Some alarmists are claiming that the devastating forest fires of Alberta (see NASA photo below) are the result of climate change, for example by the New York Times or the BBC.
Credits: NASA Earth Observatory image by Joshua Stevens, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey
“A ritual”
Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski here decided to investigate this a bit more closely, and found that the data supporting such claims are “paltry” and that the claim itself is mostly “a myth”. He points out that the same is true with all the other recently alleged climate change-caused disasters, such as 5 Pacific islands sinking, the Syria conflict, hurricanes, etc.
In fact the practice of blaming climate change for natural disasters has been so widespread that Bojanowski, a geologist, now terms it “a ritual”.
Main cause: El Niño induced weather
The Spiegel journalist writes that the reason behind the fires was mainly an unusual, high latitude low which elevated temperatures 17°C above the mean and brought with it high winds which acted to fan the flames. The dry conditions leading up to a forest fire outbreak, Bojanowski reports, were due to the El Niño which disrupted global weather patterns.
Bojanowski next provides a chart depicting Canada forest fire activity over the past 25 years. The trend: no real increase in forest fire activity. If anything the overall trend for the number of fires is slightly downward. Though the area of the fires have jumped, Bojanowski suspects this may have something to do with more industry taking place in forests. Here he also cites results from Russian scientists.
“No evidence”
Bojanowki makes other points:
- The IPCC sees no increased drought in Canada.
- Models said wet regions were in fact supposed to get wetter.
On the claims climate change was to blame for the devastating forest fires in Canada, he concludes that “there isn’t any evidence for this claim“.
It is funny. Pierre links to a climate report on Spiegel and i can guess the name of the author without looking.
Bojanowski is wrong again.
For a start we should look at hwta leading scientists say on this topic:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236245289_Climate_change_impacts_on_future_boreal_regimes
Flannigan was careful in attributing this fire to climate change, but he did explain the link. The fire season has increased in length. you can not ignore that!
The facts are obvious: This winter was much to warm in the north.
https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/nasa-temperature-anomaly-map-january-2016.png?w=756
you simply can not ignore this.
And you can also not just blame it on El Nino, because it was even hot for an El Nino year.
What “sceptics” are doing there, is absurd. If we point out very warm years without El Nino, they claim a pause and dismiss it as not being a record. If it is a record, it is blamed as El Nino and the background warming is simply ignored. It does not work like that.
But a point that i find completely ignored in basically every post in this subject, is the significant improvement in our ability to track and fight these fires.
In the past, you had fire fighters on the ground, who barely knew where they were, but who were totally unaware of where the fire is.
Now we have real time data at all places.
And we also saw a massive shift in focus on forest fires, as explained here for the USA:
http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Fire-Budget-Report.pdf
So in total, in your cooling world and after march winter, and with improved methods to fight them, we should see seriously less fires, not more.
The increase in fire area is because of our increased powers of observation. The same is true for hurricanes and tornadoes. We now can know the exact area burned because of satellite observation. Witness the photo in the article. The same is true for all kinds of storms. Your observation of firefighters unawareness of where the fires were proves my point.
“It is funny.”
True, it is funny. I can read your comments and guess it is you without looking.
You clearly don’t have a clue how you come across and how others perceive you. I used to wonder what causes such a complete lack of self-reflection. I still do sometimes but I don’t spend much time on it. I’ve seen too many of the kind.
‘I used to wonder what causes such a complete lack of self-reflection.” Colorado Wellington
I’m pretty sure it’s primarily (though not exclusively) a combination of lack of self discipline deriving in part from brainwashing and never having been taught how to think critically, with a possible genetic predisposition or two.
Depending on his age, he may be more a victim than a perp. Of course, the older one gets, the less he can be excused. There has to be a point when one realizes he’s being an idiot, and starts trying to fix it. Sod has clearly not yet reached that point.
sod, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Most importantly. you don’t live in Alberta, I do (near Edmonton).
You stated that the Winter here was much too warm, told by someone who hasn’t got a clue what “much too warm” means to anyone who lives here.
As far as I am concerned, the last winter wasn’t warm enough, but perhaps you can tell us how much warmer the last winter was in comparison to other winters in Fort MacMurray. Have a look: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=weather+Fort+MacMurray+1980+to+2016
sod has also demonstrated he has no knowledge of the causes of wildfires, the complexity of fire behavior, or the forest fire history of the West.
He seems to just be waiting anxiously for every new post so he can quickly post something he found on the internet and say “wrong again”. The subject hardly matters. He will find the “right answer” on the web.
