| General > General Technical Chat |
| Australia Under Fire Worst in Decades.. |
| << < (14/29) > >> |
| MT:
--- Quote from: nctnico on January 07, 2020, 09:25:17 pm ---There is just one thing to learn from all this: if you don't want your home to burn at some point then don't live in a friggin' forrest. Same goes for volcanos, earth quakes and tsunamis BTW. These are perfectly avoidable; don't live in a place prone to these kind of threats. --- End quote --- And an extension to that as i noted in the CA fire thread dig down a tank full of water and set up a sprinkler system on your house so those tiny glowing flakes can be taken out to prevent setting the house on fire a seen on many videos, while all trees around the house still green. |
| StillTrying:
--- Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:18:50 pm ---So how are you going to stop volcanoes, tsunamis, earth quakes, sand storms, siberian forest fires larger then Germany etc etc? --- End quote --- New taxes, seems to be the solution for every other problem. :) Which always end up in the hands of the already rich of course. --- Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:02:49 pm ---IT'S a FREKKING FINANCE SCAM! :) --- End quote --- Been obvious for years. :-X |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:18:50 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 09:16:31 pm --- --- Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:02:49 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 09:02:28 pm --- --- Quote from: Halcyon on January 07, 2020, 10:43:09 am ---The fuel loading has been increasing because of this cycle, year after year. "Fire seasons" are normal here but this was well overdue (by about 5 years) and little was done to mitigate it. Even the recommendations following Victoria's last severe fires weren't followed. The amount of fuel being added year after year hasn't increased, but the interval between it being removed (either by human intervention or a fire) has. --- End quote --- Fuel loads and management of them is a very political subject but a very important one that needs to be discussed in the context of these fires, it certainly has had a big impact on the result. But then you wander back off on your nonsense "argument" --- Quote from: Halcyon on January 07, 2020, 10:43:09 am ---The severity of these fires and the loss of homes were directly related to human inaction, nothing else. I shall reserve any future comments on this matter, as I see this thread getting de-railed and locked fairly soon. --- End quote --- Human inaction could include failing to act on climate change.... --- End quote --- You have to make up your mind on which one climate change. --- End quote --- Why? Fires have many factors affecting their outcomes, trying to distill it down to a single point is ridiculous. Trying to say climate change (or any one aspect of it) is the only thing that mattered is just as stupid as saying any one other thing was the most important point. Add to that the extreme non-linear nature of wild fires, where small changes can have enormous effects. --- End quote --- So how are you going to stop volcanoes, tsunamis, earth quakes, sand storms, siberian forest fires larger then Germany etc etc? --- End quote --- The discussion is fires, there are probably human activities which could change the risk/occurrences of those first 3 (nuclear weapons testing comes to mind) but to say there is nothing that can be done about reducing the risk of fires is just continuing your pointless "point scoring". More internet points for you! |
| MT:
--- Quote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 09:57:39 pm --- --- Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:18:50 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 09:16:31 pm --- --- Quote from: MT on January 07, 2020, 09:02:49 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on January 07, 2020, 09:02:28 pm --- --- Quote from: Halcyon on January 07, 2020, 10:43:09 am ---The fuel loading has been increasing because of this cycle, year after year. "Fire seasons" are normal here but this was well overdue (by about 5 years) and little was done to mitigate it. Even the recommendations following Victoria's last severe fires weren't followed. The amount of fuel being added year after year hasn't increased, but the interval between it being removed (either by human intervention or a fire) has. --- End quote --- Fuel loads and management of them is a very political subject but a very important one that needs to be discussed in the context of these fires, it certainly has had a big impact on the result. But then you wander back off on your nonsense "argument" --- Quote from: Halcyon on January 07, 2020, 10:43:09 am ---The severity of these fires and the loss of homes were directly related to human inaction, nothing else. I shall reserve any future comments on this matter, as I see this thread getting de-railed and locked fairly soon. --- End quote --- Human inaction could include failing to act on climate change.... --- End quote --- You have to make up your mind on which one climate change. --- End quote --- Why? Fires have many factors affecting their outcomes, trying to distill it down to a single point is ridiculous. Trying to say climate change (or any one aspect of it) is the only thing that mattered is just as stupid as saying any one other thing was the most important point. Add to that the extreme non-linear nature of wild fires, where small changes can have enormous effects. --- End quote --- So how are you going to stop volcanoes, tsunamis, earth quakes, sand storms, siberian forest fires larger then Germany etc etc? --- End quote --- The discussion is fires, there are probably human activities which could change the risk/occurrences of those first 3 (nuclear weapons testing comes to mind) but to say there is nothing that can be done about reducing the risk of fires is just continuing your pointless "point scoring". More internet points for you! --- End quote --- Well its you who claims the internet point: --- Quote ---Someone said: Human inaction could include failing to act on climate change... --- End quote --- |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: StillTrying on January 07, 2020, 12:10:46 pm ---Every time I look into AGW, I decide that CO2 increasing from 0.03% to 0.04% has nothing to do with it, or at least there's no positive feedback effect from that small CO2 change, perhaps I should be shot. >:D --- End quote --- The weight of modern scientific evidence suggests that doubling CO2 levels does cause an increase in global temperatures and there are positive feedback effects, such as snow melting, leaving bare dark rocks and ocean which soak up more heat from the sun and ice which contains dissolved greenhouse gasses to melt. What other things, which are currently backed up by modern science, do you think are BS? Do you believe in the flat earth, creationism or similar bollocks? Perhaps electrons are little fairies? --- Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2020, 03:54:56 pm --- --- 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. --- End quote --- Obviously the weather is making the fires worse, but it's impossible to pin it all down to climate change. Whilst temperatures continue to rise globally, natural and local variations will always exceed them. The weather will always balance itself out. When one region is very hot and dry, there will be another region anomalously cool and wet. As far as the current state of affairs in Australia is concerned, it's probably linked to the sudden stratospheric warming over Antarctica last year and a positive Indian Ocean Dipole. The flooding in East Africa and drought in Australia are opposite sides of the same coin. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50602971 The same thing occurs in other parts of the world too. The UK so far has had a mild winter, due to a positive North Atlantic Oscillation, but it's colder than normal in Iceland, parts of south eastern Europe and the Middle East. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/gpc-outlooks/ens-mean/nao-description Climate change will increase precipitation, as well as global temperatures, so a degree hotter in a drought or an extra 50mm rainfall in a storm can make all the difference, in some situations. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |