NOT A GOOD SIGN FOR BRISBANE'S FUTURE.......

[ramblingboy42]

This article focusses on Brisbane but doesn't say much for the rest of the state or the rest of the country.

It might stop the mexicans coming over the border though.
Weather News - Temperature rises will make Brisbane a 'difficult place to live' within 30 years, report finds (https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/temperature-rises-will-make-brisbane-a-difficult-place-to-live-within-30-years-report-finds/529858)

[biggin]

Looks like excellent news for Brisbane. The only people it will stop are the very stupid ones, who actually believe crap like that. Of which there are millions.

[donh54]

Sounds like a crock, to me.
They should look at some of the historical data, as well as their inconsistent computer models. Back a hundred years or so, when the summer temperatures were regularly over a hundred degrees Fahrenheit, and no air-conditioning, people wore suits and ties everywhere!
Brisbane is a sub-tropical city. It's going to get hot sometimes!
I wonder how many taxpayer dollars funded that study? Now there is something to get hot under the collar about!

[ozscott]

I'm game. The Barra (Unfortunately snapping handbags too) will come down. I have always liked Cairns.

Cheers

[justinc]

Bring it!! I'll be there in a flash...

Just so sick of single digit daytime temps TBH...

[Bigbjorn]

Bring it!! I'll be there in a flash...

Just so sick of single digit daytime temps TBH...

Why live in Tas. then? The habitable part of this country is between Grafton and Gladstone and within 40 miles of the coast. Everywhere else is too hot in summer or too cold in winter.

[Saitch]

I thought that I must have inadvertently hit on the "Conspiracies Theory" thread when first reading this.

[B.S.F.]

This article focusses on Brisbane but doesn't say much for the rest of the state or the rest of the country.It might stop the mexicans coming over the border though.Weather News - Temperature rises will make Brisbane a 'difficult place to live' within 30 years, report finds (https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/temperature-rises-will-make-brisbane-a-difficult-place-to-live-within-30-years-report-finds/529858)Just another best ignored "expert predict.......", " a new study found....... " article. You get them every day.
.W.

[RANDLOVER]

This article focusses on Brisbane but doesn't say much for the rest of the state or the rest of the country.

It might stop the mexicans coming over the border though.
Weather News - Temperature rises will make Brisbane a 'difficult place to live' within 30 years, report finds (https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/temperature-rises-will-make-brisbane-a-difficult-place-to-live-within-30-years-report-finds/529858)

Just our luck, it'll stop the southern migration but then everyone up north will want to move down here for cooler weather. I came to Bne for the warm weather, but found as I've got older I've acclimatised more to the cold weather than hot.

[DiscoMick]

Gee, the climate change deniers are out in force in this thread, furiously rejecting the facts.
It's a peer-reviewed study in the International Journal of Climatology. After the latest summer being the hottest on record, you'd think the sceptics would be waking up, but apparently not so.

[Arapiles]

It's a peer-reviewed study in the International Journal of Climatology.

Yeah, but they're probably a bunch of commies.

[JDNSW]

I don't think it is necessarily climate change deniers - but the researchers seem to not realise that people have lived quite happily for centuries if not millennia in climates hotter than that expected for Brisbane, and almost always without the benefit of airconditioning.

For a start, just about everyone north of Brisbane, without actually looking outside the country.

[Saitch]

..............and the learned Dr. Chapman wants to move South, on her return.
Drug use Australia: Victoria using most illicit drugs (https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/victorians-are-taking-the-most-illicit-drugs/news-story/cf8ea0b1ea102e7a419944e15834311a)

[donh54]

Hottest summer on record..... depends how records are massaged, methinks.

[DiscoMick]

Typical climate denier responses.
If Brisbane becomes difficult then imagine life in Cairns.

[Bigbjorn]

I know where I would prefer to live.

Cold snap: Record-breaking lows for Australia'''s chilly start to winter (https://au.yahoo.com/news/cold-snap-record-breaking-freezing-temperatures-start-winter-054850080.html)

Brisbane Forecast (http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/forecasts/brisbane.shtml)

[biggin]

Typical climate denier responses.
If Brisbane becomes difficult then imagine life in Cairns.

FFS Mick, who is this typical climate denier you crap on about post after post? Maybe they’re just people who don’t **** they’re pants every time some so called expert decides to give us the benefit of their vast intellect.

[DiscoMick]

FFS Mick, who is this typical climate denier you crap on about post after post? Maybe they’re just people who don’t **** they’re pants every time some so called expert decides to give us the benefit of their vast intellect.Or maybe they're just wrong?

[scarry]

Last summer i don't think we had a day over 36 degrees.

I remember we had summers quite a few years ago where the temps for a week were over 40 degrees,one Christmas day it was 42degrees.

Any way,i suppose AC units will be more popular,which will consume more power from the grid which is not what we want.

People will acclimatise,if this happens,it won't happen overnight.

I wonder how Darwins temps average compared to Brisbane,and people have no issues living there.

[biggin]

Or maybe not. Haven’t you noticed that some (ie nearly all) past predictions have not come to pass? The accuracy rates really are abysmal. A gypsy with a crystal ball could do better. Surely this alone brings out at least some level of scepticism in you and the other followers.

[RANDLOVER]

FFS Mick, who is this typical climate denier you crap on about post after post? Maybe they’re just people who don’t **** they’re pants every time some so called expert decides to give us the benefit of their vast intellect.

Ivor (?) here is a possible explanation:

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment | Environment | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment)

"The Guardian has updated its style guide (https://www.theguardian.com/info/series/guardian-and-observer-style-guide) to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.
Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.






“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”
“Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,” she said.
The United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, talked of the “climate crisis” (https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-09-10/secretary-generals-remarks-climate-change-delivered) in September, adding: “We face a direct existential threat.” The climate scientist Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a former adviser to Angela Merkel, the EU and the pope, also uses “climate crisis” (https://climateextremes.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/What-Lies-Beneath-V3-LR-Blank5b15d.pdf).
In December, Prof Richard Betts, who leads the Met Office’s climate research, said “global heating” was (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/global-heating-more-accurate-to-describe-risks-to-planet-says-key-scientist?CMP=share_btn_tw) a more accurate term (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/global-heating-more-accurate-to-describe-risks-to-planet-says-key-scientist?CMP=share_btn_tw) than “global warming” to describe the changes taking place to the world’s climate. In the political world, UK MPs recently endorsed the Labour party’s declaration of a “climate emergency” (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/01/declare-formal-climate-emergency-before-its-too-late-corbyn-warns).
The scale of the climate and wildlife crises has been laid bare by two landmark reports from the world’s scientists. In October, they said carbon emissions must halve (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report) by 2030 to avoid even greater risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. In May, global scientists said human society was in jeopardy from the accelerating annihilation of wildlife and destruction of the ecosystems (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report) that support all life on Earth.
Other terms that have been updated, including the use of “wildlife” rather than “biodiversity”, “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks” and “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”. In September, the BBC accepted it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often” (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-get-climate-change-coverage-wrong-too-often) and told staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”.........."

[biggin]

Haha, no, not Ivor.
Thanks for the link though, it says it all. They’re not in the least bit interested in balancing a debate, because they don’t believe a debate is necessary. All their assumptions, predictions and extreme language are beyond reproach.
I can see why they have so many faithful followers.
For the good of the planet.
Amen.

[Arapiles]

Maybe they’re just people who don’t **** they’re pants every time some so called expert decides to give us the benefit of their vast intellect

When I started Uni back in the early 80s one of the best semester-long subjects I did was meteorology. Really well taught and I considered majoring in meteorology. It was known back then that CO2 was causing global warming, because of the greenhouse effect. Meteorology was a scientific discipline, nothing more - the science was not considered political, any more than say, chemical engineering. To be very, very clear, the scientific consensus was, and is, that rising CO2 was altering global climate and therefore weather patterns. So what changed? How did the straight science become characterised as leftish drivel? How did the denial of climate change also get caught up in nativist or populist, "anti-elite" politics? Why was it originally only in English-speaking societies?

Pretty simple - a whole lot of US companies that had vested interests in fossil fuels started funding opposition to the settled science. And they hired the same publicists who had acted for the tobacco companies and who applied the same techniques to climate denial. The Koch brothers, owners of an oil company that is/was the second biggest company in the US have spent hundreds of millions funding groups arguing against the science:

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine - Greenpeace USA (https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/)

Groups like the Heritage Foundation publish talking points and the conservative commentators here simply regurgitate them. And the Murdochs have a media empire, from Fox through to the Australian, that publish the same rubbish. But in Europe this wasn't the view, even amongst conservatives. I remember seeing an interview with a young conservative European politician on the ABC (I think that she was Dutch) and she just said, how is climate science a left-wing issue?