“But a point that i find completely ignored in basically every post in this subject, is the significant improvement in our ability to track and fight these fires. ”
“So in total, in your cooling world and after march winter, and with improved methods to fight them, we should see seriously less fires, not more.”
You mean, compared to when there were no airplanes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
Yeah, you’re right, we *SHOULD* be more capable in finding fires than before 1903.
What does that have to do with the last decades though?
I mean, we should also be able to fight fires better since we invented the wheel, wouldn’t you say? And look at the modern advantages of that newfangled invention, the rubber hose. It should really be a piece of cake, one would assume.
To point out a single big error in what the author wrote:
“Dass Kanada übers Jahr gesehen überhaupt trockener wird, erscheint dem Uno-Klimabericht zufolge aber zweifelhaft. Klimasimulationen zufolge sollten feuchte Regionen eher noch feuchter werden.”
Wet places are getting even wetter.
The problem is, that the burning region was not wet but rather dry.
One of the first comments points this out:
”
Super recherchiert!
Weite Teile des Landes sind eher trocken, was nur wegen des borealen Klimas nicht so auffällt.
Alberta z.B. liegt im Regenschatten der Rockies und hat ein Waldsteppen-Klima. Ft. McMurray hat einen Durchschnittsniederschlag von 340 mm (halb soviel wie Köln, 50% weniger als Magdeburg). Da macht sich jede Erwärmung deutlich bemerkbar.
In Alaska ist es noch schlimmer, da tauen obendrein noch die Permafrostböden auf, was zu starken Verwerfungen und zum Verschwinden zahlreicher Seen geführt hat.
Natürlich gibt es für jedes Feuer Ursachen- der langfristige Trend wird es ja zeigen.”
But even if it got more rain/snow, the effect would not help (in total contrast to what the author says).
More rain with increased temperatures is not the same as less rain with a cooler climate.
The low temperatures make rain into lasting snow, which slowly melts and prevents fire conditions over a long time.
With increased temperatures, the additional rain evaporates and snow melts earlier, we get the typical mixture of heat waves and floods caused by strong rain fall, without any benefit to fire conditions.
First you claimed that evil Global Warming caused Alberta to burn down, now you say
“sod 18. May 2016 at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Reply
The problem is, that the burning region was not wet but rather dry.”
So the fire was completely normal.
Well, facts never meant anything to you, you just use whatever lie you deem necessary to achieve your Green communism.
Go to Venezuela, they already have it! They can’t afford their own oil, so CO2 emissions should be solved! All that they need now is a free Tesla for everyone! That should be doable. After all, they’re nearly free, starting at what, 40,000 USD, that thing that is PROMISED to appear someday?
“that the burning region was not wet but rather dry.”
I showed you before that the region in question is nearly always dry at that time of year.
There has been NOTHING unusual in the weather up there, every thing pretty much on average.
You again have shown your abject inability to accept facts.
You are a LIAR, who cannot back up anything you say.
You still owe me an apology for saying I was wrong about the new CSIRO chief being a real scientist. He most definitely is.
Come on sob, have you got the guts to apologise. !
Poor sod stated: “The low temperatures make rain into lasting snow, which slowly melts and prevents fire conditions over a long time.
With increased temperatures, the additional rain evaporates and snow melts earlier, we get the typical mixture of heat waves and floods caused by strong rain fall, without any benefit to fire conditions.”
Would you care to identify the years that caused “the typical mixture of heat waves and floods” because the winters were “much to [sic] warm,” in,
Yellowknife (Canada, Northwest Territories)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=weather+CYZF+1980+to+2016
or perhaps in Fairbanks, (United States, Alaska)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=weather+fairbanks+1980+to+2016
or in whatever other location (just replace “fairbanks” in the URL with the location of your choice) of your choice that had a winter that was “much to warm.”
While you are at it, explain how “low temperatures turn rain into lasting snow” that then “slowly melts.” For your information, snow that melts does not last. Where I live, low temperatures turn rain into freezing rain. What do low temperatures do to rain where you live?
Furthermore, low temperatures to not make snow melt, they make snow creak when one walks on it, the louder the colder it gets.
You need to get your feet on the ground in places that are cold for most of the year.
I think that mismanagement of the forest(s) has also got a lot to do with these large fires. The practice of quickly dousing smaller fires, and not allowing the natural cycle of burning in these forests creates the perfect conditions for out-of-control fires such as this one. Nature knows how to manage a forest, it’s a self-correcting system. Some trees, like certain conifers, actually require fire in order to reproduce.
