National News Extinction "Rebellion"

[chuckbert]

... and the usual Murdoch media/conspiracy slurs, it's comforting to know that's all you have!

Not sure I need much more TBH.

These fires were started by people, ...

No. Some of the fires may have been started by people.

made worse by people

Not quite sure how?

exacerbated by policies of not allowing fire breaks or restricted burning to remove brush, etc

No. The capacity for reducing fire load by controlled burns has been drastically reduced not by policy but by the warming climate reducing year-on-year the days when controlled burns are possible.

so how is the cause climate change? And storms contributed but they are natural aren't they?

You seem to be stuck in a logical loop. Man-made climate change results in worse storms and rising temperatures. Man affects the climate gradually over years, and the affected climate results in changes to weather patterns.

Clearly the issue is more complex and nuanced than "climate change"

. And here we seem to have hit the nail on the head. Maybe the issue is more nuanced than your simplistic interpretation of what climate change is and what it’s effects are.

Was climate change for Black Thursday?

Climate change is responsible for the increasing frequency and intensity of bush fires in Australia

This article from May 2019 provided ample warning of what the dipole was going to do:

A positive climate phenomenon means bad news for Australia's winter rainfall

Cool seas off WA's north-west could kick off a climatic phenomenon that may exacerbate a winter drought across central and southern Australia.

www.abc.net.au

Absolutely, and why is it not acceptable to you that superimposing oscillating climate patterns on to a demonstrably warming climate is not an example of climate change causing fires.
I mean, if you look at the satellite-derived graphics of the recent fire progression, you can see the fires pulsing on during the heat of the day and reducing at night. I’m surprised that you haven’t come up with the suggestion that climate change can’t be true because it is clearly daytime temperatures that cause the fires to worsen, and daytime temperatures have always been higher than night time ones.

There is a discussion about the effects of man on the earth and the effects we may or may not have on natural weather patterns, but until people like yourself are able to accept that not all bad weather = climate change and can be adults about it, it's not worth the effort... And frankly it's why people switch off to the ever increasing hysteria.

As a scientist who has lived in Australia for 17 of the last 24 years, your mansplaining about issues you haven’t even thought about previously until doing a bit of internet “research” is not very enlightening. Rather than accuse others of a childish view, perhaps you could look at a more sophisticated concept of what climate change is, and how it can’t be simply separated from weather, and from climate oscillations.

It was well predicted a decade or two ago that the evidence of climate change, rising global temperatures and resulting drought on Australia’s fires would become apparent by 2020. It has.

 

[Essexyellows]

Don`t ditch the plastic now......... experts say so!

Plastic packaging ban 'could harm environment'

Stopping plastic packaging could lead to higher carbon alternatives, a Parliamentary report says.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[m]

Guilty as charged. Like all of us. What I don't do though, is believe climate change is a natural occurrence, any more than I believe Brexit will be good for the country. Apparently that makes me 'passive aggressive' and I don't let hard done by cherubs like GB hold an opinion that differs from mine. The reality is I'm still waiting for someone to persuade me on both issues. Hasn't happened yet.

Quite.

It's always more interesting to read a coherent view which challenges your beliefs than sit in the echo chamber.

 

[chuckbert]

BTW, the arson story propagated by the Murdoch media is of course now unravelling. This article isn’t even from the grauniad

Fake news spreads over Australian wildfires as inaccurate report of 183 arson arrests is shared worldwide

Australia’s bushfire crisis has led to what appears to be a deliberate misinformation campaign started by climate-change deniers claiming arson is the primary cause of the ongoing fires, despite months of drought and record high temperatures.

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Don`t ditch the plastic now......... experts say so!

Plastic packaging ban 'could harm environment'

Stopping plastic packaging could lead to higher carbon alternatives, a Parliamentary report says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Plastic has never been the problem per se, it is the management of it when it becomes waste which is the real issue. Yet another example of mans poor practices f##king up the planet for all its inhabitants through the pursuit of profit at the expense of all else.

