OT Bushfire season

[Mike4]

I was wondering how the members in fire areas are getting on, as most of the news reports tend to gloss over the damage to sheds and equipment.

Sorry to anyone if I have put this in the wrong area.

Michael

[.RC.]

Our area has got to the stage most of us become very busy when a bushfires rages in another area. We could not be bothered going to help any more due to the crap they go on with. Some of our members even got told they were "reckless" as they got the job done so quick when conditions were suitable while everyone else was farting around.

I have found the best people for fighting rural grass fires are those with the most experience lighting them.

[chambezio]

Last year our local fellas had it reasonably easy as most of the fires were just out of our area and they went to help. BUT, as last year wasn't "our turn" that doesn't mean that we will have it easy this season. We have lived here for 34 years. The hill/range behind us has not had a fire in all that time. The fuel up there would be substantial. Spot burning would not be easy to control due to the steepness and lack of vehicular access. I know we would not be alone, other areas would have similar terrain so we just keep an eye on the weather and hope.

[TED C]

I hear ya .RC., I hear ya.
Ted

[nadroj]

What's wanted, I think, is an easy way of measuring the average moisture level in the vegetation. I've seen what looks to be very dry bush not want to burn - going out as soon as the petrol/diesel poured over it burns off. At other times the vegetation seems to be identical to look at, but is so happy to burn you wouldn't want to do it unless conditions were very favourable otherwise. It seems there would be a range of "not too dry, not too moist" in the vegetation, that would be ideal for controlled burns.

Jordan

[YBAF]

Reading the Oz today and see a comment from a former CSIRO bush fire scientist David Packham that only 2% of Crown lands in Victoria gets a controled burn every year.:doh:

No wonder when they finally do the burn-offs they go uncontrollable.

[nadroj]

Yes but you don't expect to do the same areas every year.
The theory is to do them when conditions are favourable, like during cool weather, no wind, adequate resources etc.

[YBAF]

Yes but you don't expect to do the same areas every year.
The theory is to do them when conditions are favourable, like during cool weather, no wind, adequate resources etc.

Fuel load reduction burn-offs are best done with respect to fuel load. If needed, you do it every year. If its a long term drought it may not need doing for ten years.

If you do 2% of an area every year that works out to an average of once in 50 years.

You picks your country. With suitable breaks, be they man made or natural, some can be burnt-off on warm and windy days with no concern of spot fires, some country needs 'perfect' conditions. In a perfect world where all areas are maintained correctly, most break jumps can be contained because the area downwind has minimal fuel load so is a relativly easy fight.

Here's some comments of the idiocy of the greeny dominated attitudes to fire fuel load reduction nowadays...

"...observations from independent observers appalled at the abrogation of common sense and experience driving the march toward bushfire disasters, more lost lives, ruined eco-systems and huge property losses..."

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/10/burn/

[RayG]

Reading the Oz today and see a comment from a former CSIRO bush fire scientist David Packham that only 2% of Crown lands in Victoria gets a controled burn every year.:doh:

No wonder when they finally do the burn-offs they go uncontrollable.

There will always be controversy over how much to burn, and when, the general consensus after black saturday was that we don't burn enough, and a lot of that comes from political pressures from green groups, like everything there is always has to be some middle ground.

I used to have the office next door to David Packham back in the CSIRO days, he developed these tiny little incendiary devices to be dropped from aircraft. Potassium permangamate and Glycerine capsules, I believe they are still used today. There is a delay before they burst into flame, perfect for initiating control burns in hard to reach areas. He knows his stuff when it comes to control burns and predicting fire behaviour.

[KBs PensNmore]

Thanks YBAF for the interesting article, how very true it is. All though the Aboriginals were classed in the early days as primitive, they realised that controlled burnings were required to prevent major problems and to regenerate the countryside. I think it's our politicians and greenies that should be classed as primitive and backward.

[nadroj]

T
I used to have the office next door to David Packham back in the CSIRO days, he developed these tiny little incendiary devices to be dropped from aircraft. Potassium permangamate and Glycerine capsules, I believe they are still used today. There is a delay before they burst into flame, perfect for initiating control burns in hard to reach areas. He knows his stuff when it comes to control burns and predicting fire behaviour.

I heard of some aerial fire starters made with ping pong balls.

[.RC.]

They are controlled devices in Qld so you cannot ordinarily own them.

