Sydney is flooded, again, as climate crisis becomes new normal for Australia's most populous state

[Scott]

Sydney is flooded, again, as climate crisis becomes new normal for Australia's most populous state

NPR photo

 

Brisbane, Australia (CNN)On a fine day, locals arrive on boats that motor up the Hawkesbury River in New South Wales to dine on the back deck of the Paradise Café.

But for the fourth time in 18 months, café owner Darren Osmotherly is rushing to move his equipment to higher ground as floodwater rises across Greater Sydney after days of heavy rain.

 

"Every six hours to eight hours (we're) trying to have a hot shower and get changed again and try to have a coffee break room or a short sleep in between," said Osmotherly, who says he's barely slept for three days.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/04/australia/sydney-floods-damage-evacuation-climate-australia-intl-hnk/index.html

 

[pgrahmm]

Weather cycles....

It appears they built in low places & under engineered/planned poorly to include these cycles.....

 

Now, it's the sky's fault....

 

The areas naturally did ok & drained before people encroached, overbuilt, under engineered/planned.....

[Hanaguma]

I was wondering the same thing- since when did inclement weather suddenly become the fault of the "climate crisis"?  

[Lucky Bones]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I was wondering the same thing- since when did inclement weather suddenly become the fault of the "climate crisis"?  

Don't let the facts (inclement weather) get in the way of a good story.

[Screaming]

It is interesting that every time it rains the climate wackos claim there is a climate crisis. They will use anything to proselytize their agenda. 

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, pgrahmm said:

Weather cycles....

It appears they built in low places & under engineered/planned poorly to include these cycles.....

 

Now, it's the sky's fault....

 

The areas naturally did ok & drained before people encroached, overbuilt, under engineered/planned.....

 

13 hours ago, Lucky Bones said:

Don't let the facts (inclement weather) get in the way of a good story.

 

13 hours ago, Screaming said:

It is interesting that every time it rains the climate wackos claim there is a climate crisis. They will use anything to proselytize their agenda. 

Because it's a matter of frequency.  Event's viewed in isolation are about weather. Events viewed in context are about climate. But the way you three think, a record hot day is just a day with no significance beyond that. But when viewed in context, that record hot days in Australia now outnumber record cold days by a margin of 12 to 1, it's about climate.

[placeholder]

The current spike in temperature is unprecedented for millions of years. So, no, it hasn't been borne out by scientiric records. Paleoclimatologists have come to exactly the opposite conclusion of what you claim. As for using that ridiculous photo of Sidney Harbor. Have you ever heard of something called "tides". Unless that is accounted for, that photo is completely worthless as evidence of anything. In addition, land rises or sinks at different rates around the world. So unless that is taken into account, data is lacking to come to conclusion.  It's amazing what garbage people with an axe to grind and no use for science will fall for.

Fact Check-Side-by-side comparison of two photographs cannot accurately determine sea level change

"It is not possible to gauge sea level rise simply by comparing two images of a location side-by-side, experts told Reuters, despite claims made online.

A widely shared post compares two images of Fort Denison, Sydney, with a caption that reads: “Unprecedented climate change has caused sea level at Sydney Harbour to rise approximately 0.0cm over the past 140 years” (here)."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-sydney-sea-level-idUSL1N2RL1Q4

Edited July 13, 2022 by Scott

[Scott]

A post containing false or misleading information has been removed and a reply has been removed from an existing post.  

 

Continue to post false or misleading information will lead to a formal warning and suspension.  

 

[peterfranks]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The current spike in temperature is unprecedented for millions of years.

Really, they now have temperature records for millions of years?

[Credo]

10 minutes ago, peterfranks said:

Really, they now have temperature records for millions of years?

Ice core samples alone go back as far as 800,000 years.  

 

Ice core basics - Antarctic Glaciers

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, peterfranks said:

Really, they now have temperature records for millions of years?

Look up paleoclimatology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

[Credo]

For those who might need further information on how this works and what can be determined from it, this is a good read:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/

[Atlantis]

On 7/13/2022 at 9:25 AM, peterfranks said:

Really, they now have temperature records for millions of years?

On 7/13/2022 at 9:37 AM, Credo said:

Ice core samples alone go back as far as 800,000 years. 

 

800,000 is also known as 0.8 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,000,000
 

0.8 is less than 1. It is one fourth-fifths of a whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal

Millions implies at least two million, typically more. 2 > 1 > 0.8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural
 

[Atlantis]

On 7/13/2022 at 9:43 AM, Credo said:

For those who might need further information on how this works and what can be determined from it, this is a good read:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/

It is indeed a good refresher in how climate proxies work. Tree rings are another good tool for more recent history.

However, unlike you, I wouldn't presume that I knew much more than the other poster when he accurately queried whether we have reliable and relevant data going back millions of years.

[Credo]

What a nasty, caustic response to a simple statement.  I do know a fair amount about climate and weather.  I even have a degree that backs that up.  

 

It's a complex issue and if people want to discuss it, a link is helpful.  

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, Atlantis said:

It is indeed a good refresher in how climate proxies work. Tree rings are another good tool for more recent history.

