This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
The cause of the fire is not the issue. It's its severity and ability to spread which is caused by having a lot of dry fuel on the ground.
Click to expand...

Rumpy, how do I get through to you?

Did you bother to read in full the link I posted #7554......It indicates the severity of fires since 1825.....the areas which were burnt, the lives and buildings lost...

Please read it in full and please do not come back saying you do not understand or with some unworthy comment.
 
SirRumpole said:
The cause of the fire is not the issue. It's its severity and ability to spread which is caused by having a lot of dry fuel on the ground.
Click to expand...

Have youvread thecwoeks of Levitt/Dubner?
 

You can keep wiki, real source unknown, I'll give you a real science journal


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150720133631.htm

But, looking at your wiki link, it couldn't have escaped your attention how many fires occurred since 1990 than all the years before ?

Wake up noco and do some critical thinking, don't just try to confirm your own prejudices.
 

I am trying to keep a sane mind with you Rumpy.......You are obviously asleep at the wheel again and have not read the full article...Something which you are in a habit of neglecting....You only read what suits you.

So you are trying to tell me the Wiki information is not true.

As the article well explains, one quarter of the globe is affected more than many other areas.

The researchers found that fire weather seasons have lengthened across one quarter of Earth's vegetated surface. In certain areas, extending the fire season by a bit each year added up to a large change over the full study period. For instance, parts of the western United States and Mexico, Brazil, and East Africa now face wildfire seasons that are more than a month longer than they were 35 years ago.

The authors attribute the longer season in the western United States to changes in the timing of snowmelt, vapor pressure, and the timing of spring rains -- all of which have been linked to global warming and climate change. On the other hand, the easing of droughts in Western Africa and the Pacific coast of South America likely contributed to the shortening of fire seasons in those areas.

In some parts of the world, tough fire seasons have also become more frequent. "The map at the top of the page depicts steady trends in season length..." explained Jolly.

While many of the same areas that saw fire seasons grow progressively longer also faced more frequent fires seasons, the two measures differed significantly in some areas. Australia, for instance, has not experienced an increase in the length of fire seasons. However, eastern Australia has seen the years with long and severe fire seasons become more frequent.

Overall, 54 percent of the world's vegetated surfaces experienced long fire weather seasons more frequently between 1996 and 2013 as compared with 1979-1996, according to Jolly. This amounted to a doubling in the total global burnable area affected by long fire weather seasons. (For this calculation, "long fire season" was defined as a length that was one standard deviation above the historical mean.)

It is important to note that although the study shows many environments have become more prone to fires, it does not demonstrate that the wildfires burned more intensely or charred more acres. That's because even with longer and more frequent fire seasons, other factors can affect whether fires occur and how they behave, such as: whether lightning or human activity ignites the fires; whether humans attempt to suppress them; and whether there is enough fuel to sustain them.


 

That's right.

How can people not able to draw the link between the increase in frequency and scale of these "natural" disasters?

Seriously, if we're all told that tomorrow SkyNet (Terminator) were to unleash nuclear war on humanity, noco will say that an asteroid had hit Earth and kill all the dinosaurs yet we still survive and Earth still recovered.
 

ROFL....The link you are talking about refers to 1/4 of the Globe......Others areas are much less affected but you are obviously turning a blind eye to that point.

Bring out and exaggerate on the affected areas it makes it look a lot worse by far.
 
noco said:
Bring out and exaggerate on the affected areas it makes it look a lot worse by far.
Click to expand...

You have incapsulated in that sentence the metaphorical 'the canary in the coal mine'. Now your own warped reasoning leads you inevitably toward the only conclusion the facts allow.
The sensitive effected areas obviously fair worse to begin with.

Buy in now to the future of coal noco, bet your house on it, at these prices it's a bargain.
 
noco said:
ROFL....The link you are talking about refers to 1/4 of the Globe......Others areas are much less affected but you are obviously turning a blind eye to that point.

Bring out and exaggerate on the affected areas it makes it look a lot worse by far.
Click to expand...

I went to the wikipedia page you linked to to make your case noco: similar number of bushfires in N.America past 16 years than previous 175 years. That's a significant jump.

But OK, it's not "man made" as such, it's just more people so more arsonist or accidental lighting up of the place.

But then it's only that quarter of the world.

Right now there's record drought in SE Asia; China - where 1+ billion people who's already living on much less water than our standard...

anyway, 97% of scientists can't convince you, what chance does anybody.
 

How have those 97% of "scientists" ascertained the causation of these events under discussion?
 

I have asked you before....97% of how many so called scientist.......Were they the ones hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to their GLOBAL WARMING cause?....

I have also told you there are 31,478 scientist who think the opposite to your 97%????????????????
 

Did you go to school noco.

Not sure anyone could now believe you on your 31,478 against anymore.

For the excercise 97 x 31,478 = more than 3 million scientists saying we have a problem. Maybe just a bit early in the day ole Pal.
 
explod said:
Did you go to school noco.

Not sure anyone could now believe you on your 31,478 against anymore.

For the excercise 97 x 31,478 = more than 3 million scientists saying we have a problem. Maybe just a bit early in the day ole Pal.
Click to expand...

I am scratching my head trying make sense out of your post......I am sure nobody else can either...You asked me did I go to school and the answer is yes I did but I doubt you ever proceeded past 1st grade.

I am trying to work out where that 97 fits into your equation.

