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

Originally Posted by AK83

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:


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!

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.

Long post but basically selective - rainfall has increased in Australia (because of rainfall in the tropics) and has decreased on the East coast and the South-West coast - i.e., in the bits where most Australians live.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's raining in NSW?

Originally Posted by Tombie

CO2 isnt the evil monster it is made out of - the planet needs CO2 - only animals want O2.

As has already been explained in detail, the additional CO2 in the atmosphere won't make plant life flourish.

Originally Posted by Eevo

greenies def play a role (but not the only role)

they wont allow the local fire brigade to do a fuel reduction burn in the local reserve.

things like this contribute to the severity of a fire if one starts

Care to precisely set out where and when this was and who the "greenies" were?

Originally Posted by V8Ian

It's information such as this that creates scepticism. Are you seriously suggesting that North America, Europe and Asia only produce between 54% and 58% of CO2?

Hi Ian,

the figures I've seen for 2017 are in the attached link.

• CO2 emissions by country | Statista

It shows the leading CO2 emitting countries (as a % of the total) are:

China - 27.2%
USA - 14.6%
Total for these two countries - 41.8%

The next two largest emitters:
India - 6.8%
Russia - 4.7%
Total for the four top countries - 53.3%

All remaining countries/regions are below the next highest (Japan - 3.3%) - ie, the total emissions for the remaining countries in the world for 2017 equate to 46.7% of the world emissions.

France, UK, Germany all have significantly stronger emission reduction targets than Australia, and I've read that the Prime Minister of India has proposed the adoption of a policy for no building of new coal fired power stations.

China, while their emissions continue to rise each year they are spending enormous $'s building renewable energy (2017 - $128 billion, half the world"s total and three times the US spend).

I appreciate that these figures will bounce around from one year to the next but it seems the relative positions remain.

I think it was the Prime Minister of Vanuatu who responded to 'Scomo' after he reiterated Australia's climate change targets, with something along the lines of;

'We appreciate that you are trying to protect your economy ... I'm trying to save my people (from the impacts of climate change/rising sea levels)'

Just saying we need to shift away from discussions that have continued to dispute and question the science, science that has been consistently reviewing and refining results, and increasing the accuracy of it's modeling/data collection and predictions over the last decades, and begin discussing how do we address this critical issue. We can walk and chew gum at the same time!

The outcomes that will be identified from those discussions will also identify the potential for economic benefits for Australia. We have one of the worlds highest levels of solar radiation, abundant wind resources, locations and the capacity to develop pumped hydro and solar-thermal options, the capacity for energy storage, regional power generation and distribution, a first world economy with the associated necessary research capacity and technical knowledge to become world leaders in renewable energy.

I'll finish with an attempt to quote a cartoon I saw a year or two ago ...
A student was asking the lecturer ...

'So if it turns out that this climate change thing is fake news, does that mean with all the changes we'll introduce, all we'll end up with is a cleaner, better world?'

I'll shut up now.
Craig

Originally Posted by bob10

The UN framework convention on climate change.

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.


What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change? | UNFCCC

Got a car? Own a computer? Wearing synthetics?

Guess what... so are you

I remember a website from around 20 years ago that measured a persons environmental impacts over their lifetime. The scale went from 0-5, with zero point something being a hunter gatherer lifestyle. After entering all your lifestyle details, including country of residence, any person from a 1st world country automatically started at an impact rating of 3 out of 5 - even if you were a vegan, grew your own food, made your own clothes, had an eco-friendly house and rode a bike to work. That of course doesn't mean we can't do our bit though, it just puts things into perspective.

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.

Don’t try to put your words in my mouth.

I assume you would take the same view of the fires in NSW then?
According to your logic, it’s natural selection. If you want to use dirty tactics in this discussion all I can assume is that if your logic is applied to famine, refugees, war zones, etc. then why not bushfires in Sydney?

Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed

Don’t try to put your words in my mouth.

I assume you would take the same view of the fires in NSW then?
According to your logic, it’s natural selection. If you want to use dirty tactics in this discussion all I can assume is that if your logic is applied to famine, refugees, war zones, etc. then why not bushfires in Sydney?

Oh Dear