The Mystery Of The Circumpolar Current

From Elsewhere:

Just great that Robin Duell is thinking in these terms whether he’s right or wrong. “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” Some folks interpret that as Newtonian putdown on the physical stature of Robert Hook. I prefer the motto of “seeing further by pushing down hard on the heads of recalcitrant dwarves.” Because most of ones understanding comes when you are arguing with people who have ran out of sane argument. WXcycles is no dwarf and in good time I’ll be going back to take in every word he’s written. A goldmine of excellent information. His combination of detailed observations, with pure fantasy physics, has helped me put this lingering nuisance of the circumpolar current to bed. Well at least its help me have a functioning mind model of what is going on.

So in my model of what is going on you have negative charge being created at the earths centre. Which has a voided region, where the iron crystalline core is supposed to be. As you have to conclude with any rational analysis of gravity, up and down reverse at some point as you travel to the centre of the earth. It may even reverse three times but it reverses at least once. Anyway the negative charges generated at the centre end up rising up to meet the positive charges coming in from space. Ultimately from the sun of course. But not limited to daytime. But Antarctica is covered by an insulator. Thick ice insulation So the positive charges have no choice but to swirl around and around the continent scooping up any negative charges they can find. Negative charges will be more concentrated on the coast where there is no ice, then in most places on the planet. Since the full body of the continent is covered by an insulator.

>>>>>>>>>

I was arguing with a BOM meteorologist over at Joanne’s place.  He lost the argument so I was trying to shame him into an admission.  But the scientific method is not favoured amongst scientists.  So I’ll copy one of his comments just so you know what I’m talking about.  Then I’ll copy all my responses so you can figure out what is really going on outside of his fantasy version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

More Later.

35 thoughts on “The Mystery Of The Circumpolar Current

  1. Robert Singer says:
    January 2, 2020 at 10:15 pm
    “These are extraordinary conditions demanding a better than ordinary response.”

    Yes. Clearly fuel reduction was way insufficient. But its a bit of a problem if the fuel reduction itself constitutes a health hazard.

    akarog says:
    January 2, 2020 at 11:25 pm
    Fuel reduction is meaningless when fires reignite in previously burnt areas.

    akarog says:
    January 2, 2020 at 11:26 pm
    JQ, this is the Scofield submission on particulate morbidity and mortality.

    Click to access CAULRR06_SubmissionFuelQualityStandardsAct2000_Mar2017.pdf

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 12:34 am
    So you are saying you want more fuel reduction, less fuel reduction, no fuel reduction? It sounds like you are saying you want no fuel reduction if you think that fuel reduction is meaningless.
    https://omny.fm/shows/nights/scientist-david-packham-on-whats-really-causing-th

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 12:42 am
    “Fuel reduction is meaningless when fires reignite in previously burnt areas.”

    How could that even possibly be true? Can you explain further?

    Curt Kastens says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:31 am
    Its time to move to Canada. Maple Syrup, yum.

    Ikonoclast says:
    January 3, 2020 at 7:23 am
    Curt, You don’t remember the Fort McMurray wildfire? One the disturbing features of climate change is the marked increase in boreal forest wildfires.

    Ikonoclast says:
    January 3, 2020 at 7:55 am
    This report asks: “Is Fuel Reduction Burning the Answer?”

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib08

    The answer is very complex. The essential answer is that buffer zones and bush near them (and on easy terrain) are almost the only places where hazard reduction can be meaningfully done.

    Developing out from this paper, the clear answer to protecting suburbs and towns is a treeless buffer zone of at least 200m around all suburbs and towns that are adjacent to bush. Imagine a suburb near bush. It needs a ring road around its perimeter: 5 meters footpath, 10 meters road and 5 meters footpath for 20 meters. Then it needs paddocks 180 meters wide to the bush. These paddocks must be managed and kept short by municipal mowing and/or agistment of livestock. Councils and developers must be disciplined (by higher government levels) and not permitted to further develop bush-fire and flood buffer zones. Human structures and infrastructures must be kept well separated from bush in all cases. Highways and major roads should be cleared each side, for 100 meters in each direction, terrain permitting. They thus become major fire breaks.

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 7:57 am
    Robert Singer; a fire can pass through and a little while later wind will blow the dry leaves off the trees providing new fuel for a fire that has been burning inside a log, or an old tree. I read somewhere that there have been cases of multiple fires in the same location, that’s how dry it is.

    The big issue is that apart from the odd shower there has no follow up rain.

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:23 am
    “ While fuel reduction burning is the principal means to reduce the risks of bushfire, under extreme conditions bushfires can burn across land with very low fuel loads, which would have been halted under milder conditions.”

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib08#Prescribed

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:24 am
    “ effects of prescribed burning across landscapes on house loss are likely to be small when weather conditions are severe”

    https://ro.uow.edu.au/smhpapers/138/

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:42 am
    Morrison’s precious surplus is gone already, even without needing to evoke the cost of future national standing bodies and specific fire infrastructure.
    The forest industry is gone for a while, and the cost of salvage harvesting, safety clearing and road reconstruction will be enormous over several years. Trees will be falling everywhere for months, the risk of accidental deaths increased
    Tourism will be drastically reduced.
    Honey industry, smoked.
    And farm infrastructure…it barely bears thinking about.
    The Coalition will be buying votes back everywhere.

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:47 am
    If a fire can burn two times in one place in fairly quick succession, its because there is too much fuel. So are you saying you want more fuel reduction, less fuel reduction, or no fuel reduction. If fuel reduction is meaningless it sounds like you are arguing for no fuel reduction.

    We see this sentiment a great deal on the left. Which is why only ten years after the terrible fires of 2009 we have to put up with it all over again only worse. Here we see Bob McDonald claiming “its time to stop lighting fires” in 2016. Just a few years after the February 2009 fires. He doesn’t advocate a replacement fuel reduction method. He appeals only to technology to fight the fires better. But we have just seen how impossible it is to control fires once you have that much fuel.

    http://www.spiffa.org/the-eclectic-parrot-on-bill-gammage-fire-ecology-and-the-burn-it-all-culture.html

    Its not hard to see who and what has brought us these problems. In the article it was six years after the last bad fires where someone is coming out against fuel reduction. But in this case we are seeing opposition to fuel reduction even as the fires are upon us.

    mrkenfabian says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:50 am
    Akarog – Hazard reduction burning is important. It helps reduce ground fire intensity and can reduce the likelihood of fires getting into tree tops but is not an absolute protection; second time fires do happen and fires can get into forest canopies anyway and become catastrophic if conditions are bad enough.

    Robert Singer – Politically it is being used (notably by people who insist we should not be playing politics with the bushfire crisis) to shift attention and blame from climate policy to environmentalists and environmental regulation, despite it being fire authorities – with all the authority necessary – overseeing hazard reduction burning in State Forests and National Parks as well as advising and assisting landholders. Morrison still manages to add fuel to that “greenies are to blame” meme without specifically naming and blaming ‘greenies’ – but the implied (dog whistle) blaming is there, complementing the Right’s leading commentators.

    Bushfire services have had hazard reduction burning high on their agendas but I do not believe that ‘green’ regulation – let alone policies of The Greens – have stopped them. otter than normal and drier than normal winters (with a global warming component) have shrunk the window of opportunity to do them safely – yet a lot of it was still done. We would have had less than 1 month last winter around here and that not free of risk.

    Landholders have been denied permission – not unreasonably – when conditions are likely to see such fires get out of control. Tough laws make people – especially those with little experience with managing fires – that bit more reluctant to chance it even with permits.

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:59 am
    “Robert Singer – Politically it is being used (notably by people who insist we should not be playing politics with the bushfire crisis) to shift attention and blame from climate policy to environmentalists and environmental regulation…”

    No clearly its the other way around. The left is shifting the topic away from fuel reduction and onto “climate change.” There has been restrictions to fuel reduction in many forms. Which is what has given us this catastrophe. We see reluctance on the left for any form of fuel reduction. Not just fire. Any form at all. The topic is always diverted to “climate change.”

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:05 am
    ” Fuel reduction is meaningless when fires reignite in previously burnt areas.”

    How could that even possibly be true? Can you explain further? ”

    Just look at how long individually named fires have been burning: some for three months. This clearly can not and does not involve simple outward radiation or unidirectional run from an ignition point…depending on wind direction, fires have returned to ground previously burnt a week or even four previously. Many areas have experienced dry lightning storms since the fires initiation, so reignition is common given the underlying acute drought…and the long term rainfall deficit that is well documented.
    The testimony of local fireys at Wytaliba on the Mann River is an example, when they were hit by the Red Range fire. Not only did they hazard reduce burn twice in the previous twelve months, the bush fire came through at ground level, then the area reburned as crown fire not long afterwards.
    After a relatively modest intensity fire, there is a lot of potential fuel left. Typically there is a lot of leaf fall from canopies, so a new layer of dessicated leaf litter quickly develops.
    The other thing to note is the terminology: forest managers apply ‘hazard reduction’, not ‘hazard elimination’…it’s impossible to achieve the latter, even if you raze the forest, because you’ll have to deal with a post-forest grassland with high combustibility. The terminology really means something.

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:08 am
    So I take it Nick, that you are another person who is pretty much against fuel reduction in all its forms. This is a pattern repeated on the left everywhere in Australia. We are going to get this tragedy happening all the time on this continent until that changes.

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:08 am
    “There has been restrictions to fuel reduction in many forms.”
    Please supply references.
    Local government land clearing restrictions have been relaxed.
    NSW state forest and NPWS forest managers exceeded their hazard reduction targets for the last year, despite the restriction in safe burning conditions that is in trend over recent years, according to media statements by these agents.

    Moz in Oz says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:09 am
    NSW exceeded its target for hazard reduction burning last winter but we got unprecedented fires anyway. This trope has been well covered in the media:

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/is-there-really-a-green-conspiracy-to-stop-bushfire-hazard-reduction

    https://theconversation.com/a-surprising-answer-to-a-hot-question-controlled-burns-often-fail-to-slow-a-bushfire-127022

    From the National Parks Association ““National parks and other conservation reserves make up less than 15% of NSW’s total fire prone lands, yet they contribute more than 75% of the areas subject to prescribed burning each year.” … but I see that the parks have burned anyway.

