Page 280 of 282 FirstFirst ... 180230270278279280281282 LastLast
Results 4,186 to 4,200 of 4227
  1. #4186
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,643
    This is actually consistent with what Kevin posted, as can be seen in the trend from 1980 onwards. The much earlier data which Lomborg includes may be unreliable (as he acknowledges), but even if it isn't, the declining trend it shows has obviously stopped, and the recent trend in burnt area is upwards.

  2. #4187
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,598
    The difference being different time scales. Lomborg's own graph shows the same thing, ie increase over the last few decades. Indeed, increase over the last few decades compared to the few decades before them too.

    As I can't find any refutation of Lomborg's stats for the 1920s through 1960 I'll assume them correct. Lomborg states:

    As is evident, US burnt forest area has dramatically *declined* since the 1920s, 1930s and 1940, after which widespread fire suppression was introduced. As more burnable mass is piling up, fire is going up slightly.

    Now, it appears probable that global warming will lead to somewhat more forest fires.

    [my emphasis]

    Incidentally, can't speak for the US, but in south-east Australian wet forests, more burnable mass doesn't necessarily equal more fires. Rather, up to a point, more fires equals more fires - early successional forests burn well. I went to one talk by resident pyrodramatist Dave Bowman where he talked about the amount of control burning necessary to get around this problem and protect Hobart from the next "big one". It sounded such an extreme solution that I think a lot of people would rather just put up with the risk of the city going up in flames.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 09-08-2018 at 09:10 PM.

  3. #4188
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,307
    Gupta launches 1GW renewable plan at Cultana solar project
    Renew Economy
    15.8.18

    UK steel billionaire Sanjeev Gupta has officially launched his plans to build more than 1 gigawatt (1,000MW) of dispatchable renewable energy at a ground-breaking ceremony for the first of those projects – the 280MW Cultana solar project near Whyalla.

    Gupta was joined by South Australia Premier Steven Marshall and Whyalla mayor Lyn Breuer for the ceremony, where Gupta reinforced his goal to expand Australia’s manufacturing and heavy industry around a supply of cheap and reliable renewable energy.

    The contrast with the policy debate in Canberra, where the Coalition on Tuesday endorsed a National Energy Guarantee policy designed to ensure no new renewable energy is built over most of the next decade, could not have been more marked....

    Hydro, wind and solar output rises as gas generation slumps

    Australia experienced a significant jump in output from hydro power, and wind and solar farms in the second quarter of 2018, mostly at the expense of gas generation and some black coal output.

    The latest Quarterly Energy Dynamics report from the Australian Energy Market Operator shows that in the second quarter the average output of hydro increased by 663MW, wind by 546MW (thanks to new generation and better wind conditions), and solar by 157MW (new generation).

    This was offset by a big fall in the average output of gas generation (down 697MW) and from black coal generation (down 53MW). Both of these technologies reported major outages – planned and unplanned – and came despite an overall rise in demand mostly due to the record high temperatures in April....
    Last edited by Ian Murray; 15-08-2018 at 05:35 PM.

  4. #4189
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,307
    It's still winter, and the bushfire season is well under way. Longer fire seasons are one of the outcomes we can expect as the climate changes

    http://myfirewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/index.html

    Authorities on alert as fire threat continues
    FIRES have ripped through farmland west of Brisbane, blackening hectares of land and ruining what little stock feed there was left....

    NSW bushfires: very high fire danger as damaging winds forecast
    South coast residents say being under threat from fires in winter is unheard of...

    Sydney's bushfire season starts in winter: 'We may have to rethink how we live'

    Bushfire season brought forward in NSW by two months after 'next to no rain'
    Rainfall has also been below average in the eastern and northern parts of Queensland...

  5. #4190
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The difference being different time scales. Lomborg's own graph shows the same thing, ie increase over the last few decades. Indeed, increase over the last few decades compared to the few decades before them too.

    As I can't find any refutation of Lomborg's stats for the 1920s through 1960 I'll assume them correct. Lomborg states:

    As is evident, US burnt forest area has dramatically *declined* since the 1920s, 1930s and 1940, after which widespread fire suppression was introduced. As more burnable mass is piling up, fire is going up slightly.

    Now, it appears probable that global warming will lead to somewhat more forest fires.

