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

Originally Posted by BradC

Mother nature starts to move toward correcting the overpopulation problem.

Yep, there will be a correction and a new balance found, but there may not be any humans nor much life that we are familiar with to experience it.

Originally Posted by bob10

..... Don't join the old men on the hill. ...

No fear me doing that! ... but at the same time I also won't be joining the younger hipster, pseudo conscious, sheep generation at the other end of the spectrum either.

I like to think of it in terms of logical explanations.
I've explained my stance in previous replies, I'm not anti climate change(that is a denier or sceptic just for the sake of being anti).

I'm sceptical of the analysis because when it's explained that the climate is warming up and the droughts are getting worse, yet the historical data collected to date is showing that an entire continent is getting more total rainfall in that same period.
Or that they predict that the extremes will be getting worse, but the historical data shows little if any changes in average atmospheric pressure changes(0.01%) .. I'm thinking where is this so called scientific determination coming from?

We're told that bushfires are worse now than before! ... before what? .. not in Vic they aren't. 100 years ago the bushfires were up to 5x worse in terms of the affected environment.
That we encroach on the environment and put ourselves into perilous situations isn't the fault of climate change.

They say that the droughts are getting worse and more frequent. (arguably tho, if they use consumption as one of the variables of what constitutes a drought, then of course they'll be spot on).
In terms of rainfall tho droughts are not getting worse, they are exactly the same now, as they were 100 years ago. The pattern of rainfall has basically remained unchanged in 100+ years(since the BoM records).

1903 1940 1944 1967 1982 2003 2006 2019 : these are the worse years of rainfall for the Murray Darling Basin(MBD). The Australian records show similar patterns, the national peaks and troughs variance is not quite as extreme, and we all know how important the MDB region is too.
So, if you look at the graph(or data) the 40 year period between 1900 - 1940 shows far more variability in the total rainfall records than the similar 1980-1919 period does. Not only lower average overall(ie. the decile periods) but a lot more variance from year to year.
the 15 year period between 1915 and 1930 shows the most variance from year to year than any other period.
Many low years in the low 300mm average, then many years with 550-600 .. a quick glance shows in this period there were 2-3 years of low 300's 2-3 years of 550-600's and repeated for about 15 years.
from 1980 -2019 the records show only 5 years of rainfall of 350mm or lower for this area. So in 39 years, 34 of those were 400mm or above .. which has then had the flow on consequence that the average rainfall for this era has increased .. in the MDB area .. where the rivers are in a catastrophic situation. It's not due to rainfall being low. No one in their right minds would make such a claim if they value their reputation.
In the global warming period, rainfall hasn't become more extreme, it's become far less extreme. Our insatiable appetite to waste it, with the flow on consequence of destroying native habitat is why there is a perceived problem.

The argument that our children will have to pay to fix it all up .. how? what proof? These are the claims made that are illogical.
Never in our history have humans ever suffered due to a warming globe ... which scientist have show to be the case.
Read the article on the 4.2 kiloyear event. Massive global temperature rise in a 100 year period, and humans seemed to still have endured and flourished. No one became extinct, no one (civilization) suffered. Egypt became what we know of it through history, India became what we know of it through history .. where is this scientific evidence that humans will somehow suffer due to climate changing?

On the topic of scientist then didn't have the tools they have now is total BS.
The point I made was not about the tools. The point of my using that example is the folly (the delusion!) of believing that you are right because the consensus says you are.
That's where the alchemists got it wrong. Had zero, nothing nada to do with the tools and scrutiny of the time.
It was their mindset that they were right, and if anyone says they aren't, got burned at the stake(or in todays terms .. made to feel like you know nothing! .. shouted down, shut off).
Those magnetic field scientists only a year ago had the same tools and scrutiny that and peer review system that is so important to current scientists rationale .. yet they suddenly and massively found out the hard way .. mother nature doesn't abide by human logic and predictions. There's a massive ball of molten metal wayy down below that don't care for us idiots. It does what it wants, not what we think it does. If anyone has a say on what the planet does, it's not us .. we just go on believing that we do .. that infernal ball of metal is the boss of us all. (if you're interested in this magnetic stuff, Google 'molten sodium experiment' .. lots of hits to be had).
What excuse is there for those folks? What, they aren't scientists. Again .. some folks want their cake and want to eat it too .. there's no stopping that.