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:14 am
    “So I take it Nick….”
    Do you indeed? How so?
    What have I written that could possibly give you that impression?
    What is ‘on the left’ about providing you with factual, as opposed to fanciful, information?
    Wytaliba firefighters are not going to abandon hazard reduction burning …they have always known it is not magic.

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:18 am
    Cherry-picking. You want to put a date to these things. So you want more fuel reduction, less fuel reduction or no fuel reduction? Usually we see the “climate change” tautology (the climate always changes) crowd unable to answer the question, and in practice setting themselves against all fuel reduction.

    “NSW state forest and NPWS forest managers exceeded their hazard reduction targets for the last year, despite the restriction in safe burning conditions that is in trend over recent years, according to media statements by these agents.”

    Its easy to exceed targets if the bar is very low. And thats just picking and choosing headlines from the newspapers in order to argue against fuel reduction. The theme is always the same. Argue against fuel reductions, fire or otherwise, then cry “climate change” when the inevitable catastrophe arrives.

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:59 am
    “Its easy to exceed targets if the bar is very low.”
    And you know it’s low…how?
    Probably the same way you just know I’m against fuel reduction.
    Please base your claims on some evidence. Assertion is fruitless.

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 10:05 am
    You’ve tried two different names now and under one name you have said that fuel reduction is meaningless and under neither name will you answer the question. Do you want more fuel reduction, less fuel reduction or no fuel reduction. I think its clear you want no fuel reduction. You won’t answer the question and no fuel reduction means fires and the “climate change” opportunity.

    Like

  2. “Lunar declination cycle.” So great that the sophistication has increased since I was looking into these subjects deeply. “When you get phase alignment thats when you get extreme events….” Beautiful. I would speculate about some of this stuff a dozen years ago but now people have gone deeper into it. Done real work rather than armchair thought experiments. Jennifer just kicks goals one year after another.

    Like

  3. I stood down from the study of this around 2008 because I knew the global warming stuff was bullshit. And I was disappointed with the progress on both sides. Piers Corbyn stood out as someone who was conducting authentic science. Another even better German scientist had died. James McCanney wasn’t focused on climate and he was starting to get a bit nutty. He had been ahead of everyone else at some stage. But basically the entirety of the field was paralysed. Since the study of climate ran across everyone’s specialty so everyone was too scared to ask each-other questions.

    But listening to Jennifer we can now say that finally on the skeptical side things are beginning to become functional again. Because there is a minority of protected scientists that are allowed to do good work. And they aren’t now too scared to ask the right questions.

    Like

  4. akarog says:
    January 2, 2020 at 7:12 pm
    Some of the armchair chatterers have blamed greenies for stopping back burning. This theory is no longer valid, there are fires reigniting in areas just burnt.

    These are extraordinary conditions demanding a better than ordinary response.

    Robert Singer says:
    January 2, 2020 at 7:23 pm
    “Why are all those elements of the entire army, navy and air-force which could assist in this crisis not yet activated? Why is the Army Reserve not yet fully activated (SFAIK)?”

    I tend to agree with this. There may be very good explanations. But we would want to hear them.

    Robert Merkel says:
    January 2, 2020 at 9:14 pm
    I’m surprised and a tad disappointed that public health professionals haven’t had more to say about this.

    James Wimberley says:
    January 2, 2020 at 9:18 pm
    The entire Parliament should don sackcloth and repent publicly. The ashes will be supplied by nature. Public floggings (as undergone by Henry II) would be deserved but a bit OTT for today’s sensibilities. BTW, the colonial legislature in Massachusetts did subject itself to public penance some years after the Salem witch panic and mistrials.

    James Wimberley says:
    January 2, 2020 at 9:23 pm
    Akarog: the American Lung Association is out front on the health damage from fossil fuels, as are the royal medical colleges in Brtitain. But elsewhere, including Germany, the profession is curiously muted.

    Moz of Yarramulla says:
    January 2, 2020 at 9:45 pm
    The reason the military aren’t more involved is twofold: firstly they not really set up for large scale fire-fighting, although they are well equipped for disaster releif and other emergeb=ncy work (so we’re all told, anyway). Secondly, and mroe importantly, if the federales declare an emergency and activate their military that would suggest that there’s some kind of problem, perhaps even an unusual problem, and that is not the current line being sold to the public. Remember, this is all completely normal and anyone saying otherwise is an alarmist, probably a warmist, and definitely a bit suspect.

    Including the leader of the NSW young Liberals who has just penned an article for the Guardian suggesting as much. But still hewing to the line that market forces will solve the problem, then doubling down with the suggestion that given time renewable electricity generation might eventually become cheaper than coal. I’m not sure Our Rupert will approve.

    Curt Kastens says:
    January 2, 2020 at 9:47 pm
    James,
    I agree public floggings would be obviously to timid for a generations of young people who have been subject to decades of graphic violence on visual media. In fact public floggings would have been obviously to timid for any generation because before we had first person shooter games in had the bible and grimm fairey tales that were present in many many places to teach young people lessons about the nature of reality.
    I will have to get back with you at a latter date as to what I would suggest in place of public floggings.

