Bushfire Season

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Australia produces 1.08% of world CO2 fossil production:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions

That highly misleading fact has been bandied about a lot.

Unfortunately, Australia is also the worlds biggest coal exporter by an enormous margin. http://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here are the number of MPs per state by party
NSW
24 Australian Labor Party
1 Independent
15 Liberal Party of Australia
7 The Nationals

VIC
1 Australian Greens
21 Australian Labor Party
1 Independent
12 Liberal Party of Australia
3 The Nationals

QLD
6 Australian Labor Party
1 Katter's Australian Party
23 Liberal National Party of Queensland

SA
5 Australian Labor Party
1 Centre Alliance
4 Liberal Party of Australia

WA
5 Australian Labor Party
11 Liberal Party of Australia

TAS
2 Australian Labor Party
1 Independent
2 Liberal Party of Australia




Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_...=-1&gen=0&ps=0

RJ, I'm surprised at you!

ACT
3 Australian Labor Party

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Australia produces 1.08% of world CO2 fossil production:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions

The problem is elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W...ederations.png

The problem with this argument is that all those countries at the top of the list? They buy their coal from us.

[Axxman300]

Quote:

Since Friday 8 November 2019, legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people – including 40 juveniles – for 205 bushfire-related offences.

Of note:

24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires
53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and
47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.

Source: https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/n...ZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That highly misleading fact has been bandied about a lot.

Unfortunately, Australia is also the worlds biggest coal exporter by an enormous margin. http://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/

What I meant is that even if you went to 0 emissions, the fires would be just the same.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

What I meant is that even if you went to 0 emissions, the fires would be just the same.

But they wouldn't. That's the point. A hotter, drier environment makes Eucalyptus forests more susceptible to fires. Eucalyptus leaves have an oily coating that is vaporised in extremely hot conditions, making the leaves drier. In the 2009 fires, after several days of above-40C temperatures, it was reported that this oily vapour ignited.

Yes. The air burned.

[8enotto]

Yup. Brush from trimming the eucalyptus trees goes up in flames fast even two days after cutting.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

But they wouldn't. That's the point. A hotter, drier environment makes Eucalyptus forests more susceptible to fires. Eucalyptus leaves have an oily coating that is vaporised in extremely hot conditions, making the leaves drier. In the 2009 fires, after several days of above-40C temperatures, it was reported that this oily vapour ignited.

Yes. The air burned.

I mean if you, Australia, went to 0 emissions. Everybody has to do it, China in the first place.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I mean if you, Australia, went to 0 emissions. Everybody has to do it, China in the first place.

China, IIRC, is making more progress and less denial than the USofA.

[arthwollipot]

Okay, now you've made a claim:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Australia produces 1.08% of world CO2 fossil production:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions

The problem is elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W...ederations.png

I also suggest booting up windy.com and turning on CO layer (yeah, I know CO is not CO2 .. it's still tightly related to CO2 generating industry.
Btw. they also have new 'active fires' layer, though it has really low resolution.

When questioned on that claim, you say that you meant something different:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

What I meant is that even if you went to 0 emissions, the fires would be just the same.

And when questioned on that claim, you say that you meant something different again:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I mean if you, Australia, went to 0 emissions. Everybody has to do it, China in the first place.

If you're done shifting the goalposts, can we return to your original claim that Australia doesn't have a problem with emissions and we shouldn't worry about it because "the problem is elsewhere"?

Australia is directly contributing to that problem by providing the fossil fuels that those countries who have high emissions are burning. It is a problem that Australia needs to address, because if we address it, those countries will be forced to rely more on renewables, which will reduce their carbon output.

By the way, do you know what country is the largest investor in renewable energy? China.

