Australia bushfires contribute to big rise in global CO2 levels - UK's Met Office

[brokenbone]

36 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Your perception is a consequence of simplistic thinking. Climatologists don't claim that CO2 levels are the only factor that can cause global warming. It's obvious that Malenkovitch cycles play a much greater role but very slowly over long periods of time. What we are witnessing now is a very rapid increase over a very short period of time. 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred during the just concluded decade. What is there that makes you so unable to comprehend the importance of rate?

propaganda imo, why did the climate scientists feel the need to 'hide the decline' otherwise ?

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, brokenbone said:

oh yes, as for delicate and jeopardy, climate was stable enough

to support evolution of complex life at over 2500 ppm co2 in atmosphere,

not only am i confident it will work again, i think that high co2 was a vital

condition for life to evolve in the first instance,

not least the various sea life forms that uses co2 as a building block for their shells, i am convinced corals etc would not have evolved to what they are

with as low co2 level as today

Well, you may be an engineer, but you certainly don't have a clue about how evolution works.n.  Sure, life can evolve under any circumstances. But if the environment changes too abruptly, that results in mass extinctions. Now over hundreds of thousands of years new species will arise that are well adapted. 

We can see that in the case of coral reefs. I believe you once claimed that rising CO2 levels were good for corals and to prove it linked to a piece of research that showed that one species of coral was doing well with rising CO2. But as the author of that piece noted, most species are under suffering because of it. And it's entirely irrelevant to the survival of species today whether or not high levels of CO2 long ago were essential to life today. The fact is that today CO levels aren't nearly that high. And the species currently existent aren't adapted to those ancient high levels. Once again, you don't seem able to recognize the concept of rate. Sure, over time, corals, and molluscs and diatoms will adapt to much higher levels of CO2. But that time span will be a lot longer than the entire span covered by human civilization. Maybe you're immortal so such trivial spans of time don't concern you.  Not so much the case for the rest of us.

[brokenbone]

45 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's funny. Those who warn of the imminent and current dangers of rising CO2 levels and global warming consistently get accused by denialists of being alarmists. Yet here you are being an alarmist and advocating a "safety margin" for an eventuality that won't happen, if it does at all, for thousands of years.  You need to calm way way down.

alarmists get anxiety over 2 degree celsius global increase, which imo is only ever a good thing,

a drop to 150 ppm co2 and the resultant extinction of all complex life on earth

is another thing altogether

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

propaganda imo, why did the climate scientists feel the need to 'hide the decline' otherwise ?

At least now you're revealing the true source of your obections: conspiracy thinking. A global conspiracy by scientists to hide the truth. But you, an intrepid seeker after truth dug up graphs that show otherside.So those graphs you post aren't coming from scientists? Where do they come from? As usual, you are remarkably reluctant to show your sources.

correction: one of your graphs does identify the source.

Edited January 26, 2020 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

And the source is SCIENCE. That's one of the world's 2 preeminent scientific journals. Which makes your claim that scientists are trying to hide the facts about CO2 levels utterly ludicrous.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

alarmists get anxiety over 2 degree celsius global increase, which imo is only ever a good thing,

a drop to 150 ppm co2 and the resultant extinction of all complex life on earth

is another thing altogether

Well, in your opinion as an alleged engineer who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't understand the basics of evolution and extinction.

As someone who clearly doesn't understand the destructive effects that CO2 will have on life in the seas as the oceans get increasingly less alkaline.

As someone who can't even get it right about the difference between the feedback effect of fluctuating water vapor leves and the forcing effect of increasing levels of CO2.

I could go on but why bother?

[Tulak]

On 1/25/2020 at 10:42 PM, bristolboy said:

Which doesn't mean that controlled burning wasn't being done before. And given these extreme conditions, as scientists who study this know, controlled burning or clearing bush would have made virtually no difference. 

seems you know better

[Tulak]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

At least now you're revealing the true source of your obections: conspiracy thinking. A global conspiracy by scientists to hide the truth. But you, an intrepid seeker after truth dug up graphs that show otherside.So those graphs you post aren't coming from scientists? Where do they come from? As usual, you are remarkably reluctant to show your sources.

correction: one of your graphs does identify the source.

Asking for sources? - so try this:

The Swiss National Science Foundation also published in early 2017 a research paper by the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, and the University of Bern that warned that particle and electromagnetic “radiative forcing” could cause Maunder Minimum low temperatures in “in 50 to 100 years’ time.”

Please click on weblink: https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-extremely-low-sunspot-counts-indicate-global-cooling-onset/

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Tulak said:

seems you know better

Not just me. Scientists know better too. Because they actually did a big trial in Victoria comparing how areas that had been controlled burned to those that weren't fared in the Black Saturday Bush fires. Guess what? No difference. For ordinary bush fires it's a different story. And I think that in that case aboriginal knowledge and practice would be very useful. 

[Tulak]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not just me. Scientists know better too. Because they actually did a big trial in Victoria comparing how areas that had been controlled burned to those that weren't fared in the Black Saturday Bush fires. Guess what? No difference. For ordinary bush fires it's a different story. And I think that in that case aboriginal knowledge and practice would be very useful. 

"For ordinary bush fires it's a different story. And I think that in that case aboriginal knowledge and practice would be very useful. "

 

indeed. Agree 100%

It only becomes a "Super fire" when (controlled burning) was neglected for a long time. And guess what. Where is fuel, there is a potential fire. More fuel, bigger fire. Combine this with low humidity,high temp. and strong wind, the fire gets very big and out of control.

This is why controlled burning is important. To my understanding "Greens" stopped this proven ancient Aboriginal practice. Needs to change.

 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, Tulak said:

Asking for sources? - so try this:

The Swiss National Science Foundation also published in early 2017 a research paper by the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, and the University of Bern that warned that particle and electromagnetic “radiative forcing” could cause Maunder Minimum low temperatures in “in 50 to 100 years’ time.”

Please click on weblink: https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-extremely-low-sunspot-counts-indicate-global-cooling-onset/

First off, let's just say that principia-scientifi.org is not exactly a reputable source. Except if you believe such articles as "Particle Physicist: 5G Is A Directed Energy Weapon System"

 

And of course, the article that you linked to has a dishonest title: 

"NASA: Extremely Low Sunspot Counts Indicate Global Cooling Onset"

https://principia-scientific.org/particle-physicist-5g-is-a-directed-energy-weapon-system/

The only cooling referred to by Nasa, and that's in a linked article, is in the upper atmosphere. Nothing that affects those of us living on land or on the sea.

There may be a weak link between lower sunspot activity and global cooling. But if so, that makes the case even stronger for greenhouse case caused global warming. You see, we are in a period of extremely low sunspot activity. The lowest for at least 100 years. But we are also in a period of rapid acceleration of the average global surface temperature. 9 out of the last 10 years have the highest average temperature on record. So if low solar activity does have the alleged effect, then something else is working as a countervailing force. Now what could that be? Hmmm...

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Tulak said:

"For ordinary bush fires it's a different story. And I think that in that case aboriginal knowledge and practice would be very useful. "

 

indeed. Agree 100%

It only becomes a "Super fire" when (controlled burning) was neglected for a long time. And guess what. Where is fuel, there is a potential fire. More fuel, bigger fire. Combine this with low humidity,high temp. and strong wind, the fire gets very big and out of control.

This is why controlled burning is important. To my understanding "Greens" stopped this proven ancient Aboriginal practice. Needs to change.

 

Wrong. As scientists who study the matter repeatedly point out, when the FFDI rises above 50, which was the case in Australia, bush clearing and controlled burning  does absolutely nothing to prevent these fires.  But what's more, you seem to have swallowed the lie propagated by the Murdoch media empire  that these measures weren't being undertaken. In fact, in Victoria, there was twice as much done in the last 5 year rotation as in the previous one. 

[Tulak]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, let's just say that principia-scientifi.org is not exactly a reputable source. Except if you believe such articles as "Particle Physicist: 5G Is A Directed Energy Weapon System"

 

And of course, the article that you linked to has a dishonest title: 

"NASA: Extremely Low Sunspot Counts Indicate Global Cooling Onset"

https://principia-scientific.org/particle-physicist-5g-is-a-directed-energy-weapon-system/

The only cooling referred to by Nasa, and that's in a linked article, is in the upper atmosphere. Nothing that affects those of us living on land or on the sea.

There may be a weak link between lower sunspot activity and global cooling. But if so, that makes the case even stronger for greenhouse case caused global warming. You see, we are in a period of extremely low sunspot activity. The lowest for at least 100 years. But we are also in a period of rapid acceleration of the average global surface temperature. 9 out of the last 10 years have the highest average temperature on record. So if low solar activity does have the alleged effect, then something else is working as a countervailing force. Now what could that be? Hmmm...

Starting to think -so I gave you "Like". Keep it up!

[Tulak]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Wrong. As scientists who study the matter repeatedly point out, when the FFDI rises above 50, which was the case in Australia, bush clearing and controlled burning  does absolutely nothing to prevent these fires.  But what's more, you seem to have swallowed the lie propagated by the Murdoch media empire  that these measures weren't being undertaken. In fact, in Victoria, there was twice as much done in the last 5 year rotation as in the previous one. 

Modern science is young.

Murdoch is temporary, but native population did what they did for 40000 years and it worked.

[bristolboy]

Just now, Tulak said:

Modern science is young.

Murdoch is temporary, but native population did what they did for 40000 years and it worked.

Do we know that there haven't been any fires like the current one before the advent of Europeans?

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Do we know that there haven't been any fires like the current one before the advent of Europeans?

Knowledge can be lost quite easily. Many modern corporations have the problem of institutional memory loss, when a generation of professionals retires.

The Babylonians well before the birth of Christ had working electrical batteries. No one knows what they were using them for.

Similarly, in Central America one of the cultures was able to move stone monoliths weighing 50,000 tonnes up to 20 kilometres from the excavation site. No one knows how or why they did it. If we were to attempt the same task with current equipment, we would fail.

 

[impulse]

On 1/25/2020 at 9:31 AM, brokenbone said:

On 1/25/2020 at 7:45 AM, impulse said:

While everyone's caught up in their underwear debating whether CO2 is causing climate change, the pH of the ocean is decreasing due to C02 absorption, killing off the carbonate based plankton that sits at the bottom of the food chain.

you have been subjected to propaganda, plankton requires co2 for their growth

just like plants, and just like plants they are starving for more co2 at current

historically low level. they originated at many times higher co2 then today,

that is their origin, that environment is their optimal condition, just like plants

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/27/us/pacific-ocean-acidification-crabs-dissolving-shells-scn-trnd/index.html

 

[nauseus]

On 1/25/2020 at 10:31 PM, brokenbone said:

you have been subjected to propaganda, plankton requires co2 for their growth

just like plants, and just like plants they are starving for more co2 at current

historically low level. they originated at many times higher co2 then today,

that is their origin, that environment is their optimal condition, just like plants

 

Rather ironic that you talk of propaganda!

 

Plankton requires CO₂ for growth, as well as sunlight, to combine with water to form glucose for energy, plus other nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous and iron. But plankton does not need an increase in CO₂ levels and the oceans certainly don't!

[winslowsjardine]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Rather ironic that you talk of propaganda!

 

Plankton requires CO₂ for growth, as well as sunlight, to combine with water to form glucose for energy, plus other nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous and iron. But plankton does not need an increase in CO₂ levels and the oceans certainly don't!

Excellent point