Thread Starter
TS
geepers

geepers

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
1,070
Location
Australia
There is big money to be made supplying fire crews and running suppression aircraft. The planes don't bring in much sitting on the tarmac.
Why else would people set fire to their own country unless just insane?
That is kind of a wild claim.

By now some folk will have heard this sad news.

'It’s just a ball of flames': Three USA air crew members die in C130 crash while fighting fires

This kind of aerial work is very hazardous given the low alt flying and restricted visibility around fires.


Most start the question with the wrong premise.
This is not even close to a record year.
That chart is misleading.

Area burnt in a season says little about the intensity of fires. Those large areas burnt in earlier seasons were grassland in central Australia. There are very few people in those locations and there was little damage to assets or people. For the 1974/75 fires it wasn't until satellite images revealed their extent that anybody noticed. They are in no way comparable to the high intensity forest fires that have occurred recently.

It's the difference between this:


and this:
 

jack97

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jul 7, 2017
Posts
803
There are very few people in those locations and there was little damage to assets or people.
Perhaps that is the crux of the issue, we have too many people living in regions where natural disasters will happen.
 

DanoT

RVer-Skier
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,207
Location
Sun Peaks B.C. in winter, Victoria B.C. in summer
Thread Starter
TS
geepers

geepers

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
1,070
Location
Australia
Perhaps that is the crux of the issue, we have too many people living in regions where natural disasters will happen.
Yeah, Jack, you are right. Best we abandon Australia. We'll be round your place on Tuesday. A spare room and the sofa ought to do it - there's only 25 million of us.

One of politicians, a former deputy Prime Minister no less, 'helpfully' pointed out that he'd never seen a concrete path burn. If he gets back in power I'm going to buy a cement plant.

30 years ago scientists at the CSIRO were asked what would happen to bush fires if the temperatures increased as predicted. They predicted that they would get much worse. And what happened to the temperature?

OzTempAnomoly.JPG


That's the trouble with scientists. They don't fight fair. They use proof, evidence and rational logic.
 

jack97

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jul 7, 2017
Posts
803
View attachment 91341

That's the trouble with scientists. They don't fight fair. They use proof, evidence and rational logic.
Set aside the hyperbole. Temperature records are prone to error, the quantization, area sampling and then you have to factor in urban heat island effect. Not all scientist agree with the fore-mention techniques to construct a regional average let alone a reconstruction dating back to 1910
 

James

Skiing the powder
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
9,232
That's the trouble with scientists. They don't fight fair. They use proof, evidence and rational logic.
They need some talk shows to yammer on all day, then lots of money to donate to politicians and lobby 24/7.
 
Thread Starter
TS
geepers

geepers

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
1,070
Location
Australia
Set aside the hyperbole. Temperature records are prone to error, the quantization, area sampling and then you have to factor in urban heat island effect. Not all scientist agree with the fore-mention techniques to construct a regional average let alone a reconstruction dating back to 1910
Maybe you've heard of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temp study.

Short background:
Prof Rob Muller and a bunch of maths whizz's at Berkeley were skeptical of the claimed global rise in temperatures. Heat islands and all that stuff. They received funding for a study - the Koch brothers, who aren't exactly supports of AGW, kicked in a good portion of the money.

You can read all about the outcomes here. They've continued their work - without the Koch brothers who didn't seem to like findings contradicting their views.

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.​
Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.​

Of course it's interesting to see the field work conducted by real scientists - as distinct from bloggers who don't use their real names. Here's an example. Sorry it's quite long and involved.


Short version:
The Earth is about 1/2 way (if we squint a bit) between the biggest and smallest axial tilt. Greenland is heading back to the North pole and less sunlight. It was getting colder for the last few thousand years and should still be getting colder. It isn't.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
8,420
We'll be round your place on Tuesday. A spare room and the sofa ought to do it - there's only 25 million of us.
Would you mind popping up to Wyoming and sharing with the Houston, TX flood evacuees? Terribly? Need the spare sofa for the East African locust swarm/famine refugees.
 

Wildbear

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
20
Location
Durango, CO
Yeah, Jack, you are right. Best we abandon Australia. We'll be round your place on Tuesday. A spare room and the sofa ought to do it - there's only 25 million of us.

One of politicians, a former deputy Prime Minister no less, 'helpfully' pointed out that he'd never seen a concrete path burn. If he gets back in power I'm going to buy a cement plant.