[Dr.Sid]

I see no conflict in my statements, and I certainly don't see them as 'shifting goalposts'. Can you point me to the exact point where you see it ?
All my posts are saying one thing: Australia's contribution is insignificant. I don't think you can blame Australia government. Even if Australia had greenest government in the world, the fires would be the same. Does it mean Australia's approach can't be improved ? No. It doesn't say anything about that, and it doesn't imply anything about that.
Saying water is 20 degrees doesn't mean water should be 15 or 25, that it's bad or good. Same way, saying Australia contributes 1.08% doesn't say how much it should contribute, nor if it's good or bad.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I see no conflict in my statements, and I certainly don't see them as 'shifting goalposts'. Can you point me to the exact point where you see it ?

Sure.

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

All my posts are saying one thing:

You have three posts saying three different things. The first, that Australia's contribution to global warming is minor. The second, that bushfires would be the same even if we did something about our emissions. The third, that Australia shouldn't do anything until China does. Three different things. But let's address your summary:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Australia's contribution is insignificant.

Australia's direct contribution is small, though I would not call it insignificant. But Australia indirectly contributes to everybody else's contribution by selling them coal. Judging by the single number which is our direct contribution is extremely misleading.

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I don't think you can blame Australia government.

We can absolutely blame the Australian government, for not prioritising renewables over coal, for ignoring warnings, for dismantling infrastructure, for defunding rural fire services, and not least for approving a gigantic new coal mine so that we can continue to contribute, and in fact to increase our contribution to other countries' contributions to global warming.

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Even if Australia had greenest government in the world, the fires would be the same.

They would not, for reasons that have been explained. Australia's contribution to global warming makes the country more susceptible to catastrophic bushfires than previously. A more responsible government would have acted earlier, would not have approved the coal mine, would have responded to warnings by immediately prioritising investment in renewable energy, reduced exports of coal with a view to ceasing it entirely, and taken steps to begin phasing out coal fired power plants.

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Does it mean Australia's approach can't be improved ? No. It doesn't say anything about that, and it doesn't imply anything about that.

No argument here. But it should have been improved 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Saying water is 20 degrees doesn't mean water should be 15 or 25, that it's bad or good. Same way, saying Australia contributes 1.08% doesn't say how much it should contribute, nor if it's good or bad.

Every contribution is bad. That's kind of the point.

Any questions?

[Orphia Nay]

Bushfire smoke, blue-green algae, lower water-level lake - all about 2 months earlier this summer.



https://imgur.com/gallery/7WGFm6q







Blue-green algae can cause ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease - the same thing Stephen Hawking had).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rjh01

That is not accurate. We have individual seats that elect one MP each. Some of them are Labor (opposition) so they have no say in kicking out the government. Some are very safe Liberal / National (Government) who would always vote Liberal / National. Then there are the seats that depend on the fossil fuel industry. So that does not leave too many seats that could change hands. Will have to look at how many seats in SA, VIC and NSW are marginal Liberal. People in New Zealand do not vote in the Australian election, even though we gave them smoke to breath.

So Morrison can't be taken out with a vote of no confidence?

Oh well.


Want some?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I mean if you, Australia, went to 0 emissions. Everybody has to do it, China in the first place.

If we stopped exporting mountains of coal to countries like China?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I see no conflict in my statements, and I certainly don't see them as 'shifting goalposts'. Can you point me to the exact point where you see it ?
All my posts are saying one thing: Australia's contribution is insignificant. I don't think you can blame Australia government. Even if Australia had greenest government in the world, the fires would be the same. Does it mean Australia's approach can't be improved ? No. It doesn't say anything about that, and it doesn't imply anything about that.
Saying water is 20 degrees doesn't mean water should be 15 or 25, that it's bad or good. Same way, saying Australia contributes 1.08% doesn't say how much it should contribute, nor if it's good or bad.

Australia is wealthy enough to be a leader in developing new technologies for reducing CO2 emissions. It could be demonstrating adherence to the agreements rather than abusing them by claiming fraudulent 'credits'.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Quote:

Since Friday 8 November 2019, legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people – including 40 juveniles – for 205 bushfire-related offences.

Of note:

24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires
53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and
47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.

