Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed

No. I’m pro increasing refugee immigration too.

---

You can't have it both ways.
IF you are saying that climate change is Directly attributable to human activity then it makes Absolute sense to thin out the human population.
Wars and famine have been natures way of keeping the human flood at a manageable level for millennia and changing the way that works can only increase the rate of climate change.
Look it up in the book of popular scientists chapter 14..3 from the church of later day climate change.[bigwhistle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro_The_Swift

or maybe this guy,,

https://news.toyark.com/wp-content/u...Thanos-009.jpg

---

Is that the bloke with the thermostat control button?

Actually reducing war and famine lowers population growth. When societies are better off they have less children. Population will peak soon enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed

.....

...And the crises you list are all only going to get worse as the knock on effects of climate change kick in. The climate crisis is not just about global warming, drought, fire, food shortages, etc. it is also about how these calamities will effect the whole population in many ways, including mental health, housing, transport and general health.

Attention is exactly whats needed in this complacent greedy environment ‘we’ have created

---

Accurate information is what's actually needed.

Lets take drought for example.
When you think of drought, the first thing that conjures up is that we've had less rainfall. Yeah?

Do you know what a drought really means?
because some folks simply rely on a single source of info(ie. in this case, the alarmist calls) .. lets find out what a drought condition actually is:

Quote:

---

Drought is a prolonged, abnormally dry period when the amount of available water is insufficient to meet our normal use. Drought is not simply low rainfall; if it was, much of inland Australia would be in almost perpetual drought. Because people use water in so many different ways, there is no universal definition of drought. Meteorologists monitor the extent and severity of drought in terms of rainfall deficiencies. Agriculturalists rate the impact on primary industries, hydrologists compare ground water levels, and sociologists define it by social expectations and perceptions.

---

This is from the BoM website on the topic of droughts .. monthly drought statement .. easy to find for yourself. The highlighted text is my doing, to show you how we're not in a type of drought you think we are, or that we're lead to believe we are.
The important part where it says insufficient to meet out normal use is vital here, because out normal use has changed dramatically over the years.
That is, the drought that we're currently worry about isn't a low rainfall drought due to global warming, it's due to retarded government policy that allowed over extension of water resources.
See the other thread about the cotton and rice industry rise in recent history, and how totally retarded it was for government(s) to allow it to happen.

So if you increase demand you then come into drought period, and even tho annual rainfall has steadily increased in the whole of Aus from a low 400mm/yr to current 500mm/year(again BoM records).
We're not in drought due to climate change, it's due to bad government policy in not being more careful about demand, AND totally stuffing up supply.

this is raw BoM data easy to find if you do your own searching for data, rather than rely on alarmist information.
(I'm not sure where the link will take you, but it takes me to the BoM trend line graphing page n rainfall .. it may take you to another data set, if so, look for rainfall in the top left).

Like the drought statement says, if it were about rainfall only, then we'd be in perpetual drought.
And if you were normalise current water usage requirements to the early 20th century levels, then the period between 1880-1940 or thereabouts would have been in continuous drought.

Looking at the data in the BoM records, the one that is blindingly obvious is that climate change has a two way effect on rainfall. Both positive and negative(over a 10 year average).
1970 -1980(ish) .. there is a huge rise in that average, just at the same time that the globe experiences it's initial phase of warming. Then in the 1980-1990(ish) period it drops, but not to pre 1970 average levels.
Then just as the warming limate hysteria begins to unfold, and 1990+ annual average rainfall pretty much stays steady, with a negligible but still positive trend.
if you change the T scale from 10 year to just T(ie. linear) you see the steady progression of increased annual rainfall .. yet we're supposed to be in a drought! [bighmmm]

I dunno about what education other folks received, but the education I remember never mentioned anywhere that ... increasing rainfall = tougher drought conditions!

Summary: what's causing the recent droughts in Australia? ask anyone this question and they'll all give you the same drone like response .. global warming.
Look at the data for yourself, and it's impossible not to come to the conclusion that it is the issue of demand, increased demand, due to government policy ... that's causing 'drought'.

if the goal posts are changed, you can't compare one set of data to another.

Same with fires. Quick search for Vic bushfires show that none in modern times are anywhere near as devastating as the early 1880-1930 period.
Add up all the modern Vic bushfire records and they still don't reach anything like the level that the worst 1880 fires did.
Viewed simplistically, if 1880 was supposedly 1°C colder than current, then using the data recorded to date, global warming has lessened bushfire risk.

