a bit like the uncle in the family earl, no one wants to talk about

just ignore it and it will go away

or priests fiddling with little kids

too hard a problem and there are more important things. things to make a quid off

I dont think you should be talking about Uncle Bitter behind his back. But go on do it anyway.

DC I agree with you we have two major problems. Climate change and over population; ignoring the power of vested interests we could start to solve global warming tomorrow. We have the technology, just not the political will. Reduce temperature increases to plus 2 degrees and we have a chance. On the second problem of over population that is much harder to resolve. It is all political, cultural and as a subset religious. It could be dealt with in a generation in theory but it won't be because well there are no political systems in place that can tackle it directly, how do you stop people having kids in a multitude of poor countries across the globe? Anyway having one intractable problem should not stop you solving one that can be resolved. One step at a time When!

We should be going full bore to replace old energy with new energy technologies. Once you decide it has to be done it will boost to economic activity generally but yes there will be winners and losers, like there has with every technological change.

EH - I couldn't agree more. The world hasn't warmed as predicted, the hurricanes haven't increased in intensity or frequency as predicted, the seas haven't risen as predicted. All the above are measurable FACTS contrary to the predictions (or what is loosely called the science). If you can't explain the pause you can't explain the cause. But it is politics we're talking about not science. Take out the vested interest of the green groups particularity the renewable sector and global warming is solved.

How many posters on this forum think it is ok for Essendon to lose or suppress their records in the supplements saga? I'd guess no-one. But you will hear posters on here defending the "scientific" bodies that hide the method of their studies to try and pretend things like the hiuatus aren't happening. Take for example NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association) who wont adhere to a supbonea from Congress for their records. They are being questioned on their findings that there is statistical warming over the last 18 years contrary to all the satellite data. Of course NOAA say everything is above board, they will not show their records, it is everyone else' fault and stop picking on us. Just like Essendon.

Edited November 2, 20159 yr by Wrecker45

Wrecker I give you top marks for being able to post on here while your head is buried in the sand but really we have discussed this before, there has not been a hiatus, the world continues to get hotter each year and I suspect with the current strong El Niño cycle we will top the 1998 record temperatures that coincided with the last intense El Niño. There ain't no pause!

Some 350 plus months have been above average temperatures globally since the 80's, the trend is relentless. As for sea levels, why don't you do a tour of some of the South Pacific islands and ask the locals how they are faring. And Zi wasn't referring to Green vested interests but yes they are but they don't have a fraction of the money and power of the fossil fuel lobby who have billions at risk, who fund numerous think tanks, lobby groups and fully paid for congressmen in the US and who knows how many politicians here.

Wrecker I give you top marks for being able to post on here while your head is buried in the sand but really we have discussed this before, there has not been a hiatus, the world continues to get hotter each year and I suspect with the current strong El Niño cycle we will top the 1998 record temperatures that coincided with the last intense El Niño. There ain't no pause!

Some 350 plus months have been above average temperatures globally since the 80's, the trend is relentless. As for sea levels, why don't you do a tour of some of the South Pacific islands and ask the locals how they are faring. And Zi wasn't referring to Green vested interests but yes they are but they don't have a fraction of the money and power of the fossil fuel lobby who have billions at risk, who fund numerous think tanks, lobby groups and fully paid for congressmen in the US and who knows how many politicians here.

I get the feeling that Wrecker possibly has some kind of vested interest in the fossil fuel area.... otherwise, what could possibly explain his continued and relentless assault on the possibility that global warming may actually be very real?

Wrecker I give you top marks for being able to post on here while your head is buried in the sand but really we have discussed this before, there has not been a hiatus, the world continues to get hotter each year and I suspect with the current strong El Niño cycle we will top the 1998 record temperatures that coincided with the last intense El Niño. There ain't no pause!

Some 350 plus months have been above average temperatures globally since the 80's, the trend is relentless. As for sea levels, why don't you do a tour of some of the South Pacific islands and ask the locals how they are faring. And Zi wasn't referring to Green vested interests but yes they are but they don't have a fraction of the money and power of the fossil fuel lobby who have billions at risk, who fund numerous think tanks, lobby groups and fully paid for congressmen in the US and who knows how many politicians here.

Earl Hood I have consistently provided links to satellite data to back up the hiatus. The IPCC acknowledges the hiatus. Who has their head in the sand?

You say some 350 months have been above average temperatures since the 80's. I laugh. From when were the averages measured? I'm guessing the Little Ice Age but it is your stat so please let me know.