If I were the boss of the world: I'd stop all this climate science malarkey and put all that resource(and more) into the diabolical plastic waste situation. Completely stop all hazardous waste output. Any industry that engages in waste that is non biodegradable henceforth banned. We still have plenty of time to assess the true impact of CO2 output. Besides a warmer globe is a better one, I'm more partial to warmer temps than 15 degree November days in Melbourne!
(ps. relax .. this last paragraph is tongue in cheek stuff).

Originally Posted by AK83

.... ....
On the topic of scientist then didn't have the tools they have now is total BS.
The point I made was not about the tools. The point of my using that example is the folly (the delusion!) of believing that you are right because the consensus says you are.
That's where the alchemists got it wrong. Had zero, nothing nada to do with the tools and scrutiny of the time.
It was their mindset that they were right, and if anyone says they aren't, got burned at the stake(or in todays terms .. made to feel like you know nothing! .. shouted down, shut off).
... ....

The alchemists have nothing in common with today's scientists and in fact you have identified what made them different.
As you said, the alchemists believed that because it was their mindset.
They wanted to believe it in the absence of any evidence.
Today's scientists have been convinced because of the evidence, not because of a belief.
The reason so many climate scientists are concerned is not because of a belief. It is because the weight of evidence gives them a reasonable degree of confidence that there is a problem.
The consensus only exists because of the weight of evidence.
Science doesn't care what you believe.

Answer me this you lot. How can Sydney & other Cities justify even thinking about exploding tonnes of fireworks on NYEve?

I realise that it could now be in doubt, not because of all the **** in the air but to give the money to a Farmer's Fund instead. But will they, won't they & who will audit that little scheme?

Not just Sydney but all over the world usual TV footage shows all these celebration with Mega tonnes of Fireworks.

Obviously the Chinese would be happy ( assuming they supply most Fireworks to the world ) so how can placing mega tonnes of **** into the atmosphere be a good thing these days? It doesn't disappear but finishes up somewhere around Earth.


I see it as the ME ME ME selfishness.

Maybe I'm missing a point or two here?

Just sayin'

It came from the Earth, it goes back. It’s only black powder...

And a huge part of balancing a population is entertainment.

Ever noticed the Football, Cricket etc are played up big time to distract the Lemmings?

Originally Posted by rick130

Yep, there will be a correction and a new balance found, but there may not be any humans nor much life that we are familiar with to experience it.

Now that Rick has predicted the end of mankind, I feel that we need a positive perspective to help us on our way....

*swigs some more beer*

Some science dudes suggest time may not in fact be linear! There was a time before us, and there will be a time after us. But maybe here we are, in our time, to be found always!

Some other science boffs suggest that there are infinite time lines running in parallel, where every bit of life gets to live every bit of life. Where all eventualities are automatically realised at once! If that's how it is, why in the hell are you here watching this one?

You're welcome - *Grabs another beer too many*

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Lack of leadership in a crisis is the real issue here, I think.

....

Originally Posted by rick130

But what is the cost if the majority of climate scientists are wrong and we clean up our act vs we do nothing and continue on our merry way and they are right??

Is it really worth that risk?

This is what gets me with denying vs acting and trying to clean up the mess we've made.
.....

Originally Posted by vnx205

......
Science doesn't care what you believe.

I don't care what science thinks of my 'beliefs' .. I've said it before, and I have to repeat it again .. I have no position. I did .. 'for', then read up on more history and went 'against', and was about to change to 'for' again until I realised my folly in changing again .. so I went 'agnostic' digging through the data and reading those same scientists saying that they're confused about some of the predictions they've made.