[PDW]

I have found the best people for fighting rural grass fires are those with the most experience lighting them.

No problems lighting fires around my place :-) There's quite a few big black patches on the landscape.

I don't get any crap from anyone either, seeing as my neighbours did a lot of burning this year and - let's say they're of the politically untouchable group in Tasmania. Great neighbours, we get along like a landscape on fire..... share water, tankers, labour etc.

Other neighbours - let's say I'm glad their properties don't border mine. When they burn, I'll be washing my hair that day.

PDW

[simonl]

What's wanted, I think, is an easy way of measuring the average moisture level in the vegetation. I've seen what looks to be very dry bush not want to burn - going out as soon as the petrol/diesel poured over it burns off. At other times the vegetation seems to be identical to look at, but is so happy to burn you wouldn't want to do it unless conditions were very favourable otherwise. It seems there would be a range of "not too dry, not too moist" in the vegetation, that would be ideal for controlled burns.

Jordan

Usually before a planned burn, they will take samples and feed them into a fine fuel moisture meter. It will give an instant % fuel moisture content. From that, they can predict how the fuel will burn, of course you need to take into account the type of fuel you want to burn, the overall fuel loading in tonnes/hectare, weather (temp, wind speed and %RH, atmospheric stability) and the terrian.

From this information it's "relatively" easy to predict fire intensity in terms of Kw per lineal metre of fire front, flame heights, forward rate of spread and spotting distances. Of course nothing is perfect and human error will always be a factor and so we see the occasional fuel reduction fire get away. Personally I think those people do a pretty good job, they know a hell of a lot about what they do, work closely with CSIRO and take great interest in their jobs. Unfortunately they are screwed either way, don't burn enough and they get slammed next time a fire cleans and people say they don't burn enough. Burn too much or being under pressure to meet targets means they may decided to burn in less than favorable conditions or decide to burn with narrow window.

Simon

[nadroj]

Usually before a planned burn, they will take samples and feed them into a fine fuel moisture meter. It will give an instant % fuel moisture content.
Simon

Thanks for that. I'll tell my brigade about this tool - it's not usual for us!

Jordan

[YBAF]

Usually before a planned burn, they will take samples and feed them into a fine fuel moisture meter. It will give an instant % fuel moisture content. From that, they can predict how the fuel will burn, of course you need to take into account the type of fuel you want to burn, the overall fuel loading in tonnes/hectare, weather (temp, wind speed and %RH, atmospheric stability) and the terrian...
Simon

Yes, moisture content is entirely relevant to fuel type.

When they were first opening up the Douglas Daly region to cropping I did a bit of timber stacking on country that had been pulled the year before. Late dry season and trying to burn the stacks were like trying to melt cast iron with a cigarette lighter.
Down in QLD, on some of my gum country I can practically pull and stack and get a good burn on the same day.

[YBAF]

We'll soon enuf have the same nonsense in Oz:

"...Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown’s attempt to link global warming to Californian wildfires..."


Even the global warming scientists dont agree with Moonbean Brown...

"...scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year’s wildfires and global warming, or support Brown’s assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented..."


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/19/even-la-times-thinks-governor-browns-latest-climate-claim-is-nonsense/

[simonl]

I'm not sure how that correlates to the weather and fire behaviour in Australia. I think the current thinking is that Australia's increased number of FDI (fire danger index) days that are in the catatrophic range is at least partly due to our changing climate.

Edit: also while the trends are evident wrt the changing climate, no one can attribute the causes of a particular or specific fire to climate change. That's just silly.

Simon

[Hunch]

No need to go as far as California, there's been several stories from these shores over recent years claiming a fire (or insert other phenomenon) is climate change related.

I might look a bit more closely at my sources though. With that conspiracy theory blog, you might as well trust the scientific qualifications of Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones or Lord Monkton!

[YBAF]

No need to go as far as California, there's been several stories from these shores over recent years claiming a fire (or insert other phenomenon) is climate change related.

I might look a bit more closely at my sources though. With that conspiracy theory blog, you might as well trust the scientific qualifications of Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones or Lord Monkton!

I wasn't aware it were a "conspiracy theory blog"

Evidence please.

[Hunch]

Hmmm, a website entirely devoted to climate, merest perusal of the articles makes it abundantly clear where it's coming from. If you can't see that, I have a bridge for sale - cheap.