Source: https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/n...ZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

These are the known issues. I live in the Blue Mountains region, one of Australia's premier tourist areas. We have been wincing repeatedly while we watch foreign tourists completely oblivious to our fire dangers putting everyone in danger. The most blatant are the smokers. I have watched a couple of them walking to a lookout light cigarettes off a match, then casually flick the match away into the bush by the track...still alight. Or flicking a finished but still alight cigarette butt into the bush. Or they create and light fires to cook food they have bought then fail to extinguish it properly.

This is not a deliberately dangerous act as far as I can tell. They are simply habituated to doing this "at home". A number of us locals have had to chase these lit items into the bush or follow them around and stamp the fires out, much to the consternation of the visitors. They think we are slightly mad! But once the danger is explained they are very contrite.

The reason I describe this is because the Ruined Castle fire was rumoured to be started by tourists at a local picnic site at that location.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

...blue-green algae, lower water-level lake - all about 2 months earlier this summer.

Pah, our lakes are much dirtier than your lakes: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/...rish-in-summer

Meanwhile, on the fires, even Bananarama's weighing in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/co...climate-crisis

Quote:

This is because, while the climate science is crystal clear, global climate politics remain murky, mired in fear of disrupting the status quo.

Nevertheless, I’m not one to mince words; and, to be frank, I’m exhausted by the lack of accountability that comes from this type of tip-toeing.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So Morrison can't be taken out with a vote of no confidence?

He absolutely can, but it would be political suicide for the Liberal Party to do so. They're already on the brink of losing the next election - yet another spill could push them over.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So Morrison can't be taken out with a vote of no confidence?

Oh well.


Want some?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

He absolutely can, but it would be political suicide for the Liberal Party to do so. They're already on the brink of losing the next election - yet another spill could push them over.

And if they do they replace him with someone who is just as bad. And the Liberals would still be in power. That is my point. Not who their leader is. The Liberals are not likely to lose a major vote in the lower house.

No I do not want your popcorn. Should not be consumed outside of a movie.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by rjh01

And if they do they replace him with someone who is just as bad.

And that person would be Peter Dutton, the evil brussels sprout.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I mean if you, Australia, went to 0 emissions. Everybody has to do it, China in the first place.

Nearly everybody globally has to change a LOT of things they do.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

...blue-green algae, lower water-level lake - all about 2 months earlier this summer.

Pah, our lakes are much dirtier than your lakes: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/...rish-in-summer

Meanwhile, on the fires, even Bananarama's weighing in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/co...climate-crisis

Quote:

This is because, while the climate science is crystal clear, global climate politics remain murky, mired in fear of disrupting the status quo.

Nevertheless, I’m not one to mince words; and, to be frank, I’m exhausted by the lack of accountability that comes from this type of tip-toeing.

Hi TA. Haha, I haven't seen the latest cyanobacteria reading.

I may have to call the water authority, since Australia's reputation is at stake.


I've reported the blue-green algae before, which happens near the end of every summer.


In the latest local announcement I saw, all the angry hordes of locals were blaming the council.

Blue-green algae and many algal blooms are caused by excess fertiliser and animal waste runoff - in this case, from land upstream into our lake.

The hordes would freak out if they suddenly realised they actually had to change their own land use.

(I left a subtle little comment about the causes in a tiny offshoot discussion. )

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I mean if you, Australia, went to 0 emissions. Everybody has to do it, China in the first place.

What? China first or you're [general you] not going to?

That's been the US right-winger excuse for a couple decades. Trump's still using it, like when he pulled out of the Paris accord claiming the US got a raw deal.

A raw deal? Really? What a prick.

I don't care what my neighbors do, I do as much as I can and keep trying to do more.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If we stopped exporting mountains of coal to countries like China?

Same mistake Trump makes every day, court coal money instead of looking for how coal workers can be retrained to do something else.

If it's about jobs, retrain/reeducate people in another productive line of work.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, I go carried away in the wrong thread. I moved the post to the Trump thread.

[arthwollipot]

The Guardian is reporting that the smoke has now reached Chile.

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ralian-updates

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I mean if you, Australia, went to 0 emissions. Everybody has to do it, China in the first place.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If we stopped exporting mountains of coal to countries like China?

Per capita, Australia emits 16.5% of global emissions (worse than the US).