And to suggest asking some locals in the South Pacific if they have observed sea level rises rather than recognising the global satellite imagery really hammers home who has their head in the sand.

I get the feeling that Wrecker possibly has some kind of vested interest in the fossil fuel area.... otherwise, what could possibly explain his continued and relentless assault on the possibility that global warming may actually be very real?

hardtack I have no vested interest in the fossil fuel industry outside of cheap energy for my family on a personal level and wanting the third world to come out of poverty on a humanitarian level.

You are mistaken in saying I'm assaulting the possibility global warming could be real. I believe it could be. It's just that all the available evidence (real world data not predictions) at the moment says it is not real. I will change my mind if the evidence changes.

97% of scientist's agree in a debunked "survey" that humans are having some impact on climate. So do I.

Huh?

Choke - I meant to say that I if I was asked that loaded question, I would agree and fall within the 97% that Obama keeps quoting as proof of man made climate change.

We've had terrible (local not global) bush fires previously but not terrible droughts?

Hi Wrecker

Sorry for late reply. While since I've been on here. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that it's very hard to measure whether a particular fire was "worse" than another fire. You can't just compare casualty figures, because they could be a reflection of population growth in the bush. But there are indicators you can measure; these include temperature, drought length and severity and fire behaviour activities like spotting. I interviewed the fire scientist who did the analysis of the Black Saturday fires for something I was writing and he told me that on all of those measures, black Saturday was the worst we've had since white settlement. A normal bushfire I suppose doesn't tell us much, but a record breaker like that (and the incredibly early October fire at Lancefield) are pretty good evidence to me that the fires weren't 'natural'. Cheers.

Wrecker - I found your post regarding "precautionary principle" quite interesting and if I could cherry pick from part of the definition that I found then I firmly fall into that camp.

" The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. "

I am happy enough to believe there is plausible risk.

My main concern in all this debate is not whether man made climate change exists - it is my lack of belief that enough countries that truly can make a difference will implement policies that will actually make a difference.

My main concern in all this debate is not whether man made climate change exists - it is my lack of belief that enough countries that truly can make a difference will implement policies that will actually make a difference.

now that's plausible, nut

Hi Wrecker

Sorry for late reply. While since I've been on here. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that it's very hard to measure whether a particular fire was "worse" than another fire. You can't just compare casualty figures, because they could be a reflection of population growth in the bush. But there are indicators you can measure; these include temperature, drought length and severity and fire behaviour activities like spotting. I interviewed the fire scientist who did the analysis of the Black Saturday fires for something I was writing and he told me that on all of those measures, black Saturday was the worst we've had since white settlement. A normal bushfire I suppose doesn't tell us much, but a record breaker like that (and the incredibly early October fire at Lancefield) are pretty good evidence to me that the fires weren't 'natural'. Cheers.

Hi Jara

I'm no expert like the fire scientist but wouldn't the heat of the fire be directly proportional to the fire load? That is, if you had some mad green council that wouldn't allow you to do controlled burns or other proven fuel reduction methods you would have a massive fuel load and therefore worse fires when they occur?

Understand your point on drought length and severity but at that time we were being told that particular drought could (would) be permanent as a consequence of climate change. Turns out it wasn't. Another dud climate change prediction.

Hi Wrecker

Sorry for late reply. While since I've been on here. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that it's very hard to measure whether a particular fire was "worse" than another fire. You can't just compare casualty figures, because they could be a reflection of population growth in the bush. But there are indicators you can measure; these include temperature, drought length and severity and fire behaviour activities like spotting. I interviewed the fire scientist who did the analysis of the Black Saturday fires for something I was writing and he told me that on all of those measures, black Saturday was the worst we've had since white settlement. A normal bushfire I suppose doesn't tell us much, but a record breaker like that (and the incredibly early October fire at Lancefield) are pretty good evidence to me that the fires weren't 'natural'. Cheers.

i suppose that to reach that conclusion your fire scientist must have studied all those same measurements on the reports of the fire scientists from the 19th century and early 20th century?

i'm sure your fire scientist is a smart guy and knows his fire science but why go ahead and make a flannery-type statement like that? it just loses him credibility

Edited November 6, 20159 yr by daisycutter

Hi Jara

I'm no expert like the fire scientist but wouldn't the heat of the fire be directly proportional to the fire load? That is, if you had some mad green council that wouldn't allow you to do controlled burns or other proven fuel reduction methods you would have a massive fuel load and therefore worse fires when they occur?