They douse small fires because to date man has never put out a large forest fire, and if you can’t put out a large fires, you have to show your worth on small fires. The Boreal Forest wasn’t party to this agreement, it burns when conditions are right, CO2 doesn’t cause fires, it puts them out.
THX is correct. The American (and expect Canadian)Indians used to set fires for this purpose. Redwood trees reproduce, for instance, by burl and by cone. But, the cones
only open when presented with high heat, from fire (which, not coincidentally, produces a fertile soil in which the seedlings can best grow).
This stupid forest mismangement (manglement) began with Carter and his colleagues on the Canadian side of things (probably Trudeau Sr., not sure).
There is far, far too much fuel on the forest floors in the USA, and without regular fires, it is a disaster (such as we see now) waiting to happen. And, since it’s been a long time since forests were allowed to self-maintain, so to speak, it will be a while before we can get them cleaned up.
As with most nanny-state endeavors, micro-management is its own reward. Now watch out for rains and flash-floods in the burnt areas, sad to say.
This concurs with the US data which shows the acreage of forest fires was much higher in the early 20th century:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/massive-forest-fire-fraud-being-perpetrated-on-the-american-people/ http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/indicators/indicator-316.php – h/t Steve Goddard / Real Science October 2015.
Historical data also suggests forest fires were much more frequent in in the 18th and 19th centuries – https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/forest-fires-were-much-more-common-during-the-little-ice-age/ – h/t Tom Nelson / Steve Goddard / Real Science October 2015.
See also: http://landscapesandcycles.net/forest-fires-were-worse-during-the-little-ice-age.html
US data shows the acreage of forest fires was much higher in the early 20th century:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/massive-forest-fire-fraud-being-perpetrated-on-the-american-people/ http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/indicators/indicator-316.php – h/t Steve Goddard / Real Science October 2015.
Historical data for the US also suggests forest fires were much more frequent in in the 18th and 19th centuries – https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/forest-fires-were-much-more-common-during-the-little-ice-age/ – h/t Tom Nelson / Steve Goddard / Real Science October 2015.
See also: http://landscapesandcycles.net/forest-fires-were-worse-during-the-little-ice-age.html
Even the Rabidly warmist Huffington Pest gets it right!
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/blair-king/forest-fires-climate-change_b_9880058.html
“Last week I wrote a piece on my personal blog titled: ‘On forest fires climate activist aren’t just insensitive, they are also wrong’ which addressed some of the reporting that incorrectly claimed that climate change was responsible for the Fort McMurray fire.”
Undaunted, sod keeps regurgitating the ultra-activist dreck.
Having seen enough dirty and exhausted fellow Westerners during our recurring forest fires, I know they would rip him a new one if he tried to lecture them about it. I’m afraid I’d have to step in to protect our precious little pet from serious harm.
Sod is just a troll and can’t read scientific papers and understand what is really being said. He posts in many places with attack style prose. He like to regurgitate trash arguments.
As to Flannigan papers: they are based on models of untenable scenarios: A1B B1 etc… in addition the methods indicated that they used higher ignition rates (fires) to start fires hence they got more fires in their models. What a surprise!
In addition, the ground fuel capacity clearly indicated a growing amount of ground fuel in Canada but nor Russia, why? Canada has been suppressing natural fires hence increases the fuel supply, not the vast Russian area. Lastly, they use the very models that are already wrong.
So sod, like most alarmists, likes to scream the sky is falling but in reality it isn’t. He also make some bizarre argument about El Nino and ‘can’t have it both ways’. The reality is exactly as every climate scientist will say: El Nino significantly modulate world weather patterns and most researchers are stating the weather pattern helped this fire along. HOWEVER, there is no trend to indicate this is worrisome yet.
Just like Hurricanne Sandy it is expected. It will happen again and in time they, the alarmists will become moot.
The Canadian researches themselves warned of this for the very reasons written above in 2008 and again in 2012.
But my main point is it is time we start using terms that show our science stance. Statements like ‘El nino disrupted’ just puts use in the non-scientific alarmist camp, with highly emotional tone and words. They continually use terms like: “un-precedented” without scientific reference, “catastrophic” in a future sense, “extreme” without theory basis just models. I think we should say “El nino’s typically modulate global weather patterns in such a way that”… and provide the explanation. They have lowed themselves. Leave them there but not us.
“… most researchers are stating the weather pattern helped this fire along.”
Also, every firefighter from the incident commander to the last man or woman on the line knows that weather and little else will determine what happens on certain major fires.
The firefighters can protect some structures, drop retardants, defend existing or new fire breaks, use back burns to remove fuel, and stop the advance of minor flank fires, but only the combined changes in wind speed and direction, precipitation and air temperature can give them a chance to fully contain a major fire.
