| General > General Technical Chat |
| Australia Under Fire Worst in Decades.. |
| << < (10/29) > >> |
| GeorgeOfTheJungle:
For "Australian bush fires of January 1857, 1909 and 1939" jump to 2m11s: |
| SerieZ:
Thanks for all the Insights it was very helpful to shine some light on the matter for me. :-+ --- Quote from: gabinetex on January 07, 2020, 02:56:32 pm --- --- Quote from: coppice on January 07, 2020, 12:34:38 pm --- In practice these days science is about keeping the grants flowing. [...]. Nothing can be trusted in the modern world. [...] --- End quote --- Yeah, f*ck science. In Youtube we trust. --- End quote --- That is not what he is saying and your implication is not helpful at all. He has a point in what much of what is called "Science" today lacks one fundamental thing: Repeatability. Just look at what calls itself Science these days with all the SJW type of Social Studies and questionable peer reviews. It is a Problem. Also: Question Authority (or don't) |
| donotdespisethesnake:
--- Quote from: VK3DRB on January 07, 2020, 11:41:00 am ---The difference now and 10 years ago is there are more people living in these bush fire prone areas. --- End quote --- You hit the nail on the head here. While climate change, as a background factor, is certainly something, the fact is more people are living in areas which previously had natural fire cycles. When there was no people there, regular fires are not really an issue. When people move in, they try to "manage" the environment, i.e. prevent small fires which lead to a build up of fuel. That buildup needs to be managed, at cost. When a drought + heatwave hits, the fires become catastrophic. Similar thing happens with flooding. People move into low lying, flood prone areas. They then try to manage small floods by channeling water flows at a local level. This tends to make the problem worse downstream. When you get a heavy rain season, the flooding becomes catastrophic. Malthus writing in 1798, pretty much had it right. Except that 99% of the wealth we generate goes into the hands of 1%, who of course can afford not to care about the other 99%. |
| donotdespisethesnake:
--- Quote from: SerieZ on January 07, 2020, 03:27:26 pm ---He has a point in what much of what is called "Science" today lacks one fundamental thing: Repeatability. Just look at what calls itself Science these days with all the SJW type of Social Studies and questionable peer reviews. It is a Problem. --- End quote --- Climate science is not Social Studies, so the point is irrelevant. As for repeatability: we have one Earth. How many times should we run this experiment to determine if climate change is a problem? |
| tom66:
--- Quote from: coppice on January 07, 2020, 12:34:38 pm ---In practice these days science is about keeping the grants flowing. Everything else is just papers produced to keep up the cross-citations, to keep the grants flowing. Nothing can be trusted in the modern world. Nothing could ever be trusted until it was extensively replicated, but replication studies are a rarity these days because they are systematically suppressed. --- End quote --- This is just wrong. And frankly people on this forum should know better. You all benefit from the outcomes of science and engineering; it is not just a circle jerk for grant money. Science is continuously replicating and testing existing as well as new hypotheses. We know: - CO2 has a warming effect on the planet, that an increase of 0.03% to 0.046% (by ~2030) seems negligible, but in fact is 50%. - These things can be modeled by an amateur in a real greenhouse at higher concentrations. You can measure the forcing effect by testing this in a lab. You can see the effect by observing microclimates. - Humans emit ~40 GtCO2e annually, and we can roughly calculate the amount of CO2e required to increase that concentration to higher levels (it's approx 600 GtCO2e, so we have about 15 years left business-as-usual) - We know from models and historical records what will likely happen if we go up 50% increase in CO2, we also know what has happened in the last ~70 yrs. - We are *potentially* beginning to feel the effects of a <1'C rise, but we are very likely to feel the effects of a 2C or beyond rise. Corollary: - 100ppm of carbon monoxide is a tiny amount of gas, but is enough to kill a human within ~4 hours of exposure. - Just because the measure of CO2 in the atmosphere is "only 0.04%" does not mean that CO2 has no effect - would you tell the person who died from CO poisoning of 100ppm that it was all a conspiracy? - While global warming may not actually directly CAUSE the fires, it can increase the LIKELIHOOD of them. While some people can smoke cigarettes for 50 years and not get lung cancer, smoking increases the likelihood of lung cancer. Also, I find it really quite funny that people keep chanting on about how this is some grand conspiracy, when actually it seems that the majority of world governments (bar the odd microstate) don't want to actually take any action. Not a particularly good conspiracy. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |