Climate Change is Intensifying Australia's Fires (technologyreview.com) 177
Tens of thousands of Australians are fleeing their homes as hundreds of fires rage across the continent's southeast coast. And yes, climate change is almost certainly to blame for the extent of the disaster. From a report: With more than a thousand buildings destroyed and 17 deaths since October, it already ranks as one of the worst fire seasons in Australia's history -- and summer there has barely begun. What's driving the fires? Summer wildfires are common in Australia, but climate change is making them worse. Spring rainfall has declined in recent decades, even as temperatures rise, extreme heat events become more common, and droughts turn more severe, according to a 2018 report by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology. Those forces have contributed to a greater number of days with "very high fire dangers," and helped extend the fire season into spring.
But Climate Change is Fake! (Score:2, Funny)
I know it's fake. Trump, Alex Jones, and my gun-worshiping, Christian buddies told me so. Plus, I'm a computer software engineer, so I I'm smart and I can figure anything out. That majority of scientists who say global warming is real and caused by humans have just fallen for a Chinese trick. Plus I once read an article that one of them is a liar and the data is false.
PRAISE THE LORD!
Re:But Climate Change is Fake! (Score:4, Funny)
my gun-worshiping, Christian buddies told me so....PRAISE THE LORD!
I now read from the Book of Genesis, Chapter 4 verse 5:
"And God created the Colt Model 1911 and saw that it was good."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Thou shalt worship no other gods before the Bushmaster AR15"
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/9y1phc7pk9841.jpg [peopleofwalmart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No god would create something that is so hard to field-strip.
Good point. Although the 7 round capacity lines up nicely with the 7 days of creation.
And apparently the mods aren't in a humorous mood either.
Re: (Score:2)
No god would create something that is so hard to field-strip.
Brother, you would be wise to consider your words when speaking of the sanctity of the the tasks placed before you by the lord.
Perhaps you need to make a pilgrimage to the Tube of You and review some of the holy videos that show this task.
Remember, it is beholden upon you to field strip this holy relic in under 60 seconds at least once in your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, it is beholden upon you to field strip this holy relic in under 60 seconds at least once in your life.
Also, if you put an idiot scratch on it, you'll have to pay penance, and have Saint Turnbull refinish the frame.
m
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, it is beholden upon you to field strip this holy relic in under 60 seconds at least once in your life.
Also, if you put an idiot scratch on it, you'll have to pay penance,
Reminds me of the first time taking apart my low serial # M1 carbine and I ended up scratching some of the top layer of patina off on the barrel band. Fortunately it's not too noticeable, but I was heartbroken for a minute.
Re: (Score:2)
God's name is not John Moses Browning. Or is it...
Seeing as how many times his inventions have been the determinant of life or death that could be argued....
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The sad thing is I am unsure if your comment is satire or your honest opinion.
I remember back in the 1990's when posting satire on the set of anti-evolution laws being passed. Stating the world was flat, and I used all the stupid arguments then to "prove" the world was flat. To this day I am unsure if I caused the flat earthers or not.
In 2020 we really cannot afford posting sarcasm because there will be someone who will pick it up and follow it.
The obligatory... (Score:2)
If the Earth was flat, cats would've already pushed everything off of it.
Re: (Score:2)
No you didn't. Maybe you aggravated it.
But I am re-reading PG Wodehouse's work, and in "Psmith in the City", 1910, he mentions someone talking about the flat earth in Hyde Park, so actually, nothing new under the sun, only worse.
Yes, it was sarcasm (Score:2)
Most people got that. Hence all the idiots whining about how global warming is fake.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember back in the 1990's when posting satire on the set of anti-evolution laws being passed. Stating the world was flat, and I used all the stupid arguments then to "prove" the world was flat. To this day I am unsure if I caused the flat earthers or not.
Hahaha, nice possible legacy! On the other hand, these people are so incapable of verifying facts, they would just have fallen for something else completely stupid. You may just have decreased the numbers of anti-vaxxers or followers of some (well, any, really) unsavory religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Humor is about pain.
"Two people having tea", isn't funny.
"Two people having tea but they are out of sugar", isn't funny either, but it is funnier then the first. Because it brings the idea of discomfort into the narrative.
Now Hate speech often seems like humor. But it is about causing pain to others vs relating to the pain someone else.
Re: But Climate Change is Fake! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about "it's real, but all those people screaming have zero intention of actually fixing it and are just using it to push their retarded socialist agendas?"
We're probably getting saved from this hell by the solid state Dr.Goodenough batteries, not politics.