    O6 says:
    January 2, 2020 at 9:52 pm
    Cricket Australia should cancel tomorrow’s Test because 50,000 will be exposed to hazardous particulate matter for 7 h/d. Not original comment, but mightn’t public health vs $$$ get a guernsey once in a while?

    Robert Singer says:
    January 2, 2020 at 10:15 pm
    “These are extraordinary conditions demanding a better than ordinary response.”

    Yes. Clearly fuel reduction was way insufficient. But its a bit of a problem if the fuel reduction itself constitutes a health hazard.

    akarog says:
    January 2, 2020 at 11:25 pm
    Fuel reduction is meaningless when fires reignite in previously burnt areas.

    akarog says:
    January 2, 2020 at 11:26 pm
    JQ, this is the Scofield submission on particulate morbidity and mortality.

    Click to access CAULRR06_SubmissionFuelQualityStandardsAct2000_Mar2017.pdf

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 12:34 am
    So you are saying you want more fuel reduction, less fuel reduction, no fuel reduction? It sounds like you are saying you want no fuel reduction if you think that fuel reduction is meaningless.
    https://omny.fm/shows/nights/scientist-david-packham-on-whats-really-causing-th

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 12:42 am
    “Fuel reduction is meaningless when fires reignite in previously burnt areas.”

    How could that even possibly be true? Can you explain further?

    Curt Kastens says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:31 am
    Its time to move to Canada. Maple Syrup, yum.

    Ikonoclast says:
    January 3, 2020 at 7:23 am
    Curt, You don’t remember the Fort McMurray wildfire? One the disturbing features of climate change is the marked increase in boreal forest wildfires.

    Ikonoclast says:
    January 3, 2020 at 7:55 am
    This report asks: “Is Fuel Reduction Burning the Answer?”

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib08

    The answer is very complex. The essential answer is that buffer zones and bush near them (and on easy terrain) are almost the only places where hazard reduction can be meaningfully done.

    Developing out from this paper, the clear answer to protecting suburbs and towns is a treeless buffer zone of at least 200m around all suburbs and towns that are adjacent to bush. Imagine a suburb near bush. It needs a ring road around its perimeter: 5 meters footpath, 10 meters road and 5 meters footpath for 20 meters. Then it needs paddocks 180 meters wide to the bush. These paddocks must be managed and kept short by municipal mowing and/or agistment of livestock. Councils and developers must be disciplined (by higher government levels) and not permitted to further develop bush-fire and flood buffer zones. Human structures and infrastructures must be kept well separated from bush in all cases. Highways and major roads should be cleared each side, for 100 meters in each direction, terrain permitting. They thus become major fire breaks.

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 7:57 am
    Robert Singer; a fire can pass through and a little while later wind will blow the dry leaves off the trees providing new fuel for a fire that has been burning inside a log, or an old tree. I read somewhere that there have been cases of multiple fires in the same location, that’s how dry it is.

    The big issue is that apart from the odd shower there has no follow up rain.

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:23 am
    “ While fuel reduction burning is the principal means to reduce the risks of bushfire, under extreme conditions bushfires can burn across land with very low fuel loads, which would have been halted under milder conditions.”

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib08#Prescribed

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:24 am
    “ effects of prescribed burning across landscapes on house loss are likely to be small when weather conditions are severe”

    https://ro.uow.edu.au/smhpapers/138/

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:42 am
    Morrison’s precious surplus is gone already, even without needing to evoke the cost of future national standing bodies and specific fire infrastructure.
    The forest industry is gone for a while, and the cost of salvage harvesting, safety clearing and road reconstruction will be enormous over several years. Trees will be falling everywhere for months, the risk of accidental deaths increased
    Tourism will be drastically reduced.
    Honey industry, smoked.
    And farm infrastructure…it barely bears thinking about.
    The Coalition will be buying votes back everywhere.

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:47 am
    If a fire can burn two times in one place in fairly quick succession, its because there is too much fuel. So are you saying you want more fuel reduction, less fuel reduction, or no fuel reduction. If fuel reduction is meaningless it sounds like you are arguing for no fuel reduction.

    We see this sentiment a great deal on the left. Which is why only ten years after the terrible fires of 2009 we have to put up with it all over again only worse. Here we see Bob McDonald claiming “its time to stop lighting fires” in 2016. Just a few years after the February 2009 fires. He doesn’t advocate a replacement fuel reduction method. He appeals only to technology to fight the fires better. But we have just seen how impossible it is to control fires once you have that much fuel.

    http://www.spiffa.org/the-eclectic-parrot-on-bill-gammage-fire-ecology-and-the-burn-it-all-culture.html

    Its not hard to see who and what has brought us these problems. In the article it was six years after the last bad fires where someone is coming out against fuel reduction. But in this case we are seeing opposition to fuel reduction even as the fires are upon us.

    mrkenfabian says:
    January 3, 2020 at 8:50 am
    Akarog – Hazard reduction burning is important. It helps reduce ground fire intensity and can reduce the likelihood of fires getting into tree tops but is not an absolute protection; second time fires do happen and fires can get into forest canopies anyway and become catastrophic if conditions are bad enough.

    Robert Singer – Politically it is being used (notably by people who insist we should not be playing politics with the bushfire crisis) to shift attention and blame from climate policy to environmentalists and environmental regulation, despite it being fire authorities – with all the authority necessary – overseeing hazard reduction burning in State Forests and National Parks as well as advising and assisting landholders. Morrison still manages to add fuel to that “greenies are to blame” meme without specifically naming and blaming ‘greenies’ – but the implied (dog whistle) blaming is there, complementing the Right’s leading commentators.

    Bushfire services have had hazard reduction burning high on their agendas but I do not believe that ‘green’ regulation – let alone policies of The Greens – have stopped them. otter than normal and drier than normal winters (with a global warming component) have shrunk the window of opportunity to do them safely – yet a lot of it was still done. We would have had less than 1 month last winter around here and that not free of risk.

    Landholders have been denied permission – not unreasonably – when conditions are likely to see such fires get out of control. Tough laws make people – especially those with little experience with managing fires – that bit more reluctant to chance it even with permits.

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:05 am
    ” Fuel reduction is meaningless when fires reignite in previously burnt areas.”

    How could that even possibly be true? Can you explain further? ”

    Just look at how long individually named fires have been burning: some for three months. This clearly can not and does not involve simple outward radiation or unidirectional run from an ignition point…depending on wind direction, fires have returned to ground previously burnt a week or even four previously. Many areas have experienced dry lightning storms since the fires initiation, so reignition is common given the underlying acute drought…and the long term rainfall deficit that is well documented.
    The testimony of local fireys at Wytaliba on the Mann River is an example, when they were hit by the Red Range fire. Not only did they hazard reduce burn twice in the previous twelve months, the bush fire came through at ground level, then the area reburned as crown fire not long afterwards.
    After a relatively modest intensity fire, there is a lot of potential fuel left. Typically there is a lot of leaf fall from canopies, so a new layer of dessicated leaf litter quickly develops.
    The other thing to note is the terminology: forest managers apply ‘hazard reduction’, not ‘hazard elimination’…it’s impossible to achieve the latter, even if you raze the forest, because you’ll have to deal with a post-forest grassland with high combustibility. The terminology really means something.

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:08 am
    “There has been restrictions to fuel reduction in many forms.”
    Please supply references.
    Local government land clearing restrictions have been relaxed.
    NSW state forest and NPWS forest managers exceeded their hazard reduction targets for the last year, despite the restriction in safe burning conditions that is in trend over recent years, according to media statements by these agents.

    Moz in Oz says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:09 am
    NSW exceeded its target for hazard reduction burning last winter but we got unprecedented fires anyway. This trope has been well covered in the media:

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/is-there-really-a-green-conspiracy-to-stop-bushfire-hazard-reduction

    https://theconversation.com/a-surprising-answer-to-a-hot-question-controlled-burns-often-fail-to-slow-a-bushfire-127022

    From the National Parks Association ““National parks and other conservation reserves make up less than 15% of NSW’s total fire prone lands, yet they contribute more than 75% of the areas subject to prescribed burning each year.” … but I see that the parks have burned anyway.

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:14 am
    “So I take it Nick….”
    Do you indeed? How so?
    What have I written that could possibly give you that impression?
    What is ‘on the left’ about providing you with factual, as opposed to fanciful, information?
    Wytaliba firefighters are not going to abandon hazard reduction burning …they have always known it is not magic.

    Robert Singer says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:18 am
    You’re permanently banned

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 9:59 am
    “Its easy to exceed targets if the bar is very low.”
    And you know it’s low…how?
    Probably the same way you just know I’m against fuel reduction.
    Please base your claims on some evidence. Assertion is fruitless.

    Moz in Oz says:
    January 3, 2020 at 10:14 am
    How about we go for effective fire mitigation strategies instead? Picking a technique and demanding more of it regardless of cost or effectiveness isn’t a rational approach. At worst you end up doing something you know is stupid simply because you said you would and you are too cowardly to change your mind (the surplus fetish of various governments, for example)

    John Quiggin says:
    January 3, 2020 at 10:21 am
    Sorry for letting Robert Singer through. I’ll be policing new commenters more vigorously from now on. Please, no responses to denialists, trolls etc. Feel free to email me (johnquiggin1@mac.com) if you see any slip through.

    Ikonoclast says:
    January 3, 2020 at 10:25 am
    Robert Singer,

    Are you sure you aren’t the one trying different names on this blog? Fuel reduction burns are a complex issue. Read a few papers on the topic. The ones linked to above will do for starters.

    It’s a complex problem but you seem to think the answer is simple. That’s a sure sign of someone who does not understand real physical and bio system complexity. So, you look for an easy whipping-boy. Blame the greenies who are not monolithic, who are not numerous, who are not influential and who are not even in charge in most governments at all levels. That simply illustrates how illogical and fact-free your baseless your position is.

