Oz is firing up early this year.

m1ot.jpg
 

Although these trends are consistent with projected impacts of climate change on FFDI, this study cannot separate the influence of climate change, if any, with that of natural variability. Copyright © 2012 Royal Meteorological Society
Click to expand...

Yes, I did see that. It is basically a non conclusion. I'm not sure what mechanism is available to separate the two, given that they are not easily distinguishable. However this chain is logical:

Extra heat is manifest in increased temperatures.
Higher temperatures cause increased desiccation and very dry soils.
Lack of moisture in the soil causes smaller plants to dry out and die. Larger plants drop leaves and bark.
Lack of rain results in increased fuel build up, especially if preceded by several wet seasons.
Extra heat plus extra fuel makes fires more likely.

Now, that chain may be nothing out of the ordinary but if we see it happening with increased frequency and with greater intensity and with greater areas of destruction, then it is reasonable to ask whether some other factor is at work.

Not only reasonable, but also very important.

We are about to enter another el Nino phase and the consequences of that are bad enough. Why would we risk making these natural cycles more extreme for future generations?
 
Now, that chain may be nothing out of the ordinary but if we see it happening with increased frequency and with greater intensity and with greater areas of destruction, then it is reasonable to ask whether some other factor is at work
Click to expand...
OK .... where is the increased frequency, greater intensity and greater destruction ? Is there anything other than the bleatings of the media or GoreAl to prove any of that?

On the other hand, there is plenty to suggest that there is nothing new happening, anywhere. For instance, a new paper, just published in Quaternary Science Reviews, finds four Alaskan glaciers are about the same size as during the Medieval Warm Period, supporting solar irradiance as the primary pacemaker for centennial-scale fluctuations of mid-latitude valley glaciers prior to the 20th century: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113003806
​


​
 

I'm not at all concerned about the Medieval Warm Period, nor even the Little Ice Age.
It's the future that concerns me. If it is a case of "que sera, sera" then so be it but if we as a species can moderate our behaviour for a better outcome then in the words of Capt Picard, "lay in a course" and "make it so".
 
I can quote similar expressions

uniformitarianism, in geology, the doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity as at present are sufficient to account for all geologic change. Uniformitarianism posits that natural agents now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity through immensely long periods of time
Click to expand...

Of course, James Hutton was not talking about impact of human activity on the landscape when he expressed this principle.

We seem to be arguing about different things, or at the very least, the same thing from different perspectives.
To clarify my point about the bush fires, I defer to Lenore Taylor who expresses it much better than I can.

Bushfires: Coalition deploys straw man against burning issue of climate change

Government is desperate to keep bushfires and climate change apart for fear its emissions reduction policy will be found wanting.

theguardian.com,
Thursday 24 October 2013


The Abbott government is desperately constructing a straw man to help it fight the potentially big political problem of rising public concern about climate change and scrutiny of its Direct Action policy.

The straw man is the contention that anyone making a perfectly reasonable and scientifically justifiable point – that climate change is likely to cause a higher prevalence of the weather conditions that pose a bushfire risk – has actually been making the unreasonable and scientifically unjustifiable point that climate change has caused a particular fire.

And once the straw man contention has been ridiculed, the Coalition quickly skips over the justifiable connection and contends that fires are “part of the Australian experience” and that nothing different is happening.

The straw man was wielded most recently against the executive secretary of the United Nations framework convention on climate change, Christiana Figueres, who said in an interview with CNN there was “absolutely” a link between climate change and bushfires.

She did not say that climate change causes bushfires. She did say climate change causes increasing heatwaves – in other words, bushfire weather. (And so say I, for that matter)

After Tony Abbott airily dismissed Figueres as “talking through her hat”, the environmnent minister, Greg Hunt, wielded the straw man defence against the UN executive in this interview on the BBC.

Hunt said he had spoken to Figueres and “she indicated clearly and strongly that she was not saying that these bushfires were caused by climate change … She felt that that had been misrepresented.” Whatever she said to Hunt, she wasn’t backing away from the idea of a connection between climate change and bushfire weather in a statement she subsequently issued, in which she said: “The IPCC’s conclusions are that unless deep and decisive action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the world will experience more extreme and more frequent weather events over the coming decades.