Technology is a lot better at solving out issues than politics.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's fake. Trump, Alex Jones, and my gun-worshiping, Christian buddies told me so. Plus, I'm a computer software engineer, so I I'm smart and I can figure anything out. That majority of scientists who say global warming is real and caused by humans have just fallen for a Chinese trick. Plus I once read an article that one of them is a liar and the data is false.
PRAISE THE LORD!
There you go: Confusing Weather with Climate.
Re:But Climate Change is Fake! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well technically intensify bushfires is not really all that accurate. All that can really happen is they start earlier in the fire season and once that happens, well it can not happen again later in the season. The real reason why the big fire, cheap ass conservative government did no fire prevention, no regular burns when the fuel load is low as the cheap arse cunts wanted to give tax cuts to their buddies and themselves the rich and greedy and spent fuck all money on fire prevention and mitigation, relying on gullible volunteers to do it all for the rich and so the hobby farms of the rich and greedy went up in flames and tourism in Australia took a mighty blow.
So what is needed is more tax cuts to cut more fire prevention mitigation efforts and burn more carbon because just let the damn fucking planet burn.
They used to charge extra tax to pay for bushfire mitigation to limit the harm caused by bushfire, the the insatiable greed at the top, demanded more tax cuts, well fuckers you got them and you fucking hobby farms burnt to the ground, only solution MORE FUCKING TAX CUTS for the insanely rich and greedy yeah because that will solve the problem.
Ohh and I forgot more poor gullible working class volunteers to protect the properties of the rich and greedy unwilling to pay taxes to pay for that protection. The conservative government could afford tax cuts but can not afford to pay wages for fire fighters every single hour they work. Why the fuck volunteer to be a poor idiot protecting the properties of the rich, no pay, no play, not even training.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's fake. Trump, Alex Jones, and my gun-worshiping, Christian buddies told me so. Plus, I'm a computer software engineer, so I I'm smart and I can figure anything out. That majority of scientists who say global warming is real and caused by humans have just fallen for a Chinese trick. Plus I once read an article that one of them is a liar and the data is false.
PRAISE THE LORD!
It's time's like these when I wish I had a mod point once in a while. The trolls are after you [TheMiddleRoad] hard, though your Funny is holding up for now. All I can do is quote your comment to make it slightly harder for the sock puppets with mod points to hide it.
Of course I realize that the humor has an ugly base. Just reading Selfie and passed the chapter about justified positive self-image versus the fake positive self-image of a narcissist. Perhaps the most important aspect was how a narcissist is
Re:But Climate Change is Fake! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You lost me at Fox News
Check his bio, Harvard physicist.
So what are his Climate Science chops?
Re: (Score:2)
People can be specialists in their respective fields and rather inept in others.
For example Raymond Damadian, one of the pioneers of MRI technologies (and almost Nobel Prize laureate), is without a doubt a highly competent professional in that field, whose work has done a lot of good.
But he's also outed himself as a young Earth creationist during that head-scratcher Evolution vs Creationism debate between Bill Nye and
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a fallacious appeal to authority as he is not even a climate scientists.
People can be specialists in their respective fields and rather inept in others.
For example Raymond Damadian, one of the pioneers of MRI technologies (and almost Nobel Prize laureate), is without a doubt a highly competent professional in that field, whose work has done a lot of good.
But he's also outed himself as a young Earth creationist during that head-scratcher Evolution vs Creationism debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. The mere fact that they thought it to be worthy to be broadcast on TV is baffling to me. But well, freedom of speech I guess and they didn't force anyone to watch it.
Now that does not mean that Raymond Damadian's work for MRI technologies is invalidated in any way, it just means that he's probably not a good authority for other scientific fields, like evolutionary biology.
Issac Asimov, on the other hand ...
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't know what to say about climate change, I'm not 100% convinced but good enough to add it to the other dozens of good reasons. Our goals should be cleaner cheaper renewable energy source and minimizing our impact on the environment no matter which way man made climate change falls.
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming has become a hot button issue, and is used as a smoke screen to draw attention away from all the other problems that are caused by poor production processes, energy generation, ice vehicles, etc... that smog might cause global warming but not before it causes respiratory problems for all the people breathing it now. Screw saving the climate for the future save it for everyone now and the future can reap the rewards too.
Re: (Score:2)
thermodynamics ... it is based on electrodynamics - aka absorption of certain wavelength aka photons of certain frequency.