    Poselequestion says:
    January 3, 2020 at 10:26 am
    NW Tablelands Eucalypt forest that had been subjected to “hazard reduction” 6 weeks previously burned like a furnace late last year. The reason is simple, the trees were already stressed from years of below normal rainfall and had created abnormal amounts of leaf drop and litter. The burn went through and further stressed the trees and new litter was created. The following fire was largely in the treetops, stressed trees, low humidity, high temperatures and gale force winds. The Mayor of Glen Innes has documented this from close up, the fire burnt her property. These fires are not the Dorathea McKellar norm, they are unprecedented in every way and are created by unprecedented climatic conditions.
    Furthermore it is a waste of time and effort, in many ways pathetic, to get Morrison and his whole cohort to acknowledge this

    Ikonoclast says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:47 pm
    Poselequestion,

    Everything you say there is correct. The system (climate and ecosystem) is passing through a phase boundary and entering a new phase / state.

    It is quite impossible to get science illiterates and market fundamentalists to understand any of this. Natural forces will do that job in the long run by extincting maladaptive and sclerotic political economy systems. Adaptive systems will out-compete maladaptive and sclerotic systems. Currently our political economy is maladaptive and sclerotic. If we can’t change it in time, we will collapse.

    Peter Duell says:
    January 3, 2020 at 2:47 pm
    Yes its quite clear that market fundamentalism cannot do the job in this instance. So what measure would the two of you suggest to hydrate and de-stress the trees?

    KT2 says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:02 pm
    Back burning was different “then”.
    The landscape is acting as a kiln;

    “Just how much bound moisture is lost during the drying phase will ultimately depend upon the temperature and relative humidity (RH) of the surrounding air. At 100%?rh, no bound water will be lost. At 0% RH, all the bound water in the wood will be lost, a condition known as ovendry—so-called because a kiln or oven is typically required to completely drive out all moisture.”
    https://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/wood-and-moisture/

    Spoke to a horse’s’ mouth the other day – a back burner employed by rfs.

    They monitor weather stations. Humidity at top of mountain 20kms west of monster gospers fire was 100% early am last week. Fuel – bark leaf litter etc SO dry it was hydrophibic – ie moisture content of fuel load unchanged after 6+ hrs of saturated air.

    I just “thought” (this indicates blind acceptance and not thinking by me) if bark put in 100% humidity albiet non condensing above dew point, it would atill absorb moisture. Citation needed here. But kiln dried = hydrophobic.

    When does fuel load change threshold / bifurcarte from historical record and management practices? 1 yr 30% less moisture? 2yrs? Just this type of litter?
    Novel metrics will need to be developed. And fought over and used for political purposes ad infinitum.

    Independent statutory body with emergency powers needed absolutely.

    Early August when we had first high Temps humidity over 3 days below 10%. I haven’t checked but believe this to be a record for low humidity late winter. And I hope not the “new” abnormal.

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:31 pm
    It was fairly obvious that Robert Singer was another manifestation of the deluded bird.

    Nick says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:33 pm
    KT2, interesting observations.
    I live in the Northern Rivers, where the rolling disaster first took hold. August, September, October experienced below average rain, while temperature maxs were up to 3.5C above the mean…combine this with long wind runs from the SW, drying as they progress from the Southern Ocean, seeing humidities fall below 10% and as low as 5%….and you get the picture. As near kiln-like drying as can be achieved in the open. RH of 1% at 3pm was recorded at Glen Innes AWS on 2/10/19 ! The mean is closer to 50% for that typically dry month…And of course the lowest humidities occurred in the period 11am to 3pm usually, so aren’t logged in the monthly scale data.
    I have never seen so much defoliation in the region prior to the fires [and it continues]. This defoliation of course provides more leaf litter, which is exposed to more sun under the thinned canopies. A simple and horrible feedback.

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:37 pm
    We do a fair bit of walking, we were up in the foothills of the Barringtons early spring and I was surprised at the “crunchiness” under foot – it’s always quite damp. Normally there are the damp, not unpleasant smells associated with composting forest vegetation – but not this time.

    Like

  5. Peter Duell says:
    January 3, 2020 at 4:11 pm
    If you need to reduce the fuels and also de-stress and hydrate the trees, and you have no measure to de-stress and hydrate the trees, then all we will wind up with is more fires or extra fuel reduction. Or we could wind up with both.

    There seems to be policy paralysis with the secondary problem that Poselequestion has introduced. No takers? Has there been suggestions in the past?

    akarog says:
    January 3, 2020 at 4:16 pm
    Bird.

    Like

  6. People have been doing extra work on the reality that Bette Midler is Mama Cass. I can kind of corroborate this story from my childhood. From the first TV special featuring Bette Midler.

    Mama Cass started off as a Cohen. Coincidence? Or COHENcidence. I’ll let you be the judge. But I am pretty sure the theory is now confirmed.

    Like

  7. Uncharacteristically lame thread by currency lad on Trumps idiotic murder of a national hero. Where is currency lad stepping off the beam here? Its because he doesn’t recognise that the Americans have been running amok, and he believes everything a Jew says about Iran.

    Like

  8. Think about it. From Iran’s point of view, what is the only thing the leadership can do right now to prevent further acts of barbarism of this sort? All the leadership can do now is get nuclear weapons. Or else they simply cannot stop these unprovoked American attacks. Unprovoked when you set aside zionist propaganda.

    Like

  9. Mirandi 19 minutes in. A straight-shooter? Or a double-talking bullshit artist? I think he’s a straight-shooter and I think its the Americans who are full of shit, being as they are under Jew influence.