However, unlike you, I wouldn't presume that I knew much more than the other poster when he accurately queried whether we have reliable and relevant data going back millions of years.

The poster you referenced did not use the words "reliable" or "relevant" Can you explain your reason for misquoting him?

 

Some temperature information is available through geologic evidence, going back millions of years

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

[Atlantis]

Really not sure what exactly is "nasty" or "caustic" about any of the comments on this page.

Links provided are certainly a good read though.

[Atlantis]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The poster you referenced did not use the words "reliable" or "relevant" Can you explain your reason for misquoting him?

 

Some temperature information is available through geologic evidence, going back millions of years

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

Say what?

I'm not misquoting him because I'm not quoting him. Does that make sense to you? It's called a reply. With my own content. Where I did quote, it was copy and paste, right-click > Quote selection.

Well done for the statement about temperature information being available through geologic evidence. If you had seen placeholder's link, you'd realize your post is redundant.

Feel free to ask / discuss about the 'relevant' and 'reliable' wording though rather than confusingly asking about 'misquoting' other posts.

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, Atlantis said:

It is indeed a good refresher in how climate proxies work. Tree rings are another good tool for more recent history.

However, unlike you, I wouldn't presume that I knew much more than the other poster when he accurately queried whether we have reliable and relevant data going back millions of years.

 

4 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

Say what?

I'm not misquoting him because I'm not quoting him. Does that make sense to you? It's called a reply. With my own content. Where I did quote, it was copy and paste, right-click > Quote selection.

Well done for the statement about temperature information being available through geologic evidence. If you had seen placeholder's link, you'd realize your post is redundant.

Feel free to ask / discuss about the 'relevant' and 'reliable' wording though rather than confusingly asking about 'misquoting' other posts.

Those weren't his words, you nevertheless incorrectly attributed them to that poster.

 

Marine sediment cores provide temperature records spanning millions of years. They contain the fossilised shells of tiny marine creatures that preserve a chemical record of the sea temperature when they lived.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/07/past-climate-temperature-proxies

[Atlantis]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

However, unlike you, I wouldn't presume that I knew much more than the other poster when he accurately queried whether we have reliable and relevant data going back millions of years.

Oh I see, you have a problem with my paraphrasing. Fair enough: for clarity, I ought to have written something to the effect of "....whether we have data going back millions of years that is sufficiently reliable and relevant in the contexts of the posts above". Can't edit it now.

To which you would presumably ask: "Huh such and such data is indeed reliable and contextually relevant etc etc", right?

[KhunLA]

On 7/12/2022 at 2:49 PM, Screaming said:

It is interesting that every time it rains the climate wackos claim there is a climate crisis. They will use anything to proselytize their agenda. 

After you hear it enough times, they are expecting you to start believing it.

 

Sort of like 'radio play', that song you hate, from the artist you hate, that they use to play 3 times a day.  3 to 6 months down the road, and you're humming the damn thing.

 

Embarrassing ... 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

Oh I see, you have a problem with my paraphrasing. Fair enough: for clarity, I ought to have written something to the effect of "....whether we have data going back millions of years that is sufficiently reliable and relevant in the contexts of the posts above". Can't edit it now.

To which you would presumably ask: "Huh such and such data is indeed reliable and contextually relevant etc etc", right?

It's obviously good enough for climate scientists to think it's useful and indicative of the actual temperature record. Otherwise they would have been ignored.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

After you hear it enough times, they are expecting you to start believing it.

 

Sort of like 'radio play', that song you hate, from the artist you hate, that they use to play 3 times a day.  3 to 6 months down the road, and you're humming the damn thing.

 

Embarrassing ... 

Devastating and unprecedented year on year floods in NSW, record wildfires, record drought, record high temperatures in the UK. Just an aberration? What will it take for you to start believing it?

Edited July 19, 2022 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

After you hear it enough times, they are expecting you to start believing it.

 

Sort of like 'radio play', that song you hate, from the artist you hate, that they use to play 3 times a day.  3 to 6 months down the road, and you're humming the damn thing.

 

Embarrassing ... 

What ought to be embarrassing is comments like yours that clearly reflect an utter ignorance of the science of climatology. 

[Atlantis]

@ozimoron

You're reading far too much into it. I am not attempting to disparage an entire scientific field. Perhaps I shouldn't presume everyone else on this thread has focused on earlier posts in the same way that I have. Just a recap from above

"The current spike in temperature is unprecedented for millions of years." - If you know your stuff and if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to this wording, then yes, it is correct. The apparent yearly increase in average temperatures is unprecedented, if you zoom right in. The change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human industrial and agricultural activity certainly is.

However, as recent ago as 11,000-12,000 years ago, the change in temperature during the Younger Dryas was many many magnitudes larger than the relative blip we are seeing now. Not surprisingly, it was the end of the ice age and beginning of the Holocene. But this was over decades and centuries rather than years and decades, so on average, the rate of temperature increase might / may / was probably less.

