Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[This Is Anfield]

Also, we need real deterrents to arson.
So many seem to be teenage with no real consequences, how about consequences for them for the rest of their lives and have them pay a significant % of their lifetime earnings to bushfire relief... victims and future preventative measures.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Also, we need real deterrents to arson.
So many seem to be teenage with no real consequences, how about consequences for them for the rest of their lives and have them pay a significant % of their lifetime earnings to bushfire relief... victims and future preventative measures.

I understand that the underlying psycopathy is incredibly complex, and like all crime you will never completely end it.

The problem with this type of arson is that it is so very costly.

 

[Corpuscles]

How many hundreds of years have we had fireworks? Surely with the technological advancements we could have a really awesome laser show or something instead.

I mean I see people who get some vantage point 12 hours in advance to see the fireworks, wtf?!?!

You really should once in your life , attend the Australia Day , LASER light show , in Sydney.
It is world class.
The inventors were Australian entrepreneurs (known to me by acquaintance rather than friend)
Just shows we have the talent to develop tech. Just not the commitment and the investment $bucks!

Oh, bring something for you and partner to piss in, and plenty of liquids!
You will be squashed in , closer than sardines in a can!

 

[Deliverance]

.........and things which changed over decades are changing over thousands of years.

We have never existed on a planet where the chemistry was set at any particular equilibrium.



Climate change in and of itself is neither "bad" nor "good", as far as we're concerned.

It's all about what we do with it.

Do you see potential in or even a need for negative emission technologies?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Do you see potential in or even a need for negative emission technologies?

Yes, I also see a need for carbon in the atmosphere if too much was sequestered.

 

[Blue1980]

Yes.



You are messing with the natural ecosystem.



Agree.



Nuclear energy is more realistic.



Indeed. Forest management has been found out with the current scenario.



Dunno much about this. I'd personally looking at federalizing the water systems, so the the idiocy could become centralized and more accountable.



Absolutely, and not just in the cities.



There's an environmental cost at play here.

If we were to go nuclear/renewable across the board AND double our vegetation, then Australia alone could displace ~/> 20 gigatonnes of CO2 per annum in 30 years time.

This number would sequester ~60% of the current world anthropogenic CO2 production (37 gigatonnes).

As you can see, the solutions are not difficult, but it's the politics which gets in the way. We must learn to become better terraformers.

So basically the best solutions would have a mix of things which would piss off people on the left and right.

I’m not anti nuclear, I mean plants would be built a billion times better and have better safety regulations than the dodgy Soviet ones or even ones built in the states.

In terms of different trees, I am probably more thinking in areas that there aren’t anything much currently (ex farmland for instance)

 

[Blue1980]

Also, we need real deterrents to arson.
So many seem to be teenage with no real consequences, how about consequences for them for the rest of their lives and have them pay a significant % of their lifetime earnings to bushfire relief... victims and future preventative measures.

In real terms arson shouldn’t be treated any different to manslaughter for loss of life (not sure if this is the case already).

But there is an upswing in grass fires starting when the media is saturated with bushfire coverage, which is exactly what’s happened the last week. Be willing to bet 99% are deliberately lit.

 

[Corpuscles]

In real terms arson shouldn’t be treated any different to manslaughter for loss of life (not sure if this is the case already).

But there is an upswing in grass fires starting when the media is saturated with bushfire coverage, which is exactly what’s happened the last week. Be willing to bet 99% are deliberately lit.

As your friendly pretend (investment included) advisor, I suggest you moderate your bet "to slightly greater than half" then stack all you got on it, even if you have to give odds.

I fear that lunatics who would invade on mass remote farms, to save the 'dear little piggies' (I like pigs) and then a caravan of gas guzzling loonies in SUV and 4WD led by the messiah/prophet Bob Brown over 2000ml journey... then sadly...
such lunatics probably see some strange benefit in believing their "teachers" and start fires to "PROVE", the otherwise unprovable point.

Don't worry if your bet fails, we will sue the ABC! & MSM!

 

[Snake_Baker]

So basically the best solutions would have a mix of things which would piss off people on the left and right.

Yes.....................politics.................the bane of human existence.

The solutions are there now for a smooth transition.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Bazzar]

Didnt take long for the real crux of the story, the previously failed 29 ex-fire cheifs politicising a national tragedy

Here's Flannerys cheif lap-dog, Mullins

“Wherever I go – and I have been out fighting fires this season in Wollombi, Spencer, Grafton, the Blue Mountains, Bargo and Batemans Bay – people who I have never met are coming up to me and saying ‘good on you mate, we see now what you are talking about'.”

What he’s been "talking about" is climate change. Earlier this year, Mullins was a key force behind the formation of the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action group, which brings together 29 former fire and emergency service chiefs who want to see stronger leadership on the matter.

The warming of the planet has “created conditions for fires the likes of which we have never seen before”, Mullins says. That includes a 15 to 20 per cent reduction in rainfall on the South Coast in recent years, and fire seasons extending up to two months longer than they did in the the 1970s through to the '90s."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the planet warms, moisture is extracted from the earth, forms clouds, and dumps that rain back to earth?

So how can global warming cause drought?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the planet warms, moisture is extracted from the earth, forms clouds, and dumps that rain back to earth?

So how can global warming cause drought?

It contributes to the polar opposite.

 

[Hawk_francais]

I knew there must be another reason. Global warming cant be happening, it simply cant because it cant.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the planet warms, moisture is extracted from the earth, forms clouds, and dumps that rain back to earth?

So how can global warming cause drought?

It’s nobody’s job to correct you. If you cant imagine that the earth’s climate might be more complex that “heat goes up, all the water goes up, and then a bit later all the water comes back down”, then heaven help you.

