Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

What I posted is correct.

The information I gave came from NASA's sun observatory.

It's interesting how people perceive themselves , but you are not a free spirit.

Our sun, Sol , is a white dwarf. It is novating and will become a red dwarf.

I wonder if your Sol is the same Sol from the Castrol TV Commercial of days of yore. Yer know the one, "Oils ain't oils Sol"

Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

What I posted is correct.

The information I gave came from NASA's sun observatory.

It's interesting how people perceive themselves , but you are not a free spirit.

Our sun, Sol , is a white dwarf. It is novating and will become a red dwarf.

Suns do die your correct.
But suns do also mini nova as can be seen by our closest neighbor sun Proxima Centauri or the one after that Barnards star!
Yes they did nova recently and did not turn into red dwarfs! Google that on your favorite nasa website.
Perhaps investigate as to why. Interesting.

There is evidence our own sun (no matter what you call it) doing the same! Glass beads on the moon for example.

Fact.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Sounds like propaganda spread by denialists to try to discredit the science. Peer review is a system to ensure papers are thoroughly researched and well-argued.

FOR REAL? Wow.

Here is some light reading regarding your peer review system.

Let's stop pretending peer review works - Vox

Originally Posted by 4bee

I wonder if your Sol is the same Sol from the Castrol TV Commercial of days of yore. Yer know the one, "Oils ain't oils Sol"

Just sayin'.

yeah, I think they're distant relations , maybe Dick and Barry were/are love childs/children

An interesting read, Sol or no Sol.


https://www.privatefleet.com.au/links-and-resources/auto-news/oils/

Originally Posted by Johndoe

FOR REAL? Wow.

Here is some light reading regarding your peer review system.

Let's stop pretending peer review works - Vox

Vox is an interesting website, and does some good stuff, but that particular story is quite weak, really.
They build a whole case on one experiment and then say it damns the whole peer review system, which is going too far.
That story would itself fail peer review because of inadequate methodology.
The fact is, peer review is not perfect because it involves people who are fallible, but peer review does usually work to improve the quality of submitted material.
Incidentally, I used to sit on a peer review committee to scrutinise draft university exam papers, so I do have some clues about how it should work.
I remember upsetting someone with a PhD once by saying I didn't understand how the students for one of his exam papers were supposed to record their answers, so how were the poor students supposed to know what to do? He got quite snooty about that. Fortunately the Chancellor agreed with me and told him to rewrite his instructions to be clearer.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

No, the overall global temperature IS rising, as are Australian averages. That's not sensationalism - that's just fact.

Oh, and the five million hectares burnt in just three months is for the whole country, not just two states.

It would be a lot easier just to accept reality, rather than twisting yourself into knots trying to deny the obvious.

Who ever said that the globe isn't warming?, Who ever made the remark that the warming globe is sensationalism?
That I remember, all the 'redneck sceptics' accept that the globe is warming, and no ever mentioned this fact as sensationalism.
The commentary around the sensationalism are the dire predictions being made, and the confused science being expressed .. not that the globe is warming!

if the 5 million ha includes all of Aus in the current season of land burnt, then that's really not as much as previous fire seasons.
But I dare say that it's more, unless the SA and Vic fires so far are very small.
But I did mention that the previous fires(especially the 51-52 fire was over 5.7m ha in NSW alone!). Source of this is NSW parliamentary data.

Not really understanding where you see me twisting myself into anything, other than right now, trying to understand what your argument is, and is coming from.
Never(EVER!) said that the globe is not warming. You seem to think this is what I believe for some weird reason. Hence, now I'm twisted into knots trying to work out where you think I've said this.

Originally Posted by vnx205

I think you know very well that the graph is not trying to prove anything.

I think you know very well that it is simply a generic illustration of what an outlier is.

So, with the actual example of the outlier shown in actual data shown(2019 fire graph) of bushfire data .. is this not proof that the climate change priesthood are sensationalising the consequences of a warming globe using outlier data?

The current fire affected areas, receive 1 massive fire season in 40 years, 30 of which have been affected by warming climate, and all the doomsayers come out in force.
Historically speaking, those same enviro scientists types have even discovered that those same areas HAVE been affected by fires over the course of the past 500 years(the tree ring researchers), and that those fires had been even worse again according to those people. And yet, the sensationalists still claim that global warming is causing these large scale fires!
So, it then begs the questions(just as it did re the 1974 fires), if 500 years ago was cooler(generally accepted to have been a mini ice age), and all those fires raged across the majority of Eastern Aus, was this due to a warming globe too(in an ice age?)
1974 was a cold year(statistically), and yet just as much of(likely more!) land in NSW had burned, and yet these people are stil adamant that global warming caused these current fires.
So what caused the 1974 fires(and while on it, the larger '51 fire). Couldn't have been global warming, could it.
Yet, now they look to attribute blame.
This is where the religion theory comes into it.
When you can't find an answer to an impossible question (that in all reality shouldn't even be asked!), they look to the easiest form of least resistance.
Now it's climate change. Thousands of years ago, to answer those similarly unanswerable questions they used the fallacy of a deity, and their mysterious method of operation.
Now, the easiest answer is climate change. It's on the majority of peoples minds, and very few will question it. But it still makes no sense!


ps. the commentary revolving around sol and it's future in hundreds of millions of years .. realistically nothing compared to the potential catastrophe that the approaching star may do to Earth.
Well before the changes in the Sun will be of any consequence, and if you're looking for a 'fun fact' to play with, search Gliese 710, a 'small' star currently on collision course with the Solar System.
It's theorized trajectory is that it could approach to about ~1000Au from the Sun(and Earth), and while that sounds like a far off distance, for a star, it's probably not a lot in reality.
It may well affect the traditional orbits of almost all bodies in the Solar System, by how much no one can really calculate now.
But the major issue will be the disturbance of the Oort cloud, which is going to pretty much mess up billions/trillions of rocky bodies out there .. ie. expect monumental bombardments of all planets and moons with asteroids, meteors, and whatnot .. and that's if they haven't been physically moved from their well known orbits anyhow.
We know that even a small shift in orbit, and this planet may well become unfit for life. In fact the most likely outcome will be this.

So if all of this pans out, and no one really knows yet, but there'll be a second celestial body far brighter than the moon currently is at night, followed by asteroid impacts on a grand scale, and even an orbital change on Earth.
That's sure to cause the mother of any future climate changes, ever known on Earth.