    Like

  10. The Jew news has been denying us any voice from out of Iran. We need to repair the damage a little bit and start listening to Iranians. Yes the clerics can be a bit much. Just as our banking dynasts and deep state are not so good. But we want to listen to the middle management in Iran. Who I take to be quite respectable.

    Not long ago the Americans murdered 30 Iraqis fighting ISIS. Since ISIS were always an American-Jewish operation this stands to reason. They were never fighting ISIS but the general was.

    Check out Mirandi here. Talking shit here? Or telling it straight.

    Like

  11. The US supported ISIS. The General defeated ISIS . Doesn’t matter what on earth was going on inside Donald Trumps head. Thats why the General had to die. He beat international Jewry’s ISIS proxy and this is why he had to go.

    Like

  12. The good guys are the ones who defeated ISIS. The bad guys are the supporters of ISIS. If you want to condemn the general you have to go all the way back to the early 2000’s and even then the criticisms would be a bit rich.

    Like

  13. Putting aside ancient history and lets take it from the death of Gaddafi. Iran has been the hero of the Middle East, protecting it from an American/Israeli lead push towards barbarism.

    Like

  14. Live funeral of the greatest enemy of ISIS. We should overlook Iranian policy in the early century. Thats six of one and half a dozen of another. Caught between a rock and a hard place. It would have been legitimate for George Bush junior to retaliate against Iranians at the time, but we now know he ought not have been there in the first place. So if you go back that far, there is no fine judgement we can make.

    But since the death of Gaddafi, at the very least, Iranian policy has been benevolent and the General was the great hero of Iranian policy. Don’t blame Trump too much. He has been sorely mislead.

    Like

  15. In the 1890’s the Germans were sweeping all before them. In the 1970’s it was the multi-racial city of Singapore that was outperforming. The people of Botswana had double digit growth after Independence. Whereas the West Europeans were “great'” once between the late 1300’s and 1950, the Chinese have been “great” at least twice.

    The Yamnaya replaced virtually all the male genes in Europe as far as Sardinia at one stage and pushed old Europe way down past the North African coast. Now are we saying that all these people were superior genetically as a permanent feature? This is serious racist talk and its hard to find a Jewish athlete without going to the flawed Mark Spitz and one suspects a bit of fence-jumping even there.

    The Chinese at one stage got to be almost as primitive as the Papuans, and actually the Papuans are pretty intelligent people, as you would know if you had ever met them. I’ve had great experiences working with Sudanese and Somalians and the Ethiopians seem to be doing great work in their countries today.

    We cannot tolerate too much of this racial supremacism. Even if its coming from the chosen people of the one true God Ho ho. Ho ho ho ho ho.

    7:09 pm Delete
    Blogger GMB said…
    The celtic people in the lawless lands between England and Scotland were given over to private vendettas, wildly emotive speeches, word-wizardly and all kinds of counter-productive behaviours. When some of them migrated to the South of America they then passed on some of these behaviours to their black plantation charges. Yet at the same time their cousins back home were becoming the most productive people in human history in that these border celts became the first people ever to stand Malthusian economics on its head.

    Their capacity to create real wealth shifted the centre of gravity of the economy of the British Isles away from London and temporarily to the big industrial cities either side of the Scottish border. All this was reversed during World War I. During any period of fractional reserve fiat, the wealth will be decisively transferred back to the bankers, in this case down in London.

    So who are the genetic supreme race. The hard working short little engineers up near the border. Or the financial sophisticates that took advantage of the war down in London? The people who by their industriousness changed the economics of the ages? Or the same old usurers down South.

    Now as the 90% Celts near the border were changing economics decisively, the 95% celts over in Ireland were living worse than American slaves. And then they were starved off and subjected to genocide.

    Is there any racial supremacism in this story that favours the chosen people or anyone else?

    Like

  16. Peter Duell, you won’t answer the question will you, because it would mean saying things like if it wasn’t for the former British Empire, we would all be speaking Gernan, Russian, French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, or heaven help us Turkish (Persian, or whatever the Iranians speak not on that list).

    I tried to answer all questions. But what are you saying here? You are pointing out who was a certain hegemonic power in some era or other. Right lets say the British from 1670 or so to the outbreak of World War I. Before that the Dutch was a Hegemonic power from about 1600 to 1650.

    And you want to extrapolate from who was the hegemon …. in some time period …. And you want to make some point. But I don’t think you’ll be able to make that point right now because you are too tired, and you are perhaps a little bit drunk.

    Reagan increased the power of the US by building up whoop-ass but being reluctant to put people in the field. Bush the younger reversed this policy to some extent. If the goal is to be hegemon we can talk about that too. But probably not now because your thoughts are becoming a bit scattered.

    Like

  17. Peter Duell
    #3285768, posted on January 8, 2020 at 11:20 am
    The Iranians have spent years destroying Americas ISIS terrorist front group. So they weren’t going to back down to yet another American terrorist attack. It is now Iraqi policy for the Americans to get out. The Iraqis have spoken and if these are Iranian attacks for real, they are not out of step with the Iraqi decision. Iraqi wants the ISIS sponsors out of the way.

