independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 28th Jan 2020 6:37pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The €4,600 Billion Fiasco - Germany's Energy Transition
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 01/07/20 12:45am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

The 20,000 people that protested in Sydney where not protesting in support of Underwood's arguments at all. They were the people calling for stronger policies on climate change. They were calling for more green policies that recognise climate change as real and that we need to something about it.

(1) Unfortunately, you can't do jack shit about it. Except try to deal with it in the best way possibe, which brings me to my following point:

.

Droughts are not unique - but they are following the climate model predicted trends of being longer and covering much wider areas. We are simply not experiencing fires at the end of a drought. The current drought has in many places being going for years and has no currently predicted end.


(2) If the bold part is true, then these fires are pure negligence.
Authorities could have known but apparently didn't act accordingly.

.

(1) No, I can do something - I can point that your sources are seriously flawed as they are only ever picked for where they agree with your political opinion. Your newspaper article is full of errors, yet you introduced this error filled mess by saying "Actually its Green Policy that causes the deaths" without knowing the facts on the mere assumption that the content was correct. I did not both pointing several other less important errors, such as Australia has no provinces - Australia is a Federation of States.

.

(2) Correct. Authorities that deny climate change are negligent. Authorities that are not climate change deniers yet still lack the political will to act accordingly are negligent. Inaction on climate change is, as you say, pure negligence. It is now costing lives - human, stock and native wildlfe. And this is only the beginning.

.

In their defence, the fire services authorities explained it by saying their modelling predicts a range of potential outcomes based on complex, multifactorial inputs. Prior to the 2009 Black Saturday fires, the actual outcomes were generally in line with average predictions - nowdays as the climate changes, the outcomes are increasing matching the worst case scenario predicted outcomes. These models factor in increasing temperatures, reduced air and soil moisture, wind strength and changes, the ability of fires of these sizes to create their own weather patterns, the explosive nature of the eucalyptus oils, ember attacks of increasing range that exceed traditional fire breaks, dry lightning storms preceeding southerly changes that bring little or no rain, terrain and not just unburnt off fuel stocks on the ground in the bush.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 01/07/20 4:30am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

(1) No, I can do something - I can point that your sources are seriously flawed as they are only ever picked for where they agree with your political opinion. Your newspaper article is full of errors, yet you introduced this error filled mess by saying "Actually its Green Policy that causes the deaths" without knowing the facts on the mere assumption that the content was correct. I did not both pointing several other less important errors, such as Australia has no provinces - Australia is a Federation of States.

It's an article in a Dutch newspaper which I shoved through Google Translate.

Regardless of what errors you point out, what is undisputable is the interview with Underwood and the remarks he makes.

.

(2) Correct. Authorities that deny climate change are negligent. Authorities that are not climate change deniers yet still lack the political will to act accordingly are negligent. Inaction on climate change is, as you say, pure negligence. It is now costing lives - human, stock and native wildlfe. And this is only the beginning.

The climate change statement is bollocks. (see below) One hot summer isn't an indicator of climate change. And when I look at this chart, I see no reason to draw the climate change card:


And of course I'm aware that Austrailia is big and that there are regional differences.
But as you can see abouve, Austrailia has seen dryer times then what we witness currently.

.

nowdays as the climate changes, the outcomes are increasing matching the worst case scenario predicted outcomes. These models factor in increasing temperatures, reduced air and soil moisture, wind strength and changes, the ability of fires of these sizes to create their own weather patterns, the explosive nature of the eucalyptus oils, ember attacks of increasing range that exceed traditional fire breaks, dry lightning storms preceeding southerly changes that bring little or no rain, terrain and not just unburnt off fuel stocks on the ground in the bush.

Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.

At 1:11:20

Professor Andy Pitman: (Audio recording, skip to 1:11:20)

“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.

That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.

If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend. There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.

There are in some regions but not in other regions.

So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.

Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”


Oh and:

Professor Andy Pitman: UNSW

Andy is a climate modeler with a major focus on terrestrial processes in global and regional climate models. He has explored the global and regional impacts of land cover change and currently co-leads the Land use change: identification of robust impacts project. He has interests in climate extremes and how these are likely to change in the future. His leadership and research experience is extensive nationally and internationally. Between 2004 and 2010 he convened the ARC Research Network for Earth System. Since 2011 he has been the Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. This national centre involves five Universities, major Australian research agencies and many international groups. Andy is a member of the Academy of Science’s National Committee for Earth System Science and the NSW Minister for the Environment’s Science Advisory Committee. He is closely affiliated with the World Climate Research Program (WCRP). He was chair of the WCRP’s Land Committee for the Global Land Atmosphere System Study from 2006 to 2008, and is now on its Science Steering Committee.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 01/07/20 12:28pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

(1) No, I can do something - I can point that your sources are seriously flawed as they are only ever picked for where they agree with your political opinion. Your newspaper article is full of errors, yet you introduced this error filled mess by saying "Actually its Green Policy that causes the deaths" without knowing the facts on the mere assumption that the content was correct. I did not both pointing several other less important errors, such as Australia has no provinces - Australia is a Federation of States.