Understand your point on drought length and severity but at that time we were being told that particular drought could (would) be permanent as a consequence of climate change. Turns out it wasn't. Another dud climate change prediction.

Thanks Wrecker. Yep, the fire severity is a reflection of several factors, one of which is the fuel load (interestingly, it seems to peak at about 15 years) When I mentioned "temperature" I meant the temperature of the day, which broke numerous records.

Don't know that I've ever seen anybody predicting that drought would be permanent. Surely nobody would be that dogmatic. I just think the general idea is that droughts and other extreme weather events will become more frequent and more severe. I suspect the Lancefield fires were an example of this.

Edited November 7, 20159 yr by Jara

i suppose that to reach that conclusion your fire scientist must have studied all those same measurements on the reports of the fire scientists from the 19th century and early 20th century?

i'm sure your fire scientist is a smart guy and knows his fire science but why go ahead and make a flannery-type statement like that? it just loses him credibility

Hey Daisy - he was an incredibly smart guy, and extremely precise and measured in his comments. I don't quite get the reference to Flannery - the scientist I interviewed was only commenting on strictly measurable factors, such as the record -breaking temperatures and drought conditions leading up to the fire. Some things I asked about (such as wind speed) he wouldn't make definitive statements about because they were impossible to verify (he did make estimates, judging by, for example, the depths of the roots of some of the trees that had been swept away - he thought the cyclonic winds around the fire would have reached speeds of up to 200 kph (I thought this was impossible, since the BOM forecasts of the day were only around 120 kph, but he said the fires generate their own winds)

It's been a while since I spoke to him, but he was definitely aware of the statistics concerning earlier fires (we had an interesting discussion about this) He was of the opinion that the Black Saturday fires were worse than Ash Wednesday or Black Friday. He was unsure about Black Thursday (in the 1850s) because record-keeping was a bit haphazard then.

Sorry for such a rambling, incoherent reply. If you're interested I can follow up and get you more info (I wrote a book about Black Saturday which discussed a lot of this stuff, but I'm tired right now)

Cheers

Edited November 7, 20159 yr by Jara

Hey Daisy - he was an incredibly smart guy, and extremely precise and measured in his comments. I don't quite get the reference to Flannery - the scientist I interviewed was only commenting on strictly measurable factors, such as the record -breaking temperatures and drought conditions leading up to the fire. Some things I asked about (such as wind speed) he wouldn't make definitive statements about because they were impossible to verify (he did make estimates, judging by, for example, the depths of the roots of some of the trees that had been swept away - he thought the cyclonic winds around the fire would have reached speeds of up to 200 kph (I thought this was impossible, since the BOM forecasts of the day were only around 120 kph, but he said the fires generate their own winds)

It's been a while since I spoke to him, but he was definitely aware of the statistics concerning earlier fires (we had an interesting discussion about this) He was of the opinion that the Black Saturday fires were worse than Ash Wednesday or Black Friday. He was unsure about Black Thursday (in the 1850s) because record-keeping was a bit haphazard then.

Sorry for such a rambling, incoherent reply. If you're interested I can follow up and get you more info (I wrote a book about Black Saturday which discussed a lot of this stuff, but I'm tired right now)

Cheers

`

jara,

i think you missed my point

as i said i don't doubt his skills

my point was he is comparing apples and oranges when he says "the worst since settlement"

the data he has on recent fires is a thousand fold more detailed (and scientific) than that available from the 19thc and early 20thc. heck, they didn't even have fire scientists then

my reference to flannery-like statements were to some of flannery's preposterous predictions that he has been ridiculed over (deservedly)

if he had just said "one of" the worst fires on record i would have accepted that, but he just went a step too far, as did flannery (at least in your telling)

that was my only point

cheers

edit:corrected centuries

Edited November 7, 20159 yr by daisycutter

Don't know that I've ever seen anybody predicting that drought would be permanent. Surely nobody would be that dogmatic.

I don't quite get the reference to Flannery

Tim Flannery is the one who said drought conditions would become permanent in the eastern states (or words to that effect).

What's the book you wrote Jara?