 

[Essexyellows]

Plastic has never been the problem per se, it is the management of it when it becomes waste which is the real issue. Yet another example of mans poor practices f##king up the planet for all its inhabitants through the pursuit of profit at the expense of all else.

Among the "things that baffle me" (its a long list!!) is recycling.
Why doesn`t this country have a standardised system across all councils?
If we did we could sort it/utilise it/recycle it ourselves rather than shipping it to other countries to deal with.

In Leicester I can put anything recyclable in an orange bag.
At my sisters in Oxford its "multi bin bingo" !
At my Brother in Laws in Devon its a combination of bags and bins that have different "rules" applied.

Make it simple and more would do it!

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Among the "things that baffle me" (its a long list!!) is recycling.
Why doesn`t this country have a standardised system across all councils?
If we did we could sort it/utilise it/recycle it ourselves rather than shipping it to other countries to deal with.

In Leicester I can put anything recyclable in an orange bag.
At my sisters in Oxford its "multi bin bingo" !
At my Brother in Laws in Devon its a combination of bags and bins that have different "rules" applied.

Make it simple and more would do it!

It is essentially a function of the privatisation of the waste industry and associated kerb-side collections. Each council negotiates their own (often very long term) arrangement with a private contractor and they will be able to offer certain recycling capabilities, based on who they contract with to take what they collect (often in-house with the collection company but very often not! So we have ended up with hundreds of different flavours across the 450 plus Local Authorities responsible for household waste collections....and that is before you even begin to think about commercial and industrial collections

You will begin to see some standardisation of collections in the near future as Government will compel LA's and their contractors to make it easier (hopefully one positive outcome of the Circular Economy Package and Waste and Resources Strategy). You will also see a focus on reduction of food waste and requirement for separate food waste collections (most already do - all will have to). There are already some requirements about separate collections and reporting on recycling rates and recyclate quality produces by waste treatment facilities, but they are fairly woolly and toothless in reality.

Standardise what we collect, require it to be separated at source (as it leads to less contamination further down the recycling line, meaning better quality secondary raw materials). Make that equally appicable to Coomercial and Industrial sources,as well as Household. Invest in proper recycling and resource recovery infrastructure in this country (rather than relying on foreign and often extremely poorly regulated markets to pick up the slack). Reform packaging recycling legislation to remove out and out fraud from the system (packaging recycling notes have a value and are openly traded with little thought the the end fate of the waste in question). Reform waste brokerage which plays a significant part in recyclables "going missing" and ending up in foreign landfills/being burnt on Malaysian industrial sites (as an example). Load of other stuff we could be doing too if we are to take resource recovery and a circular economy seriously!

 

[Sarge]

Among the "things that baffle me" (its a long list!!) is recycling.
Why doesn`t this country have a standardised system across all councils?
If we did we could sort it/utilise it/recycle it ourselves rather than shipping it to other countries to deal with.

In Leicester I can put anything recyclable in an orange bag.
At my sisters in Oxford its "multi bin bingo" !
At my Brother in Laws in Devon its a combination of bags and bins that have different "rules" applied.

Make it simple and more would do it!

Well said @Essexyellows
In oxford city (for instance) a whole plethora of recyclables all go in the blue recycle items bin (collected fortnightly)

My eldest lad over in witney has different /not such a wide range of items allowed in thier recycle bin collected fortnightly

Wheras when im in South Somerset the recycle box, not bin, is only for glass, cans (tin & alloy) and (only) brown cardboard collected weekly

England, if not all of mainland uk should have a standardised approach to waste management....problem being getting the relevant authorities to firstly communicate and more importantly agreeing with each other before any change, as in real change regarding waste management is likely to happen

 

[Sarge]

It is essentially a function of the privatisation of the waste industry and associated kerb-side collections. Each council negotiates their own (often very long term) arrangement with a private contractor and they will be able to offer certain recycling capabilities, based on who they contract with to take what they collect (often in-house with the collection company but very often not! So we have ended up with hundreds of different flavours across the 450 plus Local Authorities responsible for household waste collections....and that is before you even begin to think about commercial and industrial collections

You will begin to see some standardisation of collections in the near future as Government will compel LA's and their contractors to make it easier (hopefully one positive outcome of the Circular Economy Package and Waste and Resources Strategy). You will also see a focus on reduction of food waste and requirement for separate food waste collections (most already do - all will have to). There are already some requirements about separate collections and reporting on recycling rates and recyclate quality produces by waste treatment facilities, but they are fairly woolly and toothless in reality.

