How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Sounder]

Hah, I wish I had no opinion, but the constant propaganda has taken care of that.

Joe wrote...
So you have been influenced by the propaganda of Murdoch/Koch et al that humans have nothing to do with the ongoing warming on earth. Its rare that people will admit how much effect that propaganda has on them so well done.

In my opinion the Koch money is dollar for dollar, (effectively) the best spent pro-AGW propaganda money there is.

I mean just look at how high people jump, almost out of their skins, when that dog whistle is blown.

[Joe Hillshoist]

* Joe...think about it...the statistics wrt firestorms across Australia in 1814 did not exist so naturally the Wiki stuff does not cover it....I call B/S.

Its safe to say that every major fire in "Australia" since whitefellas got here has been documented. The Bushfire CRC and other places have plenty of evidence on wildfire frequency and behaviour in Australia. You can't compare indigenous and non indigenous fire rates because of differences in land management. To make the whole thing simple I'm gonna name the firestorms of the last 21 years and see if you can find a comparable period in the last 150.

Near Adelaide the other day.

In Victoria last year.

North and west of Sydney in spring 2013.

Dunally in Tassie and the Warrumbungles in NSW in Jan 2013.

I'm not gonna count the fires in WA over the same period because there is some argument about their intensity.

Black Saturday in Vic 2009.

Vic in 2005/06 and in 2006/07.

Vic and NSW/ACT in 2003.

NSW 2001/02.

NSW in 1994.

These are the extremely intense bushfires btw, not the only ones.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Hah, I wish I had no opinion, but the constant propaganda has taken care of that.

Joe wrote...
So you have been influenced by the propaganda of Murdoch/Koch et al that humans have nothing to do with the ongoing warming on earth. Its rare that people will admit how much effect that propaganda has on them so well done.

In my opinion the Koch money is dollar for dollar, (effectively) the best spent pro-AGW propaganda money there is.

I mean just look at how high people jump, almost out of their skins, when that dog whistle is blown.

I think your comment is factually wrong.

[Ben D]

* Joe...think about it...the statistics wrt firestorms across Australia in 1814 did not exist so naturally the Wiki stuff does not cover it....I call B/S.

Its safe to say that every major fire in "Australia" since whitefellas got here has been documented. The Bushfire CRC and other places have plenty of evidence on wildfire frequency and behaviour in Australia.

Well don''t just say it and expect everyone to believe it....prove it by providing the evidence...show us the comprehensive firestorm coverage data for the Australian continent for, say, the 1814-1824 decade?

[Joe Hillshoist]

The CSIRO and the The Bureau of Meteorology produced a report - the state of the climate report.

This graph is from their web page summary. You can get the whole report at the link above.



The map shows the trends in extreme fire weather days (annual 90th percentile of daily FFDI values) at 38 climate reference sites. Trends are given in FFDI points per decade and larger circles represent larger trends. Filled circles represent trends that are statistically significant. One location, Brisbane Airport, shows a non-significant decrease.

Time series showing the increasing trend in the annual cumulative Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) at Melbourne Airport. A long-term trend is discernible despite significant annual variability.

The bit in italics is their commentary/caption for the map and the graph.

The graph shows why more firestorms have happened because it shows an increase in days where an extreme FFDI (Forest fire danger index) measurement is recorded. FFDI takes into account fuel levels and rate of curing as well as temperature, wind and relative humidity. Wildfire firestorms only occur on days of extreme FFDI, since by definition they are the only times when the physical conditions allow a fire so intense it generates it own weather systems and they drive its propagation.

[Joe Hillshoist]

* Joe...think about it...the statistics wrt firestorms across Australia in 1814 did not exist so naturally the Wiki stuff does not cover it....I call B/S.

Its safe to say that every major fire in "Australia" since whitefellas got here has been documented. The Bushfire CRC and other places have plenty of evidence on wildfire frequency and behaviour in Australia.

Well don''t just say it and expect everyone to believe it....prove it by providing the evidence...show us the comprehensive firestorm coverage data for the Australian continent for, say, the 1814-1824 decade?

There were no firestorms recorded in the areas occupied by white Australians in the decade 1814 - 1824. Other areas were under different land management tenures and can't really be compared. But lets accept I was wrong to consider 1814.

There have been more firestorms in the last 20 years than the 80 before that. At least twice as many, maybe 3 times as many.

[Sounder]

Joe wrote….