    Peter Duell
    #3285778, posted on January 8, 2020 at 11:28 am
    In view of the horrorshow of Western-backed ISIS grabbing huge chunks of Iraq and setting up a caliphate, I doubt that the Iraqis are going to care too much about a quorum. This is ISIS that the Americans created. So you have to get your mindset into that of the people on the ground. You are not going to be real forgiving of that kind of terrorism.

    Peter Duell
    #3285798, posted on January 8, 2020 at 11:44 am
    The Mullahs when they took over in 1979, with the aid of outsiders, were as crazy as cut snake. But we have to acknowledge when its our guys that have fallen into savagery and when its the other crowd that is acting responsibly. Indeed heroically. We have to acknowledge when its our press that now lies all the time, and when the Russian and Iranian press that is comparatively truthful. Some of you may not have noticed that many things have changed. You know that boiled frog legend.

    Richard Pearl said that Moscow was a place where everyone lies all the time. When he said that it was surely true. But the bullshit demon migrates.

    Peter Duell
    #3285807, posted on January 8, 2020 at 11:52 am
    No I’m just here to tell you that the Iranians are not backing down to American terrorism. Since they have been fighting American terrorism (via ISIS) for many years now. Obviously they won’t be disciplined by another act of American terrorism.

    For years and years before that they have had to deal with Israeli terrorism, both direct and through front groups. So they aren’t about to lie down for it.

    Peter Duell
    #3285818, posted on January 8, 2020 at 12:03 pm
    If you start and support a terrorist group like ISIS, and pretend that its an autonomous Ishamaili popular uprising, thats a pretty good way to demonise Ishmailis right? But there is going to be some cost to all this mindless violence and lies. And one of these costs is that some things that would work well in the past, aren’t going to work now.

    Having heroically fought off ISIS all this time, the Iranians and Iraqis are not now going to be disciplined by what they see is a continuation of the terrorism they have been fighting for many years. Just days before the Americans murdered 30 Iraqis that were fighting ISIS on the Syrian border.

    Peter Duell
    #3285826, posted on January 8, 2020 at 12:09 pm
    Don’t be surprised if Trump discovers that he’s been deceived and sets up some sort of de-escalation. Because the Iranians aren’t going to de-escalate. Thats just crazy. The ISIS sponsoring nation murders the ISIS-defeating General then you expect Iran to de-escalate? Thats just tripping. Only decades of Netanyahu channelling Cato The Censor could get people so deluded as to what is going on here.

    Like

  18. If the Iranians have tipped off the Americans to save American lives, thats not unprecedented. When Reagan snatched Granada he tried to get a call through to Castro that they were going to win this time and so its okay for Castro’s people to stand down. Plus this affords Trump an opportunity to de-escalate from this catastrophe he was tricked into. This may be Trump finding a way out. Who knows. The suggestion could have even come from the American side if they are not all crazies there.

    Like

  19. I think Infidel might have the right idea. It might be that the Iranians and Americans have sorted out a face-saving incident of the low death-toll variety. Could be that despite all the stupidity coming out of Washington some cooler heads are making decisions.

    Thats fine if its Iran and America alone. But now as we have seen the Jews have starting murdering all manner of gentiles again, taking down that plane.

    Like

  20. The downing of the Ukraine flight and the murder of civilians. Coincidence? Or COENcidence? No the rules of chance go against the coincidence theory. And its the Jews that try and get gentiles fighting each-other. So we have to assume a Jew attack until proven otherwise. Does Iran want a war with the US? Does the US want a war with Iran? Absolutely not except for a minority of hard-core zionists.

    So its pretty clear that the Jews did it. They participated in the Ukrainian coup. So they think its fine to do anything to the Ukraine. As we saw from Ferdie Kagan’s wife.

    Like

  21. Trump wanted ISIS defeated. The General was defeating ISIS. So they should have been pals. Obviously a third party intervened to get this thing done.

    “Last October Yossi Cohen, head of Israel’s Mossad, spoke openly about assassinating Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

    “He knows very well that his assassination is not impossible,” Cohen said in an interview. Soleimani had boasted that the Israel’s tried to assassinate him in 2006 and failed.

    “With all due respect to his bluster,” Cohen said, “he hasn’t necessarily committed the mistake yet that would place him on the prestigious list of Mossad’s assassination targets.” ”

    So there we go. Pretty much an open and shut case. Along with the downing of that Jet. Every time ISIS is on the verge of defeat, Israel steps in to help them.

    Like

  22. Not long ago the President didn’t know who this fellow was. We can laugh about it, but that kind of ignorance could have been by design.

    So who conspired to mislead the President:

    Like

  23. “As long as I’m president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Good morning. I’m pleased to inform you the American people should be extremely grateful and happy. No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties. All of our soldiers are safe and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases. Our great American forces are prepared for anything. Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.”

    Loveable though the President is in many ways, this outrage he was tricked into, will see to it that Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons soon after Trump is out of office. Because only the capacity to explode a nuke over the United States and bring the grid down, or attack a military target deep inside Israel with a nuke, could have stopped this terrible terrible crime from happening.

    Trumps a pretty clever fellow though. Good at getting in and out of trouble. Hopefully he can calm matters down.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s