Standardise what we collect, require it to be separated at source (as it leads to less contamination further down the recycling line, meaning better quality secondary raw materials). Make that equally appicable to Coomercial and Industrial sources,as well as Household. Invest in proper recycling and resource recovery infrastructure in this country (rather than relying on foreign and often extremely poorly regulated markets to pick up the slack). Reform packaging recycling legislation to remove out and out fraud from the system (packaging recycling notes have a value and are openly traded with little thought the the end fate of the waste in question). Reform waste brokerage which plays a significant part in recyclables "going missing" and ending up in foreign landfills/being burnt on Malaysian industrial sites (as an example). Load of other stuff we could 6be doing too if we are to take resource recovery and a circular economy seriously!

Excellently put @Sheik djibouti

 

[Essexyellows]

Would I be right in thinking the big plant by the M40 up Banbury way is a "waste to energy" type place?
There`s another almost finished by the M5 Bristol direction as well.
Top post btw @Sheik djibouti ..... are you involved in said industry?

 

[Marked Ox]

Would I be right in thinking the big plant by the M40 up Banbury way is a "waste to energy" type place?
There`s another almost finished by the M5 Bristol direction as well.
Top post btw @Sheik djibouti ..... are you involved in said industry?

Yes, this one: https://www.viridor.co.uk/energy/energy-recovery-facilities/ardley-erf/

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Would I be right in thinking the big plant by the M40 up Banbury way is a "waste to energy" type place?
There`s another almost finished by the M5 Bristol direction as well.
Top post btw @Sheik djibouti ..... are you involved in said industry?

Yep, yep and "kind of"......

As you say...waste to energy....one up from sticking it in a hole in the ground when it comes to the "waste hierarchy" (more commonly known as Reduce, re-use, re-cycle, recover and dispose....in that order). It doesn't solve the overall problem of moving stuff further up that hierarchy so that we can maximise its value, lifecyle and overall usefullness.

I will give a quick example. We use an awful lot of plastic films (packaging etc) as a society. It has become essential in some forms and there are very few viable alternatives currently when it comes to things like food security and safety. We are encouraged to try and recycle as much as possible.....however we are failing as a country to provide adequate facilities to recycle said plastic films. As an example, for householders in most parts of Oxfordshire, that is simply not an option and alot (West Oxon, for example) will not collect it and instead advise that it goes in the general waste and then off to aforementioned energy from waste plant at Ardley on the M40.

So it only provides a partial and almost least favoured alternative to landfill. In addition, we do not have the capacity for all of our "Refuse Derived Fuel" in this country, so we export hundreds of thousands of tonnes of the stuff every year, with the top destinations being Holland and Sweden. They have loved it up to now as they have had over-capacity so willingly take it to produce power and provide local heating schemes too. However, they too want to move more recylcable wastes and make us (and them) recover more of the valuable materials from the waste that we currently don't bother to do (because burning it pays better)up the hierarchy and so have imposed and energy from waste tax to make it less attractive.

So it comes back to us needing to take our waste more seriously, provide the adequate infrastructure to deal with it properly and squeeze every ounce of value that we possibly can out of every single bit of resource we use. I am seriously hoping the days of chuck it and forget it are coming to and end, but it requires a sea change in the industry and societal change to make it happen.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Not sure I need much more TBH.


No. Some of the fires may have been started by people.

Not quite sure how?


No. The capacity for reducing fire load by controlled burns has been drastically reduced not by policy but by the warming climate reducing year-on-year the days when controlled burns are possible.


You seem to be stuck in a logical loop. Man-made climate change results in worse storms and rising temperatures. Man affects the climate gradually over years, and the affected climate results in changes to weather patterns.

