Not positive I fit the bill, but I’ll bite.
Why would we think humans could control Australia’s climate, for worse or for better?
Solar is pretty amazing in the summer time in Italy. Our house is 100% self sustaining in energy as the sun does go don’t till 8-9pm and it’s very dry with no clouds.
In the winter it’s useless. Days are short and it’s dark before 6. Rains a lot and is always cloudy.
Maybe it’s a better situation in Australia. But it could just never work as the primary source of energy here.
I don’t think I fall into the category you’re addressing, but that’s why I asked the questions I asked. It seems that some are arguing that there are many things that people can do to prevent these fires that don’t have anything to do with climate change.
2 Likes
Funny you guys bring anthropogenic disaster. Has anyone read lately about the Dust Bowl?
https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/dustbowl
@bojack, why is it the scientists fault if the money is taken away? Why if they have predicted worse fires and it happens?
I didn’t say climate, because I don’t think climate is the issue here. I said ecosystems. Rainfall patterns. Physical properties of the soil. Ground cover. That sort of thing. Are you aware what was done there since the arrival of Europeans?
Nah. It’s simply easier to say it’s climate change and pay a tax. Ain’t nobody has time for doing anything logical.
1 Like
I miss that guy. I was just watching some clips of him. Didn’t realize how big of a loss he was to the world. The man loved nature and animals.
They are related to climate change. Corporatists in Australia emboldened by Morrison have spun narratives that its climate activists etc to blame for this.
Maybe I misunderstand, then. I was just asking why govt officials would deny salaries based on a disbelief in climate change.
I do not doubt that humans can impact soil and ground cover. If by that you mean “control rainfall patterns” then I am dubious about the long term but hey.
I can’t find the monthly insolation charts for Australia, but roughly half the country is so close the equator that it would be getting intense sunshine for most of the year with very little variability. Add to that the extreme dry climate (ie., no cloud cover) and you’re looking at an enormous energy output with good reliability. The industrial potential is vast (I’m thinking high-temperature solar thermal rather than photovoltaics), nevermind ordinary domestic energy needs. I’ll see if I can find the actual measurements tomorrow - someone must have done them!
So are scientists paying these salaries or are they just making predictions here?
What is a corporatist?
Oh they are denying payments to volunteer firefighters, who are unemployed, because «they are not showing evidence of going to job interviews». So in the middle of a national tragedy, they are punishing the people who leave their livelihood to preserve what’s left of their land. Seems a bit disconnected from reality and not very proactive. I mean, you have fires the sizes of European countries yet the government has not set in effect emergency procedures that would allow all hands on deck, not less people fighting fires because otherwise they would have nothing to eat.
Regarding the issue of politics making the choice of where money goes:
No. I was talking about the allocation of funds to fire fighting in general. Scientists predicted worse fires, if you check the links provided, you will see local firefighters had to beg for months for funds, and the volunteer fighters were delayed compensation for weeks. It is not the scientists who control the funds, it is politicians, and their thinking, not the scientific statements, is the one responsible for this catastrophe. The politicians have delayed action in a criminal way, not the scientists.
Now I propose that the reason these politicians denied funding to fire fighting efforts was because they thought that allocating more funds would be acknowledging climate change. I do not think they just do not have the money but rather that they are aware of the anthropogenic effects and prefer to honor their commitment to corporations that destroy the environment rather than their constituents.
Maybe the fire fighters are from a different party? Or they couldn’t find a friend with guanxi to give the money to?
BTW I also think that the fire fighters may not «believe» the science but have suffered worse and worse fires every year so,yeah, they needed more money.
Ok, the whole thing is super confusing to me because where I come from “voluntary”= no paid salary, by definition.
I gather things are different there. I am not being flippant, but from where I stand I’m not sure firefighters are going to succeed - salary or not - if the local populace is determined to set new fires as soon as old ones are extinguished.
As far as controlling the ecosystem (or what I think finley means) then it seems possible to control underbrush, loose dry timber, controlled burns, and other factors making up or limiting to very big wild fires.
I suspect climate change is a bit of a straw man here, or rather that some stakeholders are using this fire as political fuel to advance an unrelated agenda. That goes to my plan for a new thread, and is certainly something we’ve seen plenty of in the past.
Is this for real? They really didn’t scale it…
It’s for real in the sense that they really posted it.
Scale what? The fires are probably fake but Australia is about as big as 48 states.
1 Like
It seems to be about right now that I look at it.