Global Warming Thread

[Hesonlygotaleftfoot]

 

The thing I do not understand about the Adam brandt attack is that under current global warming initiates we still had this massive and terrible bushfire.  So doesn't that actually mean the existing frame work is not working?

THe existing framework has been in place for about a year.  If it had been put in place 20-25 years ago, when it should have been, then the emissions reduction measures might have had time to have an effect, the development of clean tech might have been accelerated, the progression of global warming might have been slowed and the current fires *might* have been avoided (though this is completely unprovable).

 

But once again, I'll encourage you to read what Bandt actually said.  He didn't say "these fires are happening because Abbott's going to remove the carbon price", or even "these fires are happening because of global warming".  He said "fires like these will happen MORE OFTEN if serious measures aren't taken to prevent global warming".  And in that he is entirely right.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-feels-the-heat-over-backburning-20100731-110jg.html

 

 

 

So another 3 years on and nothing has really changed.

 

  As someone who travels works(I drive freight trains) through the mountains there hasn't been any significant fires for many years. An RFS friend said there was up to 10_13 years of fuel on the ground and that it was only a matter of time before the big one arrived,

 

 Hazard reduction in national parks or anywhere for that matter will continue to be underfunded and not close to being adequate for our circumstances.

[earth]

But the number of days when the temperature is really high, or the number of times when we have several hot days in a row, is increasing.

 

Black Saturday was the hottest day on record for god's sake, 49.7 degrees IN MELBOURNE.

 

The day of the fire, Premier John Brumby said "We're warming the planet". 

 

Then the Herald Sun ran Rupert Murdoch's "no such thing as climate change" lies and turned it into, ironically, an attack on the Greens.

 

Blamed the fire on "Green policies" even though the Greens have never had any form of power in Victoria, EVER.

 

I can't believe people are stupid enough to swallow that ■■■■.

[Reboot]

But the number of days when the temperature is really high, or the number of times when we have several hot days in a row, is increasing.

 

Black Saturday was the hottest day on record for god's sake, 49.7 degrees IN MELBOURNE.

 

The day of the fire, Premier John Brumby said "We're warming the planet". 

 

Then the Herald Sun ran Rupert Murdoch's "no such thing as climate change" lies and turned it into, ironically, an attack on the Greens.

 

Blamed the fire on "Green policies" even though the Greens have never had any form of power in Victoria, EVER.

 

I can't believe people are stupid enough to swallow that ■■■■.

Come on earth. You know that all you have to do is repeat something loudly enough, and often enough, and fact and accuracy cease to matter; it just becomes a fact to a hell of a lot of people. We have a Government that got elected that way.

[Bacchusfox]

 

But the number of days when the temperature is really high, or the number of times when we have several hot days in a row, is increasing.

 

Black Saturday was the hottest day on record for god's sake, 49.7 degrees IN MELBOURNE.

 

The day of the fire, Premier John Brumby said "We're warming the planet". 

 

Then the Herald Sun ran Rupert Murdoch's "no such thing as climate change" lies and turned it into, ironically, an attack on the Greens.

 

Blamed the fire on "Green policies" even though the Greens have never had any form of power in Victoria, EVER.

 

I can't believe people are stupid enough to swallow that ****.

Come on earth. You know that all you have to do is repeat something loudly enough, and often enough, and fact and accuracy cease to matter; it just becomes a fact to a hell of a lot of people. We have a Government that got elected that way.

 

Climate change is undeniable, but bush fires have been happening since Adam first started plugging Eve.  I bet he even had a Fire Plan in the Garden of Eden.

 

Reality is that we let people live in places that should never have houses.   We had a great house in Kinglake about 25 years ago, on 11 acres of beautiful forest. We had cleared 20 metres all around the house, it was designed to be "fire proof, big water tanks, diesel-run sprinkler system to keep water going over the house for over 2 hours, etc etc.  Most houses in Kinglake had nothing like this and we thought it was very safe.  We sold the house to a lovely young couple with three small kids and they seemed very responsible and bushfire conscious.  Years moved on, their kids grew up and left the nest,  Black Saturday came, the couple defended the property; the house exploded and they perished.