This was just as true at 300 ppmv CO2 and only ignorant opportunists like sod deny these basic facts.
OT but might be of interest:-
‘European Union to publish strategy paper on nuclear energy’
http://www.dw.com/en/european-union-to-publish-strategy-paper-on-nuclear-energy/a-19262144
“Ahead of a meeting of the EU’s energy commissioners, a report obtained by German media has revealed plans for the future of nuclear power in Europe. The plans run contrary to German policy…….”
Great link Green.
And Focus, et. al., are having a hissy-fit over it.
The Lügenpresse seems to have been caught by surprise. Then again, I’m as startled as they are, as it’s not often the EU does something that makes sense. Have to wonder what (or who) is behind it.
(Praying for lower electric [and other] bills…).
“… it’s not often the EU does something that makes sense”
That’s the worrisome part. It would stick out like a sore thumb. What will they do once they realize it makes sense?
Yep. Has me worried too. That’s why I think there’s more to it than meets the eye (or the press, aka mainscream-media)…
As to the arguments about wetter/warmer/drier etc….
From 1972 until present ca. stats say that we have seen a 5% decrease in snow cover.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/16-002-x2012001-eng.pdf
They also admit that this may be taken from a very high starting point! But seem to lack -1972 data. However, estimates put us the same as the 50’s and above the 30’s. Just not much definitive research in that. You see we don’t have many scientists find a proxy to show we aren’t in trouble!
Now the argument about the long fire season. Well since the 40’s we have been warming slightly, that does mean a slightly long season. Search trends in last frost dates to get an idea. But once again, the research in the area usually starts around a point that makes the long season look worse.
If the climate is slightly warmer we have longer seasons, yes. Trouble, maybe, human caused, unlikely. The alarmist like finding everything bad so they can work to be a morally good person (apparently they need justification in their lives) so they shout ‘the cause.’
Wish they would work to stop: texting while driving, create more controlled burns, work on children’s healthcare, create a few more jobs, get me a flying car, get thorium reactors up and running, have a better canadian hockey team, stop violence against women, get women equal pay THAT would make them much more morally better than this “save the world from the future in 2100!” egads.
“As to the arguments about wetter/warmer/drier etc….
From 1972 until present ca. stats say that we have seen a 5% decrease in snow cover. ”
thanks for the link. have people here read this?
“The month of June has seen the largest decline in average snow cover extent, decreasing by 34% over the 39 year
study period. Average May snow cover has declined by 13%
and April snow cover declined by 7% (Chart 3).”
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/16-002-x2012001-eng.pdf
(pdf page 4)
places that are covered with snow tend not to burn. If snow cover is trending down significantly (June by one third!), then we expect bigger/stronger/more fires.
The el nino years are the years with the lowest snow cover, but the trend is easy to spot and does not include 2015!
Please look at this data!
Snow cover is an important metric, it is stored water and a good indicator of how wet a place is.
Why the effects of 2016 El Niño trumped climate change in the Alberta wildfires
https://theconversation.com/why-the-effects-of-2016-el-nino-trumped-climate-change-in-the-alberta-wildfires-59201
“Why the effects of 2016 El Niño trumped climate change in the Alberta wildfires”
also thanks for this link.
The april temperature graph is impressive.
“An absence of a warming and drying trend during April suggests little direct contribution from climate change to this fire event. I thus urge caution in attributing these particular fires to climate change.”
But the graph does actually show a temperature increase by about 1°C for april in alberta. this changes to .5 to 2°C during el nino, but why do people think that the extra degree makes a difference, when the first one does not?
https://theconversation.com/why-the-effects-of-2016-el-nino-trumped-climate-change-in-the-alberta-wildfires-59201
The article goes on to say:
“In contrast, a similar analysis applied to the periods from January through March and from June through July shows substantial warming and drying over the years.
This warmer weather during other times of the year, especially June through August, does suggest that climate change is impacting fire seasons overall. For example, some authors have suggested that the average area burned each year in the region has doubled, and such changes might be associated with climate change when considered over the entire fire season.”
But that can not be, as fires are shrinking, according to the sources presented here?!?
“But that can not be, as fires are shrinking, according to the sources presented here?!?”
Care to name those sources you are phantasizing about? Who said that? Where? When? Here? I didn’t notice.
Sod, does anyone talk to you in real life?
“US data shows the acreage of forest fires was much higher in the early 20th century:”
And the source is Steven Goddard:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/massive-forest-fire-fraud-being-perpetrated-on-the-american-people/
You said “the sources presented here”. This is not Steve Goddard’s blog. You lose.
sod, are you a liar, a moron or both?