So what you're describing as a scam is only a scam when the people responsible for distributing the money give it their rich mates

But this is always what happens, and an elite element of the crusaders also get immunity for criminal acts and a tax free income to boot, a recipe for certain failure.

instead of pumping into the processes that are hopefully going to limit the damage CO2 causes.

Yeah, you know what? It’s my opinion that we spread into the environment an immense variety of toxic substances that do damage orders of magnitude greater than does the CO2 boogyman constantly being waved in front of our faces as if to hypnotize.

here the people who are doing what you describe above are the ones who don't accept AGW is happening.

Well, they don’t ‘believe’ it, but they do in fact accept it. After all the five hundred largest corporations in the world are part of Agenda 21, and they say that AGW is ‘real’.

(Yes, to a limited degree it is real, but it’s overblown and used for purposes other than the stated idealistic intentions, same as all our other PR created ‘wars’.)

The truth is that everything is a rich mans trick. They are heavily invested in turning the regular folk into fools.

We will only change that situation after we learn better to see things as they are.

[Ben D]

There were no firestorms recorded in the areas occupied by white Australians in the decade 1814 - 1824. Other areas were under different land management tenures and can't really be compared. But lets accept I was wrong to consider 1814.

There have been more firestorms in the last 20 years than the 80 before that. At least twice as many, maybe 3 times as many.

Lets...so now you make a new claim...so now prove it by providing explicit evidence...I mean some peer reviewed or other acceptable study that shows clearly the statistical data to prove what you're saying is correct.

[Joe Hillshoist]

There were no firestorms recorded in the areas occupied by white Australians in the decade 1814 - 1824. Other areas were under different land management tenures and can't really be compared. But lets accept I was wrong to consider 1814.

There have been more firestorms in the last 20 years than the 80 before that. At least twice as many, maybe 3 times as many.

Lets...so now you make a new claim...so now prove it by providing explicit evidence...I mean some peer reviewed or other acceptable study that shows clearly the statistical data to prove what you're saying is correct.

No you disprove it - you're the one making extraordinary claims about stuff you clearly don't know about - and you don't even read peer reviewed stuff that gets posted here, just make trivial semantic arguments while avoiding the substantial issues.

In other words you are trolling.

Its about time you put up or shut up.

[Ben D]

There were no firestorms recorded in the areas occupied by white Australians in the decade 1814 - 1824. Other areas were under different land management tenures and can't really be compared. But lets accept I was wrong to consider 1814.

There have been more firestorms in the last 20 years than the 80 before that. At least twice as many, maybe 3 times as many.

Lets...so now you make a new claim...so now prove it by providing explicit evidence...I mean some peer reviewed or other acceptable study that shows clearly the statistical data to prove what you're saying is correct.

No you disprove it - you're the one making extraordinary claims about stuff you clearly don't know about - and you don't even read peer reviewed stuff that gets posted here, just make trivial semantic arguments while avoiding the substantial issues.

In other words you are trolling.

Its about time you put up or shut up.

Hold on a moment buster....you started this by quoting me from a post to IAWIA in which i made the claim that Australia experiences continuous cycles of droughts and floods......and you claimed that I had forgot to mention that in the last 20 years there have been more firestorms than in the previous 200.

Our subsequent exchanges have been about determining the veracity of your claim/s....not mine!

When I showed with rational logic in a couple of posts to prove you wrong, you finally were forced to admit it. Down but not out, you then 'lowered the bar' with a claim that I still do not believe is true, so I naturally ask for evidence without which your claim can not be taken seriously.

Now you demand that I must disprove your latest claim....that I am a trolling....that I must put up or shut up.

You Sir are not a fair dinkum bloke, not ridgy didge, ....but rather dodgy!

[Joe Hillshoist]

When I showed with rational logic in a couple of posts to prove you wrong, you finally were forced to admit it. Down but not out, you then 'lowered the bar' with a claim that I still do not believe is true, so I naturally ask for evidence without which your claim can not be taken seriously.

Firstly you didn't show I was wrong. if you wanted to show I was wrong you would disprove what i said with evidence, but there is none to support your contention, not even an anecdotal record of decreasing numbers of intense fires. Thats because the numbers of intense fires are increasing. Its common, public domain knowledge and doesn't need to be proved by a peer reviewed document. The number of firestorms is documented in the public domain and has been repeatedly. I named the uncontroversial ones from the last 20 years above. if you think that isn't true, and you've lived here for that time then you are an idiot or being disingenuous. If you think I'm lying then simply say so and back your words up with evidence. The peer reviewed science is aimed at understanding fire behaviour and why the number of intense fires are increasing because the facts on the increasing number of severe intense fires are obvious to everyone (cept maybe you) and shown by the officially recorded increasing number of severe intense fires.