 

We have friends in Yellow Rock in Blue Mountains. Their house survived, built to latest bushfire standards with sprinkler systems and fences (even though local Council said no fences allowed)  All their neighbours house are gone.

 

Weather conditions were very bad Black Saturday, but Ash Wednesday in 1980's and Black Friday in 1930's (I think) were about the same. Major difference was that many more people live in unsafe areas which cannot be defended no matter what you do.  We either do not let people live there or it is their risk and we sit back and watch it burn. 

[Vinnie_D]

The "people" pushing the imposition of taxes on the poor downtrodden masses, who are apparently largely to blame that the earth's climate is changing, call what mankind does, names like "Carbon" Pollution.

 

Along with Carbon Pollution we have seen the evolution of dozens of new catch phrases and descriptions which include the word Carbon. Carbon Trading, Carbon Credits, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Farm Initiative, Carbon Sense, Carbon Footprint....I could go on all day but you get my point.

 

The cynic in me cannot escape the obvious - and intentional - deletion of the word Dioxide behind all these references to Carbon. But sadly, very few others see the psychological con job being played out right in front of their eyes

 

The gas which the "authorities" claim is causing climate change - they called it global warming at first but later decided climate change would be better because that also covers cooling - is Carbon Dioxide. So to use the word Carbon without including Dioxide is to completely distort the meaning of these phrases. Carbon is a nonmetallic element existing in the three crystalline forms: graphite, diamond, and buckminsterfullerene. It is in Carbon Dioxide but is not essentially Carbon Dioxide.

 

When we think of the word Carbon alone we think of a gritty, black pollutant. The word Carbon has a far stronger propaganda impact than the two words Carbon Dioxide, which is a gas occurring naturally and is vital for plant growth. It is the increase of Carbon Dioxide which "they" say they are trying to stop. But they are dishonest to a man in presenting their case in this totally misrepresented way. If that fact alone does not make people suspicious there is really nothing I can say to make a difference.

 

When the pushers of this agenda, start adding the word Dioxide to their plethora of catch phrases, I will start being less cynical - I promise. Add Dioxide and I'll think about changing my view that this whole thing is a giant global con job to tax the *** out of us peasants while gaining more and more control over every facet of our lives. But I know that's never going to happen........because..........

 

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

~ Joseph Goebbels.

 

In the meantime, pardon me for smirking every time I hear some big brother puppet use a phrase like Carbon Pollution.

[Diggers]

Stop quoting Nazis.

[Humble_Minion]

The "people" pushing the imposition of taxes on the poor downtrodden masses, who are apparently largely to blame that the earth's climate is changing, call what mankind does, names like "Carbon" Pollution.
 
Along with Carbon Pollution we have seen the evolution of dozens of new catch phrases and descriptions which include the word Carbon. Carbon Trading, Carbon Credits, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Farm Initiative, Carbon Sense, Carbon Footprint....I could go on all day but you get my point.
 
The cynic in me cannot escape the obvious - and intentional - deletion of the word Dioxide behind all these references to Carbon. But sadly, very few others see the psychological con job being played out right in front of their eyes
 
The gas which the "authorities" claim is causing climate change - they called it global warming at first but later decided climate change would be better because that also covers cooling - is Carbon Dioxide. So to use the word Carbon without including Dioxide is to completely distort the meaning of these phrases. Carbon is a nonmetallic element existing in the three crystalline forms: graphite, diamond, and buckminsterfullerene. It is in Carbon Dioxide but is not essentially Carbon Dioxide.
 
When we think of the word Carbon alone we think of a gritty, black pollutant. The word Carbon has a far stronger propaganda impact than the two words Carbon Dioxide, which is a gas occurring naturally and is vital for plant growth. It is the increase of Carbon Dioxide which "they" say they are trying to stop. But they are dishonest to a man in presenting their case in this totally misrepresented way. If that fact alone does not make people suspicious there is really nothing I can say to make a difference.
 
When the pushers of this agenda, start adding the word Dioxide to their plethora of catch phrases, I will start being less cynical - I promise. Add Dioxide and I'll think about changing my view that this whole thing is a giant global con job to tax the *** out of us peasants while gaining more and more control over every facet of our lives. But I know that's never going to happen........because..........
 