The Steven Goddard post cites a significant, order of magnitude drop of wildfire-burned acreage in the United States from the 1930s to the last decade—as recorded by the U.S. Forest Service and shown in their 1916 to 2006 graph—and condemns alarmist media lies about the U.S. forest fire extent. *)
Now, the United States and Canada may look the same to you but they are two separate countries. Goddard’s post has nothing to do with Mike Flannigan statement about the extent of Canada’s wildland fires in the last 40-45 years.
The alarmists don’t need opponents. They have you working overtime to discredit their cause.
———-
*) Our Lügenpresse is just as good as yours.
Not only do you lose, you lose big.
You just splatter complete nonsense into your comments as will be shown tomorrow morning.
And SG takes his data straight from the US forest service.. he is just the messenger.
You lose again, sob.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axn0m3WUwyk
Big old trees go up like a rocket.
The winds send burning embers 1/4 mile down wind.
I watched a fire such as this from the end of my driveway 2 years ago.
That was called the “Snag Canyon Fire.”
Then we went to a Firewise presentation: http://firewise.org/?sso=0
Fire needs fuel.
I’ve been cutting brush and trees, getting ready for a chipper.
“Fire needs fuel.
I’ve been cutting brush and trees, getting ready for a chipper.” – John F. Hultquist
In Australia you can go to jail for that.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/in-australia-if-you-try-to-clear-a-firebreak-on-your-land-you-could-go-to-gaol/
Usually not jail but massive fines, for sure
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html
America has the EPA, the vindictive and morbidly obese cousin of Australia’s DEC (accompanied by her little but portly sister OSHA).
The reason why we won’t go to jail—yet—for clearing brush on our land is because our EPA overlords focus on water and air. A farmer filling a muddy puddle may be charged with destroying the nation’s wetlands.
And the Left knows how important these agencies are to the establishment of the ultimate regulatory state:
It’s the EPA and OSHA, Stupid!
To Reclaim America, Abolish the Federal Agencies
“A Wyoming man threatened with $16 million in fines over the building of a stock pond reached a settlement with the Environment Protection Agency, allowing him to keep the pond without a federal permit or hefty fine. Andy Johnson, of Fort Bridger, Wyoming obtained a state permit before building the stock pond in 2012 on his sprawling nine-acre farm for a small herd of livestock.”
“Not long after construction, the EPA threatened Johnson with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $37,500-a-day fine — claiming he needed the agency’s permission before building the 40-by-300 foot pond, which is filled by a natural stream.”
The left thrives on stifling creativity and productivity, and regulations are the weapon of choice to achieve their goal.
Here’s a relevant bit about EU regulations, just one of many from a movie telling Brits what they’ll get if they do or don’t vote BREXIT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0&feature=youtu.be&t=1992
The whole thing is worth watching.
HT Lubos Motl
http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/05/durkins-brexit-movie-has-persuaded-me.html
BTW, yonason, here’s a little reflection on our previous discussion of scientific qualifications …
I’ll take that as the final word on the subject.
LOL “notworthy” – Did I do that?! Ooops. Does that mean I only get to sleep when he gets something right? I’m so in trouble.
Thanks.
For four days up to the evacuation the jet stream was funnelling hot air from Baja California right up to Hudson Bay…and right over Ft McMurray. Here is the NH jet stream map from May 5.
It was no wonder the fire was so big.
Sinuous Rossby waves are linked to low solar activity, not CO2.
For four days up to the evacuation the jet stream was funnelling hot air from Baja California right up to Hudson Bay…and right over Ft McMurray. Here is the NH jet stream map from May 5.
It was no wonder the fire was so big.
Sinuous Rossby waves are linked to low solar activity, not CO2.
Apology I’d give links to the last claim, but when I did that the comment was taken by the spam filter. Let me know if you need some.
Pierre usually removes stuff from spam filter and posts, especially if it’s useful material – but I guess you know that now.
And thanks, that’s something I wasn’t aware of.
Yes, I always check through the spam before emptying it.
Thanks Pierre! Apology for the double comment: I use two email addresses. Sometimes when commenting I get odd things happen on your blog.
It’s worth noting the solar activity has taken a dive recently, as you have covered in your latest post. I’d add that WUWT has a nice post too on albedo today. You can easily see the spikes in albedo corresponding to the solar cycle minima in 2000 and 2010…and again recently, even though we haven’t quite got to SC24 minimum yet. More support for Prof Svensmark!
It was only a matter of time before the ecolunatics started bleating about global warming.