It's an article in a Dutch newspaper which I shoved through Google Translate.

Regardless of what errors you point out, what is undisputable is the interview with Underwood and the remarks he makes.

The climate change statement is bollocks. (see below) One hot summer isn't an indicator of climate change. And when I look at this chart, I see no reason to draw the climate change card:


Australie-neerslag.jpg

And of course I'm aware that Austrailia is big and that there are regional differences.
But as you can see abouve, Austrailia has seen dryer times then what we witness currently.

.

nowdays as the climate changes, the outcomes are increasing matching the worst case scenario predicted outcomes. These models factor in increasing temperatures, reduced air and soil moisture, wind strength and changes, the ability of fires of these sizes to create their own weather patterns, the explosive nature of the eucalyptus oils, ember attacks of increasing range that exceed traditional fire breaks, dry lightning storms preceeding southerly changes that bring little or no rain, terrain and not just unburnt off fuel stocks on the ground in the bush.

Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.

At 1:11:20

Professor Andy Pitman: (Audio recording, skip to 1:11:20)

“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.

That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.

If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend. There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.

There are in some regions but not in other regions.

So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.

Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”


Oh and:

Professor Andy Pitman: UNSW

Andy is a climate modeler with a major focus on terrestrial processes in global and regional climate models. He has explored the global and regional impacts of land cover change and currently co-leads the Land use change: identification of robust impacts project. He has interests in climate extremes and how these are likely to change in the future. His leadership and research experience is extensive nationally and internationally. Between 2004 and 2010 he convened the ARC Research Network for Earth System. Since 2011 he has been the Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. This national centre involves five Universities, major Australian research agencies and many international groups. Andy is a member of the Academy of Science’s National Committee for Earth System Science and the NSW Minister for the Environment’s Science Advisory Committee. He is closely affiliated with the World Climate Research Program (WCRP). He was chair of the WCRP’s Land Committee for the Global Land Atmosphere System Study from 2006 to 2008, and is now on its Science Steering Committee.

.

The errors in your newspaper article are more than just google translate errors, They are in the original Dutch text. You don't need to use google translate to work out "oppositieleider" means Opposition Leader and that your paper applied this to a person who is not and cannot be Opposition Leader. You don't need Google Translate to work out that "provincie" is not "Staten" and Australia has no "provincie", just a collection of "Staten" and "Grondgebied".

.

Underwood has been making these statements repeatedly for a long time and the people who actually manage fuel reduction since his retirement have been disputing his comments for 10 years or more. The political parties Underwood and people convinced by him claim have a policy of stopping fuel reduction have shown time and time again that they don't have such a policy. There was a reduction in fuel reduction in those areas prior to the 2009 Black Saturday fires but lessons were learned from this. The 2019/20 fires are NOT as a result of green policies - Out of Underwood, your newspaper and Google translate, only the last one is correct.

.

What is bollocks is claiming anyone said one hot summer indicates climate change. I have constantly said it is the trend for increasingly hot temperatures and areas in droughts. This does not mean just in summer - we are now at the point where more and more of the country will not have a winter as if they are in the tropics even though they are in temperate zones. it means at night and in the offseason (when you can do fuel reduction) as well. It is the increaing overlap of internationally assets were, for example the Candian and US assets can by used in Australia in our fire season because it is their offseason - this is increasingly impossible because our season is starting increasing early and it now can overlap with the end of their's.

.

What is also bollocks is your obsession with anything that shows your political views are right. In your obsession, you miss the relevant facts and statements. Yes, there is no reason why climate change means all an entire continent will become more arid. Some places in Australia are becoming less arid. The places where the major fires are are becoming more arid. Certain rainforests that have always been protected from fires by their very nature are now being wiped out by fires where this has not occurred for vastly longer than the 100 years in your chart. Other rainforests have been made safer from fires and are subject to more flooding. To quote and clarify Pitman "There’s been a [continental wide] trend in the last twenty years, but there's been no [continental wide] trend in the last hundred years, and that's an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is. There are [100 year drying trends] in some regions but not in other regions. So the fundamental problem we have is that we don't understand what causes droughts." This is correct and not contradictory to the modeling on climate change that is being actually measurably reflected in the fire outcomes starting with the 2009 Black Saturday fires in 2009. All he is saying is we need to understand why droughts start and stop better.

.

Don't believe me? Listen to this video quoting Andy Pitman's response to far-right nut job news outlets misconstruing his initial statement (especially from 2:30 minutes in). Pitman corrected his comment to say "there is no DIRECT link between climate change and drought". He goes on to show the BOM data agrees with what I said above. To make it easy for you the ARC Centre of Excellence has publicly corrected this deliberate misrepresentation of Prof Andy Pitman's comment with statements like that made on 26 Sept 2019 "Dear @theheraldsun and @theboltreport, stop claiming our scientists and Director Andy Pitman say there is no connection berween drought and #climatechange. There is a connection and, unlike your public statements on climate change, it is nuanced"

[Edited 1/7/20 12:39pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The €4,600 Billion Fiasco - Germany's Energy Transition