[YBAF]

Hmmm, a website entirely devoted to climate, merest perusal of the articles makes it abundantly clear where it's coming from. If you can't see that, I have a bridge for sale - cheap.

From "conspiracies" to "where its coming from" ?

Hunch, obviously you can not find any evidence of "conspiracies" so we've debunked that claim. :)

Now, what is all this "coming from" about :?

Watts Up With That says right up that it is "The worlds most viewed site on global warming and climate change" so I'm guessing most people would understand from that what the site is about.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[RayG]

Watts Up With That says right up that it is "The worlds most viewed site on global warming and climate change" so I'm guessing most people would understand from that what the site is about.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

So, It's just another one of the many global warming skeptic sites, I don't see what the big deal is? Those nutters are a dime a dozen.

Ray

[YBAF]

Latest article via WUWT:

"Researchers from James Cook University have found that..." Continues...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/20/some-plants-do-just-fine-in-acidic-oceans/

Seems some have No-idea about WUWT :)

[RayG]

Latest article via WUWT:

"Researchers from James Cook University have found that..." Continues...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/20/some-plants-do-just-fine-in-acidic-oceans/

Seems some have No-idea about WUWT :)

So, are you one of the climate change deniers?

[PDW]

So, are you one of the climate change deniers?

Really, really stupid phrase, Ray. Equivalecing climate change to holocaust denial.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Only the really hard-core Christian fundamental types could be accused of this because as the world was only created 7000-odd years ago (in their view), geological period climate change is obviously impossible.

For the rest of us, climate change is an observed fact.

The burning question is, is what we're seeing a long-term climate change, a temporary warming period or what. And if it's caused by human release of CO2 or not.

ALL the climate models to date suck. They have consistently failed the fundamental test - congruence with observed reality. Therefore, they are crap and by logical extension, any conclusions drawn from such models are equally crap.

Given I have degrees in this area and did a lot of work on the Australian oceanic data sets that feed into the models, plus postgrad quals in statistics/experimental design and computing, I have an entitlement to my opinions. So far, I'm firmly sitting on the fence.

PDW

[.RC.]

There's lotsa free money in them thar climate change hills.

[Mike4]

Have any studies been done into past climactic changes , eg between the ice ages , this current rise in temperature may be a natural cycle .
And I am like PDW an interested observer , not sitting on either side of the fence.
Michael

[RayG]

Really, really stupid phrase, Ray. Equivalecing climate change to holocaust denial.



Suits some really really stupid people. In case you hadn't noticed, there's no shortage of conspiracy websites, climate change deniers aren't even close to being the looniest ones out there. There's the chemtrails people for a start, they think jet contrails are government attempts to influence climate change chemically. It all goes downhill pretty fast once you stop being skeptical about reading stuff on internet conspiracy sites. Always good for a laugh tho.

In general I probably agree with your thoughts on climate change, climate is always changing, always has been. All the data indicates that CO2 levels are rising. Most likely man made, what effect that has on global warming is where it gets murky, and even if you make that link, then trying to make predictions about what that means is where it all falls apart.

There's no question in my mind that the safe option is that we should be trying to reduce CO2 levels.

Ray

[YBAF]

Suits some really really stupid people. In case you hadn't noticed, there's no shortage of conspiracy websites, climate change deniers aren't even close to being the looniest ones out there. There's the chemtrails people for a start, they think jet contrails are government attempts to influence climate change chemically. It all goes downhill pretty fast once you stop being skeptical about reading stuff on internet conspiracy sites. Always good for a laugh tho.

In general I probably agree with your thoughts on climate change, climate is always changing, always has been. All the data indicates that CO2 levels are rising. Most likely man made, what effect that has on global warming is where it gets murky, and even if you make that link, then trying to make predictions about what that means is where it all falls apart.

There's no question in my mind that the safe option is that we should be trying to reduce CO2 levels.

Ray

"There's the chemtrails people for a start, they think jet contrails are government attempts to influence climate change chemically..."

Is that what their about ? Reading the derogatory comments on pilots web sites gave me the impression the Chemmys were a bunch of global warming hysterics :U



I think Dr Tim Ball writing at WUWT has the best take on the Chemmys:

"Many confuse noctilucent clouds with chemtrails or contrails. Many confuse lower stratosphere contrails with chemtrails. It’s probably because most they want to see chemtrails..."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/02/chemtrails-or-contrails-another-alarmist-issue-without-scientific-context/

[simonl]

I like PDW's response to the climate change debate. My question is, can we really afford to sit on the fence and wait to see if we got it right or wrong?