Jesus Arthur.
There you go again ruining another perfectly good line of hysteria and sensationalism using bloody Facts, Verifiable data and Logic [bigwhistle][thumbsupbig][bigrolf]

Arthur, you really need to come and have a look at things where I live and you will see the difference between an academic perspective on drought, and what it actually looks like. Government policy on rivers or whatever has no bearing on the land out here. At the end of the day, if it doesn't rain, it doesn't grow. I'm looking out of my lounge room window at a paddock that has had sheep on it once this year for a matter of weeks, virtually no ground pressure at all and its still very short. 2016 at this time it was shoulder height. You cant tell people around here who are trucking household water and buying feed from Victoria despite getting rid of most of their stock that because it is raining in Melbourne and the average rainfall in Australia is up, that in the central west of NSW where it doesn't seem to rain anymore that they're not in a drought. It'd be pretty tough call to front up and say that.

The city really doesn't understand rural issues.

Agree with above that a drought is more than just a lack of rain, it's a really prolonged period of far below average rainfall, as the people in NW Queensland where we have been travelling have been telling us.
For example, in Adavale the locals point to the flood marker in the main street which shows the last decent rain there was in 2012. Seven years is a drought.
For those who say this is nothing new, I've been re-reading Kings in Grass Castles in which even the Duracks camped on the Cooper last century expected more frequent rain than every seven years.
I think it's clear to many people, including the government's own drought co-ordinator, that climate change means drought is now not unusual, it's the new normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

You can't have it both ways.
IF you are saying that climate change is Directly attributable to human activity then it makes Absolute sense to thin out the human population.
Wars and famine have been natures way of keeping the human flood at a manageable level for millennia and changing the way that works can only increase the rate of climate change.
Look it up in the book of popular scientists chapter 14..3 from the church of later day climate change.[bigwhistle]

---

This is one of the most disgusting, abhorrent posts I’ve read on this forum. Mods please intervene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Agree with above that a drought is more than just a lack of rain, it's a really prolonged period of far below average rainfall, as the people in NW Queensland where we have been travelling have been telling us.
For example, in Adavale the locals point to the flood marker in the main street which shows the last decent rain there was in 2012. Seven years is a drought.
For those who say this is nothing new, I've been re-reading Kings in Grass Castles in which even the Duracks camped on the Cooper last century expected more frequent rain than every seven years.
I think it's clear to many people, including the government's own drought co-ordinator, that climate change means drought is now not unusual, it's the new normal.

---

It needs to be pointed out that it is not just rainfall - it is also evaporation rates. As an example, in our area we had quite good falls in March this year - but each rainfall event was followed by several days of temperatures in the forties with very strong NW winds and humidities in single digits. As a result, a few days after each rain event it was impossible to tell it had happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saitch

Australia is a minnow in "Climate Change", population wise. What we do here will have no effect if these facts are even 50% true. Perhaps even 25%.

"We'll all be doomed" said Hanrahan.

---

If all the countries on this small blue planet that produce similar levels of carbon dioxide as Australia got together, we could jointly reduce the worlds carbon dioxide emissions by between 42% and 46%, about the same as the USA and China produce annually. We can get together with a whole group of countries and develop free trade agreements, but not get together with similar countries to develop an agreement to address this issue.

If you don't believe the scientists believe the banks.

Climate change could cause $20 trillion in losses, says Bank of England — Quartz - Climate Change could cause $20 trillion in asset losses, says Bank of England.

That's 'Trillion' not 'Billion" The Commonwealth's budget for 2019 was estimated to be around 4.4 Trillion, so that's approx 5 years of Australia's total budget.

Governments are prepared to approve the first of possibly many new coal mines in Queensland's Galilee Basin with 1500 possible ongoing jobs in the Adani Mine (a mine that it has been suggested is unlikely to pay any tax in Australia), and put at risk 66,000 long term jobs on the Great Barrier Reef.

Look at the comments from senior longterm firefighters and regional Mayors on the east coast in this year of record fires (again). They all recognise the impacts of climate change are here now and getting worse.

Think of your children and grand children guys. Yes it's really difficult to think what as an individual can I do but that same approach doesn't and shouldn't apply to the government of one of the wealthiest countries on this planet.

I'll get off the band wagon now, but this really is a critical issue and the longer we collectively do nothing the worse and more expensive it will get.

Craig