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
~ Joseph Goebbels.
 
In the meantime, pardon me for smirking every time I hear some big brother puppet use a phrase like Carbon Pollution.

Oh what a load of rot. Cynicism and ignorance is a dangerous combination.
Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. It's the most significant, but there are others.
Carbon dioxide contributes to about ~60% of global warming
Methane (a carbon-based molecule, chemical signature CH4) contributes to about 10%
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs - a variety of non-naturally occuring compounds, which as the name suggests, are based on chlorine, fluorine, and carbon) contribute about 25%.
Minor greenhose gases such as nitrous oxide contribute the rest. Not all of these are carbon-based.
So approx 95% of global warming is caused by three DIFFERENT carbon-based gases. Not just by carbon dioxide. And because methane and CFCs in particular are much more potent greenhouse gases per unit released than CO2 (they're just emitted in smaller quantities) then stopping their release is also important.
CFC emissions have largely been slowed to a crawl since the successful use of an ETS to regulate them in the 80s over fears that they were (in addition to causing global warming) destroying the ozone layer. But the amount previously released is still hanging around in the atmosphere causing warming and it will take decades for natural processes to break them down significantly. And CFCs in general are over 10000 times more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, so a small reduction in their emission can have disproportionate benefits.
So yes, the words Carbon Farming and Carbon Footprint and Carbon Credits etc are used instead of their 'Carbon Dioxide' equivalents - for ■■■■■■ good reason. Nobody cares which exact combination of greenhouse gases we reduce to stop global warming, as long as its done. If you have a great idea to reduce methane emissions and successfully put it into proctise, then it should be rewarded on the world CARBON market just as much as a similarly great idea to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And in the same way the methane released by the cow-farts on the farm where your steak was produced contributes to your CARBON footprint just in the same way as the CO2 released by your bbq when you burned gas to cook it. All carbon-based. All greenhouse gases.
It's ■■■■■■■ shameful that people don't know this sort of stuff, really.

[Mootsy]

You guys realise that any sustainability progress will of course be slowed down by the brick walls of capitalism and the rich. Because any new technology has to be profitable and good for this phony economy. Even if global warming is not as extreme as some believe, it doesn't matter. It's logical to use the best and safest NEW technologies instead of unsafe technologies just because it's profitable.

 

But we don't live in a world based on logic. It's a world based on business and profits.

 

This is the entire problem. (And it is a problem). We are an animal species, not robots, we live with other species on this planet).

 

It's going to be hard for future generations to make money if the water is contaminated or the air is polluted, if the world is warmer, if cities are being affected by extreme weather. If the fish and our animals aren't maintaining the eco systems. Capitalism won't mean a lot then.

 

Problem is everything is based on short term greed.

[rossoneri]

You guys realise that any sustainability progress will of course be slowed down by the brick walls of capitalism and the rich. Because any new technology has to be profitable and good for this phony economy. Even if global warming is not as extreme as some believe, it doesn't matter. It's logical to use the best and safest NEW technologies instead of unsafe technologies just because it's profitable.

 

But we don't live in a world based on logic. It's a world based on business and profits.

 

This is the entire problem. (And it is a problem). We are an animal species, not robots, we live with other species on this planet).

 

It's going to be hard for future generations to make money if the water is contaminated or the air is polluted, if the world is warmer, if cities are being affected by extreme weather. If the fish and our animals aren't maintaining the eco systems. Capitalism won't mean a lot then.

 

Problem is everything is based on short term greed.

Simply liking this post was not enough, so I quoted it.

[Polydeukes]

We all got used to having an excise on petrol. I have NFI what the problem with having a price on carbon is.

[earth]

The "people" pushing the imposition of taxes on the poor downtrodden masses, who are apparently largely to blame that the earth's climate is changing, call what mankind does, names like "Carbon" Pollution.

 

Along with Carbon Pollution we have seen the evolution of dozens of new catch phrases and descriptions which include the word Carbon. Carbon Trading, Carbon Credits, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Farm Initiative, Carbon Sense, Carbon Footprint....I could go on all day but you get my point.