. And here we seem to have hit the nail on the head. Maybe the issue is more nuanced than your simplistic interpretation of what climate change is and what it’s effects are.


Climate change is responsible for the increasing frequency and intensity of bush fires in Australia


Absolutely, and why is it not acceptable to you that superimposing oscillating climate patterns on to a demonstrably warming climate is not an example of climate change causing fires.
I mean, if you look at the satellite-derived graphics of the recent fire progression, you can see the fires pulsing on during the heat of the day and reducing at night. I’m surprised that you haven’t come up with the suggestion that climate change can’t be true because it is clearly daytime temperatures that cause the fires to worsen, and daytime temperatures have always been higher than night time ones.


As a scientist who has lived in Australia for 17 of the last 24 years, your mansplaining about issues you haven’t even thought about previously until doing a bit of internet “research” is not very enlightening. Rather than accuse others of a childish view, perhaps you could look at a more sophisticated concept of what climate change is, and how it can’t be simply separated from weather, and from climate oscillations.

It was well predicted a decade or two ago that the evidence of climate change, rising global temperatures and resulting drought on Australia’s fires would become apparent by 2020. It has.

Again, a lot of this is your interpretation of what you think - the same thing you slam me for again and again across many subject areas, but as such, you lack the self awareness to see it.

What is your scientific thought on the IO Dipole? Or if there is an inter-relationship with El Nino and El Nina? Or stopping controlled burn back? Or clearing brush from wooded areas? Or using child labour to mine cobalt? Or the affect of electric cars on the national power grids? Or the performance of the latest generation of Nuclear power stations? The fossil fuels used to create solar panels and wind turbines in the scale we need them globally? How can we finance items like the Green New Deal and maintain a growing global economy? How can Australia be more efficient with water use to help farmers be part of the economy? How astrological activity will affect our planet? Or the effect the poles changing will have on climate change?

After all chuckles, you are the "scientist" in all of this. Surely we aren't beneath your analyisis on those matters? Clearly the rest of us are too "thick" to have an opinion on science matters and are not worthy of interacting with people who are "scientists".

But here is me thinking that again you'll blame the Murdoch media, claim I am mansplaining, call me a denier, find a conspiracy on the internet to push on me, and then in another month when I ask the same questions because as usual you avoid answering even the simple ones (yes, I have noticed that trait science boy), you'll do what all the others do and deny it was ever posted. You simply never change.

I'm still waiting for Yellow Taxi to post more about the top 1% and billionaires, but he seems to have stopped posting. He told me I was wrong to question him too.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Among the "things that baffle me" (its a long list!!) is recycling.
Why doesn`t this country have a standardised system across all councils?
If we did we could sort it/utilise it/recycle it ourselves rather than shipping it to other countries to deal with.

In Leicester I can put anything recyclable in an orange bag.
At my sisters in Oxford its "multi bin bingo" !
At my Brother in Laws in Devon its a combination of bags and bins that have different "rules" applied.

Make it simple and more would do it!

It was in the Tory manifesto and there is something this year to standardise what can be recycled, and also the Govt are working with manufacturers on the packaging they use. Damn Murdoch appointed conspiracy theorists

 

[chuckbert]

What is your scientific thought ...

(based in looking at scientific literature and direct statements from practical experts).

... on the IO Dipole? Or if there is an inter-relationship with El Nino and El Nina?

I had a quick scan of the Nature paper first describing IOD in 1999, and a more recent one looking at its effects. It looked to me like the IOD has not itself increased in intensity, which is what some of the Guardian reporting implied (which is why I didn’t make that point even if I could have using journalistic rather than scientific evidence). However it is clear that it has a stronger correlation to drought patterns in SE Australia than EN or LN oscillations which is interesting. If I recall there wasn’t much correlation of IOD with EN/LN.
It is completely clear that (as I already said in a previous response) that the superimposition of these oscillations, which have been known about for decades - not just since a news article in March 2919 - on a continually rising base temperature caused by man made climate change is making any bad years worse and any good years less good (fire- and drought-wise).