Also I dont know why you're saying ‘if’ the planet warms. The planet has warmed, nobody in possession of a thermometer can deny it. The only feasable argument can be about the causes.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It’s nobody’s job to correct you. If you cant imagine that the earth’s climate might be more complex that “heat goes up, all the water goes up, and then a bit later all the water comes back down”, then heaven help you.

It's actually CO2 rises, purportedly contributes to positive radiative forcing, plant life takes off and plant transpiration puts a lot more water in atmosphere.

 

[Ron The Bear]

It’s nobody’s job to correct you. If you cant imagine that the earth’s climate might be more complex that “heat goes up, all the water goes up, and then a bit later all the water comes back down”, then heaven help you.

Also I dont know why you're saying ‘if’ the planet warms. The planet has warmed, nobody in possession of a thermometer can deny it. The only feasable argument can be about the causes.

Australia is historically a land of low rainfall, but there is no long-term trend of decreasing rainfall.

Australia Average Rainfall Map: Wet & Dry Seasons & States

Australia is home to some of the driest regions in the world, while also being subject to periods of heavy rainfall and cyclones. See more.

www.bushmantanks.com.au

Yes, we had record low rainfall in 2019, due largely to the record positive Indian Ocean Dipole, as previously discussed.

Everybody knew conditions would be volatile this bushfire season. Everybody. Did we do enough to prepare?

 

[Bazzar]

 

[Father Jack]

Australia is historically a land of low rainfall, but there is no long-term trend of decreasing rainfall.

Australia Average Rainfall Map: Wet & Dry Seasons & States

Australia is home to some of the driest regions in the world, while also being subject to periods of heavy rainfall and cyclones. See more.

www.bushmantanks.com.au

Yes, we had record low rainfall in 2019, due largely to the record positive Indian Ocean Dipole, as previously discussed.

Everybody knew conditions would be volatile this bushfire season. Everybody. Did we do enough to prepare?

From that website:

As can be seen in the graph below, rainfall in Australian has actually seen a slight increase from 1900 – 2017. This is due to uncharacteristic weather patterns which resulted in events such as tropical cyclones, as well as a general increase in the number of days of rainfall in certain areas especially northern Australia.

So it sounds like it we get more up north and less where we need it, not to mention more in tropical cyclones, which don't tend to drop water in a manner that's overly helpful.

What's the drought situation like? Is that the same over the past 100 years?

 

[Hawk_francais]

Australia is historically a land of low rainfall, but there is no long-term trend of decreasing rainfall.

Australia Average Rainfall Map: Wet & Dry Seasons & States

Australia is home to some of the driest regions in the world, while also being subject to periods of heavy rainfall and cyclones. See more.

www.bushmantanks.com.au

Yes, we had record low rainfall in 2019, due largely to the record positive Indian Ocean Dipole, as previously discussed.

Everybody knew conditions would be volatile this bushfire season. Everybody. Did we do enough to prepare?

No. And at whose feet should that blame lie? I personally blame the all-powerful greens, who have always dug in their heels on dealing with environmental issues, have slashed the NPWS budget, backed in their coal industry donors, then tried to blame the poor liberals for not back-burning enough during an ever diminishing safe-burning window.

Wake up Australia, you’ve been sitting on the Murdoch merry-go-round so long you can’t tell if it’s your arse on fire or your elbow

 

[Ron The Bear]

So it sounds like it we get more up north and less where we need it, not to mention more in tropical cyclones, which don't tend to drop water in a manner that's overly helpful.

What's the drought situation like? Is that the same over the past 100 years?

I don't know about regional patterns, the data is not easily accessible except by request to BoM.

I do know there is a push to build new dams, to direct water to where it's needed. But one side of politics isn't amenable.

The last IPCC report found "low confidence" in increased drought due to climate change, i.e. "we couldn't establish a link". Same for floods. Same for hurricanes/cyclones.

Global bushfires are down 25% since 2003.

 

[Ron The Bear]

No.

No, rainfall is decreasing? Or just no? (Edit: misinterpreted your post, apologies)

I'm out for awhile. The country is taking leave of its senses.

 

[Brad Goodman]

I'm out for awhile. The country is taking leave of its senses.

I'm sure you posted the same when they legalised same-sex marriage.

 

[Corpuscles]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the planet warms, moisture is extracted from the earth, forms clouds, and dumps that rain back to earth?

So how can global warming cause drought?

Congrats!

I have read some stupid stuff from both sides of the argument here.
BUT that statement (or question) raises the level of "stupid" way beyond the most extreme.

Are you attempting to form a drought deniers club/party- of one member?

 

[Corpuscles]

Aside from Playing the man, is their scientific proof climate change causes drought?

It is, merely, basic stuff requiring some functional brain cells, that climate change causes drought.

However you mean anthropomorphic ?
I don't know.!!!! ???
I think maybe (certainly) humans effect the environment, and therefore climate to some extent.

That, does not excuse your ridiculous question , which if you were being serious in your ignorance, disqualifies you from ANY worthy comment on the matter.

Have a beer and relax. (Or study the 2 times tables- you'll get it eventually!)
Cheers

 

[mcnulty]

It is, merely, basic stuff requiring some functional brain cells, that climate change causes drought.

However you mean anthropomorphic ?
I don't know.!!!! ???
I think maybe (certainly) humans effect the environment, and therefore climate to some extent.

That, does not excuse your ridiculous question , which if you were being serious in your ignorance, disqualifies you from ANY worthy comment on the matter.

Have a beer and relax. (Or study the 2 times tables- you'll get it eventually!)
Cheers

Standard procedure...ask for the science, even though you don't accept the science. Say the science is flawed, but ask for more of it. Presumably until you get the science you’re after.