To me it's similar to driving my car and not remembering whether I changed my timming belt when it was last due. I know the consequences of a failed timing belt are catastrophic but I'm not sure if it was changed last service and it's both a PITA and expensive to change so wouldn't want to do it for no reason……. Oh well, I'll wait and see……

I wonder if the gun lobby group in the US are also climate change skeptics? 300,000,000 guns in the US and still not enough to stop shootings. Apprently they need more guns!

Simon

[RayG]

Here you go, chemtrails and climate change ... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chemtrails+climate+change

I especially like the loonies who run around their backyards with spray bottles of vinegar to remove chemtrails. ... :)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chemtrails+vinegar+spray

Ray

[simonl]

There's lotsa free money in them thar climate change hills.

Certainly is RC. Even more so than the Y2K sagga 15 years ago. The productivity commission even agrees that I have increased my productivity purely as a result from increased occurances of extreme weather! Yay! where's my pay rise for my productivity gains?!

Simon

[YBAF]

So, are you one of the climate change deniers?

Reality check...

Garth Paltridge, atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research writes in his book The Climate Caper (Page 62)...


"...In the early nineties I was involved in setting up an Antarctic research centre, which was, and still is in a slightly different form, a sizeable research institution specifically designed to examine the role of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in global climate. I made the error at the time of mentioning in a media interview - reported extensively in 'The Australian' on a slow Easter Sunday - that there were still lots of doubts about the disaster potential of global warming. Suffice to say that within a couple of days it was made very clear to me from the highest levels of CSIRO that, should I make such public comments again, then it would pull out of the process of forming a new Centre. Since CSIRO was a major partner in the venture and its withdrawal would have killed the whole thing dead, it is perhaps not surprising that I found the message to be both cogent and effective. It turned out that the response was related to efforts by CSIRO at the time to abstract many millions of new climate research money from the federal government..."

[RayG]

Reality check...


My question was directed specifically to you, to clarify what you are trying to say. Did you just want to spark a climate debate, or is there something more?

Quoting well know climate skeptics and linking to climate skeptic websites, I'm going to take a wild guess that you are a climate change skeptic. (I'll drop the denier, in lieu of PDW's pointing out the other negative connotations).

But you still haven't said. If you are a skeptic, fair enough, there's lots of things about climate change politics and science that make me skeptical as well. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to reduce CO2.

Ray

[.RC.]

There's no question in my mind that the safe option is that we should be trying to reduce CO2 levels.

Ray

Problem is Ray and that is fairness and I simply do not see it happening, so why should I bother. I will start doing something when society stops expecting others do the heavy lifting while they get a free ride.

The other thing is many many people live in utter fairy land when it comes to their electricity usage. They think their electricity usage is just what they use in their home. They do not consider the electricity usage of the supermarket they shop at, the hospital/school they use, the street lights they demand, the water gets delivered to their house automatically.

If decent battery storage that allows urban houses to go completely off grid becomes a reality then we are in for some really turbulent times as it would make the price of mains electricity skyrocket for those unable to afford or say they own a decent workshop. Reason being it costs a huge sum to maintain the power lines and less subscribers, makes it more expensive for everyone else.

On top of that I have often found the renewable fanatics seem to be very reluctant to acknowledge the massive human cost of the renewable industry. Easy to go google China solar panel environmental cost and many web sites there pointing out destructive this industry is to the environment and human health when there is no regulation. Yet some love cheap solar panels and use these cheap prices to say how cost effective it is.

[RayG]

Problem is Ray and that is fairness and I simply do not see it happening, so why should I bother. I will start doing something when society stops expecting others do the heavy lifting while they get a free ride.

The other thing is many many people live in utter fairy land when it comes to their electricity usage. They think their electricity usage is just what they use in their home. They do not consider the electricity usage of the supermarket they shop at, the hospital/school they use, the street lights they demand, the water gets delivered to their house automatically.

If decent battery storage that allows urban houses to go completely off grid becomes a reality then we are in for some really turbulent times as it would make the price of mains electricity skyrocket for those unable to afford or say they own a decent workshop. Reason being it costs a huge sum to maintain the power lines and less subscribers, makes it more expensive for everyone else.

