https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/tasmania-urged-invest-more-renewable-075547967.html

Tasmania has been urged to invest more in renewable energy despite the state-owned electricity generator, Hydro Tasmania, facing serious financial challenges.

A defunct carbon tax, uncertainty around the renewable energy target (RET) and a changing climate are all posing threats to the renewable energy producer.

Hydro Tasmania has all but abandoned plans to build the world's largest wind farm on King Island, but insists its future prospects are favourable.


----------

something tangible that could be done ... but won't probably

because ... the IPCC (themselves) ... have stated that renewable subsidies shouldn't go hand in hand with co2 trading/taxation

who would invest when the orchestrators of the co2 trading say that ... TRADING CO2 is all they want

and when they're trading it (over and above set caps) then to make any money at all ... we have to burn ... MORE

any chance of an alternative energy source will essentially be killed off in their quest to plunder the co2 game and strip sovereign wealth

SHAME ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

BIGGEST RORT EVER (CO2 TRADING)

"So shutting down the thermal power capacity in Beijing would be replaced within one week in China."

sad i agree .. but the chinese are perfectionists at inscrutability

----

but ...  the biggest problem with greenhouse gases has yet to be discussed properly by the IPCC

agricultural emmissions

so what might think is the way to go with that smoking gun ... tax & trade food no doubt ... for the good of who (the bankers)

how will it stop people growing ... to eat

the tax & trade plan on co2 ... is the biggest con being projected on people in the history of the world


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2014-08/06/c_133535706.htm

Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activity in Latin America doubled in the past 50 years and will continue to worsen if nothing is done to reverse the trend, a United Nations (UN) agency said Tuesday.

Emissions of carbon dioxide from agricultural and animal farming in the region increased from 388 million tons to more than 900 million tons between 1961 and 2010, the Latin American regional office of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said.

Emissions from ranching (farming) make up 88 percent of the total.

UN figures show that Latin America is the world's second-largest producer of agricultural greenhouse gases, responsible for 17 percent of the total.

Asia, with 44 percent, is the biggest, followed by Africa, Europe and North America.

agricultural emissions are bing worked on, well they were until the CSIRO started getting gutted

i think they'll all become a focus over the next few years, Clinton will win in the US and get together with China to drive global changes

i'm not a super big fan of nuclear but it is cleaner

if the CSIRO came up with a solution for here it could be spread worldwide

the economy will suffer more in the longer term if we don't do something now imo

nah - stopping the farts

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/livestock-methane-emissions.aspx


Fast Facts

    Ruminants such as sheep and cattle produce methane as a by-product of digesting plant material
    Methane from ruminants account for approximately 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions
    CSIRO is undertaking three related projects that aim to reduce livestock methane emissions per unit of product:
        studying gut microbes to improve rumen function in livestock
        measuring methane emissions from cattle in northern Australia
        investigating anti-microbial properties of alternative forages

huge potential for farmers to open up alternate revenue streams under an ETS Thebas

poor buggers at the CSIRO - this government hates science

best do some stuff, enjoy your day

and a new player enters ... the ABC listen to them tell australia what is best for australia

olam international on Landline ffs

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-10/agricultural-giant-says-climate-change-absolutely-real/5659058

The head of one of the world's largest agricultural commodity trading companies is warning Australian primary producers to take climate change seriously.

Olam International chief executive Sunny Verghese has told Landline that agricultural producers and processors need to take action now.

-----

of course what the abc forgot to tell us was ...

what is an agricultural commodity trading company ?   from their website

Olam’s Commodity Financial Services (CFS) business was started in 2003 when we decided to leverage our knowledge of leading-edge risk management practices to develop our ‘latent asset’ in the space of both commodity and derivative markets.

Since launch, this initiative has witnessed strong growth, and in July 2010, we organically developed an independent business under the name Invenio.

Today, Invenio has already achieved a leadership position on the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange

http://olamgroup.com/products-services/commodity-financial-services/

---

so they dont grow anything .. they just trade other peoples hard work ... with leverage

---

then we heard in 2007 that they ...

Olam International Ltd., a commodity supplier backed by Singapore’s Temasek Holdings Pte, may enter the carbon credits market based on the acquisition of a timber project in the republics of Congo and Gabon.

---

and later from greenpeace ...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/world-bank-cuts-olam-funding-121207/

Olam's involvement in illegal timber trade was first detailed in our Carving up the Congo report published earlier this year.

