Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..

As a CSIRO study has pointed out, lakes don't change the climate significantly,

Yep, your CSIRO study may be relevant to the lakes and even seas as seen on the Moon surface.
Lunar maria doesn't effect their climate too much.Thought Moon effect ours quite a bit.

"lakes don't change the climate" without even reading everybody could discard such nonsense statement, regardless how many phD , Prof. and others signature are behind. Or that is another trend within denierss? NOTHING at all effect climate? because CLIMATE is given as by GOD ALMIGHTY and we should appreciate now everything HE throw at us.Then cut off the hands of all those trying to tricle a bit , improve something of change. CSIRO possibly have this church somewhere and Ph.D caplan's already, then mob of CHRIS like believers.Unlike you , I could possibly go trough every chemical reaction, physical process CSIRO could throw against me, one by one. To verify.But you just read and believe. Most like even miss-read what there are really saying.

Lets consider the simplest thought experiment.
Recent relative humidity reading at my farm ( 250 km of the sea ) at midday , is 7% , temperature near 40 Celsius.Now go to any lake in the world , at similar latitude and when air temperature hit 40 degree, check what humidity you will read above lake surface.I will bet whole $10 that will be closer to 100% then Zero.

I think that one experiment is worth more then tonnes of paper publication. Yep ,in CSRIO believers instantly point that the problem is with experiment and nature itself unable to comply with their good theory.

Wow. More proof of your conceit and disrespect. You think that you are right and a CSIRO study specifically on whether the idea you are proposing would work is wrong. The CSIRO looked at studies from Australia, the USA, India and Israel. They found that there was no significant increase in rainfall in irrigation areas.

Your experiment does nothing to prove that any increase in humidity will result in increased rainfall as you claim. A slightly higher humidity - if it exists - does not necessarily trigger significant rain. What it does show, I think, is loss of water due to evaporation.

If you had any respect for others, you'd have done some research and found out that the CSIRO has ALREADY looked at nature, using rainfall records around Lake Eyre. The reality is that when that huge lake is full, rainfall in the area does NOT increase as a result.

Let's look at another example - Menindee, adjacent to the vast Menindee Lakes, has a rainfall of 243mm. Broken Hill has 259-248; Wilcannia to the NE has 273mm. So the area immediately around one of our biggest areas of inland lake has LESS rainfall than the surrounding weather stations. So if you believe that one experiment is worth tonnes of paper (which is silly, considering that papers are normally written ABOUT experiments) then that experiment shows that your idea doesn't work.

It's not a matter of cutting the hands off anyone who tries things, it's a matter of respecting other people who have spent years studying these areas instead of thinking you are sooooooooo much better than they are that you know everything already, even in areas you have not the faintest experience in. What we need is knowledge, not arrogance.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Macroscien said..

"lakes don't change the climate"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo

"Although the layer corresponded with a time of low rainfall and cooler weather, more rainwater ran off the western side of the Great Dividing Range during that period, keeping the lake full. It supported a significant human population, as well as many varieties of Australian megafauna."

Lake Mungo appears to have had a favourable effect on the local climate.

There's nothing whatsoever that indicates that the Lake had a favourable effect on the local climate. As your own quote says, the rain ran into the lake. The VisitMungo website also says" that increased rainfall from elsewhere made the lakes, rather than the lakes making increased rainfall; "Rainfall in the Great Dividing Range sent the ancestral Lachlan River down the Willandra Creek channel to fill the lakes

To quote one study "in the late Pleistocene the lakes were connected to the Lachlan system via the palaeo-Willandra Creek, then the principal channel of the lower Lachlan River". It appears from another study that this channel may have been cut by tectonic activity. Again, no evidence that the Lake created its own rainfall.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

They found that there was no significant increase in rainfall in irrigation areas.

If that is subject of famous CSRIO research? They did expect for rain to drop from clouds over my sprinkler in the garden while turned on?

I did suggest that even if we humidify Australia Eastern border and rain will fall on Alice Springs or Perth , but not New Zealand, that could benefit us all. Vice Verse. Perth rain maker causing rainfall in Sydney may be welcome relief to our bushfires. But probably you are right,. Now we need to do 10 x more conferences at CSRIO , increase diets and crank more paper,. Rain will follow up.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

disrespect.

If I only could confirm my strong disrespect to in-grounded , superstitious beliefs shared by most or many,
that will be only sadly copy cut of what every greater scientist already said or did. Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawkings , Albert E. should be burn on by the mob or if had any chance. But you are not so wrong anyway. Ambition of every like me is go after even those brightest and improve upon.But here is difference: takes somebody idea, try to understand how it work and improve. make even better. Not just deny, offer nothing in exchange.

Yep, we could be proud of yourself , even is somebody/everybody call us monkey.
BTW.
How it works in science world.You do not expected to respect Albert Einstein because he received Noble Prize and wrote a book or something.You pay respect when you finally understand what he is saying and that is with perfect agreement with your logic and observations around. If you pay respect to his GR (general relativity ) doesn't bother me at all, because you don't have even probably the slightest idea what is this about. So your respect or none at all is completely useless here.

"You pay respect when you finally understand what he is saying and that is with perfect agreement with your logic and observations around."

So unless you can see something, you disrespect it? So you disrespect Einstein, because you can't observe relativity? You disrespect Brian Schmidt, because you can't see a supernova and measure its distance? You disrespect Gel-Mann, because you can't see an atomic particle's spin?

Why not try to LEARN from them instead of demanding that they be restricted by your very limited knowledge? You don't even understand the basic concepts like dry land salinity! The idea that everyone is limited by YOUR logic is bizarre.

The arrogance of someone like you saying that you are right, when you haven't done a shred of research, and the CSIRO (and BoM) are wrong is disgusting. The conceit of pretending that you know more than people who have spent their working lives in the field is just insane. Get a grip and stop worshipping yourself and saying that you know everything.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

How it works in science world.You do not expected to respect Albert Einstein because he received Noble Prize and wrote a book or something.You pay respect when you finally understand what he is saying

Exactly. Assess what is said rather than who said it.


And don't blindly believe what the fire chief says (or is quoted as saying) just because he happens to be the fire chief. Assess it against what AFAC says about prescribed burning. Also note that the fire chief is a member of AFAC.

knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/4893/overview-of-prescribed-burning-in-australasia.pdf

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
"You pay respect

Yes,I do respect road signs. Because if you don't you get fined. Even if sign doesn't make a sense.
On our newly opened bypass motorway billion dollars worth , the sign says 90.If you bring german engineer here to assess safe speed, will tell you that indeed due to terrain configuration speed limit is needed and exceeding 160 km /h will not be recommended.But our expert know that while you setup speed camera - 90 or less is needed otherwise this important source of income will dry out. So I do disrespect this expert expertise but do respect the sign anyway.


what 90km looks like ?

Myth: Arsonists are largely to blame for the bushfire crisis this year.

Reality: Arsonists' role in starting fires is minute. The current estimate is that arson is responsible for about 1% of the area burnt in NSW and 0.03% in Vic this summer.

www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reveal-arson-not-a-major-cause/11855022

Conspiracy Theory: Arsonists started the fires to make climate change the headline.

Reality: Conspiracy theorists are incapable of logical thought processes. Cue dank memes.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Macroscien said..

How it works in science world.You do not expected to respect Albert Einstein because he received Noble Prize and wrote a book or something.You pay respect when you finally understand what he is saying

Exactly. Assess what is said rather than who said it.


And don't blindly believe what the fire chief says (or is quoted as saying) just because he happens to be the fire chief. Assess it against what AFAC says about prescribed burning. Also note that the fire chief is a member of AFAC.

knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/4893/overview-of-prescribed-burning-in-australasia.pdf

Sure, we can assess what a fire chief says against the AFAC guidelines - but what we can't logically do is say "**** the fire chiefs AND **** the AFAC, I know better than their combined hundreds of years of experience, because I spent ten minutes thinking about it" which is what many people are doing (and I'm not saying you are). The simple cold hard logic is that in almost any subject, other people have spent years studying the field and know more than we do about it.

We also have to accept that we can't always assess what is said because we do not know enough. You and I do not have the ability to assess atomic physics at deep levels. We don't have the ability to find black holes and pulsars and assess their movements and what that means for cosmology. We can't always assess whether a tumour a radiologist found and a lab has assessed is cancerous or not; to us it's just a blob in a jar. This is NOT blind respect for authority - it is simply accepting the fact that we do not have time to find out everything in life and therefore we should respect those who have been studying that area. To use a sporting analogy - I don't have the ability to assess Steve Smith's batting. Should I therefore ignore everything he may tell me about how to bat? If he was coaching me and said I should move my hands, should I say "STFU because I can't see why I should do what you tell me" or should I say "hell yep I'll give it a go because I know you know more than I do about cricket"?

In the case of the CSIRO/BoM study of lake precipitation I mentioned above, we can assume that the two authors probably have PhDs in the relevant area. They therefore probably have spent a total of about 40,000 hours learning about the weather, benefiting from the combined knowledge of thousands of other people and huge amounts of data that lay people cannot assess. And then along comes someone who says "I've spent a few minutes thinking about it and because I am a God, I know more than they have learned in 40,000 hours of study and by using years of data". That is not thinking for yourself, that is being illogical and arrogant.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

have PhDs in the relevant area.

You are preoccupied with titles and positions.
Doesn't matter who said , but what .
BTW>
Large scale irrigation project will not be implemented in Australia for different reason.
Value of the paper to convince sceptics like you do exceed the material and labour cost to build a dam or lake.

Macro you ignore reality a lot of the time, and Chris is just pointing out the reality of trying these schemes. He doesn't seem preoccupied with anything and is just pointing out the shallowness of your ideas. Your steadfast refusal to look at any of these in detail seems pretty consistent.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Macro you ignore reality a lot of the time,

It is called bureaucracy, not CSRIO or research. In order for any project to proceed you need to provide a paper that will not have any adverse environmental impact. Obviously this is a nonsense requirement because any such project will have a great impact to the environment. The point is that benefits exceed harm. So you need to pay "professional researchers. scientists on the payroll " to write to you what you need. Any such project do require whole nation support, not one " crazy 'scientist'" against the rest. You need an army of researchers to combat that adverse effect ( like salinity for example) not army or protesters. If you go systematically, point by point you could resolve all those problems, but don't expect me to write now how to deal with each detail. You need people on the payroll to resolve problems not to project. We could all agree that shouldn't be my concern at all. Why should I bother? One is for sure.
If we do nothing, nothing changes and Australia will remain dry and on fire. At least till next ice age.BTW. Show me just one example where CHRIS is proposing something that could/ should be done. Instead of just negating everything.I mean something meaningful, not like let's do more research, analysis, another conference> But there is a problem. Chris feels that it is completely inappropriate to propose anything because all should be left to experts. Then the definition of an expert - means those on payroll and tittle.

Australia is a dry country and it's plants and animals have adapted to thrive in this environment. We haven't !!!!!!.
The country doesn't need us to move rivers, make deserts wet or drill for more water. We need to change how we live with this land and really value water

Select to expand quote

kato said..
Australia is a dry country and it's plants and animals have adapted to thrive in this environment. We haven't !!!!!!.
The country doesn't need us to move rivers, make deserts wet or drill for more water. We need to change how we live with this land and really value water

Fine. But that means what exactly? How we should adopt to this environment in Australia? Half of the country is on fire. So we all just need to take it as a norm and live with that (?). Slogan does not resolve that problem and next year we will have exactly the same. It is easy to say, let's change how we live> But how exactly change? Do what? or Don't Do What?
This country the size of the Continent is harboring hardly at this moment a mere 24 mln people. By modern standard, we have the most wasteful economy in the whole world, the highest footprint of all.
7,692,024 km2 / 24,600,000 people = 0.321 km2 per person
Taiwan 0.0015 km per person
like 214 x bigger footprint we have

Yes !!! We do need to learn to live within our country's means. We are Australian not Europe or any other country.