 

The cynic in me cannot escape the obvious - and intentional - deletion of the word Dioxide behind all these references to Carbon. But sadly, very few others see the psychological con job being played out right in front of their eyes

 

The gas which the "authorities" claim is causing climate change - they called it global warming at first but later decided climate change would be better because that also covers cooling - is Carbon Dioxide. So to use the word Carbon without including Dioxide is to completely distort the meaning of these phrases. Carbon is a nonmetallic element existing in the three crystalline forms: graphite, diamond, and buckminsterfullerene. It is in Carbon Dioxide but is not essentially Carbon Dioxide.

 

When we think of the word Carbon alone we think of a gritty, black pollutant. The word Carbon has a far stronger propaganda impact than the two words Carbon Dioxide, which is a gas occurring naturally and is vital for plant growth. It is the increase of Carbon Dioxide which "they" say they are trying to stop. But they are dishonest to a man in presenting their case in this totally misrepresented way. If that fact alone does not make people suspicious there is really nothing I can say to make a difference.

 

When the pushers of this agenda, start adding the word Dioxide to their plethora of catch phrases, I will start being less cynical - I promise. Add Dioxide and I'll think about changing my view that this whole thing is a giant global con job to tax the *** out of us peasants while gaining more and more control over every facet of our lives. But I know that's never going to happen........because..........

 

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

~ Joseph Goebbels.

 

In the meantime, pardon me for smirking every time I hear some big brother puppet use a phrase like Carbon Pollution.

SInce you think carbon DIOXIDE is so cool, why don't you go hang out in an airtight room which is filled with it...

[Bomberjay07]

 

The "people" pushing the imposition of taxes on the poor downtrodden masses, who are apparently largely to blame that the earth's climate is changing, call what mankind does, names like "Carbon" Pollution.

 

Along with Carbon Pollution we have seen the evolution of dozens of new catch phrases and descriptions which include the word Carbon. Carbon Trading, Carbon Credits, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Farm Initiative, Carbon Sense, Carbon Footprint....I could go on all day but you get my point.

 

The cynic in me cannot escape the obvious - and intentional - deletion of the word Dioxide behind all these references to Carbon. But sadly, very few others see the psychological con job being played out right in front of their eyes

 

The gas which the "authorities" claim is causing climate change - they called it global warming at first but later decided climate change would be better because that also covers cooling - is Carbon Dioxide. So to use the word Carbon without including Dioxide is to completely distort the meaning of these phrases. Carbon is a nonmetallic element existing in the three crystalline forms: graphite, diamond, and buckminsterfullerene. It is in Carbon Dioxide but is not essentially Carbon Dioxide.

 

When we think of the word Carbon alone we think of a gritty, black pollutant. The word Carbon has a far stronger propaganda impact than the two words Carbon Dioxide, which is a gas occurring naturally and is vital for plant growth. It is the increase of Carbon Dioxide which "they" say they are trying to stop. But they are dishonest to a man in presenting their case in this totally misrepresented way. If that fact alone does not make people suspicious there is really nothing I can say to make a difference.

 

When the pushers of this agenda, start adding the word Dioxide to their plethora of catch phrases, I will start being less cynical - I promise. Add Dioxide and I'll think about changing my view that this whole thing is a giant global con job to tax the *** out of us peasants while gaining more and more control over every facet of our lives. But I know that's never going to happen........because..........

 

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

~ Joseph Goebbels.

 

In the meantime, pardon me for smirking every time I hear some big brother puppet use a phrase like Carbon Pollution.

SInce you think carbon DIOXIDE is so cool, why don't you go hang out in an airtight room which is filled with it...

 

That Carbon is so hot right now...

[TrevorBix]

 

The "people" pushing the imposition of taxes on the poor downtrodden masses, who are apparently largely to blame that the earth's climate is changing, call what mankind does, names like "Carbon" Pollution.

 

Along with Carbon Pollution we have seen the evolution of dozens of new catch phrases and descriptions which include the word Carbon. Carbon Trading, Carbon Credits, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Farm Initiative, Carbon Sense, Carbon Footprint....I could go on all day but you get my point.