The link below indicates the signatures of those scientists who disagree on man made Global Warming..oops sorry...Climate Change!!!....It was taken in 1997 so there are probably a heap more who have been added to that list since then.

www.petitionproject.org
 
noco said:
...It was taken in 1997 so there are probably a heap more who have been added to that list since then.

www.petitionproject.org
Click to expand...

I say there would be much many more who have looked at the facts that that hottest 16 years on record have occurred in the last 20 years and now wish they never signed that petiton.
 
SirRumpole said:
I say there would be much many more who have looked at the facts that that hottest 16 years on record have occurred in the last 20 years and now wish they never signed that petiton.
Click to expand...

Where is your proof?...Put up or shut up!!!!.....Aka SirRumpole.
 
noco said:
Where is your proof?...Put up or shut up!!!!.....Aka SirRumpole.
Click to expand...

Get st...ed noco, where is your proof that there would be many more scientists supporting the petition ?

Put up or shut up yourself, you are just a troll.
 
noco said:
ROFL....The link you are talking about refers to 1/4 of the Globe......Others areas are much less affected but you are obviously turning a blind eye to that point.

Bring out and exaggerate on the affected areas it makes it look a lot worse by far.
Click to expand...


The findings presented in the paper (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150714/ncomms8537/full/ncomms8537.html) are as follows:

The authors refer to three variables, evaluated over the years from 1979 to 2013; Length of fire weather seasons (days per year), Frequency of long fire weather seasons (seasons per year, or the more user-friendly years between fire weather seasons), and Areas experiencing long fire weather conditions (Km^2 and percent of total).

Length
They found that 25.3% of the global vegetated area experienced a (statistically significant) increase in fire weather season length, 10.7% experienced a decrease (I can’t tell at first reading whether the decrease was statistically significant) and the remaining area showed no change. So globally, from 1979 to 2013, fire weather season length increased by 18.7% and the area showing an increase was more than twice the size of the area showing a decrease.

Frequency
The period under review was further divided into two halves, from 1979 to 1996 and from 1996 to 2013. Upon comparing these two sub-periods, the frequency of long fire weather seasons increased across 53.4% of the global vegetated area as observed between 1996 and 2013, compared with 1979–1996, with decreased frequency only observed across 34.6%. That is, the area that experienced an increased frequency in the most recent period is 1.54 times larger than the area that experienced a decrease in frequency over the same periods.

Moreover “ince 1979, there have been 6 years, all in the last decade, where >20% of the global vegetated area has been affected by long fire weather seasons (2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013)”

Area
From 1979 to 2013 there was a 3.1% per year increase in the total global area observing fire weather seasons > 1 s.d. from the mean. This resulted in a 108.1% % increase in global long fire weather season affected area. That is, the long fire weather season affected area more than doubled over this period.

Their Conclusions
“Global fire regimes are the combined results of available fuel, ignition sources and conducive fire weather. As such, leveraging well-established fire danger indices to explore changes in global wildfire weather only capture part of the potential variations in global pyrogeography. Regionally, our documented fire weather changes may not appreciably alter fire regimes if fires are not ignited or if there is no fuel. However, we observed an overall lengthening of the number of days each year that wildfires may burn across more than a quarter of the Earth’s vegetated surface and these fire weather changes could manifest themselves as a positive feedback to global atmospheric carbon accumulations if all the requirements for wildfires are present. In addition, this study may improve our ability to explore the complex drivers of global fire activity by isolating the climate-induced variations in fire potential from changes in either fuel availability or human and nature-caused ignitions, which lead to the realized burned area and subsequent fire emissions. In summary, we have shown that combined surface weather changes over the last three and a half decades have promoted global wildfire weather season lengthening. If these trends continue, increased wildfire potential may have pronounced global socio-economic, ecological and climate system impacts.
(emphasis mine.)


So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.
 
cynic said:
How have those 97% of "scientists" ascertained the causation of these events under discussion?
Click to expand...

You can read it up from the paper I linked to a few pages back.

What that research that examine the studies on Climate Change did was quite simple:

They study all the Abstracts to all the research papers by specialist Climate Change scientists - they define these as, from memory, scientist who have published at least 20 papers on the subject etc.

In the abstract, scientific research guides require the researcher/s to summarise their aim, their method, their conclusion, way forward etc.

By counting the conclusions, they found that 97% of these researchers concludes that Climate Change is not accidental or "natural" - that it is caused by human activity; that it is real.

What's the specific evidence? That's the details in each of those papers.

-----

Noco,

As said before in reply to that 34k scientists' petition... Are those scientists Climate Change scientist?

Not all scientists are the same. Just as you don't go to a GP to have any part of your body operated on, you don't just get a bunch of GP together and ask them about Climate Change because, I don't know, they're all "doctors" and know science and stuff.

You believe that 4 out of 5 bushfires are caused by people - I take that to mean arsonist or improper BBQ or glass bottle zapping the grass or something... That you believe...

but all the toxic fumes, the coals, the methane, the god knows what our factories and power stations and cars and planes expels each day; the deforestation and run-offs from farm with their oil-based fertilisers and pesticides... these does not affect the air or the environment at all.

From a simple logical point of view, that kind of denial is nuts.

From the fact that 97% of research papers by specialists on the subject reaching the same conclusion...

It's pretty hard to deny the evidence. Maybe not so hard for some though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...