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?
Most start the question with the wrong premise.
This is not even close to a record year.
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.
View attachment 91341
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.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
WOW!!!that is a picture worth a thousand wordsThis s a powerful image.
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.
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.
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 yearsBerkeley 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.
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 yearsBerkeley 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
High Arctic Mytilus spp.: occurrence, distribution and history of dispersal - Polar Biology
Many marine species are known to change their distribution in response to changing climatic conditions. One such example is the blue mussel Mytilus spp., spreading northward coincident with an increase in ocean temperatures. On Svalbard, the first living specimens of Mytilus spp. were discovered...link.springer.com
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 yearsBerkeley 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.
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 yearsBerkeley 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.
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.
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.
The poles were in a different location 10,000 yrs ago.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.