Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

Bush fire risk increased massively due to climate change says scientific report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-517...

Complete bks. If this is an indicator of the degree of intelligence of a 'scientist' we're all doomed. I've said it elsewhere, a temperature rise of few degrees in an already hot country is not going to make the trees spontaneously combust. Timber doesn't do that until it gets to 260 Degree C. Ultimately, it's the humidity that determines the combustibility of wood, which is independent of temperature. TIMBER NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. Nature usually provides this by lightning strikes, (compost heaps have been known to smolder, and haystacks in the past have ignited) the only other source is human, either deliberately, or accidentally. When I initially read this, I thought I'd do my own experiment. Stuck some nice bits of very dry (indoor stores) wood under a lamp in my shed. Temp 65 Degree C. It's been there 3 days now. No signs of combustion.

[LittleBigPlanet]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Bush fire risk increased massively due to climate change says scientific report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-517...

Complete bks. If this is an indicator of the degree of intelligence of a 'scientist' we're all doomed. I've said it elsewhere, a temperature rise of few degrees in an already hot country is not going to make the trees spontaneously combust. Timber doesn't do that until it gets to 260 Degree C. Ultimately, it's the humidity that determines the combustibility of wood, which is independent of temperature. TIMBER NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. Nature usually provides this by lightning strikes, (compost heaps have been known to smolder, and haystacks in the past have ignited) the only other source is human, either deliberately, or accidentally. When I initially read this, I thought I'd do my own experiment. Stuck some nice bits of very dry (indoor stores) wood under a lamp in my shed. Temp 65 Degree C. It's been there 3 days now. No signs of combustion.

The scientific community certainly misses your insightful contributions, Robin.

A few things:
- The UK's Climate Change Risk Assessment cites wildfire as a risk but recognises that "...the relationship is complex because wildfire in the UK is usually caused by human actions and the severity is related to other risk factors that influence the fuel load and spread of fire, notably vegetation (type, age, dry matter, deadwood etc.), land management and landscape structure." (p80 here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/...
- An increase in wildfire incidences can be seen in years with extended summer droughts (see 1976 and 1995)
- Wildfire risk is likely to increase, particularly in the south and east (and north), due to the high presence of contiguous areas of heathland and conifer, together with high population densities and critical infrastructure
- Some tree diseases (e.g. Dothistroma Needle Blight) also directly contribute to increased wildfire risk due to more fuel being available from the shedded needles and openess of the crown.

The UK's third CCRA is currently being written and there have been recent calls for evidence, I suggest you draft an email with your 'man in a shed' example and send this off.

[robinessex]

LittleBigPlanet said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Bush fire risk increased massively due to climate change says scientific report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-517...

Complete bks. If this is an indicator of the degree of intelligence of a 'scientist' we're all doomed. I've said it elsewhere, a temperature rise of few degrees in an already hot country is not going to make the trees spontaneously combust. Timber doesn't do that until it gets to 260 Degree C. Ultimately, it's the humidity that determines the combustibility of wood, which is independent of temperature. TIMBER NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. Nature usually provides this by lightning strikes, (compost heaps have been known to smolder, and haystacks in the past have ignited) the only other source is human, either deliberately, or accidentally. When I initially read this, I thought I'd do my own experiment. Stuck some nice bits of very dry (indoor stores) wood under a lamp in my shed. Temp 65 Degree C. It's been there 3 days now. No signs of combustion.

The scientific community certainly misses your insightful contributions, Robin.

A few things:
- The UK's Climate Change Risk Assessment cites wildfire as a risk but recognises that "...the relationship is complex because wildfire in the UK is usually caused by human actions and the severity is related to other risk factors that influence the fuel load and spread of fire, notably vegetation (type, age, dry matter, deadwood etc.), land management and landscape structure." (p80 here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/...
- An increase in wildfire incidences can be seen in years with extended summer droughts (see 1976 and 1995)
- Wildfire risk is likely to increase, particularly in the south and east (and north), due to the high presence of contiguous areas of heathland and conifer, together with high population densities and critical infrastructure
- Some tree diseases (e.g. Dothistroma Needle Blight) also directly contribute to increased wildfire risk due to more fuel being available from the shedded needles and openess of the crown.

The UK's third CCRA is currently being written and there have been recent calls for evidence, I suggest you draft an email with your 'man in a shed' example and send this off.

Forget the above, it's all conjecture, assumptions, and bullst.

I'll repeat what I said, Timber doesn't spontaneously combust if the temperature rises a few degrees. Can you prove/show otherwise, you don't need a Phd in something to understand something so fundamentally basic to the issue?

[Gadgetmac]

LittleBigPlanet said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Bush fire risk increased massively due to climate change says scientific report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-517...

Complete bks. If this is an indicator of the degree of intelligence of a 'scientist' we're all doomed. I've said it elsewhere, a temperature rise of few degrees in an already hot country is not going to make the trees spontaneously combust. Timber doesn't do that until it gets to 260 Degree C. Ultimately, it's the humidity that determines the combustibility of wood, which is independent of temperature. TIMBER NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. Nature usually provides this by lightning strikes, (compost heaps have been known to smolder, and haystacks in the past have ignited) the only other source is human, either deliberately, or accidentally. When I initially read this, I thought I'd do my own experiment. Stuck some nice bits of very dry (indoor stores) wood under a lamp in my shed. Temp 65 Degree C. It's been there 3 days now. No signs of combustion.

The scientific community certainly misses your insightful contributions, Robin.

A few things:
- The UK's Climate Change Risk Assessment cites wildfire as a risk but recognises that "...the relationship is complex because wildfire in the UK is usually caused by human actions and the severity is related to other risk factors that influence the fuel load and spread of fire, notably vegetation (type, age, dry matter, deadwood etc.), land management and landscape structure." (p80 here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/...
- An increase in wildfire incidences can be seen in years with extended summer droughts (see 1976 and 1995)
- Wildfire risk is likely to increase, particularly in the south and east (and north), due to the high presence of contiguous areas of heathland and conifer, together with high population densities and critical infrastructure
- Some tree diseases (e.g. Dothistroma Needle Blight) also directly contribute to increased wildfire risk due to more fuel being available from the shedded needles and openess of the crown.

The UK's third CCRA is currently being written and there have been recent calls for evidence, I suggest you draft an email with your 'man in a shed' example and send this off.

Every post from Robin starts off with the phrase "complete bks" before he goes on to give us all his armchair scientists opinion.

BTW it was 17 scientists who had input to that report not one scientist.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 5th March 09:49

[LittleBigPlanet]

robinessex said:

LittleBigPlanet said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Bush fire risk increased massively due to climate change says scientific report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-517...

Complete bks. If this is an indicator of the degree of intelligence of a 'scientist' we're all doomed. I've said it elsewhere, a temperature rise of few degrees in an already hot country is not going to make the trees spontaneously combust. Timber doesn't do that until it gets to 260 Degree C. Ultimately, it's the humidity that determines the combustibility of wood, which is independent of temperature. TIMBER NEEDS AN IGNITION SOURCE. Nature usually provides this by lightning strikes, (compost heaps have been known to smolder, and haystacks in the past have ignited) the only other source is human, either deliberately, or accidentally. When I initially read this, I thought I'd do my own experiment. Stuck some nice bits of very dry (indoor stores) wood under a lamp in my shed. Temp 65 Degree C. It's been there 3 days now. No signs of combustion.

The scientific community certainly misses your insightful contributions, Robin.

A few things:
- The UK's Climate Change Risk Assessment cites wildfire as a risk but recognises that "...the relationship is complex because wildfire in the UK is usually caused by human actions and the severity is related to other risk factors that influence the fuel load and spread of fire, notably vegetation (type, age, dry matter, deadwood etc.), land management and landscape structure." (p80 here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/...
- An increase in wildfire incidences can be seen in years with extended summer droughts (see 1976 and 1995)
- Wildfire risk is likely to increase, particularly in the south and east (and north), due to the high presence of contiguous areas of heathland and conifer, together with high population densities and critical infrastructure
- Some tree diseases (e.g. Dothistroma Needle Blight) also directly contribute to increased wildfire risk due to more fuel being available from the shedded needles and openess of the crown.

The UK's third CCRA is currently being written and there have been recent calls for evidence, I suggest you draft an email with your 'man in a shed' example and send this off.

Forget the above, it's all conjecture, assumptions, and bullst.

I'll repeat what I said, Timber doesn't spontaneously combust if the temperature rises a few degrees. Can you prove/show otherwise, you don't need a Phd in something to understand something so fundamentally basic to the issue?