There's another overseas based forum on which I used to be active and there was a thread there where a well-known climate denialist argued the toss with other members who were evidently across the science. There was nothing that the denialist put up, in a thread that ran for about five years, that stood up to scrutiny. The funniest one was when he started making claims about international finance, which is an area in which I have professional expertise, and it was so wrong I was actually laughing as I read it. And that came from another denialist public source which has no doubt been read and quoted widely.

The short answer to the questions above is that a group of very rich Americans with vested interests in denying climate change have spent very, very large amounts of money disseminating huge volumes of climate denial propaganda. And some of that has filtered through to people on Aulro.

[Arapiles]

Haha, no, not Ivor.
Thanks for the link though, it says it all. They’re not in the least bit interested in balancing a debate, because they don’t believe a debate is necessary. All their assumptions, predictions and extreme language are beyond reproach. I can see why they have so many faithful followers. For the good of the planet.
Amen.

Do you regularly challenge scientists to debates on, for example, gravity?

Why would you challenge the consensus science on climate change and not every other area of science?

[DiscoMick]

It's okay, they are just confirming my opinions about the futility of climate change deniers.
I am finding it harder and harder to tolerate people spouting discredited rubbish and expecting others to nod and agree.
I know it's hard for people to admit they were wrong, but it's time for people to face the facts.
Climate is different to weather. The climate science is settled and the people who actually know what they are talking about are agreed - climate change is a real emergency.
At the rate we're going average temperatures are going to rise by about 4 degrees, Millions of people will be made homeless, the Australian deserts will spread and farms will fail, while the rising oceans will start flooding up the rivers from the Gulf and flooding the inland.
This is the coming reality.
It's time to face facts, stop the waffle and get real.

[justinc]

Why live in Tas. then? The habitable part of this country is between Grafton and Gladstone and within 40 miles of the coast. Everywhere else is too hot in summer or too cold in winter.

I'm at present enacting the plan to spend my future years working while chasing the sun.... hopefully not too many Tassie (or any other) winters are on my horizon...

[JDNSW]

Australia can have no direct effect on the global warming, as our emissions are less than 2% of the total. Of course, this does not mean that we should do nothing., as an example here would help convince the major emitters to take similar steps.

As far as any direct action goes, the most effective step that Australia could take would be to immediately cease mining any coal except small quantities of metallurgical coal. This would result in high unemployment in some areas, but this would not be the major consequence. The major consequence would be a budget emergency for several states, particularly NSW and Qld, and as this would reduce their ability to subsidise NT, Tas, and SA, the financial crisis would probably spread to other states. With Commonwealth Government also crippled by the unemployment costs and loss of revenue, it would be hard for them to make up the shortfall. And loss of coal export foreign exchange would see a substantial drop in the $A, which, while tit would undoubtedly help exporters, would make most things that most people buy more expensive. Overall, we would see a massive drop in average living standards, even if it was spread evenly, which I do not imagine is what would happen. (I suggest this scenario rather than any conspiracy is why governments support the coal industry!)

At the same time, the country would need to replace existing coal fired power sources with renewables - technically< I believe, quite feasible - but with the falling $A getting much more expensive. Then there is the cost of coal producers suing the government for the shutdown, plus the loss of creditworthiness that would result.

All of this adds up to a situation where Australia needs to act in accordance with international treaties - and push for tighter international agreements. And do a more convincing job of meeting existing agreements.

Does this make me a climate denier? I have no doubt at all about the climate science, including the fact that Australia makes an almost insignificant contribution to emissions. And I should also point out that I have been living off-grid with renewable power for almost 25 years.

[RANDLOVER]

Do you regularly challenge scientists to debates on, for example, gravity?

Why would you challenge the consensus science on climate change and not every other area of science?

Too right, it's like having 99 heart surgeons tell you that you need an operation, but believing the one that says you should just have a Panadol and a lie down. For too long the media has been sucked into airing an opposing view to be "fair and balanced", or to stir the pot, when the balance is really 99 vs 1 not 50/50.

[Arapiles]

Too right, it's like having 99 heart surgeons tell you that you need an operation, but believing the one that says you should just have a Panadol and a lie down. For too long the media has been sucked into airing an opposing view to be "fair and balanced", or to stir the pot, when the balance is really 99 vs 1 not 50/50.

Agreed, but actually, it's more like 100 surgeons telling you the same thing and a retired school-teacher telling you that they're all wrong. Almost none of the climate denialists have any qualifications in meteorology.

[ramblingboy42]

quote...."Australia can have no direct effect on the global warming, as our emissions are less than 2% of the total."

so 49 other countries contributing only 2% equals 100%.....errr how many countries are there in the world and how many of those countries are not contributing in some way to global warming?

Argument defeated.....next?

[Pickles2]

It's okay, they are just confirming my opinions about the futility of climate change deniers.
I am finding it harder and harder to tolerate people spouting discredited rubbish and expecting others to nod and agree.
I know it's hard for people to admit they were wrong, but it's time for people to face the facts.
Climate is different to weather. The climate science is settled and the people who actually know what they are talking about are agreed - climate change is a real emergency.
At the rate we're going average temperatures are going to rise by about 4 degrees, Millions of people will be made homeless, the Australian deserts will spread and farms will fail, while the rising oceans will start flooding up the rivers from the Gulf and flooding the inland.
This is the coming reality.
It's time to face facts, stop the waffle and get real.
"Get Real"???...You'll be moving South then Disco?
Pickles.

[biggin]

Please get a grip, I have not, and never have denied climate change. What I doubt is that anyone has any idea what the future holds and how throwing money at a problem like this will overcome it.
Simple as that.

[DiscoMick]

"Get Real"???...You'll be moving South then Disco?
Pickles.Up actually, we're moving to 450 metres above sea level, so that should keep our feet dry for my lifetime.

On emissions, last time I checked Australians were the 11th highest emitters per person, and the highest per capita emitters in the developed world. We are among the very worst. We urgently need to get our act together. If a rich country like Australia refuses to act responsibly, then how can we expect anyone else to do the right thing?

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita)

[Saitch]

Up actually, we're moving to 450 metres above sea level, so that should keep our feet dry for my lifetime.

On emissions, last time I checked Australians were the 11th highest emitters per person, and the highest per capita emitters in the developed world. We are among the very worst. We urgently need to get our act together. If a rich country like Australia refuses to act responsibly, then how can we expect anyone else to do the right thing?

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita)

These figures are correct but, owing to our population, it means that our global impact is less than 2%. Even our CSIRO state that if Australia was to somehow "Fix" it's carbon output, the most beneficial effect it would have would be to hopefully set an example to the rest of the world.

I totally agree that there is a "Greenhouse Effect". It's the way that the average Australian is threatened with "Gloom and Doom" by politicians and media and made out to be a world wrecking environmental vandal when, according to the CSIRO again, Australia's output is extremely low, is what I can't handle.
So, as I see it, there's not much point in scientists and media ranting and raving to fellow Aussies. Perhaps they should be submitting articles in car magazines in Vietnam, China, India etc.

I also think that the rest of the world and the UN especially, see Australia as a soft target, recognising our enthralment to "Political Correctness" knows no bounds.

[Arapiles]

So, as I see it, there's not much point in scientists and media ranting and raving to fellow Aussies. Perhaps they should be submitting articles in car magazines in Vietnam, China, India etc.

Actually, the Chinese government takes global warming very seriously, albeit they're still a large emitter of Co2. They actually see it as one way they will win the new cold war between them and the US - because they will transition to a carbon economy and the US won't. And I doubt that Vietnam has much of an effect on global CO2.


I also think that the rest of the world and the UN especially, see Australia as a soft target, recognising our enthralment to "Political Correctness" knows no bounds.

Australia is, like the US, seen as a climate laggard. Europe, including the UK, takes climate change much more seriously.

Climate change has no connection to "political correctness", but your linking of the two, the references to scientists and media forming some kind of cabal and the reference to the UN do illustrate the point I was making in my earlier post about how effective the Koch brothers et al have been in propagandaising what was originally unpoliticised science.

[Saitch]

Why then aren't countries like Kuwait and Cuba brought to task over their emissions per capita. I'm not trying to be political but it would appear that some countries are being openly criticised about climate change while other, worse performing countries are never mentioned. I agree that Australia has an unenviable emissions output but, referring to my previous post, in the big scheme of things, we are not contributing that much. China's emissions have increased as well although, apparently the way things are monitored in China, there is some contention on actual output.

Viet Nam's output has increased dramatically in line with its GDP.
I stand by my statement that we are seen as a soft target.

[DiscoMick]

These figures are correct but, owing to our population, it means that our global impact is less than 2%. Even our CSIRO state that if Australia was to somehow "Fix" it's carbon output, the most beneficial effect it would have would be to hopefully set an example to the rest of the world.

I totally agree that there is a "Greenhouse Effect". It's the way that the average Australian is threatened with "Gloom and Doom" by politicians and media and made out to be a world wrecking environmental vandal when, according to the CSIRO again, Australia's output is extremely low, is what I can't handle.
So, as I see it, there's not much point in scientists and media ranting and raving to fellow Aussies. Perhaps they should be submitting articles in car magazines in Vietnam, China, India etc.

I also think that the rest of the world and the UN especially, see Australia as a soft target, recognising our enthralment to "Political Correctness" knows no bounds.Yes, ours are about 2%, but that's no excuse for doing nothing. If everyone took that selfish attitude, no-one would do anything. That's the road to global failure.

China is leading the world in investing in renewables, while we are falling behind. China will get the jobs from manufacturing renewable equipment, while we will miss out, yet again.

[biggin]

They’re investment in renewables is based mainly on sales to the west, but once again a good distraction to muddy the waters of what China is really about. They’re cheap coal fired power drive low cost manufacturing.

[roverrescue]

The problem is actually not CO2 emission
Albeit that is the road the developed economies of the world will be dragged kicking and screaming to fix

The problem

Which will never be addressed because it is the elephant in the room of humanity is that exponential growth of any system will destroy it


A 2% targeted economy growth around the world (G20) is actually what dooms planet earth

A zero inflation - zero net poplulation growth world economy will actually fix the root cause of a planet which really doesn’t give a **** if it has one billion or 5 billion humans on it ... it does care if it has 10 billion humans and will flick us like a squita on a Brisbane summer evening.

Just ask the Petrie dish of bacteria how exponential growth has worked out for them ;)

Question to those advocating for this article predicting “stuff”

What should the world do starting Tommorrow to prevent xyz

S

[Eevo]

remember the tv show "Beyond 2000" ?

im still waiting for my flying car.
you cannot predict the future.
doesnt matter how many times people try, they have always been wrong.

[scarry]

remember the tv show "Beyond 2000" ?

im still waiting for my flying car.
you cannot predict the future.
doesnt matter how many times people try, they have always been wrong.

Remember the day the then Qld premier, Jo Bjelkie, was on the news pouring water into a car's fuel tank?

That was going to be the future,they all said.....[thumbsupbig]

Yep,we are still waiting.

[ramblingboy42]

Joh got ****canned so badly over that , he basically told Australia to get ****ed after media responses.

It was too much for most people .....who still believe in and buy hi-clones

[vnx205]

Bring it!! I'll be there in a flash...

Just so sick of single digit daytime temps TBH...

It can't be that cold in Tasmania. I saw on the news that about 2,000 people went for a swim in the Derwent at sunrise on the Winter solstice. They didn't even need swimwear. :D

[Slunnie]

It can't be that cold in Tasmania. I saw on the news that about 2,000 people went for a swim in the Derwent at sunrise on the Winter solstice. They didn't even need swimwear. :D

At least the Sydney Skinny is in March!

[86mud]

Here I was thinking this thread was about Lime Scooters......

[Arapiles]

remember the tv show "Beyond 2000" ?

im still waiting for my flying car.
you cannot predict the future.
doesnt matter how many times people try, they have always been wrong.

Actually you can predict the future if you are looking at a specific albeit complex system and have sufficient processing power. The climate change predictions are coming true, whether you like it or not.

The global reinsurers have run the figures and they have no doubt about it.

[ozscott]

I also recall Towards 2000 [emoji15][emoji41][emoji16][emoji1787]

[RANDLOVER]

Deleted as incorrect thread.