AGW is not based on thermodynamics
Re:But Climate Change is Fake! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just keep repeating that idiotic mantra. CO2 has the properties it has, thermodynamics function on Earth just like it does everywhere else in the Universe. The Universe doesn't care about your faux skepticism. The laws of physics are what they are, and there are serious consequences to belching out millions of years of sequestered carbon in the space of three centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
>millions of years of sequestered carbon
It takes, probably, millions of years to convert biocarbon to oil, but it is not clear if the collected carbon is from any interval to me. Large mass of it could be collected underneath the surface during a short period of time (there were periods when the whole planet was covered in lush vegetation and animal life was striving) and then slowly convert to oil. Or in several periods like that.
It would be interesting to compare the amount of carbon in known oil reser
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to compare the amount of carbon in known oil reserve to the amount of biolife that holds an equivalent amount of carbon.
Here is the answer: Current total carbon is about 1000 gigaton, twice larger than the carbon in current living biomass.
Links and quotes:
https://energyeducation.ca/enc... [energyeducation.ca]: It is estimated that the total world reserves amount to around 10^12 tonnes of coal. 780 gigatons of carbon
https://www.eia.gov/coal/produ... [eia.gov]: For example, coal with a carbon content of 78 percent
ht [answers.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're actually that fucking stupid and then a whole lot more.
Re:But Climate Change is Fake! (Score:4)
Citation needed.
Fox News doesn't count because it is for entertainment only [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only 10 days, not 80 years...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously linking to that fucking debunked moron? Fucking nitwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously linking to that fucking debunked moron? Fucking nitwit.
My theory is that some of the low-UIDs have been pwned for their credibility. The old data is available to support the approach.
Within the solution approach of MEPR, the data should be aged. That would also cover such cases as senility (which is an alternative explanation for some of what appears in Slashdot comments these days).
Re: (Score:2)
as distinguished scientist Michael Guillen attests
People don't become distinguished scientists just because they've presented one too many UFO documentaries on TV. How about if you have an assertion that plenty of people who aren't Christians and/or Trump supporters are climate skeptics, you name one. Just one will do to absolve you from looking like a fact impaired raving lunatic..
Re: (Score:2)
Real climatologists can and should study and debate the actual science surrounding climate change, but the climate cult jihadis do not want a debate. Their message is "The science is settled.
That's a great comment right there. Real climatologists agree science is settled, though I'm not sure why you call them climate cult jihadis.
If you're going to make a point that looks incredibly stupid try to use grammar and punctuation that makes your point clear. You look like a fool in more ways than one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're a fucking idiot. I say that respectfully.
1. It's terribly fucking stupid to say that mathematical model complexity means predictions cannot be made with it. Did you make that shit up or copy it from another moron? You may as well say that, since neural nets are too mathematically complex, Google results cannot be used. Prove that mathematically. I suggest you google it. While you're at it, I suggest looking at weather reports and wearing the opposite of what they suggest you wear. If you can't
Re:Me too! (Score:5, Insightful)
This can be proven pretty readily using math. Do you have a counter-argument?
You need to present an actual argument first. Merely asserting that something is false "because math" isn't actually an argument, it's a claim.
Back in the real world, the temperature rise that happened in reality is right within the error bars of the predicted rise in the 1990 IPCC report. In other words, the predictions actually worked. Physics, it's a thing, and we can use it to make predictions. Weird, huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one that does that. I'll wait.
Oh piss off. I already did you just chose to ignore it and asked for the same thing again.
Strange winter i Scandinavia too. (Score:4, Informative)
Instead of temperatures around the freezing point we have temperatures almost up to 10 degrees C in January.
Of course it can suddenly flip, but so far it's just strange and so far I have only had about 3 or 4 mornings this winter where I have had to scrape of the ice from my windscreen on the car.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope your house isn't built on permafrost.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of temperatures around the freezing point we have temperatures almost up to 10 degrees C in January.
Of course it can suddenly flip, but so far it's just strange and so far I have only had about 3 or 4 mornings this winter where I have had to scrape of the ice from my windscreen on the car.
I never had kids but I used to be one until I no longer met the age requirement.
I'm 74 and I remember harsh seasons with short periods of autumn and spring.
Nowadays, winter and summer are mild and the beauty of autumn and spring transition are gone.
I'm a seasoned (see what I did there) photographer and the stark beauty is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange winter in Québec too, we had a green christmas, which is pretty rare, and for a few weeks now we have a -5/+5C temperature which is not normal too. I guess the -30C is coming though...