The report illustrated how Olam was holding forest land in the Congo granted in breach of a moratorium on the granting of new logging titles, which the World Bank itself had helped to establish.

The report also described how Olam was sourcing timber from destructive and illegal operations through de-facto subcontracting agreements with third-party suppliers involved in illegal logging.

While Olam has subsequently returned logging titles obtained in breach of the moratorium, it continues to trade in destructive and illegal timber.

----

BUT BY ALL MEANS OLAM ... COME TO AUSTRALIA ... AND PREACH YOUR WISHES FOR OUR SOVEREIGN WEALTH ON TRADING CO2

CARBON CREDIT TRADING FROM AN AGRICULTURAL "COMMODITY TRADING" FIRM   

FFS

SHAME ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

look out for global cooling

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-measures-like-primitive-civilisations-offering-up-sacrifices-to-appease-the-gods-says-maurice-newman-20140814-3do0v.html

damn - here is part of it - looks like he hooked Bandt and is reeling him in

Mr Newman writes "in times of peace and when government debts and deficits are growing daily, it is hard to persuade voters to trade off immediate benefits for increased defence spending, let alone prepare them, after all the warming propaganda, that global cooling is a possibility".

He argues that current investments in renewable energies to combat the threat of global warming will make it harder to secure energy in a colder climate.

"Cheap electricity in a colder climate will be critical, yet distorted price signals caused by renewable energy policies are driving out reliable base load generators," he says.

"This has inflicted serious damage on economies and diminished the West's standing and effectiveness in world affairs."

While he says "only time will tell" if the planet cools instead of warms, he believes "it is fanciful to believe that it will be business as usual in a colder global climate".

He says "a scenario where nations are desperately competing for available energy and food will bring unpredictable threats, far more testing than anything we have seen in recent history".

But he fears the "political establishment" is deaf to risks of global cooling because "having made science a religion, it bravely persists with its global warming narrative, ignoring at its peril and ours, the clear warnings being given by Mother Nature".

Greens MP Adam Bandt says Maurice Newman's comments border on "deranged" and has called on Mr Abbott to dump his top business advisor.

“Maurice Newman's latest statements are channelling the flat earth commentary of a lunatic fringe,” Mr Bandt said.

"Tony Abbott needs to repudiate these views and dump Mr Newman from his business advisory council," he said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-measures-like-primitive-civilisations-offering-up-sacrifices-to-appease-the-gods-says-maurice-newman-20140814-3do0v.html#ixzz3AMuVrdoq

Bandt is/was correct regarding both Newman and Bushfires.

The ignition point/cause..(Lightning? Human?) of the bushfire is irrelevant when discussing Climate Change and its effect on the

combustion of bushfires.

So..... who started it and how it started does not change the fact that that Climate Change is altering for  worse the frequency and

intensity of bush fires in Australia.

Any DILL should know that.


What a disgrace of a Gov't taking advice from d ick heads like Newman.

From conspiracy theories to climate change denial, a cognitive psychologist explains

17 April 2014
theconversationdotcom

Disclosure Statement

Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the World University Network, and the Royal Society.

The University of Bristol Provides funding as a Founding Partner of The Conversation.
bristol.ac.uk

Stephan Lewandowsky, chair of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, answered questions posed by the public on Reddit. The Conversation has curated the highlights.

Conspiracy theories

Under what conditions do conspiracies spread? What can one do to convince people to be more sceptical of extraordinary claims in conspiracy theories?

In societies that are not transparent and less democratic, conspiracy theories flourish because the government cannot be trusted. In general, the people who believe in conspiracy theories are low on trust and feel that they have been treated badly by life or society.

Countering this is very difficult, but education and reducing inequality will go a long way.

Can you name one conspiracy theory that turned out to be true?

The tobacco industry is now known to have “conspired” against the public in their efforts to undermine the well-established scientific evidence linking smoking to ill health. One of the US judges famously said: “The US tobacco industry has engaged in a criminal conspiracy for more than 50 years.”

What kind of cognitive traits does conspiratorial thinking exhibit?

There are some researchers who have linked conspiracy beliefs to personality variables. So yes, it is quite possibly a stable characteristic of some sort. The most striking thing is that conspiratorial thinking can be self-contradictory, for example people think MI6 killed Princess Diana while also thinking that she faked her own death.

To what extent do you see climate conspiracists denying climate change science as opposed to denying the feasibility of providing an economically acceptable solution to reversing its effects?

