octave

My sister lost her house at Quaama but at least wasnt hurt.

Here is the afternoon sun plus Aussie smoke from Wellington NZ note this is not sunset. Apparently much worse on the south island. The last house I live and built (luckily sold it recently) was only just saved, the house before that 360km away is also threatened. My sister lives on a property near Quaama, the fire passed through this area and we cannot contact her. Phones are out my parents are frantic. Not a great start the year

I am on holiday in NZ and today the smoke from Australia has reached here. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/406523/australia-fires-sending-pretty-hefty-smoke-new-zealand-s-way Also the house I built in 1990 and sold 2 years ago had a lucky escape. An ex neighbor sent me this footage KGn4MiLee2MTmHAZ.mp4

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

CSIRO in my view at least should not be merely about inventing things. New inventions are usually built on some discovery which Joe public niavly thinks is useless but that yeilds some new device. Heinrich Hertz who discovered radio waves said that he could not envisage any possible practical application. Hindsight tells us quite a different story. WIFI famously a spin off from research into black holes. My friends that work at CSIRO tell me that funding has been substantially cut.

All of these countries are also installing huge amounts of renewable are they not? If these countries are massively increasing coal power then what are you worried about you still get to do business as usual. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. By the end of 2018, the country had a total capacity of 728 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. India is one of the countries with the largest production of energy from renewable sources. As of 2019, 35% of India's installed electricity generation capacity is from renewable sources,[1] generating 17% of total electricity in the country.[2]

Yes follow the big money exxon perhaps?

turbo they did not say that stefan invented it. They refer to the Stefan Boltzmann constant. This is fairly basic physics and has many applications in physics.

So to be clear you do not believe in the phenomena called the greenhouse effect? Again the video you are attacking is for the most part not about climate change, it is not even controversial. Perhaps you could put forward your alternate theory on why the earth is the temeperature it is. Your criticlsm of this video centres on one statement which alerts us to an inittial simplification of the model which is then addressed.

The scientist in this video is Michael Merrifeild. When he uses the word cheating he refers to the simplification of the model for the purposes of calculation. He then goes on to say what happens when you insert those more complicated factors. The point of this video is not about climate change except briefly at the very end. This video explains the physics of the greenhaouse effect which is not controversial at all and has been understood since the 1800s

and has been accused in the past and I believe there was an inquiry which I would be happy to find links to tomorrow. I guess my question would be that whenever there is a question over the quality of data you we need to look for corroboration from other sources. The measurement of increasing temperatures is not only suggested by our Bom but around the world from other meteorological organisations. Are they all making it up? are we talking grand conspiracy?

Turbs here is an explanation of the question you posed. This is not presented by some radical idiot wanting to bring down capitalism and in fact this scientists is not on the hysterical alarmist end of the spectrum. It is worth watching even if only to sharpen your arguments and to enable you pose better questions. If you posed the above question in a genuine way and are really seeking information then this is a great place to start. If you think it is bollocks then look forward to your detailed scientific critique.

I would agree don't just rely on the media but look to the most reliable scientific sources. CSIRO, Bom, NASA etc.

Turbo that is an inaccurate representstion of what the theory suggests. Trapped in a layer????? The mechanisms has been understood for about 150 years. Optical wavelegths travel from the sun through the atmosphere heating the land and sea where some of this energy is reradiated as infrared energy. Different molecules absorb infrared at different rates. That is basically the physicc if it.

Yes the dung beetle is an interesting case. Before I moved down to Melbourne I lived on a property between Canberra and the coast and most of my neighbors and friends were retired CSIRO. The woman on the next property has done a lot of the research regarding the dung beetle. https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2000952540_Marina_Tyndale-Biscoe

My understanding was that it was not brought in as cattle grass with approval but was brought in accidentally in contaminated pasture seed. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms-fishing-forestry/agriculture/land-management/health-pests-weeds-diseases/weeds-diseases/invasive-plants/restricted/giant-rats-tail-grass Giant rat's tail grass was introduced to Australia around the early 1960s in contaminated pasture seed. S. natensis is now found from Rockhampton in Queensland to Port Maquarie in New South Wales, while S. pyramidalis is found from Cooktown in Queensland to the New South Wales central coast. Ecoclimatic modelling suggests giant rat's tail grass is suited to conditions present in 30% of Australia (223 million hectares).

http://www.phos-chek.com.au/sites/default/files/CRC Aerial EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_090806_0.pdf

I have no "opinion'" on this either way because I have not time spent time researching it. I could tell you what I "feel" but what I "feel" is not important and doesn't contribute much to this conversation. In order to decide which side of this debate I was on I would be asking myself "what does the evidence show" have there been any rigorous studies undertaken that can quantify the benefits and costs. Here are a couple of studies. I have not read them, which is why I cannot yet decide on this issue. This study is quite old (1987) https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=legacy:2927&dsid=DS1 This one is from 2017 http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/userfiles/submissions/Simon Hattrell Appendix 5.pdf

That is easy to answer. Something we used to do in the band was to play at graduation parades for the RAAF flying school (as it was at that time , not sure how it is done now) During that parade each graduating pilot would be told where their first posting would be. Until this point I think (again this is probably different now) had only flown CT4 and Macchi back in the early days then later it was the Pilatus. They could be posted to 36 or 37 squadron C130 or to F111 (back in the day) or Orions or Chinooks. They need to learn how to fly and qualify on these aircraft Apart from that some of those circuits you see would be pilots being retested or qualifying to become aircraft captain.

