Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[kerplunk]

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

I doubt australians are very interested in global wildfire trends.

Is the trend in Aussie wildfires different?

I don't know, that would require some proper scholarly analysis and I haven't seen anything that quailfies. Is the area burnt trend even the right question to ask - does it tell you everything? Probably not.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

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.

A good example of non-scholarly analysis - already out of date because other fire year data has now been added to the wiki table it was harvested from. The 2019/20 line is about half as tall as it should be. Then there's issues like temperate forest fires, savanna fires etc all cludged together. Not much use (to me that is - turbobloke's mileage-making definitely varies)

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st January 13:51

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st January 14:06

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

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.

A good example of non-scholarly analysis - already out of date because other fire year data has now been added to the wiki table it was harvested from. The 2019/20 line is about half as tall as it should be. Then there's issues like temperate forest fires, savanna fires etc all cludged together. Not much use (to me that is - turbobloke's mileage-making definitely varies)

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st January 13:51

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st January 14:06

Well, you did ask about "wildfire" trends rather than specifying any form of "forest" or even "tree" related effects.

In Aus the fires starting in grasslands can be just as significant as those starting in forests in terms of the resulting effects due to spread and ambers being carried on wind or even, reportedly, by some of the smarter creatures (Birds for example) carrying embers to encourage new burns from which their prey will break cover. to escape.

[kerplunk]

LongQ said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

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.

A good example of non-scholarly analysis - already out of date because other fire year data has now been added to the wiki table it was harvested from. The 2019/20 line is about half as tall as it should be. Then there's issues like temperate forest fires, savanna fires etc all cludged together. Not much use (to me that is - turbobloke's mileage-making definitely varies)

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st January 13:51

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st January 14:06

Well, you did ask about "wildfire" trends

Nope - wouldn't ask here.

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

No, I said climate change is real. 'Climate change' does not imply anthropogenic.

In principle I agree with the comments in the 5th report. However, the interpretation is where we clearly diverge.

So I'm a believer in climate change(not specifically anthropogenic) who doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus...probably quite a few like me on this forum who have been labelled various things by you and others...

Appreciate you explaining your position and it's good to see the science is increasingly accepted, even in this thread (albeit in this slightly confusing manner ).

stew-STR160 said:

... because we won't submit to the pathetic unsubstantiated alarmist viewpoint.

But I'm curious about this. What is this viewpoint you're referring to, exactly?

I believe you misunderstood what I said. The science is increasingly questioned, not accepted. The 'scientists' who practice 'climate science' are under increased scrutiny because of their lack of actual knowledge or willful ignorance, predictions and results(or lack of) etc.

The viewpoint held by the believers, mainstream media, activists, and so on, that we're all doomed, everything will be underwater by 2100 or temperatures will be a bazillion degrees hotter than it was in 1850 and it's all our fault.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Tuesday 21st January 14:58

[durbster]

stew-STR160 said:

No, I said climate change is real. 'Climate change' does not imply anthropogenic.

In principle I agree with the comments in the 5th report. However, the interpretation is where we clearly diverge.
So I'm a believer in climate change(not specifically anthropogenic) who doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus

Well, that's extremely confusing considering it's primarily a document explaining anthropogenic causes of climate change. Which comments do you agree with, specifically?

stew-STR160 said:

I believe you misunderstood what I said. The science is increasingly questioned, not accepted.

I wouldn't say it's increasingly questioned. There aren't many big unanswered questions left, frankly.

If you would pop your head out of the echo chamber for a moment, you'd see most of the world moved on from that stage a long time ago. They just want you to believe it's all on the verge of crashing down because that's what keeps you on the hook.

I agree it is and has been under intense scrutiny for decades, and yet has held up to all challenges. What do you think that means?

stew-STR160 said:

The 'scientists' who practice 'climate science' are under increased scrutiny because of their lack of actual knowledge or willful ignorance, predictions and results(or lack of) etc.

Does that include the scientists who wrote the IPCC comments you said you agree with?

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

But I'm curious about this. What is this viewpoint you're referring to, exactly?

The viewpoint held by the believers, mainstream media, activists, and so on, that we're all doomed, everything will be underwater by 2100 or temperatures will be a bazillion degrees hotter than it was in 1850 and it's all our fault.

Err, fair enough, although I'm not sure why you think anyone would "submit to" such a bizarre and series of claims you've made up.

[kerplunk]

Peak denial came and went with climategate and the putative 'pause' and cold sun theories - happy days!

Now we just have denial based on whether the world will end in 10 years

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

LongQ said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

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.

A good example of non-scholarly analysis - already out of date because other fire year data has now been added to the wiki table it was harvested from. The 2019/20 line is about half as tall as it should be. Then there's issues like temperate forest fires, savanna fires etc all cludged together. Not much use (to me that is - turbobloke's mileage-making definitely varies)

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st January 13:51

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st January 14:06

Well, you did ask about "wildfire" trends

Nope - wouldn't ask here.

Semantics.

However your response does beg the question about why you demean yourself by bothering to post anything on a thread that you seem to find valueless. Yet you have been posting for so long now ... is it just an addiction?

[deeps]

This is an interesting paper, I have quite a list that don't conform to the alleged consensus, should I list them in the science thread for discussion? Personally I think the politics of climate science is so intertwined that debate should stay on one thread.

Allmendinger said:

Knowledge about thermal radiation of the atmosphere is rich in hypotheses and theories but poor in empiric evidence. (snip)

There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Instead, it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, i.e. to say in all directions, before having induced a temperature enhancement. … This approach contradicts in many ways the conventional greenhouse theory: Firstly, the boundary processes at the Earth surface and at the lowest layer of the atmosphere are predominant, while the conventional greenhouse theory regards the whole atmosphere; and secondly—even more crucial—the radiation budget is solely determined by the air conditions of the atmosphere such as pressure and temperature while so-called “greenhouse gases” such as carbon-dioxide do not have the slightest influence on the climate. Besides, the atmosphere cannot really be compared to a greenhouse, not least due to the absence of a glass-roof which absorbs IR-radiation, and which inhibits considerable air convection.