We can't get such granular data for that period compared to the modern readings from multiple locations around the world. So during the couple of centuries when global temperatures rose 15-20 degrees Celsius, was there definitively no period of 10, 20 years that saw a sharper rise in temperatures that we are recording now? I'm sure the poster above with a relevant climatology background will post links to refute this in part or whole if I am wrong.

Now, that was 11-12 thousand years ago. Apply it to rock-based data from millions of years ago, and try to zoom in and tell me with any degree of certainty that there has not been a few decades of rapid temperature change.

Is that better.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Atlantis
Added @ozimoron for clarity. It is a reply to his post.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

You're reading far too much into it. I am not attempting to disparage an entire scientific field. Perhaps I shouldn't presume everyone else on this thread has focused on earlier posts in the same way that I have. Just a recap from above

"The current spike in temperature is unprecedented for millions of years." - If you know your stuff and if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to this wording, then yes, it is correct. The apparent yearly increase in average temperatures is unprecedented, if you zoom right in. The change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human industrial and agricultural activity certainly is.

However, as recent ago as 11,000-12,000 years ago, the change in temperature during the Younger Dryas was many many magnitudes larger than the relative blip we are seeing now. Not surprisingly, it was the end of the ice age and beginning of the Holocene. But this was over decades and centuries rather than years and decades, so on average, the rate of temperature increase might / may / was probably less.

We can't get such granular data for that period compared to the modern readings from multiple locations around the world. So during the couple of centuries when global temperatures rose 15-20 degrees Celsius, was there definitively no period of 10, 20 years that saw a sharper rise in temperatures that we are recording now? I'm sure the poster above with a relevant climatology background will post links to refute this in part or whole if I am wrong.

Now, that was 11-12 thousand years ago. Apply it to rock-based data from millions of years ago, and try to zoom in and tell me with any degree of certainty that there has not been a few decades of rapid temperature change.

Is that better.

You've made the claim, now support it with links. I'm particularly keen to see a warming period which even approximates the time span in which we are seeing the average and spot temperatures rise as they are now.

[KhunLA]

50 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Record high temperatures in the UK. Just an aberration? What will it take for you to start believing it?

A lot more than one hot day.  There's been hotter peaks in the past, in between Ice ages.  We're not even matching those yet.  1C in 100 yrs .... I'm not going to panic. 

 

3.3 mm rise in oceans a years, per NASA, I'm not panicking.  So in 7,573.8 years, I'll be beach front ... and I'm < 4 kms away from the surf.  And the surf has been so low the past 2 weeks, I can walk to the islands in the bay.

 

And we're suppose to believe the flooding of Samut Prakan on another thread is from the sea water.  Maybe if it was Sept or Oct, but not July.

 

Feel free to live in fear...I'll do my own thinking thank you.

 

Like I said, I can walk across the bay now, to the islands

 If man hasn't self destructed, in next 1 or 200yrs, you'll have a whole 1 or 2C of temp, wow, 41 instead of 39, and seas up over half meter. 

 

Now that will be interesting, the seas, although our house still won't be ocean front.

 

A half a meter, might be enough to breach at high tide ...

And in 200 years, at 3.3mm a year, that's 660mm/66cm, I think we're still safe.   Looking like we still have at least a meter of seawall ... no worries.

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by KhunLA

[Atlantis]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What ought to be embarrassing is comments like yours that clearly reflect an utter ignorance of the science of climatology. 

You may or may not know more than other posters. You should recognize a lot of the push back comes from the media's language of unwarranted certainty whenever there is a natural disaster. Your earlier post is reasonable:

 

On 7/13/2022 at 4:00 AM, placeholder said:

Because it's a matter of frequency.  Event's viewed in isolation are about weather. Events viewed in context are about climate. But the way you three think, a record hot day is just a day with no significance beyond that. But when viewed in context, that record hot days in Australia now outnumber record cold days by a margin of 12 to 1, it's about climate.

I would only add language that reflects increased likelihood rather than "this is climate-change, period".
 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

A lot more than one hot day.  There's been hotter peaks in the past, in between Ice ages.  We're not even matching those yet.  1C in 100 yrs .... I'm not going to panic. 

 

3.3 mm rise in oceans a years, per NASA, I'm not panicking.  So in 7,573.8 years, I'll be beach front ... and I'm < 4 kms away from the surf.  And the surf has been so low the past 2 weeks, I can walk to the islands in the bay.

 

And we're suppose to believe the flooding of Samut Prakan on another thread is from the sea water.  Maybe if it was Sept or Oct, but not July.

 

Feel free to live in fear...I'll do my own thinking thank you.

How did humans react to those hotter peaks between ice ages? hint: There weren't any homo sapiens.

Edited July 19, 2022 by ozimoron

[KhunLA]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What ought to be embarrassing is comments like yours that clearly reflect an utter ignorance of the science of climatology. 

I believe in the science, I'm just not buying the fear mongering or going to panic, at the very very slow rate of temp & seas rising.  As if there is anything I can do to prevent it, more than I've already done.

 

Feel free to join me, and lower your 'footprint', then you can actually talk to me, about how much you care, and what you're doing.