We can have different opinions about the influence of humans.
But we can not disagree about the facts.
This winter was very warm in Canada.
https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/nasa-temperature-anomaly-map-january-2016.png?w=756
And this is not just el nino. There is a serious downward trend in snow cover:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/16-002-x2012001-eng.pdf
Are you really trying to tell me, that one third less snow cover has no effect on fires?
You need to be careful when you consider what is a fact, and what is not. Rutgers shows that N.H. snow cover has been quite extensive over the past years. Warm Canadian winters do happen, and even a warming trend does not mean it will continue on forever, and instead may just be part of a cycle. I know you like to insist that you are right, but the fact is that the science is very much disputed here and there is still very much that remains poorly understood. You really need to be less hard-headed about everything.
Pierre. Sod still owns me an apology for saying I was incorrect about the new CSIRO boss being a REAL scientist.
Can you please insist on that apology.
“Pierre. Sod still owns me an apology for saying I was incorrect about the new CSIRO boss being a REAL scientist.”
Your original claim was a little stronger:
“Yes, CSIRO now has a real scientist back in charge, rather than a left-wing bureaucrat.”
I pointed out the problems in his biography. (Dr Marshall is described as a ‘venture capitalist, believes in dowsing and is plagued by some irregularities in his former companies. )
And he is of course a”scientists”, but so was the last boss of CSIRO (and those before, of course!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation#Governance_and_management
So the change was not from bureaucrat to scientist, but from scientist to venture capitalist with as science background. And anybody reading about the changes at CSIRO will notice that science is being cut and “Entrepreneurship” is being added.
That is about the opposite of what you said!
Only public protests saved a tiny amount of basic science:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/csiro-scientists-dismiss-climate-change-centre-as-face-saving/7357900
Your own wiki site shows he has a PhD and has spent a lot of time in laser research.
He is an actual SCIENTIST.
You and squirm all you like, but all it does is increase your LIE.
Megan Clark did a small amount of geology engineering work early in her career, but has been in management for a long time. She is a “bureaucrat”, and very left-wing. End of story.
My statement was true and correct in all parts.
And calling “climate science” a basic science is getting close to the mark, its actually more a political science.
That is why it had to go, it was unproductive nonsense.
And ABC reports.. seriously !!
Shows your manifest ignorance about Australian media.
The ABC is an ultra far-left sheltered workshop that would do and say anything to support the AGW agenda. Akin to the BBC. Every story will be bent and warped to that agenda.
Yeah, congrats to Australians, your ABC could be our ARD or ZDF, very Frankfurt School.
We know what you meant by “REAL” (not biased alarmist) scientist, even though sod doesn’t.
“believes in dowsing”
As long as he doesn’t want to force everyone else to, so what? Hugh Dowding
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-in-western-europe/battle-of-britain/hugh-dowding/
“…one of the masterminds behind the victory in the Battle of Britain” believed in fairies.
“What’s that Mrs. Nesbit? He believes in fairies? Oh, I’d rather be conquered by the Nazis than be saved by him!”
Hey, sod believes the world is warming because of human CO2 emissions, LOL. Not only that, he wants everyone else to, not to mention being unable to contribute anything useful to society: …since we’re pointing out idiotsychrasies, and all that. (Note to C.W., that was deliberate)
sod writes: “Only public protests saved a tiny amount of basic science:”
A bunch of activist sodites, who wouldn’t know what science is if it bit them on the nose, “saved” science? Welcome to Kafka’s Disneyland.
“We can have different opinions….” – sod
Everyone has an opinion. But we can’t all be right. sod virtually never is.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/albertas-wildfire/
(Major) Bushfires in the State of Victoria
DEATHS Hectares burnt
1851 12 5 million
1898 12 260,000
1926 60 before 1939 records of area burnt
1932 9 were poor
1939 71 2 million
The findings of the Royal Commission held after the fires were significant in increasing fire awareness and prevention throughout Australia.
1943 10 hundreds
1944 15-20 440,000
1952 several ~ 1million
1965 7 15,000
1969 23 250,000
1972 0 12,140
1977 7 103,000
1980 0 119,000
1983 47 461,800
1985 0 102,200
1998 0 32,000
2002 0 181,400
2003 0 1,300,000
2005/6 4 160,000 (~500 fires Dec – Feb)
2006/2007 1 1,200,000 (~1,000 fires over summer)
2009 173 430,000
2013 5 190,000
The 2009 deaths were worst because of the behaviour of ‘greens’ preventing clearances around houses. In one village an owner was fined $57,000 for clearing his land, but his was the only house left after the fire.
sod will no doubt see a pattern due to CO2.
