Climate change is poised to deliver more Black Saturdays in decades to come

Today’s lesson is from a forester with a lifetime of experience.

Everybody can learn from him. He does mention fuel which for some reason doesn’t seem to figure much amongst the firefighting-trained and experienced professional mariners bloviating here.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2020/01/an-inferno-of-incompetence-and-obfuscation/

there are not thousands of old thermometers in the world with 100 years of data

If anybody wants to overturn temp data or whatever it’s not going to suffice to poke around on the internet looking for sites that agree with what you’re seeking.

Someone needs to put up some serious money and hire some people with good credentials to put together some credible data that can survive scrutiny.

That was done in the Berkeley Earth Temperature Study and was funded in part by the Koch Foundation. Over a million dollars were spent.

Given project leader Muller’s well-publicised concerns regarding the quality of climate change research, other critics anticipated that the Berkeley Earth study would be a vindication of their stance. For example, when the study team was announced, Anthony Watts, a blogger who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, expressed full confidence in the team’s methods:

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. …

1 Like

Really, all this reminds me of the arguments back in the 60’s of whether tobacco smoking caused lung cancer. The cigarette companies own scientists in the 1950’s determined that smoking greatly increased the chance of lung cancer but the companies kept that information secret for obvious reasons. The tobacco companies hired other scientists and even doctors to defend cigarette smoking and for 20+ years people argued about it. Now it is an accepted fact. The fossil fuel industry’s practice mirrors that of the tobacco industry. I am as done with discussing this foolishness as I am done with arguing with a friend of mine that still smokes but says he had a relative that smoked until 100 years of age so that proves smoking is safe.

4 Likes

image

Or how about…

2 Likes

2 posts were split to a new topic: Australian Navy Ships Evacuate 1,000 People Trapped by Bushfires2

Noting the new title of this thread, it’s opportune if we are predicting “climate change is poised to deliver more Black Saturdays in decades to come” to pause for just a moment and look at what the experts predicted in “decades to come” a few decades ago.

I’ve already posted a few in a similar vein, and there’s a smorgasbord of failed predictions, so we’ll start with one from N. America where some of my critics reside, shivering in the snow.

Until you can predict, your science is wrong.

And one closer to me.

P.S. A planned Australian climate protest has been called off because of rain making it less than ideal for protesters to lie on the ground and glue themselves to the roadway.

There IS a God.

P.P.S. We’ll really know if there is a God if it rains on their new protest date of 31 Jan. Pray with me.

And some sobering reality on fuel loads and the vindictiveness of the climate warriors.

if you want info about the climate ask a crop commodity broker, they are the only ones that invest their own money on climate facts.

Geez, commodity traders are the biggest gamblers in the world and lose more often than they win. However one good bet can set them up for life. For them a black swan event is a regular occurrence, it takes nerves of steel and a LOT of leverage to have a hope in that game unless you can manipulate the market. The best ever at the commodity game was Marc Rich and he employed genius, politics, market manipulation and lots of leverage.

Commodity traders are working too short term. Financial instruments over decades would be a better indicator.

The question to ask he how is this allowed? If you are a bank and you make a bad loan you eat it. You don’t pawn it off to a taxpayer guaranteed entity. But the big money boys that run the US have all the rules in their favor because they wrote them.
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/01/jpmorgans-historic-earnings-confirm-that-fed-loans-are-subsidizing-profits-on-wall-street/

They might bet one year or so in advance but what they do know it crop output in all regions around the world and they all employ meteorologists for the future predictions
So they monitor what happens where and where did the data come from.
The guys I speak to say the whole industry thinks climate change is a scam.
They say show me a place thats getting an average hotter temp and I will show you one with colder annual temps.
If farming isnt a measure of climate then nothing is.

Australia has had less rain in the south and more in the north so are looking for crops that can stand more rainfall and move them north.

1 Like

This is an incoherent position. They are literally betting on climate change if they are betting on moving crops. If it was a scam, they’d be doing nothing.

But it isn’t true.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/03/21/the-market-is-betting-on-climate-change

“The head of one of the world’s largest agricultural commodity trading companies is warning Australian primary producers to take climate change seriously.”

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-10/agricultural-giant-says-climate-change-absolutely-real/5659058?pfmredir=sm

Drought in south-east Australia - CSIRO

Australia’s climate

Australia has undergone periods of low rainfall and high rainfall that last for decades.

The shift between such periods often appears as a step change. For example, the eastern half of Australia was drier from 1895–1948 and wetter from 1948–1976. Rainfall has been below average across much southeast Australia since 1997, with the Murray-Darling Basin experiencing below average rainfall since 2002.

The Bureau of Meteorology has found in 2009, serious to severe rainfall deficiencies occurred in a narrow band extending along the coast from southern New South Wales through Gippsland to south-central Victoria.

In addition, very long-term rainfall deficiencies persisted across parts of southern and eastern Australia.

Lower rainfall and reduced runoff in the southeast of Australia associated with the current drought is in part due to natural variability as well as to human-induced climate change. The relative contribution of each of these mechanisms remains uncertain.

The moisture deficit associated with drought is also the result of higher temperatures.

Temperatures in Australia have risen by about 0.9 °C since 1910 and there is a high level of scientific confidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a major driver of this increase in temperature.

The current drought is unusual in that it is associated with both an intensification of the Subtropical Ridge and a high frequency of positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) events.

Both of these factors are associated with reduced rainfall over south eastern Australia.

Climate change modelling shows that an intensification of the Subtropical Ridge can only be achieved when anthropogenic greenhouse gases are included in the models.

Climate model projections for the coming decades indicate an increasing risk of below average rainfall for southern and eastern mainland Australia, higher temperatures and evaporation, and below average runoff. In particular there is a significant projected increase in frequency of extremely hot years and extremely dry years.

But climate models are wrong. The is still no validated climate model ie one that has been proved to be sufficiently predictive to be trusted. You don’t have to look far to see the multitude of earnest predictions of so-called climate scientists a decade or so ago that have simply been shown to have been laughable. Their predictions didn’t happen, aren’t happening.

Would you trust going to sea in a new ship designed on a new construction philosophy based on an unverified model rather than existing, proven knowledge and experience? Why do you place so much faith in unverified models?

That’s right, Jughead! Always trust the consensus of naval architects! Never trust any new models. I mean, listen to this poor deluded individual:

What a fool, to trust new ideas. And here’s another guy who isn’t wise enough to stick with known facts:

And this guy here must be dim, because he dares to differ from the experts:

and this deluded individual:

and this past Jerry Springer show guest:

Thank goodness we have you, Jughead, our towering Ayers Rock of consistent inconsistency, to set us straight. :crazy_face: Placing faith in unverified models never profited sailors much.

Official List of Unverified Models that Profited Sailors Much
Fulton’s steamboat
SS Ann McKim (first clipper ship)
SS Savannah (first steam ship to cross the Atlantic)
SS Archimedes (first ship with propellor)
SS Turbina (take a wild guess…)
Gloire (first ironclad)
HMS Hermes (first aircraft carrier)
Holland No 1 (first viable submarine)
SS Great Eastern
USS Monitor
The Higgins land craft
Ideal X (first container ship)
USS Nautilus (nuclear submarine)
Bonus: Pretty much anything with NASA on the pink slip…

So you want me to start on the ship designs that obviously profited the sailors who suffered or sank in them?

Titanic?
Vasa?
Mary Rose?
Novgorod?
Kursk?

But it’s a long list. I won’t bore you with facts. You don’t use them.