What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
HarryStotle:
No, more like its bound to be hotter and drier with all those fires burning. Ergo, to claim the hotter and drier air is the cause of the fires, when at least some is the result of the fires does make sense.
Click to expand...
As I said, your logic is inescapable. All those fires burning wetlands is causing the drought! All those flames are causing record temperatures! Brilliant!
Click to expand...
Now you are being disingenuous. You do understand that drought is not merely dry air? And you do understand that fires could move the ambient air temperatures up several degrees that might tip them over the standing records?
Click to expand...
Of course. We’re all kicking ourselves that we hadn’t thought that the fires were causing the conditions and not the other way around. Well when I say kicking ourselves I mean it’s more a mixture of laughter and confusion. Confusion as in ‘C’mon Freddy. You just made that up, mate. You don’t seriously expect us to believe someone said that’.

I had to show them. ‘Look, he said it twice!’
 
Freddy said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
HarryStotle:
No, more like its bound to be hotter and drier with all those fires burning. Ergo, to claim the hotter and drier air is the cause of the fires, when at least some is the result of the fires does make sense.
Click to expand...
As I said, your logic is inescapable. All those fires burning wetlands is causing the drought! All those flames are causing record temperatures! Brilliant!
Click to expand...
Now you are being disingenuous. You do understand that drought is not merely dry air? And you do understand that fires could move the ambient air temperatures up several degrees that might tip them over the standing records?
Click to expand...
Of course. We’re all kicking ourselves that we hadn’t thought that the fires were causing the conditions and not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the point is too subtle for you to grasp.

There is a difference between “causing the conditions” and exacerbating them. Hey, I tried.
 
Ender said:
40.png
Freddy:
We are experiencing some of the worst bush fires in living memory because of the record high temperatures and the worst drought ever.
Click to expand...
You may well be experiencing the worst fires in living memory, but it isn’t because of droughts, those have been decreasing world wide for the last 30 years, a fact that applies to Australia as well.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If CO2 is causing a problem it’s because it promotes plant growth resulting in greater amounts of fuel…which come to think of it wouldn’t be a problem if greens weren’t so adamantly opposed to clearing it out. California and Australia have the same problem and for the same reason, and that reason has nothing whatever to do with climate change.
Click to expand...
We might also assume that several years with much better than average rainfall would spur prolific growth, followed by a dry year or two could create ideal conditions for fire with a high fuel load.

Unfortunately, the graph above is for all of Australia, so more localized graphs would provide better evidence, but from my reading, 2013-2014 was the worst season on record for fires. The graph above shows 2010-2012 as having been high rainfall seasons, 2013 as dry. Unfortunately 2014 doesn’t appear on the graph.

2008-9 was also a bad season as was 2003 when almost “70% of the Australian Capital Territory’s (ACT) pastures, pine plantations, and nature parks were severely damaged.”

2003, it appears from the graph, was one particularly dry year that followed about 5 years of rainy summers according to your graph.

But, hey, why would we want to look at particulars to uncover the complexity of causes when we have at hand one simplistic, all-purpose, cause that requires little to no thinking. And it is very convincing for the masses worked up into a terrible frenzy about the end of the world as we know it.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
HarryStotle:
No, more like its bound to be hotter and drier with all those fires burning. Ergo, to claim the hotter and drier air is the cause of the fires, when at least some is the result of the fires does make sense.
Click to expand...
As I said, your logic is inescapable. All those fires burning wetlands is causing the drought! All those flames are causing record temperatures! Brilliant!
Click to expand...
Now you are being disingenuous. You do understand that drought is not merely dry air? And you do understand that fires could move the ambient air temperatures up several degrees that might tip them over the standing records?
Click to expand...
Of course. We’re all kicking ourselves that we hadn’t thought that the fires were causing the conditions and not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the point is too subtle for you to grasp.

There is a difference between “causing the conditions” and exacerbating them. Hey, I tried.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The drought is a record because of the bush fires. The temperatures are breaking records because of the bush fires. It all fits together so well. Genius.
 
Freddy said:
Yeah. The drought is a record because of the bush fires. The temperatures are breaking records because of the bush fires. It all fits together so well. Genius.
Click to expand...
The fires are devastating because of political decisions resulting in poor forest management, not because of CO2 and “global warming”.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Australian farmers who have cleared their land have been hit with enormous fines (hundreds of thousands of dollars), not only those who were concerned about fires but even those harvesting their own land to feed their starving cattle.

