Pirkko Rygh

Vindkraften er brennbar, bokstavelig, https://www.iltalehti.fi/iltvuutiset/a/b49ecb00-40be-4df5-b21b-41989976dfec

Og så brenner de, en må vel regne en del forurensning, sikkert kjelt når det er riktig tørt på bakken, for det fløy visst brennende deler her og. https://www.iltalehti.fi/iltvuutiset/a/b49ecb00-40be-4df5-b21b-41989976dfec

Denne fra BBC er litt mer dypgående, gir litt mer info. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Svovelheksafluorid - SF6, gjør annet enn dreper fugler, den er den mest potente klimagassen, 23500 ganger mer enn CO2. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197 "Cheap and non-flammable, SF6 is a colourless, odourless, synthetic gas. It makes a hugely effective insulating material for medium and high-voltage electrical installations. It is widely used across the industry, from large power stations to wind turbines to electrical sub-stations in towns and cities. It prevents electrical accidents and fires. However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2). Just one kilogram of SF6 warms the Earth to the same extent as 24 people flying London to New York return. It also persists in the atmosphere for a long time, warming the Earth for at least 1,000 years.

Lurer også på om denne gassen er slekt med "KFK-11. I tillegg til å skade ozonlaget bidrar den til store klimagassutslipp." https://www.aftenposten.no/verden/i/6nQE9W/verdenssamfunnet-reddet-ozonlaget-for-30-aar-siden-naa-stikker-kina-kjepper-i-hjulene

Eller kanskje det er noe helt annet, som dette f.eks. "Svovelheksafluorid, alminnelig kjent som SF6, har i det siste dukket opp i mediebildet. Flere artikler peker på at veksten i fornybar energi, spesielt vindturbiner, er ansvarlig for økningen av klimaskadelige SF6-utslipp. Enkelte går så langt at de sier at denne gassen er energisektorens skitne lille hemmelighet. I lys av dette spurte vi flere eksperter fra NTNU og SINTEF om å skille sannhetene fra mytene. SF6 er miljøskadelig: RIKTIG. SF6 er en industrigass som ikke finnes naturlig i atmosfæren. Den er en kraftig klimagass som forsterker drivhuseffekten, og dermed klimaendringene vi nå opplever. – Det er riktig at SF6 har mellom 22 000 og 23 500 ganger sterkere oppvarmingspotensial enn CO2, sett i et 100-årsperspektiv. Gassen har en stabilitet som gjør at den har en beregnet livstid på opptil 3 200 år. Denne kjensgjerningen gjør SF6 til den mest kraftige, kjemisk reaktive drivhusgassen som er undersøkt av FNs klimapanel, sier NTNU-professor Francesco Cherubini. – Konsentrasjonen av gassen i atmosfæren er økende, derfor er det bra å være oppmerksom på dette. Men det er viktig å sette bruken av SF6 i sammenheng: Selv om det er en farlig drivhusgass, bidrar den i dag til under 1 prosent av menneskeskapt oppvarming, legger han til. https://www.tu.no/artikler/myter-og-sannheter-om-en-av-vare-kraftigste-drivhusgasser-sf6/482852

Og brukes dette i motsvarende anlegg verden rundt, Kina, India, og andre land som kanskje ikke er helt like nøye på det. Hvordan er bruken, og mengden, internasjonalt? Kanskje det er denne som øker tempereaturen globalt? Har det blitt regnet hvor mye CO2 kan slippes ut sammenlignet med mengdene og effekten av dette?

Sjekk forresten nedbørskartet det er meget informativ, bare en side. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/?fbclid=IwAR2fUMmwkIr9NvJaxaNWpB1h8vaP8aNP9Aim27yGJ6r8xxcHc-lmuxdIFJg

De blir normal brent om vinteren skriver de. Og når det gjelder Australia så har det brent der så lenge det har vært folk der. Det var jo store flommer der noen år siden.

Du har mangelfull kunnskap om klima i Australia, de har, har alltid hatt, tydelig tørketid om sommeren, de har alltid hatt bushfires der, det er slik det er der. Se nå først på dette, det er nedbørsstatistikk langt tilbake. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/?fbclid=IwAR2fUMmwkIr9NvJaxaNWpB1h8v så dette, "Abstract Background: Widespread invasion by non-native plants has resulted in substantial change in fire-fuel characteristics and fire-behaviour in many of the world’s ecosystems, with a subsequent increase in the risk of fire damage to human life, property and the environment. Models used by fire management agencies to assess fire risk are dependent on accurate assessments of fuel characteristics but there is little evidence that they have been modified to reflect landscape-scale invasions. There is also a paucity of information documenting other changes in fire management activities that have occurred to mitigate changed fire regimes. This represents an important limitation in information for both fire and weed risk management. Methodology/Principal Findings: We undertook an aerial survey to estimate changes to landscape fuel loads in northern Australia resulting from invasion by Andropogon gayanus (gamba grass). Fuel load within the most densely invaded area had increased from 6 to 10 t ha21 in the past two decades. Assessment of the effect of calculating the Grassland Fire Danger Index (GFDI) for the 2008 and 2009 fire seasons demonstrated that an increase from 6 to 10 t ha21 resulted in an increase from five to 38 days with fire risk in the ‘severe’ category in 2008 and from 11 to 67 days in 2009. The season of severe fire weather increased by six weeks. Our assessment of the effect of increased fuel load on fire management practices showed that fire management costs in the region have increased markedly (,9 times) in the past decade due primarily to A. gayanus invasion. Conclusions/Significance: This study demonstrated the high economic cost of mitigating fire impacts of an invasive grass. This study demonstrates the need to quantify direct and indirect invasion costs to assess the risk of further invasion and to appropriately fund fire and weed management strategies." så dette "Environmentalists Made Australia’s Bush Fires Worse" https://harbingersdaily.com/environmentalists-made-australias-bush-fires-worse/ og her, dette er fra Australias regjering så tror ikke ble så veldig lurt, ikke du heller vil bli det, om du ikke leser viser det at du egentlig ikke er interessert i det faglige, og har bare en agenda. Obs. jeg har bare tatt frem en liten del, det er mye mer å lese. Jeg er forøvrig biolog, med utdannelse fra Universitet i Helsinki, også med klimatologi, og jeg har generelle kunnskaper om det meste innen biologi, geografi og botanikk. (hva har du?) "Bushfires Fire regimes vary in different parts of Australia due to climate and vegetation type. The fire intensities depend upon weather and fuel load. The rate of spread of a fire is affected by a variety of issues including wind speed, moisture content of the fuel, fuel particle size, vegetation height, fuel bulk density, percentage of dead fuels, and topography.(13) The amount of fuel determines the amount of heat that may be released in a fire but the rate at which that heat is released is determined by properties of the fuel, weather, wind direction and topography.(14) The McArthur forest and grassland meters have been developed to predict fire spread rate in eastern Australia while Forest Fire Behaviour Tables were developed for conditions in Western Australia. Such prediction equations have their limitations in that they are fuel-type specific.(15) However such predictors of fire spread are being upgraded with increased knowledge. Fire intensities vary and are the product of the heat yield of the fuel, the amount of fuel per unit area and the rate of spread of the fire. A 'low' intensity fire would produce less than 350 kilowatts per metre (kW/m) of fire edge, 'high' would be 350 3500 kW/m, 'very high' would be 3500 35 000 kW/m, and 'extreme' would be greater than 35 000 kW/m.(16) There is a great variation of a fire's impact on the forest, depending upon the intensity. Whereas a low intensity fire may only scorch the leaves of the lower forest crown, higher intensity fires will completely defoliate the entire crown of the forest.(17) The effects of a fire are only partially related to fire intensity. A fast moving grass fire in a forest, which is as intense as a slower moving fire burning dense shrub understorey, will not have the same impact on the forest overstorey because of a lower total heat load from the fire.(18) As mentioned above, topography is a significant component, along with wind speed, direction and fuel dryness, of the rate of spread of a fire. The rate of spread of a fire will double with every ten degrees of increase in the slope.(19) This has implications for the movement of fires in heavily bisected country as occurs in the Sydney region where fires can quickly run up from gullies to engulf houses at the top of the plateau. This poses a different sort of risk compared with forests growing in the more gentle topography that is found for example in the southwest of Western Australia. It is also possible that 'spotting' from a fire, where flaming bark and twigs are thrown into the air and ignite fires ahead of the fire front, may increase a fire's spread rate and affect the fire suppression efforts. However the main influence of spotting is to overcome the discontinuities of fuel and topography. Fuel reduction burning can reduce the hazard of spotting from eucalypt bark, in some cases for up to seven to ten years.(20)" https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib08

En del av brannene er påtent, helt upåvirket om du tror på det eller ikke. Brannene har ingenting med global oppvarming å gjøre, de har bare ikke fjernet nok brennbart fra skogene, det har samlet seg for mye brennbart, og da det tar fyr, enten det er pyroman eller lyn, så brenner det friskt. Du bør stole på vitenskapen og lese linkene Nautica har lagt ut over her, da skjønner du det bedre.

Det hørtes ut ja, at det var de 42 grader som tente på. Hele poenget her er at det blir knusktørt i Australia hver sommer, de har tørketid om sommeren, det er slik klima der er. Og det er slik klima der har vært i alle år, innfødte der, før vesten og andre kom drev med preventiv brenning. Og de første innflyttere fortsatte med den praksisen. Det eneste som er vesentlig forskjellig der nå er at de i seneste tiden har begrenset muligheten å brenne preventivt, og da akkumuleres jo tørt, det er tørketid der nå, materiale, visne planter, tørre kvister, tørt gress. Det er ikke lov å felle trær som er lenger unna husene enn 10 m, og fjerne kratt som er lenger unna enn 50 m fra husene. Tenk deg, det er slik tørkesommer som ifjor, men i hele sommeren, du har vegetasjon som har tilpasset seg det, mesteparten tørt og vissent. Nærmeste trær er 10 m fra huset ditt, og det tette knusktørre krattet 50 m unna, i tillegg har du eukalyptustrær som de lokale kaller "gasolinetree" siden hele treet er fullt med meget brennbare olje (det er dette som skaper de brannstormene som flytter seg i tretoppene), og så tar dette fyr, noen med fyrstikker eller lyn. Hvor stor mulighet tror du huset ditt har? Antar at du er fagmann av noe slag siden du skriver her. Og så skrives det at så mange hus har brent, det hadde vært et under om de ikke hadde brent. Forholdene i Australia er helt forskjellige i forhold til Norge, de har helt annen klima, og naturen der har på mange måter tilpasset seg til "bushfires" som skjer hvert år, de kan ikke sammenlignes med våre skogbranner. Her i Norge ryddes vel ikke hogstområder fra kvist og rusk, det blir "raket" i Finland, og fjernet, linken kan du se over i første kommentaren min. Og det brenner betydelig mindre i Finland. Og verste, de har veldig dårlig beredskap, noen brannflyer hadde gjort mye, det er jo mest langs kysten det brenner, masse vann i havet, leste et sted at de har ET mindre fly, hvorfor tar de sg ikke sammen og slukker, hadde det vært her i landet tror jeg det ikke hadde gått. "The word "bushfire" builds on the concept of "the bush," referring to sparsely-inhabited regions. Bushfires in Australia are generally defined as uncontrolled, non-structural fires burning in a grass, scrub, bush, or forested area. Australia, being a geographically and meteorogically diverse continent, experiences many types of bushfires. There are two main categories, depending on local topography. Hilly/mountainous fires – burn in hilly, mountainous or alpine areas which are usually densely forested. The land is less accessible and not conducive to agriculture, thus many of these densely forested areas have been saved from deforestation and are protected by national, state and other parks. The steep terrain increases the speed and intensity of a firestorm. Where settlements are located in hilly or mountainous areas, bushfires can pose a threat to both life and property. Flat/grassland fires – burn along flat plains or areas of small undulation, predominantly covered in grasses or scrubland. These fires can move quickly, fanned by high winds in flat topography, and they quickly consume the small amounts of fuel/vegetation available. These fires pose less of a threat to settlements as they rarely reach the same intensity seen in major firestorms as the land is flat, the fires are easier to map and predict, and the terrain is more accessible for firefighting personnel. Many regions of predominantly flat terrain in Australia have been almost completely deforested for agriculture, reducing the fuel loads which would otherwise facilitate fires in these areas." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia

"Bushfires" er normale i Australia, i tørketiden, såvidt jeg har forstått riktig det som er forskjellig denne gangen er at "preventivt brenning" har blitt redusert, og stoppet for å ikke skape CO2. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ancient-indigenous-burning-practices-could-help Det har vært "normalt" å fjerne/brenne tørt løv, kvister, tørr gress og annet brennbart på bakken utenfor sommerens tørkeperiode, lage branngater, for å hindre undervegetasjonen skulle brenne så kraftig at tretoppene skulle ta fyr. Det er også i tretoppene f.eks koala bor. Eucalyptustrær, som er stedegne for Australia, har tilpasset seg branner, og tåler det. "Designed to thrive after fires Like many plants native to fire-prone regions, eucalyptus trees (aka gum trees in Australia) are adapted to survive — or even thrive — in a wildfire. Fallen eucalyptus leaves create dense carpets of flammable material, and the trees' bark peels off in long streamers that drop to the ground, providing additional fuel that draws ground fires up into the leaves, creating massive, fast-spreading "crown fires" in the upper story of eucalyptus forests. Additionally, the eucalyptus oil that gives the trees their characteristic spicy fragrance is a flammable oil: This oil, combined with leaf litter and peeling bark during periods of dry, windy weather, can turn a small ground fire into a terrifying, explosive firestorm in a matter of minutes. That's why eucalyptus trees — especially the blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus) that are common throughout New South Wales — are sometimes referred to wryly as "gasoline trees." And after a bushfire sweeps through an area, the eucalyptus trees have an advantage over other plants. Their seed capsules open up when burned, and the seedlings thrive in freshly burned, ash-rich soils." https://www.livescience.com/40583-australia-wildfires-eucalyptus-trees-bushfires.html I Finland, hvor jeg kommer fra blir hogstfeltene preventivt ryddet for å fjerne brennbart undervegetasjon og tørre kvister o.l. Noen husker kanskje hvordan folk lo av Trump som nevnte "raking" i forbindelse med brannene i California, årsaken til disse brannene er akkurat det samme som i Australia, for tett skog, tett undervegetasjon og eucalyptustrær, som har blitt plantet og forvillet seg der. Og noen som tente på. "PG&E's settlement relates to claims over several deadly blazes: The 2018 Camp Fire which killed 85 people in and around the town of Paradise. Investigators blamed the fire on PG&E transmission lines The 2017 Northern California wildfires, which swept through the state's wine country killing more than 30 people" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50697816 Trump hadde nemlig rett, det skulle ha blitt "raket" der. "Trump was right about “raking” Finnish forests" "One of the most pressing ecological problems today is preservationist forestry principles. This ideological approach prevents harvesting mature (or even any) trees, thinning out dense stands of timber to remove excess biomass (and thus allowing remaining trees to grow better, faster, thicker and taller), or even removing dense underbrush. This leads to an over-accumulation of biomass in trees and on forest floors. It makes forests vulnerable to raging and fast moving forest fires, especially during dry seasons, even more so when winds are blowing. If these policies are accompanied by active suppression of forest fires over long periods of time – or by policies of not dousing “natural” fires until they become really big and dangerous – any ignition can lead to catastrophic events that cause tragic loss of property and human lives." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/12/trump-was-right-about-raking-finnish-forests/ De gjør det nå i California. t’s a hot day in Ukiah in mid-June, with temperatures in the mid-90s, and fire crews are chainsawing and bulldozing their way through thick trees and brush, racing to reduce the dangerous combustibles. Crews in this rural area north of San Francisco have done this kind of fuel reduction in past years, yet not at this pace, nor with this much public and political support. The work they’re doing — clearing and thinning 100-ft. wide swaths of land to help hold back flames — is one of 35 projects fast-tracked by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has made wildfires a high-profile focus since taking office in January. Locals are on board, too: This project cuts through hundreds of parcels of privately owned land. Getting permission to access residents’ property used to take convincing, says Ukiah battalion chief Michael Maynard. “Now it’s like carte blanche,” he says. “Do whatever you want.” https://time.com/5618350/california-fire-prep-facing-obstacles/ Har vært noen fb nettsteder, og får en vrang følelse at en del klimafanatikere jubler over brannene for nå har de "beviser" at det er global oppvarming." Jeg er forøvrig pensjonert biolog med utdannelse fra Universitet i Helsinki, og kvinne. "Australia er på alle måter en kontinent som er unik på kloden, dyrelivet, plantene, alt, om de frykter klimaendringer, som vil medføre mer tørke og høyere temperaturer = mer branner, burde de ikke heller gjøre sitt alt for å redusere risikoen for slike katastrofebranner? Burde de ikke utføre enda mere preventiv brenning, lage enda breiere branngater, tynne ut busker og kratter enda mere, ha mere enn et brannfly, og større, ha fast belønnet brannmannskap, med lettere å få hjelp fra forsvaret. Men istedet gjør de akkurat det motsatte. Øker den brennbare massen sinnsykt, kutter brannhemmende tiltak, lar krattet spre seg, der det er mye som kan brenne brenner det mye, og det er som om de stablet tennved rundt omkring i naturen. Men istedet lager de "A kind of ecological fundamentalism has taken the place of common sense" de reduserer den preventive brenningen, kutter bort branngater, har ikke nok utstyr for brannvesenet, lar buskasen gro helt inntil husene, ja, faktisk nekter huseiere å felle trær og fjerne kratt inntil husene, med lov, og store bøter. Med slike regler ville også norske hus brenne i tilfelle skogbrann. "The new laws provide that people in the designated 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area have. You do not need approval to have clear trees on the property within 10 meters of the home. You can clear the vegetation such as shrubs on the property that is within 50 meters without any approval from the authorities." https://www.shanestrees.com.au/1050-tree-removal-legislation/ Og så skylder de på klimaforandringer, nei, de har skapt problemene selv. De har brent landet sitt selv. Og hvem er de som har forlangt at de skulle begrense brannhindrende tiltak, ville ha mer kratt og færre branngater, gjett, kunne det være de som ville ikke ha CO2 fra alle forebyggende branner, klimaaktivistene, og idag har de demonstrert, de kunne heller ha brukt vettet tidligere. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/fight-fire-with-fire-controlled-burning-could-have-protected-australia/ Noen som virkelig helt seriøst tror at CO2 forbud i 2008 hadde hindret disse brannene nå? At to grader varmere sommerdag skulle tenne så store områder, at 42 grader er nok å tenne skogen, å få fyr i tre kreves 300 grader. Om en samler mye brennbart i et sted og setter fyr på det så brenner det, jo.

