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

Originally Posted by AK83

Oh, and the earlier comment about the increased total rainfall in Australia being isolated to the 'tropics' .. more misinformation from whatever source this idea was taken from.

Again, unless the BoM has their data collection completely wrong, it's trivial to see areas of Aus where the rainfall totals have come and gone from.

Most areas are up, some more than others, but basically all higher .. not lower.

Areas in Aus where total rain has decreased in the recorded period is south western aus. Significant drop too. mid 700s' down to low 600's.
All other areas are up, so the overall is higher.
If you assumed that Southwestern Aus = Western Australia .. you'd be wrong. Western Australia increased from 300 to 400 in this period.
Vic, marginally(mid 600s to lower 600's, and tas .. from a high base of low 1400's to high 1300's

What constitutes the 'tropics' .. I assume what BoM calls Northern Australia .. up just a little more than the nationwide average. Mid 400's to high 500's
Murray Darling Basin .. where everyone instantly thinks of drought and plight .. up. Not as much as the national average, but mid 400's to high 400's

So the drought we're having due to global warming = more rainfall.

How that makes any sense in a logical manner .. makes zero sense.

Only logical conclusion a reasonably minded person can come too = BoM scientists have consulted government that Australia total rainfall has increased in time.
Government sees tax dollars in their eyes, allow wasteful water resource industry to flourish .. probably to assist the myth that we're a country of "droughts and flooding plains" .. or something and to keep the populace in check via scare mongering.

probably sounding a little too conspiratorial even if I say so myself!

Anyhow, and seriously if you follow the historical pattern for Murray Darling, where it's diabolically low now(300's), but still not as low as in the distant past(high 200's) ... then the prediction for the next 3 years should be a lot more rainfall, and about or above the historical average.
So next 3 years for the MDB should be annually about 400-500-ish for a minimum of a 3 year period, usually more, and at least one flood year.

Not sure where you found your information, but people can check for themselves here.


Long-range weather and climate

This is an interesting piece about hazard burning and it's origins in Aboriginal land management.

Analysis: The war of words on bushfires has hit 11 on the inflammometer
Our bushfire history shows politicians could learn a lesson from Indigenous Australia - Politics - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

As I understand the effects of climate change, the extremes become more extreme in different parts of this wide brown land. Some areas get more rain and others less. So the coasts might get more cyclones while some inland areas might get less rain. For example, when we were in western Queensland recently, areas around Longreach, Winton and Cloncurry had apparently not had normal rain since 2012, while up the gulf and the Cape had close to normal falls. Further south, Tasmania might get more rain while the mainland gets less.
Another point is about fire and vegetation. In the north, much of the vegetation is sparse grasses and scattered shrubs, so fires burn slowly and are low intensity in those areas. Further south and on the coast, the vegetation may be thicker and denser, so fires burn hotter, are more intense and can move faster.
These differences affect hazard reduction.
Given that 40-50% of fires are started by humans, either accidentally or deliberately, and the higher the population the more fires there are, it's important to understand how they might affect the landscape.

Originally Posted by trout1105

I don't have to mate, You just prooved my point for me

You haven't proved anything about me mate, I've never been involved in any political party and various surveys show my opinions on many issues to be moderate and central on the political spectrum.

So you admit you had no evidence to back up your statements and were just having a rant?

I mean, if you want to have a rant, that's fine, rant away, it can be entertaining. However, there is a right way to rant, we might call it The Rules of Ranting.
You can't have a rant, fail to provide any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then demand others accept your rant as fact. That's not how ranting works.
At some point in your ranting, you have to tether your ranting to something real and provable.
For example, I could if I chose right now explode into a major rant about Centrelink, but I do actually have some facts I could link my rant to, to make it real.
(Don't worry, I won't bore everyone with my rant, I'm sure most people already have their own knowledge about Centrelink.)
My point is, feel free to rant, but if you want to be taken seriously, include some facts.

Originally Posted by Eevo

regardless of climate change, no climate change, hotter, colder, drier, wetter, etc bushfires are a part of life and needs to be dealt with. we can bitch and moan about who is at fault, if its political or not, bla bla. the fire doesnt care. the fire doesnt care if you voted red, green, or blue. if you;re not prepared, it can take your life.

That's totally true, well said.

So you admit you had no evidence to back up your statements and were just having a rant?

Not a "Rant"
The evidence of political "points scoring" by climate activists because of the recent fires is overwhelming if you bothered to read anything other than what is published by the "Guardian" because it is everywhere in print and on the net.
A bit like proving that the sky is blue and not green.
BTW, From reading your endless left wing orientated posts you are a long way left of being a "centrist".

...what happened to no political debate on AULRO?
I guess it doesn’t count on a motoring forum when it’s cloaked in obscure right-wing ranting?

The Guardian newspaper has no political persuasion IMO. That’s why I read it.
It’s always held whomever is in government to account and is clearly written in the interests of the people. Coverage of climate change in the Guardian is excellent and based in fact as far as I can see. Unlike most of the populist commercial infotainment rags masquerading as journalism.

Originally Posted by Eevo

regardless of climate change, no climate change, hotter, colder, drier, wetter, etc bushfires are a part of life and needs to be dealt with. we can bitch and moan about who is at fault, if its political or not, bla bla. the fire doesnt care. the fire doesnt care if you voted red, green, or blue. if you;re not prepared, it can take your life.

Obviously.

Thats the symptom covered, not the cause (50% human stupidity) or the accelerant (climate change).

Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed

Obviously.

Thats the symptom covered, not the cause (50% human stupidity) or the accelerant (climate change).

i dont think its that obvious and i think the message is being lost.
and you're never going to eliminate the cause or accelerant.