Re: (Score:2)
Russia imported fake snow for Moscow...it seems they ran out of the real stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course if someone in another part of the world posts that their particular winter is colder than normal, they'll be told that local weather does not equate to global climate. So why is your local weather different?
If local weather != global climate, then it works both ways.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:stop acting like its a vacuous phenomenon (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly it takes catastrophes like this for people to wake up. We've been warned since the 1970s that GHG emissions were going to significantly increase the amount of solar radiation being trapped in the lower atmosphere, and really, we've known it since the 19th century when CO2s properties were first fully understood. There are no surprises here.
The treatment Morrison is getting, not helped by him taking a vacation while his country burned, awaits many leaders as the effects of AGW become more apparent.
Re: (Score:2)
The treatment Morrison is getting, not helped by him taking a vacation while his country burned, awaits many leaders as the effects of AGW become more apparent.
Sadly he seems to be following in Abbott's footsteps: Tony Abbott, former Australian PM, tells Israeli radio the world is 'in the grip of a climate cult' [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And that is the real issue: There was generous time to do something effective, but besides some cosmetic action, nothing was done and the problem got worse. This will be a race between the more and more panicked deniers and the people that push for the massive changes urgently needed. Still, it is pretty clear that the range where this can go now is somewhere between "extreme catastrophe" and "extinction", because nothing decisive is going to happen anytime soon. There are too many deniers and too many peop
Re: (Score:2)
For me, it's akin to some cult leader declaring "you can defy gravity, it doesn't apply to you!" and then instructing his followers to walk off the edge of a cliff. Well, I'm afraid the laws of physics are not contingent on our beliefs, denials, or how bad the consequences are of ignoring them. Increasing CO2 PPM increases the capacity of the lower atmosphere to trap solar radiation, thus adding more energy to atmospheric systems, not to mention the delightful side effect that the oceans will absorb a good
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sort-of. You usually have a choice to join a cult or not (exceptions apply, for example children born into one). Hence with a cult, you can just decide to not be in it and then ignore the mass-suicide (or enjoy the show of extreme virtue-signalling failure, if you are so inclined). The problem with climate change is that everybody has mandatory membership in this suicide-cult. Otherwise I would not mind them denying things all day long and removing their own future.
Re: stop acting like its a vacuous phenomenon (Score:2)
Killed 24 people. Not a catastrophe.
I do not care about plants and animals or species as a whole. All that matters is impact to humans
As far as i know the areas burned are wasteland. Wiki page has no information on economical impact.
Until that impact is calculated, stop bullshitting people with your sensational titles calling this a catastrophe.
Not really (Score:2, Interesting)
Local meteorologist (not an AGW panic monger) says fires correlate more with previous seasons of moderate weather, adequate rainfall and good growing seasons. More fuel == more fire.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting idea. The article doesn't do anything to correlate global warming with the fires. But I'm not seeing anything in the Australian crop reports that corroborate the statement that Australia had a good growing season last year. But I'm not entirely sure. There was a spike in 2017, but for 2018 they were showing a decrease in crops. Here's what I found:
https://www.agriculture.gov.au... [agriculture.gov.au]
http://data.daff.gov.au/data/w... [daff.gov.au]
Re: (Score:2)
The article doesn't do anything to correlate global warming with the fires
The link between temperature and forest fire risk is well established.
"The three sides of the fire behavior triangle are weather, topography and fuels. [idahofirewise.org]
Weather includes wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture and air pressure. High temperatures and low humidity cause vegetation to dry and wildfires to burn rapidly."
This summer in Australia was the hottest and driest on record. The dryness appears to be the result of bad luck [wordpress.com] rather than global warming. The temperature on the other hand is part of
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately we are in agreement here, but I still want to clarify the global warming/fire correlation:
The article doesn't do anything to correlate global warming with the fires
The link between temperature and forest fire risk is well established. [idahofirewise.org]
The article you link to does not correlate global warming with fires via heat. Here is what it says about heat:
Heat - to raise fuel temperatures to their ignition point and to ignite fuels. Common sources of heat are lightning and human activities.
The "heat" link means "matches" and "lightning" but has nothing to do with air temperature. I don't think global warming has gotten us significantly closer to the 232C that causes paper to burn. So I'm still not seeing the connection between global warming and the fires. This reminds me of the m
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm still not seeing the connection between global warming and the fires.
Because you have mental problems?
Warmer -> more heat waves -> drier forrests -> more fires and more violent fires.