 

The cynic in me cannot escape the obvious - and intentional - deletion of the word Dioxide behind all these references to Carbon. But sadly, very few others see the psychological con job being played out right in front of their eyes

 

The gas which the "authorities" claim is causing climate change - they called it global warming at first but later decided climate change would be better because that also covers cooling - is Carbon Dioxide. So to use the word Carbon without including Dioxide is to completely distort the meaning of these phrases. Carbon is a nonmetallic element existing in the three crystalline forms: graphite, diamond, and buckminsterfullerene. It is in Carbon Dioxide but is not essentially Carbon Dioxide.

 

When we think of the word Carbon alone we think of a gritty, black pollutant. The word Carbon has a far stronger propaganda impact than the two words Carbon Dioxide, which is a gas occurring naturally and is vital for plant growth. It is the increase of Carbon Dioxide which "they" say they are trying to stop. But they are dishonest to a man in presenting their case in this totally misrepresented way. If that fact alone does not make people suspicious there is really nothing I can say to make a difference.

 

When the pushers of this agenda, start adding the word Dioxide to their plethora of catch phrases, I will start being less cynical - I promise. Add Dioxide and I'll think about changing my view that this whole thing is a giant global con job to tax the *** out of us peasants while gaining more and more control over every facet of our lives. But I know that's never going to happen........because..........

 

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

~ Joseph Goebbels.

 

In the meantime, pardon me for smirking every time I hear some big brother puppet use a phrase like Carbon Pollution.

SInce you think carbon DIOXIDE is so cool, why don't you go hang out in an airtight room which is filled with it...

 

or go back in time to 80 to 90% of the Phanerozoic era where C02 % in the atmosphere was orders of magnitudes higher than now. Life struggled back then. 
(I haven't had time to look at your questions HM). 

[Bacchusfox]

You guys realise that any sustainability progress will of course be slowed down by the brick walls of capitalism and the rich. Because any new technology has to be profitable and good for this phony economy. Even if global warming is not as extreme as some believe, it doesn't matter. It's logical to use the best and safest NEW technologies instead of unsafe technologies just because it's profitable.
 
But we don't live in a world based on logic. It's a world based on business and profits.
 
This is the entire problem. (And it is a problem). We are an animal species, not robots, we live with other species on this planet).
 
It's going to be hard for future generations to make money if the water is contaminated or the air is polluted, if the world is warmer, if cities are being affected by extreme weather. If the fish and our animals aren't maintaining the eco systems. Capitalism won't mean a lot then.
 
Problem is everything is based on short term greed.

Good post Mootsy.
The truth is that by rewarding with Government handouts to stop polluting will never work as the more you pollute the more you get and it gives you even more chance to gouge your customers. Pure capitalism at work, Adam Smith would be very proud.
You need the big stick approach, and close down the key polluters if they do not comply.

[Warlock_Paul]

 

 
FFS, us Greenies have been warning everyone for decades that global warming would result in longer and more severe bushfire seasons.  And now there are bushfires in Sydney only halfway through October exactly as people like me have been talking about for years and trying to avoid, and at the same time Abbott is bragging about how his first act as PM to remove every meaningful emissions reduction policy the country has. 
 
It's real, it's happening.  Deal.

Ah so happy I dropped in to see what bollocks was being spewed on here by the bleeding hearts. Call yourself Green.....I am surrounded by rainforest here on my organic farm. I see the build up of ground fuel getting bigger each year that threatens the lives and the properties of the other locals, as well as a Heritage listed rainforest because of the restrictions on burning off imposed by "Greenie" thinking. When it could be managed and controlled at the right time of the year to minimise potential damage but isn't allowed because the "Greenies" know better. The very "Greenies" who live in the cities and only come out to the bush when they are given government funding to confirm something that the government of the day wants to pass off to the sheeple. 

 

Anyway, regardless of the rest of your post, your bushfire statement is a farking load of horse rubbish! Exactly the same hysterical bullshit that the ABC and the other funded mouthpieces continue to spin......what are you going to pin on your global warming bullshite next?   