It is green politicians who are responsible for the devastating fires, not global warming.
 
The total area burned across NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania has now reached 8.4m hectares – an area larger than Scotland. At least 25 people have been killed, including three volunteer firefighters, and thousands of homes destroyed.

In NSW alone, 4.9m hectares burned was the largest area destroyed in the state since records began, Associate Professor Owen Price from the University of Wollongong said.

As well as setting a record for area burned, Price said this year’s fires were burning through a large amount of forest, rather than grasslands.

This has made the current fires more devastating, harder to fight and more dangerous to people and to wildlife, he told Guardian Australia.

“The 1974 fires were 4.5m, and that was mostly in the arid and semi-arid grasslands,” Price said. “The actual impact of that was far less. What we’re talking about here is forest fire.

“In forest, the fires are far more intense, they produce far more smoke, they burn far more material, so there is a bigger greenhouse gas output and they take longer to recover. When they reach homes, they are harder to stop.

“Some of the fires in the north of the state in November were going through rainforest. There are areas, say Kanangra national park, west of the Blue Mountains, that has not been burnt in recorded history.”

In January, the bureau of meteorology confirmed that 2019 was Australia’s hottest year on record while the record for the hottest day across the country was broken two days in a row – on Tuesday 16 December and Wednesday 17 December.

In its annual climate statement, released on Tuesday, the Bureau of Meteorology said 2019 was also Australia’s driest with a national average rainfall total of 277mm – the lowest on record.

“The immediate reason [for these fires] is the drought,” Price said. “Basically all the moisture has been sucked out of the landscape and the plants. Then you have to ask the question, what has caused the drought?

“Drought is a natural periodic thing, but the fact that this is the worst drought on record, and we’ve broken temperature records many times this year, is a pretty unequivocal indication that climate change has made this worse.”
 
Freddy said:
“Drought is a natural periodic thing, but the fact that this is the worst drought on record, and we’ve broken temperature records many times this year, is a pretty unequivocal indication that climate change has made this worse.”
Click to expand...
Bears repeating…


Trendline on hottest temperatures recorded in Australia is down.

Claims about the “worst drought on record” are very dubious. Could you provide the evidence and methods that are the basis for making that determination?

In the meantime it is pretty clear that claims about the climate even from agencies as supposedly reliable as NASA and NOAA are increasingly meant to align with the going narrative.

 
Freddy said:
Yeah. The drought is a record because of the bush fires. The temperatures are breaking records because of the bush fires. It all fits together so well. Genius.
Click to expand...
The irony here is that you are attempting to “fit” to me the claim that the bush fires are causing the high temperatures. Of course, I claimed no such thing. I claimed the fires could be boosting the ambient air temperatures to exceed what they likely would have been without the fires. Nowhere did I claim that the drought was caused by fire, I simply stated the conditions could be drier because of the fires.

Let me tun the table back on you in your attempt to saddle me with a disingenuous claim:

I suppose the idea that the minute increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% is causing a spike in global temperatures could be rhetorically framed in such a way as to sound idiotic. A reply consistent with your posts would be to call the CO2 claimant “moronic” because any fool knows that it’s the sun that causes virtually all warming around the globe and CO2 molecules create none.

Or as you put it…
As I said, your logic is inescapable. All those minuscule CO2 molecules causing the warming! The minute quantities of CO2 are causing record temperatures! Brilliant! (It’s the Sun, Genius!)

Don’t forget to do your bit as well. Get out in the backyard and stop breathing. Throw a party to Save the Earth. Ask some friends over. Don’t bring carbonated beverages or any flatulence creating foods like beans or legumes. Just a couple of lumps of coal (sequestered carbon) each. Every little [bit] counts.
Click to expand...
 
HarryStotle said:
I simply stated the conditions could be drier because of the fires.
Click to expand...
And don’t forget the record temperatures as well. Don’t be humble. Claim this before someone else does! Because whenever I show this to anyone they are simply stunned. Amazed. Shocked. Speechless. They want to know how to get in touch with you. Presumably to congratulate you. They can’t believe that you came up with this all on your own. But I’ve told them Yes! This is a first and Harry owns it!
 