Very interesting question. I cannot be certain because I do not have data that speak to this issue directly. However, in general, conspiracism is just one form of “motivated cognition”. There are others, such as worldview defence. The reason worldviews are inflamed by climate change is because of the threat of government interference with the free market that might result from mitigation efforts. It is for this reason that people who cherish free markets are less inclined to oppose mitigation when it is framed as providing an opportunity for the nuclear industry than when it is framed as pollution cuts.

Bottom line: It is pretty clear that fear of the solutions drives much opposition to the science. This manifests itself in motivated cognition, and one form of that is conspiracism. That said, it is notable that other science denial – for instance HIV-AIDS – also involves conspiracism, and the links to worldviews are less clear there.
Climate change denial

How important are political ideologies in understanding the rejection of climate science?

I can ask people four questions about the free market and I have roughly 67% “confidence” (that is, variance) in their attitudes towards climate change.

As a conservative, I find myself in the frustrating position of being one of the few among my inner circle who is not a dogmatic climate change sceptic. It’s happening and humanity is contributing in a major way. Something that does frustrate me, however, is misinformation about exactly what steps would need to be taken to seriously combat global warming effects. What are your thoughts on this?

Recycling is largely a farce. Yes, it is better to recycle that soda bottle than to throw it out. But what is far better is to reuse it or not use it in the first place. But there’s no political will to move the needle on the economic to support such a system. (I do try to recycle anyway, by the way. I just don’t pretend that it makes any significant difference.)

Gasoline use is even worse. The fact is that, without abundant sources of non-fossil-fuel power, we are going to burn every last bit of carbon we can pull out of the earth’s crust. Me driving an electric vehicle (which I don’t, by the way) just makes it that much easier for someone on the other side of the world to fill up their gas tank.

I think there is, however, some utility in the example that it sets. If my vegan friends make a dinner that is fantastic and satisfying, maybe their decreased resource consumption gives me some ideas how to reduce my consumption of meat. My neighbour’s electric vehicle might convince me that I don’t need to drive a gas-guzzling SUV, and might help incrementally advance the technology to make a wholesale change in power for transportation possible.

Overall, the micro-level stuff is small potatoes, and won’t make a difference without the macro stuff. But I think the micro stuff can help sell the macro stuff, and that’s the reason it matters.

Do you think that people with same views (no matter how absurd) will easily find each other and gather around somewhere?

Yes, there are cyberghettos and clusterings. This is a problem all in itself already, but to make matters worse, it creates an incentive for politicians to engage in more extremist dialogue. Work by economists has shown that it is advantageous for politicians to be extreme if messages to their followers remained inside an echo chamber. As a consequence, whereas politicians used to compete for the “median voter”, it is now advantageous to be extremist. This has undesirable consequences for us all.

How much of an effect has science denial had on the progress of the science itself?

It is difficult to quantify, but there is some evidence to suggest that science denial has affected not just public discourse but also science itself. For example, an analysis of media coverage found that the IPCC reports in 2007 were more likely to underestimate than overestimate the risk from climate change. A more recent analysis expanded on this topic and argued that scientists' natural reticence biases them towards cautious estimates rather than alarmism, a tendency they call erring on the side of least drama.

Is it a waste of my time trying to convince those that don’t believe in climate change or should I just focus on helping those that do become more educated?

The answer is pretty nuanced: There are some people who are so entrenched in their contrarian views that there is little point in talking to them about anything other than solutions. In the end, it doesn’t matter what a person thinks about climate change if they put a solar panel on their roof – and who wouldn’t in Geraldton, Western Australia?

However, there are also people who really want to know more, and whose reticence to accept the science arises from lack of information. I would send those people to Skeptical Science. Differentiating between entrenched contrarians and those who are open to knowing more is challenging because sometimes it is difficult to know at the outset.

What kind of dialogue may perhaps serve to move the national discussion in a more productive direction, given your insights into the psychology of denial?

My views are: first, the public is currently being denied the right to be fully informed about the risks it is facing. Second, there are many reasons for this, from “doubt-mongering” to ideologically-motivated denial. Third, we know from much research on misinformation that people cannot dismiss “noise” or misinformation unless they are given a reason to do so. This is why it is important for the public to understand who the people are who oppose climate science.

In a nutshell: underscore the consensus which will move all but the hardcore, and identify who the hardcore contrarians are so the remainder of the population can make an educated choice about who to listen to.