...and you claimed that I had forgot to mention that in the last 20 years there have been more firestorms than in the previous 200.

This is a fact tho difficult to prove to the standard you require and needs me to chase down a group of researchers who do soil carbon studies. The studies might not even exist because the only person in Australia who appears to dispute those facts is you. I "lowered the bar" because the major high intensity fires in Australia in that time period are on the public record. Its information that is easily verifiable in a very short time. if you wanted to try to actually prove me wrong you can try to do so by showing more firestorm happened between 1914 and 1994 by using the public record of such fires.

[Ben D]

When I showed with rational logic in a couple of posts to prove you wrong, you finally were forced to admit it. Down but not out, you then 'lowered the bar' with a claim that I still do not believe is true, so I naturally ask for evidence without which your claim can not be taken seriously.

Firstly you didn't show I was wrong. if you wanted to show I was wrong you would disprove what i said with evidence......

...and you claimed that I had forgot to mention that in the last 20 years there have been more firestorms than in the previous 200.

This is a fact tho difficult to prove to the standard you require and needs me to chase down a group of researchers who do soil carbon studies. Frankly i can't be bothered - that is why I "lowered the bar" - because the major high intensity fires in Australia in that time period are on the public record. Its information that is easily verifiable in a very short time. That you can't be bothered indicates you aren't arguing in good faith.

Joe...science does not work like that.....if you make a claim based on your research about firestorms...you need to back it up with evidence that supports the claim...that's the whole purpose of peer review....to weed out claims prior to publication, that are not matched by the data provided, so as to not waste everyone's valuable time. It's not up to the peer reviewers to do the work of the researcher.

In this case, see me as the reviewer of your research....and I do not see the data that matches the claim and call you on it....and you, in this case the researcher, take the position that it is the reviewer who is responsible to do the research to disprove any and all claims made by the researcher, not the researcher/claimant. This position is absurd....

Btw, the claims you made are so egregious and obviously wrong, that it wouldn't pass muster with anyone who had even a modicum of understanding about climate in Australia...so I know the data doesn't exist to prove your claims, and I suspect those claims have not come from any serious research on your part, but you have plucked those numbers out of.....let's say thin air....

[Joe Hillshoist]

Btw, the claims you made are so egregious and obviously wrong, that it wouldn't pass muster with anyone who had even a modicum of understanding about climate in Australia...so I know the data doesn't exist to prove your claims, and I suspect those claims have not come from any serious research on your part, but you have plucked those numbers out of.....let's say thin air....

FFS No one but you is disputing the facts in this situation. You don't need a scientific review to count the number of firestorms in Australia in the last 100 or even 200 years. Even newscorpse isn't arguing those facts.

[Ben D]

Btw, the claims you made are so egregious and obviously wrong, that it wouldn't pass muster with anyone who had even a modicum of understanding about climate in Australia...so I know the data doesn't exist to prove your claims, and I suspect those claims have not come from any serious research on your part, but you have plucked those numbers out of.....let's say thin air....

FFS No one but you is disputing the facts in this situation. You don't need a scientific review to count the number of firestorms in Australia in the last 100 or even 200 years. Even newscorpse isn't arguing those facts.

Joe...there is nothing in that linked msm environmental news report from the time of last year's bushfire to support your claim that in the last 20 years there have been more firestorms than in the previous 200, nor the claim that there have been at least twice or maybe three times as many firestorms in the last 20 years than the 80 before that, nor does it support your claim that every major fire in "Australia" since whitefellas got here has been documented..... and so why did you link to it? You must have some memory as to the source of where you have gotten these numbers and information tho if you think it is true?

Oh....but an interesting tidbit in the article about bushfires to note is that while the Climate Council last year linked the increased extreme fire weather with climate change, suggesting it has increased the frequency and severity of very hot days, University of Melbourne planning expert Dr Alan March said the answer was more complicated. "Blaming climate change is unproductive," said Dr March. "There are too many variables." These variables include loss of Aboriginal fire management, but the human element is also key to the intensity of fires. He said bushfires will continue to grow more catastrophic as Australians move further into bushland.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Ben no one but you disputes what I said. If they did you'd be able to show it. An urban planner talking about stupid decisions wrt housing location is not actually challenging that statement. Neither is a lack of aboriginal land management. There has been very little, if any aboriginal land management in firestorm prone areas since the 1850s.

Have you made any effort to check my statement yourself?