Theo520 said:
That’s a comic alright
Freehand drawn,
Logarithmic scale it seems
Click to expand...
Nope. Linear in both time and temperature. Yes, it is freehand drawn, but if you follow Randall Monroe (as I do) you know he is a stickler for scientific accuracy. He has a degree in physics and has worked for NASA. He is no mere comic artist.
 
HarryStotle said:
The irony here is that you are attempting to “fit” to me the claim that the bush fires are causing the high temperatures.
Click to expand...
BINGO!

Doesn’t everyone accept the narrative coming from those who want to Carbon Tax the populace of the Earth into Submission via Poverty that Everything that AILS this planet is caused by ManMade Global Warming - Even IF this planet becomes an ICE BALL?

_
 
Dan123 said:
40.png
Theo520:
Looks like they ignore the temperature record before 1910

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
Correct. For most of the 19th century Australia didn’t do a great job of setting up monitoring stations according to standards. Specifically as lot of thermometers were left in the open air instead of inside a screen. That means you got additional heat radiating off nearby surfaces causing readings to be higher than normal. That’s been known about for a long time.

It was omitted because it was inaccurate, it’s not inaccurate because it was omitted. I wonder why your link doesn’t mention that? I mean even if they want to say it’s not true why wouldn’t they include the explanation as to why the data isn’t relied on?
Click to expand...
“nice catch” pointing out that back in the day an apparatus for weather monitoring were not standardized (hence susceptible to erroneous readings)

think your tidbit is a textbook example of deniers/skeptics using misdirection to confuse people who do not have the benefit of a formal hard science background like physics

given news of wildfires “down under”



incorporated your insightful comment in a PDF slide deck which is intended to be used to teach people about the key science concepts needed to understand climate change

www.TinyURL.com/HowBigIsTheEarth

if you checkout the PDF slide deck there is a hidden link to a PDF of an old journal (of applied meteorology) on the topic of “radiation shields for air temperature thermometers”

FWIW the reason I really liked your observation is because just like there can be a religious cult AND a political cult




seems there can be a cult belief system built around the issue of climate change (and the only way to prevent being caught up in the emotional fervor of a climate change cult, is to have a good understanding of the hard science)
 
Freddy said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
I simply stated the conditions could be drier because of the fires.
Click to expand...
And don’t forget the record temperatures as well. Don’t be humble.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight…

… if fires are ravaging the forests and grasslands all over Australia, you wouldn’t suppose the ambient air temperatures could possibly be raised even 0.5°C or 0.01°? No impact at all? None?

That is your position?

Out of interest, are any of your contacts talking about the number of arson arrests – something in the order of 200 – for negligently or intentionally starting fires at a time when fires are raging everywhere?


Why would good citizens do that?

Do you think that climate activists are trying to make a point, or are there that many thoughtless people down under?
 
Freddy said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
I simply stated the conditions could be drier because of the fires.
Click to expand...
And don’t forget the record temperatures as well.
Click to expand...
For the record, I did claim BOTH in that same paragraph. Perhaps you could read it more carefully?
HarryStotle said:
I claimed the fires could be boosting the ambient air temperatures to exceed what they likely would have been without the fires. Nowhere did I claim that the drought was caused by fire, I simply stated the conditions could be drier because of the fires.
Click to expand...
 
phaster said:
“nice catch” pointing out that back in the day an apparatus for weather monitoring were not standardized (hence susceptible to erroneous readings)
Click to expand...
And in THIS day the “not standardized” status of the older monitoring stations has become a pretext for interpolating data from surrounding stations that better fit the expected results of climate modelling. Apparently “standardized” is in the eye of the beholder or researcher.

Here is an example from the New Zealand’s NIWA from 2009:

Here’s what a friendly chosen ‘peer reviewer’ said of a paper currently being worked on by NIWA’s Jim Renwick and former NIWA scientist Jim Salinger:

“I am suggesting major changes before the paper is accepted…as it is written, the
current paper almost stoops to the level of “blog diatribe”. The current paper does not
read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes
accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the
objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature”

Good to see NZ’s NIWA contributing to the intellectual tone of science. Meantime, the world will judge New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister on his denialism.
TBR.cc: Nick Smith – international man of mockery
Click to expand...
For one example of “standardizing,” NIWA claimed…

Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Yet, here is where the new measurement site was placed: on the rooftop next to the air conditioners:

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top