... Or stopping controlled burn back? Or clearing brush from wooded areas?...

On these matters I am more than happy to submit to the statement made by 23 former fire chiefs earlier in 2019 (referred to in my previous response), and very recently by the head of the DFES, about how “clearing brush” - usually called “controlled burning“ - has become increasingly difficult in recent years. I’m not sure what your concern about back-burning is. It is an absolute last resort to “fight fire with fire”, such as trying to rescue life from a major fire by setting a fire close by to reduce the fuel load. It is Russian roulette, and only used as a last resort. But of course you knew all that.

...snow job ...

... How astrological activity will affect our planet?...

Lol. I’m Taurus by the way.

... you are the "scientist" in all of this.

No. I am a scientist. Not the scientist. Not the only scientist on this forum. Not a climate scientist. But someone who can distinguish between scientific data and uncertainty, and opinion and journalism.

Clearly the rest of us are too "thick" to have an opinion on science matters and are not worthy of interacting with people who are "scientists”.

If I thought that I would have stopped interacting with you months or years ago. It is precisely because I care about the value of evidence and rational thought over “opinion“ and economic expedience that I am spending time banging my head against this particular brick wall.

Maybe you could answer this question: What do you think a “scientist” (your quotes) is?

 

[SteMerritt]

What do you think a “scientist” (your quotes)

 

[Essexyellows]

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

A scientist can be further defined by:

• how they go about this, for instance by use of statistics (Statisticians) or data (Data scientists)
• what they’re seeking understanding of, for instance the elements in the universe (Chemists, Geologists etc), or the stars in the sky (Astronomers)
• where they apply their science, for instance in the food industry (Food Scientist)

Scary thought................. I`m looking after Pathology Clinical Trials and the data generated thereof, so, at a push I could be a "scientist". However the image above is much,much closer!!

 

[Paul Cannell]

I didn't realise scientists had stopped doing experiments. What about linguists, botanists and physicists, not to mention astrologers?

 

[Gary Baldi]

(based in looking at scientific literature and direct statements from practical experts).

I had a quick scan of the Nature paper first describing IOD in 1999, and a more recent one looking at its effects. It looked to me like the IOD has not itself increased in intensity, which is what some of the Guardian reporting implied (which is why I didn’t make that point even if I could have using journalistic rather than scientific evidence). However it is clear that it has a stronger correlation to drought patterns in SE Australia than EN or LN oscillations which is interesting. If I recall there wasn’t much correlation of IOD with EN/LN.
It is completely clear that (as I already said in a previous response) that the superimposition of these oscillations, which have been known about for decades - not just since a news article in March 2919 - on a continually rising base temperature caused by man made climate change is making any bad years worse and any good years less good (fire- and drought-wise).


On these matters I am more than happy to submit to the statement made by 23 former fire chiefs earlier in 2019 (referred to in my previous response), and very recently by the head of the DFES, about how “clearing brush” - usually called “controlled burning“ - has become increasingly difficult in recent years. I’m not sure what your concern about back-burning is. It is an absolute last resort to “fight fire with fire”, such as trying to rescue life from a major fire by setting a fire close by to reduce the fuel load. It is Russian roulette, and only used as a last resort. But of course you knew all that.

...snow job ...

Lol. I’m Taurus by the way.


No. I am a scientist. Not the scientist. Not the only scientist on this forum. Not a climate scientist. But someone who can distinguish between scientific data and uncertainty, and opinion and journalism.


If I thought that I would have stopped interacting with you months or years ago. It is precisely because I care about the value of evidence and rational thought over “opinion“ and economic expedience that I am spending time banging my head against this particular brick wall.

Maybe you could answer this question: What do you think a “scientist” (your quotes) is?

Thanks for your usual partial response (again)! Your point on IOD is interesting, I see that the affects of weather in the South China Sea has affects and impacts on Australia, a cause and effect As we see in the UK when the US hurricane season or the winds blow from Rusisia. As such those, they are natural occurrences rather than primarily "climate change" as you have intimated in previous posts. If you look at planetary level, the impacts of weather between hemispheres is an interesting one, especially when you take into account the impact of the recent fires in the Amazon, and the deforestation that took place in Scandinavia a long time ago. What will happen when the poles change and how will that affect our climate? Is that climate change?