No one is disputing the combustibility of timber, I'm struggling to follow your thought process - where has someone made this claim? Choosing to freely dismiss information based upon your own beliefs is more than a little hypocritical but I don't expect you to recognise this (there are plenty of incidences in your post history of this).

The above merely reinforces why people choose not to engage in a discussion with you on this topic. I've even gone against my own assertion not to entertain your ramblings by responding above yet arrived at the same outcome (again).

[robinessex]

This is a scientific posting. Keep to the science. FACT. Timber ignites at 260 Deg C. Max planet temperature ever is 56.7 Deg C. Do I need to point out the bloody obvious? Believers are always telling us it's the science that matters. Here it's proved by a bit of science that the above posting contains and is 'pseudoscience' i.e. waffle, complete rubbish. A slight temperature rise can't make fires 30% more likely, another rubbish claim by the CC believers.

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 5th March 10:26

[Gadgetmac]

Full report from 18 scientists from many countries here:

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content...

[LongQ]

The problem with Eucalyptus relates to the way it has evolved with its survival and success somewhat depended on fire for reproduction, etc.

Its natural success in Australia was no doubt dependent on the right conditions existing for the last several thousand years - maybe longer.

A 30% increase in the risk, even if correct, is really not that significant in the context of the frequency of major fires in Australia. If, for example, it means that you get huge fires every 7 years instead of every 10 (a VERY simplistic take on 30% increase) it will still be costly and annoying for anyone living in an "at risk" area in property that they might wish to occupy for more than a decade anyway.

The equivalent UK risk is flooding - especially if living on a flood plain or in a location prone to flash floods.

Presumably people who know about the risks choose the locations based on the expectation that the risk can be managed and that the required management can and will be applied. There is a chance that they may be wrong in the long term due to decisions beyond their control that seemed unlikely to be made when they committed to their choice.

Those that don't know about the risk? That would take us off into a wide ranging discussion about things largely non-scientific.

So "Science" says - these are gum trees. They create a lot of dry biomass that does not rot readily. They also release a lot of relatively volatile "oils" that burn nicely and they consume whatever moisture they can locally to ensure that any other nearby growth is likely to be rather dry and act nicely as what we humans would call 'kindling'.

All of that is part of their reproduction cycle.

Despite knowing that humans decide to go and live amongst them expecting long term habitation and investing accordingly.

When local 'managers' find they have failed to deliver the controls that people expect (but will likely ignore anyway at least some of the time) they will look for explanations for their failed hopes and attempts to deliver them. Blame games don't go down well or end well but a shared, anonymous "actor" will be fine. "Climate Change" can be that actor - thus making everyone around the world carry the blame.

Once in a while "It is what it is" becomes a suitable phrase to describe a situation. The fix, in the Australian context, would be to segregate the people and the flora.

Better, given the chaos that the smoke from naturally created fires still brings to the global "climate pollution" cause, go ahead and eliminate the trees. Or find a way to manage the weather and so eliminate the potential for natural combustion. That, of course, might then require some genetic modification of the trees to enable their survival in a changed, fire free world. I'm sure Science could do at least something about that.

[jshell]

LittleBigPlanet said:

That's all bullst. I am an engineer that ran stress models and know more about science than any climate scientist. I only deal in facts because that's science. I also refuse to believe the credentials of these people, they make assertions based on assumptions that they cannot possibly understand (have they not heard of chaos theory?). However, I understand it. More fool them and all those that do not see this for what it is.

Did that pretty much cover it?

I think Robin should stick to Forex trading.

They've got a ready made answer so had to come up with an agenda-fitting, pay-day question.

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

Full report from 18 scientists from many countries here:

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content...

Thanks for that. Searched for the bit where it says timber will spontaneously combust at X Degrees. Must have missed it "!! Found the Fire Index of course, which further searching it's based on the conditions that determine how bad a fire will be once it's started, and how likely it will ignite if an ignition source is introduced. No mention of temperature there causing spontaneous combustion though. The 30% is not the chance of a fire starting, it's the conditions once alight makes the fire 30% worse, and it's not the temperature that's the factor, it's HUMIDITY. The thing that makes wood dry, and more inflammable.

[Silkyskills]

robinessex said:

Thanks for that. Searched for the bit where it says timber will spontaneously combust at X Degrees. Must have missed it "!! Found the Fire Index of course, which further searching it's based on the conditions that determine how bad a fire will be once it's started, and how likely it will ignite if an ignition source is introduced. No mention of temperature there causing spontaneous combustion though. The 30% is not the chance of a fire starting, it's the conditions once alight makes the fire 30% worse, and it's not the temperature that's the factor, it's HUMIDITY. The thing that makes wood dry, and more inflammable.