 

How convenient to forget to mention that there have been 11 bushfires in Oct or earlier out of the 48 major bushfires between 1926 and 2006

 

These fires are serious. But the scale of destruction is nothing like the very worst we have faced:

North-Western NSW: Bushfires – 01/09/84 deaths – 4

Western Sydney and Central Coast, NSW: 16/10/91 deaths – 2

Hunter Valley, NSW: 01/09/96

Central Coast/Hunter Valley/south coast. 15/08/96

NW NSW : Bush Fire 30/10/01

Sydney, NSW: Bushfires 09/10/02

Northern NSW: Bushfire 27/09/02

Central Coast, QLD/NSW: Bushfires 27/09/02

Cessnock, NSW: Bushfire 19/10/02 deaths – 1

NSW Bushfires 24/09/06

Bushfires: Sydney and South Coast, NSW 24/09/06

 

The ‘Black Thursday‘ fires of 6 February 1851 in Victoria, burnt the largest area (approximately 5 million ha) in European-recorded history and killed more than one million sheep and thousands of cattle as well as taking the lives of 12 people (CFA 2003a; DSE 2003b). On ‘Red Tuesday‘, 1 February 1898 in Victoria 260,000 ha were burnt, 12 people were killed and 2000 buildings were destroyed (DSE 2003b). 
 

 

Between December 1938 to January 1939, 1.5-2.0 million ha were burnt, 71 people were killed and over 1000 homes destroyed in Victoria (DSE 2003b, 2003c). The most devastation occurred on ‘Black Friday‘, 13 January 1939, when strong northerly winds intensified fires burning in almost every part of the state. Townships were destroyed and others badly damaged. So much ash and smoke was generated that ash fell as far away as New Zealand (DSE 2003c). Five years later in 1944, bushfires in Victoria burnt an estimated one million ha, killed between 15 and 20 people and destroyed more than 500 houses (DSE 2003b).

The ‘Ash Wednesday‘ fires of 16 February 1983 caused severe damage in Victoria and South Australia. In Victoria, 210,000 ha were burnt, 2,080 houses destroyed, more than 27,000 stock lost and 47 people lost their lives (CFA 2003a; DSE 2003b, 2003d). Property-related damage was estimated at over $200m and more than 16,000 fire fighters, 1,000 police and 500 defence personnel fought the fires in Victoria. In South Australia, 208,000 ha were burnt, 383 houses were destroyed, 28 people were killed and property-related damage was estimated to be more than $200m (DSE 2003d).

Serious bushfires occurred in New South Wales in 1951-52, 1968-69, 1984-85 and 1993-94. In 1968-69 over one million ha were burnt and three people were killed (Linacre & Hobbs 1977; RFS 2003a). In 1984-85, 3.5 million ha were burnt, four lives were lost, 40,000 livestock were killed and $40m damage to property was caused (RFS 2003a). In 1993-94, bushfires burnt 800,000 ha, destroyed 287 residential properties and other premises and killed four people (Year Book Australia 1995 (1301.0)).

 

It is real, because it happened.  Deal with it

[wimmera1]

Are all of those October bush fires in the last 30 years, or am I reading it wrong?

Also, without wanting to take the ■■■■ too much, what was the average turn of speed for a fire engine in 1851?

[Humble_Minion]

WP - dude, wipe the froth off your chin.
As wim has said - judging by your own stats ALL of the major October bushfires you mention happened in the past 30 years. 9 out of 11 happened in the past 20 years. Not a single one in the 58 years between 1926 and 1984, but all of a sudden they’re a regular occurence. Exactly as you’d expect if, y’know, the climate was changing and causing bushfires to become more common earlier in summer.
The science of global warming does not care about whether you are allowed to burn off or not. The science of global warming does not care about who funds the ABC. If you want to debate/rant about this stuff and display your incisive cutting political wit by calling people ‘sheeple’, then fine, go ahead, but it is simply not relevant to the science of global warming.
Oh, and yes, I’m a greenie with a bush block and I’m spending the next couple of weekends doing fuel reduction work, including burning off.

[earth]

 

 

The thing I do not understand about the Adam brandt attack is that under current global warming initiates we still had this massive and terrible bushfire.  So doesn't that actually mean the existing frame work is not working?