When the first fleet arrived in Sydney they of course had to look for a potential vege patch. First impressions were of acres of sandstone. Phillip's second in command, Captain John Hunter found something.

"tolerable land... which may be cultivated without waiting for its being cleared of wood, for the trees stand very wide of one another, and have no underwood, in short, the woods... resemble a deer park, as much as if they had been intended for such a purpose."

a requote out of The Fatal shore by Robert Hughes. Now I know we can't blindly believe what Capt Hunter said , even though he's a captain. They did use flowery language in those days, and he'd been at sea for months. But accounts from other Eurpean explorers and settlers seem to confer the appearance of the country side after tens of thousands of years of aboriginal management.

I doubt if any of the bushland reserves throughout Sydney match this description today.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

kato said..
Australia is a dry country and it's plants and animals have adapted to thrive in this environment. We haven't !!!!!!.
The country doesn't need us to move rivers, make deserts wet or drill for more water. We need to change how we live with this land and really value water

Fine. But that means what exactly? How we should adopt to this environment in Australia? Half of the country is on fire. So we all just need to take it as a norm and live with that (?). Slogan does not resolve that problem and next year we will have exactly the same. It is easy to say, let's change how we live> But how exactly change? Do what? or Don't Do What?
This country the size of the Continent is harboring hardly at this moment a mere 24 mln people. By modern standard, we have the most wasteful economy in the whole world, the highest footprint of all.
7,692,024 km2 / 24,600,000 people = 0.321 km2 per person
Taiwan 0.0015 km per person
like 214 x bigger footprint we have

Mate from comments I am reading from you I just realised you don't live here . I reckon you ought to come and visit Australia sometime and spend more than a week in an air conditioned plane travelling up the east coast. There is bit of a scrub fire on the east coast ,relative to the size of the country , and you say half of Australia? No wonder USA has issued warnings on coming here. Go and visit say Oodnadatta, spend a couple of weeks there , it will do you good.

Select to expand quote

Bananabender said..

Macroscien said..

kato said..
Australia is a dry country and it's plants and animals have adapted to thrive in this environment. We haven't !!!!!!.
The country doesn't need us to move rivers, make deserts wet or drill for more water. We need to change how we live with this land and really value water

Fine. But that means what exactly? How we should adopt to this environment in Australia? Half of the country is on fire. So we all just need to take it as a norm and live with that (?). Slogan does not resolve that problem and next year we will have exactly the same. It is easy to say, let's change how we live> But how exactly change? Do what? or Don't Do What?
This country the size of the Continent is harboring hardly at this moment a mere 24 mln people. By modern standard, we have the most wasteful economy in the whole world, the highest footprint of all.
7,692,024 km2 / 24,600,000 people = 0.321 km2 per person
Taiwan 0.0015 km per person
like 214 x bigger footprint we have

Mate from comments I am reading from you I just realised you don't live here . I reckon you ought to come and visit Australia sometime and spend more than a week in an air conditioned plane travelling up the east coast. There is bit of a scrub fire on the east coast ,relative to the size of the country , and you say half of Australia? No wonder USA has issued warnings on coming here. Go and visit say Oodnadatta, spend a couple of weeks there , it will do you good.

He does.....Queensland

Select to expand quote

kato said..

Bananabender said..

