CRAP! Humans and animals have been affecting all aspects of the planet, since they evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Do you not read the replies or do you have trouble comprehending them?
THE QUESTION IS TO WHAT DEGREE.
Printable View
CRAP! Humans and animals have been affecting all aspects of the planet, since they evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Do you not read the replies or do you have trouble comprehending them?
THE QUESTION IS TO WHAT DEGREE.
NO! again, the hype creeping into the science.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
So after reading that, the summary is that those '74 fires had minimal impact as they were only 'grass fires'(not quite true, but we'll let it slide), and that they were remote. The inference there being that not many communities were affected by those fires.
The fact that 117million hectares burned is also similarly insignificant, even tho the fuel load was lighter which created lower intensity fire conditions ... yet it still burned 20% of the continent.
Therefore the severity of the bushfires is directly proportional to the proximity of the fires to higher population densities. Has zero to do with climate change.
Climate change and population densities have no correlation at all.
Climate change doesn't directly affect population densities, and population density doesn't impact climate change.
The only correlation between climate change and population will be(as has been proposed by historians) that as the climate changes, the location of those populations will vary. Nothing to do with density of those communities.
If these recent fires just so happened to have been more remote, and thus affect far fewer people in total, they would be less significant, but climate change would have been the primary cause.
A time will come again in the future where the 1974 situation will repeat itself, it's just the nature of this country, but the difference will be(at this future time) that the scientists will also then claim that climate change caused them.
https://youtu.be/WtefFA1B0WQ[biggrin]Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
NASA have got a ****ing cheek. Look at all the **** that all their Launches leave behind in the atmosphere, do they not see that?
Nice Truck Ian. Were you late signing on on that day? [biggrin][biggrin][biggrin]
Another personal attack, so I'll just ignore it.Quote:
Originally Posted by V8Ian
If this is correct - more CO2 = more greening of the planet =plant growth (potential fuel) then we're in for worse times... with a greener planet.
Greening of the Earth and its drivers | Nature Climate Change
But, on the other hand, plants take IN CO2, use it for food, and 'exhale' oxygen, so logically, the more plants/trees there are... the more CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere, eventually reaching some sort of balance.
That the "climate" is in a state of flux is not in dispute, numerous methods all identify (same) times of greater and lesser average temperatures, vineyards in northern England at one stage of it's history, then later on the Thames river freezing with ice so thick as to support temporary structures.. 14 to 19 th Centuries
Britain's Little Ice Age: When Was It And What Happened? - HistoryExtra
And, in fairness, perhaps human activity DID set off that Big Freeze...
'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds
But I'd love to hear an explanation of the massive rise in temperature from around 5,000 years ago, to the Minoan Warming, around 3,000 years ago. Yes, we ARE on a warming trajectory, though not as steep as previous ones...
Before coal-fired power stations were invented...
Or anyone plotted a 'Hockey Stick Graph' of Climate Change... you know, the one that Climate Believers used to substantiate their claims of MAN-Made change...
Attachment 157566
-
solar output is the answer
Which varies, plus the tiniest variation of distance and angles... (Milankovich cycles) having a profound effect on how much reaches the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
to what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
If you refer to the climate changing(Superquags reference to Minoan climate) .. then not necessarily(see below).
But this doesn't mean it can't happen, because it has happened.
But as with anything climate change related, it's far too complicated to definitely say that one specific process is the key to climate change.
On the NASA webpage(somewhere) there is a graph of solar activity vs global average temps.
It shows that increased solar activity doesn't necessarily produce increasing global temps, and in fact it shows that during the 1900-1940 warming period, solar activity trailed(by about 5-10 years) the rising global average temperature increase.
I'll try to fish it out of my bookmark lists if I can locate it.
Found it HERE.
At the latter part of the 19th century to the early part of the 20th, there does appear to be a direct relation to solar activity affecting global temps. But then it goes a bit weird(the 1900-1940 period).
Does that make you a Factualist? [smilebigeye]Quote:
Originally Posted by V8Ian