    [my emphasis]

    Incidentally, can't speak for the US, but in south-east Australian wet forests, more burnable mass doesn't necessarily equal more fires. Rather, up to a point, more fires equals more fires - early successional forests burn well. I went to one talk by resident pyrodramatist Dave Bowman where he talked about the amount of control burning necessary to get around this problem and protect Hobart from the next "big one". It sounded such an extreme solution that I think a lot of people would rather just put up with the risk of the city going up in flames.
    That makes no sense at all. Lomborg's chart shows the total area of fire burnt during the 20's and 30's was over triple what it was in recent years. That makes no sense under AGW predictions when CO2 from emissions is so much higher today than back then.

    38405033_10157044699218968_3908375318297051136_o.jpg

  6. #4191
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo View Post
    That makes no sense at all. Lomborg's chart shows the total area of fire burnt during the 20's and 30's was over triple what it was in recent years. That makes no sense under AGW predictions when CO2 from emissions is so much higher today than back then.
    Actually it makes perfect sense if the total area burnt is a function of more than one variable - there could be more fires now, and they could be much more serious, but we could also be more effective in dealing with them.

  7. #4192
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Actually it makes perfect sense if the total area burnt is a function of more than one variable - there could be more fires now, and they could be much more serious, but we could also be more effective in dealing with them.
    According to stats it is the size of the fires and not the number that have increased. And according to NOAA stats as pointed out in the below link precipitation and temperature have barely changed in recent decades so cannot account for the recent surge in fires. The only thing that has changed is the forrest clearing policy which has left a lot of fuel load on the forest floors!

    https://reason.org/policy-brief/fore...gement-reform/

    Also, one of the papers on Lomborg's post attempts to isolate the cause of the decline in fires and climate plays very little role.

    38631112_10157051513763968_6946534917475926016_n.png

  8. #4193
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo View Post
    According to stats it is the size of the fires and not the number that have increased. And according to NOAA stats as pointed out in the below link precipitation and temperature have barely changed in recent decades so cannot account for the recent surge in fires. The only thing that has changed is the forrest clearing policy which has left a lot of fuel load on the forest floors! https://reason.org/policy-brief/fore...gement-reform/ ...
    Your article acknowledges that man-made global warming could have been a factor: "So, while it is possible that climate change has played a role in increasing the size of fires, the primary cause seems to be forest management practices, which have changed several times over the course of the past 200 years." And it's from 2015, so it ignores the recent dramatic temperature increases.

  9. #4194
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Your article acknowledges that man-made global warming could have been a factor: "So, while it is possible that climate change has played a role in increasing the size of fires, the primary cause seems to be forest management practices, which have changed several times over the course of the past 200 years." And it's from 2015, so it ignores the recent dramatic temperature increases.
    That increase ceased in 2016. From Feb 2016 to Feb 2018 there has been a 0.56 temperature drop according to NASA's GISS which I referenced several posts back. So it is bizarre to say the least to be attributing these fires to AGW

  10. #4195
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo View Post
    That makes no sense at all. Lomborg's chart shows the total area of fire burnt during the 20's and 30's was over triple what it was in recent years. That makes no sense under AGW predictions when CO2 from emissions is so much higher today than back then.
    Are you here to make an intelligent contribution and perhaps to actually have something to do with chess once in 100 posts or are you just here to troll on political issues? I made it quite clear how Lomborg himself accounted for the change ("after which widespread fire suppression was introduced") and, completely ignoring that point, you claim "that makes no sense at all" without saying what part of my post supposedly made no sense and why.

    You seem to also be strawmanning me as taking what you claim to be the "AGW" position. I have not taken any such position, my contribution being merely to link to an article which pointed out an increase in forest fires in recent decades, caused by an average increase in size. This is not a position under dispute - Lomborg's chart agrees with it too and he considers climate to be a contributing factor!

    The number of zeros between the decimal point and my patience level for non-chess blow-ins who don't argue properly has increased from 437 to 593 since you were last here. Please debate properly and be clear what you are claiming, if you are going to try to dismiss what I am saying.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 19-08-2018 at 09:29 PM.

  11. #4196
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Are you here to make an intelligent contribution and perhaps to actually have something to do with chess once in 100 posts or are you just here to troll on political issues? I made it quite clear how Lomborg himself accounted for the change ("after which widespread fire suppression was introduced") and, completely ignoring that point, you claim "that makes no sense at all" without saying what part of my post supposedly made no sense and why.