Sorry to bring it so bluntly to you, no idea why you can not conclude that yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The "heat" link means "matches" and "lightning" but has nothing to do with air temperature
Right, but read a bit further down and it talks about the factors that affect how a wildfire burns, how fast it moves and how difficult it is to control.
Really that obtuse? (Score:2)
This shit is quantifiable. Record high temperatures for record durations plus dry conditions == record shattering fires. So more like:
as "moderate" years haven't produced 12 million acre fires you absolute clown.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Climate change article talks about climate change (known to cause abnormal weather patterns) as being a cause and your defense against it is ... the previous season's abnormal weather patterns.
Umm... yes. The answer is yes. Not sure what your point is, but it's definitely not "not really".
Which local meteorologist? (Score:5, Informative)
Local meteorologist (not an AGW panic monger) says fires correlate more with previous seasons of moderate weather,
WTF are you talking about? Do you have a cite? Do you even have a name of the meteorologist for us?
Your imaginary local meteorologist differs from what the bureau of meteorology have to say, which includes [bom.gov.au] special statements such as:
Dangerous bushfire weather and heat in spring 2019
Issued 18 December 2019
Severe fire weather conditions in southeast Queensland and northeast New South Wales in September 2019
Issued 24 September 2019
Drought conditions in eastern Australia and impact on water resources in the Murray–Darling Basin
Updated 29 November 2019, Issued 9 April 2019
An abnormally dry period in eastern Australia
Issued 1 November 2018
Persistent summer-like heat sets many April records
Issued 13 April 2018, updated 16 April 2018, updated 3 May 2018
Record warmth in the Tasman Sea, New Zealand and Tasmania. Joint statement with NIWA (New Zealand)
Issued 27 March 2018
A prolonged warm spell in Tasmania and Victoria
Issued 4 December 2017
Exceptional September heat in eastern Australia
Issued 5 October 2017
Exceptional heat in southeast Australia in early 2017
Issued 22 February 2017, updated 24 February 2017, updated 11 April 2017
Then (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure thing - if you also think the solution for high student loan costs is to make students sign for $2.5 million Bugatti's, and that the solution for the homeless problem is to build each homeless person an 8,000 square foot mansion filled with lead paint and asbestos.
Re: (Score:2)
Well first all the climate leaders need to fly their private jets to a few more overseas conferences so they can discuss the problem further (skype isn't an option if you're a true leader!), then middle class individuals need to pay more money to be redistributed to third world dictators. those things are very important to reduce overall emissions!
Re: Then (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snark arguing against snark?
Damn commies! (Score:2)
The big picture (Score:3)
Far be it from me to ruin people's commiseration over the impending end of the world. Just thought I would point out that life for the vast majority of the worlds population just keeps getting better, climate notwithstanding.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/20... [spectator.co.uk]
Now back to your regularly scheduled doom and gloom.
hidden nuclear post (Score:3)
When using Slashdot, without being logged in, I saw a post claiming nuclear was the way to go. I tried commenting, but was told anonymous posting was not allowed.
However, when I logged in, I can no longer see the post I tried to reply too -- no matter what I do!
> Then (Score:3)
> by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @12:30PM > (#59582722)
> Then I guess we'd better hurry up and go full nuclear, and find
> technological ways to sequester carbon. Snarking and name
> calling just doesn't seem to be getting the job done.
Before you invest any further into nuclear, find safe & economic ways to deal with spent fuel rods & decommissioning old reactors. Currently solar & wind power sources are faster to set up & far cheaper when all costs are considered.
Re: (Score:2)
Will this wake up the Australian government ? (Score:2)
The bush fires are a big kick-up the backside of the Australian government but is it a sufficient kick to get their government to take climate change seriously ?
Australia has some of the best solar resources in the world. Will the Australian government build solar farms in preference to coal mining ?
I think we are now at a crossroads whether humanity can take a different course to reduce the impacts of climate change.
Luckily, the US is also being impacted by climate change putting political pressure on stat
The thing is (Score:3)
Australia isn't just punished for its own sins, but for the whole world's sins. CO2 doesn't care about borders.
It doesn't really make sense to claim they did it to themselves. Autralia can go CO2 neutral today but it won't help to get rid of the fires.
Perhaps those yearly fires will change the vegetation in such a way that it will be less susceptible to them.