I will graduate this year with an MSc in Climate Change. What should someone with my skills be doing in order to do a job which benefits the planet?

I think that scientists themselves could refine their messaging. Often they put the uncertainty first, without saying what we do know or without saying that uncertainty is a compelling reason to mitigate. That said, also remember that the problem is compounded by the role of worldviews. To overcome that, emphasising the consensus is only a partial tool.

You post more c rap on this subject than anything else.

What a team.......you...... SC,,,, Newman.... Abbott.... and all the denialist's

lumped together in a slow burning pot of water screaming it's really nice and warm in here ....

But it's actually cooling.....

theguardiandotcom

Graham Readfearn

Fact check: How Maurice Newman misrepresents science to claim future global cooling

Picking over the climate science denialist claims of Tony Abbott’s top business advisor

Maurice Newman, Tony Abbott's top business advisor, claims the world should prepare for global cooling Maurice Newman, Tony Abbott’s top business advisor, claims the world should prepare for global cooling. Photograph: Daniel Munoz/Reuters/REUTERS

Maybe Maurice Newman was hoping nobody would check.

In an opinion column yesterday, the climate science denying (yes, I just said it right up front) former ABC chairman and head of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council launched into another of his embarrassing attacks on climate science and the laws of physics.

Given we’ve been here before, I’m starting to think that Newman might actually have written some clever computer code that first scrapes climate science denial blogs for conspiracy theories and common misrepresentations and then turns them into 950-words for The Australian newspaper.

The column, which warned of a concocted threat of “global cooling”, made several remarkable and wrong scientific claims, cherry-picked evidence, misrepresented findings and, in at least one case, badly misrepresented the views of a British scientist.

Newman’s central claim is that the activity of the sun and cosmic rays are probably driving climate change and that the world should probably prepare for global cooling.

When you start to test Maurice Newman’s claims you find the whole case is about as sturdy as a house made of playing cards placed on a poorly constructed raft made of rolled up copies of The Australian floating on the ocean... in a tropical cyclone.

And he doesn’t even use decent quality playing cards.

I apologise for the length of this post by the way and some of the overly technical stuff, but every once in a while I think it’s worth picking at the claims made by people in influential positions.

Let’s have a pick. Actually, let’s have several picks.
Growing evidence?

At the beginning of the column, Newman claims a recent article in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics “adds to growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans”.

The problem with this statement is that the journal article in question did not even consider the interactions between the sun and long-term climate change.

Even one of the climate sceptic websites that recently featured this research, said: “Unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of this paper to address the potential impact of solar activity on climate.”

Professor Steve Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, explains:

    Evidence that the sun influences climate has decreased, not increased. About a decade ago calculations showed the sun caused about 10 per cent of the warming observed since the late 1800s, but it is now estimated to be only about 5 per cent. This new paper does not change these estimates at all, it is only an attempt to extend the sunspot record back to times before direct observations began a few hundred years ago. The paper makes no mention of climate, because it does not have any new implications for climate.

    Since 1980, during which time we have seen strong warming, solar output has if anything declined slightly. In fact, it is looking increasingly doubtful that the sun even had much to do with the so-called “little ice age”, which most mainstream scientists used to attribute to the minimum in sunspot activity at roughly the same time, but now looks to have been caused mainly by volcanic eruptions.

Newman tells his readers that experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe had “validated” a hypothesis from Danish physicist Professor Henrik Svensmark that “the sun alters the climate” by interacting with cosmic rays.

The former ASX chairman makes it sound like a done deal. But what did the lead author of that research actually think? Did it “confirm the hypothesis” that the sun alters the climate “by influencing cosmic ray influx and cloud formation” as Newman had claimed?

Professor Jasper Kirby, who led the research, said at the time “it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step”.

So that’s a no, then (minor nit, as Nature also explained, the experiment didn’t use the LHC, as Newman had claimed, but rather the same bit of kit – a particle accelerator - that feeds the LHC).
Newman and the IPCC

Newman wrote that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “and its acolytes” tend to “pay scant attention” to science that might “relegate human causes” as the driver of climate change.

Professor Sherwood was a Lead Author on the latest IPCC report chapter to look at these cosmic ray claims. He told me:

    In writing the relevant section of the report, we examined Svensmark’s work along with many other relevant studies. It is quite clear that the evidence suggesting that cosmic rays influence cloud cover, does not hold up to scrutiny. The IPCC is quite comprehensive in assessing the scientific literature and making an overall assessment. If there is any cherry-picking going on, it is by the so-called skeptics, who typically focus on a tiny handful of papers and often draw unwarranted inferences from them not made by the authors themselves, as Newman has done in this case.

Sly misrepresentation

Newman name checks other organisations and scientists to try and bolster his argument.

He quotes work by “leading British climate scientist Mike Lockwood, of Reading University” to try and convince readers that the sun might be the dominant driver of the climate.

But Newman doesn’t mention what Lockwood actually thinks about these claims of cosmic rays or the sun dictating global temperatures

After his work was misrepresented in the British press last year, Lockwood responded on the website Carbon Brief:

    So what do we think the effect of a return to Maunder minimum conditions on global mean temperatures would be? The answer is very little.

    In a paper with scientists from the Met Office’s Hadley Centre, we used an energy balance model to show the slowing in anthropogenic global warming associated with decline in solar irradiance to Maunder minimum levels.

    We found the likely reduction in warming by 2100 would be between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we’re due to experience as a result of human activity.

I sent Newman’s article to Lockwood to ask if he felt his work and his views were being fairly represented. Suffice to say he’s not too happy. He wrote:

    The wording in the quote you sent me is a very sly misrepresentation. As a scientist I try to write sentences that are unambiguous ... but this is deliberately ambiguous to make it look like I am saying something that I certainly am not. I have never, ever written anything whatsoever about the “year without summer”, so I have never ever connected it to solar variability and the Dalton minimum. So if I trim the sentence down to “... Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) is ‘more likely than not’” Then I would be happy - but the addition of the phrase which included “the year without summer” makes it look like I am connecting that year to the Dalton minimum which I certainly am not. There is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever that the “year without summer” was either caused by low solar activity or was in any way significant as an indicator of global climate trend.

I also asked Lockwood what he thought of Newman’s claim that there was “growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans”. Lockwood said:

    [This claim] is, frankly, scientifically ludicrous. There are a few papers that use inadequate statistical techniques to claim a link between global temperatures and solar activity. Proper significance testing against an appropriate noise model invariably shows that the probability that these sun-global climate connections are purely coincidental is extremely high and that they have been selected whilst a very large number of counter examples have been ignored. This is bad science: it’s equivalent to finding on albino rabbit and declaring all rabbits are albino.

    There have been many studies, including ones that I have been involved in, that show the solar influence on global mean surface temperatures is extremely small. I personally think there is evidence for some interesting effects in winter (and only in winter, and there are compelling scientific reasons why only in winter) in locations that are strongly influenced by the northern hemisphere jet stream.

    However these effects are re-distributions of temperature and so, for example, if Europe suffers a cold winter, Greenland has a warmer one. Hence these are regional and season climate changes and quite distinct from global climate changes.

That looks like one less Christmas card for Maurice Newman.

But there’s still more to go at here. Newman quotes a University of Pennsylvania professor of psychology Philip Tetlock as saying: “When journal reviewers, editors and funding agencies feel the same way about a course, they are less likely to detect and correct potential logical or methodological bias.”

The quote is actually a decade old and comes from an article published in the journal Political Psychology.

Newman probably got it trawling the blogs of climate sceptics (an article discussing the paper was reposted on the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation website earlier this month), which is where, in my view, he probably gets most of his ideas about climate science.

You might think, given the context of the article, that Tetlock was talking about environmental science or climate change.

But no. The Tetlock article was discussing his concerns about the preservation of the discipline of “political psychology”. Most of the article is discussing issues around war and peace and racism.

Fair and balanced?

Earlier this month, the Australian Press Council updated its overarching principles to “ensure that factual material” is accurate and not misleading. The change extended the principles reach from just “news reports” to material “elsewhere” which has been taken to mean opinion columns.

In principle three on fairness and balance, the APC says even when a writer expresses an opinion, it should not be done “based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts”.

The Australian has been hostile to the changes.

You have to wonder if Newman’s latest is a bit of a test run?

I sent Newman’s article to Lockwood to ask if he felt his work and his views were being fairly represented. Suffice to say he’s not too happy. He wrote:

    The wording in the quote you sent me is a very sly misrepresentation. As a scientist I try to write sentences that are unambiguous ... but this is deliberately ambiguous to make it look like I am saying something that I certainly am not. I have never, ever written anything whatsoever about the “year without summer”, so I have never ever connected it to solar variability and the Dalton minimum. So if I trim the sentence down to “... Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) is ‘more likely than not’” Then I would be happy - but the addition of the phrase which included “the year without summer” makes it look like I am connecting that year to the Dalton minimum which I certainly am not. There is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever that the “year without summer” was either caused by low solar activity or was in any way significant as an indicator of global climate trend.