Could somebody please reply to this false claim:
“Models said wet regions were in fact supposed to get wetter.”
Alberta is not wet. This is a symbol of how uninformed the articles written by Bojanowski are!
It’s not desert either. Boj is one of the very few highly qualified science journalists out there who really understands the earth’s history and the science of global warming. Many journalists are too quick to readily and uncritically accept whatever press release that gets handed to them. He does his homework as a journalist and presents both sides of the story. Unfortunately there are just too many readers who are unable to emotionally cope with different views, and obstinately insist on one single version.
“It’s not desert either.”
The changes in Alberta will be small:
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/images/pct_globe_40.png
and in comparison with higher temperatures, we should expect a drier situation and more fires, not less.
Not sure if you understand weather and climate.
Precipitation depends on many many more factors other than temperature. It’s hot in the jungles, yet they get lots of rain. It’s cold in Mongolia, but they get little rain. Note the mistake you are making is also one that is made over and over again by the climate modelers, who have failed on numerous precipitation projections. Almost all predicted a drier Sahara, yet it has gotten greener. There are many such examples where the models have been wrong in most instances. This shows that straight line assumptions just don’t work in complex systems like climate. Those who do so only demonstrate a lack of understanding. Sorry I have to lecture you on this. You really need to put your insistence of and obsessions with climate catastrophe aside.
“Could somebody please reply to this false claim:
“Models said wet regions were in fact supposed to get wetter.”
Alberta is not wet. This is a symbol of how uninformed the articles written by Bojanowski are!”
Well, sod, you obviously do not even know about the predictions of your own religion of the Warmunist Church. This is no wonder as the Warmunist Church predicts about EVERYTHING POSSIBLE – making it a non-science – but anyway, it was easy to find. Here you go, Green boy.
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/cl11297
“Alberta’s Future Climate – An Assessment of Five Climate Models – Barrow and Yu (2005)
The annual mean temperature is projected to increase between 3oC and 5oC by 2050.
The annual precipitation changes will be in the range of –10% to +15% by 2050, however by 2080, annual precipitation is projected to increase up to 15%”
Listen Boy: Whenever you or somebody else says “Warmunism dodn’t predict that”, chances are 99% he’s wrong. Warmunists predict EVERYTHING. So they can always claim they were right. That’s their method. That’s the ironclad rule of pseudoscience. Just predict everything.
“Well, sod, you obviously do not even know about the predictions of your own religion of the Warmunist Church.”
I did actually link the map above, it shows nearly no increase of rain till 2040:
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/images/pct_globe_40.png
“The annual mean temperature is projected to increase between 3°C and 5°C by 2050.
The annual precipitation changes will be in the range of –10% to +15% by 2050, however by 2080, annual precipitation is projected to increase up to 15%””
Ouch. 5°C more temperature (annual average, not some maximum!) with basically constant rain? OUCH.
yes, more rain towards the end of the century might help stop the fires from burning the small remaining rest that was left…
Quote from your article:
“Fort McMurray are projected to experience degree-day totals similar to Lethbridge”
That is like moving the town 700 km to the south. Should basically not change anything, eh?
lol.. you are such a funny little critter, sob.
Not even you can be gullible enough to actually believe such crystal balls gazing… can you?
“yes, more rain towards the end of the century might help stop the fires from burning the small remaining rest that was left…”
Small remaining rest that is left?!
We already know you’ve never been in Canada’s boreal forest or the Siberian taiga but why don’t you at least look at the maps or pictures on the web when you get the urge to write something so stupid.
If you can’t find any pictures, go to a city park with some trees or a little forest at the edge of town. Then imagine the thing much denser and bigger. And bigger. And bigger. Keep imagining until you are so exhausted you have to sit down. Then go home, take a nap, and when you wake up, take some vitamins and start imagining where you left off. Don’t forget to hydrate and eat regularly.
Repeat daily for a couple of weeks and you may get close.
sod 20. May 2016 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Reply
“I did actually link the map above, it shows nearly no increase of rain till 2040:”
Well that’s really sweet Boy. Now I bet you that if you spend 5 minutes more of googling you will find the exact opposite prediction from the same warmunists, only done with a warmunist model parameterized slightly differently (as they have 100 UNKNOWN parameters to twiddle with. ONE HUNDRED. As in: 100 FLOATING POINT VALUE CONSTANTS which are the GUESS of the warmunist who runs the model. This puts even STRING THEORY to SHAME! And that is WITHOUT CHANGING A SOURCE CODE OF THE UNVALIDATED MODELS. Sorry for all the screaming but that glorious nonsence cult warmunism can not be described without screaming. IT. IS. THE. VERY. OPPOSITE. OF. SCIENCE.)