As for the impact of solar flares and such, so far we've been relatively lucky to not be affected by them, but with our maturing knowledge of the sun, we have no idea how that solar activity will impact the earth and the effects on climate change - you can be flippant dismissing it, but as a "scientist" I'd expect better than that. As such, when climate moaners go on about temperatures, do they assume we are in a controlled experiment, rather than a planet with an unreliable solar eco system? How does that correlate with a "scientists" point of view?

In terms of burn back and fire breaks, it's interesting to see the correlation towards the application of policy in 2 high drought areas in the western world within the last 10/15 years - California and Australia. Where the policies have been changed and traditional methods have been changed to more neutral, fires as we are seeing have been more vicious and persistent. The other policies were never perfect and no one has said that, but I'm not the only seeing recent devestation of wild fires and policy changes and thinking what we have is not working as expect...

However, as you avoid it, are those decisions or processes natural in occurrence when temperatures are never consistent or the default "climate change" that you prescribed it to be? Come on science boy!

 

[chuckbert]

Thanks for your usual partial response (again)!

Pot kettle black.

As such those, they are natural occurrences rather than primarily "climate change" as you have intimated in previous posts.

I’ve addressed this point about your persistence in separating “natural” events and climate change as if they are not part of the same whole. Climate change is making weather worse.

What will happen when the poles change and how will that affect our climate?

No idea. How about you?

Is that climate change?

If the climate changes then 100% yes. Will it be man made climate change? 100% no.

... solar flares and such, so far we've been relatively lucky to not be affected by them

Sure, but the worst effects would presumably be the knocking out of our communication systems immediately rather than climate change which we as a species have demonstrated takes decades to effect.

... you can be flippant dismissing it, but as a "scientist" I'd expect better than that.

I haven’t been flippant about it. You can’t just pile on lists of “whatabout this, whatabout that” and expect people to run off and do the thinking for you.
The only thing I have been flippant about is your reference to astrology. I’d expect better than that.

As such, when climate moaners go on about temperatures, do they assume we are in a controlled experiment, rather than a planet with an unreliable solar eco system? How does that correlate with a "scientists" point of view?

Why do you expect rational answers to bizarre “when did you stop beating your wife?” questions like this. The “climate moaners” are a striking consensus of climate scientists (probably not the 97% that gets bandied about), but well over 3/4 which is more consensus than most scientific issues). They know very well what a controlled experiment is, what an observation is, what the broader context and conflating issues are, what the parameters around correlation and causation are, how to accommodate confirmation and other biases in their analysis, how to place observations on a statistically-sound footing and how to incorporate uncertainty in their analysis. They aren’t just people with an opinion who use twitter as a source of ideas.

In terms of burn back and fire breaks, it's interesting to see the correlation towards the application of policy in 2 high drought areas in the western world within the last 10/15 years - California and Australia.

Can you please point me at a primary source describing how Australian policy on controlled burns, fire breaks and back burning have changed and when?

... However, as you avoid it...

. I don’t. I have responded twice as to why your interpretation is fallacious and have referred to sources of first hand comment from experts.
Try this one (I’m on my phone and can’t link directly to the video - it is the one of Shane Fitzsimmonds half way down. The rest is interesting, but not primary source). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-10/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfire-prevention-explainer/11853366

This is pretty interesting viewing too, from the former fire chiefs (that I’ve referred to already):

Any I’ll say it one more time in new words: Some years are hotter than others in specific places. Man made climate change means that rising global and continental temperatures mean that the hotter years are hotter and the cooler years less cool. That allows ecosystems less time to recover from previous droughts and fires then previous ones, making future catastrophic events worse and more frequent. While ocean oscillations and other weather influencing climatic or other external patterns change year on year, the global temperature is constantly rising. The overwhelming majority of experts agree that evidence supports that man is causing that constant rise.

Come on “science” boy

Really?