The argument that no one in power cares what the individual thinks is the alarm bell that they've lost any sense of reality.
Those kinds of mindsets(for and or against) are emotional. They're based on emotional methods of thinking .. eg. "we're doomed, so we need to act to at least appear to be doing something".

Is it really worth the risk? What risk? I've posted the links .. have a look at the 4.2Kiloyear event to see how little risk there actually is(historically speaking) .. the risk is either zero(ie. nothing will change) or negative(that is the change may be for the better).
Conversely if there needs to be a response, what if the current response strategy backfires and works against us in the future? What then. We can't predict the future. We can estimate it, but can't predict it with any certainty. Science has at least shown us that over and over far too many times for that to be ignored.

lack of leadership is the key. Nowhere does there appear to be any common sense leadership of any kind. Not in our government(s)!

Couple of nights ago I watched the movie called World War Z. Avoided it since day one cause it just sounded **it! But it was on, and I thought I'd put myself through it. Actually surprised it was OK.
But in the movie the Israeli guy mentioned 'the 10th man' and I assumed it was just a movie thing, but recent searching on it shows it's actually a thing that the Israelis have in place.
Checks and balances.
For a topic 'so important to human history' .. those scientists need a system like that, because what if they do have it wrong(which I think they do).

4.2Kyr event shows that it wasn't recorded in the ice cores, yet it happened.
Temp dropped, globe dried, civilisations 'collapsed' yet history shows us that they didn't collapse they evolved. Think of any historical civilisation in the 2000BC period and remember their legacy.
So what's the cost of this impending 'catastrophe'? .. evolution? Are we scared to evolve too now?

Climate science always harp on about how never in human history have climate changed so dramatically so quickly, yet a quick search on the 4.2kyr event shows that it did .. on multiple occasions, and far worse that it currently is!

8200 years ago climate warmed(actually cooled dramatically first then warmed again) more than 3°C in about 100 years or so. Again not my data .. it's a scientific graph that shows this curve. 7000 years ago: 2.5°C change in 100 years, 5500 years ago: 1.5°C in 100 years, 4000 years ago : 2°C change in 200 years(the 4.2 kyr event is about the fact that the cooling period doesn't register in the Greenland ice core data).
Ignoring the fact that as many say it's a cyclic anomaly thing ... how did humans 'act' in response to those warming events? Did their descendents suffer the way we seem to think ours will?

I worry about my kids futures too, but not due to global warming. We've seen a 1°C increase in 100 years and it's battle stations! Why? What if the 'battles'(ie the response) is misdirected, and cleaning up isn't the answer but something else is.

What we need is more "10th men" ... not sensationalistic hyperbole.

While I was searching about what I thought was a Hollywood cliche idea in this 10th man, I found THIS article. Article isn't particularly inspiring, other than one single comment ...

"It is our duty to look for the flaws in every argument"

Of course it is! Complacency is the curse of mankind. Rulers got complacent they got overthrown. Dictators got complacent(cause mayhem, and misery) they got pummelled. Religions get complacent, they see diminishing returns ...
Science, who you'd expect to have these 10th people ..

Without even knowing I'm doing it .. that's what I seem to do ... look for flaws in EVERY argument ... not just the deniers. The conformists seem to have captured my interest more so now.

os. I'm not a habitual argumentative type, that is argue for the sake of it. Don't have the energy for it. I'm more of an information junkie. Weather geek, science nerd .. etc. I just like to know(so to speak).

Waht's also interestign tho are the arguments that the emotional types put up?

Really? explaining to me that science doesn't care what I think?
Show someone the truth in the form of actual data, and their response is nah nah nah nah!
How stupid of me to expect some form of mature conversation!

Originally Posted by Tombie

It came from the Earth, it goes back. It’s only black powder...
...................

A bit like this bit from a classic book, narrated by the author........

YouTube

So it goes.........DL