For the information theory challenged: 100 floating point constants in double precision give a space of 6400 bits or 2 to the power of 6400 or approx. 10 to the power of 2000 POSSIBILITIES. hey that’s quite the leeway don’t ya think, Boy? hey let’s predict SOMETHING shall we. And ALL of our model runs don’t even contain the QBO!!!!! Hey google the QBÒ will ya!!!!
(Because, a) it’s too hard to model b) we don’t know why it happens!!!) )(AND the IPCC ADMITS IT!!!!)
Whenever we find we cannot define how a hypothesis could be falsified we know it’s not a scientific hypothesis.
Since our little green scientist sees just about every observation mentioned on this blog as climate change related and compatible with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, he should try to describe for us what observed weather event or phenomena would provide a clear falsification of the same.
Despite his lacking sense of humor this could be very entertaining.
I heard a resident of the forest area on a radio broadcast telling us in New Zealand that there were always natural fires in the boreal forests caused by lightning, and many were a lot bigger than the one which caused evacuation of that recently enlarged town Fort Macmurray.
This one started quite near the town and the wind moved it toward the town. It seems to have moved on after that in it’s own sweet way.
The type of woodland , we learned at school and at university, is called a ‘Fire Climax Vegetation” The fire is necessary for the seedlings on the forest floor to get light by removing the dense older trees of a single species with dead dry branches. The ashes from the dead trees fertilise the seedlings but then these grow up into a dense dry woodland of trees of the same age and stage of development, which allows very little light to the forest floor and so the cycle must wait for a lightning strike to start again.
So it has been since the ice retreated at the beginning of this interglacial period or after the
the subsequent cold period the Younger Dryas, I think. Sod can look this up using the German version of Google
German scientists are well known in their studies of this period.It happened in Northern Europe too, you see,so he can refute me too! There are other types of forest where a single species takes over and which rely on fire to renew trees all of one age so it’s not just pine or fir trees, and its not just the far northern latitudes where it happens.
I am a little bit surprised by the replies. Even beyond the scale of the personal attacks.
My question was simple, reply to this false sentence from the article:
“Models said wet regions were in fact supposed to get wetter.”
Now we know that the regions of the fire is not wet. And we also know, that in the moderate future, it will not get any more wet.
That is what my source said:
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/images/pct_globe_40.png
and what yours says:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/cl11297
But after establishing the facts (the published facts, as outputs of climate models, the source of the claim made in the Spiegel article) you suddenly fall back to a different explanation, dismissing the models again. But without the models, the article and the sentence do not make any sense!
You accept the idea of more rain when it supports your cause, you deny the warming that is predicted by the same models. And you deny to accept the effect of the combination of the two being extremely negative still (massive more warming, very little additional rain).
Other people here bring up the US fire statistics to contradict the link between fires and climate change, when i mention those statistics you wave them away as being irrelevant to fires in Canada (you really think fires in the US could expand, while those in Canada shrink?)
The same was true, when we discuss the firing of vital staff at the CSIRO. You applaud the firing, but ignore the explanation (AGW being a proven theory). You applaud the firing, but ignore the effect (less basic climate data, when you always demand more of it).
In general, i perceive a non-sceptic position, blindly accepting basically everything that fits with your believes, completely denying anything that contradicts your believes, even if it comes from the same source.
“(AGW being a proven theory)” Wrong! It’s a failed hypothesis. It’s never even gotten to the theory stage let alone being proven. Why so many lies? You waste so much of your own time, so why waste ours as well? Sorry if you believe this is a personal attack. It’s just a correction followed by some pertinent questions.
““(AGW being a proven theory)” Wrong!”
that is not, what i said.
This was said by Larry Marshall, the new boss (and top scientist, according to people commenting here) at CSIRO.
The guy being sacked (a real top scientists, according to about everyone with some knowledge on the subject on the world) was on a science trip in antarctic waters when he heard about being fired.
By chance, i have a good friend who also spent 6 months on an antarctic mission, on board of the Polarstern.
These folks do the real science, collecting buoys that measure important stuff below the sea surface.
People who cheer the new boss, completely ignore what he says about global warming (proven theory) and what he does (axing the data collection that people here claim to be interested in).
“Now we know that the regions of the fire is not wet.”
Speaking as an Albertan what precisely do you think snow is made of?
The amount of yearly precipitation Fort Mac receives is the same as some of the most productive farmland in North America. It may not be coastal rainforest but it’s far from desert.