Skip ,I am not necessarily rubbishing the idea in fact I think it does have some merit. However answers that seems blindingly simple and obvious or usually more complicated than they might initially seem. If we are going to use military aircraft and pilots they must be trained for the task. Our military spends a lot of time doing joint exercises with the militaries of other countries in order to ensure that they on the same page and are using practices that harmonize with each other. That being said, I do not necessarily see why in the future this could not be part of their training. Something that Joe public often gets wrong is that they seem to think that we have all of these aircraft sitting on the ground with the pilots sitting around playing cards just waiting for something useful to do, this is not the case. As I mentioned earlier between 79 and 90 I was a musician in the RAAF, although I had nothing to do with aircraft I did spend a hell of a lot of time in the back of a C130 and other aircraft traveling around the country and overseas. Usually we are crammed in the back of a C130 with an engine perhaps being delivered to Amberley or perhaps medical goods for the RAAF hospital, vehicles, cages with RAAF dogs (quite unpleasant to sit next to) I am not saying that these tasks are more important than this emergency but just making the point that the military are not sitting idle ever (I can only speak about the RAAF and even then 30 years ago). Again not rubbishing the idea but throwing in personnel that are untrained for this type of event in equipment that has not necessarily been tested could end up more expensive than hiring in people with the correct and up to date training in proven equipment. Since my time in the RAAF many jobs that were done by the RAAF were contracted out after it was found to be cheaper and more efficient.

I am wondering why you believe that the average member of the ADF has more fire fighting ability and experience than someone with experience and in this case very recent experience. Whilst there are some in the ADF whose training may be useful the ADF comprises of many different jobs. I spent 12 years in the RAAF I was a full time musician, I played in the band not really skill a skill useful in fighting bush fires. My understanding is that volunteer fire fighters do a lot of training specific to fighting fires surely in order to give some of them a break we need people with similar training. I cant understand why you find this such troublesome issue.

Personally I am grateful for help from overseas just as they are grateful when we help them. These arrangements have been in place for quite some time. From the The Washington Post 21 August 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/21/why-the-u-s-just-summoned-firefighters-from-australia-and-new-zealand/ First they called in the U.S. military — and Canadian firefighting support. But with the nation still at wildfire preparedness Level 5 — the highest there is — and spending $ 150 million per week fighting fires, it still hasn’t been enough. So now, 71 firefighters from half the world away, Australia and New Zealand, are being called up to help, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. “We currently remain at National Preparedness Level 5, our resources are fully committed and there are no season-ending weather events in the foreseeable forecast,” said National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group chair Aitor Bidaburu in a statement. “Because of the current level of commitment and forecast, having fire management expertise from Australian and New Zealand firefighters will be of tremendous help as we continue suppressing ongoing fires.” This is not the first time that the United States has relied on firefighters from so far away. There’s a history of such international collaboration with Australia and New Zealand, going back to the year 2000, which the National Interagency Fire Center says is “the first time their firefighters fought fires on American soil.” The United States has also sent its own firefighters to these countries when they need aid: 67 to Australia in 2007 and 73 in 2009. The reason this works, according to the NIFC, is that the two countries are “very similar to the United States national fire organization in training requirements and structure.”

We could debate climate change over and over and get nowhere. None of us here are climate scientists I assume. We do have to be careful on all sides not to mix up what we believe is true with what we wish the truth to be. We all have our confirmation biases and it is important to understand our biases. I would just urge people to spend time reading. If you feel that what NASA says seems suspicious then look elsewhere, try CSIRO or Bom or the British Academy of Science. Look for corroboration between scientific disciplines for example what do the majority Oceanographers say or the Geological Society of America say? Look for data from different sources, does NASAs satellite data look markedly different to JAXAs or ESAs? I do not believe what I am suggesting here is ridiculous, foolish, radical or offensive.

Yes I did make this point earlier. I believe I I said that I was uncomfortable posting on this forum and would rather discuss it on whats up. I do feel that you have posting assertions on this forum which wether or not you started the drift should not go unchallenged. If thread drift offends you then lead by example and dont do it yourself. I think if you reread this thread you will find that I have only ever replied to posts that may have already drifted and I have always been polite if forthright. Happy to consider examples of my post that do not conform to these principles.

I take your point, that is why I mentioned my dislike of shaming others. The way I see it is ths Edison probably worked by candlelight while he invented the light bulb. The people who invented the motor car more than likely rode a horse while they came up with a better way. The truth is we work with what we have available to us whilst we work on something better.