`

jara,

i think you missed my point

as i said i don't doubt his skills

my point was he is comparing apples and oranges when he says "the worst since settlement"

the data he has on recent fires is a thousand fold more detailed (and scientific) than that available from the 19thc and early 20thc. heck, they didn't even have fire scientists then

my reference to flannery-like statements were to some of flannery's preposterous predictions that he has been ridiculed over (deservedly)

if he had just said "one of" the worst fires on record i would have accepted that, but he just went a step too far, as did flannery (at least in your telling)

that was my only point

cheers

edit:corrected centuries

Hi Daisy

Hmmm ...this is such a complicated business - I'm also reporting on conversations I had a few years ago - but he was quite clear that Black Saturday was the worst we've had since record keeping began - they use an index called the Forest Fire Danger Index - it was developed by a scientist called MacArthur - using Black Friday (which at the time they believed was as bad as a fire could be) as the hallmark - the top of the range was set at 100 - the Black Saturday fires reached levels of between 200-300 - almost unbelievable - as I said in one of the other answers, the one fire he was unsure about was Black Thursday, the monster in the 1851, since obviously, as you said, there were no scientists around. But there were some ways of checking - ie studying historical records etc. for example, I believe Black Thursday was the result of a year or two of drought; Black Saturday was the result of 12. Melbourne also had its hottest day ever on Black Saturday.

Sorry, not a very complete answer. Bit tired. Will finish reply tomorrow

Edited November 8, 20159 yr by Jara

jara, i don't doubt black saturday was one of the worst bushfires in australia's history. it was an awful awesome event and was rated no 1 in terms of human deaths.

here is a bit about black thursday feb 1851. note the population of victoria then was 77,000 and the gold rush hadn't started yet in february. it was quite a monster fire too, burning an incredible claimed quarter of victoria . (i'm sure you know this but others may not)

of course fire fighting facilities then would have been mimimal

Black Thursday bushfires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black Thursday bushfires Location Victoria, Australia Statistics Date(s) 6 February 1851 Cause Heat wave, careless burning Fatalities 1

The Black Thursday bushfires were a devastating series of fires that swept the state of Victoria, Australia on 6 February 1851. They are considered the largest Australian bushfires in a populous region in recorded history, with approximately 5 million hectares, or a quarter of Victoria, being burnt. Twelve human lives were lost, along with one million sheep, thousands of cattle and countless native animals.

"The temperature became torrid, and on the morning of the 6th of February 1851, the air which blew down from the north resembled the breath of a furnace. A fierce wind arose, gathering strength and velocity from hour to hour, until about noon it blew with the violence of a tornado. By some inexplicable means it wrapped the whole country in a sheet of flame — fierce, awful, and irresistible."^[1]

Edited November 9, 20159 yr by daisycutter

Tim Flannery is the one who said drought conditions would become permanent in the eastern states (or words to that effect).

What's the book you wrote Jara?

Hey Grape

Haven't read Tims book for a few years - The Weathermakers, wasn't it,? So I don't recall him saying that specifically and I'm not sure what timeframe he was referring to. At present, I gather we're heading for an increase of somewhere between 2 and 4 degrees by the end of the century. I believe anything like the latter will lead us into a situation in which - well, I don't know if you could say "permanent" drought but pretty close to it.

My own book was called Kinglake-350. I did a lot of research about fire history, science etc Spent a solid eighteen months harassing every fire scientist, meteorologist, environmental historian, etc I could lay my hands on. I discuss these things much more comprehensively in the book. The fire history of our own nation is quite extraordinary. In a nutshell, Europeans entered an environment which had been shaped by constant mosaic burning by nomads. They then did two things: first they burnt furiously, to clear the land (which had the unexpected result of increasing pyrophiliac plants) Then, when they had established farms, fences, roads, etc, they tried to suppress fire all together. Both activities had a terrible effect upon the environment; meant that when fires did come, they would be monsters.

Daisy, if you happen to read this, yes, thanks for the Wikipedia thing about Black Thursday. I've read it, of course, but my scientist friend was a little sceptical about some of the reports. Suspects that they were somewhat exaggerated due to the (quite understandable) terror these misplaced Englishmen felt upon encountering the "red steer". I'm not denying that monster fires have always been a feature of the Australian landscape; there are even Aboriginal myths describing what sound very much like crown fires. The problem is just that they seem to be getting worse with global warming.

Cheers

My own book was called Kinglake-350. I did a lot of research about fire history, science etc Spent a solid eighteen months harassing every fire scientist, meteorologist, environmental historian, etc I could lay my hands on. I discuss these things much more comprehensively in the book. The fire history of our own nation is quite extraordinary. In a nutshell, Europeans entered an environment which had been shaped by constant mosaic burning by nomads. They then did two things: first they burnt furiously, to clear the land (which had the unexpected result of increasing pyrophiliac plants) Then, when they had established farms, fences, roads, etc, they tried to suppress fire all together. Both activities had a terrible effect upon the environment; meant that when fires did come, they would be monsters.