30 years ago scientists at the CSIRO were asked what would happen to bush fires if the temperatures increased as predicted. They predicted that they would get much worse. And what happened to the temperature?

View attachment 91341

That's the trouble with scientists. They don't fight fair. They use proof, evidence and rational logic.
EPyiMo7XsAs_6_o.png
EPyci8-XkAE92ex.jpeg.jpg
 

Wildbear

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
20
Location
Durango, CO
Maybe you've heard of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temp study.

Short background:
Prof Rob Muller and a bunch of maths whizz's at Berkeley were skeptical of the claimed global rise in temperatures. Heat islands and all that stuff. They received funding for a study - the Koch brothers, who aren't exactly supports of AGW, kicked in a good portion of the money.

You can read all about the outcomes here. They've continued their work - without the Koch brothers who didn't seem to like findings contradicting their views.

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.​
Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.​

Of course it's interesting to see the field work conducted by real scientists - as distinct from bloggers who don't use their real names. Here's an example. Sorry it's quite long and involved.


Short version:
The Earth is about 1/2 way (if we squint a bit) between the biggest and smallest axial tilt. Greenland is heading back to the North pole and less sunlight. It was getting colder for the last few thousand years and should still be getting colder. It isn't.
The Holocene Climate Optimum was much warmer than present at lower CO2. The mollusk Z. Cripsata was found 1000km further north than present showing water temps around Svalbard about 6degrees C above present.

Paper on another mollusk


CO2 follows temp....not vice versa.
 

Wildbear

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
20
Location
Durango, CO
Maybe you've heard of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temp study.

Short background:
Prof Rob Muller and a bunch of maths whizz's at Berkeley were skeptical of the claimed global rise in temperatures. Heat islands and all that stuff. They received funding for a study - the Koch brothers, who aren't exactly supports of AGW, kicked in a good portion of the money.

You can read all about the outcomes here. They've continued their work - without the Koch brothers who didn't seem to like findings contradicting their views.

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.​
Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.​

Of course it's interesting to see the field work conducted by real scientists - as distinct from bloggers who don't use their real names. Here's an example. Sorry it's quite long and involved.


Short version:
The Earth is about 1/2 way (if we squint a bit) between the biggest and smallest axial tilt. Greenland is heading back to the North pole and less sunlight. It was getting colder for the last few thousand years and should still be getting colder. It isn't.


For the last 425m years, CO2 and temperature (T) were uncorrelated 77.9% of the time. When there was a correlation, 60% were NEGATIVE (↑CO2 → T↓).

"Changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate." https://mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm…


Image
 

Wildbear

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
20
Location
Durango, CO
The Holocene Climate Optimum was much warmer than present at lower CO2. The mollusk Z. Cripsata was found 1000km further north than present showing water temps around Svalbard about 6degrees C above present.

Paper on another mollusk


CO2 follows temp....not vice versa.
Maybe you've heard of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temp study.

Short background:
Prof Rob Muller and a bunch of maths whizz's at Berkeley were skeptical of the claimed global rise in temperatures. Heat islands and all that stuff. They received funding for a study - the Koch brothers, who aren't exactly supports of AGW, kicked in a good portion of the money.

You can read all about the outcomes here. They've continued their work - without the Koch brothers who didn't seem to like findings contradicting their views.

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.​
Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.​

Of course it's interesting to see the field work conducted by real scientists - as distinct from bloggers who don't use their real names. Here's an example. Sorry it's quite long and involved.


Short version:
The Earth is about 1/2 way (if we squint a bit) between the biggest and smallest axial tilt. Greenland is heading back to the North pole and less sunlight. It was getting colder for the last few thousand years and should still be getting colder. It isn't.

A new (2020) reconstruction shows peak mean annual temperatures (14°C) were 7°C warmer than today (7°C, 2009-2017) ~7800 years ago, and that in the last 200 years temperatures have plummeted by ~3°C. Today's temperatures are the lowest of the Holocene. https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379119307905…


Image
 

Wildbear

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
20
Location
Durango, CO
Maybe you've heard of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temp study.

Short background:
Prof Rob Muller and a bunch of maths whizz's at Berkeley were skeptical of the claimed global rise in temperatures. Heat islands and all that stuff. They received funding for a study - the Koch brothers, who aren't exactly supports of AGW, kicked in a good portion of the money.

You can read all about the outcomes here. They've continued their work - without the Koch brothers who didn't seem to like findings contradicting their views.