On top of that I have often found the renewable fanatics seem to be very reluctant to acknowledge the massive human cost of the renewable industry. Easy to go google China solar panel environmental cost and many web sites there pointing out destructive this industry is to the environment and human health when there is no regulation. Yet some love cheap solar panels and use these cheap prices to say how cost effective it is.

I'm in favour of going nuclear. We have plenty of uranium. Stop burning oil and coal. It's not electricity use per se, it's what we have to do to generate it. We should use more electricity, less fossil fuel.

Ray

[Stustoys]

To me it's similar to driving my car and not remembering whether I changed my timming belt when it was last due. I know the consequences of a failed timing belt are catastrophic but I'm not sure if it was changed last service and it's both a PITA and expensive to change so wouldn't want to do it for no reason……. Oh well, I'll wait and see……

Yes but in that case there is a known cause and effect.
If I recall correctly according to the first global warming reports many of us should be swimming by now. Last I heard CO2 levels were going up at twice the rate anyone could explain(though granted that was some time ago). Maybe we've stalled the next ice age??



If decent battery storage that allows urban houses to go completely off grid becomes a reality then we are in for some really turbulent times as it would make the price of mains electricity skyrocket for those unable to afford or say they own a decent workshop. Reason being it costs a huge sum to maintain the power lines and less subscribers, makes it more expensive for everyone else.

Batteries or no batteries renewables make power cost more. You have to have spinning reserves in case the sun goes in, so you still have to build the power stations... you just wont use them as much and they are likely to be more expensive to run as they will be peaking plants


I'm in favour of going nuclear.
I've been saying that for years, though on one listens to me :D. I cant see anyway around it. As RC said I just dont think most people know how big the numbers are and Aus is just a tiny tiny dot. Last I looked LA had around the same installed capacity as Aus.

Stuart

[.RC.]

I'm in favour of going nuclear.

Same here. I think it would improve the nation as a whole as young kids grow up wanting to become a nuclear physicist and do and change things rather then grow up and want to become a paper pusher.

[markgray]

I don't normally read OT discussions much but this one said bushfires and I live a farming area where bushfires in summer are a REAL threat and need to be taken seriously so I thought I would have a look. And what do I find but a climate change debate.
So I can't help but put my 2 cents in even though I would generally just shake my head and move on. This debate has become so politicised, highjacked by interest groups, skewed by business interests and railed against by shock jocks that its hard to see the wood for the trees.
The initial concern that elevating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may trap heat is valid. How much and how quickly it will affect the earths climate is so complicated that its defies an easy answer. But we see glaciers melting and maybe 'measurable' warming so it is reasonable to ask should we be doing something about this. Given that with current and foreseeable technology any warming is irreversible (by human timescales anyway) and worst case senarios would lead to a catastrophe of biblical proportions a common sense and conservative approach would seem to be try and avoid the very worse outcomes at the very least. But human nature is such that this will not happen ( Greed, NIMBYSM etc) and this experiment will play out in the next few generations. All we can do is buy a block in Tasmania (for insurance purposes) and sit back and watch (and I am not kidding). If the predictions are right then life as we know it will change significantly for our grandkids and beyond. They will rightly see us as the greatest fools who did not want to upset our lifestyle so the future had a future. If the predictions are wrong or the earth has a yet unknown buffering mechanism then we will have been extremely lucky and will have survived more by good fortune than good management. So roll those dice!!

[Hunch]

I'm going to take a wild guess that you are a climate change skeptic.

Stab I'll take, a fairly prolific poster on pprune, with a penchant for this particular topic and very little else, eerily similar writing style. :U Seems to have virtually the same links......I'm waiting for the others with baited breath. Moniker may or may not give location of "farm". :wink:

[BobL]

It's interesting to see how certain some individuals are on what is a very complicated issue. Individual opinions (even expert ones with long lists of qualifications end experience) are of very limited value in this business. I too have opinions, even a few expert ones, and if you don't like those I have alternatives.

If any one asks me about climate change I openly admit I don't have an opinion that's worth much because no single individual, or small group of expert individuals can categorically claim to be across climate change. Those that do are simply deluding themselves. It's probably the most complex scientific issue we have to grapple with and is why large teams of single and multi-disciplinary experts are needed to deal with it, and is also why the results will always appear uncertain. However, risk aversion says at some point we have to decide something and the last thing we should be doing is trusting a single or small group of individuals on this issue. This applies to both sides of the fence.