Re: (Score:2)
No shit, Sherlock. (Score:2)
The correlation between intense wildfires in Australia and climate change was brought to you by CORI - Captain Obvious Research Institute.
summer just begun? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Officially most of that was spring. Summer only started at the end of December. The seasons don't exactly line up with what the weather really does, nor with what people refer to the seasons as.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually December 22 is the official start of summer (the summer solstice). You were close at being only 22 days out, but many people believe it starts even earlier (often as early as the end of October). Summer ends and fall starts on March 20th (fall equinox)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solstice is the technical definition of the start of summer. That's why they say “summer has only just started“ because we're only about week in.
Now if your feel like using your own definition that starts at a different time, feel free. But know that you'll be just one of many such definitions, and one that will not line up with any official report, the first “really hot“ day is what triggers it for many people, so late October or early November often.
Re: (Score:2)
Summer began a bit more than two weeks ago .... long time to go till you are at peak.
Re:Because nothing caught on fire before (Score:5, Interesting)
Math is a neat thing, the more values you collect the more accurate your numbers are.
So Here is a python program. That averages random numbers between 0 and 1 then I run an other set of random number but I add 0.1 to the value.
While all the numbers generated are random, I can tell the second run is 0.1 larger.
import random
maxc = 1000000
number = 0
for i in range(maxc):
number += random.random()
print(number/maxc)
number = 0
for i in range(maxc):
number += random.random()+0.1
print(number/maxc)
Climate science isn't about stating any one weather condition is solid evidence, but all the weather conditions in total does show the trend. The fact there are bush fires isn't a big deal, but the size of them over such a large area as there are a lot of large bush fires happening, does show the trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Math is a neat thing, the more values you collect the more accurate your numbers are.
So Here is a python program. That averages random numbers between 0 and 1 then I run an other set of random number but I add 0.1 to the value.
While all the numbers generated are random, I can tell the second run is 0.1 larger.
import random
maxc = 1000000
number = 0
for i in range(maxc):
number += random.random()
print(number/maxc)
number = 0
for i in range(maxc):
number += random.random()+0.1
print(number/maxc)
Climate science isn't about stating any one weather condition is solid evidence, but all the weather conditions in total does show the trend. The fact there are bush fires isn't a big deal, but the size of them over such a large area as there are a lot of large bush fires happening, does show the trend.
Agree and let's extend the metaphor to include that every civilation on Earth has been running that same algo with varying degrees (see what I did there) of accuracy from water thermometers to present-day technology and all agree, for millennia, that temperatures are rising.
Especially compelling is the agreement that with the appearance of humans, there's a positive correlation of rapid rise to the point of eligibility or cause and effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Piffle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is a shit source?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/... [bom.gov.au]
Did you even bother to see where Breitbart cited their data from? Perhaps you don't like the Sydney Morning Herald or 9 news or their other sources? Or perhaps you are a bullshitter incapable of debating the facts?
All Breitbart did was collate the facts and put them together in an article where you can readily review them. If you have citations that invalidate the Australians government's own meteorological historical dat
Re: (Score:2)
All they did was cherry pick facts to ignore the fucking elephant in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a debate. It was demonstrated that it has been both hotter and drier during the meteorological record without having anywhere the scale of bushfires that are currently occurring. Claims and citations were offered.
If you can demonstrate that these claims are wrong all you have to do is offer up some evidence. You obviously can't refute anything or you would have. Despite your vitriol it turns out you were in fact the bullshitter. Facts matter, reality trumps.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof is no longer required, nor even desired, in "climate emergency" discussions (is that still the right term? or have they ramped the rhetoric up to an even higher level than "emergency" now? It's so hard to keep track as the terms keep changing whenever we don't offer to send enough money to the right politicians and their buddies to save our immortal souls)
You must agree, 100% without question, that ALL negative things that happen on this planet are 100% caused by AGW. There are no other possible cause
Re: (Score:2)
I was raised with a definition of science that is currently considered heresy. One that involved experiment and evidence and debate. One in which the science was only settled when something was considered a law of physics. You challenge the greens on the facts and they fall flat on their face. They live in their narrative and canâ(TM)t debate the real world.
The thing is that I am an environmentalist and junk science pushes aside genuine pollution concerns for political concerns. I repudiate the modern
Re: (Score:2)
So let's have a look at The Greens representation. For my state, which is very much fire affected: city councils: 58/1273, state government (NSW) 3/93 and 3/42, federal government 1/150 and 9/76.
Now several questions: how have the greens been able to wield such incredible political power with such amazingly low representation? Have you actually read their policy on hazard reduction?
I recommend you read the entire paper you quoted from. It's a good read. You may want to read the entire section your quo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You dumb as shit, bro?