicians and the public, whatever their political predispositions happen to be."

"The climate issue is so deeply politicized that some will cheerlead the politicization of the issue, some even going so far as to even deny any connection between climate change and fires at all. Nowadays, the politicization of scientific issues is often intense, but it is not uncommon. Climate change of course is an extreme example of science that is variously hyped and denied, making it difficult for non-experts to tell the difference. And using your political preferences to sort what you think is good science from bad is never a good idea."

As usual there's a comprehension fail ^ though the use of weasel words by climate alarmists doesn't help.

Note that 'is emerging' means that in somebody's opinion it hasn't emerged as yet (so the extract I chose remains accurate even with your cherry pick added) and that addition is just an opinion.

Doerr and Santin use data not opinion in their 2016 paper to show no human influence on extent or intensity of wlidfires globally over recent decades. NASA likewise, with a CO2 increase of 9% as wildfires globally decreased by 25%.

The data do matter. Opinions from vested interests are ten a penny.

[robinessex]

chrispmartha said:

"First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds."

What complete rubbish. "Fire weather" appears to be the catchphrase nowadays. "periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall, and often high winds." Doesn't make a fire ANY MORE LIKELY TO START, IT STILL NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. There are many places in the world that have low humidity, which dries out timber, making it more combustible. Just because Australia is a couple of degrees hotter than normal, doesn't affect the issue at all.

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 21st January 10:27

[kerplunk]

I doubt australians are very interested in global wildfire trends.

[chrispmartha]

robinessex said:

chrispmartha said:

"First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds."

What complete rubbish. "Fire weather" appears to be the catchphrase nowadays. "periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall, and often high winds." Doesn't make a fire ANY MORE LIKELY TO START, IT STILL NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. There are many places in the world that have low humidity, which dries out timber, making it more combustible. Just because Australia is a couple of degrees hotter than normal, doesn't affect the issue at all.

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 21st January 10:27

It may well be 'complete rubbish' (although I'm not sure again what credentials you have to make that claim) but that wasn't my point

[robinessex]

chrispmartha said:

robinessex said:

chrispmartha said:

"First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds."

What complete rubbish. "Fire weather" appears to be the catchphrase nowadays. "periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall, and often high winds." Doesn't make a fire ANY MORE LIKELY TO START, IT STILL NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. There are many places in the world that have low humidity, which dries out timber, making it more combustible. Just because Australia is a couple of degrees hotter than normal, doesn't affect the issue at all.

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 21st January 10:27

It may well be 'complete rubbish' (although I'm not sure again what credentials you have to make that claim) but that wasn't my point

Try commonsense, works for me. You're welcome to refute it if you can.

[chrispmartha]

robinessex said:

chrispmartha said:

robinessex said:

chrispmartha said:

"First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds."

What complete rubbish. "Fire weather" appears to be the catchphrase nowadays. "periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall, and often high winds." Doesn't make a fire ANY MORE LIKELY TO START, IT STILL NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. There are many places in the world that have low humidity, which dries out timber, making it more combustible. Just because Australia is a couple of degrees hotter than normal, doesn't affect the issue at all.

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 21st January 10:27

It may well be 'complete rubbish' (although I'm not sure again what credentials you have to make that claim) but that wasn't my point

Try commonsense, works for me. You're welcome to refute it if you can.

I wasn't saying the claim was correct or not, again, that wasn't my point.

You say common sense, works for you, that's debatable judging by your posts ;-)

[Langweilig]

kerplunk said:

I doubt australians are very interested in global wildfire trends.

Dizzy blonde Aussie bint is blaming meat-eaters for the fires, according to the Daily Wail.

Please leave the CTRL and + keys alone and just read the article.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7910069...

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

I doubt australians are very interested in global wildfire trends.

They probably should have a little interest in that their favourite eucalyptus seems to be somewhat implicated in tree based fire events in California and Portugal.

Iirc correctly there are also concerns about the commercial introduction of "Gum trees" in places like India.

Meanwhile there is an interesting Table related to major fire records since 1851 in this Wikipedia entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Austral...

[LongQ]

It seems there are some benefits emanating from the Aussie Bush fires (beyond the natural ones related to the Eucalyptus breeding and regeneration process).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-21/repopulatio...

For added background;

http://www.convictcreations.com/animals/koala.htm

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

I doubt australians are very interested in global wildfire trends.

Is the trend in Aussie wildfires different?

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

I doubt australians are very interested in global wildfire trends.

Then why should they be interested in global warming or global ce change? If the cause is global anything then global trends matter, and any supposed lack of interest en will is more predictable than the climate when data shows that a global warming or global climate change explanation is pure bunk.

The idea that an event in one location can be seized upon as evidence of global anything flies out of the window when the supposed global reason isn't a reason after all. A 9% increase in global carbon dioxide (NOAA) has occurred alongside a 25% decrease in global wildfires (NASA). That's the precise opposite of what an agw explanation entails. Pro-AGW activism has nothing substantive to offer in response, just rhetoric.

When will Australia exceed the record burn in 1974/75 which was 10x the current level? When will controlled preventive burns be allowed once again? How many arrests for bushfire offences including arson are there to date in Australia this summer? How far above 180 has it gone, is it 200 yet? These are the issues of concern, according to data rather than politically or otherwise ideologically motivated mere opinion.

[turbobloke]

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

I doubt australians are very interested in global wildfire trends.

Is the trend in Aussie wildfires different?

No, it's firmly down since the 1974/75 record burn.



Note the negative correlation with temperature (and the positive correlation with lack of preventive burn as posted previously). AGW is nowhere on this, but emotive hype is alive and well as usual.

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

I doubt australians are very interested in global wildfire trends.

Perhaps they should be, next year will be worse if we have higher CO2 according to some people,
Personally I believe that having reduced the fuel supply they will be less, but what do I know I am not a climate expert.