    You seem to also be strawmanning me as taking what you claim to be the "AGW" position. I have not taken any such position, my contribution being merely to link to an article which pointed out an increase in forest fires in recent decades, caused by an average increase in size. This is not a position under dispute - Lomborg's chart agrees with it too and he considers climate to be a contributing factor!

    The number of zeros between the decimal point and my patience level for non-chess blow-ins who don't argue properly has increased from 437 to 593 since you were last here. Please debate properly and be clear what you are claiming, if you are going to try to dismiss what I am saying.
    Ok but that reply was apropos your previous post where you referenced an increase since the 80s. Lomborgs data shows that trend is not true if it is extended back to the 20s/30s.

    If you are not connecting such an argument to AGW then my bad but the others certainly are. No need to take personal offence.

  12. #4197
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo View Post
    That increase ceased in 2016. From Feb 2016 to Feb 2018 there has been a 0.56 temperature drop according to NASA's GISS which I referenced several posts back. So it is bizarre to say the least to be attributing these fires to AGW
    The increase didn't stop in 2016. This year is hotter than 2015. In fact, each year from 2016 to 2018 has been hotter than 2015. I'm not saying that AGW is the only factor. But clearly a succession of very hot years caused by AGW increases the significance of AGW as a causal factor.

    EDIT: And 2018 has already set heat records in the US:
    May 2018
    The average May temperature across the contiguous U.S. was 65.4 degrees F, 5.2 degrees above average, making it the warmest May in the 124-year record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. This surpassed the previous record of 64.7°F set in 1934, during the dust bowl era. There were more than 8,590 daily warm station records broken, or tied, in May.
    Last edited by Patrick Byrom; 20-08-2018 at 01:19 AM. Reason: Further details added.

  13. #4198
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    11,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo View Post
    That increase ceased in 2016.
    lul

    meep meep

  14. #4199
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo View Post
    Ok but that reply was apropos your previous post where you referenced an increase since the 80s. Lomborgs data shows that trend is not true if it is extended back to the 20s/30s.
    If it was apropos the previous post then you should have quoted the previous post. An increase since the 80s (or for that matter the 60s) is an increasing trend over recent decades no matter what the trend way before that under totally different management regimes (or lack thereof). A trend does not become "not true" just because it has not applied forever.

    Imagine if it was instead a deadly disease that was on the rise. Someone said the disease had been rising in recent decades and then someone else said "ah but far more people died of it in the 1920s".

    No need to take personal offence.
    Now you are trying to blame me for reacting to your false assumptions and unclear accusations, by implying I am overreacting. Try supporting your criticisms clearly and with evidence and you might get a more patient response.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 20-08-2018 at 12:37 PM.

  15. #4200
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    If it was apropos the previous post then you should have quoted the previous post. An increase since the 80s (or for that matter the 60s) is an increasing trend over recent decades no matter what the trend way before that under totally different management regimes (or lack thereof). A trend does not become "not true" just because it has not applied forever.

    Imagine if it was instead a deadly disease that was on the rise. Someone said the disease had been rising in recent decades and then someone else said "ah but far more people died of it in the 1920s".



    Now you are trying to blame me for reacting to your false assumptions and unclear accusations, by implying I am overreacting. Try supporting your criticisms clearly and with evidence and you might get a more patient response.
    Crickey could you possibly get any more obtuse? You argued that in response to a global warming point that actually fires are getting more intense in recent years. But you seem unaware that AGW effects are supposed to extend much further back than the last few decades. So why would you fixate on the period since the 1980s in a thread callee "Man-Made Climate Change"? Have you not seen the hundreds and hundreds of graphs on here showing AGW effects since the 19th century?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Evangelism and Climate Change
    By Ian Murray in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 11:24 AM
  2. Climate Change (read bottom up)
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 01:00 PM
  3. Climate Change Is Irreversable ??
    By Bruce Oates in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-01-2009, 09:55 PM
  4. The Death of Climate Change Consensus
    By Spiny Norman in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-12-2007, 11:38 AM
  5. Pentagon Report on Climate Change
    By Cat in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-06-2004, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •