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

[brokenbone]

10 minutes ago, jany123 said:

and these ultra high co2 levels provide issues for the existence of human life

such as ?

it isnt even ultra high, id say below the evolution spike,

and about average for complex life during the time it has existed

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

all the species in australia has been through that many times through history,

and some species thrive in a younger habitat

 

Koalas face extinction

"Residents of Trunkey say the cries

of koala victims of the 1939 bushfires

are a never-to-be-forgotten horror,"

the report goes on.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/249824272/27153558

But they haven't been through anything on this scale in recent history. Koalas are just an example - other species of animals AND plants are at risk and the biodiversity of the Australian bush ecosystem has just received a big hit. How many repeats of these fires do you think can be sustained?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/20/more-than-100-threatened-species-australian-bushfires-towards-extinction

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

such as ?

it isnt even ultra high, id say below the evolution spike,

and about average for complex life during the time it has existed

Evolution of what? Big f*** off dinosaurs, that's what! There were no people 20 million years ago.

[SunsetT]

34 minutes ago, jany123 said:

More is most certainly not, always better.... far from it. “More” often involves increased risk around design and implementation, making “more”, worse.... you know, like too many cooks spoiling the broth.

 

meanwhile... 10 is most certainly not a common safety factor in construction. Far from it. Safety factors vary for various things for various reasons.

 

and 1500ppm as a suggestion? Sure, it may help some plants, But I really think the greenies are more concerned about human habitation of the planet, than continued tree life, and these ultra high co2 levels provide issues for the existence of human life

 

if “save the planet, kill the people” is your premise in discussing CO2 levels... your on track.

Its all built into the system. As we destroy ourselves, the Earth greens up and recovers   ????

[Krataiboy]

Why this preoccupation with the Aussie bush fires? The extent of blazes Down Under are dwarfed by those currently lighting up Cambodia and a huge slice of central Africa. No wonder the frangipani is blooming so healthily!

 

https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#z:3;c:0.0,0.0;d:2020-01-24..2020-01-25

 

 

 

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Why this preoccupation with the Aussie bush fires? The extent of blazes Down Under are dwarfed by those currently lighting up Cambodia and a huge slice of central Africa. No wonder the frangipani is blooming so healthily!

 

https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#z:3;c:0.0,0.0;d:2020-01-24..2020-01-25

 

 

 

These maps primarily spot seasonal localised agri burning by incident not area - most are not out of control bushfires - it recently rained in Australia. 

[SoonOh]

Writer of the article must be a Big A.Hole-_-... forgot about europe contribution too 

I am Always happy to visit New South Wails _

anyway CO2 improves ganja growth .

 

as my Canadian friend say " at our age Live HappY and do not give a sh.t about anything"

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

But they haven't been through anything on this scale in recent history. Koalas are just an example - other species of animals AND plants are at risk and the biodiversity of the Australian bush ecosystem has just received a big hit. How many repeats of these fires do you think can be sustained?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/20/more-than-100-threatened-species-australian-bushfires-towards-extinction

i think australia should harvest or cut down for no profit the bush in bands

wide enough that fire cant jump between, in a 80 year cycle or so,

and in between burn much smaller areas, to keep the fire localized

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Evolution of what? Big f*** off dinosaurs, that's what! There were no people 20 million years ago.

agree, we will be the first human eyewitness of biomass on this scale,

its an awesome privilege, and knowing that i have personally contributed

to recycling the vital molecule making it happen is just the icing of the cake.

i think we can all nod in recognition of our own greatness,

not only did we stave off inevitable extinction of life, we made the world greener

while we were at it.

[Krataiboy]

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

These maps primarily spot seasonal localised agri burning by incident not area - most are not out of control bushfires - it recently rained in Australia. 

Not sure I understand your point. Irrespective of the cause, fire is fire and releases CO2 and pollutants, notably PM2.5, into the atmosphere. Also, before the rains recent came, the extent of the Aussie bush fires was still miniscule compared with those (from whatever cause) affecting central Africa, Cambodia, etc.

 

I wonder if there is a reliable a source for comparing the respective CO2 and pollutant levels of the major fire areas on the FIRMS real-time map?

[Tulak]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Looks like a big snow job. How green is SE Australia now?

As bad as it is, this devastation represents only a small patch on the Globe.

Besides - (Australian) bush management practiced by local Aborigines was effective way to remove accumulated fuel before it caused real havoc as we see now. I believe Aborigines are forbidden to manage the bush any more and also fire brigade has strict restrictions.

Anybody here to join "Green Party"?  

[AJBangkok]

Climate change is a 5 trillion dollar industry so anyone that challenges it’s existence or actual impact is censored either by people who have a vested interest in keeping the money train rolling or by the general public who have drunk the koolade.

 

We should be spending that money on Stopping pollution and cleaning up the planet, oceans etc. If there’s any change left we should cure cancer as well.
 

Pretty much all the armchair commentators on both sides of the argument are regurgitating “facts” they’ve read on the internet or seen on TV. They ( including me ) wouldn’t know squat about real climate science.

 

What I do know is when you think of the huge amount of money involved keeping the gravy train rolling, would you even consider that some of the data may be just a teeny tiny bit corrupted to support the popular position. Would you really be shocked if a Politician, government or a corporation manipulated data to support their position - or do you think that doesn’t happen in the real world.
 

Maybe climate change is just the latest boogeyman that governments use to keep themselves elected and the population cowered under their yoke. We had WMD, the Cold War,  the Domino theory, MAD, To scare us into submission and now we have climate change - It’s really the perfect killer app boogeyman as it can’t be quantified, you can spend unlimited money fighting it and no one will question it, and there is absolutely no accountability as nobody expects actual verifiable results to fix it.
 

Opposing the climate change movement is pure folly. Whether you believe it or not makes no difference it’s not going away so if you can Think of a way to profit from it good luck to you ( and let me know ) 

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Tulak said:

As bad as it is, this devastation represents only a small patch on the Globe.

Besides - (Australian) bush management practiced by local Aborigines was effective way to remove accumulated fuel before it caused real havoc as we see now. I believe Aborigines are forbidden to manage the bush any more and also fire brigade has strict restrictions.

Anybody here to join "Green Party"?  

Someone else who apparently has drunk the Murdoch empire Koolaid about a lack of prescribed burning and other bush manageent measures. Actually the opposite is true. Basically, when the drought is this extreme, the bush is so dry, and the heat so high, no amount of clearing or burning will help. Here's a link to a post with evidence and a link of you care to look at it.

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, AJBangkok said:

We should be spending that money on Stopping pollution and cleaning up the planet, oceans etc. If there’s any change left we should cure cancer as well.

Do you think maybe, just possibly, there's the smallest chance that if we stop burning fossil fuels that might go a long way to reducing pollution?

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Why this preoccupation with the Aussie bush fires? The extent of blazes Down Under are dwarfed by those currently lighting up Cambodia and a huge slice of central Africa. No wonder the frangipani is blooming so healthily!

 

https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#z:3;c:0.0,0.0;d:2020-01-24..2020-01-25

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Not sure I understand your point. Irrespective of the cause, fire is fire and releases CO2 and pollutants, notably PM2.5, into the atmosphere. Also, before the rains recent came, the extent of the Aussie bush fires was still miniscule compared with those (from whatever cause) affecting central Africa, Cambodia, etc.

 

I wonder if there is a reliable a source for comparing the respective CO2 and pollutant levels of the major fire areas on the FIRMS real-time map?

There are fires and there are fires. Since there's been no report of major forests burning or droughts in Central Africa or Cambodia it seems likely that these are the yearly burning of the stubble left over after crops are harvested. How much CO2 is locked up in a hectare of stubble versus a hectare of mature forest? What's more how hot are the flames in a controlled burn of a field of stubble vs. that of a wildfire in a forest afflicted by drought of 3 years duration and in abnormally high temperatures? The fires in Australia don't just destroy vegetation, they're so hot they even destroy organic matter in the soil. So hot that they create their own weather system generating lightning and windstorms which in turn generate more fires.

[AJBangkok]

Sure stopping using fossil fuels will help stop pollution, I don’t know to what extent but sure it will help. We could also kill all the sheep and cows to stop them farting methane and we could eat all our vegetables on our plate and not throw them in the trash so they don’t create methane in land fills as well. Please add those to your list as I’m with you and want to contribute to stopping climate change in its tracks.

[Tulak]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who apparently has drunk the Murdoch empire Koolaid about a lack of prescribed burning and other bush manageent measures. Actually the opposite is true. Basically, when the drought is this extreme, the bush is so dry, and the heat so high, no amount of clearing or burning will help. Here's a link to a post with evidence and a link of you care to look at it.

 

Cut&paste= Australia’s rural fire service and other land management organisations have begun to consult with indigenous groups as part of their burning regimes. But calls are rising for more indigenous oversight of fires and land management.

 

40000 years experience, so it makes sense.

[Tulak]

6 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

Sure stopping using fossil fuels will help stop pollution, I don’t know to what extent but sure it will help. We could also kill all the sheep and cows to stop them farting methane and we could eat all our vegetables on our plate and not throw them in the trash so they don’t create methane in land fills as well. Please add those to your list as I’m with you and want to contribute to stopping climate change in its tracks.

Not sure if this helps. Better enlist Greta.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i think australia should harvest or cut down for no profit the bush in bands

wide enough that fire cant jump between, in a 80 year cycle or so,

and in between burn much smaller areas, to keep the fire localized

Controlled hazard reduction burns were apparently not allowed by the NSW gov - this could be a prime reason that recent fires have been so bad - that's what the locals are saying anyway.

 

 

[Tulak]

31 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

Climate change is a 5 trillion dollar industry so anyone that challenges it’s existence or actual impact is censored either by people who have a vested interest in keeping the money train rolling or by the general public who have drunk the koolade.

 

We should be spending that money on Stopping pollution and cleaning up the planet, oceans etc. If there’s any change left we should cure cancer as well.
 

Pretty much all the armchair commentators on both sides of the argument are regurgitating “facts” they’ve read on the internet or seen on TV. They ( including me ) wouldn’t know squat about real climate science.

 

What I do know is when you think of the huge amount of money involved keeping the gravy train rolling, would you even consider that some of the data may be just a teeny tiny bit corrupted to support the popular position. Would you really be shocked if a Politician, government or a corporation manipulated data to support their position - or do you think that doesn’t happen in the real world.
 

Maybe climate change is just the latest boogeyman that governments use to keep themselves elected and the population cowered under their yoke. We had WMD, the Cold War,  the Domino theory, MAD, To scare us into submission and now we have climate change - It’s really the perfect killer app boogeyman as it can’t be quantified, you can spend unlimited money fighting it and no one will question it, and there is absolutely no accountability as nobody expects actual verifiable results to fix it.
 

Opposing the climate change movement is pure folly. Whether you believe it or not makes no difference it’s not going away so if you can Think of a way to profit from it good luck to you ( and let me know ) 

 

 

 

 

"Maybe climate change is just the latest boogeyman that governments use to keep themselves elected and the population cowered under their yoke."

 

Well put.

They found the new "whipping boy" now. It is so much easier to govern when the world's attention is distracted...

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Not sure I understand your point. Irrespective of the cause, fire is fire and releases CO2 and pollutants, notably PM2.5, into the atmosphere. Also, before the rains recent came, the extent of the Aussie bush fires was still miniscule compared with those (from whatever cause) affecting central Africa, Cambodia, etc.

 

I wonder if there is a reliable a source for comparing the respective CO2 and pollutant levels of the major fire areas on the FIRMS real-time map?

Each of those red dots signify fires but not the extent/size of individual areas that are burning. Quite a lot in Thailand too but although the air is crappy we have no threat to life and property here that might be consumed by spreading fire. 

[Tulak]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You seem incapable of understanding the phenomenon of rate. Even if your contention that life on earth faces extinction from too little carbon dioxide, the rate at which it is lowering means that C)2 level of 150 wouldn't be reached for thousands of years. What's more as scientists note, even if all burning of fossils fuels was put an end to, CO2 levels would still be rising for the next 100 years. 