Per capita, China emits 7.7% of global emissions (a long way down the list).

Top of the list is Palau with 64.9%.

Per capita is a bit of a weird way to compare countries.

However, Palau have just banned sunscreen which was causing coral bleaching.

[Orphia Nay]

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/natio...sat.loop.shtml

Looks like rain over NSW fire areas.

Although, it could also be thunderstorms from pyrocumulonimbus.

[arthwollipot]

The BBC has a pretty good article about how many of the maps being shared around are misleading. It includes a good visualisation made by them, but unfortunately it only covers the east.

Australia fires: Misleading maps and pictures go viral

[arthwollipot]

More than 10 million hectares now.

For Americans, that's 24,710,538.15 acres.

[arthwollipot]

I have chosen not to try and acquire a P2.5 filter mask. Those things are in seriously short supply right now and I'm in a low risk group. For someone who smoked for 15 years my lungs are in excellent shape. I'm not going to take one of those valuable masks away from someone who really needs it. I may be facing long-term lung damage down the track, but if it saves a life today I think it's worth it.

AQI 171.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The BBC has a pretty good article about how many of the maps being shared around are misleading. It includes a good visualisation made by them, but unfortunately it only covers the east.

Australia fires: Misleading maps and pictures go viral

I'd seen a couple of stories about Australia's fires from the BBC, one which had a map from NASA, and it only had Eastern NSW/Vic.

The fires in our fire region burnt over 10,000 hectares (25,000 acres). That's 10% of the size of the California wildfires.

10% of California is 0 to BBC and NASA.

(Don't mind me, I'm working on other *things* to help some ways our region is disadvantaged.)

[Orphia Nay]

Did anyone see the video driving past all the burnt cattle?

To me it was more shocking than seeing burnt koalas.

Despite going vegan a while back because I'd finally absorbed reading a huge Lancet report of the evidence we farm too many animals, this is absolutely not anything I want to see.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I have chosen not to try and acquire a P2.5 filter mask. Those things are in seriously short supply right now and I'm in a low risk group. For someone who smoked for 15 years my lungs are in excellent shape. I'm not going to take one of those valuable masks away from someone who really needs it. I may be facing long-term lung damage down the track, but if it saves a life today I think it's worth it.

AQI 171.

PM me your address and I'll mail you the respirators I have. You can use them or pass them along. They're currently just sitting on my supplies shelf.

Also, can you buy from distributers here? I'll include a list of my suppliers.

[a_unique_person]

Art should just pick one up from a chemist shop. There are plenty to go around now.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

PM me your address and I'll mail you the respirators I have. You can use them or pass them along. They're currently just sitting on my supplies shelf.

Also, can you buy from distributers here? I'll include a list of my suppliers.

Aren't you overseas?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Aren't you overseas?

Yes. WA State. There's a low international shipping rate if packages are under four pounds.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yes. WA State. There's a low international shipping rate if packages are under four pounds.

I suggest you double check this before committing yourself. The cost to USA from Canberra starts at $A16. Ref: https://auspost.com.au/parcels-mail/...mPostcode=2600

Also remember it must go by air. No good it goes by ship.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rjh01

I suggest you double check this before committing yourself. The cost to USA from Canberra starts at $A16. Ref: https://auspost.com.au/parcels-mail/...mPostcode=2600

Also remember it must go by air. No good it goes by ship.

I ship all the time to eBay customers. Sometimes 'cheap' does take 4 weeks to get there and sometimes the same 'cheap' takes a week. I'll make sure it goes air.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rjh01

I suggest you double check this before committing yourself. The cost to USA from Canberra starts at $A16. Ref: https://auspost.com.au/parcels-mail/...mPostcode=2600

Also remember it must go by air. No good it goes by ship.

I checked and under 2 pounds it can go for $23.50 US. That is up from the last time I sent anything but still OK.

[novaphile]

Meanwhile, it's another 40C day here in South Australia, and the fire conditions on Kangaroo Island are getting worse.

Radio news announced that KI may experience 7 wind direction changes today.