THe existing framework has been in place for about a year.  If it had been put in place 20-25 years ago, when it should have been, then the emissions reduction measures might have had time to have an effect, the development of clean tech might have been accelerated, the progression of global warming might have been slowed and the current fires *might* have been avoided (though this is completely unprovable).

 

But once again, I'll encourage you to read what Bandt actually said.  He didn't say "these fires are happening because Abbott's going to remove the carbon price", or even "these fires are happening because of global warming".  He said "fires like these will happen MORE OFTEN if serious measures aren't taken to prevent global warming".  And in that he is entirely right.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-feels-the-heat-over-backburning-20100731-110jg.html

 

 

 

So another 3 years on and nothing has really changed.

 

  As someone who travels works(I drive freight trains) through the mountains there hasn't been any significant fires for many years. An RFS friend said there was up to 10_13 years of fuel on the ground and that it was only a matter of time before the big one arrived,

 

 Hazard reduction in national parks or anywhere for that matter will continue to be underfunded and not close to being adequate for our circumstances.

 

 

If you really want to stop bushfires in Victoria, you stop logging.

 

Dries the forest out and makes it more fire prone, as found by ANU and Uni Melb.

 

Whilst also sending Victoria's animal emblem (Leadbeatter's possum) extinct after 20 million years, and of course losing a minimum of $20 million a year of taxpayer money.

[Humble_Minion]