“In its earlier fourth assessment report released in 2007 the IPCC stated that: ‘Climate change is known to alter the likelihood of increased wildfire sizes and frequencies … while also inducing stress on trees that indirectly exacerbate disturbances. This suggests an increasing likelihood of more prevalent fire disturbances, as has recently been observed.’”

Rest of article here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ainst-burning-issue?google_editors_picks=true
Click to expand...
 
Even if you are a committed true believer in AGW, please take some time to read some of the articles I point to below ....... our current fires are nothing new, not more intense, ** not more frequent, not anything ..... they are just a fact of life in Australia and many other places.

** unless you consider Green interference

Here is some research (pages and pages of it) from Trove on historical occurrence of Australian bushfires in September and October:

Trove: Australian September Bushfires

TROVE: Australian October Bushfires

Here is a (very) small extract:

screenhunter_1718-oct-21-13-18.jpg


The link to climate change, to quote a very smart man, is "absolute crap". Some people are talking thru their hats.
 
[ramblerant]

Okay so the faithful are all clamouring that Tony Abbott kneel and worship the gods of Global Warming.

What exactly is that supposed to prove, whether he does or not??

What is the point of all this nyah nyah headline and cartoon posting?? What conceivable difference does it make that he is of the opinion that the panic hyperbole has overtaken the common sense approach of finding and funding adaptation rather than empty gestures?
... honestly now, so what? Just how far up the totem pole of world leaders do you think the clown is for his opinion to matter a damn?

The election's done and dusted.... get...over...it. This is a trivial personal politician hating thing, or is it? Maybe the climate thing really is thought about at that level, by people who can't be bothered to think deeper.

Would those terrified of climate change be so shallow as to settle for some self satisfaction that they have forced someone to recant common sense and declare that they have had a Greenalluja epiphany and seen a vision of Al Gore bestowing Utopia upon the Earth??

Is that all it's about? Really? omg. They just want some miracle to happen to prove they were right to have had faith in 'the science?'
But what are they 'right' about? The same thing 'climate skeptics' are 'right' about, that it will happen as it always has!

The point many miss is that the argument isn't about whether climate will change but over how long it will take and what we should do about ADAPTING to it!

Do they think that embracing 'the science' will be enough to stop it or something? Do they honestly trust a carbon tax to achieve that? Doh.

That smoke that's probably still smothering Sydney. How many industrial plants would it have taken to spew that much CO2 and pollutants into the air? How much would those bushfires have to be taxed to force them to reduce their emissions? Silly?... have to be to get the point across.

Imagine that the Greenpriests get to run the joint and tax CO2 at a grand a tonne? Would that stop the factory from emitting, or would it simply close the factory and clear the air? Is that the way to 'save the planet'? Would even zero human CO2 contribution reverse climate change?
To believe that is cutely naive at best, and dangerously deluded at worst.

Those who have bothered to think about climate change beyond the nyah nyah catchprases and trendiness must realise that this hyperbole that has been run along the lines of a religion, is a con to keep the deeper ramifications from sending the world into a real, physical panic. It's a control mechanism that gradually changes perceptions to accept things as 'good' that previously people would have gone to war over. It's working well in some places. We line up like robots to chant the greenechism and pretend to honour nature by dropping cans into the correct recycling bin. But you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

When they've taxed manufacturing to a standstill, what is the next move? C'mon, de beleeeevers have all 'the science' on climate change, they must know what comes next. No? Why? Because climatologists get grants to 'prove' it's happening, they don't get paid to know zot about coping with it so we don't get the full story.

What if that 'miracle' happens and all the windmills and mirrors and green technology actually works, and we still have food and some degree of non polluting manufacturing, then what? What if it gets hotter and drier anyway? What if the gum trees keep exploding and the oceans still rise and drown us in our beds as foretold by the government funded 'prophets'??

Gasp!! What if prayer and a carbon tax don't STOP it! aaaghh.

What's the fallback plan? By the time all those whizzbang windmills are pounding out enough power to run industry, and that will take a few generations, if ever, then the population of the world will have almost doubled!
Still got enough water to go around? Windmills all too busy powering desalination plants to have enough power left over to run your plasma TV? Still got a job? Still got a flash car? Still afford a roof over your head?
Double population = double consumers. Things are gonna get expensive.

How committed are people to this climate change thing? How 'fair dinkum' are they? How far beyond the recycling bin have they ventured to think?

If you believe that some politically and financially motivated carbon tax con is as far as you need to think about it then you are in for a big saaarprise. If you think that is the answer to reducing bush fire risk then you are crazy. If you think the population won't increase faster than carbon emissions can be reduced then you are simply not paying attention.

Why diddle about? If you want to stop people getting burnt out in the Blue Mtns every year, then stop people building houses in the Blue Mtns! Or clear fell the gum trees and hope to C that some other form of vegetation can survive up there instead. That's 'climate action!'

If you want to halve carbon emissions then halve the population! Who's gonna line up first to have their grandkids neutered?
That's how you stop 'anthropogenic climate change'!

If climate activists are convinced that this climate phase is caused anthropogenically then why don't they advocate treating the cause instead of taxing the symptom? If humans caused it then 'stop' humans! They're the ones 'emitting' that evil CO2. Right!?

Put up or shut up.

Too harsh? Then batten down your hatches and carry on praying and taxing, but do yourselves a favour and stop believing that merely paying lip service to 'the science' and denouncing skeptics/heretics is sufficient for you to contribute.

Let's hear how far you are really willing to go for your faith in 'the science.'
[/ramblerant]

... yes it's Darth Vader day here.

Have a visitor imminent so any future absence from conflict on this front is no indication that I have ceased hostilities okay?
 
Yeah, yeah, Di.

I agree with you on one thing.
This whole debate is underpinned by politics.
If this were not true then real action would have been taken decades ago when it might have made a real difference.
 
Warrigal said:
Yeah, yeah, Di.

I agree with you on one thing.
This whole debate is underpinned by politics.
If this were not true then real action would have been taken decades ago when it might have made a real difference.
Click to expand...
Were you advocating pumping more GHGs into the atmosphere - to keep us warm - in the late 1960s, early 1070s when Time published this cover?

1101731203_400.jpg
 
Warrigal said:
Our Prime Minister is a master of logic on this topic.

Click to expand...
WOW !! I bow to a superior intellect. Such a brilliant argument. :lofl:

Can I get a contact name so I can congratulate the author or will you pass on this (below) from my earlier post? Thanks.
Even if you are a committed true believer in AGW, please take some time to read some of the articles I point to below ....... our current fires are nothing new, not more intense, ** not more frequent, not anything ..... they are just a fact of life in Australia and many other places.

** unless you consider Green interference

Here is some research (pages and pages of it) from Trove on historical occurrence of Australian bushfires in September and October:

Trove: Australian September Bushfires

TROVE: Australian October Bushfires

Here is a (very) small extract:

screenhunter_1718-oct-21-13-18.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I've been trying to extract a series of dates from the newspaper extracts you have posted but I have no way of knowing how severe each reported fire was. Also some events seem to be reported twice.

How many would compare to the fires singled out by our PM, for instance?

I have graphed the dates he mentioned and it is a very interesting linear graph, pointing towards ever diminishing time gaps between major (as in catastrophic) fire events.

Paranoid ? No.
Fixated ? Perhaps.
 
Does the diminishing gaps between noteworthy fires correlate to the increasing numbers of Green Councils and Government officials being elected? Perhaps it's increasing at the inverse rate of areas which are not now permitted to be burnt off regularly?? Just wonderin'.
 
Sorry, but Australian weather records are a mess, unreliable and ...... well, worthless.
Click to expand...
That's your standard response to anything that does not agree with your ideology but you are happy to post anecdotal newspaper reports from colonial times. Go figure.
 
Ummmm. Will houses built under gum trees burn down more or less often depending on who wins this World Graphbattle Championship? Or would there be none burning down at all if they simply stopped building them under gum trees?

Japan just got splashed with another tsunami. Now should we spend the next few years arguing what caused the apparent increasing frequency of tsunamis relevant to the last millenium, or devise a plan to convince Japanese people to stop building at sea level?

Which would be the more productive use of brain power and time?
Mmmmm, lemme think.... thinking...thinking...thinking.... nup, have to get back to ya, can't find a graph.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top