Macroscien said..

kato said..
Australia is a dry country and it's plants and animals have adapted to thrive in this environment. We haven't !!!!!!.
The country doesn't need us to move rivers, make deserts wet or drill for more water. We need to change how we live with this land and really value water

Fine. But that means what exactly? How we should adopt to this environment in Australia? Half of the country is on fire. So we all just need to take it as a norm and live with that (?). Slogan does not resolve that problem and next year we will have exactly the same. It is easy to say, let's change how we live> But how exactly change? Do what? or Don't Do What?
This country the size of the Continent is harboring hardly at this moment a mere 24 mln people. By modern standard, we have the most wasteful economy in the whole world, the highest footprint of all.
7,692,024 km2 / 24,600,000 people = 0.321 km2 per person
Taiwan 0.0015 km per person
like 214 x bigger footprint we have

Mate from comments I am reading from you I just realised you don't live here . I reckon you ought to come and visit Australia sometime and spend more than a week in an air conditioned plane travelling up the east coast. There is bit of a scrub fire on the east coast ,relative to the size of the country , and you say half of Australia? No wonder USA has issued warnings on coming here. Go and visit say Oodnadatta, spend a couple of weeks there , it will do you good.

He does.....Queensland

Noooooo, we're all well rounded knowledgeable red necks up here. So those south of the border think

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..

have PhDs in the relevant area.

You are preoccupied with titles and positions.
Doesn't matter who said , but what .
BTW>
Large scale irrigation project will not be implemented in Australia for different reason.
Value of the paper to convince sceptics like you do exceed the material and labour cost to build a dam or lake.

Rubbish. The fact is that people who have spent years learning know more than an arrogant self-worshipping idiot. People like the authors of that CSIRO/BoM study spent years learning their craft, and only a complete dickhead would be so arrogant as to claim that he knows more than they do despite the fact that he has never studied the area at all.

Let me guess, next thing you'll be telling AA that he knows **** about windsurfing and that he should listen to you about how to gybe, because you are Macro The God and you know everything better than anyone else does.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

kato said..
Australia is a dry country and it's plants and animals have adapted to thrive in this environment. We haven't !!!!!!.
The country doesn't need us to move rivers, make deserts wet or drill for more water. We need to change how we live with this land and really value water

Fine. But that means what exactly? How we should adopt to this environment in Australia? Half of the country is on fire. So we all just need to take it as a norm and live with that (?). Slogan does not resolve that problem and next year we will have exactly the same. It is easy to say, let's change how we live> But how exactly change? Do what? or Don't Do What?
This country the size of the Continent is harboring hardly at this moment a mere 24 mln people. By modern standard, we have the most wasteful economy in the whole world, the highest footprint of all.
7,692,024 km2 / 24,600,000 people = 0.321 km2 per person
Taiwan 0.0015 km per person
like 214 x bigger footprint we have

By your own criteria, Antarctica is far more wasteful. That shows that you'd have to be an ignoramus to think that you can just look at land area per population, without considering the climate, soil, and other relevant details. Australia is mostly desert and therefore it is ridiculous to compare it to Taiwan or Europe.

I know that you think you are always right and always know everything, but if you actually knew anything you would know why your ideas to change that cannot work. It's called physics and reality. For heaven's sake, you somehow managed to ignore something as basic as dry land salinity - they teach 13 year olds about that! For you to know less than a 13 year old but claim that you know more than experts is just utterly dishonest and illogical.

Of course it is up to you to show how the massive problems with your proposals can be solved. Otherwise anyone can propose anything. I may as well say that we should just breed nuclear-powered rainbow unicorns to piddle on every fire, and just make a magic wand to get rid off all the problems. Proposing solutions that ignore the problems is just childish and stupid. Insulting the experts who deal with the reality is just vicious and arrogant.

You are again lying when you say I'm against ideas and change. I would like to see ideas and change. That doesn't mean we listen to some arrogant ****wit who reckons they know everything and insults people who have spent years studying a subject by saying they know nothing about it. Good changes come from research and knowledge, not from ****wit know-all blowhards who have never bothered to learn.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said.

Rubbish.

I know how it works, now. You are simply a bot or troll programmed to negate whatever I say.
Let do the next experiment.
Macro says:
-Chris is the smartest guy on the planet! This is including SB.
-He knows everything about everything and even if he doesn't know, know the expert that knows.
-Chris is very polite, handsome a masculine ( or feminine if chooses so).

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
the shallowness of your ideas.

I love it. If the concept of transforming dry Australia into Green parkland is shallow, you don't want to know my deep ( est) ideas
agree with Kato on one. Maybe indeed we don't need to transform the land we live in, to make it more habitable.
We always could jump into an air-con car or home. Even in next-generation carry/wear space suit designed for Venus atmosphere that keeps us comfy up to 450 Celcius.
We don't even need any greenery or grow vegie - because we could always import some from China ( that have already 1.5 bln mouth to feed and still able to export food.
One day we could burn even the whole lot, and then will be nothing left flammable, then rake the whole country covered with nice sandy beach extending from East to West coast.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said.

Rubbish.

I know how it works, now. You are simply a bot or troll programmed to negate whatever I say.
Let do the next experiment.
Macro says:
-Chris is the smartest guy on the planet! This is including SB.
-He knows everything about everything and even if he doesn't know, know the expert that knows.
-Chris is very polite, handsome a masculine ( or feminine if chooses so).

More lies. I have never claimed to be the smartest person on the planet, I'm ugly, and I don't claim to know everything. I'm just a person who respects the knowledge of those who have bothered to learn their trade, and dislikes ****wits who reckon they know everything like you do.

Anyone who is normally polite can be driven to be rude by your vile arrogance and insults towards people who have actually done things like fight fires and study rainfall. You only deserve respect when you give respect.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..
the shallowness of your ideas.

I love it. If the concept of transforming dry Australia into Green parkland is shallow, you don't want to know my deep ( est) ideas
agree with Kato on one. Maybe indeed we don't need to transform the land we live in, to make it more habitable.
We always could jump into an air-con car or home. Even in next-generation carry/wear space suit designed for Venus atmosphere that keeps us comfy up to 450 Celcius.
We don't even need any greenery or grow vegie - because we could always import some from China ( that have already 1.5 bln mouth to feed and still able to export food.
One day we could burn even the whole lot, and then will be nothing left flammable, then rake the whole country covered with nice sandy beach extending from East to West coast.

Yes, your ideas are shallow. You are missing the point. I could ask a kindergarten class what to do and they would come up with the same ideas as you, but you can excuse them for not understanding the realities of what you propose.

You also never seem to be tied down to reality and flit to another other idea without confirming the first wasn't practical.

I don't think you have any ideas that are deep enough with detail.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said.

Rubbish.

I know how it works, now. You are simply a bot or troll programmed to negate whatever I say.
Let do the next experiment.
Macro says:
-Chris is the smartest guy on the planet! This is including SB.
-He knows everything about everything and even if he doesn't know, know the expert that knows.
-Chris is very polite, handsome a masculine ( or feminine if chooses so).

More lies. I have never claimed to be the smartest person on the planet, nor do I claim to know everything. I'm a person who respects the knowledge of others and doesn't reckons he knows everything like you do.

Works perfectly as planned.
Test input:
-"Chris is the smartest guy on the planet"
output:
-"More lies. I have never claimed to be the smartest person on the planet,"

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..


Anyone who is normally polite can be driven to be rude by your vile arrogance and insults towards people who have actually done things like fight fires and study rainfall. You only deserve respect when you give respect.

To be fair, I don't think he understands exactly why his approach annoys you, and others, so much.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

You also never seem to be tied down to reality

Maybe my ideas are tied to an alternate reality? In my parallel world everything I said works perfectly. I wonder why it is not the case here. What is wrong with your world?


but history knows even more acute disorders of separations from reality.

BTW>
what you named disassociation from reality I would call rather " healthy emotional distance to the experimental subject"
If my laboratory white mice marked FN bite me, I don't take it personally.
Rat subject labeled CH239 can be controlled with electric shock too if exceed parameters boundary of the experiment.
Now, back to work my babies ...type something till light is still on, all cages closing at 10 Pm

I ran another test myself.

Post something and see if the response that came back was logical and reasoned.

No.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

I could ask a kindergarten class what to do and they would come up with the same ideas as you,

excellent. that is a perfect example of what people do while not handicapped by age.
Usually your brain do loose creativity at the age of 18