I've just read that report and the following conclusions arrived at by the scientists jump out at me:

"Although we clearly identify a connection between climate change and fire weather."

"We find that the probability of extreme heat has increased by at least a factor two...Commensurate with this we find a significant increase in the risk of fire weather as severe or worse as observed in 2019/20 by at least 30%. Both for extreme heat and fire weather we think the true chance in probability is likely much higher due to the model deficiencies."

So they link Climate Change with Fire Weather and then find that the risk of Fire Weather got 30% worse in 2019.

That's the risk of fire weather not fires getting 30% worse once alight.

[stew-STR160]

I know some of the faithful will not even bother to look considering the source, but I'd love to hear their defense over this-

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/calculating...

[dickymint]

Silkyskills said:

robinessex said:

Thanks for that. Searched for the bit where it says timber will spontaneously combust at X Degrees. Must have missed it "!! Found the Fire Index of course, which further searching it's based on the conditions that determine how bad a fire will be once it's started, and how likely it will ignite if an ignition source is introduced. No mention of temperature there causing spontaneous combustion though. The 30% is not the chance of a fire starting, it's the conditions once alight makes the fire 30% worse, and it's not the temperature that's the factor, it's HUMIDITY. The thing that makes wood dry, and more inflammable.

I've just read that report and the following conclusions arrived at by the scientists jump out at me:

"Although we clearly identify a connection between climate change and fire weather."

"We find that the probability of extreme heat has increased by at least a factor two...Commensurate with this we find a significant increase in the risk of fire weather as severe or worse as observed in 2019/20 by at least 30%. Both for extreme heat and fire weather we think the true chance in probability is likely much higher due to the model deficiencies."

So they link Climate Change with Fire Weather and then find that the risk of Fire Weather got 30% worse in 2019.

That's the risk of fire weather not fires getting 30% worse once alight.

What jumped out at me was the final para in the conclusions............

"Although we clearly identify a connection between climate change and fire weather and ascertain a lower bound, we also
find, in agreement with other studies, that we need more understanding of the biases in climate models and their resolution before we can make a more quantitative statement of how strong the connection is and how it will evolve in the future"

Which says to me 'the models' are ste and can we have some more funding please

[jshell]

stew-STR160 said:

I know some of the faithful will not even bother to look considering the source, but I'd love to hear their defense over this-

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/calculating...

They always shoot the messenger: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony...

You're wasting your time!

[stew-STR160]

jshell said:

stew-STR160 said:

I know some of the faithful will not even bother to look considering the source, but I'd love to hear their defense over this-

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/calculating...

They always shoot the messenger: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony...

You're wasting your time!

I know...but sometimes I have hope.

[jshell]

stew-STR160 said:

jshell said:

stew-STR160 said:

I know some of the faithful will not even bother to look considering the source, but I'd love to hear their defense over this-

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/calculating...

They always shoot the messenger: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony...

You're wasting your time!

I know...but sometimes I have hope.

Consider the contributors to the thread....

[Gadgetmac]

jshell said:

They always shoot the messenger: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony...

That's a cracking read, thank you

Who knew the truth could be so funny.

[Gadgetmac]

jshell said:

stew-STR160 said:

jshell said:

stew-STR160 said:

I know some of the faithful will not even bother to look considering the source, but I'd love to hear their defense over this-

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/calculating...

They always shoot the messenger: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony...

You're wasting your time!

I know...but sometimes I have hope.

Consider the contributors to the thread....

Exactly.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

jshell said:

stew-STR160 said:

jshell said:

stew-STR160 said:

I know some of the faithful will not even bother to look considering the source, but I'd love to hear their defense over this-

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/calculating...

They always shoot the messenger: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony...

You're wasting your time!

I know...but sometimes I have hope.

Consider the contributors to the thread....

Exactly.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

jshell said:

stew-STR160 said:

jshell said:

stew-STR160 said:

I know some of the faithful will not even bother to look considering the source, but I'd love to hear their defense over this-

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/calculating...

They always shoot the messenger: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony...

You're wasting your time!

I know...but sometimes I have hope.

Consider the contributors to the thread....

Exactly.

Thanks for the confirmation.

My pleasure.