This also shows how poor scientists are at the high level of collaboration needed to deal with this complex matter. It also shows that they not as good as they should be at dealing with shades of grey. Their training in collaboration is limited, and their work environment is usually highly competitive, combative and riddled with bandwagons. Combined with the topic it is probably why it is taking so long to nail this.

[YBAF]

My question was directed specifically to you, to clarify what you are trying to say. Did you just want to spark a climate debate, or is there something more?

Quoting well know climate skeptics and linking to climate skeptic websites, I'm going to take a wild guess that you are a climate change skeptic. (I'll drop the denier, in lieu of PDW's pointing out the other negative connotations).

But you still haven't said. If you are a skeptic, fair enough, there's lots of things about climate change politics and science that make me skeptical as well. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to reduce CO2.

Ray

RayG, so far all you've done is try to insult me. A reference from each of your prior posts...

"...So, It's just another one of the many global warming skeptic sites, I don't see what the big deal is? Those nutters are a dime a dozen..."

"...So, are you one of the climate change deniers?..."

"...there's no shortage of conspiracy websites, climate change deniers aren't even close to being the looniest ones out there..."


"or is there something more..."
..........RayG, perhaps its all a big conspiracy:U

RayG, over at WUWT they list over 50 links to "Skeptical" web sites. Please do show which of those links looks at Chemtrails in anything but a derisory way...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/page/5/

[RayG]

RayG, so far all you've done is try to insult me. A reference from each of your prior posts...



Um no, all I've tried to do so far is understand what you are actually on about, you haven't said.

I have no wish to insult you or your views, I'm quite happy for other people to have different views, you'll be among the first to know if I want to insult you.


Ray

[Machtool]

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTchgSp33jHpULOWG3iXxEKOCitjSM9WaOFBcaC9jNOwgS_14-O

​Your message is too short.

[YBAF]

Um no, all I've tried to do so far is understand what you are actually on about, you haven't said.

I have no wish to insult you or your views, I'm quite happy for other people to have different views, you'll be among the first to know if I want to insult you.
Ray

"...all I've tried to do so far is..." Actually RayG, all youve done so far is try to link me with chemtrails. Its been a dismal failure so now your trying another tack. It seems your understanding of the global warming subject is minimal.

RayG, since your the one putting up the insults and abuse, I'll ask again. Of the 50 or so global warming skeptical web links provided by WUWT, which covers chemtrails in any but a derisory way ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[.RC.]

But human nature is such that this will not happen ( Greed, NIMBYSM etc) and this experiment will play out in the next few generations. All we can do is buy a block in Tasmania (for insurance purposes) and sit back and watch (and I am not kidding).

Yes that is about it.

I got dis-interested way back when the Qld government stopped us from clearing vegetation that we had purchased off them. But then rules were made up so that we could not benefit from the CO2 said plants absorb as the vegetation was "existing". Then I saw government try to bring in a trading scheme for emissions that seemed to be based on a share market type scheme, entities like financial institutions could buy emission permits and hoard them hoping the price rises then sell them for profit.

Then the government bought in a scheme that rewarded those handsomely they invested in solar panels by them being paid something like near twice the price for any power they put into the grid. The government had to effectively pay people to buy solar panels, turning it into a profit making venture.

The whole thing is all about making money rather then wanting to stop emissions.

Have not seen the government saying they will place restrictions on people taking holidays in far off lands to stop emissions being produced.

Anyway, back to doing the dreaded BAS... This was a nice diversion for awhile.. And I should probably stop searching for snoopy and woodstock videos on youtube to download.

[shedhappens]

Nooklear power...... I'm guessing that most don't realize that nuclear power plants are a major part of the process to produce weapons grade plutonium ? Then there is the problem of storing the so called depleted uranium that has a half life of maybe one and a half million years, yeah baby lets add to the pile.
The smarter thing to do would be to produce power with thorium reactors, but then they don't produce fissile goodies for the war machine and we couldn't have that eh.