Allmendinger, T.
(2018)

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.asp...

[durbster]

deeps said:

...I have quite a list that don't conform to the alleged consensus, should I list them in the science thread for discussion?

If you got your list from a website called notrickszone, please don't bother.

[durbster]

LongQ said:

Semantics.

However your response does beg the question about why you demean yourself by bothering to post anything on a thread that you seem to find valueless. Yet you have been posting for so long now ... is it just an addiction?

Misinformation is easily spread and can be dangerous. I'm grateful when people who properly understand the science post here to counter it.

[turbobloke]

Australian scientist Dr Jennifer Marohasy said:

We were warned in the report from the 1939 Royal Commission by Judge Leonard Stretton, and in the more than 18 major inquiries since, forests are potentially dangerous and explosive places. Fuel loads must be kept within acceptable limits.

Blaming the recent fires on climate change is to rewrite our temperature history, something the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been doing for some time.

[anonymous-user]

durbster said:

LongQ said:

Semantics.

However your response does beg the question about why you demean yourself by bothering to post anything on a thread that you seem to find valueless. Yet you have been posting for so long now ... is it just an addiction?

Misinformation is easily spread and can be dangerous. I'm grateful when people who properly understand the science post here to counter it.

Me too.

Most of the deniers have now gone from saying AGW is bks to conceding that it’s real and just arguing about the likely results and solutions, so it is actually doing some good.

It’s great when people that do actually have a clue pop in to pass on their knowledge, makes a nice change from the conspiracy theorists trying to change the scientific consensus from a car forum.

That’s what makes PHs great, people from different backgrounds coming and sharing their expertise. It’s a shame though when you have to wade through all these people with no real knowledge blagging and posting propaganda from advocacy blogs constantly or simply making stuff up or posting things they know aren’t true just to support a political world view.

[zygalski]

zygalski said:

Kawasicki said:

...though we probably have some effect and we should take logical measures to reduce that...

Exactly what I've been saying, and the stance any reasonable person should have, imo.

Case in point. A remarkable turnaround from a year or even 6 months ago and such a level-headed approach and change in tone should be applauded. Logic should always outweigh an inherent political bias.

[stew-STR160]

El stovey said:

durbster said:

LongQ said:

Semantics.

However your response does beg the question about why you demean yourself by bothering to post anything on a thread that you seem to find valueless. Yet you have been posting for so long now ... is it just an addiction?

Misinformation is easily spread and can be dangerous. I'm grateful when people who properly understand the science post here to counter it.

Most of the deniers have now gone from saying AGW is bks to conceding that it’s real and just arguing about the likely results and solutions, so it is actually doing some good.

I don't think that was ever the case though. Sure, a few might have said 'nothing to see here'. But the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified. And blaming it all on CO2 is a complete farce.

[zygalski]

stew-STR160 said:

...the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....

Yay! Another one.
The master will be most displeased when he reads this.

[stew-STR160]

zygalski said:

stew-STR160 said:

...the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....

Yay! Another one.
The master will be most displeased when he reads this.

Seriously...YET TO BE ACCURATELY QUANTIFIED.

You can stop your victory dance, troll.

[anonymous-user]

zygalski said:

stew-STR160 said:

I don't think that was ever the case though. Sure, a few might have said 'nothing to see here'. But the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....

Yay! Another one.
The master will be most displeased when he reads this.

He’s a bit grudging in his conceding about the AGW stuff though. Even turbobloke sometimes admits AGW is real. It’s like they became ideologically attached to their team years ago and still back each other up even though most people on here deep down actually believe in AGW now and hold positions pretty near to the IPCC. Yet they still bang on about others being believers.

It’s hard for them to keep ignoring the overwhelming weight of science for ever tbh.

[robinessex]

stew-STR160 said:

El stovey said:

durbster said:

LongQ said:

Semantics.

However your response does beg the question about why you demean yourself by bothering to post anything on a thread that you seem to find valueless. Yet you have been posting for so long now ... is it just an addiction?

Misinformation is easily spread and can be dangerous. I'm grateful when people who properly understand the science post here to counter it.

Most of the deniers have now gone from saying AGW is bks to conceding that it’s real and just arguing about the likely results and solutions, so it is actually doing some good.

I don't think that was ever the case though. Sure, a few might have said 'nothing to see here'. But the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified. And blaming it all on CO2 is a complete farce.

I acknowledge mankind is contributing CO2, after all, we do breathe the stuff out, to the atmosphere. Other things us humans do add a bit more, but we'll never be able to accurately quantify how much. Whether it has any effect on the completely useless 'average planet temperature', it is, at the best, unproven. I doubt that is actually a problem if it does anyway, the planet will cope fine. I do, however, think it's not worth the bother of worrying about it and causing massive upheaval to the way we live, energy supply etc., etc., and all the hysterical scaremongering. I wish I could live the next 50yrs to what happens if we manage to remover 0.0000036% of the atmosphere. F**** all I reckon.

[anonymous-user]

stew-STR160 said:

zygalski said:

stew-STR160 said:

...the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....

Yay! Another one.
The master will be most displeased when he reads this.

Seriously...YET TO BE ACCURATELY QUANTIFIED.

You can stop your victory dance, troll.

Oh oh, it’s like seeing an ex Scientologist defending some aspect of the cult.

Break free from the dogma and your past, you can do it. The world will make much more sense if you don’t irrationally believe everyone else is wrong or in on a conspiracy for wealth redistribution.