Printable View
A state of drought is a comparison of how the land exists in its normal state. A sandy desert - may not be in drought even though not having much greenery, likewise somewhere like Tasmania that is normally green may be in drought even though much remains green.Quote:
Originally Posted by incisor
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror
The wide brown land for me!
Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When, sick at heart, around us
We see the cattle die
But then the grey clouds gather,
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady soaking rain.
Its just a drought, relax! We've had them before and we'll get them again.
green drought
nounAUSTRALIAN
[COLOR=#878787 !important]
- a period of limited rainfall causing new but insubstantial plant growth.
[/COLOR]
In regard to the fires up in the Gospers Mountain area, when it was state forest there were fire trails and tracks right through the whole area. As soon as it became a Conservation Area under National Sparks and Wildfires, they bulldozed and ripped the fire trails, put in tank trap mounds and planted out the tracks. Now when the fires come there is no way to get in there to put in containment lines.
I agree that areas need to be protected but what they did is tantamount to putting the lives and property of those living in and around these areas at grave risk.
Which side(east or west)?Quote:
Originally Posted by incisor
Rain map data shows west well above average, and east below average, hence why the Tas aggregate is 'average'.
It's also hard to get 'very specific' data too.
That is, some of the aggregated data is in blocks to 'current', but it's hard to find blocks of data for a specific period.
It's probably there .. just harder to find easily.
But the timing is also important.
For Tas, the data shows that past year, west side has had 2000- 3000mm rain, east side more like 400mm rainfall in last year .. and the map data shows it split basically down the middle.
North east the only area, in the east indicating average or above.
That's for the year. Change the time scale to 'last month', and the east looks decidedly to be more 'drought like' .. so obviously earlier in the year it rained a lot more than later in the year ... hence some browning of the landscape.
3 months also look low, but the 6 month period looks about average on most of the the east. So the past 3 or so months have been drier than normal.
OTOH, look at Vic, and it looks like we've had a 'drought' (when averaged across the state), as the NW region has been hit hard.
Vic averages about 650-ish mm/yr, so far 500 or so .. all in the NW.
But(at least for most of the population in Vic), where the rainfall has fallen has been in the 'catchment' areas .. so capacity is not so low.
As said in another thread(about a dry river), very low rainfall in the northern area has hit Lake Hume(Vic/NSW) which really makes up a bit of the Murray Darling Basin, which is in a serious drought. So the Hume is quite low.
You'd also expect that they're releasing more at this point to help the MBD area downstream too.
You can see this in the reservoir level data too, where almost all reservoirs in Vic are 'filling', only two major ones not are those two above.
But barely 50klms away at Dartmouth, which drains along the Mitta Mitta R into the Lk Hume, is much more full, comparatively, so draining from there will ensure that the Hume will cope a little longer.
These climate threads are interesting. People demanding data. Saying the BOM is lying or hiding the truth. It's a green conspiracy from the eco cabal etc etc. When the truth of the matter is simple - I will always trust someone with a degree in climate science, whose job it is to study every little intricacy of the climate over the word of an arm chair specialist. Every single time. Every day of the damn week
Now 95% of all of these people who have studied way more climate science than all of us combined. Who live and breathe this **** daily say we are experiencing rapid warming on a planetary scale caused by our actions. That humans are essentially fast tracking the killing of the planet. And yet these arm chair specialists who've read some right wing crap that supports their confirmation bias expect us, who are also not climate scientists, to justify or prove the 95% of climate scientists as true and correct. Seriously? What the hell are you smoking? You have your heads firmly up your own bums.
*Edit - I was wrong. It's 97% of climate scientists. Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Your still wrong. Everyone in world is aware that the 97% figure is a complete fabrication. Made up by one of your esteemed climate scientists and perpetuated ad nauseum, for whatever reason. Talk about removing heads from arses.
I went to a Land Rover specialist and asked them what the best four wheel drive is and they told me that it was a Defender. The bloke down the street is a conspiricy therorist and a liar because he says that his Land Cruiser is a better vehicle. Who is correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by gusthedog
I don't believe that I have read anyone on here claimming that the BOM is lying, there have been some questions about the valididity of reviewing historical maximum temperatures downwards after many years for which I have not read a satisfactory explanation and some questions about the human impact vs natural warming, qualified with the sentiment that we need to stop ****ting in our own nest and the observation that Australia has so little impact on the worlds emissions that if we went back to the stone age today we would not make an appreciable difference.
Putting my head back in a comfortable position now......
Regards,
Tote
You're comparing car choice between people as an example of why an arm chair numpty knows as much as a university trained expert? I'll stick with the experts on this one if that's ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tote
Here are some facts, from the Department of Agriculture no less, to say that climate change is so real it is already reducing our agricultural output by 22% a year, year on year. How's that for real data from an unbiased source?
Climate change has cut Australian farm profits by 22% a year over past 20 years, report says
Climate change has cut Australian farm profits by 22% a year over past 20 years, report says | Australia news | The Guardian