Ok, here’s the big dirty secret of fuel reduction and Australian bushfire management.
There Is No Good Answer, and to be rreeeeeaaaallly politically incorrect (and RACIST!), this is largely the aborigines’ fault.
Begin history lecture mode…
There is no such thing as a ‘natural unspoiled Australian wilderness’, not any more. When the aborigines arrived, there was (or at least as close to ‘natural and unspoiled’ that a continually changing system can be). It was completely unrecognisable by comparison to today’s. The big difference was the presence of a wide variety of very large herbivorous creatures - from big weird bastards like diprotodon, paleorchestes, and zygomaturus, ranging in size between horse and rhino, to magnified versions of more familiar critters like the 300kg roo procoptodon, 10-foot flightless bird genyornis, supersized editions of stuff like koalas and wombats, etc etc. What the presence of creatures like this does for an ecosystem is clear out clutter. Grown trees are too big for them to tackle, but they eat huge amounts of underbrush, saplings, grasses etc, and in doing so they significantly cut the fuel load, both in sheer amount, and in general combustibility, since they heavily cut the light-to-medium kindling-style fuel that turns fires into BIG fires. So a wilderness with big herbivores is a more OPEN wilderness - less undergrowth, bigger trees. In turn, plants evolve to adapt to the presence of these creatures - in particular they beocme fast-growing, since the faster you can get too big to easily eat, the better.
Then the aborigines rocked up and basically ate all the megafauna (yeah, there’s debate about this and there’s no smoking gun, but 90%+ sure that’s what happened, no other explanation makes a whole lot of sense, and it’s a pattern that we see repeated in paeontology all over the world after the arrival of humans). So the undergrowth grows un-eaten (it has evolved to become fast-growing, remember), and as the fuel load balloons fires start to become more common and more extreme. This means that tougher more fire-tolerant plant species like eucalypts start to become more dominant, which in turn accelerates the decline of the remaining megafauna (since large, specialised animals are disproportionately sensitive to environmental disturbance).
By now, the aborigines are well established (but getting hungry now they’ve eaten all the big stuff…), and they start firestick farming, not through any deep respect for the cycles of nature etc, but because 1) the fast-sprouting undergrowth is a bugger to move through, and 2) fire is a useful tool to flush out the quicker, sneakier little critters that are all there is left to hunt. Completely by accident, this continual low-level burning of undergrowth to some degree emulates the brush-clearing ecological function of the vanished big critters, and the ecosystem stabilises somewhat (after fire-tolerant vegetation has basically replaced a more diverse flora en masse, with attendent mass extinction of both animals and plants).
This state of affairs (a stable but heavily impoverished ecosystem, dominated by fire-tolerant vegetation, periodic burning, and relatively small animal species) continues until us white types get here. We promptly chase off the aborigines, fell the forests, and start runnig sheep and cattle. And to some degree, the sheep and cattle help keep the fuel load down, in agricultural country at least (but there’s still some MONSTROUS fires now firestick farming has ceased, 1939 being the prime example). We also do a hell of a lot of logging, which promotes the growth of fuel load since it means a while lot of spindle flammable little saplings sprout all at once, where previously they would have been shaded out by a big old hard-tu-burn mature tree. But then some bright sparks say 'holy crap, we’ve bulldozed EVERYTHING and we’ve got less than 10% of pre-colonisation wilderness in anything resembling an uncleared state and we’ve got the fastest rate of vertebrate extinciton in the whole ■■■■■■■ world, maybe we’d better try to protect what tiny scraps of wilderness we’ve got left?'
So we start locking up valuable wilderness regions. But now nothing is keeping the fuel load down in those regions. Here in Vic at least the DSE/DEPI tries to backburn even in national parks, but they’re chronically understaffed and underfunded and fires are unpredictable things, and this largely grinds to a halt after a couple of backburns get out of control and turn into large destructive bushfires in their own right. And given the absolute holocaust unleased on native flora-fauna over the last hundred and fifty years or so, so many species are hanging on by their fingernails in sub-1000 numbers on tiny patches of land, that there’s a real possibility that even a single moderate fire (backburn or uncontrolled) could drop multiple species below a viable population size.
That’s the catch-22 we’re caught in. Fuel reduction (by fire or grazing) needs to be done in wilderness areas or catastrophic fires are the result. But the remaining wilderness areas are so small, so vulnerable, and so densely-populated with endangered species that pretty much ANY fuel reduction is ecologically catastrophic anyway. Firestick farming worked ok because there was so much wilderness which was NOT burning at any given time. There was always another population of critter X fifty miles away. There was a safety margin. But these days, the other population has had its habitat cleared and paved over and is now a housing development, and the population of critter X in our backburning area is probably one of only two or three left in existence. But of course, that doesn’t stop our precious population of critter X being wiped off the map in a perfectly normal bushfire, as Leadbeater’s possum discovered on Black Saturday.
The only real anser is major rewilding, reconstruction of something as closely resembling a pre-European ecosystem as possible, probably in the order of 3-10 times the size of the current national park etc system, repopulating endangered species as widely as possible, and then regular, planned application of the firestick once populations have rebounded enough. But there’s so many implementation problems with this plan that it just boggles the mind.
End history lecture mode…
But once again, this is irrelevant to the global warming debate. The climate is changing REGARDLESS of what fuel reduction policies we do or don’t institute. Even if we develop the perfect fuel reduction policy tomorrow and implement it flawlessly, fires are still going to become more frequent and intense than they would have been if we’d instituted the same policies and the climate hadn’t warmed.

[Humble_Minion]

So, you know all that stuff about 'the 15 year pause in warming' that certain people like to trumpet around?

 

Turns out it doesn't exist.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

 

 

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends

1. Kevin Cowtan^1,*,
2. Robert G. Way²

Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

• Instrumental temperature record;
• coverage bias;
• temperature trends

Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet's surface. The widely used HadCRUT4 dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.

Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide superior results than excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.

Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.

 

Basically, there's big chunks of the workd which are not covered meaningfully by weather stations - especially at the poles.  Most global temperature datasets just basically ignore the areas where these coverage holes are.  These guys use satellite measurements of high-atmosphere temperature plus knowledge of conditions at the fringes of the coverage holes to make a more educated estimation of temperatures in these areas.  And as you'd expect (given one of the main unmonitored areas is the Arctic where ice is melting horrifyingly fast) these better stats show that in reality, the 'warming pause' doesn't actually exist at all, especially in the carefully cherry-picked period since 1998 which denialists talk so much about...

Raw incomplete data is the thin black line, the corrected dataset is the thick black line.  Trend of the incomplete data is the thin red line, trend of the corrected data set is the thick red line.  The globe in the background gives you an idea of weather monitoring coverage.  White areas represent areas of basically no coverage, and were completely neglected in one of the two most commonly-used temperature datasets, and filled in with simple interpolation in the other.