My thoughts about climate change is that it always has, I have read extensively about this and although it is a complex topic with a bit of research it is very very easy to see and understand that we are being lied to.
I'll keep simple,
it's never going to rain again...oops
snow is going to be a thing of the past.....oops
the arctic ice sheet will be melted by 2013.....oops
antarctica melting accelerating......opps actually growing maybe except in the west where there is sub glacial volcanic activity that they don't tell you about.
climategate email hack.....lol
cyclones will become more common and stronger........oops didn't happen, trend has lessened.
haha....trying to hide the medieval warm period.
it goes on and on.
The high priest's of climate science lost their credibility a long time ago, the manipulation of data is quite telling, the hijacking of the peer review process, no acceleration in sea level rise........

aaahhhhhhhhhh mummy mummy the sky is falling, :D

[YBAF]

...the manipulation of data is quite telling...


And some more...

Jennifer Marohasy with some comments on the corrupt Australian Bureau of Metrology

"...You Don’t Know the Half of It: Temperature Adjustments and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology..."

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2015/09/you-dont-know-the-half-of-it-temperature-adjustments-and-the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology/

[Machtool]

Nooklear power...... I'm guessing that most don't realize that nuclear power plants are a major part of the process to produce weapons grade plutonium ? Are you talking Australia in that context or the rest of the world? Or are you thinking Australia is about to become the next rogue nation, like North Korea or Iran.


Then there is the problem of storing the so called depleted uranium that has a half life of maybe one and a half million years, yeah baby lets add to the pile.

I'd put it under the Rock. Uluru / Ayers. That's got to be heavier than the lid on Chernobyl. Best years of this country was the Snowy Mountains Scheme. It costs $9 -$11 bil to put an underground train under Melb. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/911b-melbourne-metro-swanston-street-project-to-go-ahead-daniel-andrews-20150415-1mm3wh.html

Make that a national interest, 15 - 20 year program, along side Nuc power generation. $150-250 bil

Given the advances since the industrial revolution. I'd predict that my grandsons will work out a way to make Nuc waste inert.

[RayG]

The smarter thing to do would be to produce power with thorium reactors,

Yep, I'll agree with that. Shut down the coal and gas fired power plants and start up thorium reactors.

Ray

[Stustoys]

Nooklear power...... I'm guessing that most don't realize that nuclear power plants are a major part of the process to produce weapons grade plutonium ?

Who needs plutonium to make a bomb? and if you just want one bomb there are easier ways to get it.
As I understand it, its the enrichment of reactor waste thats the tricky part.
With the right reactor you can use* the plutonium to make steam. Which at least removes that issue and also gives you more mW for your buck rather than burying it as nuclear waste.



Then there is the problem of storing the so called depleted uranium that has a half life of maybe one and a half million years,

Do you know what depleted uranium is? hey they used to use it as counter weights in 747s by the ton.
I think you're talking about spent fuel.
You know granite is radio active right?


The smarter thing to do would be to produce power with thorium reactors,


Anyone got a working one yet?

Stuart

[.RC.]

You know granite is radio active right?






And I have a whopping big granite surface plate.

[Stustoys]

And I have a whopping big granite surface plate.
Just dont sleep on it ;)

[YBAF]

...Do you know what depleted uranium is?...



When yer hooning around in the gunship its something you send down range towards the towel heads :rolleyes:

[simonl]

I'm pretty sure (unless technology has since changed) that Plutonium production in nuclear reacters only occurs with a specific type of reactor called a fast breeder reactor, where the decay process produces plutonium. This was one of the reasons why the Israelies bombed the crap out of one of Iran's nuclear reactors. It was a fast breeder reactor and the Israelies didn't want them producing Plutonium, for obvious reasons.

I don't know much about Thorium reactors but from what I have heard, they look promising. I also think that there is some really good research going into spent fuel enrichment aimed at extracting much more of the good stuff out of the spent fuel, reducing the waste.

[RayG]

Just dont sleep on it ;)

At least not without lead underpants. :)



Anyone got a working one yet?

The Americans had one working back in the 60's, and the Chinese have acquired the rights to that design. Supposed to have a small scale one operating sometime this year.
But I think India, is close to having one operational.

