This was the guy that did the BBC Horizon show about global cooling in the mid 70's IIRC... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/01/nigel-calder Calder was always alert for new ideas. He long ago became involved in the climate debate, reporting on and investigating both research and speculation on the potentially imminent return of the Ice Ages. In 1994, in a Guardian essay, he argued for the theory that perceived global warming (on which rested "a billion-dollar research industry") could in fact be a consequence of changes in the solar cycle. Later he backed the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark's controversial hypothesis that cosmic radiation from distant stars could be driving climate change and together the two of them delivered one of Calder's last books, The Chilling Stars, in 2007. A reviewer in Physics World dismissed it as "embarrassing bunk" but, characteristically, Calder was not discouraged. I used to read New Scientist back in the day, (which he co-founded I believe), so I always had a soft spot for him. But he did have a tendency to be a contrarian which is fair enough in some respects... we need people like that. TBH I see people like him as very different to the sorts of paid shills and hacks for the denier cause who have absolutely ZERO interest in reality.
I also well recall the fapping over a new ice age back in the 80s. IIRC there was even a best selling paperback on that theme. But from a scientific perspective there never was much to it. More Hollywood than science. They key thing to remember in all of this is that the models only try to describe a physical process - i.e. something based in physics. For warming - we have such a process in CO2 warming. You might recall about 5 or 6 years ago in this thread when we were arguing about the pause? For those who advocate a change in trend (i.e. a pause) or even cooling, they must be able to point to actual physical processes that could cause a hiatus or even a reversal. But no such process exists. As we now know, the trend never changed. What caused the hiatus was the likes of El Nino and heat being stored in the oceans.
The problem with the way these huge fires are behaving now under certain conditions, it doesn't. Case in point: back to that Santa Rosa fire, embers blew for miles off the hillsides and ignited an entire neighborhood down in the flatlands (which, incidentally, one would've thought would be far more likely to be taken out by flood than by fire). With sufficient winds and a large enough fire, that "defensible space" is no longer relevant.
Ya know since I joined BS I've gotten to think back and remember a lot of my experiences. It made me realize that I had a pretty great time! Regrets....I had a few, but then......
I just find it strange that her parents could be so awful and make it all about them? Why even do that?
Interesting from the actual fire guys The "greens" stopping burnoffs is nonsense (they greens are not even in power). The problem is the small window in which burnoffs can actually be done, and resourcing to do it. Australia is going to have to wake up and resource this. These help...BBC - Explains disinformation campaign on arson:https://t.co/Bn1VQ39eElNSW RFS Commissioner - Climate change is reducing window for fuel load reduction:https://t.co/QBlZv2ttpW— Scotty Leith (@scottyLeith) January 9, 2020
Ah, OK. Yes, I can see that. But, presumably, if you build of appropriate materials, that can be mitigated to an extent? I say that because I've noticed many American homes are built of timber. So it occurs to me that if you build of stone, brick, plastics, slate, etc, the danger of that can be reduced. The only other alternative is almost constant monitoring during the fire season with this type of thing... https://argosfire.co.uk/spotfire-fire-spotting-camera/
It's more to do with the terrain e.g. in the german heatwave a couple of years ago, suddenly all the semi-forested areas are in play and we have a lot of villages etc built into those environments. Pine forests go up like a bomb.
To be fair my father-in law was a decent guy but he was smitten. She, on the other hand, ruled the roost.
Building in stone in an earthquake-prone area has its own downsides. Not everyone can have a fully steel-reinforced concrete structure. Also, steel begins to melt at 900F. It is not impervious. The concrete could just turn the homes into kilns in a tight canyon.
Definitely, but bricks or unreinforced masonry in general don't fly in California because of our good old standby disaster earthquakes. As emphasized after a sizable one when you see how many houses are untouched except for their collapsed chimneys.
Well, that's what I'm thinking of. In an area liable to have forest fires, you can't build into the wooded areas. You have to clear them a certain distance away so it's just grassland and that has to be kept to a reasonable length.
The problem is that areas that weren't previously liable to have forest fires may now be more liable to have forest fires, because the planet's climate is changing. So those German forests may have been damp enough for the last several centuries that forest fires weren't an issue, and the villages were built right inside the forest with no danger of being wiped out by a forest fire, but now it's a problem because that part of the forest is drier than it was previously.
Yes, I think that's right. So what was fine in the past now isn't and adjustments have to be made, including deforestation presumably.
Is Greta a puppet? (German sorry) https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ausland/europa/Das-Team-hinter-Greta/story/11543257
Interesting protest at Harvard Law against the big law firm that represents Exxon A group of Harvard Law School students on Wednesday shouted down speakers and stalled a campus recruitment dinner hosted by a major law firm that represents fossil fuel interests in climate change lawsuits. Holding a banner reading “Drop Exxon,” more than two dozen students in blazers and ties chanted, “We won’t work for you if you work for them,” at recruiters from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, a law firm that employs more than 1,000 attorneys around the world. “We have just a few years left to address the climate crisis. That means stopping corporate polluters from continuing to block climate action and evading accountability for their malfeasance,” said first-year law student Aaron Regunberg, amplified with a human microphone. “And what is the most critical tool these corporations use to get away with climate murder? It’s this right here.” https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/1/16/21067763/harvard-law-climate-protest-exxon-paul-weiss
I got "Wednesday" and I think "the team around Greta." Was it criticizing the adults' influence on her?
I came across this on a social media feed and found it,well, amusing. ‘Cranky Uncle’ Smart phone game will show you how to disarm climate change deniers https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/cranky-uncle-game-will-show-you-how-to-disarm-climate-deniers/?fbclid=IwAR3FTS4y8L10i695Wt5e9FLOBIUK7IDrrl_Z7lGt83qHIvxCGrCyO2SMAWI
Some good news from S.E. Asia. Vietnam is surprised at how much investors were willing to put up to build solar plants if they offer a good incentive. https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/01/25/vietnam-grapples-with-an-unexpected-surge-in-solar-power
It is fascinating the extent to which the media which supposedly boosts the climate hoax/greta actually published denial routinely Murdoch media remains shocking for this - yet another example from Oz #BoycottMurdoch https://t.co/wN1iRvMhjn— Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf 🌏 🦣 (@rahmstorf) January 24, 2020
Remember next time someone makes the bad faith "but the models" argument - that the models continue to be right on track Update day 2020! Following more than a decade of tradition (at least), I’ve now updated the model-observation comparison page to include observed data through to the end of 2019. To summarize, the 1981 prediction from Hansen et al (1981) continues to underpredict the temperature trends due to an underestimate of the transient climate response. The projections in Hansen et al. (1988) bracket the actual changes, with the slight overestimate in scenario B due to the excessive anticipated growth rate of CFCs and CH4 which did not materialize. The CMIP3 simulations continue to be spot on (remarkably), with the trend in the multi-model ensemble mean effectively indistinguishable from the trends in the observations. Note that this doesn’t mean that CMIP3 ensemble means are perfect – far from it. For Arctic trends (incl. sea ice) they grossly underestimated the changes, and overestimated them in the tropics. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/update-day-2020/
So, not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and two years old, but men are hilarious fragile babies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-resist-green-behavior-as-unmanly/