I also asked Lockwood what he thought of Newman’s claim that there was “growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans”. Lockwood said:

    [This claim] is, frankly, scientifically ludicrous. There are a few papers that use inadequate statistical techniques to claim a link between global temperatures and solar activity. Proper significance testing against an appropriate noise model invariably shows that the probability that these sun-global climate connections are purely coincidental is extremely high and that they have been selected whilst a very large number of counter examples have been ignored. This is bad science: it’s equivalent to finding on albino rabbit and declaring all rabbits are albino.

    There have been many studies, including ones that I have been involved in, that show the solar influence on global mean surface temperatures is extremely small. I personally think there is evidence for some interesting effects in winter (and only in winter, and there are compelling scientific reasons why only in winter) in locations that are strongly influenced by the northern hemisphere jet stream.

    However these effects are re-distributions of temperature and so, for example, if Europe suffers a cold winter, Greenland has a warmer one. Hence these are regional and season climate changes and quite distinct from global climate changes.

That looks like one less Christmas card for Maurice Newman.

.............................................................

What a disgrace Newman is.....and Abbott and any other right wing loonie that believes any thing that exits his pea brain.

Adam is a legend

Climate change means big jump in fire danger warnings, Tasmanians told

16 Aug 2014, 2:14pm

A helicopter flies ahead of the bushfire which wiped out scores of properties in Dunalley. Photo: A massive fireball hit Dunalley in

south-east Tasmania in January last year. (Michael Goldsmith: Tasmania Fire Service)


Climate change will have massive implications for the Tasmania Fire Service, leading to a jump in warnings, a conference in

Launceston has heard.

More than 300 firefighters have attended the service's annual conference in Launceston.

Climate change researcher Professor Nathan Bindoff said declarations of total fire bans would increase dramatically by 2100.

    The fire season will be longer, it'll advance in spring, it will be much stronger in summer.

    Climate change researcher Professor Nathan Bindoff

In about 80 years, total fire ban declarations in summer were expected to have increased by at least 75 per cent,

Professor Bindoff told delegates.

"In spring, a very high fire danger rating is set to jump by 250 per cent," he said.

Professor Bindoff said warmer conditions would mean more bushfires, similar to those that hit Tasmania in early 2013.

"The fire season will be longer, it'll advance in spring, it will be much stronger in summer," he said.

Tasmania Fire Service prepares for threats

The Tasmania Fire Service said it was preparing for the increased risk.

Chief officer Mike Brown said the threats of climate change were taken seriously.

"We know that the number of days of high fire danger are worse or increasing, we know the severity of fires are increasing,'' he said.

He said it was also up the the public to be aware of the increasing danger.

"While the service does a fantastic job with fire fighting on those very worst of days, it's going to be more about what the public

does and how we can inform, warn and have the public acting," he said.

He said the kind of devastating fire that hit Tasmania in 2013 could be a more frequent event.

"We understand that events like that will happen more frequently, there not going to happen every summer l would suggest but we're

going to have that happen more frequently in the future."

Topics: fires, disasters-and-accidents, tas

......................................................................


But it's cooling according to Abbott, Newman and the worlds leading Climate Scientist ...Thebas

and re your fire report .. they have stated fire alert days

if NO ordnance is set off and NO matches dropped ... then a high fire warning day does NOT equate to fire

clear the ground fuel .. humans behave sensibly ... and the co2 wont spontaneously ignite

and fellow luminaries such as Lord Monckton .....Pilmer, Abbott, the IPA

a bigger group of nut jobs would be hard to find.

I'd be embarrassed if my views aligned with that lot.

My views align with the overwhelming evidence of the Science provided by actual Climate Scientists. Remember that's 97% of them.

As opposed to the group of discredited NON CLIMATE SCIENTISTS you quote endlessly.

That's 2 - 0  me

As opposed to the group of discredited NON CLIMATE SCIENTISTS you quote endlessly.


you really need to stop making false stateements about what other people say

doesn't do your case any good at all .... you're back to ZERO lol 


---

Mr Palmer told ABC TV that Mr Gore had helped "enlighten" him on the subject.

He denied paying his American visitor for Wednesday's cameo appearance, but admitted buying him dinner.