Ray

[Pete F]

I especially like the loonies who run around their backyards with spray bottles of vinegar to remove chemtrails. ... :)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chemtrails+vinegar+spray

Ray

Good grief I hadn't seen that one. I try to pay no attention to these people, no amount of reasoning and explanation seems to be able to convince them that they're mistaken. However, like any fringe group, it attracts people who are genuinely mentally unstable, and I wasn't exactly impressed to hear that an active Melbourne based "Chemtrails" group were trying to procure the names and addresses on all airline pilots for publication on the internet! I believe a couple of the ringleaders received a visit from the AFP, and things quietened down for a while. Given this is a machining forum, for those who aren't familiar with the term "Chemtrail", it's the belief that the contrails (mainly formed by the condensation of water around ejected soot particles from turbine exhaust), is actually the pilots spraying chemicals on to the population below. Yes believe it or not! The motivation for doing so varies depending on the nutter mouthpiece, but varies between deliberately trying to modify the climate, to chemicals to "control" the population. It's hard to believe there are such whack-jobs out there to believe rubbish like that, but, apparently there!

I think Mark's post was the most telling here. I've said for a long time, I feel our grand-children will look at our generation and say, something this forum won't allow me to print. Whether climate change is indeed caused by humans or not, the waste and squandering of resources that's a normal part of our living in our generation is just disgusting when one steps back and looks at it.

[simonl]

for those who aren't familiar with the term "Chemtrail", it's the belief that the contrails (mainly formed by the condensation of water around ejected soot particles from turbine exhaust), is actually the pilots spraying chemicals on to the population below. Yes believe it or not! The motivation for doing so varies depending on the nutter mouthpiece, but varies between deliberately trying to modify the climate, to chemicals to "control" the population. It's hard to believe there are such whack-jobs out there to believe rubbish like that, but, apparently there!


Bloody hell, that seems a bit hit and miss if it's meant to control the population. Wouldn't it just be easier to put something in the water supply?

OMG I think I've just worked out what the desal plant is really for! Don't drink the water people!!

Simon

(that's not my real name either. You'll never find me, I'm wearing aluminium foil on my head so you can't track me)

[Pete F]

Mate there's no logic or thought put into any of their arguments. Like I said, I just try to ignore idiots like this, however like slowing to look at an accident scene, once I just had to find out what all the fuss was about. I saw a video where one of these nutters claimed they could feel the effects of the "chemicals" about 15 minutes after they'd been "sprayed". I didn't even bother to watch one of the videos involving the vinegar, but presumably that's when they madly start spraying grape juice around the place :rolleyes: The fact that any of the soot that comprises the contrails wouldn't make the ground for days later, in the meanwhile possibly having gone around the planet several times in the jet stream seems to be lost on these bozos, but there you go.

Unfortunately we've gone from an age where nutters were largely confined to a soap box on a dedicated corner of a park, to having a worldwide audience keen to lap up the next conspiracy theory. I'll include some mainstream media in that! It makes it very difficult to sort out the fact from fiction, with the latter often getting more air time than the former.

[YBAF]

...OMG I think I've just worked out what the desal plant is really for! Don't drink the water people!!


Don't drink the greeny cool-aid or yer get...

Money wasting white elephants. Claytons dam at ten times the cost. Flannerys fiasco. Muppets excitement.

:U

[.RC.]

Been a lot of smoke around my area the past few weeks. I struggle to believe how many people are out there starting fires at the moment.

Of course as soon as we get decent rain, we all will be out burning. :)

[Stustoys]

I'm pretty sure (unless technology has since changed) that Plutonium production in nuclear reacters only occurs with a specific type of reactor called a fast breeder reactor,
Nope both heavy water and light water reactors produce plutonium.
Fast Beeders produce more plutonium than they use.(so they don't "remove that issue" as I said)
The quantities of course varies.
How hard each is to reprocess I don't know. Maybe thats the advantage of fast beeder?
If you want a bomb you can just make hot air and forget the whole making power thing.:D

Stuart

[.RC.]

Apologies for the off topic post, but damn firebugs :D

359628

[YBAF]

Apologies for the off topic post, but damn firebugs :D

359628

Careful. Those Aboriginal land management practices will get yer in trouble with them Victorians.
:U

[KBs PensNmore]

Not your property, I hope R.C.
Kryn

[morrisman]

Flannerys fiasco.

:U
I went to primary school with him in my class for 4 years .... knew him very well in teenage years ..better not say too much but I could !

[.RC.]

Not your property, I hope R.C.
Kryn


This time of year we generally burn a proportion of our old grass as it is useless and has next to no nutritional value. We get most of our rain in summer.