Nice one Jara, I've read your book, think I got it around the time it was released.

You did a good job conveying the confusion and horror of it all - it's hard to imagine a more terrifying ordeal given the severity of the fires and the speed with which they were moving.

I was around Kinglake and Alexandra on the Monday after (was there for work, NOT rubbernecking) and it was one of the eeriest experiences; death and devastation everywhere, like a scene out of the apocalypse. The only sign of any life was the occasional flashing red and blue lights of cop cars and fireys, shrouded in the still-smouldering smoke.

I've been back in the area many times since Black Saturday, and it's been interesting to see the slow but steady regeneration, of the forests, of the communities, of people's lives.

Are you still in St Andrews?

Thanks Wrecker. Yep, the fire severity is a reflection of several factors, one of which is the fuel load (interestingly, it seems to peak at about 15 years) When I mentioned "temperature" I meant the temperature of the day, which broke numerous records.

Don't know that I've ever seen anybody predicting that drought would be permanent. Surely nobody would be that dogmatic. I just think the general idea is that droughts and other extreme weather events will become more frequent and more severe. I suspect the Lancefield fires were an example of this.

Jara - Dr David Jones the head of BOM's climate analysis predicted that it could be permanent in 2008. This drought may never break.

A 3 year collaboration between BOM and the CSIRO suggested in 2009 we are just not going to have that good rain again while the system is heating up.

So yes Australia's two peak scientific bodies were that dogmatic.

Hey Wrecker

The people you are quoting are pretty knowledgeable types. I'd be listening to what they say. Sure, we haven't had a bad drought since the 12 year one leading up to 2009, but it does seem pretty certain that the general temperature patterns are only going one way, and that will inevitably lead to drought - and increased risk of fire. As I said in my first post, the fact that we had such terrible fires in early October should be enough to put the wind up anybody with eyes in their head.

This probably all seems rather academic to people down in the city (though I don't know where you live) , but it's not to me. We lost so many friends on Black Saturday - nine, all up, their ages ranging from 4 to 70 - I can't help but find it dispiriting when I see our society doing nothing about global warming. Also, as a firefighter and a person whose family lives in the bush, I'm rather worried about the forthcoming summer.

Anyway, I don't like getting into arguments - intelligent dialogue works better for me.

All the best

Nice one Jara, I've read your book, think I got it around the time it was released.

You did a good job conveying the confusion and horror of it all - it's hard to imagine a more terrifying ordeal given the severity of the fires and the speed with which they were moving.

I was around Kinglake and Alexandra on the Monday after (was there for work, NOT rubbernecking) and it was one of the eeriest experiences; death and devastation everywhere, like a scene out of the apocalypse. The only sign of any life was the occasional flashing red and blue lights of cop cars and fireys, shrouded in the still-smouldering smoke.

I've been back in the area many times since Black Saturday, and it's been interesting to see the slow but steady regeneration, of the forests, of the communities, of people's lives.

Are you still in St Andrews?

Thanks Grapeviney - wow, you were there on the Monday? - totally weird, wasn't it? A nightmare really, and the news just kept getting worse. I'll never forget those first few days. We kept trying to find friends and discovering that they hadn't made it.

Yep, I'm still in St Andrews

Cheers

Jara - Dr David Jones the head of BOM's climate analysis predicted that it could be permanent in 2008. This drought may never break.

A 3 year collaboration between BOM and the CSIRO suggested in 2009 we are just not going to have that good rain again while the system is heating up.

So yes Australia's two peak scientific bodies were that dogmatic.

Wrecker so some people made some statements. Big deal, including "Tim the target". We know you guys want to shoot them down. do you feel better? But what is your fricking point? The physics is indesputable, we keep pumping C02 into a closed system, feed energy by the Sun and we are getting warmer but you don't want to deal with it, you want to score points on whether someone predicted that something would happen, and whether a model has got it right. Your Andrew Bolt style "attack the man" stuff bears no weight with me. Diversionary tactics I believe.

In May 2008 Flannery created controversy by suggesting that sulphur could be dispersed into the atmosphere to help block the sun leading to global dimming, in order to counteract the effects of global warming.