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.​
Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.​

Of course it's interesting to see the field work conducted by real scientists - as distinct from bloggers who don't use their real names. Here's an example. Sorry it's quite long and involved.


Short version:
The Earth is about 1/2 way (if we squint a bit) between the biggest and smallest axial tilt. Greenland is heading back to the North pole and less sunlight. It was getting colder for the last few thousand years and should still be getting colder. It isn't.

A new study finds today's sea ice conditions are present 80% of the year in the northern Barents Sea, whereas during the Early Holocene (8-10,000 years ago) this region was sea ice-free (0%) or only "marginally" (5-15%) covered. Koseoglu, 2019 https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10026.1/15083/2019KOSEOGLU10419910PhD.pdf…


Image
 

Wildbear

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
20
Location
Durango, CO
:hug:
Yeah, Jack, you are right. Best we abandon Australia. We'll be round your place on Tuesday. A spare room and the sofa ought to do it - there's only 25 million of us.

One of politicians, a former deputy Prime Minister no less, 'helpfully' pointed out that he'd never seen a concrete path burn. If he gets back in power I'm going to buy a cement plant.

30 years ago scientists at the CSIRO were asked what would happen to bush fires if the temperatures increased as predicted. They predicted that they would get much worse. And what happened to the temperature?

View attachment 91341

That's the trouble with scientists. They don't fight fair. They use proof, evidence and rational logic.

It's always important to have a pancake in the morning....like this temp graph from the best temp stations in the world....USCRN has pristine siting away from urban heat influences.
Screenshot_20200205-200451_Samsung Internet.jpg
 

Wildbear

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
20
Location
Durango, CO
Yeah, Jack, you are right. Best we abandon Australia. We'll be round your place on Tuesday. A spare room and the sofa ought to do it - there's only 25 million of us.

One of politicians, a former deputy Prime Minister no less, 'helpfully' pointed out that he'd never seen a concrete path burn. If he gets back in power I'm going to buy a cement plant.

30 years ago scientists at the CSIRO were asked what would happen to bush fires if the temperatures increased as predicted. They predicted that they would get much worse. And what happened to the temperature?

View attachment 91341

That's the trouble with scientists. They don't fight fair. They use proof, evidence and rational logic.
Actually the trouble is selective use of science to push political narratives. When in fact climate science is NOT settled and people have essentially zero knowledge of climate history.


Today North Slope, Alaska is treeless tundra. 8000 yrs ago this region was rife with trees, horses, and species that today live many 100s of km south. The region was also warmer than now during the last ice age, when CO2 was 180 ppm.

Kuzmina et al., 2019 https://researchgate.net/profile/Alexey_Kotov2/publication/335956436_Late_Quaternary_insects_and_freshwater_invertebrates_of_the_Alaskan_North_Slope_and_paleoenvironmental_reconstructions_in_Arctic_Alaska/links/5d890a43458515cbd1b8e7e0/Late-Quaternary-insects-and-freshwater-invertebrates-of-the-Alaskan-North-Slope-and-paleoenvironmental-reconstructions-in-Arctic-Alaska.pdf…



Image

11:21 PM · Oct 7, 2019·Twitter Web App
 

James

Skiing the powder
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
9,232
Today North Slope, Alaska is treeless tundra. 8000 yrs ago this region was rife with trees, horses, and species that today live many 100s of km south.
The poles were in a different location 10,000 yrs ago.
We sort of figured out there’s only so much crap you can dump in rivers before lots of things die or it’s too polluted to swim. The ocean is big, but there’s only so much garbage you can put in that before there’s consequences.
How is the atmosphere any different?
We might as well develop new opportunities instead of playing a very slow Russian roulette.
 

Wildbear

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
20
Location
Durango, CO
The poles were in a different location 10,000 yrs ago.
We sort of figured out there’s only so much crap you can dump in rivers before lots of things die or it’s too polluted to swim. The ocean is big, but there’s only so much garbage you can put in that before there’s consequences.
How is the atmosphere any different?
We might as well develop new opportunities instead of playing a very slow Russian roulette.
The poles are currently moving rapidly:



CO2 isn't a pollutant. Plants love it

New paper:

https://nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12257-8.pdf…

74% of the globe's land area has undergone increased greening during 1981-2016, predominantly driven by elevated CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. The greening has, in turn, led to 12.4% net growth in the globe's carbon sink.


Image
 
Top