Blir hard jobb "Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about 66% of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions. On average these trends have been less severe or avoided in areas held or managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. More than a third of the world’s land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater resources are now devoted to crop or livestock production. The value of agricultural crop production has increased by about 300% since 1970, raw timber harvest has risen by 45% and approximately 60 billion tons of renewable and nonrenewable resources are now extracted globally every year – having nearly doubled since 1980. Land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23% of the global land surface, up to US$577 billion in annual global crops are at risk from pollinator loss and 100-300 million people are at increased risk of floods and hurricanes because of loss of coastal habitats and protection. In 2015, 33% of marine fish stocks were being harvested at unsustainable levels; 60% were maximally sustainably fished, with just 7% harvested at levels lower than what can be sustainably fished. Urban areas have more than doubled since 1992. Plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, 300-400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes from industrial facilities are dumped annually into the world’s waters, and fertilizers entering coastal ecosystems have produced more than 400 ocean ‘dead zones’, totalling more than 245,000 km2 (591-595) - a combined area greater than that of the United Kingdom. Negative trends in nature will continue to 2050 and beyond in all of the policy scenarios explored in the Report, except those that include transformative change – due to the projected impacts of increasing land-use change, exploitation of organisms and climate change, although with significant differences between regions." https://ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment Og så spår FN at verdens befolkning øker med 44 % til 11.2 milliarder, 3.1 av de kommer i Afrika, totalen der blir 4.3 milliarder, tre ganger så mange som Kinas befolkning nå. Men FN mener det er ikke noe problem. "Ocean deoxygenation : everyone’s problem" https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48892 I tillegg bruker økende befolkning større og større del av ferskvann fra elvene, noe som til slutt må begynne å påvirke saliniteten i havet.

Waterstress er over hele kloden Kina, "Water stress is defined as the total annual water withdrawals (municipal, industrial and agricultural) as a percent of the total annual available surface water. High values indicate more competition among users—a value above 40 percent is considered as “high water stress,” and above 80 percent as “extremely high.” Overall, water stress across 54 percent of China’s total land area worsened from 2001 to 2010, while 8 percent of the country’s total land area, an area slightly larger than the U.S. state of Texas, moved into a higher category of water stress." https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/chinas-water-stress-rise India, "20 Jun 2019 At least 21 cities in India, including capital New Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai and Hyderabad, will run out of groundwater by 2020, affecting around 100 million people. India's news network NDTV said 40 percent of India's population will have no access to drinking water by 2030, according to a report by the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog) - the country's principal planning organisation. " https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/india-running-wate Afrika har blitt nevnt over. Sør-Amerika "Increasing population and demand for water are the main causes behind a major drought in southeastern Brazil in 2014-15, a new study finds. Using three separate approaches, the researchers find that climate change has not increased the chances of droughts occurring in the region, and that similarly unusual dry periods have occurred in the past." "The main reason for the water shortages was rising population and water demand, the study finds. São Paulo alone is home to around 20m people, and population has risen by 20% over the past 20 years, while daily water use – at 180 litres per person – is 50% higher than in Germany." "There are other aspects of human activity that could be affecting rainfall in Brazil. Scientists say that deforestation in the Amazon may be influencing rainfall in Brazil more widely. As trees “sweat” through transpiration, they transfer moisture into the atmosphere – around 20bn metric tons of water per day. This moisture then falls as rain over the Amazon or is carried away on air currents known as aerial rivers. Removing trees reduces how much water is released to the atmosphere, meaning less moisture is available to become rain. Dr Antonio Nobre, senior researcher at the National Institute of Amazonian Research, who wasn’t involved in the BAMS study, tells Carbon Brief: In normal years, most of the rainfall feeding the Southeast is carried from the Amazon through the aerial rivers. The link of deforestation with reduced rainfall within the Amazon is well established. One needs only to connect the dots." https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-not-a-major-in