And thanks again for not posting a link to your source for that dubious graphic.  Which is not surprising since I have found no numbers that come close to the claimed increases in yields posited by you. At least in respect to grains and roots which are the most important crops for humankind. God knows where you get this garbage from.

Also you seem to be suffering from the delusion that CO2 is generated from pollution-free sources. Do you believe that it all comes from bottles of soda pop? As a recent study showed, when coal power plants in the US were shut down, crop yields increased from those locales located downwind.

Shutdown of coal-fired plants in US saves lives and improves crop yields

Between 2005 and 2016, the shift away from coal saved an estimated 26,610 lives and 570 million bushels of crops

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200106141445.htm

 

And that's in the USA where those power plants were subject to much tighter pollution controls than in the developing world. Whaddya think the effect of burning fossil fuels is going to have on crop yields where polllution levels are much greater? Ya got a dubious unsourced chart for that, too?

Ooohhh. This post will upset some people for sure...

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Tulak said:

As bad as it is, this devastation represents only a small patch on the Globe.

Besides - (Australian) bush management practiced by local Aborigines was effective way to remove accumulated fuel before it caused real havoc as we see now. I believe Aborigines are forbidden to manage the bush any more and also fire brigade has strict restrictions.

Anybody here to join "Green Party"?  

Well that's a different problem.

[AJBangkok]

38 minutes ago, Tulak said:

Not sure if this helps. Better enlist Greta.

Yeah what’s all that about? You’d think the Climate change movement could find somebody with some actual academic credentials to speak to world leaders. I guess it’s the novelty of having the message sent from a 17 year old. I wouldn’t be surprised if next year the anti climate change movement trotted out a 12 year old at Davos.

 

BTW why do they have to wear a scarf and tuck their pants into their boots. Is that mandatory dress code for climate change activists? Does it make what they say more credible? I bet that’s why they don’t do radio. 

 

 

[bristolboy]

54 minutes ago, Tulak said:

Cut&paste= Australia’s rural fire service and other land management organisations have begun to consult with indigenous groups as part of their burning regimes. But calls are rising for more indigenous oversight of fires and land management.

 

40000 years experience, so it makes sense.

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. 

[bristolboy]

57 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

Sure stopping using fossil fuels will help stop pollution, I don’t know to what extent but sure it will help. We could also kill all the sheep and cows to stop them farting methane and we could eat all our vegetables on our plate and not throw them in the trash so they don’t create methane in land fills as well. Please add those to your list as I’m with you and want to contribute to stopping climate change in its tracks.

You don't know to what extent? So to your way of thinking it could be just a little bit? Because there's really not much evidence about the severe consequences of air pollution in cities around the world from internal combustion vehicles and from fossil fuel power plants?  kAre you a concern troll or a recent visitor from another planet?

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, Tulak said:

"Maybe climate change is just the latest boogeyman that governments use to keep themselves elected and the population cowered under their yoke."

 

Well put.

They found the new "whipping boy" now. It is so much easier to govern when the world's attention is distracted...

And they've got pretty much the entire scientific community in on the conspiracy with them. Makes sense. In opposite world.

[farmerjo]

1 hour ago, 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. 

Does it not start as a spot fire.

 

[AJBangkok]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You don't know to what extent? So to your way of thinking it could be just a little bit? Because there's really not much evidence about the severe consequences of air pollution in cities around the world from internal combustion vehicles and from fossil fuel power plants?  kAre you a concern troll or a recent visitor from another planet?

Of course I do not know “to what extent” but neither do you ( unless you are an actual scientist ) But I think we could both agree it’s probably bad right. How bad is better left to people who actually know. When you say there is not much evidence about the severe consequences of air pollution I would say, that’s not 100% correct and if you look there is some good stuff out there, you should try google and you may be surprised what you find.

 

As far as me being a troll or a recent visitor from another planet, I think most readers would probably agree my responses are actually logical whereas you posts claiming that “ there’s really not much evidence about the severe consequences of air pollution in cities around the world......” is pushing against the realm of credibility that may indicate that you are a troll or recent visitor from another planet.

[impulse]

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.

 

Reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned...